Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:39, 20 December 2006 view sourceNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,481 edits →Clerk notes: reference to prior rejected case← Previous edit Revision as of 18:31, 20 December 2006 view source Supreme Cmdr (talk | contribs)583 edits →Clerk notes: comment about previous ArbCom request. Who knew?Next edit →
Line 318: Line 318:


:Note that this article was the subject of a prior request for arbitration, which was rejected at that time, see . ] 16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC) :Note that this article was the subject of a prior request for arbitration, which was rejected at that time, see . ] 16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Yeah, they rejected it by a 4 to 1 vote. It is quite clear that they have no clue what they were dealing with. Methinks that had they taken a closer look we probably wouldn't be here by now.

:: And thinking that the admins are compentent enough to resolve it, is the kind of thing that makes Wiki come under attack so frequently. They're like those workers who just want to coast through their day. Being a volunteer means that whatever responsiblity you assume, you must uphold and treat with the highest respect. For the most part, some of the admins are clearly out of their league as it pertains to some of these articles. Also, some have been known to show favoritism, don't even bother to look at why they're protecting an article or blocking an editor etc. These are the same people who get voted in by their friends, who then in turn ''work the system''. They get called, they show up, read one or two things, wave their '''BigBanStickOfDoom + 99 Hit Points''' around and leave. But not before hanging around for a post or two to pick on the latest wipping boy editor of the day. i.e. the one who is the most vocal. The result? As soon as the dust settles, everyone goes and gets healed and comes back. Rinse. Repeat. If there was any a Wiki page that has demonstrated abject abuse of power, its the ] page.

:: The ArbCom needs to ask themselves this: "''Why the hell are we here arbitrating about matters which are CLEALY covered by EXISTING policy?''". Every single item of contention above, is covered under policy. And if that policy is strictly adhered to, '''none''' of the above would be allowed. No debate needed. No ArbCom needed.

::The reason we're still arguing about them is because the admins who have visited the article thus far '''don't''' want to adhere to policy either. Either that, or they don't understand it. If they did, we wouldn't be here vying for ArbCom attention. No, lets go ahead and block those editors who are fighting tooth and nail to '''uphold''' policy; while elevating pov-pushers, ] and ] violators to the next level of borderline sociopaths. Wiki is a sociological experiment that is failing in some areas as a result of these sociopaths who couldn't get along with a rabbit if it were blind, deaf and only had three legs. Yet, we expect them to get along with others who don't share their views. Yeah, OK. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 18:31, 20 December 2006

Shortcut
  • ]

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

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
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

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

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

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

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

See also


Purge the server cache



Current requests

Sathya Sai Baba

Initiated by Thatcher131 at 18:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

provide diffs showing that the involved parties have been notified on their talk pages

Statement by Thatcher131

This is a request to reopen/reconsider the previous ruling in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba decided in September, 2006. Since that time, User:Andries has edit warred at Robert Priddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the insertion of a link which apparently violates the ruling. He was warned by Tony Sidaway in September . Andries requested clarification here in October but the discussion was moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba after 10 days without comment from the committee. He has continued the edit war and was warned by me today in response to a complaint filed at Arbitration enforcement, and challenges my warning.

User:SSS108 has continued to edit war at Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), exhibiting signs of article ownership (reverting across multiple intermediate versions to "his" version), and removal of apparently well-sourced negative criticism. While SSS108 has edit warred, and very little progress has been made in part due to his frequent reversions and personal comments on the talk page, the situation is complicated by the fact that the other regular editors appear to be partisans, making it difficult to take action. See my comment on the talk page .

I believe that further action from the committee is required, in the form of enforceable remedies, as the parties have apparently not benefitted from the previous advice and amnesty.

My role

I am one of the few admins who acts on requests made for arbitration enforcement. Today I warned Andries not to replace the link, and I protected Sathya Sai Baba pending a chance to investigate the recent edit war there. I have not edited the articles and have had no interaction with these editors other than regarding arbitration enforcement matters.

Update

After my warning , instead of linking to Robert Priddy's personal anti-Sai web site, he described its contents in the article without linking . I have blocked him for 24 hours and banned him from the article for a month . Thatcher131 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have placed all editors of Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on one revert per day parole. It seemed like the best way to stop the edit warring while allowing much needed editing to continue. I issued a 48 hour block for SSS108 for edit warring and personal attacks but suspended application of the block to see if he can work with the other editors on what seem to be rather minor issues without further edit warring or personal comments. In response, a new single-purpose account Freelanceresearch (talk · contribs) noted that "there is more going on in the background with attacks on pro-Sai editors and anti-Sai Baba POV pushing in other wikipedia articles than you are aware." Thatcher131 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Andries

  1. Does not linking to purportedly unreliable websites also include the homepages of critics with their own articles of Sathya Sai Baba e.g. Robert Priddy (see ), Basava Premanand, M. Alan Kazlev (see here one of the webpages on the website authored, owned, and maintaind by Kazlev, linked to in his Misplaced Pages article), Sanal Edamaruku, Babu Gogineni, the late Abraham Kovoor, and the late H._Narasimhaiah? If the answer is yes, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline WP:EL that states "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one"? SeeMisplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/#Robert_Priddy for a description of this dispute. (amended 09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC))
  2. Does not linking to unreliable website also include wikipedia user pages such as user:Andries See #Do unreliable websites also include the websites created and maintained by user:SSS108 especially for Misplaced Pages. In certain cases such as this one the webpages on this website are simply copies that SSS108 took from the webpages of exbaba.com
  3. Is it okay to use webpages with copies of reputable sources on purportedly unreliable websites as convenenience links in the references. See e.g. here If the answer is no, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline Misplaced Pages:Citing sources regarding intermediate sources that states "A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging the original source." (amended 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
  4. User:SSS108 removed a lot of information from the article talk page that I had moved from the article to the talk page . In spite of my request to do so he did not justify in specifics why this removal was either justified by WP:BLP or the arbcom decision regarding posting external links. I object to mass removals of information from the talk page that are not motivated in specific terms if and where it violates WP:BLP or the arbcom decision. SSS108 stated the intention to remove more of my future comments from the talk page Is SSS108’s or my behaviour a violation of talk page etiquette?
  5. This may not be the place for it, but I also want to express my concern about the number of disputes between SSS108 and me on the Sathya Sai Baba article and related articles that seem to increase in the course of time. If it continues like this, then I will file two requests for comments per week without any end in sight. Regarding Pjacobi's request to step aside, I would like to point out that I am by far the greatest content creator on all articles related to Sathya Sai Baba during the past years. In the weeks that I was away from the article no new content or hardly new content was added to any of these articles. Andries 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) amended 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Andries 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) added question about contradictory guidelines. 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) added new point expressing concern about the number of disputes. 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SSS108

