(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) at 15:41, 4 December 2006 (→‎LaRouche again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

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
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

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



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

Jews for Jesus

Initiated by ParadoxTom 03:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Other steps have been tried. Cf. the involved parties' Talk pages, the Jews for Jesus discussion page, and our abortive mediation attempt: [6].

Statement by ParadoxTom

I am filing this Request for Arbitration as a final attempt to bring to an end the POV-pushing occurring on the Jews for Jesus article. Secondarily, I would like to see some users be censured for their inappropriate conduct; specifically, many of us who have sought to make Jews for Jesus encyclopedic and NPOV have been, eo ipso, called anti-Semites.

I don't have much else to say, as the involved parties have been over this all ad nauseum. I would refer interested persons to the references provided above.ParadoxTom 03:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

Tom's above summary is very misleading. First of all, nobody has ever accused either him of his supporters of being anti-semitic. From the very beginning of their arrival, they have removed any passage that even implies that Jews for Jesus is a christian group despite numerous reliable sources. The only references that they have provided in support of their version comes from JFJ (or other smaller messianic organizations) themselves, when undue influence is brought they will immediately state that the reliable sources are irrelevant and we cannot take sides.

The basic dispute centers around the desire of a small circle of editors to describe JFJ as a Jewish rather than Christian organization. Now obviously religion is probably the most divisive issue known to man, so I really do not want to get too involved with any theological debate, however I will ask this- What seperate Judaism from christianity if it is not the belief that Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JoshuaZ

I would urge the ArbCom to reject this RfAr. As a glance at ParadoxTom's mainspace contribution lists will show, he has edited almost nothing except for the Jews for Jesus article[7], his otherspace entries have all also been devoted to that conflict[8] and has in three months here short time here accumulated 9 3RR blocks on the article in question, one of which occured immediately after he had been unblocked to participate in an attempted mediation.[9]. His edits have most recently been attempts to revert to a version of the article from a few months ago as "the next best thing" to have a {{totallydisputed}} tag on the article [10]. Indeed, he has been unwilling even to use a weaker template even when other editors who have sympathies with him have attempted to use it instead [11]. I would see this user as very close to exhausting community patience.
However, this article is not ripe for arbitration in that 1) almost all of the issues but Paradox's reversions are content based and 2) Progress on the article is occuring albeit slowly. It would be counterproductive and a waste of both the involved editors time and the ArbCom's time to intervene at this stage. JoshuaZ 04:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Homestarmy

I've been involved in discussion with this article almost ever since the very first comments on the talk page began, and its been a very messy history. Many people have been blocked for 3RR violations, have left the project out of frustration it seems, (User:Justforasecond) and have clearly let frustrations fly many times. While i'm not so certain that Paradox is explicitly correct that people on one side of the debate over JfJ have been labelled anti-semites, I think a case can be made that many personal attacks have occured nonetheless over the months. While many of the attacks have been directed at JfJ itself, and thus, if I understand this correctly, don't actually constitute any real policy violations, things have often gotten out of hand over the past few months, for example, in archive two, (I don't have time to provide the diffs at the moment) there is a comment directed to Justforasecond, (who has since left Wikipedia) "..your edits pushed your delusion that J4J is just another Jewish denomination that a bunch of long-bearded Hassidim oppose." by User:Mantanmoreland on September 4thish of this year. On the 15th, we have "I suspect you're having "a serious problem with the claim "All maintream Jewish groups..."." because you don't know what it means. Your edits only confirm this impression" closely followed by "You don't have a point and you don't have a clue what you are talking about. See [12]." By Humus Sapiens to User:SpinyNorman in archive 3. When Spiny objected on grounds similiar to most non-anti JfJ editor's arguments, Humus responded with "For once, I agree with Spiny: "The intro is a disaster. It is filled with blatantly deceptive statements." - after his edits, that is.". After Justforasecond brings up the (possibly incorrect) point that since all Jewish organizations oppose a Christian organization, (and therefore a part of Christianity) Humus says "Wrong. It is Judaism that is under attack here." (With "here" I presume meaning the JfJ article, since the dispute at that time concerned the wording of how much opposition Judaism really had for JfJ.). A very recent comment concerning an actual involved user in this case I have a diff for however, namely, with Humus again to DJ: [13]. which I think is very exibitive of the more current trend the conversations on the talk page of JfJ have been taking.

Unfortunently, it seems i'm about out of the word limit :/. I know most of what I have up here can easily be called quote mining because I haven't shown the full context of these quotes, but I think that if this case is accepted, I can provide diffs for these statements and many others which show many personal attacks on users involved with this article. A possibly relevant situation may be the recent Template:NotJudaism template TfD here, but I feel that user conduct is a more easily defendable reason for Arbitration in this particular case. Homestarmy 04:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MPerel

I've had some involvement on this page. Overall this is a content dispute, albeit a bit heated at times. I think the editors are slowly working things out with the exception of User:ParadoxTom who has been particularly disruptive. Even Homestarmy warned Paradox Tom that "Arbitration Committee members will see a single-purpose account who has an extensive block log, a long history of not accepting policy concerning 3RR and what constitutes vandalism, and possibly even a vandal, because you've reverted to very old revisions of the articles several times."[14] (he actually sums it up pretty well). --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sam Blanning

ParadoxTom has been indefinitely blocked per exhausted community patience, with unanimous endorsement on WP:ANI at time of writing. Unless the Arbcom wants to review his ban - and to me it looks clearly appropriate - there doesn't seem anything more to do here. The other parties don't sound especially keen to go to arbitration, and at least two seem to be against it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Inigmatus

I am one of many fustrated editors with JfJ. Even though I know the page needs help, I think if we had more input from those who do not hold to Judaism, or Messianic Judaism, or even Christianity, that we would make some true NPOV progress. We need more unbiased 3Os. Currently resolutions, changes, and such in this article seem to be "enforced" by majority rule, and not true consensus taking into consideration the viewpoints of ALL sides. The number of Jewish editors that do not like JfJ seem to be in my opinion, outnumbering supporters for JfJ with its empathizers, combined - and this fact alone seems to be the "weight" that this article has enjoyed in its current presentation. As an empathizer, I want to see MORE consensus, and less weight-throwing. When an issue is disputed, I want what every editor who makes such a dispute want: discussion over the issue and NOT a revert. inigmatus 16:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Humus sapiens

It would be difficult to find something in the article Jews for Jesus that was not disputed at one point or another. By now, it is quite well referenced, and the initiator of this case even feels that it has too many refs. I will try to briefly address the points raised above:

Statement by DJ Clayworth

This is one of the longest and worst disputes I have seen on Wikipedia. It's been dragging on for months with very little movement. While nobody may have actually used the word 'Anti-semite' plenty of people have been accused of 'attacking Judaism', and have been subject to very agressive language. Some editors seem to think that NPOV doesn't apply to this article - even editors who should know better. I think there is still hope for a non-enforced resolution here. New editors have been joining in and giving an outside perspective, and that's been helpful. We also arrived here without having tried RFC or the Mediation Cabal. But there are editors with entrenched positions, and if they don't shift their views some then we may be back. I recommend rejection, but only if that doesn't prejudice the case if we end up having to come back here in a month or two. DJ Clayworth 16:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Homestarmy has been requested to trim his statement. --Srikeit 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/3/0)

Sex tourism

Initiated by Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. at 03:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

Statement by Mr. Knodel

I would like to request arbitration as a last resort in resolving a dispute that has perpetuated for over a month with almost daily reverts and editing conflicts. The dispute has been stressful and unproductive to all editors involved. There is simply no other way to resolve this without third-party intervention. I've outlined my request for specific content to be reviewed on the Arbitration Specifications section of the Sex Tourism Talk Page.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 06:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I filed arbitrate to stop accusations such as these. My request is serious in all points that are addressed, and I expect page content to be treated with respect as well as the links. All agruements I have presented throughout the discussion are completely valid. I was not paid off. I am not promoting myself. Sly Traveler is not my website. I did not use puppets to impersonate other editors. I have been insulted and treated rudely throughout the discussion. What do I need to do be treated with respect, and not have other editors attacked when they don't agree with your point of view!
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me address the Def_Trojan puppet charge. He is my brother, Patrick Knodel, who lives on the other side of town in California, and we both use COX Communications as an internet service provider. I did ask him to support me. I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that he was me, but I can only imagine it might have been that we both use the same ISP. I still maintain that I have not acted dishonestly, and that I never impersonated other editors.
As for Delover, I don't know him outside of Wikipedia.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by edgarde

Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. has been edit-warring (against multiple editors[16] [17] [18]) to introduce and repeatedly reinstate POV edits to Sex tourism, and to reinstate his website, The Sly Traveler, to the External links section.

Mr. Knodel began editing on October 28, linking the Prostitution article to Sex tourism, then adding extensive pro- sex tourism promotional POV edits to the Sex tourism article. I reverted these edits.

Since then, about 90kB of text has been added to the Discussion page where Mr. Knodel has WikiLawyered, unilaterally declared arbitrary rules, resolutions and moratoria (always favoring retention of his edits), purported insubstantial changes to be cooperation, acted put-upon and persecuted, canvassed[19][20][21][22] , misrepresented (and deleted[23][24][25][26]) other editors comments, ignored feedback from several editors, and put on a puppet show.

Even this RfA seems like an attempt to freeze the article with his website linked from Wikipedia for as long as possible [27] [28] [29].

Sample POV edits by Mr. Knodel (his earliest, and most recent):

  • Mr. Knodel long fought to redefine[30] "Sex tourism" (an established concept[31][32]) as including activities such as observing other cultures and visiting sex museums — though unable to cite references[33], and with no support (and majority opposition) from an RfC request.
  • Mr. Knodel frequently reverts[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] a well-annotated Sex tourism article paragraph (the 3rd) listing common concerns about the effects of sex tourism from the United Nations perspective. Reason given in his Arbitration spec: the U.N. statement (and I quote) basically says "all aspects of sex tourism are bad." (Mr. Knodel then asserts that the in-line references for that paragraph nowhere state what is in fact stated near verbatim in the first reference).

Many other examples can be provided. And always, he links his website. [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]

Linking The Sly Traveller appears to be Mr. Knodel's driving issue. His other edits are probably intended to defend and promote traffic to his website. — edgarde 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Epopt's suggestion, I have filed a report with WP:AN/I. They lean toward waiting for an acceptance/rejection decision from ArbCom, despite my observation that no RfA has received more than 5 votes in recent months.

If this case is accepted, I request the following immediate injunctions be applied:

  • Bar Mr. Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. (or anyone) from linking the The Sly Traveler to Sex tourism or related articles. As The Sly Traveler's content is neither unique nor notable (several similar but more established sites exist), I would support adding the The Sly Traveler to the spam block list.
  • Bar Mr. Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. (or his *puppets) from editing Sex tourism.
  • Block IP users and new accounts from editing Sex tourism for the duration of this arbitration.
  • Revert Sex tourism to a version not saved by Mr. Knodel, and not containing external links to ".com" sites (which are currently being appended now that the gate is apparently open).

— edgarde 18:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mr. Knodel's advocate, user Fred-Chess

I suggest to await the results of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Devalover before proceeding.

If it turns out Mr. Knodel didn't use sockpuppets, it will be an important setback for edgarde. And vice versa.

Fred-Chess 10:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using Checkuser, Knodel is almost certainly DefTrojan, or used the same semi-static IP at least. Devalover is probably unrelated. Dmcdevit·t 20:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My first action as an advocate was to tell my client that he would probably find it problematic to add the external link to Sly Traveler. [65] A week or so later he told me he was about to have reached some agreement on the page, but that it was disturbed by edgarde's actions. I suggested he file a Request for Comments to get input from other users, and this was done too.

The RfC did not lead to consensus on how the article was supposed to be formulated, as I had hoped. At one time edgarde agreed to let the link to Sly Traveler in the article, but he later changed his mind. I did not see anyone agree with him though.

Essentially the dispute by then appeared to be between only two users. Devalover (talk · contribs) made a few edits, was never deeply involved, IMHO. For a while I therefore thought that mediation would be best. However, I now think it wouldn't lead anywhere, because edgarde is determined not to allow the link to Sly Traveler, while Mr. Knodel is determined of the opposite. I now think that further comments from unrelated others would be the best way to resolve the dispute.

There has been accusations of misbehaving from both parts, but I think both parts have acted comparatively well-mannered, and I don't think either one would persist with his actions if the community expressed support of the other one's version.

Mr. Knodel maintains that Def Trojan (talk · contribs) was his brother, and they shared the same ISP. I don't know yet if we can confirm this. However, it can at least be confirmed that Mr. Knodel has not used any other sockpuppets, which should speak to his advantage.

Fred-Chess 16:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Addhoc

Essentially, the dispute is about Mr. Knodel edit warring to reinstate his website, The Sly Traveller, to the External links section of Sex tourism. I would suggest the remainder of the dispute is fairly trivial and possibly a 'smoke screen' for his attempts to reintroduce this link. Addhoc 14:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk notes

Threaded comments moved to the commenter's own sections. Thatcher131 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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/Irishpunktom

The duration of Fys' probation (enacted 21 Sep 2006) is not clear. Is it for one year (as for Karl Meier and Irishpunktom) or indefinite, and if one year, does the year extend from the date of the case or the date of the amended decision? Thatcher131 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB - the use of the term "also" in the decision clearly implies that it has the same duration as Irishpunktom. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and ends on same date. Fred Bauder 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden

Both the Rachel Marsden and Marsden-Donnelly harassment case articles have been deleted by administrators in the last day (and protected to prevent re-creatin). Some editors have argued that references to Marsden's past controversies are inappropriate for the article.

The Marsden RfA determined that "Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit". It also ruled that the Marsden and Marsden-Donnelly articles, in their existing state, were in violation of BLP.

Questions: (i) Do references to Marsden's past controversies inherently violate BLP, or would a fair and neutral overview be permitted? (ii) Is page deletion an appropriate remedy to this situation? CJCurrie 06:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More questions: (iii) Interpretation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is often a matter of debate. May speedy deletions of Marsden-related articles be overturned through the usual channel of Deletion Review? (iv) Are we supposed to delete based solely on whether the current version of a page violates WP:BLP, or may we delete based on the existence of previous versions that have violated WP:BLP? Kla'quot 06:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (v) Why didn't Arbcom go ahead and delete the articles themselves as soon as the case closed? Kla'quot 07:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our ultimate goal is an NPOV article on Masden and her controversies. This could be achieved by deleting the existing content and starting work on a new version, or it could be done by refining the existing pages. The ArbCom made no firm assertion of what path is the better one. However, deleting the page and protecting it against all attempts at recreation is certainly not going to help us achieve the desired goal. - SimonP 14:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protection would only be appropriate if anonymous users were trying to reinstate an unacceptable article. Fred Bauder 22:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Kla'quot 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture

The following was copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Popular culture and fiction some time ago:

[...] when a substantial body of material is available [...] the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.

Some questions have risen as to the interpretation of that phrase ("can't work out what it's trying to say" [66]). Could the arbitrators clarify what the above sentence means? Or would they say the sentence should be clear in its context (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture)? --Francis Schonken 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to keep the discussions on a single spot, may I ask the Arbitrators to post their clarifications at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Unclear sentence? Tx! --Francis Schonken 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche again

I've blocked ManEatingDonut (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche, which says "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense." See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche#Enforcement.

ManEatingDonut was warned on Oct 23 about reinserting LaRouche material, [67] and took part in a request for clarification on this page about it. [68] Despite the warning, on Nov 18, he removed the redirect of Eurasian Land-Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to Asian Highway Network and twice reinserted a LaRouche-related text. The Eurasian Land-Bridge is a name that some people use for parts of the Asian Highway, so the title is redirected there. However, it's also a name used for a more complex idea that LaRouche claims is his. Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper wrote the original article that included LaRouche's views; [69] it was redirected to Asian Highway Network in September 2004. The text was restored and rewritten a little by NathanDW, [70] another LaRouche supporter, on October 31, 2006; reverted by Will BeBack; restored by ManEatingDonut on Nov 18; [71] reverted by SlimVirgin; restored by ManEatingDonut on Nov 22. [72]

I've blocked him for 24 hours for the repeated re-insertion, but I'd like to make the block indefinite. He has made 186 edits since August, almost all promoting LaRouche. He has edited logged out (acknowledging that it was him) and used the same AOL IP range 172.192.0.0 - 172.194.0.0 that Herschelkrustofsky/WeedHarper used. There's no firm evidence that it's the same person, but I believe he may be from the same LaRouche group in Los Angeles. As any proposed ban needs to be confirmed by the ArbCom, I'm asking here for your thoughts. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. Both user:ManEatingDonut and user:NathanDW have followed almost the exact footsteps of User:Herschelkrustofsky, including the same aggressive promotion of LaRouche that got HK into trouble. NathanDW says he's independent of the LaRouche movement but his single-minded edit history belies his claim. Both of these editors appear to be sock or meat puppets of HK, and both 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 · † · 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Righteous Fred Bauder 21:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that no one thought to notify me of this. I left a note on SlimVirgin's talk page asking her to warn me if she thought I was violating an arbcom decision, preferably before blocking me rather than afterward. I made my views on LaRouche clear to the only person who asked me, at User talk:Astor Piazzolla. It is wrong to accuse me of "promoting LaRouche" when I have added almost no material to these articles -- I have only opposed edits that I thought were biased, or looked up sources and added them when sources were requested. As far as those other people are concerned (Herschelkrustofsky, etc.) I became aware of them for the first time when I discovered the talk page of Eurasian Land-Bridge. Apparently there was a lot of conflict between them and SlimVirgin and Will Beback. I have no interest in reviving that conflict, and it is unfair to somehow involve me in it.

I came to this page tonight to ask further clarification. The arbcom decision that I have read says "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." This is now being interpreted by editors at the article Lyndon LaRouche to include the article Lyndon LaRouche as well, and material is being removed such as a quote from Eugene McCarthy that appeared in an EIR interview, or in this case, a quote from Mexican President Lopez Portillo. Since the arbcom decision explicitly says "other than the article Lyndon LaRouche," I would like to know if you think that this behavior is justified. --ManEatingDonut 07:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does information about Eugene McCarthy or Lopez Portillo have to do with LaRouche?
May I also ask a question here? I read the arbcom decision, and I can find no explanation for the ban on the use of EIR as a source. EIR has been published continuously for over 30 years, and is included in the Google News feeds. Is there any evidence that there have been factual errors in EIR? Has EIR ever been sued for libel? If not, why is EIR being singled out for special exclusion? --Tsunami Butler 22:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what EIR is, but if it is produced by the LaRouches it is unacceptable. The reason is that it is original research. Fred Bauder 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EIR is "Executive Intelligence Review" and is the main publication of the LaRouche organizations. See http://www.larouchepub.com/ 6SJ7 22:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Please bear with me on this -- all I know about original research is what I read on the policy page (WP:NOR,) and this seems to be an unusual cirmcumstance. In the opinion of Wikipedia, what is the difference between EIR, and other political journals such as The Nation or National Review? Are they also considered original research?
2. The Eugene McCarthy question has come up at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. McCarthy was closely associated with the LaRouche movement beginning in the early '90s, when he chaired hearings into Justice Department misconduct organized by a LaRouche group, the Committee to Investigate Human Rights Violations. In '96 he signed the ads for LaRouche's exoneration that appeared in the Washington Post and Roll Call. He continued to work with LaRouche until he died last year. The dispute at the LaRouche article is over whether the arbcom decision prohibits the use of a quote from this interview which appeared in EIR. Thanks for your consideration. --Tsunami Butler 06:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration committee has specifically decided in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche that Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles. In other words, Lyndon LaRouche, his movement and its publications are not considered reliable sources for anything except what Lyndon LaRouche, his movement and his publications think about something. In this particular case, a LaRouche quote could be sourced to a LaRouche source but a McCarthy quote can not be. Perhaps you can find the quote reported in an alternate source that has not been determined to have reliability problems. Thatcher131 20:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. This goes to my other question above, but in what way was EIR "determined to have reliability problems"? Is there evidence, for example, that they have published factual errors?
2. How is an interview considered "original work"?
3. How do you make the determination that McCarthy is not part of LaRouche's movement? It seems to me that he is. --Tsunami Butler 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People who follow these things know. Fred Bauder 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my persistence, but I am here requesting clarification, and as I understand it, this is the place to do so. Surely the policy made by the ArbCom can be explained. There must be some kind of clear criteria the the layman can understand. I am trying to find out whether this publication, EIR, has a special, unprecedented, unique status at Wikipedia, or whether there is a clear guideline that applies to it, and presumably, other, similar publications. Also, I don't know which question you are not answering. --Tsunami Butler 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing unique here. Partisan sources are not considered reliable except with respect to their own opinions about things. We would not rely on sources controlled by the Democratic Party (US) for a factual description of George Bush's presidency, we would not rely on the CCHR for a factual presentation on the benefits of psychiatry, and we do not rely on LaRouche controlled sources for factual descriptions of things outside the LaRouche organization. It's just that unlike the many other situations I could mention, pro-LaRouche editors have been so persistent that a special arbitration finding was necessary to establish the principle. Thatcher131 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is somewhat more helpful. There are still some things that are unclear to me. I listed the examples of two highly partisan political journals, The Nation (partisan to the left) and National Review (partisan to right,) both of which cover much the same range of issues as EIR does. Would these publications then also be considered original research? I am also asking for further clarification on whether Eugene McCarthy should not be considered part of the LaRouche movement, since this issue remains unresolved at the Lyndon LaRouche talk page. His involvement in the movement was quite extensive, and it would seem dishonest to write him out of the history. --Tsunami Butler 15:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The journals you mention are not the result of one man's unique vision, in the sense that LaRouche publications are. They often contain fact based information from reliable sources and can sometimes be used. Information about Eugene McCarthy from a reliable source could be used, but not from a LaRouche journal or website. Fred Bauder 15:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

Although not provided for in the penalties, I have indefinitely blocked Terryeo as described at [73]. The reasons amount to malicious and targetted harassment of users as part of his unabandoned quest to advance his POV on Scientology. Phil Sandifer 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the necessity of this, but would not say ab initio that you have abused your discretion. Terreo does fine on Wikinfo, but our expectations are quite different. Fred Bauder 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your link doesn't seem to work. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct link is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive62#Terryeo blocked. The edits in question [74] and [75] link to a site that tracks the activities of Scientology critics. Thatcher131 02:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The block looks good to me. Charles Matthews 22:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=92010341"