Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting Arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also

• Arbitration policy
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
• Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template

Purge the server cache

How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

• Click the "[edit]" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
• Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
• Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
• Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
• Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Steele359 Abuses

Initiated by user 84.205.33.62

Involved parties

• Steel359 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) aka Steele
• Gwernol (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• 84.205.33.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), same user as 71.111.148.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Yes Both Parties Defendants have been Notified.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

As Described belowed Steele 359 grossly abused his sysops powers to not only block me but also blanked my user page and deleted my request thereby preventing me from any way of communicating with other Admins.

Statement by 192.168

Please note I initially posted the incorrect 2nd link. The correct link is now provided and makes a substanital difference. With reluctance I need to report a serious and gross violation of due process and abuse of Sysops powers by User Steel359. As shown in the diff evidence below. Steel359 (who deceptively signs his posting Steele only) not only blocked me from making NPOV edits but then proceeded to further abuse his Sysops powers.

I have caught Gwernol involved in blatant Lie before the Committee. He says right below that he has never called me a "menace". Let me quote from his talk with Steele359 "This user has been around before on different IPs, I believe, and is a long-term menace to the Jodi Foster article." (unfounded statements BTW) The link is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steel359 At the bottom of the page on #20. This show how little credibilty Gwernol has and what sort of ill will he has toward lowly editors.

Most importantly he (Steele359) BLANKED/DELETED my request for an Unblocking on my talk page(very shortly (ie about 2 minutes after)after I put up this request, within minutes). This I believe is a VERY SERIOUS Abuse of Sysops powers b/c it prevents ALL other Sysops/Admins from reviewing his arbitrary actions. He then proceeded to Blank some opinion statements on my own Talk page! Granted I express some opinions on my Talk page based on facts but thre was no need to delete them. There were no personal attacks by me only expressions of sadness of being victimized. The diff evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A71.111.148.121&diff=86597667&oldid=86597343

What Steele359 did is a Gross violation of the spirit of Due Process and Free Speech and Wikipolicy against Vandalism and Fairness for an editor trying to contribute. It is also I think a Very Serious violation to Delete an important Request for an UNBLOCKING without giving Other ADMINS the opportunity to review his actions. This is a Serious infringment on other Admins' right to review the actions of arbitrary actions by Admins like Steele359. Here is evidence of Steele359's blanking of a important request. Careful examination would show a cover up by Steel359 of his block of opinions he disklike. It seems very McCarthyite of him to say the least. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.111.148.121&action=history

With both the block and Delections and then Talk page Protection (all by Steele 359) I had no recourse to communicate to anyone in Dispute Resolution. Steele359 made sure of that. If that is not an abuse of Admin Powers I don't know what is.

I was also subjected to Ad Hominem attacts by Gwernol who called me a "menace" and started this by making arbitray reverts to my good faith attemps to help edit the Jodies Foster article. Basically Steele359 felt he could be judge, jury, and executioner without any review by fellow editros/Admins. I've suffered great emotional distress and have been the subject of libelous actions by Gwernol and Steele. I would prefer to settle this through the ArbCom. Steele359's actions have not only hurted me but more importantly the WikiCommunity by infringing on fellow ADMINS rights to review the powerful actions of an Admin determined to get his way and then cover it up by deleting a valid Request for Unblocking. The Blanking of a User's talk page is also a serious violation I believe.

I respectfully request that Steele359 for his violations be given a 3-4 month suspension from Admin powers and Gwernol also be give 1 month sentence for his editor baiting and arbitrary reverts. I reserve all my legal rights under state and federal law. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

This is a totally different case than the 1 mentioned by Clerk Thatcher since this 1 involves Steele359's actions. If his actions are allowed without consequences than this will only hurt Sysops abilty to do their job and police abusive actions by other Admins such as Deleting Requests for Unblocking w/o giving other Admin to look at the Req.

JBKramer should know their was nothing defamatory about my NPOV edits to assert so is libelous but I'l let it pass for now. You also have no standing in this case and should not be asserting your abitrary ignorant opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.165.103 (talk .

Both you and Steele359 have been notified of this case. Also you say that you never called me a "menace". This is a Blatant Lie. Please check my statement above with links. I request the ArbCom does so also. Thanks.

