Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 23:34, 10 April 2007 (→‎A modest proposal: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

Initiated by DurovaCharge! 06:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Certified.Gangsta: [1]
  • Ideogram: [2]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by uninvolved Durova

Certified.Gangsta and Ideogram have disputed for months on articles that relate to Taiwan and have each accumulated five userblocks, most of which are for WP:3RR and edit warring. I initiate this arbitration request in response to a community ban proposal initiated by Ideogram at WP:CN#Certified.Gangsta_redux. Although the editor has downgraded the ban proposal to a 1RR proposal, the extensive revert warring history of both these editors renders any unilateral community sanction inappropriate. It is appears that the CN proposal is a political attempt to get the upper hand in an editing dispute - and even if that appearance proves to be mistaken the CN thread could become a dangerous precedent if it proceeds there. DurovaCharge! 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please describe the nature of the remedies you would hope the Committee might issue? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Ideogram

I have extensively documented three edit wars focused on Gangsta at the RFC above. Note especially that I was not involved in any of the three edit wars and that many editors have endorsed my summary. At this point I do not see a need to document Gangsta's behavior further.

As for my block log, let me note that two of the blocks were overturned, and the other two involved my reversion of my own comments back to talk pages, not article content. If my block log becomes an issue in this case, I will expect a ruling on whether deletion of other people's comments from talk pages is acceptable. --Ideogram 07:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Blnguyen was one of those who blocked me, a block that was overturned. Should he recuse? --Ideogram 07:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:HongQiGong

I've been requested by User:LionheartX to make a statement. From what I've seen, Certified.Gangsta has a habit of being the only one that supports the edits that he makes, against the opposition of multiple other editors. It can certainly test the patience of other editors, but I don't know that being in the minority in terms of editing choices is cause for community action against an editor. Edit-warring might qualify though - but it takes more than one to edit-war. If both Ideogram and Certified.Gangsta have been knowingly violating 3RR, then maybe longer 3RR blocks are necessary. Another easily enforced option is to prevent both from editing articles that they edit-war over. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jiang

Freestyle.king/Bonafide.hustla/Certified.gangsta has long had a habit of edit-warring over multiple pages to further misguided views (to the opposition of multiple editors) in areas which he evidently has no expertise.[3][4] This has led him to remove references of Taiwanese Americans from articles on Chinese Americans (again, to widespread opposition) under the reasoning that "whether Taiwanese canadians are chinese is controversial"[5]. His comments on talk pages are at best a nuisance and at worse blatant trolling.--Jiang 23:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Appeal of Daniel Brandt

Initiated by Fred Bauder at 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC) at the request of Daniel Brandt[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Not applicable, really

Statement by Daniel Brandt

I was indefinitely blocked by user Gamaliel on April 5, 2006 for alleged legal threats. I feel that this blocking was unjustified. It was never fully explained, and over the last year some have interpreted this unjustified block as a "community ban." For example, this indefinite block by Gamaliel is defined as "Banned by the Wikipedia community" on Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users.

I am confused by the difference between an indefinite block and a community ban, except that the latter phrase seems defamatory if it is untrue. This difference needs to be clarified in my case. On the page cited above, as well as on the template on my user page, it says that I am "banned." In the block log itself, it says that I am blocked indefinitely. What is my status? Does anyone know?

I am interested in either getting this block/ban lifted by the Arbitration Committee, or getting a complete statement from Gamaliel as to why the indefinite block was justified. If the latter, a statement from the Arbitration Committee that they concur with Gamaliel is requested. At that point, I will formally ask the Wikimedia Foundation to confirm or reject the Arbitration Committee's position.

This block has prevented me from expressing objections to my biography, in violation of WP:BLP. The initial impetus for Gamaliel's block, as far as I can determine, was that I had a template on my user page that pointed out a new law signed by President Bush in January, 2006. This law involves criminal penalties for certain types of online harassment. I maintain that it was entirely appropriate to point this out on my user page.


Comment by Doc glasgow

What is this supposed to achieve? I've always though that the desire of certain sectors of the community to paint Brandt as some kind of Emmanuel Goldstein hate-figure was crass and overrated his impact on Wikipedia. I'm also on record as believing we should delete his biography, as 1) he isn't that notable 2) he's absolutely right that we shouldn't have negative biographies of nonentities where they clearly object 3) I hate the bloody-mindedness that seems to want to spite and punish him by keeping it. Wikipedia isn't a role-playing game where we invent and fight imaginary daemons. Having said all of that, the notion that we resolve any of those issues by unblocking him is ridiculous. It just won't work, and isn't worth contemplating as a way forward.--Docg 22:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All this ruleslawyering over whether this is a community ban or not is really just bureaucrapic nonsense. Unless we are really seriously considering that unblocking him might be an option, it is pointless. I'm not so much against unblocking him as certain that we are not going to do it. So, unless arbcom are willing to review the wisdom of the decision to retain his bio (and I'd love you to do that, but you won't) then there is sod all point in accepting this case. All we're going to have is more wikidrama then a return to the status-quo. Unless the committee is really willing to break new ground here (and you won't be), then just reject this and be done with it.--Docg 23:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid Sir Fozzie's remarks below perfectly sum up the problem. A myopic and obsessive concern for the in-house role-playing game and that its sacred procedures aren't threatened by some dark conspiracy of Fred Bauer and the 'odious' Mr Brandt.--Docg 09:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tony Sidaway

I share Doc glasgow's general view on this, but I recommend acceptance in order to find that the Brandt article should be permanently deleted. Brandt may be unbanned if there is reason to believe that he will not disrupt Wikipedia (I'm personally veering towards the "no" on this). --Tony Sidaway 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous comment by PullToOpen

Once again, our community has been split neatly up the middle by the issue of this guy's article, let alone his ban. Although the article isn't specifically within the scope of this request (which is nothing but a ban appeal), I feel that the scope of this arbitration case should be expanded to include it. We ought to put this issue to rest so we can stop bickering about it and get back to work with the encyclopedia. I strongly suggest that the ArbCom hear this case. // PTO 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)

I wasn't as into the minutiae of Wikipolitics when this ban went down. Thus, I don't know the context of the legal threats, and I'm not sure if they existed, still exist, or will come in the future. With this said, I urge acceptance of this to review the situation and either affirm the ban in place (which is not a "community ban" as we know it or as really understood), or overturn the ban that's in place as improper. There's probably a logical fear of repurcussion if anyone does anything regarding Brandt or his article at this point, so to expect an admin to step up and unblock him to overturn the "community ban", as FloNight (talk · contribs) puts it, is (IMO) improper and expects more than anyone really should. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gmaxwell (talk · contribs)

I feel that there is an urgent need to state my support of Doc's position.

In my view, there is no need or cause to consider Mr. Brandt's direct request to be unblocked, because arguing his position out on the Wiki is not the correct forum for complaints by the subjects of our article and he has in the past demonstrated himself to be a disruptive editor. However, the arbcom need not limit itself to directly doing as Brandt asked or nothing: There is clearly an underlying issue at play here involving the conduct of many in Wikipedia's editing community over which the Arbcom has suitable jurisdiction.

I am very concerned that the offhand dismissal of this complaint send the wrong message about the official position Wikipedia's community leaders on Mr. Brandt. Furthermore, this rejection by arbcom leaves Mr. Brandt little further recourse beyond litigation against the editors of Wikipedia, which would be significantly against our own interests ,and the Wikimedia Foundation, which would be unsuccessful but would be an unfortunate waste of everyone's time.

A significant number of Wikimedians believe that Brandt's article is so bad that it must be deleted, but not enough yet to get the supermajority required to actually keep it deleted. It seems that because some Wikimedians have decided to use the article as an example of our independence and freedom of speech that no consensus can be achieved.

Mr. Brandt has made an effort here, respecting our community with an olive branch by appealing to the English Wikipedia's designated highest power over the community (vs the foundation which avoids community involvement). We should not disrespect his efforts with such a curt dismissal.

Finally, since arbcom desysoped some of the Wikipedia admins who would keep the article deleted, it can be argued that the arbcom is a primary cause of the articles continued existence. I do not believe this was the arbcom's intent, so an actual judgment on the article and the editors surrounding it might be useful. --Gmaxwell 00:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie (talk · contribs)

I am very concerned that this is an attempt to do an end run around the consensus of the community on the countless number of properly closed AfD debates, in an attempt to delete an article they have a problem with. Mister Brandt has always had a method to deal with BLP violations, despite his banned status, and that is to email the WP Foundation. That does not change, no matter how odious the behavior of Brandt and his supporters. Mister Brandt has had numerous opportunities to work WITH WP, and chose not to. Indeed, he is the lead behind the "Hive Mind" site and Wikipedia Review, two organizations inherently inimical to Wikipedia. I urge the ArbCom to reject this ArbCom request, reject the attempt to cynically circumvent WP procedures to delete Mister Brandt's article, and to affirm his Ban. SirFozzie 01:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Tbeatty (talk · contribs)

ArbCom should accept this as it is the only avenue of appeal. Rarely will an admin undo another admin's action as it is potentially a wheel warring situation. The main question is what will Daniel Brandt contribute to the project that justifies the unblock? If it is to provide input/guidance on privacy as it relates to biographies and to give input on various BLP's and policies, I think his unblock is warranted and should be welcomed. If it is to simply edit his own biography, I don't think his unblock will last very long. --Tbeatty 10:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikipedian that wishes to remain anonymous

Tbeatty has this right. In the current atmosphere, social pressure virtually gaurantees that no admin will unblock those blocked by another admin. On the chance that they do any action on a controversial block, it is gauranteed they will be accused of wheel-warring, and in the resulting flame wars and dispute resolution they face potentially losing their admin bit. Thus, that no one has unblocked Brandt does not provide evidence of wide consensus for a community ban. It only shows one admin did something controversial and no one wants to question it. Yes, the social pressure is so great that even questioning certain actions by certain adminis will engender a loss of reputation in the community.

The arbitrators below saying there is a "community ban" are putting up a billboard proclaiming there is a Hivemind that no-one may question. ArbCom should be a neutral source and they should stand above the crowded mob. Appeals should be viewed neutrally, otherwise there are no checks and balances to the social pressures of the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.55.53 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr. Gustafson

My original block of Mr. Brandt, 17 months ago today, was the result of nearly a month of legal threats and abusive use of sock-puppets by Mr. Brandt to vandalize, troll, and disrupt Wikipedia. The straw that broke the camel's back was his hive-mind page, utilized to stalk and violate the privacy of our contributors. Brandt's main account was banned because of this. I do not see this ban as particularly controversial, or as a "community ban." He had no history of positive contribution, spent his short time here prior to the block aggressively disrupting, vandalizing, and attacking, and he never had any intention to positively contribute to our Project. We ban users like this, without issue, every day, as we should. He was unblocked to be given a chance to contribute, but resumed his disruption on-wiki, and cyber-stalking and legal threats off-wiki.

Outside of my involvement in the original block, in my opinion of the issue as it now stands, Brandt being allowed to contribute is a non-issue: he had many chances, and continues to violate our policies to a shocking degree. He has the same rights in terms of BLP as any, and has the right to express concerns over the content of the article on him through the channels that have been set up specifically for such concerns, specifically through the Foundation Offices. However, he has no right to be a part of this community. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

He uses various IP's to edit wiki already, showing up now and then to edit the his bio. If his concern was truly to help Wikipedia, he would do so, yet I see zero evidence his edits are constructive overall. I find him hardly notable, so the bio on him outweighs the benefit of having it. Regardless, his animosity about anonymous administrators and other issues makes him unlikely to suddenly become a great contributor.--MONGO 22:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

Mr. Brandt's personal website is the most prominent and extensive effort to out the real-world identities of Wikipedians. Sitebanning is the normal response for that type of behavior. If Mr. Brandt were to take down that page and pledge not to renew it I might understand a basis for this arbitration request. As things stand this looks like a question about semantics. Mr. Brandt does evade the ban on IP addresses, as demonstrated here from 29 March 2007.[6] The issue of Mr. Brandt's Wikipedia biography is a separate matter and I'm not certain whether it falls within the scope of Committee action. I'd be willing to support a courtesy deletion (but haven't participated in any of those discussions one way or the other). DurovaCharge! 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a delicate procedural suggestion: Mr. Brandt's statement expresses a wish to have his status clarified (blocked or banned). Clarification could be accomplished through a formal community ban discussion at WP:CN without the Committee's involvement. I don't wish to worsen a situation that is already dismal, so I offer to open a request there and would do my best to maintain a civil discussion. Mr. Brandt may contact me via my Wikipedia e-mail if he is interested in this option. DurovaCharge! 01:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FCYTravis

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case to review the article and its surrounding circumstances. I am in full agreement with Doc glasgow and Gmaxwell here, as I believe that some Wikipedians have tried to turn this sordid affair into a video game, where Daniel Brandt must somehow "lose" so that Wikipedia can "win." I do not believe that such a stark dichotomy exists - we can be a complete encyclopedia without becoming a scandal sheet for living people.

I believe that Brandt has played into his opponents' hands with his provocative and ill-advised "hive-mind" site. But that site's existence has distorted the perspective of many Wikipedians, turning it into a passionate and personal issue, which it should not be. As one of the top-10 sites on the Internet, we must rise above petty personal vendettas and consider a broader and more objective perspective. I believe the community can no longer make dispassionate decisions about this case and thus a review of the "community ban" must naturally fall on the Arbitration Committee. It is not a task which ArbCom members may individually relish, but it is a task which the ArbCom as a whole must, in this case, perform. FCYTravis 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rob Smith aka User:Nobs01

In a previous ArbCom case a complaintant stated,

This case involves establishing the boundaries of proper editing and discussion behavior on Wikipedia when a Wiki editor is also the subject of a Wiki entry under their real name and identity.... If individual Wiki editors are discouraged from editing entries on themselves, what policies might be appropriate to advise Wiki editors who have been in editing disputes with an editor for whom there is an entry? What are the proper boundaries when digging up negative and derogatory information about a fellow Wiki editor with whom one has had a dispute? Is there not a built in bias? Shouldn’t there be some ground rules?
Since Wiki relies on published materials, does a person attacked on Wiki need to “publish” a response to every criticism posted on some marginal website or published in some highly POV print publication? How can persons with entries on Wiki defend themselves against the posting of false, malicious, and potentially defamatory text? [7]

Since ArbCom saw fit to take this previous case, there is no reason Daniel Brandt, "a Wiki editor [who] is also the subject of a Wiki entry under their real name" should not be afforded the same fairness. --Rob Smith

Comment by Renesis

I have not had much involvement in this matter, but have been observing it for quite a while, and I would like to say that I endorse the statement by Durova. -- Renesis (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by someone else's tedentious sockpuppet

Is this a joke? Seriously, I endorse Durova's statement. This is almost criminal. We're talking about a guy whose website outs the personal information of our dedicated volunteers, and who himself has threatened editors with real-life consequences for doing what they're supposed to be doing on Wikipedia. If there's one thing that really concerns me about Wikipedia, it's that so many people are willing to feed this troll, allowing him to edit and defending him when his actions continue to make Wikipedia worse, and in addition, have real-life implications for hard-working volunteers. If he has concerns about his bio, he can use e-mail like he's been told a million times before. No, I have no strong opinion on keeping or deleting his article and no, I don't think he'll stop if we delete it. But has anyone ever asked him directly?

