Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults (January 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I need some help. For the past few months I have been just about the only admin to respond to complaints at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. There have been two complaints filed against NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly Zer0faults, under probation at the above case. I have taken no action on these complaints, for various reasons. My judgement has been called into question multiple times. No other admins have weighed in at WP:AE. Last month I posted a request for arbitrator review that sat on the page here for a week before it was archived without response.

Generally, I would say that the people filing the complaints believe NuclearUmpf is continuing the disruptive behavior for which he was placed on probation.

  • In this case I declined to enforce probation against Nuclear Umpf in which he was one participant in an edit war involving 12 editors in total.
  • In the current complaint I have declined to enforce the probation following brief edit wars over tagging two images as disputed, and over a post to a user subpage being used as a noticeboard (3 reverts in 26 hours) in which there was no attempt to talk with Nuclear prior to posting the complaint at WP:AE.

Perhaps my understanding of probation is at fault. I would appreciate a review. Thatcher131 14:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Our system of probation does not contemplate one user, even an arbitration clerk, being responsible for enforcing arbitration remedies. An administrator is expected to use their discretion when enforcing remedies. If you do not enforce a remedy, that is fine. Just let things take their course. Either the community will live with the consequences or a new remedy will have to be fashioned, after a new request is made. Fred Bauder 05:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Fred. I don't watch the enforcement page because I'm a clerk, but because I think it's important and almost no one else does it (I was there even before I was even promoted to admin). Thatcher131 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Your work is greatly appreciated. Fred Bauder 12:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attack sites (January 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is the definition of "attack site" in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site? Is it limited to sites attacking individuals, or does it also include sites attacking groups or corporations, often identifiable by names such as FUCKXXX.NET or XXXSUCKS.COM? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In context, it means sites that attack wikipedia editors, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Workshop#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites. You'll have to ask the 6 who voted for it if it was meant to mean more than that. In general, though, I doubt that most xxxsucks.com sites would meet the criteria at WP:EL or WP:RS. If there is important negative info about the topic, it can be described in the article if it can be sourced through reliable sources. Thatcher131 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The case involved nasty personal attacks on an individual Wikipedian, which the site had featured on its Main Page. The principle cited is implicit in Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The larger question of links, say to a site attacking Senator Kennedy or the Waldorf Schools, is another matter, which we have, and are considering. Fred Bauder 14:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Which case? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba has some possibly relevant principles and remedies. Thatcher131 15:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO was where the ruling came from about, IIRC; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#propose indefblock on User:Router is relevant presently. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Depleted uranium (January 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To the extent that the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium was influenced by the claimed credentials of anonymous users compared to my admitted amateur status, and a vigorous factual dispute about the production of uranium trioxide gas was taking place at the same time, and the fact that I have been repeatedly shown to have been on the correct side of more than 10 out of 12 protracted factual disputes related to depleted uranium (e.g., per Carter and Stewart (1970) half of burning uranium becomes a gaseous vapor fume), I reclaim the right to edit Gulf war syndrome to remove the very old conflicting graphs which serve only to delay people searching for the table of contents on that A-class genetics article. If this is improper, please let me know why. Please note that I have not been accused of editing Uranium trioxide improperly, and those accusing me of having edited Depleted uranium improperly have been shown to be incorrect. Thank you. James S. 17:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd like to place Carter and Stewart (1970) as a thumbnail in Uranium, because I read somewhere that fair use images need to be in articles, so I'll do that unless an arbitrator tells me not to. James S. 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I also removed a redundancy in Uranium trioxide and believe that to be proper at this stage; if it is not, please let me know why. Thank you. James S. 18:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

All three of my edits were reverted by a participant in my original arbitration case, although the last one was unreverted by a third party as useful. I await clarification. James S. 03:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You are banned from editing these articles. You can appeal or ask for a reconsideration of the remedies in your case, but you can not edit the articles in the mean time. Consequently I'm blocking you for violating the terms of the decision. I would also like to note that the article block was not imposed because the content of your edits was wrong, but because your editing behavior was unacceptable, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#Log_of_blocks_and_bans does not look promising in this area. It appears that you are not banned from the article talk pages; in the future if other editors won't adopt your suggestions, you should try mediation, RFC or third opinion rather than violating your article ban. Thatcher131 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Simply using the article's talk page, or, if you are banned from it, user talk pages or noticeboards, should suffice until your ban is over. Dmcdevit·t 07:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I ask for a reconsideration of the remedies in my case, because whether my editing behavior was appropriate or not (and I re-assert that it has been, now that we know for scientifically-established fact that half of burning uranium becomes gas vapor) my edits have improved the quality of the encyclopedia, and my detractors' edits have damaged the factual accuracy of the encyclopedia.

Please do not understate the importance of this issue. Many people try to make Wikipedia and the rest of the web say that depleted uranium munitions have no serious lasting effect. If I remain blocked from editing, that hurts more than my desire to bring truth to light. Perceived insults will be forgotten over time, but chromosome damage can affect millions of generations. I beg the committee to choose accuracy and truth for the Uranium, Depleted uranium, Uranium trioxide, and Gulf War Syndrome articles, and for the people who read them, and for the decisions those people make, because those decisions will affect all of us, if they have not already.

I ask that the remedy be modified allowing me to edit Uranium#Hazards as I have proposed on Talk:Uranium#Hazards, and whatever other modifications the committee thinks just. James S. 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I've just familiarized myself with the case. Even this appeal seems to miss the very first principle cited in the the final decision: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It doesn't matter a bean (in terms of the articles you are banned from editing) whether you are 100% or 100% wrong; it's the way you were going about your editing that got you where you are now. Since you still don't seem to recognize what it was you were doing that resulted in the ban, it doesn't seem likely to me that you will not resume exactly the behavior that made the bans necessary in the first place. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I continue to believe that creating an accurate encyclopedia is so much more important, especially in this case, than the injury supposed by the incorrect theory that I have been trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, that I believe all arbitrators will, when they look closely enough, want to eliminate all of the remedies against me. As that has not been the case, I would ask that the arbitrators take a closer look at the factual disputes surrounding the matter. I understand that the committee is not expected to rule on content disputes, but that the results of factual disputes often control the correct outcome of behavioral disputes. Again, except for a few slight mistakes made a long time ago, I maintain that my behavior has been exemplary, especially given the circumstances. James S. 01:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
James, do you also believe that the creation of multiple single purpose accounts is the best way to evade your block? I especialy like your newest one, User:Stan Ison. Ison creates an account, and edits only the articles you are banned from, and surprisingly enough, argues from the same exact POV. Then again, this is simply one you dozens of attempts to perform and end run around your ArbCom ban! And now we know why, apparently you are a bit flustered that the published version of Wikipedia is going to be published without your favorite version in it! As far as you being correct, all anyone here has to do is brows the Talk:Uranium trioxide pages and see the discussions you have had with multiple credentialed experts in chemistry to see that this is a bold faced lie. Simply repeating yourself over and over again does not make it true. Does the arbitration committee think its fair that you have been in large part responsible for driving off at least two editors User:Olin and user:DV8 2XL (one being a PhD in material science engineering and the other in chemistry) who were actually educated and knowledgeable on this subject? I would as that someone here review the relevant evidence and ban James from editing talk pages or pestering users into making these changes for him. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 06:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if I was another user, that wouldn't be as bad as inserting old lies that should be obvious. James S. 16:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I would endorse a talk page ban. On Talk:Uranium trioxide James merely rehashes the same old ideas that earned him his ban from Depleted uranium and associated articles, and he refuses to involve himself in any others aspect of the encyclopedia. Dr Zak 18:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Please have a look at Talk:Uranium#Hazards and tell the arbitrators, "Dr" Zak, does uranium trioxide gas exist or not? As for your other accusations, I've contributed to Wind power, Battery electric vehicle, Nutrition#History, and hundreds of other articles. James S. 21:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
One wishes you would involve yourself elsewhere and stop being prolific and unproductive on uranium-related talkpages. Thanks for your cooperation. Dr Zak 12:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Removing inaccuracies from those who try to claim that uranium trioxide gas does not exist or is not a substantial combustion product of uranium is one of many productive tasks I work on here. An accurate encyclopedia is more important than the risk of disgruntling a handful of editors who have been deceived by pro-uranium munitions propaganda, of which there is no short supply. James S. 20:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm still here. I'm just not wasting precious moments of my life on this topic any more.Olin 18:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

nobs01 (January 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've had a couple of civil exchanges with Rob Smith, aka nobs01, and he wants to know when he can come back. I don't think I'm being trolled, he's been very polite, and he is asking not demanding. He's seen on WikiEN-l from time to time, his comments there are also rational and not in my view disruptive. I know he came back as nobs02 to ask to be let back in, but that was with the encouragement of others (and yes I saw he edited mainspace, which was silly, but if he was genuinely trying to evade a ban he'd hardly have chosen such an obvious name - he's not stupid, after all). A reset for a further year seems harsh to me, since it was only days before the ban expired anyway. OK, maybe I am being trolled, but I said I'd ask anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, just to clarify: his immediate question is, does he have any appeal rights and if so after what time frame, but this is in the context of an active unblock request. Nobs02 made only one edit outside of user talk and Project space, which was to add a valid category to one article. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am only peripherally involved in that I declined an unblock of nobs02 and that I follow the unblock-en-l mailing list. It is my opinion (in a sort of non-binding manner) that a block extension of one month instead of one year is perhaps more appropriate. It really all comes down to whether this user deliberately violated the conditions set down for the account, nobs02, or whether the user was acting in good faith. If the user deliberately violated the conditions, a one-year extension is completely appropriate. Whether the violation was in bad-faith or not is unclear to me. --Yamla 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Just so. I really don't think it was; he asked if it would be permissible to register an openly declared secondary account in order to contact ArbCom, several of us thought this was probably acceptable as long as that's all he did, but of course he did stray a fraction outside of those bounds, which may have been gaming the system or not, it's hard to say. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I had raised the same question on Dmcdevit's page and he and Fred Bauder were of the view that the full one-year ban extension was warranted. It still seems extremely harsh to me, but I was not around at the time of the original arbitration case. Would endorse a review or clarification here. Newyorkbrad 22:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, nobs01 could have returned to editing on 23 December 2006 if had been willing to edit under the terms of his probation. Instead, he filed a rather argumentative appeal in which he tried to reargue the prior case to get the probation lifted. Thatcher131 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, the argumentation ws the work of the AMA advocate, not nobs01. This was not one of AMA's stellar moments. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to second JzG comments here. I understand that he may have violated his limited unblock to edit in one circumstance apart from what he was allowed. My impression is we are definitely not dealing with a troll by any measure and though he has been on the opposite side of some editors in his information, this information is generally extremely well referenced. He has a history of editing difficult pages that have strong POV's and in the past, he made some errors in is comments that were personal attacks, or at the very least incivil, but that was over a year ago. It seems simply extremely petty to issue him another entire year ban based on a small transgression. I urge ArCom to reconsider this as any admin can always reblock him should he not adhere to policies.--MONGO 08:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I did think a year was harsh, but I also think there is very little chance Nobs can edit successfully. The notion that we can "just reblock him" is not realistic. I don't think we can be blamed for avoiding an obvious trainwreck. Fred Bauder 14:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
There have been many editors that have been significantly more abrasive, incivil or have engaged in personal attacks than Nobs, yet are still editing and adding arguably far less worthwhile information than Nobs is capable of. I don't know all that has gone on since, but in emails with him, I think he is very interested in trying to restore his credibility and has zero interest in being disruptive.--MONGO 21:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
And to that I will add that he has been a model of civility and calm on the mailing lists lately. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collaborations involving page-banned users (January 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are currently two reports at Arbitration enforcement of users who are banned from certain pages seeking to collaborate with other editors to continue to work on the articles.

  • Iantresman (talk · contribs) is banned from Plasma cosmology and its talk page for three weeks under the terms of his probation. He posted some comments to User talk:Ionized, which Ionized posted verbatim to Talk:Plasma cosmology [1] [2]. Ian and Ionized argue that even if verbatim reposting is a problem, Ian can provide "information" which Ionized can use to edit the article.
  • KyndFellow (talk · contribs), who is permanently banned from Sex tourism and related articles and their talk pages, has been advised that he can collaborate with another editor on article changes so long as he does not edit directly himself [3], and he is seeking to do so [4].

Of course, this is only a problem in cases where an editor is banned from article talk pages as well as the articles themselves. Still, some response needs to be devised, as article bans (either direct or imposed per probation) are part of many arbitration cases. I see a couple of equally logical responses.

