Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	14 Dec 2024	04 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Stefanomencarelli-Bzuk-BillCJ

Initiated by Stefanomencarelli at 11:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

BillCJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bzuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Stefanomencarelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are probably many more editors whose comments should be elicited in this action. If necessary, a list will be provided of interested and affected parties. FWIW Bzuk 13:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

[1] and [2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

endless discussions in several talk pages, mainly related to the arguments in discussions. I am not so proficient in the many wikipedia resolution sistems, but i fear that no mediation can be made at this point.

An extensive record of all efforts to improve contributions by the aforementioned editor is available and can be provided. FWIW Bzuk 13:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC). BTW, this was the original statement removed by Stefanomencarelli and later by another editor:[reply]

Main editing forbidden: Bzuk and Bill:Initiated by Stefanomencarelli at 11:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Please indicate where editing was forbidden. FWIW Bzuk 13:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC). FWIW, neither editor, BillCJ nor Bzuk is an administrator, although a number of admins were actively involved with this series of edits. FWIW Bzuk 15:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC). I do not think it appropriate to remove other editor's comments, especially when the comments are illustrative of the issue at hand. FWIW Bzuk 01:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Other steps have been tried. Because Stefano's English grammar and syntax is so bad as to actually make parts of the article unintelligeble, and thus damage the article, a number of editors and admins with WP:AIR have tried (tactfully at first, directly later) to ask Stefano to work with other editors rather than dumping large sections of overly-detailed, poorly formatted text into articles. Stefano was asked to - and he agreed to - post his text changes either into a sandbox or onto an article's talk page so that another editor could clean up the grammar. After agreeing to this, Stefano instead posted a large chunk of text onto the Aeritalia F-104S article, and asked me to clean it up. After about 2 hours of work, it was presentable, and then he came in an made a bunch of additions, which put us back to square one. He then said he wasn't done adding new text and that I should wait a week or so before doing the cleanup. He never did come back and tell me he was finished. Then, Stafano dumped a huge amount of text into the talk page Talk:Aeritalia G.91, doesn't tell anyone it's there needing cleanup, then complains when we haven't cleaned it up. So, to make a short story long, other means of resolving this have been tried, and Stefano is simply too impatient to let them work. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I signaled F-104S to you, i did not realized that you soon will came here and work on it. Had I stated that the work was 'finish'? I remember not. And then, what's wrong to make another session, seen i have made some adds? I did not declared 'ended' such page, i just talk to you that there was some stuff there. And as for the rest, i leave in your talk the link to my contributions, so this could interested you if i forget to tell 'look today i made this and that'. And minor edits are hardly so dramatic to 'ruin the page'.--Stefanomencarelli 16:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stefanomencarelli

In the last weeks i was more and more rollbacked in my contributions in wikiarticles. I am aware to have not a very well english, but still, all is happening now is beyound any previous problem. I started to post much material in July-August, but in the last month i posted less and handled less articles (except those in which i made only minor edits).

Despite this, now there is a continous, logorating action made by these two admins to delete every post i make so i must write in the discussion page only, 'to correct herrors'. Even i was forced to do so, still in those pages these contributions are without any attention and this happens since weeks. Pages as B-50 [[3]], CF-104 [[4]], Aeritalia G.91 [[5]], and just yesterday i dared to write some datas on EH101 [[6]], promptly roll-backed in just one minute, while some raw datas in F-86 are in discussion to be reverted as well! So, in practical terms, i am forbidden to edit at all in any wikipedia pages on aviation project. Even if i had respected this (forced) pact to not post big edits in main pages, my censors have no attenctions to help these edits, and so i continue to write in talk pages only, risking immediate roll-backs in contrary cases, while what i write is not allowed to be put in the main pages.

At one time i written many articles without these problems, now even if i provide sources and try to respect the endless rules that are asked for, i am handled as an idiot and called troll without any problem. I am forced to contest the operate of these admins. I don't perfectly write in english, but perfection is not obligatory in contribution rules AFAIK:

"Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that, although it should be aimed for, *perfection is not required*."

And those had forced me to write only in talks not only humiliate myself but also don't bother to make their 'corrections'. This situation cannot run so badly for more time. I am in fact, forbidden to edit in main, and treaten to be blocked if i dare to do so. Is it possible to find a solution? Actually i am in fact out of editing in main, eveny few bites are promptly deleted..--Stefanomencarelli 11:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Bzuk:

First relations were not as pacific as you mean about 'welcome' [[7]], but this was a very OLD story. And it's not related to wiki.it how you are tryng to link. The problem lies here, in the last weeks: every stuff i write i am endagered of promptly deleting.

It's not guilth of mine if i have sources on italian aircrafts written in italian, and it's not guilth of mine if i am enough 'expert' to make comparations that seems NNPOV.

Major efforts by numerous parties to improve use of grammar, referencing and even article formats have not been successful and the editor is still unable to contribute in a meaningful way without resorting to attacks on others whenever his edits are challenged in any manner

Gratuitus accuses. I have incidentally abandoned the 'large dumping' and this is not still enough. It's already amusing to be forced to write only in talk, but to say the least *if someone is so really 'interested' in quality to forbid editing in the main to me, then after so drastic decisions, could he to take parts to the overhaulings of these edits in the talk pages?. Instead, it's sufficient to make nothing.

I fail to see how this could be allowed: Wikipedia is writable only by english corrent speakers? So, put it clear instead to forbid to me to edit. It's Wiki.en. not wiki.swaili. Almost all the world has to do with english and many not-well english speakers are interested to contribute. Now i am even roll-backed for adding simple datas and still i am waiting someone interested to re-wiev B-50-CF104 and G.91. I still wait but nobody cares. So, or wiki establish that i must write only excellent in english or if this is not requested in such measure, i must be freed to post in wiki. It's uncacceptable that some pages are simply out of my action, not simply editing. BillBC is the main responsable to these things, but still he not bother to talk here. Is not a thing a little 'degrading' seen that he don't bother even to answer to me in talk? If these things will continue, i'll consider my self free and re-start to post regardless of agreements signed the last days (or ,for the enjoy of someone, quit and leave).--Stefanomencarelli 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Bzuk:

'The editor in question' AKA myself, has incremented his edits just to hoverhaul some articles. In 10 october i made 184 edits, almost exclusively to adjuste almost all articles i wrote.

That's is the misleading of this history: i made efforts to make things better and this is not casually reversed against me.

To Akra:

Well, first of all, in wiki.it i was blocked and not banned. Second, you continue to accuse me of Copyviol, a thing that NOBODY has ever proof even in wiki.it after one and half year of 'service'. And God knows if someone has wanted to proof this. No way, i am basically incapable to make such jokes to someone else, and i do not need to make copyviols. I repeat to you too what i already said to you other times: i challenge the rest of world to found where i make copyviols. Period. I don't have to fear nothing about this issue.

Second, the thing had raised this is related to the kindly attenctions that swiftly Bill and Bzuk have paid to my *tiny contributions* in EH101 and F-86. Just because i had some datas at the hands and thinked well, nothing happens with G.91, then i will add some stuff to these pages: who will be worried for half kb of contributes?. Wrong. The next morning one was debated, the other deleted because lacks of sources. I have stated that i was temporaney uncapable to post them. Kindly, instead to trow gasoline on fire, can Bill or Bzuk ask to me sources? Bzuk has even questioned datas on F-86 'after checked them' while i, 'after checked them' in the Web have swiftly found two site matching my numbers. Strangely enough, i'd say.

So Akra: agreements are fine, but if you get a look on indian reserves, you'll realize that such 'agreements' works only if both parts acts in accourd. It's not what i see about. When agreement are respected just by one side, it's more similar to apartheid. And the mere fact of BillBC is not present here to discuss (just as he have always done: no discussion, just rollbacks) speaks a volume.--Stefanomencarelli 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to BillCJ

Well, some points:

1-You accuse me to make copyviols? About what kind of proof? The only text added was Goebel site about Saab 37 Viggen that's not copyviol because is declared PUBLIC DOMAIN. And still in the discussion talk page Bzuk has argued that it's copyviol, raising the extreme boundary of ridicolous. Do you are not in agreement, bright eyes? Then ask to my ex-fellows in wiki if i was EVER found guilty of copyviol. So this is not a statement, it's a slander and nothing else. And so in wikipedia there must be not personal attacks heh? And accusing me of copyviol WITHOUT any proof what is it? A compliment?

2-For a time, I simply tried to stay away from the articles he was editing, but as he continued to expand his area of damage, I felt that I could no longer stand by while he does such damage to Wikipeida, even if it was all in good faith

So i am 'damaging' the 'poor' wikipedia? So, my edits are seen by monsiers here? Ha, now i even extend the 'damage area'. But what about italian aircrafts like the entire Savoia-Marchetti dinasty (SM.79, SM.81,SM.81,Savoia-Marchetti_SM.84)? CANT Z.1007, CRDA CANT Z.1018, CANT Z.501? Macchi MC.202 and Macchi MC.205? What about the ridicolous level of knowledge that your encyclopedia had about before i started to couver them?? Hey, man, that's the spirit you display with contributors, so no wonder that i am see as 'damager' of wiki. It's really outrageus.

3-At that point, AKRadecki and John stepped in, and tried to reason with him, but these attempts were less than successful, as recounted above. It is my belief that after three long months of Stefanomencarelli's contributions to Wikipedia, he has proven his inability to get along with others here, and does not try to abide by the most basic of Wiki's Contribution Policies.

What about your capability to relate with myself? Come and delete my conributes is not a friendly manner to act. Where is your right to accuse me to be 'asocial' when you even not tried to make discussions? You even delete protest posts in your talk and never bother to answer? What i should think? That i am in a prison?

