WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

Dispute resolution (Requests)
Tips
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Help desk (Request)
Content disputes
Third opinion (Request) Mediation Noticeboards Request comments (Request) Resolution noticeboard (Request)
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)

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

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

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

Aspartame_controversy

Initiated by Twoggle (talk) at 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

   * twoggle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
   * ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

• Scienceapologist[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Formal Mediation Request (See Response to Case)
• Mediation Cabal (See Response to Case).
• Request to discuss at end of this section
• Numerous requests to discuss before deleting large sections of article -- See my revert comments
• Prior attempts with discussing massive removal/POVing of article without discussion with Editors who participated in previous consensus.
• Additional prior attempts with discussing massive removal/POVing of article without discussion with Editors who participated in previous consensus

Statement by {Party 1}

On October 31, 2008, the existing consensus Aspartame_controversy article was largely replaced with a extremely POV version, without any discussion, in numerous edits by Scienceapologist[2]. [3][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15].

I reverting a few of these edits with pleas to discuss to discuss prior to replacing a consensus article: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] (see my comment in this section).

Requsts to discuss were met with Edit Warring rather than any attempt to discuss: [21] [22].

When attempts at discussion were ignored, I pursued mediation. Informal and Formal Mediation requests were met with both unwillingness to mediate and inappropriate editorializing on the Mediation page. Formal Mediation Request (See Response to Case) Mediation Cabal (See Response to Case).

Several pillars/rules of Wikipedia were ignored, including WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV, WP:Civility, :WP:Disruptive_editing, etc. Of particular concern is that some of the edits: [23] were made with a claim of WP:Fringe and WP:Undue while at the same time, there was an attemped take-over of the WP:Fringe guideline by Scienceapologist[24] and others in a way that the existing Aspartame_controversy WP:NPOV WP:Consensus could somehow be declared WP:Fringe. Please note the significant WP:Fringe rewrite without discussion attempts: [25] [26] [27] [28] and repeated Edit Warning reverts: [29] [30] [31] despite a large number of requests for discussion first. Also please note the significant removal of text related to WP:NPOV and that all significant viewpoints should be represented fairly and without bias.

Scienceapologist[32] finally got a 30-Day ban related to edit warring of the WP:Fringe page: [33].

Attempts were made to force the change and/or start with a version after the non-discussed changes: [34].

Followed by incivility: [35].

Removal of ban notice from Talk page: [36].

Once the single page ban came into effect, the page of the Admin who set the temporary ban came under attack: [37] (see large and major edits by Scienceapologist[38]) which could give the appearance of retribution.

My point is that the WP:NPOV and previous WP:Consensus of the Aspartame_controversy page has been gutted by repeated and eventually successful attempts at massive deletions of one side of the controversy. Attempts at discussion of individual issues and mediation were met with calls for my own banning! When a page about a controversy is taken over by a small group intent on not following Wikipedia WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV guidelines, it seems to lead to an extremely biased and as is the case now numerous factual inaccuracies. In it's current form, after the gutting of much of scientific discussion and peer-reviewed references on one side of the issue, there are now appeals to personal websites and a made up, potentially libelous and unreferenced story about an alleged activist.

While the Arbitration Committee may not deal with specific article content, I think it is the lack of following Wikipedia Guidelines and respect for other Editors that leads to articles which can reflect very poorly upon Wikipedia as well as destroy the desire of knowledgable Editors to participate.

I have not quite lost hope for WP:NPOV and WP:Consensus on Wikipedia. Therefore, I am requesting that you consider one of the following solutions (but am open to others): 1) Start with the prior consensus (pre-October 26, 2008) and have formal mediation to discuss each concern/issue so that alternative text or references could be discussed to reach a consensus. 2) Split the Aspartame_controversy piece into two separate articles so that each side can be presently fairly. While I would have liked to edit both sides of the issue since I know all of the research and some of the scientists on both sides of the issue, I would avoid pro-aspartame edits if the they did the same to the anti-aspartame group. I do not prefer this idea, but whatever helps produce WP:NPOV results is better than nothing. 3) Freeze the pre-October 26, 2008 consensus article get back to the Arbitration Committee with results of Formal or Informal Mediation to see if further action needs to be taken.

Much more detail as well as defense of claims made against me for requesting mediation (e.g., [[Wikipedia:SPA], WP:OWN, etc.) will be provided on the Evidence page.

Cordially, Twoggle (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScienceApologist

Content dispute at Aspartame controversy and therefore outside the purview of the arbitration committee. Consensus has gone against this particular user, who apparently thinks that because they think that aspartame is dangerous, Wikipedia should give equal weight to their opinion. The user outlines a number of conflicts totally unrelated to this issue, perhaps in the hope of getting their preferred content restored.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

   *

---

Adraeus v. Deacon of Pndapetzim in the matter of Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale

Initiated by Adraeus (talk) at 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Adraeus (talk · contribs), filing party
• Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation of notice Deacon of Pndapetzim—11:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] Confirmation of alternative dispute resolution No formal attempt at dispute resolution was made due to the defendant having status as an administrator and due to the combativeness of the defendant.

Statement by Adraeus

On October 1, I researched the subject and found numerous sources. The information I found was then included in the article with complete and proper citations. On October 27, the administrator Deacon of Pndapetzim reverted the entire article, asserting "rv mass edit ... sorry, most of this is historical nonsense". Deacon made no attempt to explain his actions. In response, I reverted his reversion as vandalism, where vandalism is defined as willful wanton and malicious activity, and made my intentions to seek arbitration on his talk page should he persist in such activity. The following day, on October 28, Deacon reverted my reversion, adding a comment to the article's Talk page where he labelled my researched and cited material as "historical fiction," and proceeded to fallaciously "appeal to authority" without any argument of substance or civil request for discussion. Despite being an administrator, Deacon is apparently unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. I again reverted his reversion as vandalism. Adraeus (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Wikipedia:Verifiability states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." [Latter emphasis added.] This policy burdens Deacon with the responsibility to prove that the sources used are unreliable. Adraeus (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Statement by user:Scott MacDonald
I've been contributing to Wikipedia since 2004. Every article on a corporation in Wikipedia features my work. You've been an editor since May 2008. Who's new now? Nice try. Adraeus (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Lol ... why is this guy being allowed to waste the time of so many users. Can someone just block him for tendentiousness? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Jehochman
Clerk Note: Comment moved from Jehochman's section; "At Jehochman" text added. Keep comments in your own section please! AGK 20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Disagree. Too many good users are wasting too much time on tendentious mediocrity like this. The user has used his allotted community time for this trying (in good faith I'm sure) to decrease the quality of an article, leaving absurd angry messages with accusations of vandalism and threats [to file this] after one revert, and then to file an arbcom case itself without ever posting [under that name] on a talk page. Ridiculous, and it's actually, after your own words, "pussiness" in the respectable part of the community which allows this nonsense to take place. They can be good-faithed or trollish behind a block without bothering anyone else. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:angusmclellan

Unless the committee is minded to rule on whether Bernard Burke's A Genealogical History of the Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages of the British Empire (ca. 1866) is to be considered a reliable source, and to be preferred over the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, there's not much to be done here. This'll be a content dispute. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:Scott MacDonald

Hm, prior to filing this case, the user had never posted any comments to the talk page of the article concerned. I'm calling for a speedy close here.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad. When the sources conflict one needs also to look at how recent they are. On an article on the shape of the earth, it is not neccessarily to treat different theories as a "conflict of sources to be recorded" if all the sources for one view date prior to 1492.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gazimoff

Firstly, being an administrator does not make one immune from other dispute resolution procedures. Other mechanisms such as requesting a third opinion, mediation, a Wikiquette alert or possibly even opening a request for comment would have been more suitable than opening a request for arbitration. As stated on the RfAr page, a request for arbitration is the last step in the process when all others have failed. That statement counts equally for all editors, including those who carry out administrative duties.

Seccondly, this appears to be primarily a content dispute, particularly the introduction of material from disputed sources. It may be more appropriate to discuss the problematic source on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, or with the support of a relevant Wikiproject, in order to resolve the content issue. Edit warring or reverting is not the optimal method of resolving these disputes, as it does not resolve the underlying issues. Many thanks, Gazimoff 14:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Lolling at people is not helpful. If they are a good faith user, it is dickish, and if they are a troll, it encourages them. Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key to controlling disruption is to be perfectly polite while doing what is necessary. If there is habitual disruption from a user, leave me the evidence and I will stop it, one way or another. Jehochman ^Talk 11:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved Bishonen

RE statement by Adraeus.
Don't bite the newbies.[39] You've obviously upset poor young Scott MacDonald, shame on you. Be nice to the newbies! Bishonen | talk 21:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Clerk notes

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

• Some comments shuffled. Keep comments in your own section, please. AGK 20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Reject. Primarily a content dispute. Not ripe for arbitration since there is no evidence of entrenchment of editor views that are unresolvable through Community intervention. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. Get the opinion of other users on the talk page or through a content RFC. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per FloNight. As an observation on the content dispute for what it is worth, if there is a genuine division of opinion on a historical issue among reliable sources and bona fide scholars, then that should be reflected in the article. On the other hand, if an assertion is asserted by only one marginal source, then it would be undue weight to overemphasize it. Which of these situations, if either, applies to this article is a matter to be decided by the editors involved, using content-related dispute resolution if necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. This is primarily a content dispute; however there does seem to have been a failure to assume good faith here. Editors should be extremely cautious about reverting changes and describing them as "vandalism" unless there is a good ground for determining that they are not good faith attempts to improve the article. As far as conflict of sources go, that is a complex matter. If a normally reliable source is clearly in error then it is often best to explain it in a footnote. Where there is a non-obvious error then it is sometimes clear which is the more reliable, and to give that precedence in the article but then to state the disagreement. Finally I would note that 19th century genealogical guides to the British Peerage are notorious for accepting legend and myth as genuine family history and including it in entries. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject - I agree with Sam here. I've been surprised myself in this area, how faulty printed sources can be. At most the older claims are probably worth a footnote, unless (it's a big unless) there is really an active controversy outside the wiki about the facts. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Arjun MBT

Initiated by Chanakyathegreat (talk) at 06:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jauerback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• By78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

• Jauerback[40]
• Ricky81682[41]
• By78[42]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[43]

Statement by User:Chanakyathegreat

The earlier request was rejected on the basis of content dispute. This issue is going for many months and yet has not been solved. The main problem, which according to me is that the Admins not sticking to rules by not looking at the edit and the explantion on the subject but on the person making the edit. This lead to the Article which was a B-class article's quality being hit. There are grave errors in the article which was pointed out to the Admins and after repeated requests has not been corrected. One simple example can be the Summer 2006 of the talk page. Wanted to correct the article starting from this section onwards. Made a request on OCtober 8 and asked the Admins for their opinion. Till now I had not received a response. I made the edit after waiting for a long time(2 weeks). Instead of correcting the errors, reverted my edit and then blocked me for week. And also I would like to bring to the notice is that valid edits with sources that I make be it in the Arjun MBT article or another gets reverted back without any valid explanation or some invalid explanation. So I request the Admins being told to stick to the rules and check the validity of each and every edit and if they find any problem with my edit, to point it to me and ask explanation rather than revert it without any explanation. Also I would like By78 be told to engage in constructive discussion on the topic and not to derail the discussion with personal attacks and invalid arguments.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. According to Ricky, I revert, but I am not reverting anymore and editing after asking for opinion. No opinion is given and gets blocked and my edit reverted. For what reason. Don't know. 2. Ricky says "Still no source for it?". The source[44] I also I did point out the same in bold in the talk page and if the Admins are not seeing it then it's not my problem. It's the Admins problem. And regarding the PIB link indeed its the report submitted by the Army to the parliamentary board. I have never asked for it's removal but asked for the inclusion of what parliamentary board said about the report. 3. I am not lying. Check the historical discussion between By78 and me. You will find that he wanted a single section and the trial failed. I was trying to explain that the ambiguity with two links one failed and one successful is because the first part there were problem with the Renk gear and after sorting it out has successfully completed the trials. I had repeatedly explained that it's part of one single AUCRT trials. Be it one section or two or many don't matter. But the chronologically the facts must be put in the correct manner. 4. I don't know why the complaint against a source from 2008 in the 2005 section. It contains information from the 2005 trials. After studying the subject, I came to know that the real problems with the tank existed till 2005. Hence don't want to do anything with the 2005 section.

I wanted to go section by section to clear the article of errors. Started with the Summer 2006 section and asked for a reply for the below proposal but did not got any and when I made the changes according to the proposal, I got blocked why? The Admins claim to act in a neutral way supporting a NPOV but I don't see that in their action. Whereas a person who want the article in the most NPOV and accurate with good sources is blocked and accused of not sticking to NPOV. Is this fair? Let's have a look at this. This can be seen in the Summer 2006 section of the talk page. Still got no reply. - The current edit is like this "It was remarked by Major General H.M. Singh in 2007 that the Firing Trials of 2006 demonstrated "the accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt." It's true that the H.M Singh did comment. But he was quoting from the Army report that was submitted by the Indian Army. Check the link[45] which says. "Major General H.M. Singh, Additional Director in charge of trial and evaluation, said last year's user field trial report had certified that the accuracy and consistency of the weapon system was proved beyond doubt." Here the user is the Indian Army and the report is by the Indian Army. The second link[46] which is more accurate. It says "In fact, the army has already accepted the Arjun for introduction into service, based upon its driving and firing performance over the years. After firing trials in summer 2006, the trial report (written by the army) said: "The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt." Now for the final and ultimate proof, the Ministry of Defense Goverment of India Annual report 2006-07[47] which says "After successful user validation trials during summer 2006 five tanks have been handed over to the Army in June 2006". Now the third link[48] can be disregarded since it's utterly wrong and says the Army says the trial failed whereas we have the Ministry of India report states that the trial was a success."Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edit after pasting the above said thing and waited for 2 weeks after informing the admins and asked their opinion. Only after not receiving their response for 2 long weeks, I went ahead to edit it. The Admins instead of admitting it reverted the edit and blocked me for a week. Is this fair? Is there anything incorrect in what I said or did?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had made an edit to the page. It has nothing to do with historical things in the page. It's the latest information about the tank. I am adding this new info into the tank page and I don't want the Admins to block me again for just making a good edit on the latest happenings with the latest source. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by By78

Please see Arjun talk pages (including archives). I rest my case. I will waste no more time on this subject. Thank you. By78 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ricky81682

First of all, I think this is too preliminary for arbitration. We haven't even attempted 3O, let alone an RFC or mediation. I see arbitration was rejected in early September so unless the user conduct deserves it, I think it's again still just a content dispute, albeit more formed than before. Frankly, this is just related to User:Chanakyathegreat's aggressive POV, to the point of outright blatant misrepresentations. My first interaction at ANI was because Chanakya had been complaining about admins that had blocked him (and another who blocked again for continuing immediately after his block expired). His attitude then needed some work.

• From there, telling him to stop reverting back months of work wasn't yielding anything.

• I think this discussion is a microcosm of our problem. Chanakya claims a source is incorrect. I respond, "Because you say so?". Chanakya says, the committee says so (still no source for this). User:Jauerback offers an explanation. After another request for a source, Chanakya responds with "There's a saying. After hearing the whole of Ramayana, one asks what's the relation between Rama and Sita?" and goes on to something else.

• My line in the sand can be found in the middle of Talk:Arjun_MBT#AUCRT_.282007-08.29. After I spent quite a bit of time reorganizing the article into a single chronological order, Chanakya claims that "it was By78 who insisted on a single AUCRT but now you want it to be separate". Only one problem: as I point out, Chanakya edit to "update" the article was an attempt to undo everything by re-merging the entire information about three different tests, covering two years at least. Further discussion at Talk:Arjun_MBT#Chronological_order with this question to him about the blurring of facts. I also warned him on his talk page (also because he absolutely refuses to properly indent his comments and/or sign things properly).

• Chanakya responds to By78 that "The real reason for the incorrect version existence and you being able to insert stuff that are wrong is just because the Admins are hostile towards me and not sticking to rules.". Jauerback calls him out on this.

• Further discussion at Talk:Arjun_MBT#July_2005 about sources from 2008 used in the 2005 test section which Chanakya refuses to acknowledge is blatantly ridiculous.

• As you can see from this early September ANI report that all we seem to get from Chanakya are accusations that all the admins are biased to his neutrality.

I'm sorry that I haven't done too much of a compare with the article page (this was enough work for one night) but its history along with Chanakya's talk page (starting around here) should be sufficient in my opinion. I think it's time to put an end to all of this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jauerback

There's too much history on the article's talk page, Chanka's talk page, and even other user's talk pages (including my own) to completely illustrate everything, but Ricky did a great job of summarizing it all above. I also don't think that arbitration is necessary. The whole crux of this problem is not about the Arjun article, but about Chanakyathegreat himself. This problem extends to other articles that Chanaka edits (Great power, Potential superpowers, etc.) as well.

Both Ricky and I came to Arjun article because Chanakyathegreat came to WP:AN and WP:ANI at different times complaining. The first time he had complaints of vandalization of the Arjun article and the second because of further vandalization and subsequesnt admin (me) abuse. I think we've both remained impartial and have done our best to mediate any discussion on the article's talk page. In the past, I've done my best to AGF, but as I recently expressed on Chanka's talk page, I feel he's a few edits away from receiving an extend block at this point. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

My initial impression on reading the first statement is that this dispute is revolving around a problem editor, and the other statements seem to endorse that assessment. The community can probably sort this out if this is the case, but if there are multiple such editors, then this is going to inevitably end up here again. Regardless, I agree in part with FloNight's comments; what's needed is a form of RFC. Article RFC could help. If you need to make an RFC/U (which would also be helpful), a good guide on (what sort of diffs will be relevant and) how to present it overall can probably be found in an RFC/U that I've edited recently. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Georgewilliamherbert

Due to several days of ongoing disruptive editing by Chanakythegreat, after recent expiration of a prior one week block, I have blocked for a month.

If Arbcom accepts this case I or any other admin will unblock so he can participate... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject. Still primarily a content dispute. Not ripe for arbitration since there is no evidence of entrenchment of editor views that are unresolvable through Community intervention. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. As noted above by Ricky81682 all the steps in dispute resolution have not been tried yet. Get the opinion of other users on the talk page through a 3O or content RFC. Or if needed mediation. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jauerback, maybe mediation or an RFC/user is needed instead of a long block. If that fails then maybe editing restrictions are needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. I agree with FloNight's evaluation and comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject per Flonight. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject, as above. I also agree that it might be worthwhile exploring the RfC route. James F. (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Clarifications and other requests

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

Request for clarification: Lyndon LaRouche 2

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

• Guillermo Ugarte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Guillermo Ugarte

I have a question concerning an ArbCom decision [49] and how it might apply to the article Bretton Woods II. On October 21, I made an edit to that article, which was only a few weeks old and described as a "stub." I added material from the Italian paper Corriere della Sera, an article called "The Bretton Woods II of LaRouche and Tremonti." The article, which included an interview with Italian Economics Minister Giulio Tremonti, established that LaRouche had been a long-time proponent of the Bretton Woods II concept, and that Tremonti had been influenced by his ideas. I also added a link to LaRouche's original 1997 proposal which had been promoted world-wide, including by Ukrainian parliamentarian Nataliya Vitrenko. Here is a link to my edit[50].

I was surprised when two editors, Will Beback and Boodlesthecat, immediately removed this material, making angry and discourteous edit summaries[51] and talk page comments[52] to the effect that it couldn't possibly be true, that Corriere della Sera was not a significant publication, and that Tremonti was not a significant person. What followed was a series of messages on my talk page from Will Beback which I found very unpleasant because I felt that they were intended to intimidate me. He said that my edit had violated earlier decisions by the Arbitration Committee, specifically that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles."

Looking back at my edit, I would say the following:

1. Corriere della Sera is the preeminent newspaper in Italy, so it could hardly be considered "work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement."

2. The Corriere della Sera article establishes that LaRouche is notable with regard to the topic of Bretton Woods II (i.e., "The Bretton Woods II of LaRouche and Tremonti") so the Bretton Woods II article may certainly be considered "closely related" to LaRouche.

3. Under the circumstances, it was not wrong to link to the original proposal of LaRouche, which predates other uses of the term by minimally four years.

Please let me know whether you disagree, because I have the impression that Will Beback is threatening to block me if I "repeat edits like that." --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I don't know what Will Beback means when he says below that he's "analyzed" my contributions, but I dispute his finding that I am anyone's sockpuppet. If that serves as an pretext for not addressing the substance of this complaint, then that is truly unfortunate. And if he is mailing out evidence, he can start by mailing it to me, so that I can assess its quality and dispute it. Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Nevard

Comment: Discussion of (ir)relevance of content on the talk page. John Nevard (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

The ArbCom has dealt with three full cases related to the LaRouche movement and editing by user:Herschelkrustofsky (HK):

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others

HK has been admonished, put on probation, blocked and eventually banned. On September 19, 2008, a checkuser found that seven active accounts active on LaRouche topics were sockpuppets.[53] Subsequent analysis at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Herschelkrustofsky revealed that all of those accounts, plus others previously blocked, were socks of HK. Analysis further showed that after one set of socks has been blocked a new set appears a short time later. Almost every single "LaRouche editor" has turned out to be a sock of HK. (A few have been socks of user:Cognition, and a few appear to be other people.)

The contested edits [[54][55] by this brand-new account placed LaRouche at the center of a proposed international conference, based on a single comment by an Italian finance minister and supported by citations to the Schiller Institute. This is exactly the type of promotion that was covered in the previous requests for arbitration. For example, another initiative of the LaRouche movement is something called the "Eurasian Land-Bridge", basically a network of highways and railroads. When a new highway was proposed in Asia, HK sought to show that LaRouche's proposal had been adopted, even though the proposals bore only a slight resemblance.[56] HK used four sock puppets and two IPs to edit that article over a two-year period.

I don't object to a properly phrased and weighted summary of the Corriere della Sera article in Bretton Woods II, or to a link to the relevant LaRouche article. My warning to Guillermo Ugarte concerned using the Schiller Institute as a source outside of LaRouche-related articles, and promoting LaRouche beyond what is borne out by 3rd-party sources. He replied that he wanted the matter clarified, but refused to discuss it with me.

I see no evidence of what Guilemro Ugarte calls "angry and discourteous edit summaries and talk page comments". My postings to his talk page did not threaten him. User talk:Guillermo Ugarte#ArbCom decision I simply pointed out the problematic behavior and asked him to avoid making similar edits in the future. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have now analyzed Guilermo Ugarte's contributions and find that they follow the same pattern as the HK socks. Based on that analysis, on the similarity of edits, and on the new account's arrival shortly after the blocking of previous socks, I am confident that this is another HK sock account. I can give more details by email. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: When a HK sock was blocked last year, another HK sock pestered me for details on how the sock determination was made. [57][58] This appears to be a re-run. None of the evidence is secret. But I'm not going to show a long term puppetmaster how to avoid detection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• To Will Beback, please e-mail the information you mention to the ArbCom mailing list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---