  1. The policy regarding banned users should be extended to users under temporary or permanent page bans. Proxy editing is prohibited. Editors who collaborate with a banned editor, either by verbatim reposting or by using their suggestions, get the same page bans imposed on them.
  2. Page bans are issued for disruptive behavior, not for providing particular content. The banned editor may offer his suggestions to other editors, who, at their own discretion, may choose to make verbatim edits, partial edits, or ignore the advice. If these third party edits are seen by uninvolved admins as carrying on the disruption, the third party editors may be appropriately blocked or banned. If the third party editors behave responsibly, the edits are treated like any other edit the user may make, even though they were suggested by a banned user.

I think either response can be justified with reference to various policies. What is the arbitration committee's intent here? Thatcher131 04:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A user who does a forbidden act for another user steps into the shoes of the other and is fully responsible. The penalty which would have applied to the other user applies to the user who acts in their stead. Fred Bauder 05:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Should they be warned first? The page-banned user knows they are doing wrong, but the other user might be an innocent party until told about the history of the case. Carcharoth 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an Arbitrator, so this isn't binding by any stretch of the imagination; but WP:AGF would say so. A final warning would be appropriate, with a link to the remedies and this statement by Fred B. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are responsible for their disruptive acts, but equal amounts of disruption from new users and established users are treated differently with good reason. We should react to the disruption, but not in the same way as with the banned user unless the new user become persistent as well. Dmcdevit·t 07:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an Arbitrator (and I reported the KyndFellow issue above). Disruptive acts aren't the issue here. If a page-banned user edits their banned page, even in a non-disruptive fashion, they are subject to being blocked. However, a third party may be believe it is okay (helpful even) to edit on behalf of the banned user. There needs to be a routine warning for the third party in this situation, per Carcharoth's suggestion. Only then could the third-party editor reasonably be subject to the banned user's penalties, per Fred Bauder. / edgarde 07:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Fred's statement is either misleading and trivial (of course if someone reproduces the behaviour that lead to the banning of a user, he or she will be in trouble) or, in my opinion, neither fair nor useful. If someone is banned from a store for shoplifting, we don't forbid others to shop for him. Likewise, if someone has been banned from an article, we ban the offending behaviour, not necessarily (all of) the content. Otherwise we would open up a huge can of worms. What is "collaboration"? Is some piece of information tainted forever because a banned user told me about it? Or even just broadcasted it to the world? How do we detect off-wiki collaboration? I would certainly like to hear some other arbitors opinion, and/or a more detailed answer from Fred. --Stephan Schulz 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
There are instances where an individuals judgement is suspect, to the extent that their contributions are a net negative, even though some of the contributions would be good. Filtering the contributions through a third party can mean that overall contribution is positive. So I wouldn't like to see the option of using third parties eliminated outright. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Certainly some discretion should be applied when judging the edit. Someone should not be condemned simply by association if they have done nothing questionable, but making edits requested by a banned user in that user's stead is something that will be more looked at with more discrimination, at the very least. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom has dealt with proxy editing (editing an article in the place of someone who has been banned from it) previously in one of the Lir cases. We prohibited the practice. Raul654 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Everyking Appeal request (January 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

I would like to request an appeal of my previous ruling at this time. I have now been under penalties from this ruling for 14 months. I have not been blocked by anyone since the ArbCom issued its two-week block in July, nor has anyone warned me or complained about me since that time (to the best of my recollection). I have carefully avoided conflict for several months and have put the incidents of the past, as well as the overzealousness of tone I sometimes used in those incidents, far behind me, while still remaining as active an editor as before. I don't believe there is any reason to think I would be brought to the ArbCom's attention again if these penalties were lifted, even if the ArbCom still regards the penalties to have been justified when they were initially applied. Everyking 10:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What in particular do you wish to be able to do? Return to WP:AN? Return to harassing admins? Not have to familiarize yourself with a situation before commenting on it? Return to pestering and being pestered by Phil? Nothing in the remedies applied to your case prevents you from continuing to do what you do well. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for raising that. You probably know that I disagree with the way some of your questions are framed, so it is difficult for me to respond to them individually. Yes, I would like to comment on AN occasionally, but that isn't what's really important. The main thing is that I do not want to be constantly under sanctions, an inch away from a ban; above all else it is a matter of plain self-respect that I don't want to work on this site for hours every day while being subject to a list of onerous restrictions. I feel the penalties are needless and would like to return to having the status of a normal editor. It seems to me that it should be a simple matter for the ArbCom to reimpose the sanctions for the remaining time if it thinks I am doing what it does not want me to do. Everyking 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not a simple matter. It is a lot of gut-wrenching work. We don't have time to watch Ashlee Simpson or closely follow whatever you are doing on the noticeboards, so the effect will be that you would be free to do whatever you wanted. We would only get involved after a general outcry regarding your behavior. If you want to try it fine, but understand Everyking 4 is not going to be fun for you or us. Fred Bauder 19:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree with that. You know there are several people who have strong feelings against me and aren't going to hesitate to bring me to your attention if they think I'm causing even the slightest of problems. There would be no need for a new case, anyway; you have already acted with great flexibility in amending rulings, so all that should be required in case of a problem is to reapply the EK3 penalties. Everyking 20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the restrictions are working fine as is; Wikipedia's interests seem more important than your "self-respect" in this regard. Of the remedies, the bans against using AN/I and harassingcomment on other admins expire in November, and don't really have any bearing on the actual editorial work you're doing; the one regarding Snowspinner and the one requiring you to do what you should have been doing in the first place -- familiarizing yourself with a situation before commenting upon it -- aren't likely to be lifted at all. Your probation on pop music articles seem to me to be the reason you haven't run into any problems in the last few months, and that's a good thing. So i don't see any benefit to Wikipedia to lifting any of these sanctions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify some things. There were no real problems surrounding pop music articles in the first place when that penalty was added; the issue that led to that remedy was associated with my admonishment of an admin who had in my opinion treated a very young, good faith user much too harshly. That admin and I were simultaneously bickering over a content issue related to pop music (mild arguing, not revert warring, and it fizzled out after a while), and that was taken as a reason to expand the ruling to include the pop music remedy, for reasons that may make sense to the ArbCom, but not to me (even if you think I was wrong to admonish the admin in question, what on earth does that have to do with pop music? This was never explained). Therefore it is inexplicable to me that that very pointless ruling could have prevented any problems; in fact I have gone on editing pop music articles fairly regularly and have encountered the same amount of trouble as beforehand—virtually none. It occurs to me that your attribution of this status quo situation to the ArbCom's penalty belies a poor understanding of the ruling and the issues that led to it, and in that case it is incongruous that an arbitrator would back the ruling barring me from commenting on actions without familiarization (although I did not do that even before the ruling was issued) but would himself comment without familiarization in responding to an appeal request about that very ruling.
It is said that the restrictions are "working"; well, yes, they are in the sense that I have decided to abide by them and none of the alleged previously existing problems now exist. However, might my cooperation be reasonably interpreted as a sign that the restrictions are not necessary? It is also said that Wikipedia's interests are more important than my own; I agree with this wholeheartedly. I question, however, how the ruling can be perceived as being in Wikipedia's interest, particularly at this point in time. From the ArbCom's perspective, would the ruling ever cease to be in Wikipedia's interest? Several months have passed without incident and it is still "not in Wikipedia's interest" for me to have my various freedoms restored. Will a point ever be reached when it will once again be in Wikipedia's interest to let me have those freedoms again? Why not leave the penalties in place eternally? I will continue to edit, which the ArbCom apparently approves of, while remaining under restrictions because the ArbCom feels uncomfortable with everything else I do, indefinitely—the ArbCom have can have it both ways while I continue to work in an environment that rewards my work by letting me continue wearing my stripes and shackles. Might the ArbCom pause to ponder the inevitable frustration on the other side of the situation? Everyking 07:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
We have talked this over at some length considering a number of options. Status quo seems to be the consensus. Fred Bauder 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
At what point will the ArbCom be willing to remove or reduce the penalties, then? Everyking 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That will happen November, 2007. I would be reluctant to ever take you off probation with respect to pop music articles, but find your input regarding administrative actions valuable, although obviously you need to carefully inform yourself and use more diplomacy than you have in the past. However, I 'm afraid my view is a minority view. Fred Bauder 19:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That's interesting—to ever take me off probation on pop music articles? To the best of my recollection, nobody has accused me of causing problems on any pop music articles in almost two years (since EK2, circa April 2005). I have edited those articles peacefully for a vastly longer period of time than it ordinarily takes someone to, for example, qualify as a trustworthy admin candidate. And yet you still perceive some problem that makes me some kind of perpetual threat? Honestly, I find that bizarre. Why, why are the arbitrators still holding such an old dispute against me? Furthermore, how could you apply a permanent remedy—are you going to reopen the case in November to amend it in spite of having no apparent justification for doing so, with no controversy having erupted in ages? Even considering all that the ArbCom has done to me before, that would be a truly remarkable thing. Everyking 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"To the best of my recollection, nobody has accused me of causing problems on any pop music articles in almost two years" - Your memory has failed you Raul654 23:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
In November, 2007, most of the restrictions expire. Fred Bauder 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, see, I didn't realize this, but if the ruling is read literally there is actually no limit on that probation and therefore, I suppose, it will expire only upon my death or upon the ArbCom's own decision to lift it. The ArbCom is much more clever than me. There is still so much I don't understand, though. Why does the probation even exist, let alone eternally? At least in the case of the commenting about admins stuff we can agree that a controversy did exist, something was happening—but in the case of the pop music ruling, there was no controversy at that time (and had not been for more than a year previously) and that probation was tacked on for no apparent reason. It is beyond bizarre that I am subject to an eternal penalty for participation in a controversy that did not exist. Guys, at least explain some of this stuff. Everyking 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the consensus among the arbitration committee is that while we welcome Everyking's newfound good behavior and do appreciate it, we do not think he's reformed. If we modify the remedies, we think it's quite likely he'll go back to his old behavior, and the risk of this far outweighs any potential benefits to EK of modifying the decision. Raul654 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What, if not a change in behavior, does the ArbCom consider necessary to deem a person "reformed"? Furthermore, I will raise the very simple and logical point I raised earlier: if the ArbCom doesn't like whatever I do after the penalties are lifted, why not just promptly impose them again? The argument that this is difficult for the ArbCom to do doesn't hold water. Hell, you could say in advance that any reimposed penalties would be more severe than the old ones, to serve as additional deterence. Finally, the penalties will expire in November anyway—why is lifting them now worse than lifting them then? Everyking 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you are still in very deep denial about your past behavior is troubling, to say the least. Raul654 05:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
So is this a thought crime kind of thing? No matter what I do, what I think will continue to be used against me? I'm not even sure you understand what my position is on the various controversies of the past. I've never seen any indication from the ArbCom that it was even paying attention when I explained my positions repeatedly and at length. Everyking 05:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I was listening, but you wore everyone out. Fred Bauder 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
So if I said less, you would have paid more attention? Everyking 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I dunno about Fred, but I certainly would have. It's how this medium works -- a lot of us (a majority? who knows) glaze over when confronted with prolixity. A short, pithy argument is vastly more effective than four paragraphs saying the same thing. (I'm sure there are people whose gut reaction is "wow, that's a lot of words, they must have some important content in them", but the only ones I've encountered with that opinion are the ones writing the long screeds.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You want pithy? I thought one was supposed to make a thorough argument with extensive support from logic and evidence. I could've just said: "Hey, I didn't do that stuff", but I don't think that would've accomplished anything more. The point remains, though, that I am skeptical that the ArbCom understands my positions, and if that is the case it is preposterous for Raul to tell me I am in "very deep denial". If the ArbCom's understanding of the past controversies ranges from superficial to nonexistent, and if it has ignored the arguments I've made in my defense, how much sense does it make to claim I am the one in denial here?
We have not ignored your defenses; we have rejected them as being patently untrue. As for your supposed thoughtcrime - if you cannot recognize that your past actions were in the wrong (actions which you, to this very day on this very page, claim were above board) then there is no reason to believe you would not go back to those very same actions if you thought we weren't looking. Hence, our desire to keep the remedies exactly as they are.
Furthermore, as to your self-serving claim that there are no reasons for the new pop-article probation, it came about as a result of your behavior towards Extraordinary Machine. And while I have no doubt that as you read that sentence, you were no doubt thinking of ways to - once again - to deny the reality of your behavior, I will not be giving them any heed. Suffice it to say, I have once already decided to take EM's claims as being true and rejected your explanations thereof. I suspect the other arbitrators feel the same way. Raul654 23:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
All right, well, I will respond regardless, perhaps out of an idealistic belief that that is possible you'll listen even though you say you're plugging your fingers in your ears (of course, you did that at the time all this happened, too, when you were supposed to be weighing the arguments and such), or at least the other arbitrators might. EM and I were arguing about a pop music issue, yes; as you can see, I brought that up earlier in this discussion. However, for any penalty to be applied on the basis of that dispute is absurd—read the talk pages, for instance, or look at the page histories. In the previous dispute, which brought about EK1, the main argument against me was that I revert warred frequently against a large number of people. In this case with EM, there was little reverting from either side (and he was reverting more than me in any case, because he reverted some anons several times); the dispute was concentrated on the talk pages, where he eventually agreed to remove only uncited information. He removed a couple things then and went elsewhere, and the dispute ended. The dispute was very different from the earlier one because: A) I hardly reverted him at all, and B) it was just me and him (and a few anons, who were restoring content against EM's wishes), not me against a large group. This is not the kind of dispute that can be reasonably characterized as a controversy, or as anything particularly serious at all. Certainly the ArbCom would never dream about issuing a ruling for such a small dispute ordinarily, and I find it hard to believe even my worst enemy (if properly informed) could find me at fault for any of my conduct there. In fact, as I also noted earlier, the key issue had nothing to do with pop music: I admonished EM for issuing a warning to a third party that I felt was too harsh. It was apparently just the association of that EK-EM exchange with the simultaneous content dispute that caused the ArbCom to impose the ruling, because it was the same two people involved. You say my arguments were patently untrue; well, show some evidence that anything I've said here is untrue.
My final point concerns this claim: "if you cannot recognize that your past actions were in the wrong (actions which you, to this very day on this very page, claim were above board) then there is no reason to believe you would not go back to those very same actions". Which actions do I defend, Raul? Can you tell me which, and can you tell me what my reasoning is? Can you identify the mistakes I've pointed out and expressed regret over? I don't believe you can, because you have no real understanding of any of this; as far as I can tell, your viewpoint is merely a mixture of the unfiltered claims of my opponents with some assumptions of your own. Furthermore, your statement is simply illogical: there is good reason I would not do the things the ArbCom has penalized me for if the restriction is removed, despite my views (which you do not appear to be at all informed about in any case). The reasons are simply prudence and pragmatism. I maintain both that I was fundamentally right and that I have learned from the mistakes I made during the old conflicts, and the foremost evidence with which I support the latter claim is the absence of anything the ArbCom finds objectionable in almost six months. Everyking 23:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, could the other arbitrators address the "thought crime" issue above? It appears Raul is saying that in order to get the restrictions lifted it's not enough for me to just not do what the ArbCom told me not to do in its ruling; the mere fact that I don't believe what the ArbCom believes about the issues means I have not "reformed". Of course it would be easy for me to simply lie and say a bunch of things the ArbCom would like to hear; I suppose I could've got the restrictions lifted ages ago, maybe even avoided ever having restrictions imposed to begin with, if I had done that. But I will not do that: to change my behavior to be more cautious and pragmatic is something I can do that's completely compatible with my principles, indeed it's positive self-improvement, but lying to suit somebody else's fiction is a completely different thing. Everyking 19:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred, it appears from the plain language of the amendment filed in July 2006 that the probation for pop music articles does not have a specified expiry date (in contrast to the administrative restrictions). Would you and the other arbitrators like to clarify this? Thatcher131 14:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly my intention. Everyking's editwarring over Ashlee Simpson ought to be a once in a life-time experience. Fred Bauder 19:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
No clarification is necessary - it is indeed indefinite. Raul654 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Should I assume that you agree with Fred's apparent opinion that it should never be lifted under any circumstances whatsoever? And please address the questions I asked you earlier. Everyking 22:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Of all the remedies, I think the pop-article probation is probably the least essential. That said, I will reiterate my previous statement that I do not believe any of the remedies should be lifted (or allowed to expire) until you can demonstrate to my satisfaction that you would not go back to your old behavior. Your recent behavior is encouraging, but insufficient - especially in light of your impenitence. Raul654 23:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Especially—what does that mean? Does that mean that, if more time passed without incident, the ArbCom would eventually relent? Or do you think it should never be lifted as long as I'm committing the thought crime of disagreeing with the ArbCom about what happened in the past? Everyking 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It was your repeated "thought crimes" (if you want to call them that) of repeatedly attacking other admins that brought the action on you in the first place. You are now making attacks on the ArbCom. How has your behavior modified since you were originally placed on probation? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
No complaints have been made about me and no penalties have been applied. (Your comment belies a misunderstanding of the situation in any case, because the probation was a secondary element and does not apply to commenting about admins.) This is because I have avoided controversy and done nothing to rouse anyone's ire. As you can see, the ArbCom itself acknowledges that much, so it is strange to me that you are disputing it. I do not claim that criticizing admins was being treated as a thought crime; I claim that holding a particular opinion about past events is being treated as one. Are you confusing these on purpose to try to discredit my arguments? Everyking 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Everyking, if your edits have truly been constructive, then the remedies of the ArbCom decision should not affect you in any way, except for the article ban, which was placed for good reason. Your contributions are respected, and please understand that these remedies are preventative in nature and not punitive - they are designed to prevent further disruption. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no article ban, so it must not have been "placed for good reason". I've already responded to the "this shouldn't affect you" argument early in this discussion. Please familiarize yourself with the situation before commenting. Everyking 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I did. I don't know how you believe that reasoning personally, but I do not find it compelling. With all due respect, your self-esteem is a secondary concern. The integrity of Wikipedia comes first. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Didn't I respond to the exact same thing earlier in this discussion? I specifically addressed the issue about the ruling supposedly being in Wikipedia's interest, and agreed that Wikipedia's interests are more important than my own. You do not seem to have even read the discussion on this page, let alone researched the long history behind it all. Everyking 01:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said, I read it. I just fail to find the arguments compelling. Really - shouldn't you go edit some articles or something? This discussion seems to be doing nothing but wasting time. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I haven't taken a break from editing to argue with the arbitrators; I can find the time to respond to them, and to you, without cutting back on editing. I also don't agree that this whole discussion was a waste of time, because I gained significant understanding about the ArbCom's views—most importantly that they want me to renounce my opinions in order to have my restrictions lifted. Previously I had believed that simply doing what they said and not getting into any controversies would satisfy them, or at least I had thought there was a pretty good chance that would satisfy them. Everyking 11:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Noting that my opinion does matter, I think that what little Ive come across of your behaviour has been good and well. however, I also fail to see instances where these remedies have adversely affected you (maybe I just haven't run across it.) Historically good conduct has shortened or softened remedies, but not have them dropped entirely. The problem lies in the fact that this is an entirely subjective matter, and depends on the opinions of the Arbitrators and their willingness to revisit the case. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's make this easy.

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AMA advocates' status in cases (January 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    • Any user may be an informal advocate, but an AMA advocate speaks for the user they represent. They are not a party but may speak for the party they represent. In the past no advocate has effectively represented a user, but the role is open. Great care should be taken to make only motions which make sense to the arbitrators. Focus on adequately presenting relevant evidence in a useable form and on framing proposals in terms of core Wikipedia policies. Fred Bauder 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: A rule that a party's advocate in a mediation automatically becomes a party to an ensuing arbitration case might inadvertently discourage editors from taking on the role of advocate. Hopefully, it is a rare situation in which an advocate's own conduct becomes the focus of inquiry by ArbCom, so I don't think formal "party" status is necessary. A sensible rule would be that advocates have the same standing as any other editor to present evidence, make workshop proposals, etc., but that of course when an advocate is commenting in the capacity of advocate, it's good practice to note that fact. When an ArbCom case is filed, providing courtesy notification to anyone who was acting as an advocate is also an appropriate thing to do. Newyorkbrad 19:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment • As an advocate myself, I would say that we are just another editor, and should be treated as such. There should be no preferential or special treatment given, and their status as a party should be judged on the merits, or lack thereof, of their actions, and the length of their involvement. If they are not directly involved in the dispute, other than by acting as an advocate, than I would be compelled to think that they would not be a party. After all, we do not bring the previous mediator on a case into a case simply because they were the mediator in the prior attempt at dispute resolution. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest doing something like putting the comment in the party section and then signing it, say, "NvT as advocate for RealParty". Unless acting directly as advocate -- i.e., speaking for them -- then you're just another editor with a hopefully useful comment. I think ArbCom can figure out the difference between the real parties and the advocates and is unlikely to include the advocates in any remedies... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, that's what I myself do: add "User: Imaglang (aka Neigel von Teighen) AMA advocate for User" in the party list and then adding a diff to anything that certifies me as advocate. What I expect from ArbCom is a little guideline on what to do, not a policy. Something we can rely on when an advocate (formal or informal) has doubts on what to do. That's it what we need. --Neigel von Teighen 09:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment • I would assume an Advocate is not a party, but an advocate for a party. In a given case were an Advocate represents a party, and performs actions as any other editor, it may raise COI issues. nobs 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Neigel asks "can we make motions, endorse them, object, request in the workshop[?]". It seems to me the answer is "yes, of course; anyone can do all that stuff, party to the case or not". As far as I can see, absolutely nothing hinges on whether advocates are considered parties. What am I missing here? PurplePlatypus 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Nobs has hit the point that led me to make this request. There can be COI problems like this: User X makes a motion and Advocate endorses it, counting as two "moves" for the same party in a same "turn"... (proposing-endorsing) I don't know if I'm clear enough... It turns me to be rather unfair in some way... although anyone could go and request an advocate too. Simply put, what I request is a little official guideline written by ArbCom so no doubt nor conflict arrive... Maybe am I being too silly? If so, tell me and withdraw this. --Neigel von Teighen 17:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

  • Well, I really know we're an impediment, but we try to do the best we can, including myself. And have an idea: please send me a feedback on my work on the ongoing Starwood case after its closure and tell me how I did it and what shall I improve or if I was really useless? Honestly, it can be a good start! --Neigel von Teighen 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't speak to the Starwood case (which I haven't yet looked at), but in all past cases, the AMA advocates' arguments have amounted to nothing but pettifoggery. If you wish for things to go different, then - and I say this admittedly without looking at what you have been doing there - I strongly suggest you advocate for the person are representing, and avoid resorting to the AMA's standard toolbox of dilatory tactics. Raul654 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally, I feel that Advocates could be of use, but currently and in the past they have not been. The problem is that when someone makes an argument on one person's behalf and it is struck down, they tend to take it as a slight against them. I feel that it is important that AMA advocates hold themselves to a certain decorum when working in a case. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This is why we thought in our last AMA meeting to do gather arbitrators with our Coordinator and Deputies to talk about these things... Well, in summary, the answer to my request is: "Advocates are the same as anyother editor in the case". Have I undertood it well? If so, then, we can say this request is closed, wouldn't be? --Neigel von Teighen 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I honestly must say that I find myself taken aback by comments such as "In short, the AMA is useless," but I cannot deny that historically such observations have been true. In the past, members of the AMA were causing havoc by bringing cases that were far too young in the WP:DR process to MedCom and ArbCom. This, in turn, was mostly due to two things: 1) Advocates who did not have enough direction or practical experience and 2) the fact that the AMA was practically inactive and running "on its own" without any sort of supervision or direction. People were "signing up" with no communication between members and no idea of what to do, the request system was horrific, and the previous Coordinator had resigned months earlier with no acknowledgment from the Association. (This is the state I found it in when I joined).

    Recently, with many Advocate efforts, there has been a resurgence in membership, a reorganization of our structure and and influx of zeal to help and because of that the AMA is back on its feet. We've kept the same goal that we initially held (helping disputes on Wikipedia) yet have a very different way of going about things. As a result we have already relieved ArbCom of dozens of cases and saved many hours of precious time by reducing the escalation of conflicts as they arise and are referred to us.

    Things are working well, but they are far from perfect yet, and I feel that the next logical step is for the AMA to foster a closer, functional, and working relationship with ArbCom in order for our processes to be more efficient, and in the end, put less strain on WP:DR. If we end up doing "our job" properly, even fewer cases will rise to the level of Arbitration, and those that do should be properly researched, formed and submitted. What my wishes are in discussing this would be to see that there is some cooperation between us to further these goals and make Wikipedia a better place.