The statement about me by Thatcher131 if not entirely correct. I have not removed well-sourced negative criticisms from the Sathya Sai Baba article. Just recently, the most vocal critic and defamer of Sathya Sai Baba (Ekantik aka Gaurasundara) began editing the article and has been reverting secondary-sourced content to primary-sourced content (despite even Andries pointing out that this content was a primary souce ). I did not remove this content, but referenced it to secondary sources . Ekantik insists on including the primary source (which is no longer on Unesco's website). Hence the edit-warring.
I did remove the stand-alone reference by salon.com on the basis that the article was published in an online-webzine that is admittedly liberal, opinionated and a tabloid. The salon.com article has not been published or referenced by any other secondary sources. Therefore, I removed it as per my understanding of WP:RS. I was not alone in this opinion . This issue was raised on ArbCom and they did not respond to it. The full dicussion regarding this contentious issue can be Found Here. Since Fred Bauder was the sole Admin voice stating that the salon.com article could be included , I have not removed it.
Since known critics of Sathya Sai Baba (Andries and Ekantik) are currently editing the article, I have been forced to defend what I perceive as POV pushing and the watering down of information that compromises the basic facts that Sathya Sai Baba has never been convicted of any crime, has never been charged with any crime and has never had even one single complaint lodged against him, first-hand, by any alleged victim in India. Andries recent ban because of his behavior on the Robert Priddy article supports my claim that he is a relentless POV pusher who will defy ArbCom and Admin to push his Anti-Sai agenda on Misplaced Pages. Even after being blocked, Andries still claims that he is right .
Robert Priddy's home-page is already listed on his Wiki-page (home.no.net/rrpriddy/). Priddy's life history, life events, schooling, personal writings, personal beliefs, poems, jokes, essay's, etc., are all located on the home-page link that is currently on his Wiki-page. See For Yourself. Therefore, home.no.net/rrpriddy/ is Priddy's home page. Andries is attempting to argue that Robert Priddy's Anti-Sai websites are also his "homepages". The link that Andries wants to incude is one of 3 Anti-Sai sites run by Priddy that specifically and exclusively attack Sathya Sai Baba. These Anti-Sai Sites do not contain relevant information about Robert Priddy. They exclusively contain defamatory, speculative and unsubstantiated allegations against Sathya Sai Baba.
It is important to point out that these Anti-Sai websites are not just "critical" websites, they contain defamatory and potentially libelous information. Andries even conceded that his Anti-Sai Site was threatened with legal action . After being threatened with legal action, both Andries and Priddy's Anti-Sai Sites now contain a disclaimer that states that the information on their Anti-Sai websites may not necessarily be true or valid.
I believe that all of the current controversial material (except the salon.com article) are well-sourced and will not seek their removal. I have been hoping that other editors would step in and re-word the critical content in a neutral, understated and encyclopedic way, as outlined in WP:BLP. Since the controversy section is so contentious, I do not seek to edit it by myself and have kept my distance from it as much as possible.
I hope this clarifies my position in relation to the Sathya Sai Baba article and my dedication to improving the article, as outlined in WP:BLP and WP:RS, and keeping a watch over it due to the critical elements attempting to edit it. Thank you. SSS108 20:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 Clerk note: In formatting this request I have removed statements that SSS108 and Tony Sidaway made in October that were reintroduced here by Andries. The statements may be seen at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba, or Andries may provide diff links.

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

Derek Smart

Initiated by ⇒ SWATJester at 03:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Possibly Derek Smart, the subject of the article

  • Numerous anonymous IP addresses.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

article page, Jeffness, WarhawkSP, Steel359, Kerr avon, Mael-Num, Hipocrite,Nanedesuka. Supreme Cmdr cannot be notified as his user page is protected, and he is banned from the article. Bill Huffman

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

further discussion regarding WarHawkSP, read this first!, AN/I discussion part 2, RFC filed against Kerr_avon Informal mediation has failed. Page Protection has failed. Talk page discussion has failed. Community bans of the malicious users have seemed to have failed. 3RR blocks have failed. Discussion on WP:AN/I has stalled. BLP Noticeboard suggested the case be brought here.

Statement by Swatjester

Summary: This article has been involved in an edit war back and forth for some time now. Derek Smart is a controversial figure, and the edit wars are centering around the inclusion or removal of certain criticisms of Smart, in some cases from cited sources. Relevent policies in question are WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:BLP. There have been a number of sockpuppets and single purpose accounts on the article. The article was recently protected to stop the edit warring. Within hours of the unprotection, the article was in the midst of a revert war once again. Threats of "libel" have been made on the talk page. (Note: at the time of this editing multiple users, both involved on both sides, and uninvolved, agree with this summary of the dispute and the points below)

It has been repeatedly suggested on WP:AN/I and the BLP Noticeboard that this case be brought to arbitration.

I am as close to an uninvolved user as I can be on this article, though I will admit in the interest of full disclosure I have reverted I believe twice on the article. I have been trying to mediate the edit warring and constant reversions on this article. However, it seems that there is no other solution than ArbCom at this point. Something very strange is going on here: there are multiple single purpose accounts, IP's making the same edits, many of which come from the same geographic location as Smart. Smart has made it clear on his personal forums that he is aware of the dispute over his page and has remarked with interest to "wiki jihad".

The crux of the dispute appears to be over the inclusion of several edits, most of them sourced, that are highly critical of Smart. The edits come from the Opposable Thumbs column of Ars Technica, as well as the Daily Victim comic, and a usenet posting in which Smart has verifiably commented. There is a group that opposes the edits and continually reverts them, and a group that wants them in and continually reverts them. Most users that I have seen that are on "good behavior", i.e. no block history, knowledge of policy, not vandals etc., are of the opinion that the edits are relevant and should be included. However, the editors who do not wish to see these edits included have made it very clear that they will not under any circumstances allow them to be included.


Several instances of extreme incivility and personal attacks have accompanied these edits, in summaries and in edit text. Several editors have violated 3RR on this, in some cases over 6 reverts.

There also appears to be some sort of outside organization coming from Smart's forums, as well as sockpuppets, and IP editing to get around the 3RR. Further, there seems to be an issue with Smart himself possibly editing the article: The IP addresses resolve to Ft. Lauderdale, where Smart's offices are located, and checkuser requests on the subject have turned up inconclusive, but notably not rejecting the theory.

One user, Supreme Cmdr, has already been banned from editing the article.

I urge ArbCom to accept this case and investigate further, there is something severely wrong with this edit war.⇒ SWATJester 03:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I concur with Nanedesuka's statement that the case not only has to deal with the content of the article, but the behavior of the authors. I see 5 major points of arbitration:
    • Point 1: The edit warring and behavior of the editors and SPAs.
    • Point 2: The inclusion of the werewolves site as a valid source
    • Point 3: The inclusion of the Ars Technica column as a valid source
    • Point 4: The inclusion of UseNet postings by Smart, as accessed by Google Groups, as a valid source.
    • Point 5: The inclusion of the soda machine incident, as well as other critical sources as a valid inclusion
      • A subpoint to this includes other sources critical to smart, such as the numerous Daily Victim webcomics (a highly relevant comic since it had extremly high readership and was written by major gaming portal Gamespy.) and other sources.

I urge the ArbCom to keep in mind that Smart is a subject where a large majority of the material is highly critical and his public portrayal is highly inflammatory. That's the reason for his fame. It does not seem that there would be a problem including relevant material praising Smart, if such material existed in great numbers. However, there is a great deal of relevant critical material, from major and reliable sources, and given the subject of this article, a non 50/50 weight towards criticism in the article would hardly be considered "undue weight".

Statement by Yamla

I am an uninvolved third party. To the best of my knowledge, I had never even read this article until today and certainly have no memory of ever having edited it. However, with more than 25,000 edits, I may have done. I am here as an outsider.

Note that Derek Smart has been the subject of numerous flame wars over the course of months and years. I believe initially usenet was the focus of these flame wars. This has been going back a good ten years or so. I believe it accurate to state that Smart himself would admit to being an active participant in these flame wars.

From my knowledge of the situation, Swatjester's summary thus far is accurate and I concur that a request for arbitration is a good idea at this point. Specifically, however, I want to emphasize that there is no direct evidence that Smart himself has participated, either directly or via a meatpuppet, in editing this article. However, this is at the very least possible. It is worth considering whether or not Smart should be allowed to edit this article or others about his products. I believe this to be inappropriate as he is not a neutral third party. --Yamla 04:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Bill Huffman

There's little doubt in my mind that User:Supreme_Cmdr and User:WarHawkSP are indeed Mr. Smart. I've probably read almost all of Mr. Smart's approximately 7,000 posts made in the Usenet flame war. He has a rather unique abrasive haughty writing style that I'm quite familar with. Based on that familarity alone I'm convinced that Mr. Smart is violating WP:AUTO. I don't believe that he will ever allow the Derek Smart article to contain anything that he perceives as criticism. This is based on my estimation of Mr. Smart as well as direct statements made by Supreme_Cmdr for example here's a diff. Here's the diff of the link description that Supreme_Cmdr considers WP:NPOV and the description that he says violates WP:NPOV.

Both User:Supreme_Cmdr and User:WarHawkSP have multiple violations of WP:3RR. Both accounts are apparently WP:SPA. I suggest that part of the finding for the arbitration should be that these accounts are in violation of WP:SOCK or at least WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. If the accounts were banned from editing the Derek Smart article I believe that it will slow done the disruption but not eliminate it. This belief is supported by the fact that whenever both Supreme_Cmdr and WarHawkSP were blocked from editting anon's popped up that picked up in the edit war where the WP:SPA accounts had left off. It is also based on Mr. Smart's declaration of Jihad against WP and statements on WP by Supreme_Cmdr that he will never allow the article to stand if he disagrees with it. I believe the only way the edit war will be completely stopped is if the article is deleted altogether (a solution that I believe is reasonable) or allow Mr. Smart to write an autobiography for the Derek Smart article (a solution that I believe is unreasonable). Regards, Bill Huffman 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I haven't used my 500 words yet, :-) I thought I might add that I agree with everything said prior to Supreme_Cmdr's statement except that I personally doubt that Mael_Num is a Mr. Smart sockpuppet. Regards, Bill Huffman 16:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Jeffness

I became involved in the Derek Smart article what seems like a few months ago, but is really only 3 weeks, after stumbling upon it via a friend. I started and completed a rewrite of the article that involved substantial changes, new and better citations and overall quality enhancements. Coming into it, I knew nothing about the article's subject and feel that puts me in a good position as an editor of the obviously controversial article. My experience over the last few weeks with this article has been rather harrowing. I knew what I was stepping into, but I never thought it would be this bad. In my opinion, the article is subject of an organized campaign to cleanse the article of properly cited information that is critical of the subject by none other than the subject of the article himself, thereby inciting WP:Auto violations. Certain users, namely user:WarHawkSP and User:Supreme_Cmdr as well as some random IP addresses that popped up when those 2 users were banned, all share the same writing style although sockpuppet checks have come back inconclusive. It should be noted that internet veterans like Smart are privy to things like Onion routing (see Tor_(anonymity_network)) and HTTP proxies that can obfuscate their real location on the internet, so it will never be conclusive. However, ample circumstantial evidence has been amassed to throw these users, their actions and edits, into question at the very least. They have been disruptive, revert warring, disagreeable and have a propensity to wikilawyer everything to death in the hopes we would just go away. This article is in dire straights and needs arbitration from above to resolve these issues.--Jeff 12:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Nandesuka

I concur with Swatjester's summary. To it I would simply add that the issue is not the content of the Derek Smart article but rather the behavior of the partes involved. The ArbCom should accept this case to put an end to what can only be described as abjectly unrepentant and incorrigible edit warring, sockpuppeting, and wikilawyering. Nandesuka 13:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I jointly concur with Nandesuka's addition ⇒ SWATJester 10:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Steel359

I'm not all that familliar with the disputed content, only that there's some negative information that Supreme Cmdr (and others) object to. I'm really just involved in this dispute as an administrator who has protected the article a few times and blocked a couple of users for edit warring. In the relatively short time I've been involved, there's been several ANI threads and an RfC, and I've found another RfC from August. This desperately needs an ArbCom ruling to end the dispute.

I consider User:Supreme Cmdr, User:WarHawkSP (including his old account User:WarHawk) and User:Mael-Num to be the same person. I'm not going to pass judgement on whether they're Derek Smart himself, but it would explain why all three have spent their entire Wiki-career removing negative information from the article. -- Steel 13:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Supreme Cmdr

I agree, in part, with SwatJester's summary except to add the following:

  • I am not a sock puppet of any other editor, nor do I know who they. I am being accused of this by the same editors who seek to inject violating derogatory material into the Wiki and without opposition. Anyone who opposes, is accused of being a sock puppet. I would be willing to provide a member of the ArbCom committee my personal information, under strict confidentiality, so that they can verify this. It is my hope that WarHawkSP and the others being accused of this, will do the same.
  • I am not Derek Smart. He simply does not edit under anon nor hide behind aliases. If he were involved in that page, given his history, he would either have been perma-banned or had the page deleted. These people don't know him well enough to make this call. The exception being Bill Huffman who has stalked him incessantly for going on ten years now. So as not to repeat what has already been posted about this Huffman person, I urge you to please read the summary poster here in the WP:BLP noticeboard.
  • The problem with the article is that editors like Kerr Avon, Bill Huffman and their ilk want to re-write history and inject policy violating material into the Wiki. These include the following.

Thats when Bill started along a new path. Claiming that since he wasn't editing the article - only the talk page - that he wasn't influencing anything. So the argument continues and continues despite the fact that apart from consensus, policy clearly prohibits Usenet posts. Lets not even go into the strict WP:BLP guidelines which they are conveniently ignoring.

  • I have been blocked several times for reverting this improper material. The other side then point to my blocks as proof that I have been disruptive, when in fact the post history proves otherwise. Recently WarHawkWP was blocked for reverting. By the time his block expired, the two items he was blocked for, were in the end not allowed into the article anyway. Several editors have seen this behavior on Wiki and not just on this page. To the extent that an ex-admin made this comment on another editor's page. That was before he was accused of being a sock puppet. Something that the opposing side couldn't seem to make up their mind about.

Supreme_Cmdr 15:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment to uninvolved_User:JzG uninvolved_User:JzG] who said:
As to whether they are Smart, a quick review of the Internet flame wars suggests that the duck test applies: it walks like Smart, it quacks like Smart...
Your mention of the duck test as it applies to this incident is as laughable and gullible as anyone on Wiki crying foul just because a group of people share the same views. There are other editors apart from myself, WarHawkSP etc who do not want to see the Wiki tainted with unsourced and derogatory material that has no place in it. You should be focused on that, as well as the premise for the ArbCom request, instead of expending energy trying to prove a negative with such an utterly silly and laughable inference. In this instance, and to my scientific brain, the duck test fails due to backward regression. And yet, you were able to read up on ten years and over 100K posts worth of flame war material in one sitting and came up with this conclusion. Yeah right. The only duck I see here is you. In other words, your $0.02c is worthless and based on nothing more than conjecture and assumptions with no factual basis in reality. Supreme_Cmdr 22:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment to SwatJester who said:
I urge the ArbCom to keep in mind that Smart is a subject where a large majority of the material is highly critical and his public portrayal is highly inflammatory. That's the reason for his fame. It does not seem that there would be a problem including relevant material praising Smart, if such material existed in great numbers. However, there is a great deal of relevant critical material, from major and reliable sources, and given the subject of this article, a non 50/50 weight towards criticism in the article would hardly be considered "undue weight".
The reason for his fame has nothing to do with him being highly inflammatory. Thats like saying that Bill Clinton is notable for being a cheater or that Rev. Caldwell is known for being a homophobe. Opinions can be and are subjective. Unless you know Smart have kept up with his industry history, read every single interview, read every single opinion, seen every video footage, met him personally etc, you can't be objective. He is notorious for engaging his critics. So who wouldn't be? He is a public figure and apart from being an famous indie game developer who has shipped no less than eight games, he is also perceived as being abrasive because he simply doesn't take crap from anyone.
However, none of this has anything to do with Wiki policy and this is why most just don't get it. You can write anything you want in the Wiki as long as you adhere to policy of which WP:BLP has the strictest requirements and which most of these opposing editors (e.g. Kerr Avon, Bill Huffman) who don't like him (for whatever reason) seem to want to ignore so that they can further their agenda. These editors want to throw out policy, ignore guidelines and push pov. Hence the problem that the Wiki is having. An example is found right there in your statement above "where a large majority of the material is highly critical". Not only is that untrue, you have no way of producing sourced material that upholds that claim. The fact that you want to balance negative and positive material clearly indicates that you have lost sight of what the Wiki is about and that is exactly the problem that these editors have been having. You cannot push pov. Period. End of story.
Nobody cares if Smart is likeable, nice, pets cats, kicks dogs or pulls wings off butterflies, what he ate for breakfast, how many times he's been married, gotten laid or whatever. Nobody cares. What we do care about is that, as an encyclopedia, pertinent and relevant information be included because, guess what pal, this is a bio of a notable industry figure and is thus protected by WP:BLP guidelines. Like it or not, thats the way it is and nobody can just bend the rules as they see fit. Even Jimbo Wales has clearly and frequently talked about this.