4-It is my belief that after three long months of Stefanomencarelli's contributions to Wikipedia, he has proven his inability to get along with others here, and does not try to abide by the most basic of Wiki's Contribution Policies. This has nothing to do with the fact that he is not a native speaker of English, nor that he is not from a primarily-English country, especially since most of these problems were present in the Italian Wikipedia, where the language should not be a problem.

One-My issues with wiki.it have NOTHING to do with here, and to start with i was so 'asocial' that i have three articles as 'featured' in that wiki.
Two-Your accusation about myself are cleary personal attacks. While i have no reason to say i am always right about all i am not suitable to be treaten as a sort of monster by you or someone else.

Another thing, that speaks a volume about 'the kindly manners in wikipedia'. In the page F-86 Sabre: [[8]] i have noticed the adding of few RAW DATAS i put in the page, just because i saw that they were missing. I hoped that it was liked and nobody leaved them at will, but Bzuk arrived and disputed them. I have a magazine with F-86F-40 datas, i have searched on the web and put two links to show that i have no dreamed them.

And what's happened today? Bzuk has deleted them, because they are 'unsourced' or whetever. I gave the magazine datas, i gave references, i gave two links with the exactly datas included the max speed both on sea level and at 10,500 m. And even this was not enough.

And then, who speaks agains me on what basis talks? Who is criticable for his manners? Just tell me. With these things, with the forbid to edit even few datas i wouldn't get crazy. I am start to loose interest to edit in a place where, with some excuses like errors and references (in italian) i am seen as a criminal in a penitentiary.

I am forced to leave or obtain those justice and respect that are blatalantly lacking to me. Such a shame.--Stefanomencarelli 21:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to EH101: sure, i have no property to any article. But to have a child and say: 'that's my son' not means that 'i am the master/propetary of him'. It means i made this baby (with another human being). Obviousely, focusing on the mere 'property' is misleading, but Wikipedia is so worried about 'copyright' that everybody is blind to any other meanings to the term 'i have'. I have a mother, a father, a grandmother, a child, some cats, but nobody of them is 'mine' as slaves or objects. Simply to understand? For some nuts it's not.

They thinks actually only about $$ and dispraces the ones that realized that works, as GFDL autorizes to consider them slaves. Obviosely the truth is another.

The fact that one artist, as example, makes a opera and then sell it not means that this opera has 'no father'. If not, try to buy a Gougain,Manet, Velasquez, Raffaello, just because 'sig. Rossi' has it.

And problems with wiki.it to me were mainly caused by persons, happy only to provocke and even blackmail me (in the votations for feauturing). And i could make names, but someone could take it as personal attack and so i am retaining to do so. But i could, and by Zeus i should, also.

When i came to wiki.it the aviation/naval/artillery/missile sector was almost nilh. There was any WWII US fighter except a pair of stubs. I felt shame for wiki.it seeing this, and tried to make my best to improve it. Others did not liked it, but seriously,it was not guilth of mine.

X BZUK Bis: Despite this current request for arbitration, the editor in question has continued editwarring with other editors even while this process is being considered

What's? This is my edit contribution: [[9]]. Where is that i am going to make wars? One user has deleted F-86 edits with the excuse of 'unreliable datas' adding a link that not even function. I remarked that my datas, sorry, are corrects and supported. And asked to revert that modiphic. I explained to you why and what was right about my assemptions, and you instead to answer to me came here talking of edit wars? That's not exactly what i expected by one guy in good faith, but now i understand a bit better what's in your mind= max damage, min cost, and who cares to make a decent encyclopedia, important is strike 'unliked' users, right?

Bis: X BillCJ: As you can see i've written right your nickname and so you could not really tell me that i am incapable to 'grow'. OTOH you are finally almost capable to call me right as well, and not Stefo, Stephano or whetever. So it' a multilateral stuff.

Second, after all that whining list posted below:

1-you cannot explain the F-86 stuff. There are not grammar, not NNPOV, not 'spaghetti sources-only' there. Real concrete raw datas only, and again, not accepted. Bzuk had not answered to my data references, instead went here to whining. Is it a bit 'strange'? I find yes, it is.

Someone (yes i know who is him, but silence, please) has reversed my contr. in F-86 page with a non-existent link used as 'reference'(LOL). And nobody cared. Do you realize that this was greatly worse than add datas with existent references? What can i have done more than this? Am i the only one obliged to justify every thing i do, when others are free to vandalize pages at will? Just asking. It's not a marginal question at all.

2-You cannot either explain this:

'I want to award you with a MoRsE MeDaL for the work you've done with expanding the Italian aircraft articles. Keep on doing what you do! :) --MoRsE 20:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)'

Not this: 'While German airplanes are very well known, Italian ones are so unknown they may as well have flown on the far side of the moon. Your articles on Italian aircraft are fascinating. Do you object to some tiny polishing up on your Inglish by a English-Only speaker? Tabletop 10:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not even this: 'Do not give up the good fight. I have reviewed your edits. You are providing information to the project that far exceeds what others are capable of. I hav seen the rollbacks and you are absolutely right: they are unjustified. It seems that there are those with little better to do than delete the hard work of others. I am suprised that the Admins have not corrected theem for their sniveling comments as they make sweeping deletes. Don't give up because of a few weak minded individuals that are more concerned with their ownership of the articles than in the improvement of the project.68.244.246.90 18:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)'(NW it was recognized as 'troll activity', maybe, but this is still a compliment)

Not 'all is bad'. Just a of 'perception of threat' that makes monsters and de-humanize the guys behind the screen.--Stefanomencarelli 19:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bzuk

The editor in question appeared on en.Wikipedia sites late in July 2007 and began to contribute to aviation articles at that point after setting up a home page. His first contributions were welcomed and an introductory message was left on his home page. My comment was: "Welcome to the aviation side of Wikipedia. As you are not a native English speaker, there will need to be some help in editing for readability in grammar. As well, please note that you do need to refer to reference sources to 'back up' submissions. Please continue to contribute but be aware that other editors will help you in framing the articles in an encyclopedic manner." All my exchanges with the aforementioned editor have been similar in nature and are intended to provide friendly and collaborative assistance to a newcomer. Until recently and except for a few occasions, there were no responses to any questions or notes directed to the editor. Some of the main concerns about the submissions revolved around a rudimentary grasp of English which is entirely understandable and a number of editors have attempted to assist in revising text in terms of spelling, grammar and syntax errors. The other concerns were more fundamental and involved "textdumping" large amounts of material from relatively obscure Italian magazines (characterized by another Italian editor as childrens' magazines), use of original research (which the editor forcefully defended on policy talk pages) and a combative, abusive style in responding to suggestions, corrections or other editor's revisions. This last concern developed into editwarring with editors and led to a number of blocks of various lengths from admins who were observing the actions. After a brief return to It.Wiki where the editor had been blocked for three months, he was again blocked for an indefinite period for similar behaviour. In order to address some of the concerns, notwithstanding the genuine efforts that were made to add to the en.wiki (I supported an award to the editor to recognize his contributions), an effort to enlist other experienced editors was initiated. It began with a request placed on the aviation project page (an area where most of the editor's submissions appeared) and a group of editors responded by monitoring the large numbers of submissions and assisting with the revisions required. I also helped in that process until lately when I simply felt overwhelmed by the daily massive textdumps and merely marked articles for others with tags. Editwarring was still a concern and after advice from admins as to remedies, an admin suggested that large batches of material should appear first on article talk pages and then be transferred to the main body. Although this suggestion was at times ignored, it seemed a reasonable compromise and made it easier to see the entire contribution at one time. Despite this current request for arbitration, the editor in question has continued editwarring with other editors even while this process is being considered. A clear edit history is still available of all contacts and changes, and although two editors have been named, there are numerous other editors and admins who have tried to provide assistance in what was initially perceived as a "learning curve" exercise. These efforts were most often rebuffed as presumptuous and ill-informed and a wide range of comments directed to individual members' talk/discussion pages is the evidence of this reaction to well-meaning criticism or advice. Personally, I do not react to "character attacks" and choose to use a "water off the duck's back" approach to singular and negative statements. Although the actions taken by editors and admins to improve articles has been an ongoing process, there still appears to be very little in the way of actual changes in the submissions. Major efforts by numerous parties to improve use of grammar, referencing and even article formats have not been successful and the editor is still unable to contribute in a meaningful way without resorting to attacks on others whenever his edits are challenged in any manner. Others have also noted that their edits have often been reverted to incorrect spellings, grammar and syntax, and edits continue to appear in multiple submissions without referring to the talk page whenever major changes are initiated. After literally a thousand contributions in en.wiki, not one reference citation has ever been correctly written or formatted despite countless revisions that have "pointed the way" to an acceptable standard of bibliographical referencing. I welcome other's opinions, comments and advice in what has become a daily adventure. My primary interest is in improving Wikipedia aviation articles of historical importance and I am willing to work with anyone in this venture. FWIW Bzuk 12:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note, this is the actual record of edits made by the editor in question:

2007/7: 138 (average of 23 edits daily)
2007/8: 486 (average of 15 edits daily)
2007/9: 236 (average of 7.8 edits daily)
2007/10: 580 (average of 30 edits daily)

FWIW Bzuk 15:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by semi-involved Akradecki

I am uninvolved as far as not being named in this, but actually have been quite involved in the situation, primarily as an admin asked by BillCJ to intervene in a difficult situation. Dealing with Stefano can be extremely frustrating (and it is pretty self-evident to me why he was ulitmately banned from the Italian Wikipedia), because of his limited English, and his insistence on dumping large amounts of detailed, text, most of which I suspect is an English translation of copyrighted Italian text, and his unwillingness to work with the rather dedicated editors involved in WP:AIR. I am surprised that he has brought this matter here, because it was my understanding that an agreement had been worked out, whereby instead of blasting a large chunk of barely-intelligeble text into an article, he would post it on a talk page or sandbox and work with editors to get it polished before posting it into an article. I am, quite frankly, disappointed that he hasn't allowed this process to develop and mature. What's more concerning to me is that Stefano has recently stepped up his personal attacks on other editors. Myself and another admin have been removing those, and I'm on the verge of escalating the warnings to Stefano, and if he doesn't back off on his attacks on other editors, initiating a short term block. Unfortunately, there is a real problem, his very poor English, and when well-meaning editors try to get involved, he goes into a poor-me, wikipedia-is-corrupt attitude, and has no patience with editors who genuinely want to help. I would suggest to the Committee that they advise Stefano to continue to try to work within the framework of the agreement already in place. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BillCJ

Note, I am NOT User:BillBC, whom Stefanomencarelli contineus to mistake for me me in his posts. Please note he is refrreing to BillCJ, not BillBC, in those posts.