Apparently, one of his backers is Fred Bauder. This is not the first time I've questioned Mr. Bauder's judgement here... He's the one who wanted Yanksox and Geogre banned in the past... I mean, how idiotic is that? He even requested a checkuser on Yanksox to see if he was a sockpuppet of - guess who? - Daniel Brandt. And now he's acting as a proxy for this banned user? Unbelievable. Fred Bauder needs to be removed from this committee, yesterday. Oh, and Mr. Brandt, if you're reading this: If you can figure out who I am, my real name is on Wikipedia, if you do just a little digging. You can use it to find my address and phone number and continue your mindless hypocrisy. If you haven't already. 75.72.150.178 08:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by someone who shall not be named

If DB wants back into our community, he must take down his "hive-mind" page and apologize to Katefan0 and anyone else he has driven away from this site. If he's here solely for the purpose of deleting his bio, then he can be considered a single-purpose account and should therefore be reverted & blocked on sight. 128.2.152.133 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/7/0/0)

  • Reject and uphold the community ban. A community ban is when a user is blocked and no other admin is willing to unblock them. All concerns about your article can be addressed by email. FloNight 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, to consider Brandt's exact status in particular and the interaction of BLP with other policies in general. Kirill Lokshin 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject per FloNight. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept appeal of community ban, consider the status of the article, Daniel Brandt, and the legal issues he has raised, see Rules. Fred Bauder 00:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. The acrimony associated with this case makes standard avenues of appeal very difficult, and everyone does deserve a fair hearing. - SimonP 12:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject and uphold the community ban, per FloNight. Raul654 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Brandt is community banned until such time as admins start to unblock him, while in possession of the facts. (There is no shortage of facts.) It is not within the ArbCom's remit to consider whether the article on him should exist here. Charles Matthews 16:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I do not necessarily agree that the rationale expressed by the original blocking admins is sufficient justification for an ongoing ban. However, it is my view that Wikipedians are responsible for their actions off-wiki (c.f. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC). Mr. Brandt's web site, as well as his posts in other public forums, goes well beyond fair criticism by publishing nonpublic contact information for Wikipedia editors. Thus, I would not support overturning the ban. Mr. Brandt above expresses concern that, as a banned user, he has no means of "expressing objections to [his] biography, [the contents of which are] in violation of WP:BLP". However, he is free to share any ongoing concerns he has regarding his biography by email. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Although there are issues surrounding Daniel Brandt's indefinite block which are of some concern, the issue of Brandt's editing privileges is something of a red herring. I do not believe Brandt has any real interest in being a Wikipedia editor. Rather Brandt's real interests are, what I take to be, serious and legitimate concerns regarding the right to privacy and our articles about living people. In particular Brandt wants his own article deleted. I have some sympathy for Brandt's views in this regard, and I share the concerns of FCYTravis and others above, however deciding such issues are simply not within the Arbitration Committee's purview. Paul August ☎ 21:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, and uphold the community ban, as per FloNight and others. Brandt has other avenues to complain about the content of an article on him; he was finally community-banned having behaved continually in ways that would have earned a ban much more quickly for most others, and has continued to behave unacceptably since. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

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

Tsunami Butler (LaRouche)

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

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

  • On March 5, Tsunami restored to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche details of a LaRouche conspiracy theory known as the John Train Salon, [8] something that Herschelkrustofskuy used to write about a lot. [9] 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. [10] [11] Talk page discussion here.
  • On March 7, in the same article, Tsunami removed quotes from LaRouche that cast him in a poor light. [12] S/he continued reverting even after other editors added more references for the quotes, which included two Washington Post articles from 1985 and 2004. [13]. Tsunami either removed the quotes or added that they were from unpublished documents "alleged by Chip Berlet" to be quotes from LaRouche. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] The reverting stopped only when s/he was blocked for 3RR. [21] Talk page discussion here.