Statement by WarHawkSP

I support the statement summary by SwatJester and also the synopsis by Supreme_Cmdr. I want to add that items of contention are :

  1. Bill Huffman's patently libelous Werewolves website link. This fails not only WP:RS and WP:EL, but also every guideline in WP:BLP. Kerr, Hufman and co want it in because its derogatory.
  2. The Opposable Thumbs journal commentary by Ben Kutchera of Ars Technica. This fails both WP:RS and WP:BLP. Kerr, Hufman and co want it in because its derogatory.
  3. Whether or not Derek Smart has a Ph.D and if it can be cited. There are claims that he has one, claims that he doesn't have one and further claims that he does have one but that it is from an unaccredited institution. Since there are no cited sources for either of the three, its inclusion fails WP:RS and most especially WP:BLP. Kerr, Hufman and co want it in because its derogatory.
  4. Whether or not Usenet posts can be cited in the article. This one should be a no briner for ArbCom. Kerr, Hufman and co want it in because then they can turn the article and talk pages to a version of the Usenet flamewars. Especially seeing that Smart and a bunch of others exited the Usenet several years back, leaving Huffman and his friends to continue on with the farce.
  5. Whether or not unsourced derogatory materials can be added. Again, this one should be a no brainer for ArbCom. Kerr, Hufman and co want it in because then they can dig up every derogatory thing that some Tom, Dick or Harry has posted about Smart, like this was a popularity contest.
  6. Whether or not WP:BLP violating material can be removed from talk pages. This seems to be the case but there are those who are ignoring the policy guidelines on this. The clueless and/or biased admins aren't helping in this regard either.
  7. Action needs to be taken against editors like Kerr whose sole purpose it is to taint the article with derogatory material, and when challenged, they get to violate WP:NPA and WP:Civil but consistently accusing other editor of being sock puppets, insulting them etc.

WarHawkSP 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:JzG

Just to stick my $0.02 in, I did the same as Steel, reviewed the contribuitons of User:Supreme Cmdr, User:WarHawkSP, User:WarHawk) and User:Mael-Num, and came to exactly the same conclusion: they can justly be considered to be the same person. As to whether they are Smart, a quick review of the Internet flame wars suggests that the duck test applies: it walks like Smart, it quacks like Smart... As with Langan, I think we can draw the necessary inference here.

If the case is accepted I would like to propose a temporary injunction banning the above accounts and credibly diagnosed sockpuppets from the article, since it's pretty much impossible for anybody to do any kind of cleanup on it while they are active. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Kerr avon

Please kindly permit me to analyse the current problem, how it has arisen and why we request arbitration.

  • Background -: Derek Smart is a game developer who has developed the battlecruiser (now universal combat) franchise. He has become notable in the internet and the gaming community ] not because of the quality of his games which have all been rated as average and mediocre , but due to his vehement and vitriolic defense of criticism of him and the said games on the USENET (with signed postings)and various internet forums.

Derek Smart's contribution to the longest running flame war in the USENET history can be evidenced a google search for his name which returns >50,000 entries.

Smart's controversial nature as perceived by the gaming industry is evident as even reviewers of his games start of the review by mentioning his aggresive stance ] in defence of his own games.

The Derek Smart wiki article has been the subject of numerous edit wars with predominantly the SPA's WarHawkSP (talk • contribs) and Supreme_Cmdr (talk • contribs) whose IP addreses have been found to originate from fort lauderdale florida where Derek Smart resides and whose ISP is bellsouth. They have been repeatedly blocked for edit warring and 3rr violations due to trying to remove cited commentrary critical of Smart not only from the article but from the discussion pages as well.

Due to the similarity of their abrasive writing style to Smart's and due to the fact that both of their IP addresses originate from Derek Smart's residential area, and due their vehement opposition to inclusion commentrary critical of Smart in this wiki they have been strongly suspected by involved parties to be sock puppets of Derem Smart himself. It should be noted that Supreme_Cmdr is the alias that Smart himself uses on his own forum, and Derek Smart himself has stated in his forums that he is going to start a "wiki jihad". As such serious consideration should be given as to if this bio falls under WP:AUTO.

When WarHawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr were blocked recently, the article and the talk page were semi protected due to repeated edit warring by rotating IP addresses WP:ANI#Derek_Smart_edit_warring_and_User:Mael-Num] which originated from Fort Lauderdale, where Smart lives, which precipitated this request for arbitration.

  • Arbitration request -: We will need arbitration regarding the following key points.

1. Inclusion of the site.

This site is written by Bill Huffman who was a main participant in the aforementioned USENET flame war with Derek Smart. It contains a compendium of Smart's USENET postings with commentrary critical of them. The site is a prominent site and extensively cross referenced by authorities with regard to Derek Smart, as can be evidenced by its high page rank via a google search for "Derek Smart" , where it is in the 4th place.

A majority consensus Talk:Derek_Smart/Archive4 was favourable for the inclusion of the site as a External link.

WarHawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr have been vehemently protesting against the inclusion of the said site even as a external link, there prime argument being that the USENET posts have been forged/edited by Huffman. However repeated request to them to substantiate their allegations by demonstrating any possible alterations on the werewolves site which can be easily cross checked by USENET archives like google groups, have been ignored by them. And Huffman has claimed that the citings are all from Derek Smart's USENET postings.

So we need a arbitration ruling regarding whether the inclusion of the prominent werewolves site in the wiki biography as a external link would contravene the WP:BLP.

2. Whether Smart's own USENET postings can be cited in his biography to substantiate claims.

This has arisen due to the fact that Smart singns his official communiques with a Ph.D. Smart has never substantiated his claims of a Ph.D by offering even the name of the institution which granted him the doctorate, and there are USENET discussions regarding this aspect as well. Smart subsequatly signed as Derek Smart Ph.D (non acredited). However current communiques show that he still signs as "Derek Smart Ph.D". It is my consideration that the Ph.D controversy is noteworthy enough to be cited in his bio (as possible academic fraud is a serious offense).

We need arbitration is Derek Smart's own USENET postings as verified by his singature and the headers which contain the USENET server etc can be used as cites in his bio. This is mainly due to the fact that by nature Smart's reason for prominence is his contribution to the mamoth USENET flame war, and a special case should be made in his case.

3. What commentrary critical of Smart should be permitted.

WarhawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr have been repeatedly removing cited commentrary critical of Smart claiming WP:BLP violations without substantiating under which clause the said inclusions violate WP:BLP.

Due to Smart's controversial nature commentrary critical of him which are properly cited should be included in his bio, so we need arbitration with regard to what commentrary critical of Smart is permissible to be included in his bio, and what is not, and what are the reliable sites to cite from/

The Final solution IMHO would be coming to a consensus regarding the above mentioned key facts, followed by vigorous supervision by admins, permanent semi protection of both the article and its talk page, and prompt banning of SPA's who violate the said consensus guidlines.Kerr avon 07:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Nuggetboy

I am involved in the article as an editor, although I'm probably more involved in talk. This, I assume, is why I'm not listed on this RfAr. I concur almost completely with SwatJester, Nandesuka, and Jeffness. I do not agree with Swatjester's point 5 as I think the coke machine incident simply doesn't belong here, even if it were verifiable. However, the other points there are key to this issue.

Comment to Steel359 and JzG:
I disagree that User:Mael-Num is a Warhawk/Supreme Cmdr sockpuppet.

- (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Threaded comments moved. Please edit within your own section only. Thatcher131 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that this article was the subject of a prior request for arbitration, which was rejected at that time, see here. Newyorkbrad 16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, they rejected it by a 4 to 1 vote. It is quite clear that they have no clue what they were dealing with. Methinks that had they taken a closer look we probably wouldn't be here by now.
And thinking that the admins are compentent enough to resolve it, is the kind of thing that makes Wiki come under attack so frequently. They're like those workers who just want to coast through their day. Being a volunteer means that whatever responsiblity you assume, you must uphold and treat with the highest respect. For the most part, some of the admins are clearly out of their league as it pertains to some of these articles. Also, some have been known to show favoritism, don't even bother to look at why they're protecting an article or blocking an editor etc. These are the same people who get voted in by their friends, who then in turn work the system. They get called, they show up, read one or two things, wave their BigBanStickOfDoom + 99 Hit Points around and leave. But not before hanging around for a post or two to pick on the latest wipping boy editor of the day. i.e. the one who is the most vocal. The result? As soon as the dust settles, everyone goes and gets healed and comes back. Rinse. Repeat. If there was any a Wiki page that has demonstrated abject abuse of power, its the Derek Smart page.
The ArbCom needs to ask themselves this: "Why the hell are we here arbitrating about matters which are CLEALY covered by EXISTING policy?". Every single item of contention above, is covered under policy. And if that policy is strictly adhered to, none of the above would be allowed. No debate needed. No ArbCom needed.
The reason we're still arguing about them is because the admins who have visited the article thus far don't want to adhere to policy either. Either that, or they don't understand it. If they did, we wouldn't be here vying for ArbCom attention. No, lets go ahead and block those editors who are fighting tooth and nail to uphold policy; while elevating pov-pushers, WP:NPA and WP:Civil violators to the next level of borderline sociopaths. Wiki is a sociological experiment that is failing in some areas as a result of these sociopaths who couldn't get along with a rabbit if it were blind, deaf and only had three legs. Yet, we expect them to get along with others who don't share their views. Yeah, OK. Supreme_Cmdr 18:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Huaiwei and Singapore Changi Airport

Initiated by thadius856talk|airports|neutrality at 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

(Note: First RFAR. Trying to be as careful as possible to not make mistakes, though I'm only human.)


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Huaiwei — Jpatokal — Dbinder — Wangi — Chacor — Hunterd


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  1. Avoidance of removal or reversion without discussion and consensus.
  2. Taking a break from improvement of disputed article.
  3. Extremely lengthy discussion at Talk:Singapore Changi Airport.
  4. Solicitation of outside opinions from Peer Review , Misplaced Pages talk:Lead section and WikiProject Airports Peer Review .
  5. Mediation Cabal case (closed).

Statement by Thadius856

Upon first seeing the Singapore Changi Airport article, I was struck by now ugly the lead paragraphs looked. While attempting to improve said article through GA-status, I found that the lead needed trimming due to slow creep. The first sentence in particular contained a slew of alternate names, including: Chinese, Malay, Tamil, pinyin and two names in English. As they were already present in the infobox, they were repetitive in nature and detracting from the readability of the opening sentence in its then-present form. The MoS on lead paragraphs dictated they be removed, as "specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction" and Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT "an indiscriminate source of information".

However, I didn't remove them from the lead myself as it would have been reckless and acting unilaterally. Instead, I joined the discussion on the talk page. User:Huaiwei appeared extremely intent on keeping all the names in the lead, even to the point of posting personal attacks , having to be reminded to assume good faith and myself having to ask him to maintain civility. I eventually opened a MedCab case to help reach a consensus. Though Huaiwei was notified and a notice placed on the article's talk page, he never participated in the mediation. A reminder was left on the article's talk page 4 days prior to closing, to which he responded, though he later confirmed voluntarily abstaining.

Huaiwei appears to have attempted to take ownership over the article, opposing any changes proposed, reverting any edit that he doesn't see fit without any improvement, and WikiLawyering his way out of talks instead of helping to build consensus. I edited the lead per the mediator's closing comments, only for Huaiwei to re-add it all back verbatim. At the very least, the final move appears to me to be against the policy on resolving disputes ("Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.") and the guideline on consensus ("Insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been adjudged a violation of consensus")

His block log shows a total of 11 separate blocks in the past 16 months; all of them for edit warring, three revert rule or probation violations. It appears that simple short-term bans have had no effect on his behavior as of yet, so there's little hope that another simple slap on the wrist and short block will fix anything.

Statement by semi-involved User Wizardry Dragon

Full disclosure: I am a friend an associate of Thadius856. Although I am not involved in the dispute proper, I feel it appropriate to name myself a semi-involved party due to this association. Cheers.

First of all, It should be noted that Huawei has been a party in three previous disputes, unrelated, in regards to Instantnood's alleged POV pushing at and in relation to Single-party state. As these cases revolved around Instandnood's conduct or misconduct, I feel it is appropriate ArbCom examine the conduct of Huaiwei. It is my opinion that he has come under the impression that he somehow owns these articles, and he has been disruptive, to say the least, when dealing with editors in relation to this article, as indicated by Thadius856's statement above. He has acted in a matter unconductive to furthering the Encyclopedia by disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point, the point seeming to be that he owns the article. The thing is, he doesn't.

Furthermore, I would like to add that Huaiwei's refusal to honour the Mediation Cabal ruling, despite ample chance to do so, given a month of notice, seems to suggest that they disregard the dispute resolution process and it's remedies, and will simply do what they are doing regardless. I think the time has come for the Arbitration Committee to bring this user back in line. Shape up, or ship out. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Addendum In further support of the need for this case to be looked at more thoroughly, simply look to the number of bans that have been issued, in Janurary alone in relation to Huaiwei:
    • Banned from Category:Chinese Newspapers, January 11, 2006.
    • Banned from Char siu, List of railways in China, and Guangshen Railway, January 12, 2006.
    • Banned from Queensway, January 12, 2006.
    • Banned from Supreme court, January 16, 2006.
    • Banned from List of museums, January 19, 2006.
    • Banned from List of airlines, January 20, 2006.
    • Banned from Clock tower, January 23, 2006.
    • Banned from Lists of country-related topics, January 23, 2006.
    • Banned from Singapore Science Centre, January 24, 2006.
Also, note that Huaiwei has been blocked no less than eleven times.
In short, I think a stronger remedy than probation is neccesary and that the pattern of abuse needs looking at in greater detail. The pattern to me seems to suggest long term abuse. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" 22:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside statement by SchmuckyTheCat

I have never read this talk page where the dispute is taking place. I want to add the comment that this whole issue of the lead sentence containing translations versus infoboxes is happening across tons of articles for several months. Various Misplaced Pages guidelines and several manuals of style (some specialized to specific languages) are completely contradictory on this issue. Huaiwei has supported infoboxes in some places so I'm not sure what actually underlies this dispute.

I don't think ArbCom is the place for this dispute at this time but some sort of call should go out to standardize the issue of extensive translations in lead introductions. If the filer of this dispute thinks Huaiwei's behavior is a violation of previous ArbCom rulings he should take it to Arbitration Enforcement. (And a personal note to Huaiwei: if they brought it here, maybe you should chill out?).

Clerk notes

Huaiwei is under probation as a result of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. It looks like this can be handled by filing a complaint at Arbitration enforcement rather than opening a new case. Thatcher131 20:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

  • Reject - take it to arbitration enforcement, as I believe that should be sufficient. Questions of appropriate style are outside the arbitration committee's remit and should be settled in the normal way - by talking and reaching a rough consensus. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Recuse. Dmcdevit·t 10:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Starwood/ACE et al. links

Initiated by Pigman at 22:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

(This is my first RFAR so I'm a little uncertain whether I should list everyone involved. I'm only including some of those from one side of the matter. If you would like a more complete list, please ask me and I'll draw one up. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Rosencomet has inserted numerous links to Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, and WinterStar Symposium since August 2006. Rosencomet is thoroughly involved and connected to these groups. Other editor's attempts to dispute or remove these links have been blocked. Additionally, proponents in favor of the links have harassed editors opposing most or all of these links.

Requests for comment

Over time there have been several related RfCs and mediations:

  • Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mattisse is related. User:999 and User:Hanuman Das say this demonstrates Mattisse has used sockpuppets to give the impression for greater support for Mattisse's actions; an outside view argues this RFC was filed in retaliation.

Statement by User:Paul_Pigman

The internal links to Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, and Winterstar Symposium from performers/presenters' pages seems grossly overdone. They appear to fall under the WP:SPAM guidelines. These links have been persistently and systematically added by User:Rosencomet. When going through Rosencomet's user contributions, I find only five pages out of his approx. 850 total edits since August 2006 not connected to these links. (Those five might be connected as well. I do not know.) Of course, not every edit included inserting these links; he did do other edits on these articles. But his edit universe remains very focused on the ACE/Starwood, et al. performers. Since Rosencomet used the phrase "as executive director of ACE", he has a conflict of interest. The vast majority of these internal link insertions appear gratuitous and intended to increase visibility of ACE and its events. Several other editors have commented on this here, here, and here. Many of these inserted references seem to have little relationship to their appropriateness or significance to the subject. A representative but by no means exhaustive selection of specific examples are here, here, and here.

Additionally, editors who have attempted to change these links or argued for their removal have been subject to harassing and disruptive actions against them. Recent examples here and here. Hanuman Das has probably been the most persistent of these. Please see his block log for recent violations. Others have been Ekajati and 999.

Statement by Hanuman Das

I formally withdrew from the mediation here when the new mediator took over. I agreed not to edit the links in question, and I have kept that agreement. Please remove me from the arbitration. You may also note that this is the current mediation page, and I have posted no comments whatsoever on the page, since I withdrew before mediation started. The first mediation page is a complete red herring as the mediator never appeared or did any mediation. The only mediation which has occurred is on the page I have just given. I request that my name be removed from this request as I decline to participate. —Hanuman Das

Statement by Mattisse

If User:Hanuman Das has withdrawn I have very little issue here. He was the primary person who harassed me along with User:999 (who is on wikibreak) and User:Ekajati (who has not been named). I have no particular issue with Rosencomet separate from what people will cover here independent of my comments. My primary issue was the harassment. As far as Rosencomet is concerned, I feel he was enabled and condoned by those around him on Misplaced Pages. But he did not harass me or cause me personal grief. Therefore, I wish to withdraw from this arbitration as it has no relevance to me at this point. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by WeniWidiWiki

Rosencomet the Executive Director of the for-profit organization ACE LLC created a wikipedia profile with the same name of a website he maintains called Rosencomet.com. This website is a commercial enterprise which promotes the for profit Starwood Festival and WinterStar Symposium and sells merchandise, tickets, etc. He created an autobiographical entry for Jeff Rosenbaum. His contribs show he has created dozens of articles to promote his organization in one way or another, has made hundreds of links which go back to his domain name and only single-mindedly edits entries which have something to do with this commercial endeavour. Several attempts at resolution and mediation have occured, and this mediation is still underway about the appropriateness of the links. However, a big problem with the current mediation that is not being addressed is that of Rosencomet's conflict of interest. He refuses to address the issue, and has not contributed to the mediation since being asked about his apparent conflict of interest. Since mediation is not compulsory, and he has apparently opted out, Arbitration is the last means of resolving this. - WeniWidiWiki 02:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ekajati

In my opinion, the ongoing mediation was going well and this RFaR was opened simply because Paul Pigman wasn't getting the result from mediation that he wanted. This is not the first time that he has attempted to bypass mediation or encourage others to join the mediation in an attempt to bias it in his favor. Vis. , , , , , , .

It's also not clear to me, is this about the Starwood Festival links? Or is it retaliation against Hanuman Das for bringing up a privacy concern? . I'm happy to participate if it is the former. I've got no interest in a witchhunt against any user's past actions, either Hanuman Das's or Mattisse's.

Also, please note that I was not informed of this arbitration request by Paul Pigman, though everybody on his side of the dispute seems to have been notified. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 03:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I also would like to note that despite Mattisse's protests that she is not involved in the situation any more, that she almost immediately entered an opinion on the mediation page. That tells me that she is still involved and should be a party to this arbitration. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You should be aware that there was no a priori intent to spam. The citations with external links were repeatedly requested by Mattisse and her several sockpuppets. The person who placed the linking citations did don't believe they were needed, but was bullied into placing them by Mattisse. Mattisse then used the presence of the external links to recruit others to help her fight "spam". Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to broaden the scope of the RFaR to include the conflict of interest activities of two of the other parties, Paul Pigman and Kathryn_NicDhàna, who have also been spamming Misplaced Pages with links to their own site, paganachd.com. These two situations are incredibly similar. In both cases, the editors in question have conflict of interest issues and are adding links to their own sites to Misplaced Pages. In both cases, the links are wrapped as citations, and in both cases, there is (elsewhere on the site than where linked), commercial activity. However, where the Rosencomet case involves only supporting data, the Celtic Reconstructionist case involves a group of people using their own self-published research as references to support the repetition of their self-published research on Misplaced Pages. The beauty of this sitation is that it allows a much more refined arbitration: are both allowed? are both disallowed? is one allowed while the other disallowed, and why. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jkelly

I'd say that ArbCom can safely take a pass on this one. The actual behaviour seems to be adding Notable person was a guest speaker at in in the article ]. It's probably true that User:Rosencomet could use a stern reminder that it is inappropriate to replace such mentions when local editors to the articles in question remove them for lack of import, and an encouragement to recognise that editing that annoys people is probably bad and should be taken to talk to gather consensus. Frankly, local editors seem to be handling the situation appropriately, so it is not obvious to me that admin intervention is needed here, let alone an ArbCom case. Jkelly 04:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:999

I recv'd an urgent email from Hanuman Das about this RFaF. After reviewing it, I feel it is important for me to respond, although I will not have free time to participate until I return from vacation (my wife would kill me :-). I completely agree with Jkelly that local editors of the articles should decide the issue. However, it has not been local editors who have mostly been removing the additions. It has been Wikistalkers. First, Mattisse stalked Rosencomet, first removing the internal links, then adding citation requests. She was not a regular local editor of the articles in question: her first edits to each article was to interfere with Rosencomet. When local editors restored the links, she began using sockpuppets. When local editors continued to restore the links, she recruited other non-local editors, who then also began to stalk Rosencomet. These included BostonMA, Calton, User:Kathryn NicDhna. When other local editors such as Septegram supported the links as well, these users made multiple accusations of "spamming", urged on by Mattisse, in a rather uncivil manner. My recommendation is that these users abandon this effort except in cases where they truly were local editors of the article in question. I also urge acceptance of this RFaF, not as a referendum about the links, but about the stalking behaviour of these users who appear to be unwilling to let the actual local editors make these judgment calls. However, please note that while I would like to be involved, I will not be able to devote any significant time to this until January. -999 (Talk) 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:67.117.130.181

Misplaced Pages articles are not WP:OWN'ed by "local editors" or by anyone else. We all have the duty to clean up spam where we find it, and if someone inserts hundreds of links to his or her own site into Misplaced Pages, that is spam (WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:COI). Also, Special:Linksearch and user contrib histories are essential tools for spam cleanup and using them to locate and remove spam links is not "stalking". If other "stalking" has taken place it hasn't been described here. The credulity of some of the mediation participants notwithstanding, spammers love to insert as many links as they can into Misplaced Pages, not just to attract visitors through the links but also to increase their search engine rank from the links' mere presence in Misplaced Pages, so they will find any rationalization they can for inserting and defending the links. Any analysis of this situation should done by viewing it through that lens. Finally, as of right now, linksearch shows 59 extlinks to *.rosencomet.com mostly in article space, so "local editors" IMO are not cleaning them up and so the task does fall to other editors. I certainly would have removed all of them if I'd come across them randomly. (I'll leave them alone for now).