THere is not much to add to what BZuk has written in his description of the problems here. When I first noticed his textdumps, what concerned me were the vast amounts of well-written text that was being added, which contrasted with his very-poor written English in his posts. WHenever large amounts of text is added without sourcing, I interpret WP:ATTR to require us to remove such sections until adequate reliable sources can be provided. So I removed the sections, with the edit summary that it was a possible copyvio. Since that point, Stefanomencarelli has been increasingly hostile towards me, and even above proclaims his innocence in the matter. However, the contributor must prove that his contributions are not copyvios when so requested, not the other way around, per WP:ATTR. I also get the impression that Stefanomencarelli does not understand how copyright laws and plagarism guidelines work. Even when I use PD material, such as Greg Goebel's Vectorsite, I still cite the soure, and rewrite it in my own words were I can. I don't think that Stefanomencarelli is even aware that material from copyrighted sources MUST be rewritten in one's own words, and that the failure to do so is at least plagirism, and at most a copyvio.

After the first few weeks of interaction, several editors, including a few Italian-fluent ones, found out that Stefanomencarelli had been blocked/banned for 3 months for the VERY same type of problems we have recorded here, with the possible exception of the Language issue. I'm assuming his Italian is pretty good, but if he was using English sources there, the translation may have still led to readability problems there. From that point on I privately supported a ban here, as he was exhibiting the same type of uncivil behavior here.

For a time, I simply tried to stay away from the articles he was editing, but as he continued to expand his area of damage, I felt that I could no longer stand by while he does such damage to Wikipeida, even if it was all in good faith. My response at that point was to simply revert his addition, as his initial textdumps were causing hours of work for other editors to clean up. At that point, AKRadecki and John stepped in, and tried to reason with him, but these attempts were less than successful, as recounted above.

It is my belief that after three long months of Stefanomencarelli's contributions to Wikipedia, he has proven his inability to get along with others here, and does not try to abide by the most basic of Wiki's Contribution Policies. This has nothing to do with the fact that he is not a native speaker of English, nor that he is not from a primarily-English country, especially since most of these problems were present in the Italian Wikipedia, where the language should not be a problem.

- BillCJ 17:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments - There are several problems with Stefanomencarelli and his contributions that seem to be a constant throughout his activities here:

His edits show no sense of proportion - He insists on dumping large amouts of unedited/redacted material in sections of the article which then overwhelm the other sections, and often duplicate them. A primary example is his edits to the Saab 37 Viggen page, in which he dumped material whole from a PD site (Vectorsite), which duplicated section added from that site by another contributor (a Swedish-language speaker).
His edits show no discernment - Related to the Viggen incident, he shows no ability to moferate his additions, nor to recognize that not all information is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article.
He shows no ability to take editorial criticism - Throught this past year, I have edited with BZUK,and been amazed by his ability as a highly-skilled editor. THis is partly because he does editing for publication in the "real world". Anyone who has watched our contribuions knows that BZuk and I often disagree on various issues here, especially in the naming of articles. However, I highly respect his abilities and contributions, and he has expressed thanks on several occasions for my work. Thus I was very surprised when, from the very beginning of Stefanomencarelli's contributions to Wikipedia, he expressed such consternation with Bzuk's attempts to clean-up and modify Stefanomencarelli's contributions. FOremost of these was grammar issues, which makes Stefanomencarelli's objections somewhat surprising since his English grammar is certainly not up to Wikipedia standards. There is nothing wrong with Stefanomencarelli not being skilled in English - it is his inability to accept his limitations that is so frustrating to other editors.
He refuses to acknowledge his limitations - This is primarily the grammar issue, but extends into other areas also. I recognize my inabilty to write adequate summaries,and even the rewording of large amonts of copyrighted matierial into acceptable Wiki copy is tedious for me. I can't write a good Lead from scratch. But I am a fairly good copyeditor, and I enjoy adding peripherals such as infoboxes, and I also enjoy the process of merging or splitting articles, aside form rewriting the text itself. I do tend to get too emotional in discussions, as some of my interactions with Stefanomencarelli will exhibit. I am also willing to admit when I am wrong, and move on. I can accept compromise, and even champion decisions with which I am in disagreement when those decisions are the concensus. But I do recognize my own strengths and weaknesses. Stefanomencarelli seems eitehr unaware of his limitations, is unwilling to admit that those traits are limitations, or is simply too proud to accept his errors and back down from them. This makes coming to a compromise with him extremely difficult, if not impossible.
He shows no ability to discern between poor, fair, good, and great sources, and seems to think only the sources he has or has found are the only reliable ones.
He shows very little patience - One of the key atributes necessary in resolving disputes on Wikipedia is Patience. On several ocassions,t he admins involved have offered to help Stefanomencarelli with his grammar issues, asking that he post his material to a talk page or user sandbox. After one or too mediocre efforts, he goes right back to the same pattern of dumping unedited text in article, much to the consternation of the admins.
He shows limited ability and/or willingness to grow as an editor - For the most part, we are dealing with the same primary issues that we faced when Stefanomencarelli began editing on Wikipedia. Worse, they seem to be the same issues faced on Italian WIki, yet he steadfastly proclaims the two are not related, which he expressed above. In doing so, he has refused to grow as an editor, and thus has failed to recognize the oportunity he had here in English Wikipedia. Instead of trying to learn from his mistakes, and adapt to the methods and Policies of Wikipedia, he has continued his same pattern of behavior here. It's sad to realize that if he had made an effort at any point here to grow as an editor, the admins involved here would have been happy to recommend his reinstatement at Italian WIkipedia, where he could edit in his (presumably) first language.

- BillCJ 17:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, user:68.244.246.90 is a known sockpuppet of user:Wikzilla. THis is like getting Hitler to vouch for one's character. It may well be true, but do you really want to be associated with such a person? I will give credit were it is do (and have stted this in the past): Stefanomencarelli has not to this point, at least to my knowledge, engaged in any of the behavior exhibited by Wikzilla, such as wiki-stalking, sockpuppetry to avoid blocks and bans, etc. Such behavior is grounds for bannishment, and rightly so. I am glad to see that Stefanomencarelli has not stooped to this level, and I sincerely hope that he does not in the future. He does have the potential to be a better editor, but, as his response to my critique shows, he prefers to attack the person rather than the issues, and still shows no inclination to want to improve his behavior, which he sees no fault in. - BillCJ 19:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R: with the above list made by you vs myself (please don't tell me that you are criticizing just my work here), it's cleary necessary a lot of 'courage' to assert that i 'prefer to attack the person rather than issues'. Perhaps you too have a bit confusion to discriminate one to the other.--Stefanomencarelli 13:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved EH101

I wish to point to Mr. Stefanomencarelli that writes "i(sic) have three articles as 'featured' in that wiki (it.wiki)." he, like everybody else, owns no articles on that and on any of the Wikipedia projects. Anyway, It could be useful to add that during one of those featuring debates he was banned for three months (and today the ban is infinite) for personal attacks to rewievers.--EH101 00:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Nimbus227

I have been an editor on Wikipedia for only three weeks experiencing the low of an article Lockheed XF-104 being nominated for AfD, then the high two days later of it being a DYK on the front page. My specialist area of interest is the Lockheed F-104 where I quickly noticed the editing conflicts and respectfully added some advice/comments of my own, I received replies that I felt were aggressive. The Aeritalia F-104S article is in dire need of editing, though to be fair it has just been created from a previous article that detailed Italian F-104 service. I could clean this article very quickly but am very reluctant to do so for fear of having to justify every edit (which goes against the 'being bold' principle). I speak German fairly well and am an English translator for the F-40 series of aviation books [10] however I would not even attempt to contribute to Wiki.de knowing that someone would probably have to correct my inevitable grammar or spelling mistakes. I would be willing to help with correction of stefanomencarreli's submissions if they were short enough (and factually accurate) but I do know how long it can take and can understand completely that the only way to correct the articles he has contributed to is to revert even if it does mean that new information is omitted. I personally hope that the situation improves soon.Nimbus227 22:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nimbus227, be aware that your contributions as well as those of Stefanomencarelli are valued and that in the spirit of camaraderie, editors to Wikipedia are welcomed and submissions are not routinely challenged because "good faith" does trump every other consideration. The instances that were evidenced in some submissions related above do not represent the typical Wikipedia aircraft article contribution, nor even the usual Wikipedia edit. By and large, thousands upon thousands, maybe even millions of edits have been made without controversy because a bevy of interested and knowledgable contributors have joined together to create a unique reference source. No one in the group of editors working on Wikipedia aircraft articles prefers or enjoys editwarring or conflicts, instead it is a group whose passion like mine and yours has revolved around aviation and aviators. FWIW Bzuk 00:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I do realise that I was unfortunate to land in a 'briar patch' having read through many other aviation article talk pages. I was expecting to find lively debate in the F-104 articles revolving around common misconceptions by the public but I found a different discussion instead which was obviously bogging down progress on improving the articles. I have had nothing but encouragement (bar the odd slapped wrist for newbie mistakes) since I've been here and no reversions AFAIK. I further realise that this is not a discussion page but thought that the arbitrators might find my point of view relevant. Hoping for a speedy and practical conclusion to this matter. Nimbus227 00:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Red Sunset

Since his first appearance on en.wiki, Stefanomencarelli has demonstrated enthusiasm in contributing in depth to numerous articles that have hitherto received little or no interest, and created many others, albeit with a poor grasp of the English language. This is highly commendable, and the language/grammar problem is understandable (pun not intended), but the sheer volume and nature of the contributions has not always improved the articles and has led to much work on the part of other editors in cleaning it up. Other, more experienced and well-regarded editors, most notably Bzuk and BillCJ have correctly attempted to deal with the issues of sourcing and copyvios, and have found it necessary to remove the associated material; while I have concentrated mainly on copyediting. This has unfortunately led to Stefanomencarelli interpreting their actions as being unduly hostile and taking issue with those involved, rather than adapting his edits to conform with wiki guidelines; however, it is only fair to say that I have received no negative responses from him to any of my own modifications to his work. My participation in the clean-ups has waned of late because of the overwhelming amount of Stefano's contributions, and in the recent revelations as to the nature of the reference sources used. Although I personally have an issue with using sources written in a language where the information cannot be verified by the reader, I continued "in good faith" that they were reliable, but the use of children's magazines is a bit suspect to say the least.

IHMO, the suggestion by Akradecki that Stefanomencarelli posts his contributions on discussion pages only is a good solution to the problem, but would require his willingness and patience in allowing other editors time to incorporate them into the relevant articles. --Red Sunset 10:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and in the recent revelations as to the nature of the reference sources used. Although I personally have an issue with using sources written in a language where the information cannot be verified by the reader, I continued "in good faith" that they were reliable, but the use of children's magazines is a bit suspect to say the least.

Dear R.Sunset: i appreciate your discrete and silent efforts to improve my articles without making bloody reverts and edit war. That's how i expect as 'collaboration'. But_ this statement above is with all the respect, gratuitous and false. Let's make it clear. Do you are arguing that Aerei, RID, Storia Militare are 'children magazine'? They are the best stuff available in italian.

RID magazine is the main defence magazine in italian language, the most referenced and the most appreciated also with his director's partecipation in TV programs in all the international crisis happened last years. Storia militare is the main and perhaps the only historical military magazine available. Aerei is a fair magazine, lighter as contenutes, almost as Aeronautica and Difesa, but full of datas, services, monographies. None of them can be called 'children magazine'. They are written by professionists, and only in the last years their quality level has a bit dropped, mainly for the lack of 'news'. But all the material i have is not 'children' at all and a endless source of historical/tecnical/analisis material. In particular, the reports of Aerei, A&D, Panorama Difesa and others are really good. RID analisis of aero-tecnical is AFAIK unmatched by any other military magazine, a top-notch worlwide. Finally, Storia Militare is far worse than Rivista Storica, but this was closed and SM remained. It's still a endless source of material about WWI, WWII and some other XX century stuff.

They absolutely not writes for kids, except perhaps N.Sgarlato, that is not necessarly a insult. So be more informed before make such gratouitus statements.

A.Nativi (analyst, 25 years service in RID and actual director), N.Sgarlato (divulgator, author of thousands articles, books and monografies in over 30 years), N.Pignato (Author, among the others, of Storia dei mezzi corazzati encyclopedia and main expert of military historical veicles in Italy, he also have over 30 year experience), M.Annati (Italian Navy former officier and expert of naval weapons), G.Ferrari (Nuclear engeneer and expert of WMDs), E.Po (divulgator), S.Coniglio (engeneer and modern aircraft engine expert), E.Bonsignore (Analyst both tecnical and political), Tullio Marcon (Main italian historical expert of War in Mediterranean, and Italian Navy), J-P. Housson (free lancer and expert in special forces and third world conflicts since 20 years), A.Margelletti (Strategical analyst and director of a 'center of strategical analisis') should awaits for your apologies. I don't read Topolino and Paperinik.--Stefanomencarelli 13:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Four votes to accept noted. Will be opened in about 24 hours, unless the tally changes. Picaroon (t) 22:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to parties: This case has been accepted by the arbitrators and should be formally opened later today. Once the case is opened, you will have a full opportunity to present evidence. It is not necessary or helpful for you to add additional comments at this time. (Please also note that parties who have not had cases before are not expected to immediately understand all the procedural aspects of the arbitration process. Minor procedural lapses will not be held against anyone.) Newyorkbrad 14:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Talk page notifications: [11] [12] [13]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Attempts were made at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking, and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/28#Lyndon LaRouche and related articles

Note: I have undeleted the RfCs for the purpose of this request. Thatcher131 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marvin Diode

Cberlet (talk · contribs · logs) and Dking (talk · contribs · logs) are the Wikipedia usernames of advocacy journalists Chip Berlet and Dennis King, who have worked as a team for over twenty years, mainly in activism against Lyndon LaRouche and his organization. They also work as a team at Wikipedia, and I contend that have used the project to aggressively promote their shared POV in violation of WP:SOAP. I keep Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics on my watchlist and I have responded to many requests, but I have not seen anyone else push an agenda with the sort of truculence that I have seen from Cberlet and Dking.

Lyndon LaRouche, as is well known, espouses many controversial and exotic opinions that are well outside the political mainstream. However, Cberlet and Dking are not content to let him be hoisted by his own petard. They have both written many articles and in King's case, a book, which claim that LaRouche's writings are full of coded or veiled messages. Berlet and King provide "decodings" that utilize the methodology of conspiracy theorists, in which they claim to be revealing the hidden, esoteric truth, that LaRouche is a closet Hitlerian fascist himself, despite his perpetual campaigns against a revival of Hitlerian fascism. As an example, Dennis King finds that photos from LaRouche's science magazine, of spiral nebulae and fusion plasma experiments, are "reminiscent of the swastika." To my way of thinking, the relevant Wikipedia articles should simply report, in summary form, that Berlet and King hold these views, particularly if they are of a highly speculative or "decoding" nature. However, Cberlet and Dking insist that this view must dominate the articles and be explicated at length. This raises numerous problems with policy, including WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR. Recently an admin, citing BLP, removed comments about LaRouche that Cberlet had posted on his user talk page and two article talk pages. Cberlet, complaining of censorship, engaged in an edit war to restore the comments on his user talk page[14] and was temporarily blocked as a result.[15]

I proposed that when their views have appeared in mainstream publications, those may be used as sources and would not be disputed (this satisfies the requirements of WP:REDFLAG.) Although both Cberlet and Dking have denounced this proposal as censorship,[16] [17] I continue to believe that this proposal is consistent with Wikipedia policy and would be the simplest solution to a persistent problem.

Another policy issue which arises in this context is WP:COI. It is my view that both Berlet and King are exploiting Wikipedia to raise their public profiles and draw traffic to their respective websites. Action was taken April 15, 2007, and on subsequent days by the team at the COI noticeboard to remove WP:LINKSPAM by Dking (Dking has recently renewed his linkspam campaign.) One of the editors who conducted the LinkSpam cleanup later expressed this view: "Cberlet and Dking are both COI SPAs: single purpose accounts with very obvious conflicts of interest." [18]

There is also the issue of tendentious editing and civility. Cberlet and Dking have been involved in many fierce disputes (not limited to the LaRouche articles.) I have watched these develop at a number of LaRouche articles; when a dispute arises, Cberlet and Dking immediately label their opponents "LaRouche followers" or "LaRouche apologists," which is inappropriate (regardless of whether it is actually true: at WP:NPA it says that one type of comment which is never acceptable is "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.") Cberlet and Dking have recently become more careful not to specify any individual editor, but this does not excuse the practice -- WP:POINT refers to "'Borderlining' (habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct.)" Cberlet and Dking then characterize these reputed LaRouche followers in the most offensive terms, including using the expression "house Jews" to describe Jewish supporters of LaRouche([19].)

Finally, I would ask the ArbCom to address the conduct of Will Beback (talk · contribs · logs), who has often supported inappropriate edits by Cberlet and Dking, and wikilawyered on their behalf. He exerted himself to obstruct earlier efforts at dispute resolution such as the deleted RFCs, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking. I should clarify here that he acted mostly as an editor and not as an admin; Will didn't delete them himself, but instead encouraged User:El C to do so, after first disrupting the process by dominating the discussion with accusations against other editors. When the matter was discussed at the ANI[20], it was suggested that a request for mediation be pursued, but when that was done, Will Beback declined to participate, saying that it "appears mostly to deal with a behavioral dispute."[21]

I would like to add that in Dking's statement below, there are numerous blatant misrepresentations of the disputes he has been involved in. Since he provides no diffs, I hope that members of the ArbCom will wait until they see some evidence before giving credence to his claims.

Final note: Cberlet has said that he is taking a one month break.

Response to JzG

JzG asserts that "pro-LaRouche editors believe that only editors with their POV should be allowed to edit the articles," and that the "case boils down" to this. I would ask him to simply re-read my statement. My proposed solution to the conflict is straightforward: in the case of opinions by King or Berlet that are highly speculative or otherwise contentious, I simply ask that those opinions be sourced to a mainstream publication. That's it. It's not an onerous burden. Regarding JzG's defense of Will Beback, it is true that Will is far more cautious about violating policy than are Cberlet and Dking, but that doesn't make him neutral. He is in their corner, POV-wise. As Will himself said when he argued for the banning of MaplePorter, "I never claimed to be impartial."[22] --Marvin Diode 14:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note to arbitrators

While this matter is pending, I consider it highly inappropriate that User:Georgewilliamherbert has taken it upon himself to issue sweeping reinterpretations of previous arbcom decisions (see WP:ANI#Views of Lyndon LaRouche article fully protected.) He claims to be "trivially extending" the previous rulings, but as I read them, it looks more like he's creating new policy out of whole cloth. --Marvin Diode 14:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dking

1. Marvin Diode affects the role of a disinterested party when he says that "Cberlet and Dking are not content to let LaRouche be hoisted by his own petard." Let's be clear: Whenever Berlet or I or any other non-LaRouche editor quotes an anti-Semitic or homophobic statement by LaRouche, Marvin Diode jumps to LaRouche's defense (often by starting an edit war) to PREVENT LaRouche from being hoist by the petard of his own remarks. It is no secret that a long string of LaRouche followers have edited on this article over the years (and some have been expelled as sock puppets), all using the same arguments in the same rhetorical style, all levelling the same obscure accusations at myself and Berlet, all using the same aggressive edit-war tactics, and all advocating the same unique set of beliefs held ONLY by people who are within the narrow orbit of the LaRouche movement. Some but not all of these people (who mostly do NOT reveal their real identities) play the childish game of pretending they are disinterested observers.

Marvin Diode is now saying that Wikipedia should simply ignore this elephant in the living room--the existence of a well-coordinated, well-documented campaign going back approximately four years--on grounds that it is abusive to call LaRouche followers what they are: LaRouche followers.

2. Marvin Diode says that the heart of our attack on LaRouche is that he has a secret code language and that everything we accuse him of saying is merely our private interpretation of this code. This is a grotesque distortion. Most of the controversy on this article and the main LaRouche article has been related to open, public expressions of anti-Semitism, homophobia and extreme sexism by LaRouche. The LaRouche supporters' answer to the citing of these open, naked expressions of hate is to say that they are based on our reading of the code language. This is the old courtroom tactic of misrepresenting your opponents' argument and then quickly changing the subject. Yes, I believe LaRouche uses euphemisms and elliptical language on many occasions. But it was not code language when he denied the Holocaust, when he called Judaism a half-religion of people who lack a "Christian conscience," when he blamed Jewish conspirators for killing half of Europe's population in the Black Plague, when he praised skinhead attacks on gays in the mid-1980s, when he called Henry Kissinger a "faggot," when he raved against women as "witch mothers", etc. So let's not try to say his open statements are mere code language; they are not.

3. According to Marvin Diode, "Cberlet and Dking insist that this view [the so-called code language theory] must dominate the articles and be explicated at length." In fact if one looks at the "Views of LaRouche" article that is chiefly at issue here, one will find that prior to the current dispute there was a single sentence about "masked anti-Semitism" cited to the Encyclopedia Judaica, and a brief paragraph about how my book emphasizes both open and coded anti-Semitism in LaRouche's discourse and giving examples of each. These brief statements in a lengthy article are dwarfed by the many paragraphs of adulation about LaRouche and also, in the final half of the article, by the numerous examples of open hate language used by LaRouche against Jews, gays and women. The material I have attempted to add over the past week is not just about code language but includes material that a reasonable person would regard as openly targeting and demeaning Jews.

If one goes to the main LaRouche biography on Wiki one will also find that only a very minor emphasis is placed on LaRouche's euphemistic use of language--and the paragraph outlining it was crafted by the LaRouche editors themselves to trivialize my observations on this subject and divert attention away from the examples of LaRouche's open hate language contained in the Wiki article. In other words, Marvin Diode's argument on this point is a straw man.

4. I also dispute Marvin Diode's implication that I don't quote from mainstream publications. My book on LaRouche was published by Doubleday, a mainstream publisher, and received a large number of very favorable reviews from mainstream newspapers and magazines, many of them written by people who are known experts in the study of extremist political groups.[23] The LaRouche tactic on Wikipedia has been, when I cite my book (which I am allowed to do under Wiki rules), to respond that it is not reliable or represents a "fringe" view and then to demand proof from the original documents. (This is something unusual on Wiki, which bases itself on published sources rather than on the research behind those sources. Usually an editor who disagrees with a published source will quote an author who has an opposing viewpoint--but in the case of LaRouche, favorable opinions from reputable sources are few and far between.)

If and when I accede to their demands for citations to the original documents or for quotes from those documents, they simply ignore my response and continue deleting the disputed edits. This practice leads me to conclude that their demands for a special level of proof are only being made to waste my time--and to set up a malicious Catch-22 so that if I don't accede to a particular demand for original documentation right then and there when they choose to demand it, it's because I don't have it. (In fact, LaRouche dropped both of his libel suits against me on the eve of depositions in which my attorneys were going to ask him questions about the statements he made in such documents. And LaRouche lost his 1984 federal court libel suit against ADL fact-finding director Irwin Suall and NBC-TV for calling him a "small-time Hitler"--a phrase STRONGER than I have used on this page--with the jury not only finding Suall and NBC innocent but also awarding a huge sum in damages to NBC.)

Most instructive is the recent case where they presented a sanitized original-research description of LaRouche's essay "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites." When I pointed out that LaRouche had in this essay and other contemporaneous essays accused Jewish conspirators and usurers in the Middle Ages of causing the Black Plague in which millions died, I was accused of making it up. When I then provided the quotes from his articles which indeed support the properly sourced interpretation given in my book, the LaRouche editors (who had also called me a "stinking propagandist") merely started deleting the passage over and over. Editor Will Beback intervened to present once again the quotes from "The Secrets" that supported the interpretation in my book, and urged the LaRouche editors to stop deleting my material and resolve matters through channels. They did not listen to him and continued their edit war.

When I stated (with proper sourcing to my book) that LaRouche had gloated over how his enemies in the mythical evil species--the "British" oligarchs who he believes are at war with the human race--supposedly regard him as "more dangerous than Hitler", the LaRouchians said I was misquoting. I then placed on the web a page image of the quote showing clearly that I had described his views accurately--that he did in fact describe himself as the oligarchs' "potential destroyer" and as the "ancient and feared adversary of their own evil species." Although the LaRouche editors dropped their accusation about misquoting, they continued to delete the disputed material.

I am not going to attempt to restore these passages yet again--since clearly such an effort will be futile as long as the LaRouche editors are given license to willfully delete properly sourced material and add paragraph after paragraph of unsourced material applauding LaRouche as a world-class genius. I will await action by others in the Wiki community to stop the LaRouche movement's attempts at censorship.

5. There has never been a determination by Wikipedia that I engaged in linkspam. I vehemently denied the charges at the time, and received support from other Wiki editors. The opinion cited by Marvin Diode comes from a single individual who is no longer active in monitoring linkspam. Marvin Diode also says that I "recently renewed" this nonexistent linkspam campaign. In fact what I have done is replace in various articles a no-longer-active address for my website with the new address. This is not linkspam.--Dking 20:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Thatcher131:

The links that Thatcher131 provides below to show that I engaged in an edit war over links to my website show no such thing. Any reasonable person who clicks on the three links provided by Thatcher131 will see that they are not even remotely evidence of edit warring. The edit war at the United States v. LaRouche article was over an incredibly offensive paragraph in which the LaRouche editors quoted a Nazi war hero who joined LaRouche in his dotage (the individual is now dead) as stating that LaRouche is a new Alfred Dreyfus (Dreyfus was a famous victim of judicial anti-Semitism in the 1890s). That the LaRouchians should have reinserted this paragraph over 20 times is not exactly an example of reasonableness on their part. That Wikipedia should have allowed this offensive statement to remain for many months is in my opinion shameful.--Dking 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Editorial bullying": Further response to Marvin Diode:

Marvin Diode has inserted the following (above) in response to JzG (below):

JzG asserts that "pro-LaRouche editors believe that only editors with their POV should be allowed to edit the articles," and that the "case boils down" to this. I would ask him to simply re-read my statement. My proposed solution to the conflict is straightforward: in the case of opinions by King or Berlet that are highly speculative or otherwise contentious, I simply ask that those opinions be sourced to a mainstream publication.

Marvin Diode's behavior on Wikipedia, and that of his allies, bely this statement:

1. To Marvin Diode and his allies, everything critical of LaRouche is speculative or highly contentious. They systematically attempt to remove or water down to the point of innocuousness anything that doesn't present LaRouche in a favorable light. For instance, they attempted to remove from Wikipedia any link to the Ken Kronberg memorial website that is sponsored by relatives of Kronberg, who many people believe was driven to suicide by the LaRouche organization, and also attempted to have the Ken Kronberg article itself removed from Wikipedia.

2. One of their tactics is to develop their own definitions of what is "mainstream" and what is not--and then impose such definitions as if they were in fact a Wikipedia policy. My book on LaRouche has been targeted in this manner. This book was published by Doubleday, and was favorably reviewed by experts in political extremism, thus making it a fully legitimate source for a Wikipedia article. Where have Marvin Diode or his co-editors ever displayed--in print in a legitimate "mainstream" publication--the slightest expertise on LaRouche's ideas? And where have they ever cited a "mainstream" publication for their interpretation of LaRouche as a world-class genius without a bigoted bone in his body?

3. Marvin Diode & Co. have inserted vast quantities of totally unsourced analysis of LaRouche's ideas into the various LaRouche-related articles. Essentially they have imposed a double standard on articles they target. LaRouche's critics are supposed to obey the rules but Wiki admins are supposed to sit by and allow LaRouche's supporters to operate outside the rules according to their own self-defined standards.

4. Marvin Diode & Co. continuously invent new requirements and standards for LaRouche's critics (requirements and standards that are not based in Wikipedia's own policies) and then attempt to delete any material that does not fit with the rules of this imaginary, Planet-Bizarro version of Wikipedia. For instance, in the Bizarro Wikipedia it is not enough that LaRouche critics cite a proper source; they must also provide copies to the LaRouchians, on penalty of being labeled a fraud, of the original documentation on which the sourced article or book is based--but if such documentation is provided, the LaRouche editors simply use it as the basis for original-research lawyering. Once they have come up with an argument, no matter how absurd and unsourced, to "refute" (in their own minds) the material they disagree with, they then proceed to delete such material and then re-delete it agressively for as long as it takes.

The above four practices constitute editorial bullying. I don't want to go through this again and again with the same LaRouche editors who, after they are banned, simply come back under a new user name to start the abusive cycle over again.--Dking 03:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

Despite his protests, Marvin Diode is obviously a follower of Lyndon LaRouche. There's nothing wrong with that, but his comments and actions need to be seen in the context of the history of LaRouche editors at Wikipedia.

Chip Berlet and Dennis King are acknowledged as the leading experts on Lyndon LaRouche. King wrote the only full-length biography of LaRouche, which was issued by a major publisher, Doubleday. They are routinely quoted in news stories about LaRouche going back more than 20 years. Since then the LaRouche movement has returned the favor, writing about the two journalists as being involved in a 1980s conspiracy funded by the (liberal) Ford Foundation and (conservative) Richard Mellon Scaife to "get LaRouche". However there does not appear to be any ongoing financial benefit to Berlet and King in their coverage of LaRouche. King's book is out of print, and he's recently uploaded it to a non-commercial website. Berlet works at a private research firm and is apparently mostly engaged in other topics. So I don't see how there is a COI on their parts.

OTOH, a succesion of accounts apparently belonging to LaRouche followers have had a very real conflict of interest in supporting their cause. The most famous and enduring of them is Herschelkrustofsky, who was a chief subject of three ArbCom cases and who has been found to use a string of sock puppets. The most recent HK sock account that's been identified, with whom Marvin Diode worked closely, was MaplePorter. Other accounts, most of which were probably HK socks, include:

Weed Harper
C Colden
Cognition
BirdsOfFire
NathanDW
ISTJester
Sci.notes
Ibykus prometheus
AnonIPuser
ManEatingDonut
Tsunami Butler
HonourableSchoolboy
Don't lose that number
Plus other past and current accounts

I believe that Cberlet's recent decision to take a "Wikibreak" was based on his frustration with facing this succesion of accounts promoting the LaRouche agenda through edit warring.

Marvin Diode says that Dking and Cberlet "utilize the methodology of conspiracy theorists" to reveal a "hidden, esoteric truth" about LaRouche. Considering that LaRouche himself is widely viewed as using conspiracy theories that depict esoteric truths about history, politics, and science, this charge is particularly odd. Since I've been editing Wikipedia and have researched both LaRouche and the media coverage of him, I'd say that the King and Berlet views of LaRouche are solidly within the majoritarian views of the subject, and that they have not engaged in improper original research.

Cberlet recently described LaRouche as a "notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe". It is certainly true that LaRouche is frequently described as "antisemitic". [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] A judge in a libel case decided that calling LaRouche "anti-semitic" is a "fair comment".[32] His 1980s AIDS campaigns in California were characterized as requiring the long-term quarantine of tens of thousands of HIV-infected individuals, a large percentage of them homosexual. Cberlet's error wasn't in using those terms for LaRouche, which are fully sourceable. It was in not maintaining proper neutrality by saying that LaRouche has been called an "antisemite" instead of saying he is an antisemite. That's a subtle distinction and should not result in major penalties.

The RfCs were decertified by another admin because there were no serious attempts by the involved parties to settle their differences prior to the RfCs. Prior to decertification I wrote outside views that pointed to problematic behavior by Marvin Diode and others. This is acceptable because RfCs (and RfArs) cover all parties and not just the initial targets. The mediation request initated by Marvin Diode did not seek to resolve content issues. Instead it asked whether Dking and Cberlet had violated policies. I declined to participate because that isn't the role of mediation. Instead I started an RfC[33] that resolved the content problem. In a submission for the recent THF case, Marvin Diode claimed that Cberlet has engaged in the "unwarranted promotion of fringe theories" and wanted the ArbCom to "examine" his behavior.[34] I have lost track of how many times LaRouche-related editors have sought penalties against Cberlet, but I think it's enough already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher131

I would like to open my statement with a quote from User:WAS 4.250 [35]:

“

Wikipedia lacks structures to adequately deal with permanent outside conflicts of interest like creationist vs evolutionist; Jew vs Muslim; republican vs democrat; etc. The current solution is ownership of articles by people we think are fair. We have a problem. I do not have a solution.

”

I believe Marvin Diode accurately describes Berlet and King as advocacy journalists. Take for example Berlet's statement, "King and I took a train down to DC to celebrate the incarceration of convicted felon and neofascist homophopbic antisemite Lyndon LaRouche. We did not attend the trial, but we wanted to applaud and cheer as he was led off to jail." While they are experts in LaRouche, they are not unbiased journalists. Wikipedia's reliance on them to maintain the Lyndon LaRouche articles would be problematic even if they were perfectly behaved Wikipedians, which they are not. As noted in the RFC, Berlet edit-warred at Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on 3 July 2007 over the insertion of source material that he wrote for Encyclopedia Judaica [36]. Recently, Berlet introduced an inflammatory and derogatory statement about LaRouche on his user page and two talk pages [37] [38]; I redacted the comments [39], and then briefly blocked CBerlet when he edit-warred to reinstate them. However, in researching this situation I found the same comments made in article space [40]. Also note that Berlet's recent Wikibreak statement calls unnamed Wikipedia editors "aggressive bullies and stalkers", "racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, and Islamophobic bigots," and compares Wikipedia's failure to deal with LaRouche supporters in the manner Berlet would like to the complicity of the German people in Kristallnacht.[41] [42]

Berlet's behavior on non-LaRouche topics has been poor at times as well. He tangled with User:Intangible over labeling some political parties as "Far Right"; in the insuing Arbitration Enforcement discussion, Berlet's position amounts to, "I know it's a Far-Right party because I wrote a book about it." I attempted to suggest at Talk:Progress Party (Norway) that one problem with the article was that it criticized the party for being "Populist" and further criticized its economic populism, without actually reporting the views of any economists on why economic populism was bad or offering any alternative views. Berlet decided I was wholly inadequate, biased, and uninformed. As far as I could tell, he was content to use "Far Right" as a perjorative label for the party without providing any context or balance.

To be fair, many of the editors with whom King and Berlet have edit-warred have subsequently been blocked as suspected sockpuppets of Herschel Krustofsky, or for pro-LaRouche disruption in general, and checkuser Dmcdevit found that an IP editor who taunted CBerlet after I blocked him is a user with a previous ban for making anti-Semitic remarks.

In closing, it appears that in the neverending battle with pro-LaRouche editors, Berlet and King have been annointed the lesser of the evils, and have been given latitude to say and do things that would have resulted in Arbitration long ago for less well-known editors of less contentious topics. It may in fact be better for the encyclopedia that Berlet and King be treated this way—who else cares enough about LaRouche to maintain his articles in the face of strong pro-LaRouche advocacy editing? And it should probably be considered that any probation or revert parole that might result from this case (should it be accepted) will be a troll-magnet and will drop Arbitration enforcement to an even lower Circle of Hell. There does not seem to be an obvious easy answer. Thatcher131 02:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to arbitrators: With due respect to the views of Charles and Matthew, your motion codifies that which has already been the practice for some time (banning of pro-LaRouche editors) and addresses the most minor of the issues raised here. It would be one thing to state that the civility and self-sourcing issues are not serious enough to require arbitration (either in general or after taking note of the larger context), but to state that all issues have been previously addressed misses the point of the complaint. Thatcher131 15:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment

Kirill's revised motion satisfies my concerns here. I think stronger sanctions of Cberlet and Dking are unwarranted at this time. Thatcher131 14:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rob Smith

Statement removed.

Nobs01, thank you but as you know, banned users are not allowed to contribute. Try emailing Fred or the ArbCom list. Thanks for understanding. Thatcher131 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Krimpet

Looking at this as an outsider, it does concern me that our usual conflict of interest guidelines have largely been overlooked here. Berlet and King seem to have been given an unusual amount of leeway in editing articles they have a clear professional stake in, and in a tendentious and aggressive way to boot, as Thatcher131 and Marvin Diode have demonstrated above.

If, say, Michael Moore started openly editing articles on the Republican Party and healthcare, liberally citing his own works, edit warring, and labeling editors with opposing views dismissively, how would the community react to this? --krimpet⟲ 16:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved TDC

While I do have a degree of respect for Berlet’s willingness to directly confront some of the more aggressive elements on Wikipedia, his problem seem to be that he views anyone here who does not agree with him. with contempt and animosity. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jossi

I came across Cberlet when I came to assist with the content dispute at Dominionism a couple of months ago, and across Dking while editing Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture. My observation is that both are strongly opinionated (and who is not on one subject or another), and both often state their opinions as facts (a thing that we all do from time to time). They are also quite forceful in their expressions and comments in talk, many times dismissing others' opinions on their affiliations rather than on the strength of the arguments presented. Having said that, I would argue that if they just could be a tad more friendly and open to others' opinions, and being a bit less forceful and with less animosity in their expressions, their contributions would be better received. They should also be advised to be more conscious that they are walking a fine line when editing on subjects about which they have published, but do not think that an ArbCom case is needed to do so. A user RfC would be a better forum. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gelsomina

I have been minor participant in the disputes during October at Views of Lyndon LaRouche (I have made 6 article edits, as opposed to 31 by Dking.) I have followed the controversy, and I would like to say that I am appalled by the way Dking plays fast and loose with the truth in his statement above.

For example, on the talk page, User:Masai warrior said:

And when I think of Kristalnacht, I always think about how people who are being set up for attack are first demonized, as the Jews were, by stinking propaganda, utilizing lies, half-truths, insinuations and innuendo, and I renew my resolution to combat such stinking propaganda whenever it rears its head at Wikipedia.[47]

In Dking's statement above, he glibly transforms this to "LaRouche editors...called me a 'stinking propagandist.'"

There was a debate on the article talk page about a passage in "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites" which describes a series of intrigues around the succession to the Papacy, which led, according to LaRouche, to a change in policy toward a support for monetarism and usury. LaRouche further claims that the continuation of this policy over the next 300 years set up the conditions for the collapse of Europe's economy, and that the resulting drop in sanitation, hygiene and nutrition ushered in the the spread of the bubonic plague. In King's commentary, he zeroes in on the fact that one of the families involved in the 11th Century struggle for control of the Papacy, the Perleoni, had converted from Judaism, and that one member of this family became Pope Gregory VI. From this rather thin connection, King makes the announcement (twice!) in his statement above that LaRouche "blamed Jewish conspirators for killing half of Europe's population in the Black Plague" and that he "accused Jewish conspirators and usurers in the Middle Ages of causing the Black Plague in which millions died." He goes on to claim that he "then provided the quotes from his articles which indeed support the properly sourced interpretation given in my book." Poppycock! This is typical of the very disruptive editing tactics that Dking routinely uses at Wikipedia. It is my understanding that WP:BLP was crafted to prevent editing of this sort, which damages the credibility of Wikipedia.

I hope these two examples will illustrate the nature of the problem. I won't try the arbcom's patience by systematically going through the rest of the distortions in Dking's statement. However, this gentle rebuke from the New York Times (from a review of King's book) illustrates that other commentators have noted, as I have, that Dennis King's conspiracy theories are not entirely plausible:

But in trying to see Mr. LaRouche as a would-be Fuhrer, Mr. King may be trying to tie together the whole unruly package with too neat a ribbon. A number of loose ends hang out, not least of which is the fact that many members of Mr. LaRouche's inner circle are Jewish.[48]

I think perhaps Jossi has a point, and maybe the deleted RFCs could be re-opened and allowed to proceed without further obstruction. --Gelsomina 15:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Gelsomina (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of banned user Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs), based on checkuser evidence and editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I know who made the decision, and upon what evidence? --Marvin Diode 14:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder made the determination, based on checkuser evidence and editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I have no dog in this fight, but I have spent some time reading up on the history of the dispute having seen it mentioned on Wikipedia Review, where it seems to me that some at least of this campaign is being coordinated.

Chip Berlet particularly and also Dennis King are independently recognised as experts on the LaRouche movement. Their investigations have led them to a particular view of LaRouche, but I do not see that this view pre-dates those investigations.

Regardless, the number of previous arbitration cases involving the relentless POV-pushing of pro-LaRouche editors, which has existed for as long as we've had an article, indicates how determined they are to have their way.

This case boils down to: the pro-LaRouche editors believe that only editors with their POV should be allowed the articles. There's no suggestion that we ban acknowledged followers or supporters, only the few prominent individuals, considered experts by independent sources, who happen to have a more sceptical view.

Will says it all above. Will has been tireless in monitoring this issue. Will is regarded with great respect by those who are not fighting one or the other corner of this fight, and I do indeed urge ArbCom to look into his actions, to support them, and to congratulate him on a difficult job, done well and against very considerable opposition. The best way ArbCom can do this is to dismiss this querulous complaint and leave Will to call the cavalry when he thinks it's needed, rather than letting the pro-LaRouche crowd try to chase off anybody who is not an uncritical supporter. The accusations against Will are without any discernible merit. The deleted RfCs were deleted because only the original complainants - one of whom is a sockpuppet of a banned user - certified them. There is no evidence that anybody independent of their argument considered the case to have any merit. RfC is not a license to prolong an argument, it is a method of dispute resolution; the deleted RfCs were deleted by an uninvolved admin because they showed no evidence of any credible likelihood of resolving the dispute. The dispute was, in any case, simply a matter of colliding viewpoints, and the two originators of the RfC showed absolutely no signs of any willingness to compromise, it's not clear why they should be allowed to insist that others compromise when they will not. The section on Will's behaviour underlines the fact that this is not an attempt to resolve a dispute in good faith, it's a blatant attempt to run off those who do not adhere to the pro-LaRouche POV. And let us not forget that LaRouche is very much a minority POV, his views are definitely on the margins.

I would remind the LaRouche followers that neutrality is not the average between your uncritical admiration and the balance of opinion of whatever other editors remain after you have tried to chase them away. Neutrality is what is established by independent authorities. Will knows that and is working to ensure it. Berlet and King are authorities, even though you don't like what they think. If the real world thinks that LaRouche is less than wonderful, which is the case as far as I can tell, Wikipedia is not the place to fix that.

This request is also part of an ongoing campaign of intimidation and harassment against Berlet and King by the LaRouche movement, and I believe that yet another arbitration case on this will do nothing but facilitate that campaign. We already have rulings and policies we can use to control the real problem, there is no need for ArbCom to get involved here. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ElC

JzG said much of what I wanted to say, and more eloquently. LaRouche advocacy has been unremitting (the sheer breadth of {{LaRouche Talk}} is a testament to that). As for the latest, I argue that even a cursory glance at the duplicated RfCs I deleted, reveals that these were used, not as a dispute resolution mechanism, but as indictment-like devices to further said advocacy. I still feel that, perhaps, a closed 3rd procedure, to sharpen the remedies of the prior two, might be helpful. But I also take the point that it may well prove to be a waste of time and that what we have, presently, is sufficient. If only this was true on the application level, however, a realm where Berlet and King have proven invaluable to the project, and its reputation. What I emphasize as being key is for us not to regress backwards from resolutions already painstakingly reached. El_C 15:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Recuse, as I looked into the MaplePorter (talk · contribs) issue and blocked the account. Picaroon (t) 01:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to be recused over that. I doubt we can find any admin, be it a clerk or an arbitrator, who didn't block one disruptive pro-LaRouche single-purpose account. [not to misuse this comment space, but for now I will briefly add that my own statement is forthcoming, and, that, at the moment, I am inclined to suggest a closed proceeding] El_C 11:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll remove this once my statement is up. A brief suggestion: I strongly urge that this case be renamed Lyndon LaRouche 3 (per 1 and 2). El_C 11:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regard this as another example of your playing defense on the Berlet/King team, similar to the deletion of the RFCs. The misconduct of Berlet and King is not limited to LaRouche articles. --Marvin Diode 13:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal of a clerk is not a big deal. There are at least four of us active at the moment, and only one is needed in any particular case. Newyorkbrad 11:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about a big or small deal, it's about the shortage of finding someone who hasn't dealt with pro-LaRouche advocacy. El_C 13:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. me? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a new admin (congrats, btw); that solves the clerk-end of that. El_C 15:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/3/0/1)

Accept to consider the behavior of all editors involved. Kirill 01:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Fred Bauder 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. I see no need to re-examine things here; the people and issues involved here have been up before the committee before and I see little change. That the LaRouche supporters are back under different names changes little. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Accept. I don't think the AC can duck the responsibility to clarify as much as possible the terms under which this whole area is edited on Wikipedia. Charles Matthews 13:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck pending clarifying motion, lower on this page. Charles Matthews 08:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline. This has already been decided by ArbCom, and I see no reason to revisit it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Prefer to use a motion to clarify the Committee's past decision. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Requests for clarification regarding the Attack sites decision

Moved to the talk page for further discussion. Newyorkbrad 21:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed for motion in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Certain editors are currently going around Wikipedia removing citations to quackwatch per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Use_of_unreliable_sources_by_Fyslee. Claiming that, for example, Quackwatch is an "an unreliable and partisan source". For example. Was it the intention of the arbitration committee to declare unequivocally that Stephen Barrett or Quackwatch were unreliable and partisan for articles on alternative medicine? This, to me, looks like Arbcom making a content decision if this is the case. ScienceApologist 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed the same. I do not believe this was the intention of the Arbcom ruling. I second SA's request for clarification since other editors seem to have a different opinion. Avb 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in that decision should be interpreted as a ban on the use of a particular source. The Committee does not rule on content, and findings of fact are generally limited in their applicability to the specific matter being considered in any case. Obviously there are a number of problematic aspects to the use of quackwatch as a source; but the final determination of whether it's suitable in a particular context must rest with the editors working on the article in question. Kirill 03:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are we to understand that arbcomm did not declare quackwatch or Stephen Barrett an unreliable and partisan source? I just want it to be clear so that I can refer people to this comment when and if this claim is made in the future. ScienceApologist 18:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the opinion of the Committee, in the context of that particular case, that they were unreliable; but we do not have the authority to prohibit their use. The choice of sources for an article is a matter of editorial judgement. Kirill 18:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked some of the pages that link to Quackwatch and followed the links to see what was being cited. What I found were well-written essays debunking or explaining the topic with appropriate references of their own. However, in general, it would be better to cite Barrett's writings from books and book chapters he has authored or co-authored, because there is a presumption of editorial oversight that a personal web site does not have, and because many of the chapters may be peer-reviewed and/or edited by independent and respected authorities. (For example, he has a chapter in Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, whose editors have very respectable presence in PubMed and Google Scholar.) This means replacing the immediacy and convenience of a web link with the increased reliability of a third-party published reference, but would be the best way to demonstrate Barrett's views on the topics in question. Thatcher131 15:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Remedy

As the closing clerk, I noticed some interesting problems with the remedy 1 of this case. The remedy 1 puts edit supervision on the editors sanctioned in the original case, however, at least 2 editors sanctioned in the original case was not named as a party to the newer case and was surprised/shocked of the development. I'd like some input from the Committee to explain the ruling on this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, under this case, other editors who edit in a similar manner to the previously-sanctioned editors may be placed under the limitations of the original Armenia-Azerbaijan case. Do these sanctions expire one year after the editor in question is notified, or are they indefinite as no time limit is mentioned? The supervised editing remedy from the second case appears to be indefinite, as no expiration is mentioned, so my question is whether this is indeed the case and whether the other remedies are still meant to expire after a year, including on other editors brought in under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this situation requires attention from the committee. Frankly, I was always troubled by remedy number 1, which took all the users who were placed on revert parole (revert limitation) in the earlier case, and now placed them on supervised editing (which I gather is a new term for some form of probation and/or civility parole) as well. This was done despite the observation that although some of the parties to the earlier case had continued to display problematic behavior, others had done little or nothing wrong since the earlier decision, and there was no real reason to be applying additional remedies to them.

The problem is magnified if, as has been stated, some of the parties to the earlier case were not parties to the newer one. The case was such a sprawl and so many editors were listed as parties (and there was edit-warring over the list for awhile) that the clerk handling the case probably assumed that all the (unbanned) parties to the earlier case had been listed again. (From now on, I will check for things like this in every case myself.) If that didn't happen, then at a minimum anyone who was subjected to a remedy without having been notified of the case should be entitled to have the case reopened and to be heard on this issue. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. See below.

As far as the duration is concerned, "until the situation improves" is probably a good rule of thumb. I am content to leave the decision up to the enforcing administrators. Kirill 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to NYB, I was also the clerk in the original A-A case. However, this case was opened anew, so I did not add the parties from the old case to the new one. I never assumed that they were listed. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there was no reason to look for the additional parties or add them at the beginning of the case. However, when a remedy showed up on /proposed decision (or originally in an arbitrator proposal on the workshop) applicable to "all the parties to the prior decision," we should all have checked then to make sure that all of them were parties in or had all received notice of the new case. My fault as much as anyone's. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect to Kirill I think this is a non-issue and his motion is a mistake. Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that any editor who edits disruptively on the topic of "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" may be placed on civility parole, 1RR and probation by means of a warning on their talk page. The fact that some editors in the first case were not notified of the second case is easily remedied by a note on their talk page. Passing the motion below would take a small group of editors who were placed on 1RR and exempt them from the civility parole and probation that applies to every other editor on Wikipedia following an appropriate notice. Thatcher131 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They could be placed back on the remedy, yes; but only if they edit disruptively. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; staying out of the second case does count for something, I think. Kirill 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dren. I missed that remedy #2 still applied. Sorry. Thatcher131 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thatcher, I had to look that word up. Clearly I have some remedial TV watching to do. More seriously, Penwhale, could you advise which users subjected to the remedy in the first case were not parties to the new case? (I ask you instead of doing the research myself as you know which users have complained to you already.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not so much of "complaining", but TigranTheGreat and ROOB323 were the ones affected. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        While User:TigranTheGreat was not included in the list of the parties to the second arbcom case, many users provided evidence of his behavior which they considered to be disruptive. So he was definitely a party to the second case, and he was well aware of it as he provided evidence himself. His non-inclusion was just a mistake, because most users considered all the parties to the previous case to be parties to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one complained about ROOB323, so he should be the only one affected. Grandmaster 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "His non-inclusion was just a mistake" as in "Darn it, I forgot to add his name to the list"? If he (or any editor) was not on the list of involved parties in the second case, nor even told of its existence, then how can he be a party to the part 1 sanctions imposed in the second case? It is that simple, or wikipedia descends into a Kafka-esque justice system. Meowy 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Just a quick note, since contributors in the 2nd ArbCom case ended up there due to pretty much the same disruptions as those in the 1st case, would not it be simpler to just place everyone on 1RR parole? I think this would significantly reduce the reporting and decision overhead, whether something should be considered a civility violation or not. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is shocking that ANY editor can fall foul of these remedies without having any prior warning of their existence. If these restrictions are to be fair then there must be an earlier stage to the process where editors are first warned of the existance of these pre-existing remedies and that they run the risk of breaking then if they were to go about editing an entry that falls under those remedies in the same way as they would an "ordinary" entry. A warning should be placed on every wikipedia entry to which these draconian restrictions apply. Meowy 02:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, TigranTheGreat was well aware of the second arbcom case, as he was providing evidence on other users, while others were providing evidence on him. [49] His non-inclusion was just a technical mistake. And I agree that some sort of warning would be good, but there are hundreds of articles covered by the remedy of arbcom 2, is it possible to add a warning to every one of them and who should do that? Grandmaster 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a "justice system". Basically, anybody who cannot behave or respect policy is out, justice or no justice. Nobody will be banned without warning, but, IMHO, there are topics that are so severely and systematically disrupted by ultra-nationalists, that need to impose "draconian" measures on misbehaviour by topic, not just by individual account (which are a dime a dozen), in the interest of maintaining a sane editing environment for serious editors. I have been saying this two years ago, and I am glad the arbcom is now seeing the need for this. dab (𒁳) 09:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who edits disruptively on this topic area may brought under the umbrella of this case by a notice on their talk page. A templated warning is available at {{Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement}} which explains the situation thoroughly. Rather than apply the notice to thousands of articles, this notice is given to the editors involved (so far 6 in addition to the editors involved in the case itself). If you are arguing for two separate warnings, (i.e., a warning about disruptive editing before the notice about being placed under the remedies can be given) that would be nice, and many admins will do that, but ArbCom didn't require it. Thatcher131 10:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: The arbitrator motion relating to this issue (see below) has been pending for more than six weeks. Arbitrators are requested to cast votes so that the issue can be resolved. Newyorkbrad 22:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

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

Nobs01 and others

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others is renamed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Complaints of Cberlet. The following finding of fact is added: There is no evidence that User:Nobs01 is, or ever was, associated with the Lyndon LaRouche movment or sympathetic to the views of Lyndon LaRouche.

As there are currently 9 active arbitrators, a majority is 5. Newyorkbrad 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Support:

Motion Fred Bauder 22:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill 22:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't see why this change is necessary. We never did conclude that Nobs01 was associated with LaRouche in the first place. Nothing on this case rests on Nobs01's political affiliations. His bans were based on behavior. Renaming the case, while less of an issue, doesn't feel justified either to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No point. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche movement

Original motion

The findings of fact of the original decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, closed in September 2004, referred to two problematic behaviours:

a pattern of adding original material, not an editor's own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Wikipedia articles,
a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

The Arbitration Committee affirms that editor behaviour amounting to such patterns is not accepted on Wikipedia. Administrators should draw the attention of editors to these standing principles, which should be known by any editor engaging closely in LaRouche-related articles. After due warning, explanation, and reference to the basic unacceptability of POV pushing on Wikipedia, proportionate blocks may be applied by administrators. Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification.

It is also pointed out that the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement.

As there are currently 9 active arbitrators, a majority is 5. Newyorkbrad 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Support:

Oppose:

Does not clearly address the issues raised by point of view editing of Views of Lyndon LaRouche by both parties. Fred Bauder 10:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are problematic aspects to the behavior of all parties here. Kirill 15:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche movement (II)

The findings of fact of the original decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, closed in September 2004, referred to two problematic behaviours:

A pattern of adding original material, not an editor's own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Wikipedia articles,
A pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

The Arbitration Committee affirms that editor behaviour amounting to such patterns is not accepted on Wikipedia. Administrators should draw the attention of editors to these standing principles, which should be known by any editor engaging closely in LaRouche-related articles. After due warning, explanation, and reference to the basic unacceptability of POV-pushing on Wikipedia, proportionate blocks may be applied by administrators. Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification.

It is also pointed out that the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement.

The Committee further notes that Cberlet (talk · contribs) and Dking (talk · contribs) have at times displayed excessive personal zeal in editing the articles in this area, and wishes to remind them of the need to avoid behavior that may be perceived as a conflict of interest.

As there are currently 9 active arbitrators, a majority is 5. Newyorkbrad 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Support:

Slightly expanded from the above. Kirill 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Hate the added wording. Lose "excessive personal" and "behavior that may be perceived as a" and I'll reconsider. Charles Matthews 15:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I'm going through the edit history of Views of Lyndon LaRouche and trying to figure out what's going on. I'm not ready to either make a motion or support this one. Fred Bauder 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extension of remedies in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Those parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan who were not named as parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and were not given notice of the proceedings are exempted from the extension of existing remedies imposed by Remedy #1 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. They remain subject to Remedy #2.

See also discussion above. As there are currently 9 active Arbitrators, plus 1 currently away has already voted on this motion, the majority is 6.

Support:

We messed up here. Kirill 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~James F. (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Paul August ☎ 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

There is a defect in noticing everyone in, but the remedy should properly apply to everyone. Fred Bauder 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Fred. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exempting users on a technicality makes no sense to me. That is not usually the way that ArbCom worked in the past and this case is not the place to start the practice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Flo. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing on reflection. James F. (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Current requests

Stefanomencarelli-Bzuk-BillCJ

Involved parties

Statement by Stefanomencarelli

Reply to BillCJ

Statement by Bzuk

Comment by semi-involved Akradecki

Statement by BillCJ

Comment by uninvolved EH101

Comment by uninvolved Nimbus227

Comment by uninvolved Red Sunset

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Cberlet and Dking

Involved parties

Statement by Marvin Diode

Statement by Dking

Statement by Will Beback

Statement by Thatcher131

Statement by Rob Smith

Statement by uninvolved Krimpet

Statement by uninvolved TDC

Statement by Jossi

Statement by Gelsomina

Statement by JzG

Statement by ElC

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/3/0/1)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification regarding the Attack sites decision

Clarification needed for motion in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Remedy

Motions in prior cases

Nobs01 and others

LaRouche movement

Original motion

LaRouche movement (II)

Extension of remedies in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2