    -- (AMA Coordinator) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 03:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I had suggested that we open a formal hearing on this but there wasn't much interest from the other members of the committee. I'll throw out a few comments informally here since I've seen the AMA in action before and have a few specific concerns and believe I can see both sides:

  • The AMA was organized by individuals who were not especially supportive of the arbitration process. A clean break or a repudiation of this viewpoint might be appropriate.
  • Arbitration Committee members love to see clearly and concisely presented cases. If that's what you do, great, you'll find that you have our full support in about a picosecond. On the other hand, if you expand cases unnecessarily with trivial counterclaims, you'll be walking in the footsteps of your predecessors.
  • If you're going to do this, part of your job is to control your clients. They shouldn't be participating themselves in cases except to offer testimony.
  • If a request for arbitration includes a statement from someone stating that they wish to be represented by a member advocate and that they are going to refrain from direct participation in the case themselves, I would respect that and would expect that most other committee members would as well, as a practical matter.
  • I would be open to a more formal or official role for advocates once advocates have established a track record as an asset to arbitration itself in addition to helping out by steering cases to the most appropriate forum.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 10:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions clarification (January 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

An established and respected user who is not an administrator could close a discussion. An extended policy discussion is one in which most aspects of the question has been discussed, alternatives considered, in short, a full discussion. Good judgement is needed to determine when consensus has been reached or when it is obvious there is no consensus. When the discussion becomes disruptive, more heat than light, it is probably past time to close the discussion and declare a result. Fred Bauder 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
So nothing really specific, per se? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The subject does not lend itself to bright line rules. The question is whether the question has been fully discussed and a decision reached. Fred Bauder 01:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Jeff got me thinking, and.. that's not really useful. It's basically saying "If you think you're right then say so and tell everyone to shut up". Won't everyone think they're right in a discussion/dispute/etc? If the situation is reasonably clear one way or the other then we usually don't have to resort to something like this to end it. The situations this is supposed to be helpful in are usually too unclear to actually use this. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions involved a matter where there was a consensus, but no closing. Based on lack of closing, an opposition party engaged in move warring. That was the problem we were trying to address. Fred Bauder 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess that's one way to look at it, but the solution offered still isn't helpful. Nothing personal. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As Fred Bauder said, the gauging of consensus is not something that lends itself well to hard line rules. That is why we have a special permission for users that guage consensus in promotions - bureaucrats (they do other things, too, but that's why the permission was created IIRC). It's a tricky business, but not unsurmountable. When in doubt, further discussion can never hurt. Requests for third (or hundredth) opinions can be useful. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Ned, in this situation the result was "reasonably clear" (80% supermajority over a relatively minor issue) but a vocal minority engaged in move warring and disruption. We all agree to operate on consensus, and in most cases policy discussions sort of peter out when the parties get bored, or realize they are losing, and find other things to do, leaving the active particpants to implement the consensus result. Here there was a small but very vocal minority that did not accept the result, possibly because the people who were telling them that they lost were the people they had been arguing with all along, and possibly because there is no "official" way to close a policy discussion. (Unlike XfD, where there is a clear procedure for ending the discussion, announcing the result, and implementing it.) The arbitration remedy authorizes the participants in a debate to close it when consensus is demonstrably achieved, and announce and implement the result. (Although, with all due respect to Fred and the other arbitrators, I think it should have said "uninvolved" editors or admins, and I would hope that in future situations, a majority faced with a vocal and upset minority would seek outside help.) Thatcher131 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, a good many of us thought it was obvious from day one, but a big problem was how it appeared to people outside of the debate (specifically, how it was being represented outside of the debate). Not only that, but more than once we had "announced" an end/consensus during the debate, so technically we did do the very thing suggested. I understand and agree with the meaning of the statement, but this statement as a tool to help avoid such conflicts in the future doesn't seem very helpful to me. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It's better than nothing? At this point you can take a future conflict to arbitration enforcement and say: "see, here we discussed a policy, and here's the consensus, and here we announced it per the Naming Conventions case decision, and Thatcher is still move and edit warring over it, so please enforce the decision by blocking Thatcher until he gets the message." At least it clearly puts the burden of proof on the minority to show that a consensus was not reached, rather than on the majority to prove that consensus exists. Thatcher131 05:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification on votes in the Lucky 6.9 request (February 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for appeal of precedent from LaRouche case (February 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:[5], 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,[6] 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.[7] 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 [8] backs up Will's point that LaRouche sources are not reliable in the ordinary sense, and Jimbo further says that evaluating such sources is a difficult job "for serious editors to undertake thoughtfully." Will appears to have done that. Furthermore, Uninvited's comment that neutral editors may add LaRouche sources if they are appropriate both fits in with Jimbo's remarks and excludes Tsunami Butler. So the current status quo is about right, as far as I can tell. Thatcher131 13:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course, I disagree with many assertions made by Will Beback and Thatcher131, plus assertions that I may anticipate will be made by Fred Bauder, based on my earlier clarification request. Rather than responding point-by-point to those assertions here, I am asking the ArbCom to open a formal appeal on this matter so that it may be discussed in depth. --Tsunami Butler 15:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration cases should not be reopened or revisited without clear and compelling issues. Is there a case where these sources are not being allowed? If so, they shouldn't be re-removed without discussion on the talk page - consensus is what powers Wikipedia. If one of the banned users is adding them, then an appeal to Arbitration Enforcement should be made. The Administrator' Noticeboard may be a good way to get a range of opinions on the issue. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The list of examples that I provided are all recent cases where Will Beback removed material in a manner that was, by my reckoning, arbitrary and senseless. In each case, editors from the affected pages protested on Will's talk page, making clear that they held no pro-LaRouche POV. The one older edit on the list was this one that was referenced in the second ArbCom case. I was not a party to these disputes.
The dispute where I am a party is on the article Lyndon LaRouche, where I object to the removal of quotes from an interview given by Eugene McCarthy to the LaRouche publication EIR, quotes removed by editors Mgunn and 172, with the support of Will Beback, citing the arbcom ban. I can see no valid argument that quotes from an on-the-record, published interview should be considered OR. When I raised this before in my clarification request, I was told by Fred Bauder that "People who follow these things know." I found this explanation less than complete. --Tsunami Butler 01:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason is straightforward:
  • A Lyndon Larouche publication is not a reliable source.
  • The interview is from a Lyndon Larouche publication.
  • Therefore, the interview is unreliable.
  • To see how it fits, substitute "Blogspot posting", "personal communication", "forum posting" or other unreliable source for "Lyndon Larouche publication" above, irrelevant qualifiers like "published" on "on-the-record" notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Looking at WP:RS, it seems to me that EIR is both "publication with a declared editorial policy" and an example of "published news media," so that there may well be cases where it would be appropriate as a source. I do not think that it is accurate to assert that EIR is "not integrated with the journalistic world," although it is cited far more frequently in the foreign than in the domestic press.
The reason I think that this appeal deserves to be heard is that the ArbCom precedent, as it is presently being interpreted, makes a special, and I believe unique policy with respect to EIR. It essentially makes EIR an exception to WP:RS and WP:OR, by saying that citations from EIR may not be evaluated under these policies, but must simply be excluded out of hand. There are plenty of highly partisan media publications which are used as sources when appropriate, or excluded as sources when appropriate. If the ArbCom is to make a policy that EIR is a special and unique case, I think that it warrants a formal hearing. Incidentally, I do not think that this policy, as it is presently being interpreted, is clearly enunciated in the "LaRouche 1" case; the ruling says that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." The interpretation that anything from a LaRouche publication is axiomatically OR comes after the fact. My personal interest is that this is also now being used to exclude EIR as a source specifically in "the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles," which also seems to go beyond what the ArbCom ruled in this case. --Tsunami Butler 07:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Tsunami, LaRouche publications don't count as reliable sources, and may therefore be used only in articles about LaRouche and his movement, and even then with certain limitations — for example, when used in LaRouche-related articles, they can't be used as sources of information about third parties. That the publications are not reliable sources can be demonstrated by reading their contents, and by examining the extent to which those contents are entirely at odds with material found in publications known to be reliable. One example that serves to illustrate is that LaRouche believed employees of the British royal family were plotting to kill him just a few years ago, and he apparently warned the White House that they might be plotting against the president too. I forget the motive, but I think it had something to do with Diana. Any publication that routinely published this kind of material would find itself regarded as an unreliable source for Wikipedia; it isn't anything against LaRouche as such, but against material of that nature. The ArbCom rulings are one source that prohibits the use of LaRouche publications, except in limited circumstances, but other sources prohibiting that type of material are WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:RS, the first three of which are policies, the fourth a guideline. To have LaRouche sources declared reliable, you'd have to change several key passages in these policies, as well as overturn ArbCom rulings. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I have seen from various talk pages that you are an outspoken critic of LaRouche, as is Calton. The article you mention, which you linked from one of the LaRouche articles [9], 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 Me • Neutrality 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:
I think Will's point is that describing free trade as the "British system" and tariffs as the "American system" isn't mainstream history. It reflects the rather unusual worldview of LaRouche where he advocates the "American system" and demonizes the British. In real history, the British had a variety of tariffs from time to time (eg. "Corn Laws") and the American South opposed tariffs while many industries of the North supported them for self interested reasons. The whole bit by HonourableSchoolboy is a semi-disguised attempt to put the views of LaRouche into articles not about LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. Mgunn 00:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you arguing that William McKinley, Henry Carey and Friedrich List did not in fact hold those views? Or that they are not notable? From an encylopediac point of view, that's what matters. If you follow the links to the articles on Carey and List, those articles support the claims made by HonourableSchoolboy's edits. None of this was invented by LaRouche. LaRouche has also made a point that the British had a variety of tariffs (eg. "Corn Laws"), suggesting that they did not practice what they preach. Are your comments a semi-disguised attempt to introduce his views into this discussion? For shame.--Tsunami Butler 00:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, if it's such "common knowledge", why is it being sourced from a Tripod-hosted website?

But that aside, Tsunami Butler is blowing smoke: the real question is, does using unreliable sources improve or harm articles?

Rhetorical question, of course. But to summarize:

  • Unreliable sources are, well, unreliable, and should and must not be used in an encyclopedia striving for accuracy and reliability.
  • Lyndon LaRouche is a not reliable source. He may or may not be correct on some issues, but he is unreliable.
  • ArbCom has, in the face of aggressive POV-pushing by LaRouche acolytes, taken the unusual but necessary step of officially declaring, yes, Lyndon LaRouche and his various outlets are unreliable sources.
  • Lyndon LaRouche and his various outlets, therefore, must not be used as sources in an encyclopedia striving for accuracy and reliability.

Tsunami Butler's hurdle, bafflegab about harm aside, is simple: convince ArbCom that Lyndon LaRouche can, in fact, be a reliable source on anything other than Lyndon LaRouche. And Tsunami Butler is not even trying. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is circular: if all LaRouche publications are not reliable sources, then all LaRouche publications are unreliable sources, QED. I don't accept it. When LaRouche articles are basically editorials, as is often the case, they would be OR. When they are meticulously researched and documented, as is also often the case, they may be acceptable, IMO. When they are providing, for example, an online source of quotations from historical speeches and documents, or interviews with prominent persons, they may be in fact very useful. I'd like to hear the views of some ArbCom members. The views of the POV warriors are already known to me. --Tsunami Butler 07:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification on review of Carnildo's promotion (February 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • 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?[10]
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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification on James Randi and Sathya Sai Baba (February 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Andries posted [11] 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 http://www.parliament.uk 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
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification regarding Naming Conventions consensus finding (February 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification regarding Robert Prechter (and Socionomics) (February 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)
Socionomics has now been deleted. I understand that the long delay in dealing with this matter has been caused by my long absence during my Christmas vacation, but may I ask if this matter will be taken up again, or what kind of schedule might be reasonable to expect? User:Rgfolsom has started up again with complete reversions [12] on articles where he has an obvious conflict of interest, this time on Elliott wave principle. Smallbones 09:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The Committee may wish to note my direct appeal to User:Smallbones, imploring him to refrain from editing articles that are at issue in our arbitration case.
--Rgfolsom 15:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification regarding Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University edit bombing (February 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This concerns an article under probabion in accordance with an arb com ruling of 12 Jan 2007 [13].

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 · 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 195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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 · filter log · block user · block log), also Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and one other editor who seems to be just spellchecking, Chris_the_speller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted the article 00:24 [14] and 01:06 [15]. 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 · filter log · block user · block log) that this was unacceptable [16]. The outcome of the thread is what I would like some clarification on [17]. 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 [18] 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification on undeleted Marsden-Donnelly harassment case (February 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marsden-Donnelly harassment case has been undeleted after a DRV here. Rachel Marsden remains a stub. Given that the Arbcom found regarding the Rachel Marsden articles that it was "Better nothing than a hatchet job" and that the interpretation of WP:BLP which resulted in the previous state of affairs was "liberal" to the point that two named editors were "expected to conform to WP:BLP rather than the liberal interpretation they have applied", does the Arbcom consider it acceptable due weight that we have over 1,000 words on an incident involving Rachel Marsden before she achieved personal notability as a journalist and commentator (with a further 1,000 words on the incident cut after restoration but remaining in the history to be put back in at any time), and less than 200 words on the rest of her life? --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I second this. It disturbs me that the coverage of this case is almost exclusively sensationalist rather than scholarly. It's not a test case, and if it weren't for the political agenda of attacking the subject it would possibly merit a short paragraph in a generic article on university administration procedures. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the framing in the question, which starts from the assumption that this controversy is primarily an incident in RM's life. Our regular editors of Canadian topics seem to be of a clear consensus that the notability of the controversy is independent of what later happend in RM's life, and it would be notable even if she had vanished from the public eye thereafter. Some have, though I don't opine on whether the group would agree, even gone so far as to describe RM as a figure of dubious independent notability in a controverst on unquestionable notability, and thus would frame the question more in the form "Is it worth having a stub on a figure of no great notability if it prevents coverage of an indicident that of unquestionable notability." My personal opinion is that both framings are important ways to look at the question, and neither framing is correct in the absence of the other. GRBerry 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • GRBerry's comment is a good one, and it explains much of the feeling I had that I am not only in a different country from the other camp, but in another universe as well. I had no idea that Rachel Marsden was involved in politics or journalism before the Arbcom case began and I started following it. I only recognized the name from the SFU fiasco. Kla'quot 04:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sam and Guy, and I'm concerned that GRBerry overrode the deletion review, in which most of those commenting wanted to keep the article deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I missed the vote, so let me support Sam's sentiment here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    The DRV close included relisting at AFD. If deleting is clearly correct, why is nobody bothering to contribute to the AFD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRBerry (talk • contribs)
  • Clearly, some sort of clarification is needed. However, if people on different sides of this ask questions separately, they are likely to be loaded ones. Perhaps one of the ArbCom members or one of the more experienced MedCab mediators who has not participated in the ongoing conflict over Wikipedia's coverage of Rachel Marsden could work with each side to develop a short list of questions to be posed to ArbCom. The two sides seem to have different interpretations of how to apply the remedies in its decision. I don't think it's fair to say GRBerry "overrode" deletion review. Endorse or overturn requires consensus, not merely a majority. The most that could be said is that he should have waited the full ten days before sending to AfD, although it's doubtful that we could have attained consensus even after that amount of time. JChap2007 18:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • GRBerry's DRV closure was perfectly proper. The established precedent is that speedy deletions of an article after a keep consensus are considered de-facto challenges to the consensus, so the prior consensus is either upheld or overturned based on the response at DRV. The standard for overturning a previous keep decision and deleting the article outright usually requires near-unanimity, which was clearly not given here. The protocol for such cases is to pass them back to the original deletion forum. ~ trialsanderrors 04:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Also to correct Sam Blanning's numbers, the article is currently at 500 words. The version that was discussed at AfD and DRV was 1,100 words long. ~ trialsanderrors 07:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Attempt at partial summary. We appear to have two opposing viewpoints here, held in good faith by established users. One, which I'll call Sam's though held more broadly, is that MDHC is primarily an alternate article whose primary purpose is to disparage a marginally notable figure, Rachel Marsden, i.e. that the notability of MDHC is weak since it only derives from notability of Marsden herself. We have Kla'quot's (and others') viewpoint, that the MDHC article documents an event, notable on its own, which happens to involve a marginally notable figure. Certain people have been moving aggressively but in good faith to short circuit usual process in the firm belief that their viewpoint is correct. End of summary, personal views follow. Doubtless both sides can marshall press articles to support their view (and thus I am sure there is a right answer per WP:V and WP:BLP). By pure chance the topic came up at a small dinner I was at 2 days ago with 4 junior Canadian academics active in the legal and social sciences field. I asked whether they remembered the Marsden-Donnelly case, and none of the four recalled it. I mentioned it was the one at SFU with the swim coach, and 3 of the 4 remembered then and one volunteered that "it comes up in discussions once in a while". I said that I hadn't known one of the actors (Marsden) was a political commentator and all four expressed surprise at that fact. This informal bit of OR on my part makes me support the Kla'quot viewpoint. Martinp 14:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum: The article has been substantially rewritten and retitled Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy. This change in focus satisfies most of my reservations about it. I am still not convinced it deserves an article of its own, rather than a para in a larger article, but at least it is now much more a critique of the University's processes and does not appear to either support or denigrate either party. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Would this biographical stub be associated with depleted uranium? (February 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am prohibited from editing articles "associated" with depleted uranium, but what is and is not associated has never been defined. This has caused some difficulty, but not so much as to be insurmountable. For example, an arbitration clerk has claimed that Gulf War syndrome is associated with DU, while my erstwhile arbitration opponents insist that there is no such association.

I would like to create the following biographical stub:

John Taschner is a member of the technical staff in the Environment, Safety and Health Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory where he is involved in radiological transportation accident exercise planning. Prior to coming to Los Alamos, Taschner was Deputy Director of the US Navy's Radiological Controls Program Office in Washington, DC, and has held numerous key health physics management positions with the US Navy and Air Force. Since the 1970s, Taschner has served on several radiation protection standards committees. Since 1992, Taschner has been the Vice Chairman of the American National Standards Institute's N43 Committee, which writes radiation safety standards for non-medical radiation producing equipment. In the 1980s, Taschner received an award from the US Navy for convincing them to use tungsten instead of depleted uranium munitions in the Phalanx CIWS ship defense system.[19] Taschner has been a member of the Health Physics Society since 1958 and is a member of the American Academy of Health Physics. Taschner earned his M.S. in radiation biophysics from the University of Kansas in 1966 and, in 1973, received his certification in Health Physics by the American Board of Health Physics.[20]

My inclination is that Taschner's association with depleted uranium is not strong enough to consider his biography "associated" with DU. I respectfully request clarification from the arbitrators concerning their opinion on this question. In the event that the biography is considered associated with depleted uranium, I would request suggestions for how I should submit this request to other editors (because a non-existant article doesn't have a talk page.) If no comments are forthcomming within seven days, I will create the biographical article in the interest of making a comprehensive and accurate encyclopedia. James S. 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And in comes the camels nose! Non notable biography and would not survive a Vfd as his name only brings up 79 hits in google Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Taschner easily satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people) because he has made widely recognized contributions that are part of the enduring historical record in his field, and has received multiple independent awards for his work, as TDC's Google hits show (and is even more clear if you include his middle initial.) James S. 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I would say he's clearly "associated" with depleted uranium. The only even arguably notable sourced detail in that stub is that he received an award for his opposition to depleted uranium. My recommndation would be (1) if you wrote a stub that didn't mention depleted uranium in any respect or link to any page discussing depleted uranium, you would probably be fine; (2) if you do write about depleted uranium, then you're writing about something "associated" with depleted uranium; and (3) since your stub doesn't include reference to multiple independent non-trivial published accounts discussing Dr. Taschner, it will probably get deleted as non-notable under WP:BIO. TheronJ 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: On Feb 5, 2007, James added the John C. Taschner stub that he proposed above, using his new username.[21] As I stated, I personally think that adding a stub for a government employee whose only claim to notability is his opposition to depleted uranium is pretty clearly editing an article "related to depleted uranium," but maybe we need some clarification from an Arb Comm member or clerk. Thanks, TheronJ 16:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, he isn't notable because he was opposed to DU, but because the Navy gave him an award for convincing them not to use it, and because the Health Physics Society awarded him a fellowship -- multiple independent awards, as per WP:BIO. His interaction with DU was a very small part of his life, most of which has been spent on the Accident Response Group preparing to clean up after nuclear weapons incidents. Secondly, without clarification on what is and is not "associated" with depleted uranium, my restriction is unreasonably vague. James S. 03:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
James, you are Wikilawyering. I have nuked it, leave it to some other editor who does not have this sanction against them. It is self-evidently the case that his purported notability rests in large part on DU, and if you edit the article you;re asking for trouble. Please just respect the ruling. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
"he isn't notable because he was opposed to DU, but because the Navy gave him an award for convincing them not to use it." Say wha...? Perhaps others can handle cognitive dissonance better than I can. Raymond Arritt 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Asking a question isn't wikilawyering. What is "associated" and what is not? Am I at the mercy of what is or is not "self-evident" to any admin? James S. 07:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question to Arbcom (February 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

I have had a Arbcom case against me in the past. I am now, I believe being harrassed based on it. Any dispute with a user, meaning disagreement involves a user threatening an Arbcom hearing against me. There is a page for enforcement that lets people complain about those who have had hearings, where do those who feel they are being harrassed because of them, have to go to be heard? Is there an equal place where Arbcom will here their points? --NuclearZer0 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

These kinds of disputes should be handled through the normal mediation process first. If you have specific examples of harassment, please take them to WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB for resolution. The past ruling against you by the Arbitration Committee does not give them original jurisdiction over all disputes or complaints raised by you in the future. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Lord knows NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults can be a pain in the ass, and an edit warrior. But I can list off the top of my head three instances where the first thing an editor did when he saw an edit by Nuclear that he didn't like was to either threaten him with arbitration, or post a complaint to Arbitration enforcement. I'm not aware that being on probation relieves other editors of the expectation that they will at least make a good faith attempt to discuss a disputed edit before applying for sanctions. When an editor reverts Nuclear's edits with the edit summary "Suggest that he's violating the Arbcom ruling for the 4th or 5th time," and it's the first time Nuclear has been reverted at that page, and no prior (or subsequent) discussion was attempted, its hard not to see that as creating a corrosive environment for him. Since the arbitration committee places enforcement of its decrees in the hands of the admins at large, I do not expect they will take any concrete action here. But I don't know what to do either. Thatcher131 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No indeed. Nuclear could help by not going nuclear so quickly, I think. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification on remedy of the Requests for arbitration/Kosovo (February 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have a couple of questions regarding this remedy.

  • why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
  • it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
  • is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Sincere regards Osli73 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this happened. I don't see any edits at all that you made to Kosovo. Fred Bauder 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please also refer to my note on Fred's talk page as well as the conversation on my talk page. El_C 02:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Fred, what is the process I need to go through to appeal the decision of the arbcom? Regards Osli73 09:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Oh, I see it has already started.Osli73 09:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


I see that Dmcdevit is arguing not to revoke the decisions. My comments on his reasons for not doing so are:

  1. dmcdevit doesn't answer why I should be 'punished' a second time for a 'crime' which I had already been punished for. If so, could I be 'punished' for the original edit war yet another time?
  2. I don't it mentioned anywhere in the Kosovo arbcom case that edits on the Srebrenica massacre article should be considered. It might be worthy of interest that Asterion already asked Dmcdevit this question (here) to which Dmcdevit answered that "It's reasonably related enough for me". What is the 'jurisdiction' of the Kosovo arbcom? Why were not edits on other articles considered?
  3. It seems somewhat odd that a, in my opinion, wrongfully made decision should be upheld by events which took place after that decision was made. In my opinion, the original arbcom decision should be upheld or revoked based on what took place prior to the original decision. Any subsequent behaviour should be judged on its own merits. I see this process as revoking an incorrect judgment, not as an appeal for 'early release'.