The fact that I pointed out Gwernol's falsehood and Nixonian cover-up of denying that he called me a "menace" confirms nothing except Gwernol's unwillingness to be honest before the ArbCom. He continues his irresponsible, totally unfounded assertions of calling me a "long-term POV-pusher from multiple IP addresses". These statments have no evidence or foundation in facts and just shows an out of control Admins with malicious intent on a good faith editor. Gwernol has also very recently reverted an edit I made on the Foster article where I just rearranged a paragraph to clarify the section on "Branching Out". This was a pefectly reasonable edit (like all my other ones) I have reason to believe Gwernol's revert was done purely out of spite. Relevant link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jodie_Foster&diff=86867342&oldid=86867271

Comment by totally uninvolved encyclopedic protection activist User:JBKramer

Inserting defamatory content into articles after being warned is unexusable. Alleged "great emotional distress" means that we clearly need to keep user from editing the encyclopedia, to prevent such. In the interest of mental health, I suggest editor should be banned from editing until such time as they provide a doctors note evidencing a clean bill of mental health. JBKramer 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Newyorkbrad

Steel359 blocked an IP user for 24 hours for repeatedly inserting unsourced innuendo and gratuituous negative POV into the biography of a living person. (At least one of those edits should probably be deleted from the page history.) The block was clearly justified and arguably lenient. The only issue here is what action to take regarding the continuing incivility and implied legal threats in the request for arbitration. Newyorkbrad 17:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Gwernol

This RfAr is inappropriate both procedurally and based on the facts of the case. Procedurally because Steel and myself have never been notified of it by the complainant. More importantly because no attempt has been made at dispute resolution before coming here. The complainant was notified that dispute resolution was the correct step to try [1], but chose to ignore this.

On the facts the complainant is simply wrong. His edits to Jodie Foster were clearly WP:POV [2], [3] and the user was rightly called on this by multiple editors including myself and Steel. The user continued to edit war and revert in their preferred edits against consensus and indeed continues to do so while this RfAr is active [4]. The user is factually wrong that I called him a "menace" and that they had no mechanism to communicate with admins, since both Steel and myself have email enabled.

There is reason to believe (since this user is on a dynamic IP) that several earlier incidents of POV-pushing at Jodie Foster are by the same editor and also that the spurious accusation against me that Tatcher131 noted are by the same user. I suggest that we are dealing with an inveterate POV pusher who for some reason is determined to get his negative view of Jodie Foster on Wikipedia. There is a several month's long history of multiple editors working to keep this POV out of the article and I suggest Steel is commended for his appropriate action to help safeguard the WP:NPOV of this article. Gwernol 03:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: sorry, I did indeed call the user who has been continually pushing a WP:POV on Jodie Foster a "menace" in my comment to Steel. I'd like to thank the complainant for pointing that out (I had forgotten) and confirming that he/she is the long-term POV-pusher from multiple IP addresses that I referred to. Gwernol 14:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This appears to be a reincarnation of this rejected case, involving similar claims surrounding anonymous edits made to Jodie Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thatcher131 17:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Threaded comments moved. Please make remarks in your own section only. Thatcher131 04:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Iran-Iraq War

Initiated by ^demon at 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Marmoulak (talk · contribs) Notified
• Marky48 (talk · contribs) Notified
• Khosrow II (talk · contribs) Notified
• L0b0t (talk · contribs) Notified
• CJK (talk · contribs) Notified
• ^demon (talk · contribs) - Only as filing on behalf of the MedCom, no actual involvement in dispute.

Previous attempts at dispute resolution:

Request for Mediation which was Rejected by myself today.

Statement by ^demon

Copied+pasted from my rejection of the RfM:

Reject: I was going to notify the two non-signing parties that they needed to sign in order for Mediation to continue, but upon an inspection of Marmoulak's talk page, I came across this section. The comment made by Marky48 (diff), with the edit summary of "Say goodnight Dick," followed by his second comment lead me to believe he is not sincere in mediation, and merely wishes to impose punishment upon those disagreeing with him. For these grounds, I am rejecting mediation, as I feel it will not be conductive. I hereby refer the case to the ArbCom for a binding resolution.

Statement by Marky48

I brought this up for mediation because of multiple reverts with two users who have been writing the article for a year. Both are Iranian and this is only an issue if it affects NPOV. It has been noticed early on in the discussion Talk:Iran-Iraq War it is heavily tilted in favor of Iran who appears guiltless in the whole lengthy piece, and the US and Iraq are hammered using allegations by far left independent journalists and professors inflating the role of the US in instigating and prosecuting the war for apparently their own ends.

"Allegedly there was a secret encouragement by the US administration (President Jimmy Carter, conveyed through Saudi Arabia) which was embroiled in a dispute with the new Islamic Republic of Iran.

My concern is this assertion in the lead paragraph. It's a rumor. All sources have said in their sources that it is an "allegation," and based on one sentence by then SOS Alexander Haig, not exactly a disinterested party in seeing Jimmy Carter fail. Haig refuses to comment on his statement about Carter supposedly "greenlighting" the war and no one has seen the memo, thus, it's a minor allegation. As used by these two editors it's a smoking gun and the lead cause of the war. They've said as much. I erased it; moved it further down in the US involvement section, and added an "allegedly," only the latter remains, albeit with a fight from the two users over it, but allegations don't go in the lead. This isn't a British tabloid.

Moreover, the chemical weapons section is likewise heavily skewed to US contributions which are small in comparision to other countries and identified in the article. No worries, a small US company gets the lead graphs, and two Bell helicopters the indictment for deliberately spreading chemicals over the citizenry of Irag and Iran. These two seem to think that if a journalist says it it's gospel truth. In every case here they report an allegation not a proven fact. Sure it's a source, but an inconclusive one, thus the claim should not be in a neutral piece. I have a journalism degree and if we had written this piece for a class we'd have flunked. It's screamingly biased and so flooded with sources that anyone reading the leads would just accept that position. They won't see anything else. That's why allegations work so well as propaganda.

And one statement on personal conduct. It is insulting to be goaded and refuted after weeks of argument for attempting to get an infractor to go to mediation. I failed at that but let's not make this about minor process infractions, albeit extremely subjective. For example a so-called personal attack is identified in a response to an attack and slur, and the original slur just goes unpunished. That just happened here and it can occur frequently. Don't let the guilty get away with this. They play the administrators here like a Tennessee fiddle. It's not right or helpful and is a side issue at best. The content is where the focus should be not personalities.

Marmoulak (talk · contribs) refused to sign the mediation. He's the only one who wouldn't and since he is the gist of the problem that pretty much killed the mediation not anything I said or did in trying to change his mind according to Demon. That's a fallacy of false cause. He knows he'll fail under scrutiny. I've outlined why.

Is there an arbitration committe member who isn't from England? And keep in mind my lineage comes from Colburn, Yorkshire. The Iranian kid won't sign on to a mediation. What part of that is unclear? How do we get mediation without enforcement capability? I'm afraid I don't follow this sort of pretzel logic. Perhaps someone could explain this angle to me?Marky48 03:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of edit war over these same edits.[5]Marky48 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Uninvolved User Newyorkbrad

Based on the types of comments the arbitrators have made in other cases recently, I think they are likely to request more specific evidence that there is a problem with this article and the user conduct relating to it, including specific diffs, before they can consider accepting the case for arbitration. The diffs above and in the mediation request reflect some incivility, but do not yet establish problems at the level that usually lead ArbCom to accept a case. I'm just putting this here to save some time if the initiator of the case or anyone else want to post additional information before the arbitrators start commenting/voting. Newyorkbrad 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/2/0/0)

• Reject. Only shallow grounds given for not taking this seriously to mediation. Charles Matthews 10:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, as per Charles Matthews. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, mediation was rejected. Fred Bauder 03:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Israeli POV

Initiated by Carbonate at 03:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• User:Carbonate
• User:Nielswik
• User:Cafzal
• User:Isarig
• User:Tewfik
• User:Elizmr

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Carbonate 03:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict talk
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict refused by Isarig and Tewfik.

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by User:Carbonate

User:Isarig has accused me of numerous things including POV, SOAPBOX and OR while engaging in those very acts or requiring them for any compromise. Requests for mediation have been refused and any reasonable dialog has come from the neutral 3rd parties. The page in dispute was finally locked by an admin that is also pro-israeli after it was again reverted to exclude the chart in question. The comment on the lock was "work it out in talk" despite a refusal for any compromise in talk and a refusal to mediate. Although Isarig has not commited 3RR violations, other pro-israeli editors conviently show up when 3RR has been exhausted.

Requested evidence of edit waring

• [6]
• [7]

I would also like to add that no compromise was reached despite efforts by CP/M of Wikipedia Neutrality Project who made suggestions of which most (if not all) of the initial ones were implemented in the current version. After these initial changes were made, Isarig continued to revert at which point I filed for mediation. Almost five days passed before a response was made by Isarig or Tewfik to the medation and they pointed to further suggestions by CP/M which were found to be unacceptable by everyone else as compromise that was imminent and refused mediation on that basis.

Isarig also fails to mention in his statement that the numbers he wants included are contested as WP:RS in this and other articles which he is participating in an edit war. [8].

Requested evidence of biased editing

Bias against arabs

• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

Bias for Israel

• [12]
• [13]
• [14]

I am limiting myself to 3 on each but I can provide many more if requested. These, I think, show the trend. Carbonate 07:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by {Isarig}

I have not refused mediation. At the time mediation was proposed, a compromise was reached by the editors who participated in the content dispute, so there was no point in mediating it. Carbonate was the only one who refused that compromise. The POV nature of the chart he insists on adding is explained in detail on the Talk page. In short, a Pie chart can inherently present only one set of numbers, while there are multiple such sets in this case, and Carbonate insists on using just one set, and has explicitly admitted that set discounts the claims of one side.

Statement by Elizmr

I agree with the statement by Isarig above. Elizmr 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved party) JoshuaZ

This is largely a content dispute and in any event has not gone through any prior dispute resolution. JoshuaZ 04:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by (not listed party) Amoruso

I agree with the statement by Isarig above. Amoruso 06:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tewfik

In Talk:Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict#Compromise suggestion, CP\M suggested a compromise that was accepted by all parties (from both sides of the discussion) except for Carbonate, which is why the mediation opened then was deemed unnecessary. If mediation is felt to still be necessary, so be it, but the proper avenues of dispute resolution are far from being exausted. Tewfik^Talk 06:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Nielswik

I agree with Carbonat --Nielswik_(talk) 11:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Please present evidence of a problem of behavior, like edit warring or incivility. Dmcdevit·t 19:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Tentatively reject. Although the presentation of this request is poor, I can tell that the edit warring here looks bad, but it should be mediated first. Dmcdevit·t 02:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• I might accept if you show biased editing, but you don't even show that. Fred Bauder 14:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reject; doesn't seem enough for an arbcom case (yet, at least). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Charles Matthews 22:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

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

Sathya Sai Baba request nr. 2

Dispute about the fact whether an article about Sathya Sai Baba in salon.com qualifies as a reliable source. article in salon.com This question has already been treated extensively in mediation. [15] Now user:SSS108 changed his opinion because he states that salon.com is a self professed tabloid and because he states that it is only published online. He says that he was unaware of this during mediation. Andries 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose a centralized discussion for the question whether salon.com is a reliable source. Talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia. Andries 23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

During mediation, I was under the impression that Salon.com was a published magazine. Since that time, I have since discovered that Salon.com is exclusively an internet tabloid. Goldberg's article is only available as an internet resource and has never been published by multiple reliable media sources. It is only available on Salon.com. David Talbot (founder of Salon.com) described Salon.com as a "progressive, smart tabloid" [16]. When it comes to Biographies Of Living People, the standards are higher and stricter when the material in question is critical and potentially libelous. Since this article contains critical, negative and potentially libelous information against Sathya Sai Baba, it does not (in my opinion) meet the standards for reliable sources as outlined in WP:BLP and WP:RS. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Arguing that salon.com is not a reliable source is on the verge of evidencing bad faith. How many strikes will people get? JBKramer 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com, as an online tabloid, is generally considered reliable because their articles are published by reputable or reliable sources. The article in question has not been published by other reputable or reliable sources. The article looks and sounds like a tabloid-article and it is suspect for this reason alone. No one is attacking Salon.com as an entity. Rather, due to Salon's online tabloid status, the article in question has it's reliability in question. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JBKramer that SSS108 attempts to remove information sourced to salon.com is close to being disruptive. Salon.com is never on paper and is used extensively throughout Wikipedia for living people, because it is a fine, accessible reputable source. It is irrelevant by whom or where is salon.com is cited because salon.com itself is a reputable source. The only reason why SSS108 wants to make an exception for the Sathya Sai Baba article seems to be because he does not agree with the critical stance of the Salon.com article on Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 00:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon has an editorial board, an editor-in-chief, and an extensive corrections section. I see no reason not to treat it as a reliable source.Thatcher131 00:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I made my case here: [17] & [18]. People are confusing Salon.com with a particular tabloid article on Salon.com, a self-professed online tabloid magazine (that has not been published anywhere else except on Salon.com). This particular article does not meet Wikipedia's policies of reliable sources, in my opinion. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the Salon article is a reliable source for the fact that there are numerous allegations. I would not use material regarding any particular allegation. That relies only on the victim's testimony. Any particular reported instance may easily be false. Salon is not a tabloid in the sense that its contents are reasonably considered unreliable. Fred Bauder 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways - request reexamination of probation ruling

I'm told this is the appropriate place to come for this appeal. In July, I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I have chosen not to participate as an editor at Wikipedia rather than continue editing while subject to an unjust probation. In the nearly four months since that decision, I believe, subsequent events have demonstrated rather starkly that arbitrator Fred Bauder's initial assessment of the cause of the dispute was correct, and that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and I should never have been placed on probation in relation to this matter. In addition, the underlying dispute has been harmoniously resolved, which suggests that the need for probation, assuming such need ever existed in the first place, has now ended. Accordingly, I request that this probation be formally lifted. Thank you. —phh (^t/_c) 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Motion made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FHighways.23Probation. Fred Bauder 20:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to the points below: a) JohnnyBGood just left the project, leaving at least a few months of good behavior behind him (from July until now). b) My block was controversial, but if my probation is not lifted for a while because of it I will understand; however it should not reflect poorly on the other editors. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm right here in case anyone had wondered. I just blanked my talk page and userpage :) JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

