Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:14, 8 December 2006

• ]

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).

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

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
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• Misplaced Pages: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

How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

• Click the "" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
• Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
• Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
• Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
• Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Initiated by 195.82.106.244 14:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• 195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), signs as avyakt7 and uses 72.91.169.22, 72.91.4.91, 71.251.88.110
• Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Yes both parties- defendants are notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Direct discussion Requests for mediation - other party would not agree to third party involvement.

Note: "Other" party should be noted as 195.82.106.244 - thank you.

Statement by 195.82.106.244

"My request is simple. In Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, it is stated that the use of self-published or otherwise "dubious sources" in articles about the author(s) of such material is permitted within certain limited grounds, ."

An NPOV has occured, firstly, due to avyakt7 interpretation that this policy only allows the self-publishing author themselves to use such material. This is so clearly wrong that I chose to ignore. But, secondly, due to his utter refusal to allow any input whatsoever of self-published material, even when it fits the above state limitations. He has gone extensively out of his way to block me from editing including using secondary IPs listed above to hide his identity and file IPvandal cases against me and others to lock the page. .

• Avoiding all extraneous contention, could I simply please have an official clarification of the limits of such use? This is not about content dispute.

The BKWSU has been referred to as both a New Religious Movement and a Cult. User avyakt7 is a recruiter for the group and engaging with a team of BK followers to re-edit the article in its favour. At core, BKWSU beliefs are based on the spiritual possession of its founder and channelled messages from spiritual beings, which they claim to be both "God" and "Adam" respectively through various mediums, at first the founder and currently an old Indian lady at their headquarters. Latterly, seeking status by association with governmental and UN agencies, the BKWSU has sought to hide these references although they are clearly documented by academic experts and referred to as channelling and mediums by the organization in English and Hindi terms.

My questions regard "easily verifiable", does this allow for the use of BKWSU self-published materials? Specifically;

a) reference to material from BKWSU published & purchasable books, teaching aids or widely used posters etc

b) reference to BKWSU published websites

c) reference to BKWSU scriptures called "Murlis"

With respect to the latter, although I appreciate that the Wiki is not a place for scriptural debate, given that it has over 7000 centers worldwide and that their scriptures are clearly identified, dated and many published; I would consider that any reference to a specific Murli would classify as "easily verifiable" by any individual by attending a centers and requesting it by date. Especially when the scriptural reference is a defining contradiction to the organization's PR, e.g. Avyakt Murli 25/10/69, "The final Destruction of the whole World takes place within 6 years. Those who tell it to be 7 years have their position reduced", Avyakt Murli 05/11/70 :"From this journey, it is 5 years for Destruction" or clearly referenced teaching posters, e.g. where it shows Atomic War via Russia and America and “Confluence Age 40 years” respectively, references BKWSU proponents have removed.

If we look at two similar topics, e.g. Scientology and Christianity, I see that reference to self-published or scriptural material, e.g. "Dianetics" or "The Bible", is wholly acceptable and I refute avyakt7 refusal to allow such in this topic just because it does not fit in with the organization's current PR or recruitment tactics.

• Lastly, given the nature of claims, is it safe or “weasel word” to state “allegedly God" when referring to this possessing spirit? Contrary to avyakt7 my thought is that it is safer to do so.

This user has gone to extensive efforts using several IP to raise complaint and complaint blocking me - whilst refering to himself as the user account he uses to make edits (Riveros11) as a third party. It took me a while to work out these hidden attacks.

Statement by avyakt7

Dear Charles, Please check user 195.82.106.244 as sockpuppet of user brahmakumaris.info. Thank you, avyakt7 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Ps: Also user "bkwatch" is a sockpuppet for the same IP (195.82.106.244) avyakt7 14:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

An admin moved my comments which were a response to Charles here... while I compose my statement, please take a look at this as well Thank you. avyakt7 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Background: The article located on Brahma Kumaris has been initiated by user 195.82.106.244 . This user has been an ex-member of the institution which I belong to. My involvement in this article has been prompted due to the following:
1)Back in March of 2006 I was able to see this page in Misplaced Pages containing extremely biased opinions against Brahma Kumaris. I have attempted to exchange views with user 195.82.106.244 since then with no avail. This page was also being mirrored to other sites as well such as "reference.com." User 195.82.106.244 “owned” this BK article in WIkipedia at that time. Please see archives of March and April 2006.
2)User 195.82.106.244 (aka ".244" from now on)is the owner of this site: http://www.brahmakumaris.info This site is strongly antagonistic towards Brahma Kumaris.
3)As a current teacher of Brahma Kumaris , this article has come to my attention by potential students who were willing to explore Raja Yoga meditation. Due to the biased and detrimental editions made by user .244, these students and the public in general had a negative view of the organization which I belong to.
I must make it clear that I am not representing Brahma Kumaris in any official way. I am just a Brahma Kumar who would like to see a neutral, encyclopedic article of the institution which I belong to rather than biased propaganda.

User 195.82.106.244 has been defaming Brahma Kumaris and using the power of the internet and the visibility of Misplaced Pages to do this. User .244 is not interested in contributing with a non bias, neutral article containing reliable sources as suggested by Misplaced Pages rules.

I have provided several reliable sources in the article itself under “references.” I have contacted university professors and received their permission to quote them in the article. I must say that we had several admins coming and going to the BK site. A sample:

Actually, the best solution would be to find a reliable reference (not BK or former BK) that talks about BKWSU and quote them. We could also mention how BK's refer to themselves, with an appropriate reference.–RHolton≡– 23:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)”

That is not totally correct. Only these sites that are considered reliable sources can be used in articles. Personal websites, blogs, anonymous websites and the like are not considered reliable sources for Misplaced Pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have misunderstood what you said. But in reviewing the site in question, I doubt it meets the standards required. If there is material in that site that has been published by a reliable source, editors could link/cite these sources. All other commentary and OR, unless described on secondary/reliable sources, has no place in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, user .244 has not provided a single reliable source to this day. I wonder why is he allowed to edit? Why the rules are not enforced with him?

The following will be about user .244. I believe it is needed to make my case. His character shows his attitude and his intentions. User .244 has engaged himself in several tactics. Lying about his affiliation to the brahmakumaris.info site is one of them. I presented tangible proof of that here: I have also presented several differentials about his tactics. For instance, Trying to avoid mediation/arbitration when convenient for him Disparaging comments about editors :He has threatened me to contact my employers about using Misplaced Pages. He has published my personal information as well. Direct insults to persons. User 195.82.106.244 was recently blocked and still he has modified article and blanked his talk page: Disparaging and provocative POV presented as fact in discussion (trolling) Bogus personal attack report and deletion of comment..., He also reported me (riveros11) on a personal attack intervention board with a very attacking diatribe... Someone answered. 244 obviously didn't like the comment so he deleted it! Personal attack on Riveros11... Bad faith edit comments.... Personal information and false allegation of sockpuppet... Intimidation... Taunting... Removing NPOV... Removing page protection (probably to be able to post again as 244, evidence of sock puppet)... Changing others' discussion and offensive edit comment.... Shifting of burden of proof onto those questioning the article... Forest fire...

Due to the above mentioned evidence, I have resorted to use my IP rather than my user name to post these claims because user .244 has been known for deleting previous users posts or “lying his way out” before an admin could take a full look at the case. It is worhtwhile to note again that user .244 has been blocked one time; nevertheless, he has blanked his page even though admin Jossi warned him not to delete the admin tag. He was also adviced by admin Rholton to obtain a user id to post. However, he has not listened.
It is in his advantage that user .244 is a full time editor of the Brahma Kumaris page unlike other part timers like myself. This is his life.

In short: I need to emphasize that user .244 is using Misplaced Pages for his own purposes. He has a strong animosity towards the BK movement and is using Misplaced Pages to show that. His motive is NOT to inform the public about this fine institution but on the contrary, to defame it.. One more time and to make sure that my point gets across. This issue is about content neutral content, with reliable sources. Thank you. Best Wishes, avyakt7 16:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

Fools rush in, etc. If this case is accepted I will recuse as clerk.

This dispute centers on editing of the article Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, which could be described as a new religion arising out of Hinduism, or a cult. It is likely that a full arbitration case would result in the banning of one or more editors from the article, although I'm not prepared after a limited review to predict whom.

The article was started in November 2005 by IP editor User:195.82.106.244 who has maintained a stable IP address to this day. Based on whois and traceroute data, it is likely that this editor is associated with the website and User:Brahmakumaris.info. The 195 editor also posted an e-mail from the web site to Riveros11, although I can't find the diff now. User:TalkAbout may be a sockpuppet or at least another ex-BK member. His interests are more diverse, however. (TalkAbout is on a different continent than the 195 editor. This does not preclude the possibility that they are both ex-members of BKWS and could be communicating via one of the ex-BK member forums.

The main opponent is User:Riveros11 (signs as Avaykt7). User:72.91.169.22, a Tampa Verizon IP, signs as Avaykt7 here, so it is likely that several other Tampa IP addresses associated with this case are all Riveros11. User:Appledell is a new single purpose account backing up Riveros11; another suspected sock puppet is Searchin man (talk · contribs). A checkuser request is pending. Appledell and Searchin man are from different hemispheres than Riveros11. They certainly could be fellow members of the organization coordinating their activities, but they are not sockpuppets in the usual sense.

The main editors in this case are all single purpose accounts editing Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. The 195 editor claims that he is a former member and recruiter for the group and that Riveros11 is a current member and recruiter. He also claims that BKWS has a project in their IT department to keep negative information out of the article. The 195 editor has tried to insert negative material alleging that BKWS is a cult, that it operates a number of "front" organizations, and that it tolerates or ignores child abuse within its ranks, among other things. When (and if) these allegations have sources, they generally do not meet the reliable source policy. The 195 editor has also repeatedly inserted links to copyrighted BKWS material hosted at third party web sites in likely violation of the copyright provisions of the external links policy. He has also repeatedly inserted a description of BKWS' 7 day course. He complains that its removal is in violation of policy since the sources are BKWS documents and are allowed under the self-published sources rules. This is in fact the basis of his complaint above, although the problems with the article go much deeper. He likens his contributions to using Scientology documents as sources in Scientology articles. Probably most of his contributions in this area constitute original research as a former member, or original synthesis of primary sources, as he does not cite (that I can find) secondary sources. However, there may be an element of obstructionism on the part of Riveros11 in not wanting accurate descriptions of the groups' beliefs to be published.

• Attempt to reveal personal information about Riveros11

Riveros11 is also a contentios editor. He has apparently filed multiple reports of vandalism, personal attacks, and so on while logged out, so they do not appear in the contribution history of his named account. These reports are seen as attempted intimidation by the 195 editor.

• He apparently filed this request for investigation while logged out, giving the impression that he was a third party
• posts to intervention against vandalism , not blocked
• same vandal report filed the next day , rejected as content dispute
• Contributions of 72.91.169.22 (talk · contribs) (through November) are solely directed at filing complaints against the 195 editor, including a checkuser case that was declined and a personal attack report that was a duplicate of his RFI .
• Two other accounts that revert to each other's versions, Appledell (talk · contribs) and Searchin man (talk · contribs); sock or meat puppets? Checkuser pending.
• 71.251.88.110 (talk · contribs) and 71.251.88.110 (talk · contribs), if they are Riveros11, violate 3RR on 25 October.

Ultimately it is impossible to know how Riveros11 would react to attempts by other editors to introduce properly sourced and relevant negative information into the article since the only editors for the time being are the 195 editor and TalkAbout, who edit in the same manner.

Statement by Jossi (talk · contribs)

I have attempted to assist warring parties by offering advise related to application of policy. Despite my requests that editors make efforts to research secondary sources on the subject,pro and con parties prefer to editwar and accuse each other of policy violations and/or vandalism. Due to the constant editwarring, the lack of material based on secondary sources, and poor copyedit, the article is a mess, providing little useful information for readers.

I would ask the ArbCom to take the case only if there is evidence of sockpupetry. If there isn't, this should remain as a content dispute. One possible remedy, that could implemented by an administrator, would be to stubify the article, protect it, and encourage involved editors to do some research on secondary sources before resuming editing (I checked three online databases that I have access to, and found good secondary sources on the subject that could be used, so there is no lack of material.)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Requested checkuser on other involved IPs and usernames: (195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs) , brahmakumaris.info (talk · contribs) and bkwatch (talk · contribs) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Durova (talk · contribs)

I semi-protected the page in response to a noticeboard request. Had the participants consulted my advice further I would have recommended WP:RFC. Both sides are acting rather strangely. I recently received an angry request for unprotection by an involved IP - my response was why not register? Durova 14:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Previously rejected as a content dispute. Please provide diffs showing attempts at resolving the problem (for example, any rejected mediation attempt, request for comment, or other attempts to get outside help). Thatcher131 13:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see talk page. This is not a content dispute. Post RfC, the admin that has voiced opinion on the page support the policy statement. I would like the user to accept it. Thanks. 195.82.106.244 10:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

1. Has any attempt been made to get admins involved in this dispute? There is a sockpuppetry claim made above: has any request for CheckUser been filed? This is apparently still a content dispute, if aggravated, and is not obviously in good shape for Arbitration. Charles Matthews 10:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is here . No action taken as yet. 195.82.106.244 10:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is abusive sockpuppet activity around this page, CheckUser should reveal this, and there can be a stronger basis for acceptance. Charles Matthews 10:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

None found. The BKWS and ex-BK members could be coordinating their efforts but they are not traditional sockpuppets. Thatcher131 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus

Initiated by ParadoxTom 03:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• ParadoxTom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DJ_Clayworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified: .
• Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified: .
• Humus_sapiens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified: .
• Homestarmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified: .
• Inigmatus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Other steps have been tried. Cf. the involved parties' Talk pages, the Jews for Jesus discussion page, and our abortive mediation attempt: .

Statement by ParadoxTom

I am filing this Request for Arbitration as a final attempt to bring to an end the POV-pushing occurring on the Jews for Jesus article. Secondarily, I would like to see some users be censured for their inappropriate conduct; specifically, many of us who have sought to make Jews for Jesus encyclopedic and NPOV have been, eo ipso, called anti-Semites.

I don't have much else to say, as the involved parties have been over this all ad nauseum. I would refer interested persons to the references provided above.ParadoxTom 03:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

Tom's above summary is very misleading. First of all, nobody has ever accused either him of his supporters of being anti-semitic. From the very beginning of their arrival, they have removed any passage that even implies that Jews for Jesus is a christian group despite numerous reliable sources. The only references that they have provided in support of their version comes from JFJ (or other smaller messianic organizations) themselves, when undue influence is brought they will immediately state that the reliable sources are irrelevant and we cannot take sides.

The basic dispute centers around the desire of a small circle of editors to describe JFJ as a Jewish rather than Christian organization. Now obviously religion is probably the most divisive issue known to man, so I really do not want to get too involved with any theological debate, however I will ask this- What separates Judaism from christianity if it is not the belief that Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by JoshuaZ

I would urge the ArbCom to reject this RfAr. As a glance at ParadoxTom's mainspace contribution lists will show, he has edited almost nothing except for the Jews for Jesus article, his otherspace entries have all also been devoted to that conflict and has in three months here short time here accumulated 9 3RR blocks on the article in question, one of which occured immediately after he had been unblocked to participate in an attempted mediation.. His edits have most recently been attempts to revert to a version of the article from a few months ago as "the next best thing" to have a {{totallydisputed}} tag on the article . Indeed, he has been unwilling even to use a weaker template even when other editors who have sympathies with him have attempted to use it instead . I would see this user as very close to exhausting community patience.

However, this article is not ripe for arbitration in that 1) almost all of the issues but Paradox's reversions are content based and 2) Progress on the article is occuring albeit slowly. It would be counterproductive and a waste of both the involved editors time and the ArbCom's time to intervene at this stage. JoshuaZ 04:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Homestarmy

I've been involved in discussion with this article almost ever since the very first comments on the talk page began, and its been a very messy history. Many people have been blocked for 3RR violations, have left the project out of frustration it seems, (User:Justforasecond) and have clearly let frustrations fly many times. While i'm not so certain that Paradox is explicitly correct that people on one side of the debate over JfJ have been labelled anti-semites, I think a case can be made that many personal attacks have occured nonetheless over the months. While many of the attacks have been directed at JfJ itself, and thus, if I understand this correctly, don't actually constitute any real policy violations, things have often gotten out of hand over the past few months, for example, in archive two, (I don't have time to provide the diffs at the moment) there is a comment directed to Justforasecond, (who has since left Misplaced Pages) "..your edits pushed your delusion that J4J is just another Jewish denomination that a bunch of long-bearded Hassidim oppose." by User:Mantanmoreland on September 4thish of this year. On the 15th, we have "I suspect you're having "a serious problem with the claim "All maintream Jewish groups..."." because you don't know what it means. Your edits only confirm this impression" closely followed by "You don't have a point and you don't have a clue what you are talking about. See ." By Humus Sapiens to User:SpinyNorman in archive 3. When Spiny objected on grounds similiar to most non-anti JfJ editor's arguments, Humus responded with "For once, I agree with Spiny: "The intro is a disaster. It is filled with blatantly deceptive statements." - after his edits, that is.". After Justforasecond brings up the (possibly incorrect) point that since all Jewish organizations oppose a Christian organization, (and therefore a part of Christianity) Humus says "Wrong. It is Judaism that is under attack here." (With "here" I presume meaning the JfJ article, since the dispute at that time concerned the wording of how much opposition Judaism really had for JfJ.). A very recent comment concerning an actual involved user in this case I have a diff for however, namely, with Humus again to DJ: . which I think is very exibitive of the more current trend the conversations on the talk page of JfJ have been taking.

Unfortunently, it seems i'm about out of the word limit :/. I know most of what I have up here can easily be called quote mining because I haven't shown the full context of these quotes, but I think that if this case is accepted, I can provide diffs for these statements and many others which show many personal attacks on users involved with this article. A possibly relevant situation may be the recent Template:NotJudaism template TfD here, but I feel that user conduct is a more easily defendable reason for Arbitration in this particular case. Homestarmy 04:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by MPerel

I've had some involvement on this page. Overall this is a content dispute, albeit a bit heated at times. I think the editors are slowly working things out with the exception of User:ParadoxTom who has been particularly disruptive. Even Homestarmy warned Paradox Tom that "Arbitration Committee members will see a single-purpose account who has an extensive block log, a long history of not accepting policy concerning 3RR and what constitutes vandalism, and possibly even a vandal, because you've reverted to very old revisions of the articles several times." (he actually sums it up pretty well). --MPerel 05:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Sam Blanning

ParadoxTom has been indefinitely blocked per exhausted community patience, with unanimous endorsement on WP:ANI at time of writing. Unless the Arbcom wants to review his ban - and to me it looks clearly appropriate - there doesn't seem anything more to do here. The other parties don't sound especially keen to go to arbitration, and at least two seem to be against it. --Sam Blanning 12:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Inigmatus

I am one of many fustrated editors with JfJ. Even though I know the page needs help, I think if we had more input from those who do not hold to Judaism, or Messianic Judaism, or even Christianity, that we would make some true NPOV progress. We need more unbiased 3Os. Currently resolutions, changes, and such in this article seem to be "enforced" by majority rule, and not true consensus taking into consideration the viewpoints of ALL sides. The number of Jewish editors that do not like JfJ seem to be in my opinion, outnumbering supporters for JfJ with its empathizers, combined - and this fact alone seems to be the "weight" that this article has enjoyed in its current presentation. As an empathizer, I want to see MORE consensus, and less weight-throwing. When an issue is disputed, I want what every editor who makes such a dispute want: discussion over the issue and NOT a revert. inigmatus 16:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Humus sapiens

It would be difficult to find something in the article Jews for Jesus that was not disputed at one point or another. By now, it is quite well referenced, and the initiator of this case even feels that it has too many refs. I will try to briefly address the points raised above:

• ParadoxTom (talk · contribs), Justforasecond (talk · contribs) and SpinyNorman (talk · contribs) are good examples of problematic users that this article seems to attract. They made eccentric statements, were unable to provide any evidence but continued revert warring and making a point. Their block logs reflect their behavior.
• For all my words and actions I take full responsibility and if this case proceeds, I will provide the context. For now I will only say that Homestarmy's assumption of what I meant by "here" is wrong: I meant JFJ, not the talk page. We have a good policy concerning making assumptions. Also, it seems unfair that Mantanmoreland wasn't even notified that he is being mentioned and quoted here, so I left him a note.
• Finally, I agree that this is a content dispute and the article is slowly improving. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens 13:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by DJ Clayworth

This is one of the longest and worst disputes I have seen on Misplaced Pages. It's been dragging on for months with very little movement. While nobody may have actually used the word 'Anti-semite' plenty of people have been accused of 'attacking Judaism', and have been subject to very agressive language. Some editors seem to think that NPOV doesn't apply to this article - even editors who should know better. I think there is still hope for a non-enforced resolution here. New editors have been joining in and giving an outside perspective, and that's been helpful. We also arrived here without having tried RFC or the Mediation Cabal. But there are editors with entrenched positions, and if they don't shift their views some then we may be back. I recommend rejection, but only if that doesn't prejudice the case if we end up having to come back here in a month or two. DJ Clayworth 16:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Practically Uninvolved User Ramsquire

From my one week of attempting to reach some consensus on this subject, I believe it is not appropriate for ArbCom. However, the parties here do need to try some sort of ADR. Mediation may be best. From my viewpoint, a slight majority of the editors have reached a consensus on what they believe the proper format of the article should be, and are not open to any suggested improvements. As frustrating as it must be to the minority, or a third part trying to help, there are no personal attacks or untoward behavior occurring that would warrant ArbCom participation. I would just ask users to be more willing to assume good faith and be open to hearing new ideas. Ramsquire 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Durova (talk · contribs)

This looks like the type of situaton that Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing was designed to handle on a community level. Durova 14:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Homestarmy has been requested to trim his statement. --Srikeit 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

• Recuse. I have blocked ParadoxTom indefinitely, please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive150#Community_ban_for_ParadoxTom. Dmcdevit·t 05:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Recuse Fred Bauder 14:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. The one really disruptive user has already been banned. Hopefully things can be amicably resolved in his absence. - SimonP 14:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Reject at this time. Charles Matthews 17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Recuse. Jayjg 21:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

The duration of Fys' probation (enacted 21 Sep 2006) is not clear. Is it for one year (as for Karl Meier and Irishpunktom) or indefinite, and if one year, does the year extend from the date of the case or the date of the amended decision? Thatcher131 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

NB - the use of the term "also" in the decision clearly implies that it has the same duration as Irishpunktom. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 21:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and ends on same date. Fred Bauder 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden

Both the Rachel Marsden and Marsden-Donnelly harassment case articles have been deleted by administrators in the last day (and protected to prevent re-creatin). Some editors have argued that references to Marsden's past controversies are inappropriate for the article.

The Marsden RfA determined that "Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit". It also ruled that the Marsden and Marsden-Donnelly articles, in their existing state, were in violation of BLP.

Questions: (i) Do references to Marsden's past controversies inherently violate BLP, or would a fair and neutral overview be permitted? (ii) Is page deletion an appropriate remedy to this situation? CJCurrie 06:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

More questions: (iii) Interpretation of Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons is often a matter of debate. May speedy deletions of Marsden-related articles be overturned through the usual channel of Deletion Review? (iv) Are we supposed to delete based solely on whether the current version of a page violates WP:BLP, or may we delete based on the existence of previous versions that have violated WP:BLP? Kla'quot 06:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (v) Why didn't Arbcom go ahead and delete the articles themselves as soon as the case closed? Kla'quot 07:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Our ultimate goal is an NPOV article on Masden and her controversies. This could be achieved by deleting the existing content and starting work on a new version, or it could be done by refining the existing pages. The ArbCom made no firm assertion of what path is the better one. However, deleting the page and protecting it against all attempts at recreation is certainly not going to help us achieve the desired goal. - SimonP 14:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection would only be appropriate if anonymous users were trying to reinstate an unacceptable article. Fred Bauder 22:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Kla'quot 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture

The following was copied from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Popular culture and fiction some time ago:

when a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.

Some questions have risen as to the interpretation of that phrase ("can't work out what it's trying to say" ). Could the arbitrators clarify what the above sentence means? Or would they say the sentence should be clear in its context (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture)? --Francis Schonken 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In order to keep the discussions on a single spot, may I ask the Arbitrators to post their clarifications at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources#Unclear sentence? Tx! --Francis Schonken 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What's unclear? In the context of the case, it says that, given a large corpus of material on a topic, that has not been subject to scholarly analysis, it is acceptable to quote selectively and with qualification from it. Charles Matthews 10:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche again

Moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

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

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution