Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

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

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox	Motion	none	10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings	none	none	12 July 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 accept votes are cast. 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.

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

User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau (formerly User:Musikfabrik), et al.

Initiated by Adam Cuerden ^talk at 00:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Users involved

• User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau, formerly part of User_talk:Musikfabrik
• Adam Cuerden ^talk
• User:Folantin
• User:Moreschi
• User:Makemi
• User:Ssilvers

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notes will be left on talk pages immediately after finishing this writeup.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

All other steps have been tried:

• It is very hard to avoid him: Jean-Thierry Boisseau, the main subject of this case, keeps undoing edits and other similar things.
• Disengagement is difficult: Jean-Thierry originally objected to an article being NPOV, so I and others worked extremely hard, taking it in good faith, and worked, with his approval, to create an NPOV technique to get the page NPOV. Promptly on having finished, Jean-Thierry Boisseau changed tact and began accusing us of horrible sexism, tried to get various orginisations set against us, and other such things. I edit under my own name. To accept this could be dangerous.
• Mediation and similar options: I believe I and User:Makemi counted as mediators in the first instance: I was trying to deal with issues he raised, after coming to that page briefly from another project, and rather agreeing with his attempts to makie it NPOV. Unfortunately, this presumed he was acting in good faith: The very act of creating this NPOV listing, which he initially approved of, has led to him, in the end, upping the degree of bashing significantly.

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 party 1

User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau, formerly part of the banned group-username User:Musikfabrik has begun a course of bullying, personal attacks, and generally making things awful for all contributors at Talk:List of major opera composers and List of major opera composers. Examples:

• Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#Please do not add or delete any information from this article until the term "major opera composer" has been defined - Early bullying.
• User_talk:Makemi - Accusations by him flying thick and fast.
• [[Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive2#Adding unsourced statements - here's where he removed a reference because it didn't contain a page number. Also shows Folantin and Moreschi's contribution.
• Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#One_major_POV_issue_to_be_resolved - Here's where it came out he was part of a collective.
• Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers#Not_so_fast.__There_is_obvious_POV_gender_bias_here - I fully enter the dispute.

Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

It was never hidden that the username Musikfabrik was attached to a music publisher and that the articles being contributed were made for composers published by this organization, as is evidenced here - [[1]]. It should also be noted that the first post that was made on this talk page uses "We" and "Our". We had no idea about this "Role Account" rule and it was never brought to our attention. However, we have been honest and upfront about what we were doing from the beginning. Our additions to Germaine Tailleferre (the only documented complete list of her works anywhere) Gold and Fizdale, Alice Esty, speak for themselves.

However, as I have clearly stated, it was never our intention to try to get Germaine Tailleferre on this list (as has been repeatedly suggested on the page Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers, as she does not qualify, purely and simply. Using this tactic in a discussion concerning POV issues in the specific article List of major opera composers is clearly beside the point.

When my colleague Paul Wehage began editing on the article List of major opera composers there were no sources, no women listed, no living composers, no non-European composers and the selection process was done in a collegial manner without using any sources or definition of the []term "important" or even "opera". Certain issues have been resolved, not without much discussion and intrigue, but sources which could have resolved the POV gender bias issues have been ignored at best and surpressed at worst (as the discussion here would suggest User_talk:Adam_Cuerden#Judith_Weir). The International Alliance of Women in Music [2] was involved was means of getting sources which documented the importance of women in Opera; Three sources out of that discussion were proposed on the page Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#NPOV as was information about Kaija Saariaho among others, all of which was ignored or dismissed because this material only contained inforation about women. Yet, of the ten lists used to create the new contents of List_of_major_opera_composers, six contained the names of only men. The other four contained one or two women. When women (as is the case of Saariaho, Libby Larsen, Judith Weir and many others) have operas commissioned and performed by major festivals and major houses, staged and performed by major stage directors and singers, and recorded on major labels and none are seen as being important because information which could prove this claim is being deliberately surpressed, it would seem to me to be quite clear that an sexist agenda at work here. A further comment naming three Israeli composers (one of whom, Jan Friedlin, we publish, although we did not write his article here) here Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers#Not_so_fast.__There_is_obvious_POV_gender_bias_here would also tend to add an antisemetic aspect to this discussion.