I gave Tsunami a final warning on March 13. [22] 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. [23]

The Seigenthaler thing is indeed a LaRouche claim; I just wasn't aware of it until now. [24] 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)[reply]

The source she used, the WorldNetDaily website, is perhaps okay for non-contentious material, but not for BLP criticism, and it anyway said nothing about the alleged sting operation being "racially motivated." [25] Kaldari removed the edit as "defamation." [26] I feel that anyone who adds an unsourced accusation of racism to a BLP as prominent as Siegenthaler's, together with a poorly sourced allegation of journalistic dishonesty, doesn't have the interests of the project at heart and is unlikely to change after nearly six months of editing.

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

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

Response

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

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

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

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

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

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."

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

This is exactly the kind of discussion we used to be forced to have with Herschelkrustofsky, Weed Harper, C Colden, Cognition, etc. There's no understanding of the need for reliable sources, and no appreciation of the need not to defame living individuals, unless those individuals happen to be Lyndon LaRouche or his wife, at which point WP:BLP is suddenly understood with astonishing clarity. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Kirill, the usual thing with LaRouche editor blocks is to ask the ArbCom for clarification. Having yet another case that relates to LaRouche would surely be overkill. (We've had LaRouche 1, 2, and Nobs01 that contained LaRouche decisions, and numerous clarifications and mediations). WP:NOT is policy and the LaRouche editors use Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas, with scant regard for our editing policies, including BLP. During a previous clarification, the Arbcom replied that: "The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles. LaRouche publications are useful sources about LaRouche's views about LaRouche himself and his organisations / affiliated parties, but are not acceptable sources about anyone or anything else." [31] This is what Tsunami Butler was trying to do by adding the John Train Salon section to Political views of Lyndon LaRouche: use it as an excuse to talk about other people. Here are a list of LaRouche-related arbitrations, clarifications, and mediations in case it's helpful: {{LaRouche Talk}}. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Enough. This is not an appropriate forum for your soapboxing about LaRouche. Kirill Lokshin 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Assessing sources for an entry includes critically assessing its authors, such as you. Andries 20:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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). [32] Are you willing to edit in accordance with this? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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." [33]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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[34] 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.[35][36]

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.[37]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [38] 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. [39] The source she used didn't say the investigation was "racially motivated," [40] and the issue originates from a LaRouche publication. [41] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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." [42] SlimVirgin (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Baseless accusations of sockpuppetry are just another form of incivility, like your insinuation that I am being paid by the LaRouche organization [43]. This latter strikes me as a rather serious violation of NPA and AGF. --Tsunami Butler 14:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Request to reopen Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

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

I am convinced that the banned user, 195.82.106.244, is re-incarnating in various forms ranging from agressive [44] to comical [45]. After first appearance these usually escalate to a once or twice daily revert cycle. This user has also appeared to state his/her case on Thatcher131's talk page [46].
More recently another user, Green108 who I also strongly suspect is associated with the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website forums [47] made a very agressive and attacking series of posts on the BKWSU article talk page [48] and edits with what I consider to be a defiant, cavalier attitude. Attempts to reason with this editor were greated with the response, "...i am not interested in speaking with you" [49] [50] [51].
I would like to see a solution that strongly enforces the principles of the existing Arbcom ruling and the basic requirements of etiquette, civility, no personal attacks and good faith so that the responsible editors can continue without intimidation. I would also be happy with a solution where the article is only edited by trusted editors, even if that doesn't include me. A solution is required for the talk page as well as the article itself since the taunting and baseless accusations are off-putting for any would-be editors.
Thanks & regards Bksimonb 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia capable of enforcing its desicions? Is the ArbCom for "real"? Does Wikipedia want an encyclopedic/academic article here with representative neutral input? [52]
I would like to support BKSimonb idea of having this Brahma Kumaris article only edited by trusted editors. The details of how this could work could be discussed later once the principle of this idea is accepted. Blessings from the heart, avyakt7 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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


Since the arbritration, several editors have taken the cue and provided references. Certainly the atmosphere seems more adversarial than, for example, the Cheese article, which contains few references, presumably because of general agreement among the editors about the history and manufacture of cheese. Nevertheless, the BKWSU article has, in my opinion, reached a higher standard of rigor than previously. Actions of the BK IT team mercilessly deleting material without citations, while adversarial, has resulted in an increase in cited material.Duality Rules 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that the article is better than it used to be. I do not understand why BksimonbThatcher131 considers Green108's possible off-Wikipedia affiliation relevant. Andries 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I consider it to be an "attack" site with a clear agenda that is in opposition to the stated purposes of Wikipedia. If you look at some of the paragraphs above and imagine that it is jews or blacks being talked about instead of BKs then it should be quite obvious what the problem is. Also civility is a core policy on Wikipedia and that is the main basis of my complaint [53].
We have also been treated to a wonderful muppet show of sock and meat puppets since the arbcom ruling, you even welcomed one of them yourself [54] :-) Thatcher131 needs some way to enforce the principles of the arbcom ruling because right now someone or some people out there are using brute force, persistence and aggression to run rings around the rulings.
I have absolutely no problem with any editor that doesn't behave disruptively, for example, I have found Duality Rules to be perfectly reasonable and civil.
BTW I appreciate your input to the article. You raised some good points there. Bksimonb 07:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that affiliation with a website critical of a certain faith should be a problem on Wikipedia as long as somebody's wikipedia behavior is okay. For a comparison, I think it is crazy to ban all Christians who are memberrs of a local Christian community from the article Christianity. I am aware that most arbcom members will not agree with with me, but I continue to hold the opinion that their reasoning is completely flawed in this respect and I will continue to refute and oppose their reasoning wherever I see it. Andries 08:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andries. I agree with you completely that affiliation with a critical website alone should not be a problem as long as someone's behavior is OK. That is why I mentioned Duality Rules because in the arbcom case he strongly promoted the site but I have found him to be civil and unbiased. So there is no problem there as far as I am concerned. The same can not be said of 244 who was found by arbcom to be uncivil, biased in editing and to have threatened another editor. The same applies to other editors who behave in a similar disruptive way. If the disruptive style is sufficiently similar then perhaps association with that website, that evidence suggests 244 is running and setting the whole tone of, has something to do with it.
Regards Bksimonb 12:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

I have reviewed the editing and find it generally reasonable. Please continue to improve the article. Fred Bauder 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel

In response to a request at my user talk page I performed an investigation on two IP addresses that have been active at the Jonathan Sarfati biography, which is one of the articles from which Agapetos angel has been indefinitely banned. At User_talk:Durova#AA_meeting Otheus, who appears to have acted in good faith, petitioned me to investigate the possibility that 60.242.13.87 and 58.162.2.122, both of which have been blocked[55] or warned[56] per this arbitration case, are not the same person as Agapetos angel. Otheus presented evidence both onsite and via e-mail in support of that possibility.

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

I note that the original article-ban remedy was applied to (among others named) User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204, as well as "any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel." I suggest, unless the AC wishes to make a clarifying statement to some other effect (or the user(s) concerned wish(s) to appeal the original remedy), that the best course would be to have an uninvolved admin review the blocks, with particular regard to whether these are the same editor as sanctioned previously in a similar IP range, and/or have engaged in sufficiently similar behaviour to merit such sanction. Alai 02:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestions. That has already been done. This particular rabbit hole goes rather deep. DurovaCharge! 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

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


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=121810630"