User:SlimVirgin reverted this edit by 172.194.169.47, with no editing memo explanation. I didn't see the need to do that, so I put the external link back in this edit. SlimVirgin then left a message on my talk page implying that I could be blocked for doing so. I asked for clarification as to whether she was threatening me with a block, and she replied with these words.

I don't plan to replace the external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article, but I would like to know whether SlimVirgin is accurately describing the Arbitration Committee ruling, and whether it really applies to an external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article. There are about 19 footnotes and external links to LaRouche websites on the Lyndon LaRouche article. Are they all forbidden by the Arbitration ruling as well? If not, what makes this particular link different? Please post your answer at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Policy_Question so that other editors will be aware of it. Thanks in advance for your time. --ManEatingDonut 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin may have been confused. The relevant ArbCom ruling, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, states:

• 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.

Thus, LaRouche sources may be used for LaRouche articles. However the link that was added was not relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche, and should haev been remoevd for that reason, not for violating this ruling. -Will Beback 03:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

First, for the benefit of the ArbCom, the issue is that the LaRouche publication ManEatingDonut wanted to link to was about a living person.

Will, I would interpret the ArbCom rulings as meaning that LaRouche publications may not be used as sources about third parties, regardless of whether it's in articles about LaRouche or elsewhere. (There's the ruling you quoted, and there was mention of the issue during a case involving Chip and again in relation to Cognition, but I'd have to search for them.) ArbCom apart, the content policies indicate that LaRouche publications may only be used in articles about the LaRouche movement to make points about that movement, and may not be used as third-party sources, whether in articles about LaRouche or anywhere else. The relevant policies are WP:BLP and WP:V. The latter says that sources of dubious reliability — defined as "sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight" — may be used in articles about themselves so long as the material "does not involve claims about third parties ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin is correct here. 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. Will Beback is also correct that in any case the link given was not on topic for the article and thus deletable anyway. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Explained that way, it seems like a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the ruling. -Will Beback 23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have looked over the article in question (the one that was the target of the external link) and it appears to me that it is entirely "relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche." It discusses many of LaRouche's various campaigns and issues. It is mainly a rebuttal of the theories of Berlet, theories which dominate most of the Wikipedia articles on LaRouche. But I am mainly interested in a precise clarification of what the Arbitration ruling means, because I have seen Berlet threaten other editors with this ruling as well (see Talk:National_Caucus_of_Labor_Committees#Disputed.) Perhaps there should be clarification on this example as well. The edit that appears to have provoked the threat is here. --ManEatingDonut 15:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The material on the external link mainly concerned Chip Berlet, not LaRouche, thus removal was appropriate. Fred Bauder 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an additional issue that was under consideration in the first LaRouche case - the fact that LaRouche organizations publish an extremely large amount, responding to all criticisms. Excessive citation of this material when describing controversies surrounding LaRouche leaves the mistaken sense of giving LaRouche the "last word" in every dispute. Phil Sandifer 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, but may I also ask whether there was something wrong with this edit referred to above? --ManEatingDonut 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems OK, perhaps I'm missing something though. Fred Bauder 18:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

But following this way of reasoning means that we should also remove the homepage of Michael Moore from the article Michael Moore because it makes negative statements about George W. Bush. I think that is absurd. Moore is notable because of his criticism of Bush. Andries 18:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation

Moved that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry be removed from the probation imposed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Log_of_blocks_and_bans shows that only SPUI continues disruption with respect to highway names. Fred Bauder 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. That the probation is alleged to be failing in regards to SPUI does not appear to be a good argument to remove it for the precise editors it appears to be succeeding for. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
2. PHenry and JohnnyBGood both left the project. That doesn't demonstrate good behavior, even though they may have empty block logs. Rschen does have a block for violation. Dmcdevit·t 08:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Abstain:

SPUI

With respect to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation based on block log SPUI's block log and the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SPUI.._again SPUI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Fred Bauder 10:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 10:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. While there are a number of blocks, I only count 3 related to his probation conditions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. There is already a provision in our original decision for a longer term block in the case of incorrigibility. "After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year." The community is free to impose bans before then, of course, but I don't see the need for our intervention. Dmcdevit·t 08:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Archives

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