As it stands, this article gives the message to the public that no women, no non-Europeans and very few living composers were "important opera composers". This statement is only possible because of the sources used. If other sources taking into account more recent research, compositions and performances, the information could be presented in an entirely different light. The point of all of this is that there is a great deal of resistent to change in the entire category of Opera, with a definite bias against anything outside of the accepted canons of "standard repertoire". While it is clear that these notions of "standard repertoire" should be included, what is also clear is that other sources which document other aspects of this subject outside of these "established canons" which are generally published in sources after the "general repertoire" sources should also be taken into account. While the regional bias and the bias towards "Dead White Males" is also clearly an issue and should also be addressed, the gender bias is an entirely objective and clearcut criteria in which there can be no argument. I fail to see how it is more neutral to dismiss the works of more than 50% of Mankind, simply because of the conventions of "standard repertoire" and inspite of sources which could easily prove the contrary.

My primary issue with this list is its existence: How can a List of major opera composers ever claim neutrality, given what it is in the first place? Jean-Thierry Boisseau 13:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Party 3

The Musikfabrik account was blocked as a role account. We were not informed that it was a role account until extensive detective work by Folantin forced an admission that it was so. That account, so it seemed, was largely comprised of 2 people: Paul Wehage (who was often incivil and engaged in pointless POV battles), and Jean-Thierry Boisseau, who removed an inline citation as not having a page number and added inaccurate information to the list. This latter has also accused basically everyone involved in this case as being both sexist and lazy (see Makemi's talk page, link above). For the record, I also resent being labeled anti-Semitic. The imputation that I have a bias against contemporary composers is also wrong.

Jean-Thierry Boisseau's actions have not been entirely for the worse. His badgering led to the addition of 40-odd inline citations to the previously unreferenced list by myself and Folantin. Once this had been done, however, he then engaged in a move war with myself. I moved the list (following an idea endorsed by Jimbo Wales in a similar case) to List of opera composers considered major. My edit summary explained that this softened the POV, though it did not remove it altogether. He immediately, with no discussion, re-moved the list to List of composers of opera, claiming that anything else would be POV. Not only was his solution useless as it duplicated The opera corpus, but in my opinion the primary reason for his doing so was to be able to include spectacularly obscure composers on the Musik Fabrik roster , such as Germaine Tailleferre. After another bout of moves, we wound back up at the original title. Not only did were his moves preemptory and treated me as a vandal by reverting with no discussion, but then he left a flagrantly incivil message on my talk page.

Matters have recently descended from bad to worse after an edit war last night that sparked off this RFAR. Perhaps I should try to explain why there are no women on that list, even though now plenty of contemporary composers have been included. We took a decision, per Jimbo’s suggestion at the link I provided above, to compile our list using extant independent lists. This was done. The female composer with the most number of cites was Judith Weir, with 4 out of a maximum of 10. The cut off for inclusion has decided by consensus at 7 (yes, that may be minor POV, but what can you do?). Historically women have contributed very little to operatic history – not their fault, it’s the fault of past sexist societies, but we can’t change that, and there just hasn’t been enough time to see whether operas by female opera composers currently writing will survive and stay in the repertoire. Musikfabrik only contributed one list, which was quite rightly judged unreliable as it wasn’t a list, but a list of composers done to date on a website under construction. Moreschi 14:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Party 4

First, I feel I must state in the strongest possible terms that I find Boisseau's accusation of anti-Semitism deeply offensive. It is obvious from the context that my interest in the three names was whether they were male composers or not and therefore whether Germaine Tailleferre was the only woman composer on the lists. For instance, it is not clear to English speakers whether "Jan" is a man or a woman. I was unaware of the composers' nationalities (with the exception of Lior Navok). It seems Geirr Tveitt is a Norwegian, not an Israeli. I have no idea about Friedlin's nationality or ethnicity. This kind of trolling and bad faith interpretation has been typical of Boisseau's behaviour.

The main point is that Boisseau (and Paul Wehage and whoever else used the Musikfabrik alias - and it was not clear that it was a collective user) have made major contributions to pages with outstanding NPOV issues arising because of their presence and the presence of other Musik Fabrik composers, leading to a conflict of interest. They did not address such issues before moving on to List of major opera composers. This arosed suspicions as to their motives. I was led to investigate User:Musikfabrik only after he/they began following me round my other contributions and harrassing me. So much for accusations of a "witch hunt". --Folantin 15:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Party 5

Boisseau's bullying is extroadinary. He has, at various times, threatened to delete the flagship Opera article and the several Opera Projects lists. The fact is that no female opera composers have been as important to the field of opera as the top 30, 50 or even 70 men, according to the majority of secondary sources. I hope this changes in the future, but Boisseau cannot claim that this fact is POV. The Opera project members searched diligently for authoritative lists of "major" opera composers published by reliable sources and found 10 reputable lists. If one creates a list of opera composers noted in 7 of those 10 lists, there are 53 men and no women. In fact, only four of the 10 lists names a woman, and there are a very large number of composers named on only 4 lists -- to many to make a meaningful list of "major" composers. Of all the opera composers shown in the opera corpus (hundreds) only 17 are women, and so far, none of them is in the top. One editor should not bully the consensus of editors into destroying the NPOV criteria agreed on for compilation of this list, and his incivility and harassment deserve a permanent block on the account. --Ssilvers 16:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Makemi

It is not entirely clear to me that arbitration is the appropriate step to take at this time, but here is my view of recent events. I blocked the account User:Musikfabrik after it came to my attention that it was being used by multiple people, in contravention of Wikipedia policy. There were other problems with this account, but that is the sole reason I blocked it. The account User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau was then created. This account then failed to assume good faith on my part, accusing me of blocking the account in order disrupt discussion at List of major opera composers, and of being a sexist tool of the establishment (which even a cursory review of my contributions should show to be blatantly false and supremely offensive). Jean-Thierry also failed to assume good faith on the parts of other members of the opera project, calling them lazy and sexist, despite that they were clearly working hard to source material and make it neutral.

It is difficult to separate the problems with the Musikfabrik account from the problems with the Jean-Thierry Boisseau account, but I believe we must. Some of the most inflammatory comments made by Musikfabrik I do not believe were made by Jean-Thierry Boisseau. In this case we must also what action to take regarding Musikfabrik's contributions, as it now :Comment: seems that these were made in order to promote a corporation. Jean-Thierry has categorized attempts to discover POV a "witch hunt" which I see as a continued failure to assume good faith. His comments today about anti-semitism simply further show this lack of assuming good faith. I am not entirely pleased with how all the members of the opera project have acquitted themselves in this matter, however I see it as people who have worked hard and diligently to create a more NPOV article who then had extremely offensive names flung at them, despite this hard work and genuine motives. Mak (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by random passerby PurplePlatypus

Shouldn't all of these threaded comments have long since been removed? The top of the page clearly states that such responses should be kept within their authors' own sections, not appended to other peoples', and that arbitrators or clerks can remove them at any time. I'm tempted to do it myself but, being neither an arbitrator nor a clerk nor even an admin, I'd probably be stepping on toes needlessly if I did so. PurplePlatypus 02:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Thanks to Purple Platypus for the very timely reminder! I've removed extensive threaded discussion from this application. Parties should feel free to restore any brief, relevant statements to their own section in an appropriate (non-threaded) format. --Tony Sidaway 03:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept. Charles Matthews 16:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

I hate to be a pill, but in this case, two arbitrators amended the prinicple

• A set of users or anonymous editors who edit in the same tendentious pattern or engage in the same disruptive tactics may be presumed to be one user. The provisions of an arbitration decision may be enforced on that basis.

with the addition

• Yes to this when the ArbCom has had time and reason to come to grips with a situation. It is not a great idea for individual admins to apply the same reasoning, on the fly. Mistakes then get made.

Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under a 5 day block for disruption and sockpuppetry. 64.230.112.190 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) today performed characteristic vandalism, including calling Warren Kinsella names [3] and blanking a section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement [4]. Two other IPs 142.78.190.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 64.230.111.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which are consistent with Ellis' venues and manner, also edited articles from which Ellis is banned. Based on the findings in this case, should this IP be treated as an Ellis sock (in which case triggering enforcement against Ellis), or should they be treated as de novo vandals. Thatcher131 20:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Another wrinkle for clarification. The arbitrators' ruling is

"Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie.:

"Today one of the IPs mentioned above made this edit, removing the Warren Kinsella section from the Bourrie article. This edit raises the question whether Mark Bourrie is still covered by the ban. Bucketsofg✐ 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume that means he is banned from all related article and talk pages including Mark Bourrie but not Talk:Mark Bourrie. Thatcher131 00:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That is my reading of the remedy. FloNight 05:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Still wondering whether to hold Arthur Ellis responsible for the contributions of the IPs. Thatcher131 05:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible (encore)

I have asked for a clarification on my arbitration [5], but got no response there, so I will try it here. My comment was:

“ I'm confused. Somehow the ArbCom did not find my edits to be "tendentious," yet the probation is about that. How is this logically possible? ”

Intangible 10:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This should read edit-warring. If there are no objections, I'll change this in a day or two. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox:request for clarification of clarification

There is a new ruling that Eternal Equinox, aka User:Velten is limited to a single account; and after a lot of carry-on (some of it appears at the foot of this section), she seemed resigned to following it. However, today she again edited anonymously, supporting herself at Promiscuous (song) and making this sneaky revert. There was no apology or "oops, forgot to log in" or anything of that nature, in fact the IP had already been used for another edit four minutes earlier. I assume not very much good-faith forgetfulness in this case. (I know, I know, but with respect, the arbcom hasn't already spent as much good faith on the editor as I have.) She apparently "foresaw" herethat it would happen soon, even though I can't say I can remember the diligent Eternal Equinox (etc) persona having any tendency to forget to log in. Anyway. Does the ruling have any teeth? It doesn't specify any penalties for editing anonymously. Can she be blocked for it? If not, I foresee she soon won't log in at all. (As above, on the good faith already spent.) Bishonen | talk 19:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

"All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user." This was intended to mean enforce as per WP:BAN. Revert on sight, dole out whatever blocks are necessary to get it to stop. It's rather like fighting vandalism. Dmcdevit·t 05:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Bishonen: yes, I predicted that I might edit anonymously and I did. (Occasionally it happened when I used Hollow Wilerding, but that was long ago, so I can't remember.) If I do this again and another edit following from the Velten account occurs, I'd appreciate that I don't have to explain myself. Like I said, it happens because the browser logs you out sometimes and I didn't realize it. So I don't want to have to explain each time; because I've told everybody here, you'll know that it's me accidentally editing anonymously.

However, I was editing Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) as early as these edits:

• Promiscuous 1
• Promiscuous 2
• Promiscuous 3
• Loose 1
• Loose 2
• Loose 3
• Loose 4

To EM: indeed I'm a fan of Nelly Furtado, but Gwen Stefani is still the best; don't be silly now. I wasn't harassing you and please don't block me if you aren't aware of the details. Discussion should always be incorporated and consensus might be achieved.

By the way, the 64.231 cannot be blocked upon sight since it's from a library. If it's musically-related, it's likely me, but there's still a chance it won't be. I'm saying this just so everybody knows. Velten 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your previous edits to Promiscuous (song) consist of nothing but updating chart positions and minor rearrangements of the text, which is what you have done for dozens of song articles. Are you meaning to tell me your decision to revert one of my edits and completely overhaul a whole section of the article wasn't because I'd edited it just six hours before? This edit to Say It Right is equally worrying. Strangely enough, your first non-chart edits to any Nelly Furtado-related article occurred right after I told you I was a fan of her and owned her latest album (and the tone of your reply indicated you weren't even sure who the woman was). Coincidence? I think not; let's not forget, from the same period, [6] and [7], [8] and [9], [10] and [11], [12] and [13], [14] and [15]. Or, from before that, [16] and [17], as well as [18], [19] and [20]. Or how about [21] and [22] less than three weeks ago: piddling edits made to then-FA of the day Simon Byrne, to which user:Giano made major contributions that led to it becoming an FA. And I haven't even dug up the diffs that show you making equally trivial edits to articles watchlisted by Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes, and whoever else you've decided to harass. It's quite clear all of these were made with the intention of irritating other editors and scratching away at their patience, and regardless of whether you'll admit it, you're doing this again. There's nothing vague or open to interpretation about it. Not only that, but you're edit warring on Promiscuous (song) over the same issues you edit warred about on Cool (song), from which you were banned from editing for a period after you attempted to assume ownership. You're on extremely thin ice here. Extraordinary Machine 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

1. That's what you do to; rearrange and/or rewrite the text. I still edited it before you, so you have no defense here.
2. I didn't know who Furtado is until you mentioned her? Stop being silly.
3. You never told me you had her album. Stop creating excuses to prove a point.
4. Those diffs were explained offline. The consensus of those edits were either coincidence, intentional, or I had information to update. Incase nobody has noticed, EM and I edit the vast majority of music-related articles and because of this, that's obviously not stalking. If it was, then all the edits you made directly after mine on a music-related article would be considered stalking.
5. I already explained that I had no idea Giano authored Simon Byrne. I knew he had edited the article featured days before, Belton House, so I didn't touch it. The fact that another Giano-article was featured three days later was relatively questionable. I've already explained the details.
6. It's quite clear all of these were made with the intention of irritating other editors and scratching away at their patience, and regardless of whether you'll admit it, you're doing this again — it's quite clear? Really? What's your source?
7. You are edit-warring on Promiscuous (song). You are responsible for not providing answers and removing content (which you are basing upon the Billboard format).

Velten 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

1. EE/Velten's claims above shouldn't be read under the assumption that they're true; sadly, she's once again defending herself with falsehoods and misrepresentations. As the diffs above show, the harassment goes back to January, at least, and the main reason I've mostly ignored it until now isn't that there wasn't an ArbCom ruling at the time that would allow me to "have my way" whenever I disagreed with her (which is what she's claiming on my talk page), but because I thought sooner or later she'd come round and reconsider her behaviour and attitudes towards other Wikipedia users. This wasn't the reason I didn't provide evidence at the RFAr; I was just too burned by the whole affair to think about it anymore.
2. Fast forward to a few months later, and EE/Velten's still trying to pull off his usual shenanigans. Now, it didn't occur to me to take the novel (at least to me) course of ignoring overwhelming evidence (including an MSN chat I had with EE herself, in which I told her I owned the album) that proved beyond reasonable doubt she had harassed myself and other users, allowing her to have things her way and letting her claim ownership over even more pages, and then not doing a thing as she mysteriously parachuted her way into an article I had just edited. If that's what's now being endorsed as Wikipedia policy, I'll know in future, and will call on admins (and be prepared for others to call on me) to assume someone is telling the truth even in the presence of clear and present evidence to the contrary. No, actually I'll not do that; even if the ArbCom were to approve of it, I find it incredibly foolish, and I'll not go along with it.
3. The "edit war" to which Velten is referring involved me restoring an edit identical to one I had justified and explained to death on another talk page (Talk:Cool (song), from which she was temporarily banned for causing more disruption, quarreling and attempting to assume ownership). After she reverted, I asked her to provide a source for a claim she made on the talk page that she said justified her revert; she instead opted to set up a straw man argument against me and accuse me of "making excuses" and "not providing answers". This alone isn't exactly EE at her most disruptive, but it gets quite close once one factors in her main reason for starting the edit war. Extraordinary Machine 21:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli

just a quick note that now that User:Kehrli is banned from editing m/z or presumedly articles about mass spectrometry, he is now moving on to export his cranky beliefs onto physical constant and to dimensionless number (although i agree with him that renaming it dimensionless quantity was a good idea). but he has some personal pet theory that dimensionful physical constants are essentially equivalent to dimensionless fundamental physical constants which is contrary to the present widely accepted state of physics. we (User:Army1987 and i) have reverted his factually incorrect changes to both articles and have tried to reason with him from multiple angles and his responses is to say without any content that our explanation supports his fallacious position, to misrepresent our positions and repeat the misconception as if nothing was ever written by any of us to explain what was wrong with it. he is basically repeating that the widely accepted wisdom is a misconception and then replacing it with his own misconception. i think he is trolling, but am not entirely sure. i am sure he's a crank. i have now tired of dealing with him, but if he tries to reinsert this junk, i'm afraid an edit war will ensue. i need help from admins who are real physicists to be able to examine Kehrli's claims (which he tries to make sound reasonable, but they are fundamentally misconceived). r b-j 19:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible

Please see this WP:AN/I discussion regarding my involvement in this case. The general feeling, it seems, is that this case needs to be revisited for the following reasons:

1. I was never informed that I was a party to the case;
2. neither I nor any other editor could thereby provide evidence in my defense;
3. no evidence to which I could respond was presented against me;
4. and the action taken against me did not have the support of the required majority.

Thank you, in advance, for your time and consideration. Best wishes, --AaronS 01:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I shall be very inactive until 30 September (preparing my thesis, taking GRE, and applying to grad schools). If it is decided that this issue should be re-examined, please keep this in mind. Better yet, feel free to keep this on the backburner and deal with more pressing problems for the time being. --AaronS 03:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The evidence was your edit warring and prior blocks. Please offer actual reasoning why you should not be on probation, rather than procedural arguments against how it was done. Dmcdevit·t 04:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If that is the evidence, here is my short response: two of the administrators who blocked me for WP:3RR have since re-examined their decisions and regretted them.[23][24]The first block was deserved, but I had violated 3RR inadvertently. I discussed the situation with the admin who blocked me, and he lifted the block, because I was at the time doing a lot of work to improve the New England article. I stayed away from anarchism for a while, because it is truly a difficult page to work with.

One always walks a thin line while trying to improve controversial articles. I have had the benefit of working with several excellent editors from all sides of the ideological spectrum. In fact, I'm amazed at how some people can have such strong feelings about either side of an issue and still work together and reach compromises through civil discussion. This is how things usually proceed at anarchism when a few inflammatory editors are not around -- namely, User:RJII, User:Thewolfstar, and User:Hogeye and their various admitted or proven socks. When they or their sock puppets are involved, things usually get heated up very quickly, and that's when edit wars start to crop up.

I try to avoid edit wars as best as possible. When I revert, I try my damnedest to revert without edit warring. Or, I only revert sock puppets of banned users, suspected or proven. I should note that I rarely revert people who are simply suspected of being sock puppets, unless they have come from out of nowhere and are making the same edits or arguments as a recently banned user without any discussion (see User:That'sHot and User:DTC). As soon as they start engaging in discussion, I don't care whether or not they are sock puppets, and am happy to have them on board as long as they play nicely. If a sock puppet is obliged to edit in the best interests of the article, then there's no harm done. Unfortunately, their talk page discussions tend to descend into some nasty stuff.

In conclusion, with an examination of the current evidence, if I were to be put on probation it would be for nothing more than having a one deserved 3RR violation block on my record, a block that was soon lifted. I am a helpful, cordial, friendly editor, and quick to apologize to those whom I have wronged. I do not like edit warring, and find it pointless. It achieves nothing. I don't mean that philosophically, either. I mean that literally. What an article says right now doesn't matter, so long as there are other people who think that it shouldn't say that, and who can back up their claims with verifiable, reliable sources. At the same time, socks of banned users should be reverted, if only because they are a nuisance. I also do not edit tendentiously. Very few of my edits are controversial, and they are usually either (a) common opinion or (b) backed up with sources.

I think that you will find that most of my edits are useful, and that all of the editors who get along well here also get along well with me. People need to work on controversial articles like anarchism, and those articles need to be watched; however, it is very difficult, time-consuming, and sometimes frustrating.

Lastly, if there were 11 arbitrators in the beginning, and 1 recused himself/herself, then 6 is still the majority; 6 is the majority in a group of 10, and 5 would only be half. Forgive me if I'm using the wrong numbers, but if I am not, then this whole discussion seems rather moot. --AaronS 13:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The abstention of User:SimonP from Remedy 3 was treated in the same manner as a recusal, reducing the majority for that motion to 5. The motion passed. Evidence was presented demonstrating that AaronS was blocked for edit warring, and a Finding to that effect was made in the case. I regret that neither the arbitrators nor the clerks informed AaronS that probation was being considered in his case. This was an oversight. --Tony Sidaway 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since Aaron is currently busy, I will try to do what I can to explain why he should not be on probation. As you know, his first block was overturned after he explained the situation. The blocking admin in the second case later apologized and said they wouldn't have blocked had they had more information at the time of the block, but since the block had already expired by that time he was never unblocked. [25] It appears as if the blocking admin from the third block may feel the same way, although they didn't explicitly say they wouldn't have blocked, but I think it was implied. See for yourself and decide I guess. [26]. Anyways, most of the edit warring that happens at the anarchism articles is due to users who are now indefinitely blocked, or sockpuppets of those users before they are blocked themselves for being socks. A lot of outsiders don't realize this, so users like Aaron will occassionally be blocked. It's understandable, and it usually gets resolved without a problem. I personally think probation is inappropriate in his case, especially considering he was never even notified. The way I see it, the case for Aaron needs to be reopened. Some of the original supporting voters may change their minds after hearing Aaron's side of this. I'm not sure Tony if your post above is meant as a way of saying the case is closed and won't be reopened, but if so, that is not right. You shouldn't be able to decide whether Aaron still should be on probation since you (nor anyone else) can unilaterally put a user under probation. Aaron's part of the case needs to be re-voted on to maintain basic fairness. The Ungovernable Force 06:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a clerk so I wouldn't be involved in the decision on whether to re-open. However as a clerk I rummaged around in the case and came up with what I thought might be relevant detail. --Tony Sidaway 06:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, just wanted to make sure. It sounded like you were turning it down without saying so explicitly. Thanks for the clarification. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

Statement by Andries

1. Does not linking to purportedly unreliable websites also include the homepages of critics with their own articles of Sathya Sai Baba e.g. Robert Priddy (see [27]), Basava Premanand, M. Alan Kazlev (see here [28] one of the webpages on the website authored, owned, and maintaind by Kazlev, linked to in his Wikipedia article), Sanal Edamaruku, Babu Gogineni, the late Abraham Kovoor, and the late H._Narasimhaiah. SeeWikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/#Robert_Priddy for a description of this dispute.
2. Does not linking to unreliable website also include wikipedia user pages such as user:Andries See [29]
3. Do unreliable websites also include the websites created and maintained by user:SSS108 especially for Wikipedia. In certain cases such as this one [30] the webpages on this website are simply copies that SSS108 took from the webpages of exbaba.com [31]
4. Is it okay to use webpages with copies of reputable sources on purportedly unreliable websites as convenenience links in the references. See e.g. here [32]
5. User:SSS108 removed a lot of information from the article talk page [33] that I had moved from the article [34] to the talk page [35]. In spite of my request to do so he did not justify in specifics why this removal was either justified by WP:BLP or the arbcom decision regarding posting external links. I object to mass removals of information from the talk page that are not motivated in specific terms if and where it violates WP:BLP or the arbcom decision. SSS108 stated the intention to remove more of my future comments from the talk page [36] Is SSS108’s or my behaviour a violation of talk page etiquette?