Regards Osli73 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Osli73 has repeatedly violated the terms of his parole. He created a sockpuppet KarlXII with which he created fake conversations between Osli73 and KarlXII in a willful attempt to deceive people. With the sockpuppet KarlXII, he continued the behavior that got him on parole in the first place. What purpose does it serve to lessen (?!) the penalties at a time when he should be facing more restrictions for this behavior?89.146.130.23 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
As I have explained before, this inappropriate behavior was due to personal threats (off wikipedia) and harassment (much of it by you, some recent examples [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]). The identity change was to avoid personal threats, not avoid the remedy (KarlXII existed before the ARBCOM decision). This does not excuse the sockpuppeteering, but it explains it. Regards Osli73 10:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification on Parole violations (March 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier

No time limit is given for the Parole violations. Am I correct to assume that this ends when the article ban ends as well? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Parole is generally indefinite unless otherwise stated. However, that decision is oddly worded compared to recent cases. I'd guess that since more than three months have passed, you should make a formal request to lift the revert parole. Thatcher131 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It does not appear that any revert paroles were actually passed in this case. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision#Revert parole. (The majority in this case was 6.) Recent precedent is that an enforcement provision that remains in the decision as an artifact of a remedy proposal that was not passed, but has no adopted remedy to enforce, is to be disregarded. Compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Proposed decision#Implementation notes. Given the prior difficulties you encountered, you might be well-advised to abide by the proposed parole limitations voluntarily if you intend to resume editing the relevant article. However, if you wish, clarification can be requested from the arbitrators on this issue, or perhaps they will comment here. Newyorkbrad 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The revert parole didn't pass, only the mooted enforcement for if it had passed. TDC is on parole from this case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#TDC_placed_on_revert_parole, and that expires May 6, 2007. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I had actually wondered about that. There appears to be a discrepancy in the decision. In the “Proposed Remedies”, there appeared to be no consensus on a Revert Parole [30], then in the Proposed Enforcement section there is unanimous support for a “Parole violations” [31]. The “Parole violations” also appears in the final decision. So now we have several questions.
1. Why is there a discrepancy between the proposed decision and proposed enforcement?
2. What does this discrepancy mean, if anything.
3. What is the expiration date, if any of the “RV Parole”?
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
From the Winter Soldier case, a revert parole was proposed but failed. See here. Therefore the enforcement proposal does not take effect, there being nothing to enforce. (It probably should have been left off the page.) There is no revert parole from the Winter Soldier case.
However, a general one-revert parole was approved in the Depleted Uranium case, see here. As stated, you are limited to one content revert per article per day, for a duration of one year from the date the case was closed (6 May 2006). Thatcher131 16:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to be obtuse here, but there is a discrepancy, and the final decision does lay out a provision for Rv Patrol, and has a unanimous passing vote. I was confused about this at the time as well. I am seeking clarification because the anonymous user has returned. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Well, you can't enforce something that doesn't pass. There were 10 active arbitrators on the Winter Soldier case, so a majority is 6. The proposed 1RR parole on the anonymous editor had a vote of 5-2 here, so it didn't pass. Unfortunately, this mean that now that the one year ban is over, the anonymous editor can revert more than you can, because of your parole in the subsequent DU case. That certainly seems unfair, particularly if the anon editor is continuing to revert war. I can only suggest that you try one of the following; ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, try to get some admins to watch the page for you, use RFC to demonstrate that your version has consensus, or file a request to reopen the Winter Soldier case, showing that the anon editor is back and is continuing the same behavior. Good luck. Thatcher131 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Thatcher's opinion above: the Winter Soldier revert parole did not pass (to my disappointment), so discussion of its enforcement is nugatory; once the Depleted Uranium revert parole expires, TDC's revert rate is capped only by the 3RR (which is an electric fence, not an entitlement). ➥the Epopt 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The anon is back, but has an account now. I filed a checkuser, and it indicated that it was likely that the new user was also the anon. The edits are not taking place on the same article, but a related one. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is always the usual dispute resolution process, at the end of which, if the editor is still disruptive, is arbitration. You could try filing an arbitration case now; acceptance would depend on whether the arbitrators agree that the editor's previous pass through arbitration and current behavior are enough to demonstrate the futility of running through the whole DR process from the beginning. Thatcher131 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thatcher and The Epopt. However, one can approach the Arbcom, or even AN/I, if disruptive behaviors that were once under Arbcom sanction recur, and the process for getting those sanctions re-applied or even extended are often much less formal and quicker. Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification regarding a self-identified pedophile (March 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Matters of this nature should be addressed by email to individual arbitrators detailing problematic behavior. Please do not place notices on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or file a request for arbitration. Likewise any concerns regarding actions taken regarding such problems should be emailed to individual arbitrators for private consideration by the Arbitration Committee. Fred Bauder 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request permission to conform citation formats (March 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have been forbidden from editing articles related to depleted uranium. The current version is missing almost all the footnote references from the Health considerations section which are correct in this earlier version, because unlike all the other properly formed footnotes, most of the health consideration sources in the current version are just in-line URLs. May I please conform those references, which would clarify and improve the article? James S. 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification regarding the Bogdanov Affair (March 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yes, the thorn-in-the-side returns! Three sock puppets — Bester (talk · contribs), Stern (talk · contribs) and Tron (talk · contribs) — have in the last three days vandalized the Bogdanov Affair article, subject of a 2005 ArbCom ruling. All of their accounts are older, in contrast to the one-shot sockpuppet accounts created to muck with that article earlier, but they have been inactive for a long time (Bester since 3 July 2005, Stern since 2 August 2006 and Tron since 26 February 2004). Edit mannerisms (diff, [32]) are similar or identical to the sockpuppets encountered last year (such as these).

Samuel Blanning (talk · contribs) and I both suspect that these may be compromised accounts. In that light, I'd like to request an emendation of the enforcement decision which currently states the following:

New user accounts and anonymous IPs which focus on editing of Bogdanov Affair shall be presumed to be participants in the external dispute and, despite not being specifically mentioned in this remedy, are subject to it.

Is it possible to amend this statement so that it also applies to user accounts which have been inactive a significant length of time (say, greater than six months) and which may be compromised, particularly if they exhibit the same editing behavior as known offenders? These are, I should add, very predictable puppets. Anville 22:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit to add: Sam Blanning has created a long-term abuse entry for this matter, which see. Anville 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been operating under the assumption that previous rulings, e.g. RFAR/Iasson: One user or several? (a ruling repeated in other cases which I don't remember offhand), allow for the blocking of such compromised accounts, but a change to the wording of the specific case would be appreciated. Only place I disagree with Anville is that I don't think it would be a good idea to include a time limit ("greater than six months") in the amended ruling. The length of time isn't the giveaway, it's the fact that these accounts first display none of the characteristics, then they fall dormant, then they suddenly spring up as Bogdasocks. I wouldn't like to be in a situation where the fact that the account had been compromised would be as obvious as in the case of Bester, but it only fell dormant five months ago.
Arbcom rulings are generally slow to change and risky to ignore, so the Arbcom shouldn't, in my opinion, seek to set out exactly how administrators may act to fight a specific abuser once they've ruled that they need to be dealt with - whether a particular account has been compromised should be left up to the judgement of administrators and the community in general on a case-by-case basis. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Per Sam Blanning's comments and upon further reflection, I've struck out the "six months" part of my remark. Anville 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you're on safe ground blocking the accounts as socks. I don't believe it's necessary to formally change the remedy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recourse for unconfirmed credentials (March 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the depleted uranium case, I presented as evidence several recent articles from the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature in support of my position, but my detractors, about six of whom claimed Ph.D. or M.D. credentials but were unwilling to verify those credentials or their identity, were unable to find any recent peer-reviewed reports counter to my positions, or even to even verify my own citations at their library. One or more of them were probably lying about their credentials. Almost any M.D. would, for example, have access to Athens or a similar full text database, or access to a reference librarian who does. Someone with a Ph.D. in metallurgy ought to have access to a library with J Phys Chem and similar journals from the 1960s. I see that Jimbo has proposed a new policy for verification of credentials, and I would like to challenge my detractors to verify their credentials in accordance with Jimbo's proposal. How may I do so? James S. 20:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-arbitrator, there is no way to verify credentials at this time, and you're missing the point of Jimbo's message. It is not to, for example, force people you don't like to verify their identity or stop editing, nor is it to require such a degree in order to edit. Ral315 » 23:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said ... that contributors still would be able to remain anonymous. But he said they should only be allowed to cite some professional expertise in a subject if those credentials have been verified."[33] James S. 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This request is inappropriate, since it has nothing to do with the "arbitration process". Paul August ☎ 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, this is a very serious problem with the arbitration process. What is and isn't proper behavior (and responsible editing) often depends very much on the facts, and this is particularly true when editors make health claims about toxins. What if Dow Chemical wanted to get a half-dozen people to claim advanced degrees and go to work on Agent Orange, scrubbing it of peer-reviewed scientific literature as has been happening on the depleted uranium article? Shouldn't it be advisable and within the process for the arbitrators or parties to request proof of the advanced and medical degrees claimed, especially, as happened in the depleted uranium, when those degrees were assumed by the arbitrators to be real with no supporting evidence or even knowledge of the identities of those claiming the credentials? James S. 03:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That is only a proposal for consideration by the community and has not as of yet been adopted. It also does not have bearing on the results of your arbitration, and its findings and remedies will not be altered by this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not? Do you think it is just to let stand findings which assumed the credentials were real without any evidence? When the proposal is adopted, I would like leave to raise this issue then. If that is not acceptable, then please let me know why. James S. 20:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification of Derek Smart case (March 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The recently closed ArbCom case for Derek Smart, found here had a number of findings related to sock puppets, single purpse accounts, and a decision regarding "surrogates" of Derek Smart.

I would like clarification from ArbCom on this case. Am I considered a "harmful SPA" with respect to this article? Am I considered a surrogate of Derek Smart?

In my defense, I would like to say that while I have a tendency to focus in on one article and stick with it, I am not a single-purpose account. A quick scan of my activity will show that I have pursued other articles besides this one (albeit following my self-described "one article at a time" habit). Furthermore, while editing this article I pushed no particular POV, sometimes making edits with content that reflected favorably on Smart[34] and sometimes not[35]. In the past I've been vocal in debate against SupremeCmdr and Warhawk/WarhawkSP[36]. I think my position was best summarized by an anonymous respondant to the ArbCom case's workshop page, "Mael-num seems to me to be a neutral editor with a conservative view toward the negative aspects of the article subject's notability, who may have felt that after other editors had been banned from editing, there were potential troubles maintaining neutrality.". The consensus of other editors involved was that I was not working in collusion with SupremeCmdr et al.[37][38][39] Which leads me to my request for clarification. Most important to me is that I would like to know that I am not seen as guilty of something I have not done. It's a matter of principle that I don't want to be seen as a sockpuppet, SPA, or POV-pusher. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Mael-Num 03:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPA says that editing a small number of articles qualifies; and that this may be perfectly innocent. The general remedy speaks this way: Editors are encouraged to use judgment and discretion in enforcement of this remedy, rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion. You may feel the finding of fact is harsh, but it is not now going to change. Charles Matthews 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that answers the question. Is Mael-Num a SPA? Personally I don't think he is, and I understand that it's editorial discretion as to who is considered one, but as Mael-Num was a party to the arbitration, and given the potential negative action he could suffer from editing the article if he is considered an SPA, I think it should at least be clarified as to whether he is or not. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
My reading of WP:SPA is that User:Mael-Num is an SPA. Charles Matthews 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The decision states that Mael-Num was an SPA, and this appears to have been true as of the time that the decision was initially drafted. By the time the case was closed and the decision finalized, and certainly as of today, Mael-Num had diversified his editing activity and certainly is not an SPA with respect to the Derrick Smart article as of today. Whether the decision should be updated to reflect such changed circumstances, or supplemented with a note that administrator judgment should be used in determining SPA status for purposes of applying the remedy, is a matter for the arbitrators' discretion. Newyorkbrad 22:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I would again encourage admins, in particular, to apply 'judgement and discretion' here. There is no need to apply the remedy passed according to the letter. Charles Matthews 13:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it would be wise for User:Mael-Num to adhere to the revert limitation in the remedy to avoid putting administrators in the position of having to make a judgment call regarding whether or not Mael-Num is an SPA. In the event that Mael-Num chooses not to do so, I am confident that the administrator community will review the totality of the circumstances with discretion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appeal of probation (March 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:RFAR/HWY was an arbitration case that placed me on probation in relation to highways articles because of a naming dispute that got ugly. However, not only have I refrained from disrupting the highways articles (except for one controversial block many months ago), but I have made over 13000 edits since that time. The naming dispute has also been satisfactorily resolved at WP:SRNC. Page moves have taken place, and there is peace at the highways section of Wikipedia. I have been influential in building the project infastructure (WP:USRD/NEWS, massive assessment of articles, infobox changes at WP:CASH, and much more). Thus, not as a license to disrupt articles, which I would not do under any circumstances, but as the removal of a blotch on my Wikipedia reputation, I am requesting the removal of my probation on Wikipedia. (Please make this motion separate from the other highways request below). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't involved with the Arbitration Committee back then, so looking at the past case quickly, it appears that there's no expiration for the probation, and that you were blocked in August 2006 for violation of this probation, as you mentioned above. Is this correct? Other arbitrators who were with the Committee then may also wish to comment here, since I'm not familiar with the case. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This is correct. It was for changing the bolded words to match the article titles and for removing links to redirects (which is why I view it as controversial as these are normal Wikipedia activities). However, even if it was justified, it has been several months, the issue is resolved, I have made about 10000 edits since then, etc. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
As a member of the then-sitting Arbcom - I would be in favor of placing a time limit on that probation, based on the lack of recurrence of problems since then, rather than leaving it indefinite. It has been six months since the one and only block due to this probation, more or less - I would be inclined to let this provision expire. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this is now a stale dispute and that the project would be best served by terminating the probation period for all users involved, either immediately or after an additional period of time. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appeal of probation (March 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In July of last year I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I believe that the unusual indefinite length of this probation despite the fact that I have never been a disruptive editor and that no evidence was ever presented against me is arbitrary and unfair. Accordingly, I've chosen to abandon this account in the meantime rather than to tacitly accept the legitimacy of this unjust probation by continuing to edit with it. In October I sought to have this probation lifted but, perversely, my appeal was rejected because I hadn't been editing in the meantime. However, since that time I have been editing without incident as An Innocent Man, and I believe my contribution history there continues to demonstrate that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a disruptive user--and, incidentally, it should be noted that I have not been editing any of the articles I'm putatively enjoined from "disrupting," nor do I have even the slightest shred of a shadow of a desire to ever do so again as long as I live. I would therefore like to ask once again that this unjust probation be lifted.

I am familiar with the rules governing the use of alternate accounts, and I believe my use of this one falls within the bounds of acceptability. I only created it because the thought of using my normal account while I am subject to an unjust probation sickens me. My only intent here is to clear my good name. —phh (t/c) 13:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It's a blot on my good name. I've been contributing productively here since 2003, a tenure longer than that of 99 percent of active contributors. I have never made trouble or asked anybody for recognition. It is wrong that I should be arbitrarily singled out and branded with a scarlet letter and held up before all and sundry as a member of some rogues' gallery when this very page is at this moment filled from top to bottom with tales of contributors who have attacked other users, vandalized pages, blanked pages, edit warred, wheel warred, abused administrative powers, and generally behaved far worse than I ever have or ever will, and I think we all know that only a small fraction of the people named will ever see any action taken against them of any kind.
If I am not engaged in problematic behavior, then I do not belong on a list of people who do. Unlike many—perhaps most—people here, I edit under my own name, not a pseudonym or online identity that can be discarded at will. Nothing is more important to me than my reputation. Nothing.
Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
’Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.
—William Shakespeare
—phh (t/c) 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The findings of fact indicate there was a problem, your subsequent actions indicate that you have resolved it. Well done, that reflects very well on you. Probably better than never having had a problem in the first place, in some ways. One thing's for sure: you're unlikely to get previous findings overturned on the basis of subsequent actions. Have you ever heard of John Profumo? A man who was hounded out of office in one of the most notorious scandals in British political history, but was later honoured by the nation for his charitable work. To rebuild a reputation after a bad event requires real character. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to unring any bells, even one that should never have been rung in the first place. I am merely petitioning to have the probation lifted and my name removed from this list. Any additional rebuilding that needs to take place after that I'll be happy to handle myself. —phh (t/c) 19:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said above (under the appeal written by another user under probation from that case) I feel that placing a time limit on the probation would be a good idea. There has been no recurrence in more than six months, under either of your identities. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appeal of probation in WP:RFAR/HWY (April 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways was an arbitration case that placed me on probation in relation to highways articles because of a naming dispute that got ugly and out of hand. However since that time (9 months ago) I've made over 1000 contributions and edits to the project without any blocks or bans levied against me in that time. Nor have I disrupted or attempted to disrupt any articles, hwy related or otherwise. Page moves have taken place per a consensus that was developed out of this arbitration case, and there is peace at the highways section of Wikipedia. I would like to get this block lifted so as to clean my record and allow me to contribute with a clean slate as I would like to continue my contributions to hwy articles. Also I'd point out that the other two active users who were put on probation have also had theirs lifted as well and they had incurred blocks during they probation period [40], something which I did not have against me. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have made a motion on your behalf as you should be able to see below. A clarification: User:PHenry did not violate probation either, to my knowledge. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tsunami Butler (LaRouche) (April 2007)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

  • On March 5, Tsunami restored to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche details of a LaRouche conspiracy theory known as the John Train Salon, [41] something that Herschelkrustofskuy used to write about a lot. [42] There are no reliable sources for the John Train Salon claim, which is a major LaRouche conspiracy theory, and which arguably defames a number of named individuals. Tsunami reverted twice when others tried to remove it. [43] [44] Talk page discussion here.
  • On March 7, in the same article, Tsunami removed quotes from LaRouche that cast him in a poor light. [45] S/he continued reverting even after other editors added more references for the quotes, which included two Washington Post articles from 1985 and 2004. [46]. Tsunami either removed the quotes or added that they were from unpublished documents "alleged by Chip Berlet" to be quotes from LaRouche. [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] The reverting stopped only when s/he was blocked for 3RR. [54] Talk page discussion here.

I gave Tsunami a final warning on March 13. [55] On March 30, s/he added an arguably defamatory claim (not LaRouche-related that I'm aware of) to John Siegenthaler, writing that Siegenthaler had been involved in a "racially motivated" sting operation masquerading as a journalistic investigation when he was the publisher of a newspaper. [56]

The Seigenthaler thing is indeed a LaRouche claim; I just wasn't aware of it until now. [57] Seigenthaler has been attacked by LaRouche because of his early association with Al Gore, and Al Gore has become a LaRouche enemy because of his views on global warming. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The source she used, the WorldNetDaily website, is perhaps okay for non-contentious material, but not for BLP criticism, and it anyway said nothing about the alleged sting operation being "racially motivated." [58] Kaldari removed the edit as "defamation." [59] I feel that anyone who adds an unsourced accusation of racism to a BLP as prominent as Siegenthaler's, together with a poorly sourced allegation of journalistic dishonesty, doesn't have the interests of the project at heart and is unlikely to change after nearly six months of editing.

To be fair, I should add that Tsunami is not as bad as some of the previous LaRouche editors, and was helpful on one occasion in keeping inappropriate material out of Jeremiah Duggan. I added a quote to the article from a press release issued by Duggan's mother's lawyers alleging that LaRouche's wife had made a negative comment about Duggan soon after his death. Tsunami pointed out that, even though the sources were lawyers, their press release was self-published, and self-published third-party sources aren't allowed for biographical material about living persons. This is correct, so I reverted my edit. [60] However, the few occasions of positive editing are very much outweighed by the disruptive defense of LaRouche.

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

Response

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

SlimVirgin has acted to protect POV pushing by two minor LaRouche critics who have become editors at Wikipedia in order to promote themselves and their agendas, Dennis King (Dking (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)) and Chip Berlet (Cberlet (talk · contribs · count · api · block log).) These two editors, with the protection of SlimVirgin, dominate LaRouche-related articles through excessive citations from websites they control, in violation of WP:OWN, WP:COI#Citing oneself, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The fact that SlimVirgin is abetting them due to a shared POV is demonstrated by comments like this one [61].

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

  • It was removed from a section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche with the header "Conspiracy theories." It strikes me as appropriate that views of LaRouche that are described as "conspiracy theories" be sourced to LaRouche. If it is a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," it would be inappropriate to omit it from that section.
  • The John Train Salon story is the LaRouche organization's response to the attacks by Berlet and King, which dominate the Wikipedia articles. Under NPOV it should be included. There has been a Wikipedia article for the past two years called John Train Salon, which was recently deleted out-of-process by SlimVirgin.
  • As SlimVirgin points out, I didn't add the material -- I restored it, after it was deleted by Dking. When this edit was disputed, I added a third party source at the request of SlimVirgin, which was Daniel Brandt of Public Information Research. SlimVirgin apparently objected to that source as well, but when asked to explain her objection, she refused (diff.) Note that SlimVirgin's response to this edit was to issue a BLP warning that I had "made an edit that may be defamatory."

Regarding her accusation that my edits violated the ArbCom rulings, I have read the rulings carefully, and I have asked SlimVirgin to specify how I violated them. She answered by saying only, "You're acting to promote LaRouche." [62] However, it is clear from the ArbCom decision in question that "promotion of LaRouche" means inserting references to LaRouche in articles where his views are not notable. The heading of the section in question is References to Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin is trying to obtain a "revisionist" interpretation of this decision, which would mean that any objection I raise to the many policy violations of Cberlet and Dking may be considered "promotion of LaRouche." This is the crux of the matter. --Tsunami Butler 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

  • "It was removed from a section of Political views of Lyndon LaRouche with the header "Conspiracy theories." It strikes me as appropriate that views of LaRouche that are described as "conspiracy theories" be sourced to LaRouche. If it is a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," it would be inappropriate to omit it from that section."
  • "The John Train Salon story is the LaRouche organization's response to the attacks by Berlet and King, which dominate the Wikipedia articles. Under NPOV it should be included. There has been a Wikipedia article for the past two years called John Train Salon, which was recently deleted out-of-process by SlimVirgin."
  • No, there was an article with that title created in December 2005 by Herschelkrustofsky. There were no reliable sources to support it, so the page was redirected to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. Then it was speedied by me because the story consists of a set of completely unsupported BLP violations; even the title may be a BLP violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Regarding her accusation that my edits violated the ArbCom rulings, I have read the rulings carefully, and I have asked SlimVirgin to specify how I violated them. She answered by saying only, "You're acting to promote LaRouche." [63] However, it is clear from the ArbCom decision in question that "promotion of LaRouche" means inserting references to LaRouche in articles where his views are not notable. The heading of the section in question is References to Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin is trying to obtain a "revisionist" interpretation of this decision, which would mean that any objection I raise to the many policy violations of Cberlet and Dking may be considered "promotion of LaRouche." This is the crux of the matter."

This is exactly the kind of discussion we used to be forced to have with Herschelkrustofsky, Weed Harper, C Colden, Cognition, etc. There's no understanding of the need for reliable sources, and no appreciation of the need not to defame living individuals, unless those individuals happen to be Lyndon LaRouche or his wife, at which point WP:BLP is suddenly understood with astonishing clarity. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The various LaRouche rulings have not really been kept up-to-date with the evolution of policy—even the most recent considerably predates a number of significant policy developments in 2006 and 2007—so I do not think they should be interpreted as providing for broad restrictions on behavior; the main remedy imposed in them that was not applied to specific parties covered only the introduction of LaRouche-originated material into unrelated articles, in any case. I think anything other than a community sanction here will require a new case to consider the various related issues more thoroughly. Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Kirill, the usual thing with LaRouche editor blocks is to ask the ArbCom for clarification. Having yet another case that relates to LaRouche would surely be overkill. (We've had LaRouche 1, 2, and Nobs01 that contained LaRouche decisions, and numerous clarifications and mediations). WP:NOT is policy and the LaRouche editors use Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas, with scant regard for our editing policies, including BLP. During a previous clarification, the Arbcom replied that: "The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles. LaRouche publications are useful sources about LaRouche's views about LaRouche himself and his organisations / affiliated parties, but are not acceptable sources about anyone or anything else." [64] This is what Tsunami Butler was trying to do by adding the John Train Salon section to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche: use it as an excuse to talk about other people. Here are a list of LaRouche-related arbitrations, clarifications, and mediations in case it's helpful: {{LaRouche Talk}}. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that Kirill has hit the nail on the head, and SlimVirgin is attempting to change the subject. I know that SlimVirgin has orchestrated the banning of a number of editors that she prefers to call "LaRouche editors" for the purposes of Poisoning the well -- but in none of these cases have I seen any evidence that the editors she banned were "using Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas." What in fact these editors did (the most recent example that I know of was User:ManEatingDonut) was to object to the violations of policy, which I enumerated above, by editors Cberlet and Dking. It is in fact Cberlet and Dking that are using Wikipedia to promote themselves and their ideas, many of which fail the test of notability. Cberlet and SlimVirgin have on a number of occasions insisted that the ArbCom decisions have certified the website that Berlet controls, that of Political Research Associates, as an all around Reliable Source. I find nothing in those decisions to support that argument. It is also the case that the LaRouche ArbCom cases predate the WP:BLP policy, and I think that many of the more venomous attacks that appear in the LaRouche articles, sourced to Berlet at the PRA site, ought to be re-examined in light of BLP.
I am not proposing that the LaRouche cases be re-opened. I am suggesting, however, that SlimVirgin's request to block me be seen for what it is: a tactic in a content dispute. This is an attempt to misuse admin authority and it should be rejected. --Tsunami Butler 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me correct just a few of the falsehoods that argue in favor of upholding the previous Arbcom decisions. I do not control the website of Political Research Associates; Political Research Associates has a staff of eight and has been relied on as a reliable source by major daily newspapers and in publications by academics; I am not the director of Political Research Associates, nor have I ever been; I have written extensively about the Lyndon LaRouche network, and and some of my articles appear in major daily newspapers and scholarly publications; I avoid citing my own work on Wikipedia whenever possible; all of the charges made by Dennis King and me are extensively researched and in most cases have been verified by other journalists who have had access to the original documents and former members. I believe that Tsunami Butler is not able to see these types of distinctions, and instead continues to post material that is not suitable for Wikipedia due to its uncritcal and credulous POV support for Lyndon LaRouche, his idiosyncratic (and frankly lunatic) ideas, and the slavish regurgitation of those ideas by his sycophant followers.--Cberlet 02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Berlet may claim that he is just another employee at PRA, but in reality, he is the principal writer there, and is free to post anything he likes on the PRA website, such as this, a special page he set up for his disputes on Wikipedia talk pages. And like SlimVirgin, he slyly tries insinuate that the conflicts on the LaRouche pages are about editors making favorable assertions about LaRouche, when in fact, the conflicts generally arise in response to Berlet and King adding precisely the sort of invective you see in Cberlet's post above. --NathanDW 05:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Once again I am only correcting false and misleading statements. I am one of five people at PRA who write articles for PRA and outside media. I am not free to post anything on the PRA website, we have a web editor, and a research director, and an executive director, all of whom can (and do) reject my proposals on a regular basis. The few pages (out of thousands) on the PRA website that mention Wikipedia and LaRouche were posted because a few Wiki editors were making false (and in some cases defamatory) claims about my work in my outside persona as Chip Berlet. Among these false claims were that I was inventing quotes attributed to LaRouche. This is false. I was finally forced to post actual page scans in some cases before these pro-LaRouche Wiki editors would admit the quotes existed, and even then some persisted in challenging the authenticity of the documents--a false claim that still continues today. The conflicts on LaRouche pages generally arise when pro-LaRouche editors such as Tsunami Butler and NathanDW uncritcally accept as true the relentless falsehoods and lunatic conspiracy theories propounded by LaRouche, (a convicted criminal, and "notorious antisemite,") and his followers. That this is so is shown by the posts above on this page. --Cberlet 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Enough. This is not an appropriate forum for your soapboxing about LaRouche. Kirill Lokshin 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will stop posting comments here after this one which poses a legitimate question to Kirill Lokshin to which I would appreciate an answer here: Why is it acceptable for editors to call me a liar, falsely suggest I am part of a conspiracy linked to entries about LaRouche, and make false statements about my work and the organization for which I work; but when I post comments about LaRouche for which there is copious evidence in reputable published sources, (relentless falsehoods, lunatic conspiracy theories, convicted criminal, notorious antisemite) it is "soapboxing about LaRouche?" Can you consider for a moment that this is exactly the ongoing pattern of inverting reality, conspiracism, and muddying the waters with false claims originating with the LaRouche network that creates the disruptive situation on LaRouche-related pages? I think this is the crux of why what I am posting here is appropriate to the current discussion.--Cberlet 19:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Assessing sources for an entry includes critically assessing its authors, such as you. Andries 20:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact that your comments are unacceptable doesn't mean that others' comments about you aren't as well—false accusations are, of course, inappropriate regardless of any other considerations—but the crux of the matter is that you are an editor here, and hence your behavior is of interest in examining what is occurring here as far as editorial activity is concerned. LaRouche, meanwhile, is not personally involved in the editorial process on Wikipedia, and thus any evaluation of him is entirely irrelevant outside of a discussion of what material articles dealing with him should contain. Kirill Lokshin 20:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reluctant comment

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

Response by arbitrators

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

If I may respond here, I would like to point out that SlimVirgin is proposing to ban me under the ArbCom remedy against "promotion of LaRouche," and as Kirill has noted, the edits of mine that SlimVirgin is objecting to do not constitute "promotion of LaRouche" as specified in the decision. I am also puzzled by your comment that "[e]xpansion of the original research of Lyndon LaRouche and his associates beyond articles with cover him and his associates is not acceptable," since the only articles that have been discussed here are articles which cover him and his associates. --Tsunami Butler 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
LaRouche may be used as a source on himself and his group, but may not be used as a source on anyone else. You were trying to use him as a source on the activities of people associated with the so-called John Train Salon, but LaRouche articles may not be used as an excuse to write about other people. The ArbCom has said: "The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles" (emphasis added). [65] Are you willing to edit in accordance with this? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. But if, as a corollary to your request, LaRouche and his movement are not permitted to respond to the vituperation from Dennis King and Chip Berlet that presently fills the articles about him, then it seems reasonable to me that the self-citing and other quotes from these two minor critics be reduced to a level that is commensurate with their notability. --Tsunami Butler 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem for you is that they are widely regarded as experts. Dennis King has written the only English-language biography of LaRouche, and it's frequently used by journalists. Chip Berlet is a known and respected researcher, and a specialist on LaRouche. The BBC's flagship news program, Newsnight, used him last year when they were doing a segment on the LaRouche movement. Are you saying Wikipedia shouldn't rely for its coverage on the same experts that the rest of the Western media relies on? That's a serious question, by the way, not a rhetorical one. Given that they're widely acknowledged as experts, how do you suggest we handle their input? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, they should be featured at a level commensurate with their notability. Their commentaries seldom appear in the legitimate press. It has been suggested before that a good yardstick would be to cite them when their comments appear in major press, like the BBC show you mention, but not give them carte blanche to self-cite from the websites they either control or dominate. --Tsunami Butler 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Even as this request for clarification remains open, Tsunami Butler is continuing to push a LaRouche POV. I recently added some material from the Berliner Zeitung, a perfectly normal mainstream German newspaper, to Jeremiah Duggan. The material was critical of LaRouche, including: "According to the Berliner Zeitung, 'next to Scientology, [the LaRouche organization] is the cult soliciting most aggressively in German streets at this time'." Tsunami Butler has now added her original research before that sentence in order the undermine the newspaper as a source: "The Berliner Zeitung has been the subject of controversy, because it is Germany's only British-controlled newspaper." [66]
This springs from the LaRouche view that the British establishment is out to get him, the Queen's advisers want to kill him, MI6 left a death threat in a woman's magazine for him a few years ago, etc.
I'm afraid I can't see any practical alternative to an indefblock here, because Tsunami clearly has no intention of stopping this. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
And I agree with TB that this is a content dispute that SlimVirgin wants to win the easy way, by banning an opponent. SlimVirgin is not a neutral admin, or she'd be arguing for the banning of Dking for massive incivility and excessive self-citing. Incidentally, the alleged OR in Jeremiah Duggan was not added originally by TB, but she did restore it after SlimVirgin deleted it. The sentence has now been changed by consensus to something different. --NathanDW 18:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Socks & Seigenthaler

There appears to be more and bolder activity by LaRouche-related accounts in the recent weeks. Yesterday one of them, added extremely derogatory information about Al Gore[67] to a talk page along with a link to an article in LaRouche's Executive Information Review that includes a serious assertion tying John Seigenthaler to "the faction covering up the assassination of President John F. Kennedy." I had to read that twice before I believed what I saw. There may be some sock puppetry going on. User:Herschelkrustofsky (HK) had several well-established accounts later proven to be sockpuppets, one a female, so it wouldn't be beyond him to be behind some of these new accounts including Tsunami Butler. HK also tended to plagiarize and that seems to going on too. Back in January an editor using a new account added incorrect information, obviously copied from a LaRouche-movement newsletter.[68][69]

Regarding the proposed ban, Tsunami Butler appears interested only in pursuing one aim: promoting Lyndon LaRouche and his ideas. Like HK, she engages in lengthy unproductive talk-page debates that never reach a conclusion, and engages in edit warring. She has "has engaged in a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement", a finding of fact in HK's first ArbCom case.[70]. I suggest that Tsunami Butler has a style and behavior similar enough to HK's to warrant banning the account as a sockpuppet. -Will Beback · † · 09:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said in response to SlimVirgin, objecting to edits by Dking and Cberlet does not constitute "promoting LaRouche and his ideas." In fact, since the policy violations by Dking and Cberlet are so rampant, I have often wondered why the two admins, SlimVirgin and Will Beback, never take action against them (although I will concede that Will Beback did mildly chide Dking on his talk page for incivility.) The sock puppet allegations are a lame tactic. I'm sure that they can be disproved by Checkuser. I had never heard of Dr. Gary Carter until I read the above post. I have seen comments on talk pages by Nemesis, who appears to be a young person editing from Germany. --Tsunami Butler 15:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't see a single edit of yours which didn't relate directly to Luyndon LaRouche or his ideas, and I don't see any of edit which didn't improve the position of LaRouche or, in some cases, disparage a group or individual he oppposes. Rather than simply reacting to the edits of Dking and Cberlet, your editing appear to be a primary reason for their current involvement. It's a pattern of editing that we've seen often before and that has resulted in 3 previous ArbCom cases involving HK. -Will Beback · † · 18:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Tsunami continually responds to questions about her own editing by trying to shine the spotlight on Chip Berlet and Dennis King, even when they have nothing to do with the issue. I noted above that she added to John Siegenthaler [71] that he was involved in a "racially motivated" sting operation masquerading as a journalistic investigation when he was the publisher of a newspaper, an edit that is arguably defamatory, and which Kaldari removed as such. [72] The source she used didn't say the investigation was "racially motivated," [73] and the issue originates from a LaRouche publication. [74] She did this after being given a final warning. I therefore see no realistic possibility of change from her. Perhaps Tsunami could explain that edit (without reference to Berlet or King, please). SlimVirgin (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I would explain it as a mistake. I left this message on Kaldari's talk page, to which Kaldari did not respond. I also discussed it on the talk page of the article, and have not pursued the matter further. BTW, check the date on the LaRouche publication that you are claiming is a factor. --Tsunami Butler 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I would like to respectfully submit to the Arbcom the following: if there were a serious problem of disruptive "LaRouche editors," you would think that a wide range of Wikipedia admins would have noticed it and called attention to it. Instead, it's always the same two admins, SlimVirgin and Will Beback, coming back here every couple of months to say "off with his head" regarding some allegedly "LaRouche-supporting" editor. It has been suggested that SlimVirgin and Will Beback have a strong POV with respect to LaRouche -- some might even say a bias (consider this.) Has the ArbCom considered the possibility that SlimVirgin and Will Beback might themselves be a significant part of any problem that may exist? --NathanDW 23:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to make an accusation you should back it up with evidence, not just a link to SlimVirgin's entire contribution list. If you'd like to make a case about editors then you are free to do so. The LaRouche-related actions of SV, myself, and other editors have been reviewed by the ArbCom repeatedly. Except for some warnings to remain cool they haven't found fault. The problem is with the steady stream of LaRouche accounts that keep appearing and pushing the same POV, month after month, year after year. Blaming the responsible admins who patrol these topics is like blaming vandalism on the counter- vandalism unit.-Will Beback · † · 00:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is Kaldari after reverting Tsunami Butler's defamatory edit to Seigenthaler leaving a note about it on my talk page, and commenting that Tsunami is "begging to be banned." [75] SlimVirgin (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If it were simply a matter of you and SlimVirgin, as "responsible admins," enforcing policy, I would expect to see some action taken against Cberlet and Dking. When I don't, it makes me wonder. --Tsunami Butler 14:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
If there are issues with those editors then bring a complaint. This proposal concerns your behavior, and saying "But what about them?!" is not a defense. This account appears to be sock or meat puppets of HK, and should be banned indefinitely based on the previous ArbCom decisions, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Sockpuppet abuse: "Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely." -Will Beback · † · 19:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Baseless accusations of sockpuppetry are just another form of incivility, like your insinuation that I am being paid by the LaRouche organization [76]. This latter strikes me as a rather serious violation of NPA and AGF. --Tsunami Butler 14:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To NathanDW's point above: I will confirm that I, as another admin, believe that there are serious problems with the content, and some of the editors of, the LaRouche-related articles. I'm sure other admins agree with me. SlimVirgin and Will Beback are just in the minority of admins in that they're willing to actually deal with the issue (unlike myself), and for doing so, I commend them. They're not the only ones seeing a problem with the articles by any means. Ral315 » 18:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As a mostly-uninvolved admin: I agree with the active ones here that there's a problem. I just don't have time to get involved in it. Georgewilliamherbert 18:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Fully agree with Ral315 here, and I've had no connection with the articles in question that I am aware of. - Taxman Talk 22:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. A check user has confirmed that Tsunami Butler appears to be sockpuppeting with User:HonourableSchoolboy, another LaRouche account. Given that, combined with the above, I'm going to block both accounts indefinitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to explain how a check user "has confirmed" that TB "appears to be sockpuppeting"? Does that mean anything at all? --NathanDW 01:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Tsunami Butler and HonourableSchoolboy are the same editor, and they are editing from the same general area as Herschelkrustofsky. That, plus behavior, satisfies the duck test. As this thread was started by a banned user, I'm going to close it and archive it at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, which is where Herschelkrustofsky's ban is recorded. Thatcher131 01:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_6&oldid=1143859477"