Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Marine 69-71	Motions	26 October 2024	0/0/0
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

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

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Barack Obama

Initiated by 74.94.99.17 (talk) at 18:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please post the following as a request for arbitration since the page is semi-protected. Thanks. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Rick Block (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• 74.94.99.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikidemo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Curious bystander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

• MastCell: [1]

• Rick Block: [2]

• Gamaliel: [3]

• Kossack4Truth: [4]

• WorkerBee74: [5]

• Noroton: [6]

• Scjessey: [7]

• LotLE: [8]

• Wikidemo: [9]

• Ncmvocalist: [10]

• Curious bystander: [11]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Multiple reports at WP:ANI including these: [12], Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive454#WorkerBee74 on Obama page again, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages
• Request for Comment, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#Request_for_Comment:_Does_this_article_violate_WP:NPOV.3F

Statement by 74.94.99.17

There appears to be a systematic effort to exclude any and all criticism and controversy from the Barack Obama biography led by Scjessey, LotLE and Wikidemo. Another user, Shem, was the previous leader of this effort but after being accused of having a WP:COI issue, he abruptly closed his account. Editors who attempt to add criticism to the article are verbally beaten into submission or reported over, and over, and over at WP:ANI until admins grow so sick and tired of seeing their names that they impose sanctions.

Most recently, Kossack4Truth received a topic ban from MastCell in retaliation for filing an ANI report and a 3RR report. Previously, he was blocked three days for issuing a warning to LotLE for a clear violation of WP:CIV. (These actions have a chilling effect on appropriate actions by editors to resolve disputes: warnings, seeking help at ANI, and seeking help at AN3. If editors are going to be punished for filing such reports, they may seek instead to resolve matters by edit warring or violating WP:CIV themselves, for example.)

WorkerBee74 has offered mediation but this is being refused here.

Noroton's conduct in this matter has been above reproach. I name him as a party only because he has accumulated abundant evidence of the misbehavior of all these editors, and would be very helpful to the Committee in resolving these issues. I have named Ncmvocalist as a party because at WP:ANI, he has been most strident in demanding sanctions against pro-criticism editors while shutting down complaints against anti-criticism editors, going so far as to archive such a report moments after it was filed against LotLE. (He is not an admin and has no right to archive such reports.)

Rick Block's bias in favor of the article's subject was revealed in a discussion on Noroton's User Talk page. Gamaliel's bias in favor of the article's subject was revealed in a discussion on WB74's User Talk Page. But which two admins have appeared at Talk:Barack Obama to supervise matters? Rick Block and Gamaliel.

I believe K4T's topic ban was unjustified. In his recent return to the article after his block and brief retirement, he was civil and constructive. The Committee is asked to review this topic ban and remove it.

On the other hand, if K4T's topic ban is justified, then a topic ban for Scjessey, LotLE and Wikidemo is also justified. They have edit warred. They have violated WP:CIV repeatedly. They have gamed the system. They have relentlessly filed report after report at WP:ANI until everyone who looks at that page is sick and tired of the whole matter.

Also, both the article and its Talk page have been semi-protected, allegedly due to racially motivated vandalism from IP accounts. It is no coincidence that all of the IP accounts participating in the discussion, including me, supported the inclusion of more criticism. I believe one of these three editors (Scjessey, LotLE and Wikidemo) was logging out to vandalize the page in an effort to get semi-protection and exclude IP accounts, tipping the balance of consensus in their favor.

There has also been a lot of talk at ANI about article probation, and I think it's appropriate in this case. The vandalism should be dealt with, not by discriminating against all IP accounts, but with lengthy blocks on the IP accounts that are responsible for the vandalism. I think the owners of a named account or two might suddenly find that they're unable to edit.

EDIT: I see below that Wikidemo has responded to someone who disagrees with him in one of his three usual manners: delegitimizing his critic, filing a WP:ANI report, or posting a note on the User Talk page of a friendly admin. This time, he's chosen option #1. I'm not a sockpuppet, and this is no ordinary content dispute. There are serious behavioral problems displayed here by Wikidemo and the pack he runs with, and the named admins and Ncmvocalist (admin wannabe) are hard at work enabling them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.99.17 (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemo

Although the report itself is clear rubbish, and invokes a content dispute, there is very much a behavior issue behind it. Administrators may wish to look past the deficiencies of the request posted by the IP editor, and take up the case by way of dealing with the persistent problems on the Obama article pages.

Note: I noticed a problem here after copying the report over from the talk page, where I believed it had been filed as a mistake. After doing that Now I realize that the filing editor cannot contribute on this page because it's semi-protected. Are IP editors not supposed to participate in ArbCom cases? I have also Curious bystander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a new disruptive WP:MEAT and possible WP:SOCK of WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), to the list of involved parties.

Need for a solution A wave of disruptive edits from multiple accounts has brought progress on the article to a stop. We have spent the two months since the last page protection debating three main issues. These discussions stalled and restarted dozens of times after breaking down from wikigaming, incivilities, personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, pov-pushing, sockpuppetry, and other editing irregularities. Two months later, after making some progress towards civility and consensus, the same cluster of editors is stirring the pot again, and the result is more gridlock and frustration on one of Wikipedia's most important and most viewed articles.

Although blocks and bans of tendentious editors and sock puppet operators, and article probation, may succeed without ArbCom intervention, it could be argued that existing tools and procedures are have failed and are too weak ensure article stability. It is reasonable (but not absolutely clear) to think that stronger steps are now necessary.

Attacking the messenger Several of the parties here have lashed out at others, and even uninvolved administrators, for trying to deal with the problem. Administrators imposing blocks or offering warnings and opinions are accused of being political operatives, biased, and so on. A cluster of editors have called me and others a "whiner", liar, "obama campaign volunteer", "Obama fanboy", and goodness knows what else, all for helping administrators deal with their disruptive editing. Reflexive tit-for-tat administrative reports and behavior accusations are the norm here, and seem to be an attempt to confuse the issue so that people first viewing the dispute cannot quickly tell who is causing the problem and who is in search of a solution.

The report itself contains one assertion that is particularly farfetched - that the behavior of some editors is excused by provocation. WorkerBee74 and his (apparent) socks and supporters have developed an odd theory that their warnings, blocks, and bans are unfair. Their misbehavior, under this theory, is the fault the fault of editors they were attacking, because they had been provoked to the point of misbehavior in a plot to rid the Obama article of nonpartisans, so that the article could be "whitewashed" in favor of Obama. There are so many problems with this theory it is hard to begin. First of all, misbehavior is misbehavior. If two parties misbehave then they're both wrong - two editors fighting do not cancel out each other's misdeeds. Second, a good faith request for administrative action cannot be a behavioral problem. It isn't a mysterious plot to bring sanctions down on unwitting opponents; it's a direct, open request that administrators look at the behavior and apply whatever recourse they think is warranted. Administrators have their own independent, reasonable judgment. They're not puppets of complaining editors. If an editor brings a meritless request it will be denied. If they bring persistent meritless requests the injury is to the administrative boards and the administrators themselves will point that out. However, when administrators take up the request and seriously consider or apply remedies as a result, that confirms that the request was beyond good faith, it was probably right. The Obama articles have generated 10-12 WP:AN/I reports to date and a comparable number of WP:SOCK and WP:3RR reports. From these we have 4-5 editors blocked for sockpuppetry, a topic ban, some page protections, numerous editors blocked for disruption, and a recent proposal for article probation that may be growing stale. Most of the worst problem editors are now blocked or gone. One of the few that remains, WorkerBee74, was blocked 4 times in 50 days for wikigaming and incivility.[13] To accept the filer's position that this is all a plot, one has to find not only that these blocks and bans are unjust (due, it is claimed, to systematic bias of administrators), but they are so unjust that Arbcom should sanction editors merely for participating in the attendant AN/I discussions. In other words, the filer requests that ArbCom repudiate the body of administrators' behavior decisions, and instead blame the messengers who brought the reports. We shouldn't entertain conspiracy theories like that - far simpler to believe that the process is working and that administrators acting on reports have confirmed the behavior problems and acted accordingly.

I won't try to go too deep into the content issue - there is plenty of criticism of Obama in the Obama article; the opposition to posting blog rants and partisan attacks is a matter of content policy, weight, reliable sourcing, verifiability/accuracy, NPOV, OR, SYNTH, and occasionally BLP.

Sockpuppetry
There are several outstanding matters of sockpuppetry. In fact, despite denials from both accounts the IP editor bringing the report was determined to be a likely sockpuppet of an involved party, WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). WorkerBee74 is believed to have engaged in ongoing sockpuppetry on the Obama talk page, gaming polls by voting in tandem with an IP editor, and using IP editors to claim support for his position and make attacks on other involved parties. He was found to be a likely puppet master (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kossack4Truth), editing among other things as the IP account that filed this report (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74) and acting as WorkerBee74's alter ego to defend WorkerBee74 on this AN/I report.

I anticipate further attacks on me for bringing up these old reports. Some editors repeatedly misrepresent the outcome, claiming for example that I'm under scrutiny for my behavior, or that WorkerBee74 was never proven to be a sock puppet. Suffering retaliatory accusations is a cost of standing firm against disruptive editors, so I'm resigned to ignoring it. However, please do not let these editors cloud the issue. Their behavior is the problem, not article content or the behavior of article editors and administrators who they have antagonized.

Evidence for all of this is voluminous and will take a long time to prepare - it means compiling dozens of different reports, and long-term disruption of a number of different accounts. So I'll probably keep my comments brief until and unless it appears that there is some reasonable possibility that ArbCom will accept this case. Wikidemo (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Further thoughts I wholeheartedly endorse Noroton's comments, below. He's on the opposite side of me on the content issue (not that it's two clear-cut unchanging sides, but on certain issues) but a solid editor. As I say above, one may conclude that the problem is so bad it needs arbitration; one could also conclude that things will be just fine without it. There are solid, thoughtful editors on both sides. It's counterproductive to pit this as pro-Obama versus anti-Obama editors; that WP:BATTLE attitude is a big part of the problem. Rather, if there are two sides, it's serious editors who want stability, civility, and encyclopedic content, versus people stirring up trouble.

Statement by LotLE×talk

Basically, I just want to second all of Wikidemo's comments. The IP address posting this, from tone and timing, appears to be a sockpuppet of an editor has been trolling for addition of content to fit a political agenda (i.e. wants more criticism of Obama, just for the sake of having criticism of a politician s/he doesn't like). This is basically a content dispute, but one in which a few editors (mostly blocked or banned by now, at least in some identities) are willing to engage in edit-warring, lots of WP:CIVIL violations, 3RR, sock-puppetry, and so on to try to force in unencyclopedic anti-Obama material. Arbcom is probably the wrong place, but certainly anything that brings more administrators and generally experienced editors to keeping an eye on the underlying Barack Obama article (and related articles) is a good thing. LotLE×talk 20:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved editor Coren

Whilst my sole involvement at this point has been to concur with the recommendation to sustain a topic ban against one disruptive editor on AN/I, a quick examination of the Barak Obama article and its talk page show a vast content dispute where a number of editors (on both sides) attempting to get the "other side" sanctioned to gain the upper hand.

I would suggest that allowing the ArbCom to be dragged into this mess as a bludgeon to silence the other side is a travesty that should not be allowed— normal administrative action to deal with disruption is still quite adequate to deal with the problem. — Coren ^(talk) 20:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:The Evil Spartan

I've been pointing out for quite a while, on several pages, that there is sufficient evidence that the multitude of single-purpose accounts POV pushing on this page are almost certainly socks of WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs)/Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs)/74.94.99.17 (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive454#WorkerBee74_on_Obama_page_again. Why this hasn't been enforced earlier by the community is a complete mystery to me.

It would have been nice if such an obvious case of sockpuppetry had been dealt with by the community; unfortunately, it has not, and I urge ArbCom to make a ruling on this, even if only a short one. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Noroton

Oddly enough, after maybe a 14 different threads at AN/I and AN over this (just since very late May when I started getting involved), I now think this is premature. Most of the disruptive editors have been banned or blocked, and the job is largely done. I think this level of unprovoked, minor incivility is most of what we're left with, which doesn't seem worth ginning up the arbitration engine to swat down. (I should add that I don't follow any edit warring on the Obama page, and I recently took a break from the talk page.)

Yes, there's a POV problem with the page. No, it isn't really very bad, so it hasn't risen to the kind of behavioral matter Arbcom can deal with. There are actually some knotty problems about how Wikipedia should cover some things on the Obama page. It's not at all simple or perfectly obvious exactly how to cover Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko or Jeremiah Wright in this article, and Ayers and Wright are emotional topics. The discussions are inevitably long, hot and sometimes educational. That problem is systemic: it's inevitable that consensus-based decisionmaking on emotional topics will be difficult. I don't think Wikipedia handles controversial topics well -- we do it too slowly, with too much friction. A stricter application of WP:CIVIL and perhaps more structured ways of coming to consensus would help. And WP:BLP has turned into a shield for editors who want to protect WP:WELLKNOWN public figures even from fair, widely known criticism. These are policy problems that I doubt ArbCom would help with.

It seems to me that its important for administrators not invovled in the discussion and who are trying to act independently of whichever political side they support, pay ongoing attention to pages like this. Civility violations on these pages are like sparks in a dry forest and they need to be put out early and quickly. Editors who constantly provoke, edit war or otherwise misbehave need to be identified, warned and, eventually, banned from the page. AN/I is slow with that, but in its creaky way, it actually has handled most of the problem editors by now. MastCell has been very effective. If AN/I denizens aren't complaining that the Obama-related circus isn't too much of a burden for AN/I, let them deal with it.

I'd certainly welcome seeing the committee topic-ban a couple editors and hand out civility admonitions all around. Would it help the page much at this point? I doubt it. Do you have the time to delve into the 6-8 archive pages at Talk:Barack Obama along with the related pages and 14 AN/I threads? Look, you're slower and creakier than AN/I. But if this heats up again with new editors, consider it a systemic problem you may need to deal with. Noroton (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to 74.94.99.17: Noroton's conduct in this matter has been above reproach. Not at all. I've said repeatedly that I'm capable of lapsing into sarcasm and responding to provocation with anger. I'm still working on that. I've done that with ArbCom members, too (not that I'd want either of them to recuse for that reason, in the off chance this is accepted for arbitration). I name him as a party only because he has accumulated abundant evidence of the misbehavior of all these editors, I haven't accumulated anything, although my talk page speaks for itself. and would be very helpful to the Committee in resolving these issues. Yes, its my fondest wish to spend week after week collecting diffs for a grateful Arbcom which I'm sure will avidly pore over every detail with care and be far better than anyone else at tweezing out how Editor A was goaded by Editor B, so that his lashing back a day or two later was not quite as bad as Editor C's unprovoked disparagement of Editor D who was a worse POV-pusher than Editor E because ... -- but I'm lapsing into sarcasm. Noroton (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Rick Block Our discussion on my talk page speaks for itself, although I don't think it's actually worth anyone else's time to read through. Anyone who looks at Rick's edits knows he's not a problem on that page. People have different perceptions of what is WP:NPOV. Those different perceptions are, themselves, points of view about NPOV on a particular topic, and they inevitably reflect our views on the topic itself. I'm sure Rick's view is sincere. His implication that I can't or won't check my own POV at the door, as best I can, is ... best judged by independent observers looking at my record while they attempt to check their own POV at the door, as best they can. Arbcom members and everybody else are welcome to idle away the hours searching my contributions history. I agree with Rick that Ncmvocalist's ideas at AN/I are good ones worth looking at. Noroton (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rick Block

Let's see. We have (see talk:Barack Obama and its archives, and history of the Barack Obama page):

1. a featured article about the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for the 2008 US presidential election
2. a handful of editors, led most recently by user:WorkerBee74 (a WP:SPA), insisting on adding "criticisms" to this article, specifically material about Obama's relationships with Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers
3. another handful of editors insisting that adding too many details about these "relationships" (and in the Ayers case, any mention at all) violates various sections of one or both of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and that these "criticisms" amount to guilt by association smear attempts

The first set of editors have resorted to edit warring, alleged sockpuppetry, obvious use of WP:SPAs, tendentious editing of the talk page, an RFC, and now RFAR to try to insert the disputed material while the other set of editors have responded with edit warring and numerous WP:ANI reports (with an unhealthy dose of WP:CIVIL violations on both sides).

The thread at user talk:Noroton#Rezko is cited as evidence of bias on my part (I did not respond to Noroton's most recent comments in this thread since he asked me not to, here). Rather than bias of mine, I think this thread shows a refusal on Noroton's part to acknowledge my suggestion that his editing was coming across as biased. Although Noroton is in general a very good editor, I still believe he has a pronounced anti-Obama bias (see Special:Contributions/Noroton).

This thread on ANI suggests an article probation be imposed on the Obama pages, but it was apparently archived before consensus was reached on instituting it.

I have taken (and will take) no administrative actions regarding these issues having participated in talk page discussions as an editor. I am now viewed by the "pro-criticism" editors as part of the "anti-criticism" crowd, since I have argued against including this material.

As I've mentioned several places, I'm watching both Barack Obama and John McCain. My agenda is to try to keep them from being hijacked for political purposes. I have suggested Jimbo take rather extreme action to prevent attempted use of the Obama and McCain pages for political purposes [14] and have asked for more admins to watch these pages [15].

I think ArbCom could help by instituting the article probation suggested at ANI. And more admins watching these pages, particularly admins accustomed to dealing with highly contentious pages, would be swell. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kossack4Truth

I'll confirm a few of the details that the IP editor has mentioned about me. I was recently topic banned for filing a WP:ANI report and a WP:AN3 report against LotLE. He/she has developed a style of low-level edit warring coupled with low-level baiting and incivility that is not constructive for the project. Before that, I received a three-day block for giving LotLE a warning about a series of more blatant WP:CIV violations. Noroton has documented LotLE's misconduct here.

If these reports and warnings are meritless, I fail to understand how or why I should be punished for good faith attempts to use the dispute resolution procedures that are prescribed for such situations: warning the offending editor, and making reports at ANI and AN3.

Also, how LotLE keeps getting away with this behavior is a mystery that I would like to see solved.

Coupled with this behavior is more low-level baiting and edit warring by Scjessey. His/her behavior has been just as problematic and has spread to other articles such as George Stephanopoulos. Noroton, whom even these editors agree has been honorable about these matters, accumulated a lot of evidence against Scjessey regarding his/her lying and gaming the system at the Stephanopoulos article to get WB74 blocked, and posted it at ANI sometime around June 30, but I've hunted for half an hour and can't find it. (Perhaps Noroton can.)

Wikidemo, for his/her part, reports even the slightest perceived infractions at WP:ANI, but only by those editors who disagree with him/her. There have been several such reports that resulted in no administrative action whatsoever. For at least one such report, Wikidemo didn't even get one response from an uninvolved editor. For this reason, I coined the phrase "whining exaggerated report" and I believed it to be accurate at that time. Die4Dixie has coined the phrase "disagree/ provoke/ report" and this might more accurately encompass the whole cycle of conduct.

To summarize: LotLE and Scjessey get us all wound up, and then Wikidemo reports us. Whether there's enablement at the administrative level is for others to determine. But the results are that WB74 and I keep getting blocked, and LotLE and Scjessey keep getting away with it, even though Noroton agrees that they've engaged in serial misconduct.

When I am separated from this tag team of POV pushers for whatever reason, I am constructive. I took a voluntary break from Obama-related articles, removed an obvious WP:BLP violation from Heather Wilson, and was promptly reported again here. But in that case, the community supported me. On the topic ban, I thought it was unfair but I took it like an adult and moved on, working on Jim McDermott constructively.

I have done my best since returning from retirement to be constructive, and an asset to Wikipedia. I was prepared to accept this topic ban despite its unfairness, and will accept whatever restrictions the Committee chooses to impose or endorse.

These three editors, however, are engaged in a tag team match to block any criticism or controversy from the Barack Obama article, and get any editor who disagrees with them removed. Their bias and POV pushing is obvious. This is not healthy for Wikipedia and particularly with such a high profile article, a remedy should be fashioned. As I said at Talk:Heather Wilson, we must not merely avoid bias. We must avoid the appearance that we might be biased. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

I am not going to bore you all by going over the same, tired details. I think it is fairly obvious that the reporting editor has filed this report as a way of influencing a content dispute.

I am particularly annoyed that "anti-Obama" editors (for want of a better description) have repeatedly dragged my user name through the mud and claimed I have been provoking them and edit warring. I was once blocked for edit warring (April 21, 2008) but I invite anyone to examine my contributions to verify this was a one-time event. I can only conclude that I have received this special attention because my dedication to preserving the neutrality of articles by fair application of Wikipedia policy has stymied efforts by this "group" to reshape the articles to further a political agenda.

I completely support the substance of the comments made thus far by User:Wikidemo, User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, User:Coren, User:The Evil Spartan and User:Rick Block. If this POINTy report goes any further (it is my understanding that this process is not to resolve content disputes) I hope it will lead to more administrative input and tighter controls for what is obviously an incredibly popular subject. Be happy that this will all be over in November! -- Scjessey (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Recused; I've commented on the AN/I thread taking a specific position, and will make a comment above. — Coren ^(talk) 20:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Marine 69-71	Motions	26 October 2024	0/0/0
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

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

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Request for clarification: Lyndon LaRouche 2

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Cberlet [16]
• Will Beback [17] (Has been active in helping enforce the case's rulings.)
• Post at relevant ANI thread [18] [19]
• Georgewilliamherbert [20]

Question by Cla68

The original Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 case contained specific findings against only two editors: Herschelkrustofsky and SlimVirgin. A post-decision motion [21], passed nine months ago, however, appears to expand the scope of the case to include any behavior exhibited by anyone that violates WP:NOR, WP:POV, or WP:BLP with regard to the LaRouche articles. The exact verbiage in the passed motion is:

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.

Passed 5 to 2, 17:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If my interpretation of this ruling is correct, then should the recent block of Cberlet [22] for violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPA at Views of Lyndon LaRouche with this [23] remark on the article's talk page be annotated in the log of blocks and bans for this case? And, by extension, any other editors who have been blocked for violating these policies and guidelines in a similar manner to CBerlet in LaRouche-related articles should also have had their blocks annotated? Cla68 (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback

I don't understand the need for this. The original ArbCom case closed over two years ago. The only remedies concerned HK and his sockpuppets. Those blocks were logged because they had an escalation clause. Cberlet was an innocent party. Why would this block be logged - what purpose would it serve?

While we're on this topic, we might as well get a determination about the applicability of this motion to current editors. In particular, Polly Hedra (talk · contribs), who posted this message.[24] I simply deleted it as unhelpful and left a message on the user's talk page. However, since this matter is being contested it's worth making sure that remedies are applied evenly. The user is unremorseful.[25] As for being potential sock puppets of HK, there are several editors whose edits are very similar to HK's in that they only edit LaRouche-related articles and articles that LaRouche has a strong POV about, and they consistently promote that POV. Due to HK's clever puppet mastering (see the first RfAr), it is probably impossible to find them using Checkuser, and so they can only be determined by behavior.

FWIW, I received notes from Cberlet asking that the biography of Chip Berlet be deleted, and apparently signalling his intention to leave the project.[26][27] I'd guess that being punished while those who've baited him are unpunished might be a cause.

Comment by User:Marvin Diode

It seems a bit self-serving to call Polly Hedra's message on Will's talk page "unremorseful." She calls attention to the fact that Will deleted her comment on the LaRouche talk page, while allowing a far more inflammatory comment [28] by Cberlet to stand. This does not indicate any particular lack of remorse, but rather calls attention to a double standard which has been a continuing problem.

I also have real concerns about Will's proposal that editors be banned for holding a suspicious POV, in lieu of actual Checkuser evidence. Based on Will's long history of partisanship in LaRouche-related content disputes, I have difficulty believing that this proposal is motivated by nothing more than a desire to protect the project from sockpuppets. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Dtobias

The meme to the effect that "everybody expressing similar opinions to a banned user should be banned too" came into play frequently in the whole Mantanmoreland vs. WordBomb saga, and one would hope it had been discredited by now. This issue needs to be pursued in a "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" manner with no special consideration, pro or con, being given to either side based on their having a more powerful circle of friends here. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Is there a way for our established users to avoid name calling when they are confronted to difficult situations? Incivility (in all forms) has never been something constructive at all. We can do better than that and most people do not necessarily need to use such a language in order to prove something they believe is right. But logging it just for the sake of logging it is not a solution. It is rather an obstacle. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• The motion merely affirmed that, while way back in 2004 it may not have been entirely clear that policies like no original research and neutral point of view were ordinarily enforceable without going so far as having an arbitration case (for interest, here is a contemporary revision of NOR, and here's one of NPOV), by 2007 those principles had long since passed in to the general corpus of policy, and the existence of special remedies in this subject area in no way meant that general policy did not also apply. --bainer (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• This strikes me as petty and unnecessary. As per FayssalF, this is unhelpful; and per bainer, normal policy is handling these issues just as well anyway. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: /Homeopathy

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• N/A

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is just a reminder that the evidence page is still deleted. As this is pretty much a gross deviation from the norm, and as the last statement about it was Flonight's over a week ago, I figured it was time to go here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• As I replied to a query on my user talk page, I asked on ArbCom and got good replies about the reason. I'm still looking into the situation so I can make a good choice about what to include in the undeleted version. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

---