Andries 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) added one more clarification request 17:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SSS108

Regarding Points 1-4:

I would like to point out that the Geocities site that Andries is now complaining about was created, with his consent and agreement, in mediation with BostonMA: Reference. In the past 6 months, Andries has never complained about the content (or ownership) on the Geocities site although the Geocities site is completely neutral, cannot be traced to either Pro/Anti Sathya Sai Baba Sites and whose content has never been disputed by Andries for the past 6 months.

Andries is now having a change of heart and is wishing to link references to his and other Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba sites in violation of a clearly stated ruling by ArbCom that forbids this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. It is also important to point out that since all these references come from reliable sources (newspapers, documentaries or magazines) they are not "owned" or copyright protected to Anti-Sai Sites. The material in question cannot be claimed by Andries as his own and was never originally published on Anti-Sai sites.

Andries entire argument is moot in light of the ArbCom ruling. Andries is unremittingly attempting to link to his Anti-Sai site so he can push his Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba agenda. Why is he so insistent that the links go to his personal, critical, partison and controversial website when there is a neutral one that does not push anyone's agenda? That is the question that is at the heart of this matter. To further illustrate this point, Andries feels that slanderous pages are entirely appropriate on Wikipedia. See Reference where Andries stated, "re-insert homepage of the subject in question robert priddy can slander on his own article whoever he likes". It is disturbing comments like these that prove that Andries has a keen agenda to push on Wikipedia.

Even today (Sept. 9th), Andries made a highly questionable edit where media articles (which were determined to violate WP:NOT) were moved from the Article to the Talk Page: Reference. This was discussed in arbitration (Reference), in which I stated that Andries was using the talk pages to promote his Anti-Sai agenda.

I have also agreed to hand the Geocities site over to a neutral 3rd party. If anyone is willing to take over this Geocities site and assume responsibility for its upkeep (and update it accordingly, as needed), I will gladly hand the site over. I stated this when the site was created.

Andries has been trying to change Wikipedia policy on the Wikipedia:Citing_sources (see history) page so that he can push links to Anti-Sai websites (including his own) on Wikipedia: Reference. I posted on the thread on September 7th: Reference. Andries conceded that this argument preceded the ArbCom ruling and was unrelated to the ArbCom case (Reference). What is strange about this is that despite his former comments, Andries was attempting to cite this very same argument (from the Wikipedia:Citing_sources page) that he was using to defend the inclusion of links to his Anti-Sai Sites: See FloNight's Thread. Also see Tony Sidaway's Thread.

Regarding Point 5: :See Thread on my talk page where I gave reasons for removing this information.

Finally, the policy might be different on pages that have not had an ArbCom ruling, however, it is my contention that since ArbCom made a ruling specific to the Sathya Sai Baba articles, the general policy must be interpreted in association with the ArbCom ruling. Thank you. SSS108 ^talk-email 14:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I want to comment here on my dual role in this matter. My first response on this was that it seemed to be a matter for administrators to resolve, and I investigated as an administrator and warned Andries politely in my role as an administrator that in my view and that of other admins he was contravening the ruling in the arbitration case.

Andries has come back politely with what amount, in my view, to clear signals that he requires much closer direction on this matter. I suggested that clarification from the arbitrators might be a good way of resolving this matter, and his query here is the response. Andries has shown by his responses and actions that he is eager and willing to comply with the arbitration and in my role as a clerk I commend his queries to the Committee, While this is clearly a dispute that could have become very rancorous, it seems to me that Andries is doing his best to avoid that path and seek clarification. I also commend SSS108 for his civility in the course of expressing a difference of opinion in a forthright and honest manner.

I hope that this is not "crossing the streams". I hope it's clear that my views as an administrator and as a clerk are quite distinct. My regard for both participants here is very high. Their honesty and civility is impressive. --Tony Sidaway 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

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