I would not have thought this case had enough subtlety to lead anyone to call for an arbitration process. I'd have expected a straightforward user-initiated spam cleanup to remove the spam links, plus suitable administrative blocks against the spammers if the spamming continues, plus extlink blacklisting of the spammer's domains if necessary. If arbcom does take the case it should be to impose more drastic remedies than the above. (From uninvolved user 67.117.130.181 09:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)).

The pages are not WP:OWN'ED by the mediation participants either. I did look at the main mediation page before posting that but I missed the distinction about the nature of the spam at that time of night. OK--spammers are gaming the system by wrapping the spam up as "citations", as has been predicted and observed at other times. There was just a discussion of this on (IIRC) some AfD (I'll see if I can find a link). Anyway it's accepted practice in disputed articles to require that those wanting to insert facts into an article document not only that the facts are verifiable by reliable sources, but also that the facts' relevance to the article's subject's notability is verifiable. The Starwood Festival's (lack of) relevance to the subjects of the articles where those links originate is in fact discussed in the mediation. That plus the COI issues mean these links are still spam (both internal and external). I've struck out my comment that the case is so simple though. I don't think there's been an arb case of this nature before, so arbcom may want to weigh in. I may add some thoughts about the relevant principles to the RFAR talk page later. 67.117.130.181 18:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Wjhonson

I would also like arbcom to take note then although I'm listed above, I was not formally notified of this action taking place. See my talk history here. I only became involved when I reverted, a revert of a Starwood link. I've never heard of Starwood, but my review of the link did not indicate any issue. It simply appeared to be a citation (ref) type link on a fact. I also feel like this open action is unwarranted as the mediation appeared to be going just fine. As I see it there is only one open issue, which is actually an issue cross-pedia not just on this festival. That issue being, when is an appearance at an event significant enough to be mentioned in the articles of the performers and how much leeway do we give to the main festival article to list ALL performers, even if they are non-notable in themselves. I also agree that these issues should be taken up on the local talk pages and resolved by locally-involved editors. This is not a situation for ArbCom. Wjhonson 00:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Rosencomet

I, too, think that this is an unnecessary move and one designed to short-circuit an on-going mediation, and it's not the first time such an attempt was made. The issue of these links should be solved by coming to some type of compromise, but so far all the moves in that regard have been from one side of the issue. It has been overblown with accusations of "taking over articles" and "google-bombing", but the history shows that from the beginning one person demanded citations on facts under several sock-puppets names, then accused the editors of linkspam when the citations were provided, actually created false pages to increase the impression of this being a big problem, enlisted help under false pretense, and never apologized for ANY of these behaviors.

Pigman says that the links "seems grossly overdone" and "appear gratuitous". At the least, this is a subjective value judgement. He has not, though, specified any rule saying how many or what kind of internal links are allowable, nor has his deletion of citations & links been selective; and they have often been accompanied by comments like "deleting gratuitous linkspam". WeniWidiWiki has misrepresented both the articles and organization sponsoring Starwood, and made a lot of the notion that it is "for profit", and said I have "created dozens of articles to promote his organization in one way or another, has made hundreds of links which go back to his domain name". Actually, ACE is not-for-profit: all money coming in goes to programming, and no one working on ACE activities is paid a dime; although it should not matter, since plenty of for-profit organizations like IBM and XEROX have Wiki article and links. And the "hundreds of links" claim is flatly false. He/she has also made a big deal about the fact that I haven't responded to anything in the last 2 days, as if not living on line means I've "oppted out of the arbitration".

Though I have tried to compromise by putting up, taking down, expanding, rewriting, and otherwise changing the work I've done, there seems to be no recognition of this. Instead, there have been repeated attempts to make this about me instead of the issue of the links themselves. I think Che is doing a good job, and the only way progress can be made is if the folks making these moves will stop being unilateral and driving people away from Misplaced Pages, and actually seek a constructive middle ground with guidelines both sides can agree to. This arbitration should not take place, and the people involved should continue the mediation already in progress, and save the arbitrators from an unecessary and unpleasant task. Rosencomet 05:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC) (I believe the above statement is from Rosencomet. If I'm wrong please correct this. --Pigman 05:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

It is. I don't know why, but whenever I try to sign something on this page, it says I am not logged in, even though I am. Rosencomet
Comment - I agree that those initiating this arbitration are guilty of that which they accuse others of. Let me also point out one difference between the cases, especially relevant since someone brought up the notion of warring Pagan factions or some such. I have not touched any articles written by or regularly edited by any of the people on the other side of this issue. I have not, as they have, claimed that they had no right to input data about an organization they have admitted to being officers in, and in one case claimed to have coined the name of. I haven't, as they have, reccommended the articles they've written for deletion and assembled a team to do it. I haven't used sockpuppets, or worked with those who do, or trivialized the fact that they do. I have simply inputted data I thought appropriate, tried to preserve it when I thought the reasons for deleting it were wrong, complied and/or compromised on several occasions, and sought guidelines for working to make better articles. I and my work have been sabotaged and vilified, but I have not retaliated with Rfcs or calls for arbitration, nor have I stalked the contributions of any of them. User:Rosencomet


Statement by JzG

I am not sure if I should perhaps be included as a party, having taken part in some of the discussions around this subject. I looked into this and formed the view that there were several things going on:

  • User:Rosencomet undoubtedly linkspammed and edited in support of his commercial enterprise, a clear conflict of interest.
  • User:Mattisse worked against that, but through various actions and comments led to accusations of ill-faith; Matisse was also harassed by others, although he did not do over much to help his own cause here.
  • Reasonably enough, citations were provided for a number of individuals' having taken part in the Starwood festival, these were in the form of links to the rosencomet site, which led to further allegations of linkspamming.
  • Many of those individuals should not be linked to the Starwood festival as doing so gives undue weight to a very minor event in their lives and serves mainly to promote the commercial entity which is the festival, and appearing there is often (usually) of no demonstrable importance in the life of that individual.
  • The Starwood, ACE and WInterStar articles should probably be merged.

I think that means I agree completely with Pigman :-) Guy (Help!) 13:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Semi-Statement by Che Nuevara

I'm mediating the case, but most of the issues here seem to predate my involvement; I took the case to attempt to foster civility and progress, and we seem to have at least an overarching feel of the former. I can't really comment on this case as I wasn't around for most of the issues, but I am available for comment if something that comes up on the mediation page becomes relevant. - Che Nuevara 18:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Statement by Kathryn NicDhàna

I hadn't planned on participating in this case, but as Ekajati has added me, I might as well make a brief statement. I first got pulled into this when, after seeing posts on WikProject:Neopaganism concerning the linkspam and non-notable articles by Rosencomet, I weighed in on the Taylor Ellwood AfD. Immediately 999 turned up on eleven articles I edit, eight of them where he had never appeared before. In one case he slapped a ProD on a sourced article. In another he began link-warring over a commercial, external link (not to Starwood). He admitted to some of this on my talk page, and I will provide diffs later if they seem notable to the pattern of harassment. At that time Ekajati also began placing "citation needed" flags on every sentence of some of the articles I was working on. Again, diffs later, if needed. Today she showed more of the same with these personal attacks and racism on my talk page:

Basically, I concur with Pigman, WeniWidiWiki and Guy that the ACE links are astroturfing, largely inappropriate, and "grossly overdone". I also agree wholeheartedly that Ekajati, 999, and Hanuman Das engaged in systematic harassment and attempts to intimidate anyone who removed or even questioned the links. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Septegram

I was not notified of this RFA, which I find disturbing in and of itself, and only heard about it through the good offices of another Wikipedian. I'm not sure I belong as a party, since I don't believe I have done any editing of the articles in question. My understanding of this debacle is that Mattisse bombed the Starwood article with {fact} tags (acting, it seems to me, in questionable faith), leading Rosentcomet to put in links to what information zie had available. These were attacked, and the furball that ensued brought us here.
I believe there have been cases of inappropriate behavior on all sides, and have started to distance myself from this debacle. I am not optimistic that a conclusion can be reached that all sides will find reasonable, or even equally unreasonable.

  • Yes, Rosencomet probably overdid the linking of Starwood to performers and vice-versa.
  • Yes, others did respond perhaps overaggressively
  • Rosencomet says zie's made numerous edits in an attempt to comply with requests from people regarding this mess; I don't know and can't speak to it. I do know that this cluster**** has caused at least one editor who I held in fairly high regard to abandon Misplaced Pages entirely.
  • Yes, I'm getting disgusted with this whole dispute and the lack of flexibility and WP:AGF displayed by several people.

If the tone or content of this statement is not appropriate, I apologize, but not very heartily.
Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Hanuman Das' user and talk pages have been deleted at his request per m:Right to vanish. If the parties to this case believe these pages contain evidence necessary to this stage of the case (whether to accept or reject the request), please contact one of the clerks. Thatcher131 12:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
How does one contact a clerk? His talk pages are essential to me if I have to become involved and maybe central to the case in general separate from me. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher, do you mind if I undelete, blank and protect for now, at least HD's Talk, to facilitate debate? Guy (Help!) 11:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Certainly if the case is accepted. Before that, I would prefer to respect Hanuman's wishes, but I have asked the arbitrators for clarfication. Thatcher131 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

 Clerk note: I moved some threaded comments and deleted some others (visible in the page history). Please comment in your own section only. Thanks. Thatcher131 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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


Requests for clarification

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

Are admins allowed to place a user on 1RR? Is a fourth arbitration case neccesary?

After his third arbitration case, Instantnood was placed on indefinite (both regular and general) probation. Instantnood violated his probation by POV-pushing at Single-party state. I reported him on the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, and Eagle 101 blocked him for 24 hours and placed him on 1RR.

My first question: Are admins allowed to place a user on 1RR, or is only the Arbitration Committee empowered to do so? If only the Arbitration Committee can place a user on 1RR, can they only do so as a remedy during an arbitration case involving said user?

Instantnood's POV-pushing sparked an edit war between him, Huaiwei, and several others. During the heated discussion on the talk page, Huaiwei has made personal attacks on Regebro, and Regebro has made comments which are, at worst, personal attacks on all Singaporeans, and, at best, incivili and assumption of bad faith. In addition, Nightstallion's use of rollback in a content dispute may constitute abuse of administrator privileges.

The ongoing mediation will probably fail; in fact, the Mediation Cabal rejected the case. Regebro has filed an RFC against Huaiwei, and Thadius856 has filed an RFAr against Huaiwei (not related to the dispute on Single-party state).

My second question: is this dispute serious enough to warrant filing of an arbitration case? I believe arbitration is neccesary to review the conduct of all involved parties, impose binding sanctions, and put a stop to the conflicts between Huaiwei and Instantnood, as other attempts at dispute resolution have failed, and Instantnood has repeatedly ignored consensus. However, since arbitration is not a laughing matter, and I don't want to waste the Arbitration Committee's time, I would like to get some consensus before filing an arbitration case.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Rgfolsom, Smallbones

I'm happy to see the 4th vote to accept this RfA. Without some conclusion on the matter Robert Folsom is likely to just keep on reverting any edits that his boss doesn't like. (Un)Fortunately, it is now time for my Christmas holiday, and I will be travelling and doing all those Christmas things for the next three weeks. Is it possible to get this delayed for 3 weeks? I'm sorry if this throws a wrench in the usual process.

Happy Holidays,

Smallbones 09:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

When the case is opened (likely 24 hours from now), you can place a motion for continuance on the workshop page. Thatcher131 12:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

Zer0faults, now editing as NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is under probation and may be banned from articles he disrupts. A complaint was filed at WP:AE alleging disruption at September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (with a related discussion here). I looked into the situation, and found an edit war over the insertion of an external link. I counted 18 insertions of the link by 5 editors (11 by NuclearUmpf) and 17 removals by 7 editors over 7 days, with no attempts made to follow any dispute resolution process (third opinion, RFC or mediation). There was extensive discussion on the talk page but it was fruitless, as it revolved around whether the link met the external link policy, rather than what seems to me the more important issue of even if it does, should it be included as a matter of editorial judgement. I offered an opinion on the link, and declined to enforce NuclearUmpf's probation, as he was only one of twelve people involved in an edit war, including at least one admin, none of whom sought help through the dispute resolution process (I left open the possibility of future action if Nuclear continues to fight the issue after DR). (One other uninvolved editor has also offered an opinion on the link .) My judgement has been called into question by two editors, one of whom said (in email) "You have effectively taken the power and credibility from the arbcomm, saying their rulings mean nothing." I request a review by the arbitration committee. Thatcher131 14:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I twice asked Tom Harrison to discuss the issue on the talk page, and was twice ignored. On the third time I went to ask I found his talk page protected and made an AN/I post requesting someone ask Tom to participate in the discussion. I am also the one who started the discussion on the talk page after witnessing the link being removed without a reason being given. The link was originally provided by user Lovelight from what I had seen. So while I did not pull in a third party or goto RfC, I was the one who attempting to discuss the issue and frame the debate for it to be discussed. Some of my reverts are reverting people who did not even leave edit summaries, like Tom Harrison, who did not give a reason ever in his edit summary for why it should be removed. If I am to be punished for "edit warring", then tis only fair that Tom Harrison, RX Strangelove and all other users participating receive the same punishment for also participating, and perhaps a greater for not even attempting to discuss the issue, where I at least did that. I would also like to note that RX filed his complaint in retaliation for me asking on AN/I for someone to get Tom to participate, the complaint was made the same day, an hour after my AN/I post which did not even mention them, showing its in bad faith. I would also like to point out that I did work with one user who was open to discussion, that being PTR, who myself and them felt that narrowing the link to the specific day of the 9/11 attacks would be a fair middleground, and it was done and Lovelight was asked to agree and they did. --NuclearZer0 20:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to apologize to Thatcher131 for any angry emails they may have gotten in response to this issue, as they have been nothing but fair handed in my opinion and I have always stated I would follow their decisions. I would also like to point out that neither RX nor Tom has attempted, since protection was removed, to seek a form of mediation. If this issue was so big to them that they had to revert constantly without summaries etc, wouldn't they have attempting some mediation by now? --NuclearZer0 20:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You're only responsible for what you write. I just feel that with multiple editors questioning me I would like a reality check. Thatcher131 21:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
First time I've noticed proposal for link in question was around memorial. Notion reoccurred last month. As seen through discussions, my opinion about the link is as of valid, valuable, and well cited resource. Especially if we are talking about final, well focused and narrowed version. I'd say that arguments were made clear and that continuous removal of link without proper response wasn't all right… …from more than one perspective I'm afraid. Lovelight 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Category: