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).

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

• Arbitration policy
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
• Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template

User:Jayjg abuse of checkuser privilege

Initiated by Justforasecond at 22:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Justforasecond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Banned accounts:

• Amarilloarmadillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bonbonnie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Enlightening (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eviltwinster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Karenga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lostnotlost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Oracall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tulsino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• YkstortNoel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Informing Jayjg: [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• I asked JayJG about his use of checkuser[2] and he removed the message from his talk page without a snide edit summary[3]. He seems unwilling to explain his actions, I believe only arbcom can handle this issue.

JayJG has used his checkuser privilege to check for any edits from IP addresses related to Justforasecond and banned several accounts. Checkuser policy is that it is to be used to check for vote stacking and abuse, not to stalk.

Statement by Justforasecond

After my first couple thousand edits, a small number of editors (including admins) had begun following me around impeding my ability to contribute to wikipedia. For the most part, I retired from wikipedia, but I created a couple of new accounts so I could contribute in peace without my edits being immediately reverted and so I wouldn't have to deal with overzealous administrators.

This approach seemed to be going smoothly until user:Jayjg used his checkuser privilege to check into any edits from an IP address I use, banning these accounts. An example of one of the banned accounts: [4] As he refuses to comment on his actions, I can only guess as to JayJG's motivations, they appear to be vindictiveness. I edited an article about a religious group called Jews for Jesus which Jay, a Jewish editor, has very strong opinions about (disclaimer: I am neither Christian nor Jewish, and tried to edit this article from a neutral point of view)

I requested an explanation for his actions[5], but JayJG deleted my comment from his talk page three minutes later, leaving a snide edit summary[6]. My understanding is the "checkuser" privilege is to be used to check for vote stacking, not to give editors a hard time because of a content dispute.

I humbly request that User:Nandesuka should he become an arbitrator, recuse himself from this case.

Statement by Fluffbrain

Not realizing that an article on this topic had been voted for deletion some months ago, I began an article on "Israeli Art Students Controversy," about the well-documented but still unexplained espionage-like activities of dozens of young people claiming to be Israeli art students, in the year preceding 9/11. Over the course of several days, I had put several hours work into the page, and with the help of other Wikipedia editors, was sincerely striving for an objective tone. Then, suddenly, the page was gone, without any comment or explanation. Soon I figured out that Jayjg had peremptorily deleted it -- In the deletion log, he said that this was the same article that had been voted down months ago, and cited the votes given at that time as justification for the current deletion.

I wrote to him on his Talk page, and after deleting my upset but by no means unreasonable or rude comments, Jayjg replied on my Talk page with a sarcastic remark.

I don't know what was in the article deleted months ago; it may well have been rife with 9/11 fantasies & conspiracies, but as I say, the article I began was objective and sane. There is, in fact, a controversy about these purported "art students," lots of reporting in mainstream media, and I think Jayjg's drive-by deletion was founded in a fear that this would somehow make Israel look bad.

You can go right now to the US Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (NCIX), to see this memo from March 2001 on "Suspicious Visitors to Federal Facilities." First sentence: "In the past six weeks, employees in federal office buildings located throughout the United States have reported suspicious activities connected with individuals representing themselves as foreign students selling or delivering artwork. Employees have observed both males and females attempting to bypass facility security and enter federal buildings."

User Jayjg should be disallowed deletion power, as he wields it in service of his fervently pro-Israel ideology, and wields it clumsily, at that. I have no problem with this ideology or his right to free speech on a relevant Talk page, but I don't think he should be able to throw Wikipedia articles willy-nilly down the memory hole just because he disagrees with them or they offend his patriotic sensibilities. --Fluffbrain 15:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

• Reject. If you seriously want to raise this matter, send an email to the ArbCom detailing the circumstances. CheckUser is a frontline tool defending Wikipedia. Charles Matthews 22:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the appropriate forum to address these sort of cases? Checkuser is supposed to be a tool for defending wikipedia, but this user seems to be abusing it to carry out a personal vendetta. Could be otherwise, but he won't explain his actions. Justforasecond 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject. Your reading of policy (which, of course, is not merely what is written down, but accepted practice in its enforcement) differs so greatly from ours that I think you probably want to appeal to the community at large, not us, for such a change (and thus possible censure). James F. (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sathya Sai Baba

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

Involved parties

• Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SSS108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ekantik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also edits as Gaurasundara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ProEdits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• M Alan Kazlev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Freelanceresearch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am aware of the request and have commented below about how I see the dynamics on the article.Freelanceresearch 01:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Kkrystian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I confirm that I am aware of the request. Kkrystian^talk 16:42 (UTC+1) 21 Dec 2006
• Savidan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Statement by Thatcher131

This is a request to reopen/reconsider the previous ruling in Wikipedia: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 [13]. Andries requested clarification here in October but the discussion was moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba after 10 days without comment from the committee. He has continued the edit war [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] and was warned by me today in response to a complaint filed at Arbitration enforcement, [19] and challenges my warning.[20]

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 [21].

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 [22], instead of linking to Robert Priddy's personal anti-Sai web site, he described its contents in the article without linking [23]. I have blocked him for 24 hours and banned him from the article for a month [24]. Thatcher131 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. [25] 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." [26] Thatcher131 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need for clarification

It appears the original decision was not clear enough. For example, at Robert Priddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an uninvolved editor has restablished the link to Robert Priddy's web page, even though he concedes it is an attack site based on original research and personal experience [27]. It seems the directive here in the prior case is not clear enough.

Activists' off-site actvities

After some investigation I have learned that Ekantik (talk · contribs) is well known on the internet as an anti-SSB activist and maintains several attack blogs, including some directed at SSS108 (talk · contribs) which specifically reference and criticize his wikipedia editing. See Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception; Gerald 'Joe' Moreno Deception On Wikipedia; Sai Baba EXPOSED!.

User:SSS108 is also well-known on the internet as a pro-SSB activist and maintains web sites which attack SSB critics. See http://www.saisathyasai.com. He also runs several attack blogs, some of which specifically reference the wikipedia editing behavior of SSB's critics, see http://robert-priddy-exposed.blogspot.com; http://sanjaydadlaniexposed.blogspot.com; http://sanjay-dadlani-references.blogspot.com; http://martinalankazlev-exposed.blogspot.com.

User:Andries is a well known activist critic of SSB and runs a critical web site www.exbaba.com [28].

User:M Alan Kazlev is Martin Kazlev, an SSB critic and target of an attack blog. However, his wikipedia edits seem to avoid the subject.

User:Freelanceresearch, a new acount since the first arbitration case, is an SSB follower and is also apparently a known internet activist per comments here, although I don't any other details at this point.

Now, it may generally be true that only on-wiki behavior is subject to examination. However, the proliferation and interlinking of these web sites, and the constant and reciprocal criticism of one side by the other, shows that these individuals are mainly here to perpetuate a long-running conflict. Plus, the specific referencing of wikipedia editing on these blogs, I believe, does bring this external behavior within the scope of arbitration. And further, these editors frequently refer to these off-wiki blogs and web sites. Here, SSS108 asks me "How am I supposed to work in good faith with such a person?", which is a very good question, but which cuts both ways, of course.

Statement by Andries

Request for clarification, originally submitted in September 2006

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 [29]), Basava Premanand, 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"? See Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/13#Robert_Priddy and talk:Robert Priddy for a description of this dispute. (amended 09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)) (amended 20:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC))
2. Does not linking to unreliable website also include wikipedia user pages such as user:Andries See [30] #Do unreliable websites also include the websites created and maintained by user:SSS108 especially for Wikipedia. In certain cases such as this one [31] the webpages on this website are simply copies that SSS108 took from the webpages of exbaba.com [32]
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 [33]If the answer is no, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline Wikipedia: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. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Other statements by Andries

• I noticed that two arbitrators accepted this case by referring to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline, but I deny that have a conflict of interest. I sincerely wanted and still want to present an encyclopedic article about SSB. Of course, I have my bias and what I see as an NPOV encyclopedic article will be completely different from what user:SSS108 has in mind. Andries 20:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 [34][35][36] (despite even Andries pointing out that this content was a primary souce [37]). I did not remove this content, but referenced it to secondary sources [38]. 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 [39][40]. 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 [41][42], 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 Wikipedia. Even after being blocked, Andries still claims that he is right [43].

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, which Priddy entitled himself, "Welcome To Robert Priddy's Home Page". See For Yourself or View Cache. 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 [44]. 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 ^talk-email 20:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Activists' off-site actvities

The list by Thatcher is not a complete list. In my response to him, I provided a full list of relevant links to critics and my websites: View Full Response With List Of Websites SSS108 ^talk-email 18:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Savidan

I don't know anything about Sathya Sai Baba; I do know a lot about the poor quality content that tend to result when single-purpose accounts from different points of view converge on the same article. I came across this article because it is ceaselessly listed on the Religion RFC page. I came there, tried to clean up the text in a few places, and very quickly found out why the page is always up for a RFC.

Before I go any further, I should probably state that my personal experience with this article has perhaps unfairly resulted in a negative perception of SSS108. Had I gotten around to the other changes I wanted to make, it's quite possible that I would have been doggedly reverted and harangued by the anti-SSB crowd. However, that is not what happened.

Basically, my experience has been that (as much as he claims that the current version is hopelessly biased against SSB) SSS108 has taken up "ownership" of the article and doggedly resists any changes. He often refuses to take responsibility for his reverts, saying that I should "take it up with Andries" etc. If non-controversial changes have taken place following the edit he wants to revert, he reverts those too. He invites you to "discuss" the changes with him on the talk page, but invariably the result was that he shaddow responded to a few of my comments and then declared that I should seek RFC because he wasn't persuaded (hence why the page is always on ther Religion RFC page).

I am extremely concerned with the quality of almost all of the sources given in the current article, both those given by pro- and anti-SSB editors. Few of them seem to go to extremely reliable or neutral sources. I'll give one example, one that has already been fixed:

Several pro-SSB sites, and one article in the Island Lanka Newspaper, make the claim that Frank Baranowksi, a kirlian photographer, photographed the Baba's "aura," thus demonstrating his divinity. I'm not even an expert on the subject—I did take a history of science class last year—and even I know that any reputable scientist thinks that kirlian photography is just crap. Anyway, the Island Lanka article and the pro-SSB sites describe Baranowski as a "scientist" and a "Professor" (they differ on whether he was a professor at Arizona State University or the University of Arizona"). So I do a google search for this guy, don't find anything about him being a professor, but do find an article about someone who was an undergraduate at ASU and went on to become a radio host who specializes in pseudoscience. SSS108 produces an obituary about a Frank Baranowski who was a radio host and apparently taught some classes at a community college. Freelanceresearch produces a link to an archived version of his website that also doesn't make any claim to him being a professor. However, SSS108 continued to insist upon describing him as "Professor Frank Baranowski, a scientist specializing in kirlian photography," making me file a RFC, etc.

To comment on two recent disputes: I think it's laughable that salon.com and UNESCO are not considered WP:RS, especially given the quality of some of the third-world newspapers and other websites deemed acceptable. There is no reason not to cite both the archived version of the UNESCO site as well as a few secondary sources quoting it.

Anyway, I'd be interested in trying to clean up the rest of the article, but I don't want to have to file a RFC every time I find false information in the article, or every time I try to clean up the extremely bad writing style (which often appears to be the result of pov-warring by people are not fluent in English). I'd suggest that the arbcom take action this time, and not rely on amnesty. That said, I do agree with Thatcher131's concern that merely blocking SSS108 (the most exgregious violator), might result in an article slanted in the other direction. I should also state that I don't care about the external links, or any of these editors off-wiki activities.savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Freelanceresearch

Since coming to this Sathya Sai Baba article I think over a year ago, I have felt that Andries was trying to control the article like he owned it. I was immediately attacked by him when I first came here and his comments are on on my talk page. I was a beginner who did not know about the POV rules and Andries did, yet he has continued for years to push his anti-Sai Baba agenda on not only the Sai Baba article but other wikipedia articles as well and changes the rules to suit his arguments.

SS108 stepped in because there were many complaints against Andries and SS108 is the only person who has been able to deal with him as I do not have the patience for his games. Until Jossi came along and provided more stability toward fighting POV pushing, SS108 was pretty much alone in trying to keep the article balanced as I had decided not to edit the article until the POV pushing was brought into line and I did not want to play edit wars with people pushing an agenda.

Robert Priddy came in at one point and started attacking both joe and Me, even mentioning my REAL name on wikipedia and lying about me being banned. No one called him on it or andries on his POV pushing (using atheists as "credible sources" against SSB) and when I confronted I was the one ganged up on by pjacobi, guy and Ekantik who secretively tried to have me banned JUST so they could say I had been banned. These are the kinds of toxic games being played by those with an agenda which does not match the "real world" facts and it must not be played on wikipedia.

BTW, I have made minor edits to a few other articles but I do not edit much because I do not know much html or wikipedia editing procedures, my browser is not very compatible with wikipedia altough it is better since I upgraded it in June and I do not have that much time. Plus, I have four years worth of research backgound into the Sathya Sai Baba issues.

Regarding Savidan's comments on Baranowski above, he forgets to mention Baranowskis' web page (as well as obituary which was posted by SS108 and was in the Phoenix newspaper) does say he is a PhD, addresses him as Dr. Baranowski, and that he was teaching at the community collge before his death. The last time I looked up the definition of professor it said a person who teaches college. Freelanceresearch 01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M Alan Kazlev

Like all of you here, I find this situation on Wikipedia, where there are strongly polarised opinions regarding a particular subject, whether it be some guru, political ideology, or anything else, which lead to a sort of trench warfare, with both sides clawing for every inch of ground, to be counterproductive and tedious.

My background in this matter is as follows.

I was a devotee of Sai Baba for more than two decades, and therefore was originally sympathetic to the arguments of SS108, who contacted me when I had inadvertently been caught in the crossfire of the flamewar between certain followers and certain critics of SSB. Having assessed and corresponded at length with representatives of both sides (SS108 on the SSB side, and several ex-devotees regarding the side that is concerned about the allegations), as well as looking at what both sides had written, I came to the conclusion that the allegations made concerning Sai Baba are factual, but that Sai Baba is not simply a fake or con-artist. Rather he belongs to an ambiguous category in which both truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed (as explained on my website etc)

I have observed that SS108 uses tactics of slander, libel, and smear against ex-devotees in order to discredit their reports of sexual abuse by SSB. Again, this is explained on my website, with especial reference to Robert Priddy.

Once I was considered to be no longer a naive devotee of SSB, SS108 decided to try to attack me, and has a rather amusing blog dedicated to me.

My only interest re the SSB page is that both sides of the argument should be presented, without bias, and there should not be censorship or bullying of any kind. This would allow the reader who is unfamiliar with this subject to come to their own conclusions. M Alan Kazlev 04:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by non-party Jossi

As presented in the previous ArbCom case, there are substantial secondary sources for a good encyclopedic article, that have not been explored due to the insistence of involved editors to editwar about sources that may not be the best available.

There is a tendency in these articles to base the dispute upon a mistaken need for balance, that attempts to balance the points of view of proponents (in this case devotees of SSB) and critics (in this case ex-devotees of SSB). That is not what WP:NPOV is about. A balanced biographical article in one that presents the viewpoints about a person as described in reputable published sources. Clearly, there is from both sides an intent to advocate their points of view through their contributions, deltions, and overall editing behavior, in violation of WP:NOT.

My assessment is that this dispute raises out of the confusion of attempting to have an article that presents "both sides of the argument" related to the involved editors, rather than researching and presenting the significant viewpoints published in reliable sources. Unless involved editors spend more time researching rather than editwarring, the article will remain in its current messy state. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba, or Andries may provide diff links.

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

• Accept, to look at conduct of all editors involved in this article, POV and COI. Charles Matthews 22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Agree with Charles's proposed scope. James F. (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Smart

Initiated by ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} at 03:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Kerr avon (talk · contribs)
• Steel359 (talk · contribs)
• WarHawkSP (talk · contribs)
• Mael-Num (talk · contribs)
• Hipocrite (talk · contribs)
• Nandesuka (talk · contribs)
• Bill Huffman (talk · contribs)
• Jeffness (talk · contribs)
• Supreme Cmdr (talk · contribs) (cannot notify, as the user's talk page is fully protected)

Possibly Derek Smart, the subject of the article

• Numerous anonymous IP addresses.

• Derek Smart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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 ^{On Belay!} 03:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment to Nuggetboy's statement: He's right about the coke machine thing and I also agree that Mael-Num is not WarhawkSP/Supreme_Cmdr and the IP's. He's a distinct entity. --Jeff 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Supreme Cmdr: "Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement." it says in the instructions..--Jeff 13:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I jointly concur with Nandesuka's addition ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [WP:BLP] 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.

• Bill Huffman is a 'known net stalker of Derek Smart and has been so for almost ten years, starting from Usenet. He has a web page in which he alone makes claims about Derek Smart. Claims which are not factual, not cited by any news source on this planet and are based on one man's opinion. His cohorts have tried in vein and failed repeatedly to have his website added to the Wiki article. This is one of the issues that him, Kerr Avon and some others are still to this day trying to push. Knowing fully well that it violates WP:RS and WP:BLP specifically. Then they tried to pass through WP:EL. That effort too failed and sparked further WP:BLP discussions. The current consensus is that the site cannot be linked to nor quoted in the article. Period. But the ludicrousness of it all continued no less. The hilary reached new heights when they tried again - and failed - to reach a consensus (which they assumed would trump policy) on adding the link. But that didn't stop them from trying again and again.

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.

• The problem is not with commentary critical of Smart, but rather about what commentary is allowed under policy and WP:BLP guidelines. Nobody is calling Smart an angel. But this is an encylopedia, not a debate about giving out the Nobel peace prize or a confirmation for office hearing. Those who are on one side, want to push pov by adding derogatory (e.g. this comment by Ben on his blog, not to mention unsourced material (e.g. this urban legend about a Coke machine) into the Wiki.

• 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^(talk) 15:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Beaker342 who said:

So you see, anyone can turn this into a popularity contest. Derek Smart is a game developer. He is also human and not infallible by any means. Those who don't like him, tend to take this premise and twist it to suit their own purposes, but it doesn't change the man nor the facts as they stand.

As to the biography of Derek Smart, there isn't a single thing that I've posted, that isn't sourced. Thats what an encyclopedia is about. Just because I know about it and you don't, doesn't make me an SPA. It just happens to be convenient for you folks to claim this because without myself and others to oppose you, the Wiki would be frought with inaccuracies and pov pushing.

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^(talk) 22:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to SwatJester who said:

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)[reply]

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 [[45]] not because of the quality of his games which have all been rated as average and mediocre[46] [47], but due to his vehement and vitriolic defense of criticism of him [48] and the said games on the USENET [[49] (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 [50] 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 [51]] 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 [52] 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"[53]. 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 [ http://www.werewolves.org/~follies/] site.

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.

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.

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)[reply]

Note Oops, didn't list you because I got my list from editors on the article history, not talk and you hadn't popped up. Sorry. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved user Beaker342

I too have been invloved in the article both as an editor and in the talk section trying to resolve controversies. Like the other good faith editors of this article I have been stymied by the presence of a few beligerant SPAs, most notably Supreme_Cmdr and Warhawk. I agree with almost everything that has been said so far by SwatJester, Nandesuka, and Jeffness, and would welcome an ArbCom ruling that would put to rest debates that have been raging for over a year now.

I would like to add two very brief points:

1. Smart is a controversial figure, and the article to be objective must reflect that. Smart is better known for his online behavior than for his computer games. Sumpreme Cmdr's claims otherwise are simply false. I'll cite the lead sentence in the review of his most recent game Universal Combat at the highly respected gaming site Gamepsot: “Controversy is an undocumented feature in games designed by outspoken developer Derek Smart.”

2. Besides being SPAs with a solitary interest in Smart and his games, removing anything critical of Smart in articles on him and his games, and being based out of Ft. Lauderdale where Smart lives, Supreme_Cmdr and Warhawk have also repeatedly displayed preternatural knowledge of Smart’s business dealings [54] and legal history [55]. The fact that Supreme_Cmdr/Warhawk have intricate knowledge of Smart's biography that is not available to even the most dedicated of researchers stands as further circumstantial evidence that we are in fact dealing with WP:AUTO. --Beaker342 20:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

• Threaded comments moved. Please edit within your own section only. Thatcher131 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

 Clerk note: Due to the huge size of this case I have trimmed Supreme Cmdr and Kerr avon's posts; the originals are copied at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart. I have also moved the statements of uninvolved editors to that page. Thatcher131 15:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 22:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. James F. (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Charles Matthews 13:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huaiwei and Singapore Changi Airport

Initiated by thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} at 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

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

• Thadius856 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jpatokal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dbinder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wangi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chacor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mediator)
• Hunterd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mediator)

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 [56], Wikipedia talk:Lead section and WikiProject Airports Peer Review [57].
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 [sic] 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.[58] The MoS on lead paragraphs dictated they be removed, as "specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction" and Wikipedia 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.[59] User:Huaiwei appeared extremely intent on keeping all the names in the lead, even to the point of posting personal attacks [60], having to be reminded to assume good faith [61] and myself having to ask him to maintain civility.[62] I eventually opened a MedCab case to help reach a consensus. Though Huaiwei was notified[63] and a notice placed on the article's talk page[64], he never participated in the mediation. A reminder was left on the article's talk page 4 days prior to closing[65], to which he responded[66], though he later confirmed voluntarily abstaining.[67]

Huaiwei appears to have attempted to take ownership over the article[68], opposing any changes proposed, reverting any edit that he doesn't see fit without any improvement[69], and WikiLawyering his way out of talks instead of helping to build consensus[70]. I edited the lead[71] per the mediator's closing comments[72], only for Huaiwei to re-add it all back verbatim[73]. 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 [74] 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 Wikipedia 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" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 22:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• Recuse. Dmcdevit·t 10:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. What he said. Charles Matthews 22:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject, per Morven. James F. (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba

Please have a look at Robert Priddy. IMHO User:SSS108 is boldy misinterpreting [75] the ArbCom ruling. It doesn't apply to the article Robert Priddy (as he is neither Sathya Sai Baba nor an affiliated organization). And if I'm not completely mistaken, the ArbCom ruling only applies to User:Andries and User:SSS108. --Pjacobi 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Robert Priddy is a former SSB devotee who wrote a hagiography, then became disillusioned, left the group, and wrote an attack book. While a typical author's web site might be expected to contain information about past and future projects, a calendar of book signing appearances, etc, Priddy's web site contains attacks on the SSB movement drawn from personal experience and original research and appears to violate the ruling in this case (which I think applies to content, not the editor who adds it). A clarification would be appreciated. Thatcher131 22:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is because Priddy's notability today is mostly rooted in its attack site. Like Tilman Hausherr and http://www.xenu.de or Jack Chick and http://www.chick.com. --Pjacobi 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Priddy's self-published observations and opinions about SSB make him notable and get a link, does NPOV require that we link to the self-published observations and opinions of a pro-SSB web site that is critical of Priddy? Thatcher131 01:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, although I would take a look at it first. If it contains plainly false and defamatory material we should probably not link to it. if it just contains assertions that Priddy is a sorehead and exaggerates Baba's faults; it might be OK. I think there is an underlying problem with any of this material being encyclopedia however. A brief note that Baba is suspected of molesting young male devotees out to suffice as well as a note that it is suspected that he uses slight of hand to produce his miracles. Problem is, like Little, Big the further in you go, the bigger it gets. Fred Bauder 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not comfortable that the anti-Priddy web sites are suitably encyclopedic. Are you saying Priddy's article can link to Priddy's site criticizing SSB? I certainly agree with you about the general direction these articles should go with negative allegations; unfortunately that is not happening under the current decision with the current editors. Thatcher131 14:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Honestly, it is time for you to stop reapeating the claim that Instantnood was POV-pushing on Single-party state. He wasn't, as I explained to you, and as you half-admitted in the discussion on the arbitration enforcement page. Instantnood has surely done many things wrong. None of these he did on Single-party state. The only things that have been done wrong there are personal attacks by Huaiwei, and an editwar also started by Huaiwei. Start an arbitration case if you want, but stop threatening to start them and stop trying to blame the dispute on somebody who is hardly even a part of the dispure. Or in short: Please lay off the intriguing. --Regebro 19:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your questions, No, Yes, and No; and, Perhaps.

More clearly (;-)): no, admins can't (yet) decide to place a user on 1RR (this is the "law" of policy, not us - if you want to make it so, try to convince the community into making it policy, though personally I think it unlikely to make it, and not a terribly good idea without quite a significant level of suffrage required of the deciders); yes, the Commmittee is the only body currently "allowed" per policy; no, the Committee can (and does) make extraordinary remedies in exceptional circumstances (that is, apply remedies without the fag of having a case), and, more normally, can "tack on" additional remedies as and when it suits us to former cases on subsequent (and, normally, consequent) matters concerning the individuals in the previous case.

Arbitration is indeed "not a laughing matter". As to the specific circumstances you highlight, I think that you should attempt mediation in good faith rather than writing it off before it has had the chance to suceed (or fail), which your phrase "mediation will probably fail" rather suggests.

James F. (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A finding of fact in the RPJ case mentions the site spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk (founder John Simkin), characterised as propagandistic in relation to uncritical inclusions as factual of material on the Kennedy assassination. The Spartacus site contains unrelated historical material on many subjects. Having heard from John Simkin, and having myself linked to Spartacus pages on numerous occasions, I would like to clarify that (as far as I'm concerned) the FoF in the case is not intended as a blanket condemnation. Editors should exercise good judgement as to tone and factual reliability of these pages, case by case. Charles Matthews 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

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