Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:09, 24 October 2007

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

• 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.

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Sadi Carnot

Initiated by - Jehochman at 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Coren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Physchim62 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Sarah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• All parties have been notified. Picaroon (t) 01:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• ANI

Statement by Jehochman

User:Coren filed a report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents stating, "After the closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Georgi Gladyshev...I've spend some amount of time looking through the contributions of Sadi Carnot. What I see there is a large, elaborate a subtle walled garden of pseudoscience— probably for the purpose of hawking his books (or simple self agrandizement)." I recognized Sadi's unique name because I had mediated a Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal case between Sadi Carnot and Hkhenson. (I was on good terms with both.) I added my comment to the thread. Then User:SandyGeorgia, a well-respected editor, stepped forward with additional evidence of disruption by Sadi Carnot. Upon further investigation we determined that Coren's summary was most likely true, and that there were at least 132 of Sadi Carnot's spam links woven throughout a network of articles, all pointing back to his own website. More spam links were later found, and three sites affiliated with Sadi Carnot have been added to the MediaWiki blacklist.

We also discovered that Sadi Carnot had previously used an account User:Wavesmikey. This account was apparently abandoned after it was exposed for spamming and pushing fringe theories. Over the past two years Sadi Carnot has undertaken a campaign to spam his personal website and push his own fringe theories across a wide variety of articles. In the process, he has subtly vandalized many articles by inserting pseudoscience and by misrepresenting sources. Numerous editors attempted to stop him along the way, to no avail. His strategy was to retreat when confronted, and move on to other articles. In light of this evidence, User:Kww proposed a community ban.

In my judgment, Sadi Carnot knew that what he was doing was wrong because he used deception. He had also cited the conflict of interest guideline against User:Hkhenson during the Mediation Cabal case. Subtle vandalism is more dangerous than page blanking or curse words because the average editor does not realize they are reading falsified information. Considering the risk of further damage, I placed an indefinite block on Sadi Carnot, and suggested that this block could only be lifted if he accepted responsibility for what he had done, and made arrangements to be mentored by an experienced Wikipedian. I announced this block at ANI, and other editors notified the relevant WikiProjects, which is how I believe Physchim62 learned about this matter.

User:Physchim62 proceeded to revert my block without prior discussion, in spite of the fact that Sadi Carnot had not even requested to be unblocked, and that no arrangements had been made to monitor his editing. Subsequently, a large number of editors endorsed the community ban proposal, and User:Sarah reinstated the block. Despite the overwhelming consensus that Sadi Carnot should be banned, Physchim62 contacted DragonflySixtyseven via IRC, and DragonflySixtyseven unblocked Sadi Carnot a second time, also without prior consultation with the blocking admin, or those of us who had spent many hours investigating Sadi Carnot's contributions.

Members of the arbitration committee, we have an "unusually divisive dispute among administrators." To prevent further conflict, I request that you review this case and provide guidance how the community ban process should work so we can avoid situations where a small number of good faith administrators frustrate the community. The community banning process does not give each of 1400 administrators veto power. Per common sense, that would be unworkable. What is the point of having a consensus discussion if a single administrator can be convinced by a troll to revert a block that has been endorsed by the other 1399 administrators? We must not allow disruptive editors to continue gaming us and preying on our generous assumption of good faith. - Jehochman 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by JoshuaZ

Given how disruptive and problematic Sadi's edits have been I strongly suggest that the editor only be allowed to make edits relevant to the arbitration during this arbitration. The ANI discussion makes clear how subtle and insidious this editor's edits have been. JoshuaZ 00:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC) It appears that such restrictions are now in place, making my statement redundant. JoshuaZ 01:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

I became aware of the problem with Sadi Carnot during the AFD discussion on Human chemistry. After reviewing his contributions, the pattern became very clear: distortion of his sources, used to prop up a pseudoscience agenda. Most of the edits I checked that did not directly support his particular form of nonsense were incorrect or strangely biased. I am left with two choices: he is either a fool or a con artist. If he is a fool, he can be morally excused, but Misplaced Pages still needs protected from him. If he is a con artist, he doesn't even get to be morally excused, and Misplaced Pages still needs to be protected from him. My personal belief is that he is a con artist, as he seems to be too literate to be a fool. Either way, it will take a virtual Wikiproject simply to undo the damage he has already inflicted, and there is no justification for allowing him to wreak more. It should also be noted that I grew sufficiently suspicious of User:Physchim62 to request a checkuser on him to ensure that he is not a second sockpuppet of Sadi Carnot.Kww 01:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Late addition in response to some of the other comments. First, I am sorry that I speak bluntly. Coren's mens rea is simply Latin for the difference between a fool and a con artist, and it is apparent that he wrestled with the same question and came to an identical conclusion. Second, there are discussions of a Jekyll/Hyde aspect to the case. I beg to differ on this point ... I have not found a non-trivial valid edit. I welcome correction on this point.Kww 13:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

One more comment: I think the person to be assigned the role of mentor of Sadi Carnot (if that is the output of this), should not be either of the admins that lifted the block. Since they apparently don't agree that his current behaviour is unacceptable, I'm not sure that they will police him with sufficient vigilance.Kww 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Coren

While I cannot agree with Kww's exact words, which are stronger than I would use, I nonetheless agree with the essence of what he is saying.

I brought Sadi Carnot to AN/I's attention after my involvement with the Georgi Gladyshev AfD, where I began to figure out that he has weaved a complex and subtle walled garden of fringe original research. After collective the digging on AN/I, I saw how deep the rabbit hole went— dozen of scientific articles subtly twisted with the ancient (18th and 19th century) science he appears to be enamored with, and a pattern of shoring up his own original research with references to articles he himself twisted to fit. The end result is the rather successful insertion of his pet theories in a way that is sufficiently self-consistent and apparently supported so that anyone but topic experts is likely to be fooled by the disinformation. Other contributors to the AN/I thread have explained his lack of comprehension of basic subject matter in the articles he edits vehemently.

In addition, SC has a demonstrated pattern of using sources that either ultimately point back to his own pseudoscientific web site (now blacklisted on meta), or that are blatantly misrepresented as supportive of his statements when in fact they are either unrelated or state the opposite of his claims.

Sadi Carnot has clearly shown mens rea by the nature of his sources, and by his repeated pattern of leaving when challenged only to return discreetly some time later.

Some editors have stated they feel that the number of his good edits make a ban too strong a measure. However, I feel that the skill of his alterations in articles he has edited so that expert attention is needed to ascertain their reasonableness makes all his edits suspect. I remain unconvinced that any of his edits should be taken at face value, especially since those would have come after the same pattern of OR insertion with his previous identity.

While I would not have supported a ban of an editor without warning, and originally felt that move might have been a bit heavy-handed; the extent and breadth of the damage he has caused to the encyclopedia that has been revealed in the AN/I discussion, and the fact that this damage is deliberate, skilfull (thus harder to repair), and has been going on for over two years make me agree that this is the only reasonable course of action.

SC would, of course, be welcome to mend his way and rejoin the community by appealing the ban in the normal manner. In the meantime, this would allow administrators to ban and revert recurrence of this editor on sight so that he is not allowed to repeat his previous move of switching identities and starting over.

— Coren  02:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Further note: I want to make clear that I support this arbitration request to help clarify what is proper to do in cases where there is (in my opinion, anyways) strong evidence of long time, willful, tampering with the encyclopedia. I've begun digging edit-by-edit in the past history and amassing evidence for that.

I would not support and arbitration regarding the conducts of any administrator in this case. I think it's painfully clear that everyone here has acted in good faith but that there is a fundamental disagreement about Sadi Carnot's action in particular as well as how to react to long-term damage in general. Apparently, the very nature of this case is such that it hits strings very close to some administrators' hearts and we need to proceed carefully lest tempers flare. — Coren  15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sarah

I became involved in this dispute after reviewing the discussion on ANI requesting a community ban of User:Sadi Carnot. User:Jehochman had implemented an indefinite block which was overturned by User:Physchim62 without discussion and without any pending unblock request or undertaking from Sadi Carnot to cease spamming. I eventually reblocked, believing that there was a demonstrably clear consensus to block: at the time of the block many people had commented at ANI but Physchim62 was the only editor who had opposed the block. I feel that Physchim62 acted arbitrarily and outside community consensus and that this dispute reflects a profound divergence in the implementation of WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN and the perceived validity of community-based sanctions. I think the original block should have remained in place while the community continued discussion (after all, an indefinite block does not mean "forever", only that no time has yet been decided) and pending a response and explanation from User:Sadi Carnot, which he could have made on his talk page. I am disappointed to see that the block has been overturned again, apparently in response to IRC activities. And I note that while User:DragonflySixtyseven did post on ANI saying that he was unblocking Sadi Carnot, he didn't bother to inform me that he had overturned my block or attempt to discuss the block with me personally, as is customary when overturning another administrator's actions. I object to the way unblocking this user has been treated by two administrators as a matter of urgency, particularly when the blocked user has not edited since 11 October. I urge the committee to accept this case to examine the actions of all parties and to confirm the validity of community-based sanctions. Sarah 02:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply by user:DragonflySixtyseven

Sorry about that - I've been having computer problems, and then I spent several hours dealing with a paying client; otherwise I certainly would have notified Sarah. Again - I apologize. To clarify: Physchim62 did not ask me to unblock Sadi Carnot. I made the decision independently - and WP:BOLDly - after a heated discussion in PM (not on a channel) on IRC, which resulted from my disappointment in PC62's mention that he would be giving up his admin bit as a direct result of the Sadi Carnot mess. He specifically said that he did not want to wheel war over this (since he considers many of SC's contributions to be unmitigated garbage), but that he was considering taking this to arbcom on principle. I consider this entire mess to be a waste of Arbcom's time and resources.

This is entirely a point of principle. Frankly, I don't think SC is much of a useful contributor - but he's clearly not totally useless. However, that's not really relevant since he has apparently left Misplaced Pages. The unblock was not for SC's benefit, it was for PC62's benefit - specifically so that he not give up his bit. I got him to agree to mentor SC, and to agree to block SC himself' should SC start acting up again (assuming, of course, that SC does actually return to the project, which is not a guarantee).

I also left a very very very stern message for SC. That is his warning. He has now been warned. If he (returns and resumes editing and) fucks up again, then we ban him. Simple, yes?

I decided that the potential loss of PC62 as an admin outweighed the risks of having SC unblocked (especially since SC has been warned, told that it's his only warning, given a mentor, and effectively placed on Topic Probation).

And you have no idea how tired I am. It's past one AM here. DS 05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Durova

I urge the Committee to accept this request. Although Wikipedians debate the precise meaning of a wheel war, this situation is certainly near to being one. Subtle long-term disruption poses a very serious danger to the integrity of Misplaced Pages, and since the community has proven unable to resolve this particular case it ought to be high priority to establish clear precedents on the arbitration level. Durova 01:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad makes an excellent point about ambiguity in policy language and practice regarding community banning. Regardless of whether one calls this situation a wheel war, an alternating series of four actions (two indefs, two unblocks) on an inactive account points to a serious problem suitable for Committee attention. Some of the issues regarding this may require an accompanying community decision at the policy level. Durova 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Physchim62, I read FloNight's comments as procedural rather than prejudicial: any situation that rides the cusp of a wheel war as closely as this one deserves the Committee's attention. As a subordinate note to that, there are precedents for immediate sitebanning in response to well-founded investigation of long term disruption (one example). I did not participate in this ban discussion and have no opinion about whether this particular instance is such a case, but in extreme cases dispute resolution is pointless. Durova 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

Not strictly involved, but I did participate a fair amount in the ANI thread that is also linked right at the top of this request. I've also looked at the articles (well, the AfDs) and the edits and the external websites, and would be happy to add evidence to the case. Carcharoth 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Physchim62, I do think that deeper investigation is warranted here. The clean block record and number of contributions mean nothing if there is a previously undetected pattern of consistent and subtle efforts to integrate a set of fringe theories into Misplaced Pages in a misleading way. This reflects poorly on the editors who failed to spot this in the past (though some did raise concerns). Looking back through the contribs, I've discovered that I had met this editor before, and interacted with them in a reasonable manner - I had no cause for concern at that time (see Talk:People known as the father or mother of something and the associated deletion review). Now, looking back through the contributions, I do find cause for concern. I've looked at the first edits of Wavesmikey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and found Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics 2 to add to AfDs mentioned previously. Moving forwards to the present account, I found User:Sadi Carnot/Users, which should also, in my opinion, be cause for concern. I agree with Physchim62 that an indefinite block may have not been the best thing to do immediately, but the minimum would have been a topic ban and opening an RfC or an ArbCom case on the editing behaviour. Apologies for putting links here instead of waiting for any possible case to open, but I wanted to get these notes down now. Carcharoth 22:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Folic_Acid (also uninvolved)

I strongly endorse Durova's statement. To me, this seems a clear case of wheel-warring, and ought not to have happened. I believe that Jehochman is very familiar with Sadi Carnot and his editing tendencies, and had carefully weighed the situation before issuing his ban. He also received a very strong endorsement from the participants of AN/I, backing him up on his ban. Yet, Psychim62 seemed to take it upon himself to reverse that ban. As Durova has said, I think that this case presents a unique opportunity for the ArbCom to create a precedent for dealing with long-term, subtle vandalism, and for dealing with wheel-warring. Respectfully,  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  03:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:TimVickers

I participated in the ANI discussion and supported the ban because I was involved in the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry. I would recommend ArbCom consider this case to produce guidance on how to deal with long-term, subtle vandalism and users who push fringe theories. Tim Vickers 04:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JWSchmidt

I became aware of the disruptive editing by "Sadi Carnot"/User:Wavesmikey in the middle of the "wheel war" over blocking User:Sadi Carnot. The "wheel war" can be explained as a case of Blind Men and an Elephant. The Misplaced Pages edits of "Sadi Carnot" display a Jekyll and Hyde pattern. "Sadi Carnot" apparently has training in thermodynamics and has appeared to some Wikipedians as a constructive editor of Misplaced Pages pages related to thermodynamics. However, "Sadi Carnot" has also edited (and created) many psychology-related pages that represent a relentless and clever campaign to insert original research and pseudoscience into Misplaced Pages. The community is going to have to be on guard for new attempts by Sadi Carnot/Wavesmikey to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Much work remains to root out all the disruptive edits. One group of administrators knew and responded to the "Dr. Jekyll" aspect of "Sadi Carnot" while a second group knew and responded to the "Mr. Hyde" aspect of "Sadi Carnot". Rather than focus on the fact that there was a meaningless "wheel war", I think the Misplaced Pages community needs to think carefully about how to attract, nurture and empower editors who have expert knowledge. This is the only way to protect Misplaced Pages from disruptive editors such as "Sadi Carnot" who daily pervert Misplaced Pages for their own purposes. --JWSchmidt 06:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Newyorkbrad

With regard to the user conduct issues involving Sadi Carnot, it is clear that if he returns there would need to be, at a bare minimum, substantial restrictions on his editing, and a good argument has been made for a ban. The only question is whether the case should be accepted even though the user is not currently editing. Given that this user has edited under other names before, it may be reasonable to take up the matter now, rather than defer the discussion until he tries to return or until a sockpuppet/alternate account is detected.

With regard to administrator conduct, some of the conflicting admin actions and resulting tension in this and some similar situations may have arisen from a continuing unclarity in an aspect of block/ban policy, including how it has been interpreted in case selection decisions by this committee. Sometimes we say that a community ban exists when no administrator would unblock a user; other times we say there is a community ban when there is consensus for a ban and very few administrators would unblock. When a banned user appeals to ArbCom, it sometimes is correctly observed that there is no real dispute to arbitrate if no admin has been willing to unblock the user. That being the case, an administrator who opposes a community ban, even while recognizing that there is consensus for a long-term block and that consensus should generally be respected, may feel constrained to unblock in order to prevent the block from ripening into a ban or in order to safeguard the user's ability to challenge the ban by appeal to the arbitrators. Indeed, such an admin may reason that unblocking is the only way to achieve these results. Neither that admin nor one who reimposes a block supported by overwhelming consensus is wilfully "wheel-warring"; nonetheless, an undesirable situation is created. Perhaps clarification by the committee would be helpful on this issue. Newyorkbrad 10:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:Itub

I was also involved in some of the AfD and AN/I discussions. I agree with much of what Durova and JWSchmidt say. I think that the block itself may be a moot point, since Sadi Carnot has not shown any inclination to return. However, I think it is worth discussing what should be done when an editor has a "Dr. Jekyl" and a "Mr. Hyde" aspect; and specifically whether it is appropriate to block/ban him indefinitely without an explicit warning due to his "Mr. Hyde" activities. --Itub 11:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Iridescent

I haven't the knowledge of psychology to determine whether Sadi Carnot's psychology-related contributions are valid (and have to defer to what seems to be an overwhelming consensus that they aren't). However, I do feel I ought to mention, as some others do above, that SC has a lot of definite valid edits. As a new editor, when I was getting bogged down on my first largish-scale project, the thankless (and ultimately abandoned) task of merging & cleaning up the spammy OR-riddled mess of Rating sites, Rate-me site and Hot or Not, it was SC who patiently explained what I was doing right and wrong, offered suggestions and comments and helped to rewrite the article into what was briefly an informative & sourced article, until the spammers & POV-pushers dragged it back down. If it's only the psychology-related material that's causing a problem I'd far rather see a topic ban then a complete ban, providing he hasn't left altogether. — iridescent 13:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Physchim62

I am delighted that so many editors have chose to comment on this case. I can only hope that all participants have read The Crucible by Arthur Miller, a great description of how mass hysteria can develop among otherwise reasonable people. To say that someone is a victim of mass hysteria is to say that they are a victim, it does not imply a value judgement.

I cannot answer all the issues raised by my colleagues without breaching the brevity guidelines for this page. I would just like to underline three points.

1. The disputed block is an indefinite block without warning of an editor who has contributed for nearly two years, who had a clean block record and 8537 contributions.
2. The reasons given for the original block are demonstrably false. Jehochman did not make the necessary verifications before taking such a drastic action. As has been admitted, there was no urgency to block as the account is currently inactive.
3. Banning policy, as it stands, allows any admin to veto a Community Ban. As such, there was no reason for Sarah to reinstate the groundless block. Her comments indicate that she had not correctly read the ANI discussion, let alone the underlying evidence. The contention that the few people who commented on ANI somehow represent the "community" is without basis. I might add that the "consensus" on ANI was nowhere near as clear as has been suggested.

It is my honest and deeply held opinion that Sadi Carnot is being persecuted not for what he did but for what he believes. I certainly don't subscribe to his beliefs, but he has an inalienable right to hold them. You will never be able to count on me to form part of a Thought Police.

Allow me end by apologising for the harsh terms which I use. I would not use them but for the seriousness of the situation. I've already had to warn one user that his actions relating to this dispute amount to disruption of Misplaced Pages: maybe more cases will come to light. I really believe that you're all going mad, and that it's not your fault. Physchim62 (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

To reply to those users who have said that my actions and those of Dragonfly6-7 are "frustrating the community", I would remind them that the community has abolished the Community sanctions noticeboard, in a MfD debate which attracted far more contributions than the discussion on Sadi Carnot's conduct. I cannot believe that it was the intention of the community that the failings of CSN should be repeated on ANI, and it is surely "frustrating the community" to act as if that were the case. Physchim62 (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

On FloNight's comments

I find FloNight's comments on accepting this case quite frankly offensive. It is common knowledge that the present ArbCom cannot cope with its current case load. This is why administrators work day and night to try to avoid bringing cases here.

ArbCom cases are WikiTorture for all involved. I have always considered this to be a Good Thing (I have a sneaking suspicion that it's deliberate) as it encourages users to take the other forms of DR seriously. If ArbCom wishes more cases to come here, the ball is in its court, but it will have to resolve those cases more quickly, not, for example, leaving cases langering in the voting stage for over a month as has been happening recently. It should remember that taking more cases is inconsistent with encouraging the use of other forms of DR.

FloNight's comments are also remarkably prejudicial. Does she think that administrators are some kind of playground bully, that we go around picking fights for the fun of it and, when we can't find any other poor user to pick on, we fight among ourselves? What ever my criticisms (and I have many) of the actions of Jehochman and Sarah, I do think they were trying to resolve a dispute, not to create one.

If FloNight feels unable to withdraw her comments, she should recuse herself from this case. Physchim62 (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

For the record, I studied The Crucible with Good Night, and Good Luck this year as a paired text, and scored well in my comparative essay. Now I need to replicate it in my final exams - yay for me. Now, onto relevant stuff...

I am glad that no user has acted more than once - it's a whole new kettle of fish then. However, like Newyorkbrad, I share concerns about the definition of a ban. A ban is any block (on an established or disruptive editor; not vandalism) that will not be overturned by any administrator. A ban is also a consensus of Wikipedians wanting a user to be banned, hence 'community ban'. Is one administrator able to overrule a consensus using the first definition? Is a consensus able to overrule a small subset of administrators? Do these definitions have equal weight? If they do, how many administrators are needed to make their presence more notable than the consensus (and hence unban)?

I'm as confused as you. The Arbitration Committee is not a deconfusion machine, but it does provide sound advice. It also provides resolutions to issues, and the community needs both here. Daniel 10:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Observations by uninvolved FT2

Detailed observations, fact-find, and diffs:

Detail and diffs.

The issue seems to revolve around an editor who may (?or may not) make valuable contributions, but engages in highly undesirable conduct centering around widescale and long term COI-SPAM-WEIGHT-OR on his book and fringe views. The motive for block/ban seems to be use of puppetry and "very serious" sneaky spamming. There seems consensus that COI spamming was going on a long time on many articles, and repeated breach of WP:WEIGHT had been occurring on fringe ideas. An alternative view is that even if he isn't doing it deliberately, then his edits are still too big a liability. On the other hand, there's a counter-concern that he may be a productive editor with a number of good edits (though others dispute this), and that the evidence of sockpuppetry and "disruption only" account use backing this view is minimal to zero. The matter was brought to ANI by Coren, a quite capable editor, specifically because although he felt there was a serious problem, he wanted to check with others rather than assume. This is to be highly commended. He also makes other good points, including that an editor who has a history of seeing that his editing style is causing problems, but simply moves elsewhere and repeats, may well be acting in good faith, but this is still disruptive. Editors are expected to get a clue if told "X isn't okay". Failure to do so, whether innocent or deliberate, is still - ultimately - damaging (WP:POINT#Refusal to 'get the point' has included this for a while now). The first admin to block states, "I am going to indef the account because it's clear to me that it's been used primarily for long term, subtle vandalism and COI editing, causing serious, widespread damage". The block was reverted with the unblocker acknowledging this was "unusual", to allow the user to comment and without condoning the actions. After reinstatement (no wheel war) and rereversal, arbitration was proposed. My questions: Is there good evidence backing the various concerns raised by people? -- evidence presented does not back up all the claims Are his good contribs really good? (Be aware that many sneaky vandals do also make good contribs) -- Asserted both ways Were sufficient clear/formal warnings, discussion, and other DR steps followed to no avail? -- appears not I suspect that 80% of the problem is that the ANI discussion rapidly escalated and polarized to the stronger measures (blocks/unblocks/bans/arb) before considering in a balanced manner the evidence and other options. I am willing to be corrected if I am unaware of any warnings given but..... evidence and diffs: The first block of this incident cites an article (Human chemistry, now afd'ed) that was created by the editor. AFD Views varied from "excellent example of gaming the system/fraudulent promotion of dreck/misleading cites" , "out-and-out fraud/how can we trust him after this/support a ban" , but most simply noted it was self-promotion and OR, and needed removing, and ultimately the creator asked for it to be SPEEDYed . (Its unclear whether to AGF on this request or see it as part of a game. Probably AGF.) The block explanation points to this afd and describes it as a "hoax" being "unmasked", and describes the editor as using the account "primarily for long term, subtle vandalism". Looking at the many AFD comments though, I don't completely agree with this rather strongly worded description/characterization. On checking, there are no visible talk page warnings, and there was no real ANI discussion whether mentoring and such (or a topic/self-promo ban, or formal final warnings) might be more the way to go if he was making bad edits. The indef block is (correctly) presented in terms of gaining a change in behavior, but following the presentation of a list of spam links elsewhere and alleged sock use, it is then presented again, in terms encouraging a ban discussion. The difficulty is, it later emerges those links may not have been the editor's work , and the other account had not edited since December 2005 - a period of almost 2 years (except 3 user page edits in March). The new account and old account did not co-edit (old abandoned Dec 15 2005, new created Dec 27 2005). No diffs showing actual "vandalism" or non-trivial puppetry are given, and if his old account was ever sanctioned that's not listed either. But by the time someone had thought to check the basics of the case, there was already dispute over the indef block, and momentum for a block and possible community ban, and that momentum was based in large part on these beliefs. I have also reviewed the user's talk page back to March. There are no formal warnings, nor indeed any admin warnings on it beyond free image issues and routine AFD notices and one or two requests for references . The user is generally civil, and does not seem to have attracted many negative posts by others. Two minor bites in 6 months are visible, neither major, and even then reconciliation on one of them was jointly offered and accepted quite quickly by the user and the other party. Going back to February, on one occasion an experienced editor posted a statement of concern over WP:OR and failure to understand what Misplaced Pages is about. The user has had a previous article Human thermodynamics afd'ed in 2005 under his old account, similar to the Human chemistry afd. Comments at AFD are not formal warnings, but concerns on OR and the like were expressed (albeit 2 years ago now). There was no visible warning; if anything major has happened from then to now, it doesn't show very visibly on his talk page. Blocks, as well as unblocks, can be enacted by any sole administrator. But admins are expected to balance the evidence as well as how consensus on the Right Thing might stand. In that context, I think what can be said is, some people were hasty to jump to the end-point, others felt this jumping to a conclusion was wrong and/or poorly evidenced, and reverted. That seems to be how it ends up at Arbcom. Thoughts: There was clearly a genuine case for concern. It's still possible or even probable that the editor is/was engaged in deliberate improper COI-OR-SPAM-WEIGHT (or wilful refusal to get the point, same thing). But despite concerns, the fact remains there are all but zero warnings or expressions of concern in the last many months, on his talk page, and no formal notices visible. At ANI, the evidence was very limited. The diffs showed the admission of COI and use of own site as source. Actual evidence of the "meat" of the case was not presented, actual diffs were not provided showing prior warnings or backing the more serious claims, and WP:AGF was not given over his username change ('Wavesmikey' till Dec 15 2005, 'SC' from December 27 2005). These would have helped either inform consensus or highlight mistakes. They were mostly absent. It clearly also wouldn't have hurt to let discussion progress a while longer, or examine the evidence a bit more carefully and check for consensus, before taking major action (block or unblock) as the initiator had requested and repeatedly made clear. In this case remedy (by a few editors) predated fact-finding and evidence, leading to dispute over that remedy (by a different few editors). If there is ongoing problem conduct and despite clear warning the editor had not desisted, indef blocks are a legitimate way to inhibit damage to the wiki until agreement to change is obtained. But in this case, the escalation and unblock/reblock, was unnecessary and reflects poorly. There were better ways to handle it at that time. There was not the kind of divisiveness in this case that we saw in really serious divides; this was a simple case (even with the block/unblock) that admins well might have resolved with discussion and evidence, on ANI. A few administrators were somewhat hasty one way, then a few reversed it as poor judgement, and momentum quickly built up. Perhaps a ban would have emerged anyway. But probably not. In general it's desirable that editors and admins figure out such matters, as Coren had sought, and only pass to arbcom where it really is major, or cannot be resolved otherwise. At least some of the main involved editors, including the initiator and the initial blocker and proposer of a ban, reach agreement that the content issue is largely addressed, and that the next step is either 1/ mentorship and change on the SPAM-COI-OR issues, or (if not) then 2/ a ban due to the problems caused, which is a reasonable resolution. Arbitration is seen as less likely to be needed. Even if the editor does not change or is terminally problematic, this solution would seen to be workable and well within admin handling. A further comment just before arbitration is proposed notes that to date there has still been no formal warning, explaination, or request to stop.

In summary, I'm inclined towards not needing arb attention yet. Based on evidence presented and a careful check of readily identifiable background pages, it seems that although there is a clear fringe-pushing problem, most of the serious issues are over-stated or can now be readily discussed calmly or appropriate handling agreed. The actual problem is COI, and prolific pushing of own links, and own fringe views/OR, which he knows is not permitted but is doing anyway. He also may or may not make valid contriubutions. Problems that led to this arb case included:

Warnings and DR processes were non-existant or inadequate, multiple requests for careful consideration by Coren were not fully considered, evidence of DIFFs and other fact finding which might have informed admin consensus was incomplete, allegations were made that don't seem well supported when checked, AGF was not fully considered by all, in areas such as account change (which clearly was not a problem given 2 minutes checking), the matter seems exaggerated from COI/pushing to "major sneaky vandal", the focus moved to actions (and disputes over actions) way ahead of clear fact finding, and then when the user was blocked/unblocked and this was repeated, the case was escalated here at a point where agreement actually seemed accessible. The user has still apparently not been warned in any of this ("they should have got a clue" doesn't quite substitute for warnings and DR). Way too hasty.

There was also no admin mis-conduct. Nobody wheeled; the active parties all expressedly agreed not to wheel. Now the facts are better identified, and with better evidence, it probably could be resolved by usual admin discussion, and at least one good try at it, would probably be preferable to see if admins can now resolve this themselves. Perhaps given that some of the more serious concerns (puppetry + subtle vandalism) are questionable but others (coi + trust) are valid, a final and formal warning notice on specific kinds of edits or a topic ban would be a better way to keep the good (if any, and if willing) and avoid the bad. The reason this case is divisive is not because of the editor nor the complexity; it's because there is a division whether or not some token DR or warning is appropriate before a ban attempt is made, and questions over some of the allegations with which this editor is being labelled.

In my view, an arbcom hearing isn't needed; there are at least four very well tried classic fixes for this situation that I'm sure admins could agree upon: 1/ We warn him formally about COI-SPAM-MISCITE-OR and if he breaches he is blocked on an escalating basis; 2/ he is indef blocked because of repeated COI-SPAM-MISCITE-OR, and unblocked if he agrees not to repeat; 3/ Mentorship and a ban if he cannot or will not succeed; or 4/ the community agrees a topic ban on certain matters and notifies him he will be significantly blocked on breach.

The real issue here seems to be not Sadi Carnot, which doesn't seem to need arb attention, or even the block/ban processes, or even admin conduct (all admins restrained once it became obvious there was a real disagreement). The only reason this has escalated is sub-optimal handling of a fairly routine COI link pusher and fringe theorist, not blockban process failure or wheeling... and that's primarily something to discuss and learn from. FT2 14:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved GRBerry

My read of the AN/I discussion is similar to that of the prior poster - there was no consensus to support an indefinite block at any point in the discussion, and the final consensus was for mentoring should the user return. I also note that this is very much the sort of stupidity that I expected when we closed CSN - AN/I is a worse forum for these discussions than CSN was, because AN/I is expressly dedicated to snap judgment issues, not deliberative discussion. I strongly urge the Arbcomm to either reject the case, or take it only to firmly slap down the admin who gave the way too hasty block and the admin who reinstated it. (Wheel warring never begins before an administrative action is repeated; the current nutshell of Misplaced Pages:Wheel war is "All administrative actions are subject to a one-revert rule.") Flonight is completely wrong, the problem is not administrators unblocking. GRBerry 18:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (last sentence struck after her clarification GRBerry 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept. Kirill 00:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. At first glance the problem seems to be administrators unblocking an editor, that one or more administrators believe is so disruptive to require a indef block, without attempting to achieve consensus on the matter. IMO, the Arbitration Committee was formed to settle exactly this type of dispute instead of administrators over riding each other with their extra tool. In the future, if there is disagreement about a block, please bring it to the Arbitration Committee to be sorted out instead of using your tools in a manner that is controversial. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The point I intended to make (and evidently is not clear) is that using your admin tools in a contentious manner needs to be avoided...whether it is blocking or unblocking. If there is substantial disagreement among administrators about whether an user should get an indefinite block or not, as there is in this case, it needs to be brought to the Committee where evidence is presented by all interested parties and a final decision that is going to stick can be reached. Using your administrative tools to block or unblock to make your views known is not the best way to handle the situation. It is confusing to users to see different admin interpret policy differently and use their tools in conflicting ways to supposedly enforce policy. After a case is accepted, we can take motions to lift a block if an user is blocked at the start of a case. If contacted by directly by an editor often we do it without a motion. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet and Dking

Initiated by Marvin Diode at 12:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Marvin Diode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Talk page notifications:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Attempts were made at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking, and Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rejected/28#Lyndon LaRouche and related articles

Note: I have undeleted the RfCs for the purpose of this request. Thatcher131 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Marvin Diode

Cberlet (talk · contribs · logs) and Dking (talk · contribs · logs) are the Misplaced Pages usernames of advocacy journalists Chip Berlet and Dennis King, who have worked as a team for over twenty years, mainly in activism against Lyndon LaRouche and his organization. They also work as a team at Misplaced Pages, and I contend that have used the project to aggressively promote their shared POV in violation of WP:SOAP. I keep Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Politics on my watchlist and I have responded to many requests, but I have not seen anyone else push an agenda with the sort of truculence that I have seen from Cberlet and Dking.

Lyndon LaRouche, as is well known, espouses many controversial and exotic opinions that are well outside the political mainstream. However, Cberlet and Dking are not content to let him be hoisted by his own petard. They have both written many articles and in King's case, a book, which claim that LaRouche's writings are full of coded or veiled messages. Berlet and King provide "decodings" that utilize the methodology of conspiracy theorists, in which they claim to be revealing the hidden, esoteric truth, that LaRouche is a closet Hitlerian fascist himself, despite his perpetual campaigns against a revival of Hitlerian fascism. As an example, Dennis King finds that photos from LaRouche's science magazine, of spiral nebulae and fusion plasma experiments, are "reminiscent of the swastika." To my way of thinking, the relevant Misplaced Pages articles should simply report, in summary form, that Berlet and King hold these views, particularly if they are of a highly speculative or "decoding" nature. However, Cberlet and Dking insist that this view must dominate the articles and be explicated at length. This raises numerous problems with policy, including WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR. Recently an admin, citing BLP, removed comments about LaRouche that Cberlet had posted on his user talk page and two article talk pages. Cberlet, complaining of censorship, engaged in an edit war to restore the comments on his user talk page and was temporarily blocked as a result.

I proposed that when their views have appeared in mainstream publications, those may be used as sources and would not be disputed (this satisfies the requirements of WP:REDFLAG.) Although both Cberlet and Dking have denounced this proposal as censorship, I continue to believe that this proposal is consistent with Misplaced Pages policy and would be the simplest solution to a persistent problem.

Another policy issue which arises in this context is WP:COI. It is my view that both Berlet and King are exploiting Misplaced Pages to raise their public profiles and draw traffic to their respective websites. Action was taken April 15, 2007, and on subsequent days by the team at the COI noticeboard to remove WP:LINKSPAM by Dking (Dking has recently renewed his linkspam campaign.) One of the editors who conducted the LinkSpam cleanup later expressed this view: "Cberlet and Dking are both COI SPAs: single purpose accounts with very obvious conflicts of interest."

There is also the issue of tendentious editing and civility. Cberlet and Dking have been involved in many fierce disputes (not limited to the LaRouche articles.) I have watched these develop at a number of LaRouche articles; when a dispute arises, Cberlet and Dking immediately label their opponents "LaRouche followers" or "LaRouche apologists," which is inappropriate (regardless of whether it is actually true: at WP:NPA it says that one type of comment which is never acceptable is "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.") Cberlet and Dking have recently become more careful not to specify any individual editor, but this does not excuse the practice -- WP:POINT refers to "'Borderlining' (habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct.)" Cberlet and Dking then characterize these reputed LaRouche followers in the most offensive terms, including using the expression "house Jews" to describe Jewish supporters of LaRouche(.)

Finally, I would ask the ArbCom to address the conduct of Will Beback (talk · contribs · logs), who has often supported inappropriate edits by Cberlet and Dking, and wikilawyered on their behalf. He exerted himself to obstruct earlier efforts at dispute resolution such as the deleted RFCs, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Cberlet and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking. I should clarify here that he acted mostly as an editor and not as an admin; Will didn't delete them himself, but instead encouraged User:El C to do so, after first disrupting the process by dominating the discussion with accusations against other editors. When the matter was discussed at the ANI, it was suggested that a request for mediation be pursued, but when that was done, Will Beback declined to participate, saying that it "appears mostly to deal with a behavioral dispute."

I would like to add that in Dking's statement below, there are numerous blatant misrepresentations of the disputes he has been involved in. Since he provides no diffs, I hope that members of the ArbCom will wait until they see some evidence before giving credence to his claims.

Final note: Cberlet has said that he is taking a one month break.

Response to JzG

JzG asserts that "pro-LaRouche editors believe that only editors with their POV should be allowed to edit the articles," and that the "case boils down" to this. I would ask him to simply re-read my statement. My proposed solution to the conflict is straightforward: in the case of opinions by King or Berlet that are highly speculative or otherwise contentious, I simply ask that those opinions be sourced to a mainstream publication. That's it. It's not an onerous burden. Regarding JzG's defense of Will Beback, it is true that Will is far more cautious about violating policy than are Cberlet and Dking, but that doesn't make him neutral. He is in their corner, POV-wise. As Will himself said when he argued for the banning of MaplePorter, "I never claimed to be impartial." --Marvin Diode 14:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional note to arbitrators

While this matter is pending, I consider it highly inappropriate that User:Georgewilliamherbert has taken it upon himself to issue sweeping reinterpretations of previous arbcom decisions (see WP:ANI#Views of Lyndon LaRouche article fully protected.) He claims to be "trivially extending" the previous rulings, but as I read them, it looks more like he's creating new policy out of whole cloth. --Marvin Diode 14:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dking

1. Marvin Diode affects the role of a disinterested party when he says that "Cberlet and Dking are not content to let LaRouche be hoisted by his own petard." Let's be clear: Whenever Berlet or I or any other non-LaRouche editor quotes an anti-Semitic or homophobic statement by LaRouche, Marvin Diode jumps to LaRouche's defense (often by starting an edit war) to PREVENT LaRouche from being hoist by the petard of his own remarks. It is no secret that a long string of LaRouche followers have edited on this article over the years (and some have been expelled as sock puppets), all using the same arguments in the same rhetorical style, all levelling the same obscure accusations at myself and Berlet, all using the same aggressive edit-war tactics, and all advocating the same unique set of beliefs held ONLY by people who are within the narrow orbit of the LaRouche movement. Some but not all of these people (who mostly do NOT reveal their real identities) play the childish game of pretending they are disinterested observers.

Marvin Diode is now saying that Misplaced Pages should simply ignore this elephant in the living room--the existence of a well-coordinated, well-documented campaign going back approximately four years--on grounds that it is abusive to call LaRouche followers what they are: LaRouche followers.

2. Marvin Diode says that the heart of our attack on LaRouche is that he has a secret code language and that everything we accuse him of saying is merely our private interpretation of this code. This is a grotesque distortion. Most of the controversy on this article and the main LaRouche article has been related to open, public expressions of anti-Semitism, homophobia and extreme sexism by LaRouche. The LaRouche supporters' answer to the citing of these open, naked expressions of hate is to say that they are based on our reading of the code language. This is the old courtroom tactic of misrepresenting your opponents' argument and then quickly changing the subject. Yes, I believe LaRouche uses euphemisms and elliptical language on many occasions. But it was not code language when he denied the Holocaust, when he called Judaism a half-religion of people who lack a "Christian conscience," when he blamed Jewish conspirators for killing half of Europe's population in the Black Plague, when he praised skinhead attacks on gays in the mid-1980s, when he called Henry Kissinger a "faggot," when he raved against women as "witch mothers", etc. So let's not try to say his open statements are mere code language; they are not.

3. According to Marvin Diode, "Cberlet and Dking insist that this view must dominate the articles and be explicated at length." In fact if one looks at the "Views of LaRouche" article that is chiefly at issue here, one will find that prior to the current dispute there was a single sentence about "masked anti-Semitism" cited to the Encyclopedia Judaica, and a brief paragraph about how my book emphasizes both open and coded anti-Semitism in LaRouche's discourse and giving examples of each. These brief statements in a lengthy article are dwarfed by the many paragraphs of adulation about LaRouche and also, in the final half of the article, by the numerous examples of open hate language used by LaRouche against Jews, gays and women. The material I have attempted to add over the past week is not just about code language but includes material that a reasonable person would regard as openly targeting and demeaning Jews.

If one goes to the main LaRouche biography on Wiki one will also find that only a very minor emphasis is placed on LaRouche's euphemistic use of language--and the paragraph outlining it was crafted by the LaRouche editors themselves to trivialize my observations on this subject and divert attention away from the examples of LaRouche's open hate language contained in the Wiki article. In other words, Marvin Diode's argument on this point is a straw man.

4. I also dispute Marvin Diode's implication that I don't quote from mainstream publications. My book on LaRouche was published by Doubleday, a mainstream publisher, and received a large number of very favorable reviews from mainstream newspapers and magazines, many of them written by people who are known experts in the study of extremist political groups. The LaRouche tactic on Misplaced Pages has been, when I cite my book (which I am allowed to do under Wiki rules), to respond that it is not reliable or represents a "fringe" view and then to demand proof from the original documents. (This is something unusual on Wiki, which bases itself on published sources rather than on the research behind those sources. Usually an editor who disagrees with a published source will quote an author who has an opposing viewpoint--but in the case of LaRouche, favorable opinions from reputable sources are few and far between.)

If and when I accede to their demands for citations to the original documents or for quotes from those documents, they simply ignore my response and continue deleting the disputed edits. This practice leads me to conclude that their demands for a special level of proof are only being made to waste my time--and to set up a malicious Catch-22 so that if I don't accede to a particular demand for original documentation right then and there when they choose to demand it, it's because I don't have it. (In fact, LaRouche dropped both of his libel suits against me on the eve of depositions in which my attorneys were going to ask him questions about the statements he made in such documents. And LaRouche lost his 1984 federal court libel suit against ADL fact-finding director Irwin Suall and NBC-TV for calling him a "small-time Hitler"--a phrase STRONGER than I have used on this page--with the jury not only finding Suall and NBC innocent but also awarding a huge sum in damages to NBC.)

Most instructive is the recent case where they presented a sanitized original-research description of LaRouche's essay "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites." When I pointed out that LaRouche had in this essay and other contemporaneous essays accused Jewish conspirators and usurers in the Middle Ages of causing the Black Plague in which millions died, I was accused of making it up. When I then provided the quotes from his articles which indeed support the properly sourced interpretation given in my book, the LaRouche editors (who had also called me a "stinking propagandist") merely started deleting the passage over and over. Editor Will Beback intervened to present once again the quotes from "The Secrets" that supported the interpretation in my book, and urged the LaRouche editors to stop deleting my material and resolve matters through channels. They did not listen to him and continued their edit war.

When I stated (with proper sourcing to my book) that LaRouche had gloated over how his enemies in the mythical evil species--the "British" oligarchs who he believes are at war with the human race--supposedly regard him as "more dangerous than Hitler", the LaRouchians said I was misquoting. I then placed on the web a page image of the quote showing clearly that I had described his views accurately--that he did in fact describe himself as the oligarchs' "potential destroyer" and as the "ancient and feared adversary of their own evil species." Although the LaRouche editors dropped their accusation about misquoting, they continued to delete the disputed material.

I am not going to attempt to restore these passages yet again--since clearly such an effort will be futile as long as the LaRouche editors are given license to willfully delete properly sourced material and add paragraph after paragraph of unsourced material applauding LaRouche as a world-class genius. I will await action by others in the Wiki community to stop the LaRouche movement's attempts at censorship.

5. There has never been a determination by Misplaced Pages that I engaged in linkspam. I vehemently denied the charges at the time, and received support from other Wiki editors. The opinion cited by Marvin Diode comes from a single individual who is no longer active in monitoring linkspam. Marvin Diode also says that I "recently renewed" this nonexistent linkspam campaign. In fact what I have done is replace in various articles a no-longer-active address for my website with the new address. This is not linkspam.--Dking 20:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to Thatcher131:

The links that Thatcher131 provides below to show that I engaged in an edit war over links to my website show no such thing. Any reasonable person who clicks on the three links provided by Thatcher131 will see that they are not even remotely evidence of edit warring. The edit war at the United States v. LaRouche article was over an incredibly offensive paragraph in which the LaRouche editors quoted a Nazi war hero who joined LaRouche in his dotage (the individual is now dead) as stating that LaRouche is a new Alfred Dreyfus (Dreyfus was a famous victim of judicial anti-Semitism in the 1890s). That the LaRouchians should have reinserted this paragraph over 20 times is not exactly an example of reasonableness on their part. That Misplaced Pages should have allowed this offensive statement to remain for many months is in my opinion shameful.--Dking 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Editorial bullying": Further response to Marvin Diode:

Marvin Diode has inserted the following (above) in response to JzG (below):

JzG asserts that "pro-LaRouche editors believe that only editors with their POV should be allowed to edit the articles," and that the "case boils down" to this. I would ask him to simply re-read my statement. My proposed solution to the conflict is straightforward: in the case of opinions by King or Berlet that are highly speculative or otherwise contentious, I simply ask that those opinions be sourced to a mainstream publication.

Marvin Diode's behavior on Misplaced Pages, and that of his allies, bely this statement:

1. To Marvin Diode and his allies, everything critical of LaRouche is speculative or highly contentious. They systematically attempt to remove or water down to the point of innocuousness anything that doesn't present LaRouche in a favorable light. For instance, they attempted to remove from Misplaced Pages any link to the Ken Kronberg memorial website that is sponsored by relatives of Kronberg, who many people believe was driven to suicide by the LaRouche organization, and also attempted to have the Ken Kronberg article itself removed from Misplaced Pages.

2. One of their tactics is to develop their own definitions of what is "mainstream" and what is not--and then impose such definitions as if they were in fact a Misplaced Pages policy. My book on LaRouche has been targeted in this manner. This book was published by Doubleday, and was favorably reviewed by experts in political extremism, thus making it a fully legitimate source for a Misplaced Pages article. Where have Marvin Diode or his co-editors ever displayed--in print in a legitimate "mainstream" publication--the slightest expertise on LaRouche's ideas? And where have they ever cited a "mainstream" publication for their interpretation of LaRouche as a world-class genius without a bigoted bone in his body?

3. Marvin Diode & Co. have inserted vast quantities of totally unsourced analysis of LaRouche's ideas into the various LaRouche-related articles. Essentially they have imposed a double standard on articles they target. LaRouche's critics are supposed to obey the rules but Wiki admins are supposed to sit by and allow LaRouche's supporters to operate outside the rules according to their own self-defined standards.

4. Marvin Diode & Co. continuously invent new requirements and standards for LaRouche's critics (requirements and standards that are not based in Misplaced Pages's own policies) and then attempt to delete any material that does not fit with the rules of this imaginary, Planet-Bizarro version of Misplaced Pages. For instance, in the Bizarro Misplaced Pages it is not enough that LaRouche critics cite a proper source; they must also provide copies to the LaRouchians, on penalty of being labeled a fraud, of the original documentation on which the sourced article or book is based--but if such documentation is provided, the LaRouche editors simply use it as the basis for original-research lawyering. Once they have come up with an argument, no matter how absurd and unsourced, to "refute" (in their own minds) the material they disagree with, they then proceed to delete such material and then re-delete it agressively for as long as it takes.

The above four practices constitute editorial bullying. I don't want to go through this again and again with the same LaRouche editors who, after they are banned, simply come back under a new user name to start the abusive cycle over again.--Dking 03:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

Despite his protests, Marvin Diode is obviously a follower of Lyndon LaRouche. There's nothing wrong with that, but his comments and actions need to be seen in the context of the history of LaRouche editors at Misplaced Pages.

Chip Berlet and Dennis King are acknowledged as the leading experts on Lyndon LaRouche. King wrote the only full-length biography of LaRouche, which was issued by a major publisher, Doubleday. They are routinely quoted in news stories about LaRouche going back more than 20 years. Since then the LaRouche movement has returned the favor, writing about the two journalists as being involved in a 1980s conspiracy funded by the (liberal) Ford Foundation and (conservative) Richard Mellon Scaife to "get LaRouche". However there does not appear to be any ongoing financial benefit to Berlet and King in their coverage of LaRouche. King's book is out of print, and he's recently uploaded it to a non-commercial website. Berlet works at a private research firm and is apparently mostly engaged in other topics. So I don't see how there is a COI on their parts.

OTOH, a succesion of accounts apparently belonging to LaRouche followers have had a very real conflict of interest in supporting their cause. The most famous and enduring of them is Herschelkrustofsky, who was a chief subject of three ArbCom cases and who has been found to use a string of sock puppets. The most recent HK sock account that's been identified, with whom Marvin Diode worked closely, was MaplePorter. Other accounts, most of which were probably HK socks, include:

• Weed Harper
• C Colden
• Cognition
• BirdsOfFire
• NathanDW
• ISTJester
• Sci.notes
• Ibykus prometheus
• AnonIPuser
• ManEatingDonut
• Tsunami Butler
• HonourableSchoolboy
• Don't lose that number
• Plus other past and current accounts

I believe that Cberlet's recent decision to take a "Wikibreak" was based on his frustration with facing this succesion of accounts promoting the LaRouche agenda through edit warring.

Marvin Diode says that Dking and Cberlet "utilize the methodology of conspiracy theorists" to reveal a "hidden, esoteric truth" about LaRouche. Considering that LaRouche himself is widely viewed as using conspiracy theories that depict esoteric truths about history, politics, and science, this charge is particularly odd. Since I've been editing Misplaced Pages and have researched both LaRouche and the media coverage of him, I'd say that the King and Berlet views of LaRouche are solidly within the majoritarian views of the subject, and that they have not engaged in improper original research.

Cberlet recently described LaRouche as a "notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe". It is certainly true that LaRouche is frequently described as "antisemitic". A judge in a libel case decided that calling LaRouche "anti-semitic" is a "fair comment". His 1980s AIDS campaigns in California were characterized as requiring the long-term quarantine of tens of thousands of HIV-infected individuals, a large percentage of them homosexual. Cberlet's error wasn't in using those terms for LaRouche, which are fully sourceable. It was in not maintaining proper neutrality by saying that LaRouche has been called an "antisemite" instead of saying he is an antisemite. That's a subtle distinction and should not result in major penalties.

The RfCs were decertified by another admin because there were no serious attempts by the involved parties to settle their differences prior to the RfCs. Prior to decertification I wrote outside views that pointed to problematic behavior by Marvin Diode and others. This is acceptable because RfCs (and RfArs) cover all parties and not just the initial targets. The mediation request initated by Marvin Diode did not seek to resolve content issues. Instead it asked whether Dking and Cberlet had violated policies. I declined to participate because that isn't the role of mediation. Instead I started an RfC that resolved the content problem. In a submission for the recent THF case, Marvin Diode claimed that Cberlet has engaged in the "unwarranted promotion of fringe theories" and wanted the ArbCom to "examine" his behavior. I have lost track of how many times LaRouche-related editors have sought penalties against Cberlet, but I think it's enough already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

I would like to open my statement with a quote from User:WAS 4.250 :

I believe Marvin Diode accurately describes Berlet and King as advocacy journalists. Take for example Berlet's statement, "King and I took a train down to DC to celebrate the incarceration of convicted felon and neofascist homophopbic antisemite Lyndon LaRouche. We did not attend the trial, but we wanted to applaud and cheer as he was led off to jail." While they are experts in LaRouche, they are not unbiased journalists. Misplaced Pages's reliance on them to maintain the Lyndon LaRouche articles would be problematic even if they were perfectly behaved Wikipedians, which they are not. As noted in the RFC, Berlet edit-warred at Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on 3 July 2007 over the insertion of source material that he wrote for Encyclopedia Judaica . Recently, Berlet introduced an inflammatory and derogatory statement about LaRouche on his user page and two talk pages ; I redacted the comments , and then briefly blocked CBerlet when he edit-warred to reinstate them. However, in researching this situation I found the same comments made in article space . Also note that Berlet's recent Wikibreak statement calls unnamed Misplaced Pages editors "aggressive bullies and stalkers", "racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, and Islamophobic bigots," and compares Misplaced Pages's failure to deal with LaRouche supporters in the manner Berlet would like to the complicity of the German people in Kristallnacht.

Berlet's behavior on non-LaRouche topics has been poor at times as well. He tangled with User:Intangible over labeling some political parties as "Far Right"; in the insuing Arbitration Enforcement discussion, Berlet's position amounts to, "I know it's a Far-Right party because I wrote a book about it." I attempted to suggest at Talk:Progress Party (Norway) that one problem with the article was that it criticized the party for being "Populist" and further criticized its economic populism, without actually reporting the views of any economists on why economic populism was bad or offering any alternative views. Berlet decided I was wholly inadequate, biased, and uninformed. As far as I could tell, he was content to use "Far Right" as a perjorative label for the party without providing any context or balance.

Dking has edit warred over the insertion of web sites he controls as sources and external links . He also edit-warred at United States v. LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the removal of a quote favorable to LaRouche , including considerable disparagement of the source.

To be fair, many of the editors with whom King and Berlet have edit-warred have subsequently been blocked as suspected sockpuppets of Herschel Krustofsky, or for pro-LaRouche disruption in general, and checkuser Dmcdevit found that an IP editor who taunted CBerlet after I blocked him is a user with a previous ban for making anti-Semitic remarks.

In closing, it appears that in the neverending battle with pro-LaRouche editors, Berlet and King have been annointed the lesser of the evils, and have been given latitude to say and do things that would have resulted in Arbitration long ago for less well-known editors of less contentious topics. It may in fact be better for the encyclopedia that Berlet and King be treated this way—who else cares enough about LaRouche to maintain his articles in the face of strong pro-LaRouche advocacy editing? And it should probably be considered that any probation or revert parole that might result from this case (should it be accepted) will be a troll-magnet and will drop Arbitration enforcement to an even lower Circle of Hell. There does not seem to be an obvious easy answer. Thatcher131 02:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to arbitrators: With due respect to the views of Charles and Matthew, your motion codifies that which has already been the practice for some time (banning of pro-LaRouche editors) and addresses the most minor of the issues raised here. It would be one thing to state that the civility and self-sourcing issues are not serious enough to require arbitration (either in general or after taking note of the larger context), but to state that all issues have been previously addressed misses the point of the complaint. Thatcher131 15:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Further comment

Kirill's revised motion satisfies my concerns here. I think stronger sanctions of Cberlet and Dking are unwarranted at this time. Thatcher131 14:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Rob Smith

Statement removed.

Nobs01, thank you but as you know, banned users are not allowed to contribute. Try emailing Fred or the ArbCom list. Thanks for understanding. Thatcher131 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Krimpet

Looking at this as an outsider, it does concern me that our usual conflict of interest guidelines have largely been overlooked here. Berlet and King seem to have been given an unusual amount of leeway in editing articles they have a clear professional stake in, and in a tendentious and aggressive way to boot, as Thatcher131 and Marvin Diode have demonstrated above.

If, say, Michael Moore started openly editing articles on the Republican Party and healthcare, liberally citing his own works, edit warring, and labeling editors with opposing views dismissively, how would the community react to this? --krimpet⟲ 16:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved TDC

While I do have a degree of respect for Berlet’s willingness to directly confront some of the more aggressive elements on Misplaced Pages, his problem seem to be that he views anyone here who does not agree with him. with contempt and animosity. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jossi

I came across Cberlet when I came to assist with the content dispute at Dominionism a couple of months ago, and across Dking while editing Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture. My observation is that both are strongly opinionated (and who is not on one subject or another), and both often state their opinions as facts (a thing that we all do from time to time). They are also quite forceful in their expressions and comments in talk, many times dismissing others' opinions on their affiliations rather than on the strength of the arguments presented. Having said that, I would argue that if they just could be a tad more friendly and open to others' opinions, and being a bit less forceful and with less animosity in their expressions, their contributions would be better received. They should also be advised to be more conscious that they are walking a fine line when editing on subjects about which they have published, but do not think that an ArbCom case is needed to do so. A user RfC would be a better forum. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Gelsomina

I have been minor participant in the disputes during October at Views of Lyndon LaRouche (I have made 6 article edits, as opposed to 31 by Dking.) I have followed the controversy, and I would like to say that I am appalled by the way Dking plays fast and loose with the truth in his statement above.

• For example, on the talk page, User:Masai warrior said:

And when I think of Kristalnacht, I always think about how people who are being set up for attack are first demonized, as the Jews were, by stinking propaganda, utilizing lies, half-truths, insinuations and innuendo, and I renew my resolution to combat such stinking propaganda whenever it rears its head at Misplaced Pages.

In Dking's statement above, he glibly transforms this to "LaRouche editors...called me a 'stinking propagandist.'"

• There was a debate on the article talk page about a passage in "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites" which describes a series of intrigues around the succession to the Papacy, which led, according to LaRouche, to a change in policy toward a support for monetarism and usury. LaRouche further claims that the continuation of this policy over the next 300 years set up the conditions for the collapse of Europe's economy, and that the resulting drop in sanitation, hygiene and nutrition ushered in the the spread of the bubonic plague. In King's commentary, he zeroes in on the fact that one of the families involved in the 11th Century struggle for control of the Papacy, the Perleoni, had converted from Judaism, and that one member of this family became Pope Gregory VI. From this rather thin connection, King makes the announcement (twice!) in his statement above that LaRouche "blamed Jewish conspirators for killing half of Europe's population in the Black Plague" and that he "accused Jewish conspirators and usurers in the Middle Ages of causing the Black Plague in which millions died." He goes on to claim that he "then provided the quotes from his articles which indeed support the properly sourced interpretation given in my book." Poppycock! This is typical of the very disruptive editing tactics that Dking routinely uses at Misplaced Pages. It is my understanding that WP:BLP was crafted to prevent editing of this sort, which damages the credibility of Misplaced Pages.

I hope these two examples will illustrate the nature of the problem. I won't try the arbcom's patience by systematically going through the rest of the distortions in Dking's statement. However, this gentle rebuke from the New York Times (from a review of King's book) illustrates that other commentators have noted, as I have, that Dennis King's conspiracy theories are not entirely plausible:

But in trying to see Mr. LaRouche as a would-be Fuhrer, Mr. King may be trying to tie together the whole unruly package with too neat a ribbon. A number of loose ends hang out, not least of which is the fact that many members of Mr. LaRouche's inner circle are Jewish.

I think perhaps Jossi has a point, and maybe the deleted RFCs could be re-opened and allowed to proceed without further obstruction. --Gelsomina 15:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note. Gelsomina (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of banned user Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs), based on checkuser evidence and editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

May I know who made the decision, and upon what evidence? --Marvin Diode 14:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder made the determination, based on checkuser evidence and editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I have no dog in this fight, but I have spent some time reading up on the history of the dispute having seen it mentioned on Misplaced Pages Review, where it seems to me that some at least of this campaign is being coordinated.

Chip Berlet particularly and also Dennis King are independently recognised as experts on the LaRouche movement. Their investigations have led them to a particular view of LaRouche, but I do not see that this view pre-dates those investigations.

Regardless, the number of previous arbitration cases involving the relentless POV-pushing of pro-LaRouche editors, which has existed for as long as we've had an article, indicates how determined they are to have their way.

This case boils down to: the pro-LaRouche editors believe that only editors with their POV should be allowed the articles. There's no suggestion that we ban acknowledged followers or supporters, only the few prominent individuals, considered experts by independent sources, who happen to have a more sceptical view.

Will says it all above. Will has been tireless in monitoring this issue. Will is regarded with great respect by those who are not fighting one or the other corner of this fight, and I do indeed urge ArbCom to look into his actions, to support them, and to congratulate him on a difficult job, done well and against very considerable opposition. The best way ArbCom can do this is to dismiss this querulous complaint and leave Will to call the cavalry when he thinks it's needed, rather than letting the pro-LaRouche crowd try to chase off anybody who is not an uncritical supporter. The accusations against Will are without any discernible merit. The deleted RfCs were deleted because only the original complainants - one of whom is a sockpuppet of a banned user - certified them. There is no evidence that anybody independent of their argument considered the case to have any merit. RfC is not a license to prolong an argument, it is a method of dispute resolution; the deleted RfCs were deleted by an uninvolved admin because they showed no evidence of any credible likelihood of resolving the dispute. The dispute was, in any case, simply a matter of colliding viewpoints, and the two originators of the RfC showed absolutely no signs of any willingness to compromise, it's not clear why they should be allowed to insist that others compromise when they will not. The section on Will's behaviour underlines the fact that this is not an attempt to resolve a dispute in good faith, it's a blatant attempt to run off those who do not adhere to the pro-LaRouche POV. And let us not forget that LaRouche is very much a minority POV, his views are definitely on the margins.

I would remind the LaRouche followers that neutrality is not the average between your uncritical admiration and the balance of opinion of whatever other editors remain after you have tried to chase them away. Neutrality is what is established by independent authorities. Will knows that and is working to ensure it. Berlet and King are authorities, even though you don't like what they think. If the real world thinks that LaRouche is less than wonderful, which is the case as far as I can tell, Misplaced Pages is not the place to fix that.

This request is also part of an ongoing campaign of intimidation and harassment against Berlet and King by the LaRouche movement, and I believe that yet another arbitration case on this will do nothing but facilitate that campaign. We already have rulings and policies we can use to control the real problem, there is no need for ArbCom to get involved here. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ElC

JzG said much of what I wanted to say, and more eloquently. LaRouche advocacy has been unremitting (the sheer breadth of {{LaRouche Talk}} is a testament to that). As for the latest, I argue that even a cursory glance at the duplicated RfCs I deleted, reveals that these were used, not as a dispute resolution mechanism, but as indictment-like devices to further said advocacy. I still feel that, perhaps, a closed 3rd procedure, to sharpen the remedies of the prior two, might be helpful. But I also take the point that it may well prove to be a waste of time and that what we have, presently, is sufficient. If only this was true on the application level, however, a realm where Berlet and King have proven invaluable to the project, and its reputation. What I emphasize as being key is for us not to regress backwards from resolutions already painstakingly reached. El_C 15:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Recuse, as I looked into the MaplePorter (talk · contribs) issue and blocked the account. Picaroon (t) 01:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you need to be recused over that. I doubt we can find any admin, be it a clerk or an arbitrator, who didn't block one disruptive pro-LaRouche single-purpose account. El_C 11:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll remove this once my statement is up. A brief suggestion: I strongly urge that this case be renamed Lyndon LaRouche 3 (per 1 and 2). El_C 11:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I regard this as another example of your playing defense on the Berlet/King team, similar to the deletion of the RFCs. The misconduct of Berlet and King is not limited to LaRouche articles. --Marvin Diode 13:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Recusal of a clerk is not a big deal. There are at least four of us active at the moment, and only one is needed in any particular case. Newyorkbrad 11:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about a big or small deal, it's about the shortage of finding someone who hasn't dealt with pro-LaRouche advocacy. El_C 13:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

i.e. me? - Penwhale | 09:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a new admin (congrats, btw); that solves the clerk-end of that. El_C 15:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/4/0/1)

• Accept to consider the behavior of all editors involved. Kirill 01:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. I see no need to re-examine things here; the people and issues involved here have been up before the committee before and I see little change. That the LaRouche supporters are back under different names changes little. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. I don't think the AC can duck the responsibility to clarify as much as possible the terms under which this whole area is edited on Misplaced Pages. Charles Matthews 13:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Struck pending clarifying motion, lower on this page. Charles Matthews 08:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Decline. This has already been decided by ArbCom, and I see no reason to revisit it. --jpgordon 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Prefer to use a motion to clarify the Committee's past decision. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. James F. (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Clarification of RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan2 remedy

At the text states that remedy 2 will apply to articles which relate to Armenian and Azerbaijan and related conflicts, i.e. conflicts which relate to Armenian and Azerbaijan.

However, the template that Seraphimblade has placed on my ] talk page has text which, in its scope, far exceeds what was decided in that remedy 2. Under the wording of the Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy, articles conected to Turkey would only fall under that particular RfA remedy if the article was in some way related to either Armenia or Azerbaijan. However, Seraphimblade has used the RfA remedy to apply to an edit I made in a talk page of the entry on , a subject which is completely unrelated to either Armenia or Azerbaijan. Moreover, this remedy was not applied by Seraphimblade as a result of an edit made to an article but as a result of a comment on the article's talk page. Where did the template text applied by Seraphimblade come from? What discussion and voting preceeded its composition? Why is it connected to Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA given that it far wider in scope than the actual remedy 2 decided on in Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA? I've asked Seraphimblade these questions a number of times but he has declined to give me an answer. Meowy 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I created the template in question to aid admins in enforcing the remedies in that case. The first remedy states "Hajji Piruz and the other users placed on revert limitation in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies are subject to supervised editing. They may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise." (emphasis added). The second remedy applies to editors "which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". (emphasis added) It doesn't make much sense for "related ethnic conflicts" to have two different meanings in the two remedies. Thatcher131 22:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What (on record) discussions did you have before drafting that template? You have seriously altered the meaning and scope of the "any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts" part of remedy 2. You cannot use emphasis to change that meaning to support your re-writing of the remedy. It is quite clear from the wording of the remedy that the ethnic conflicts have to be in some way related to either (or both) Armenia and Azerbaijan. For example, an article about Azeri ethnicity is not directly connected to the country or territory of Azerbaijan, but it is related to Azerbaijan, so would fall under the remit of remedy 2, massacres of Armenians in the territory of the Ottoman empire are not directly connected to the country of Armenia, but is a related ethnic conflict, so would fall under the remit of remedy 2. An article which deals solely with Turkey does not fall under the remit of remedy 2.

You played no part in the discussions that took place at ], you were not one of the six who voted on the text for remedy 2, yet you have substantially altered (aparently arbitrarily) the text that those six agreed on, extending its scope beyond what was actually decided upon. If remedy 2 was intended to be the same as remedy 1 (as you seem to want to suggest), then why were two remedies proposed, and voted for separately, and given completely different remedies? Meowy 16:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As an Arbitration Clerk (at the time) I had reasonably broad discretion to interpret decisions. Of course, I am certainly willing to be corrected by the Arbitrators, if their view differs from mine. Thatcher131 16:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note, the template is {{Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement}}. I wrote it to help admins to enforce the remedies in that case by making it easy to apply a comprehensive notice that would avoid disputes about whether an editor was properly noticed to all elements of the remedy. Also note Meowy's comments such as which prompted the application of the probation. Thatcher131 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have already contacted all six arbritrators, via their talk pages. Your insinuation that I am in some way trying to hide the existence of the comment I made here: is completely unjustified. The whole point of initiating this request for clarification arose from an administrator notifying me that I would be subject to the RfA remedy because of that comment. I have been completely open about its existence, as you can see if you look at my talk-page discussion . Regardless of whether you agree or do not agree with my comment on the Occupation of Istanbul talk page, it does not fall within the remit of remedy 2 because it is in the talk page of an article that is outside remedy 2's remit! This RfC concerns your apparent altering of the RfA remedy2 decision. Meowy 17:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We really screwed that one up, didn't we? Aside from the differently worded scopes, it appears that the original decision didn't have any probation remedies—the probation was part of the new decision—so that part of the new wording doesn't make any sense either.

Our intent, however, was to impose a remedy on the old participants, and to allow admins to impose the same remedy on any new parties that became involved. As such, the second remedy should be considered to apply to the same range of articles as the first one does. Kirill 04:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, you may claim "our intent", but the most you can say with certainty is "my intent". As proof, during the RfA, one of the arbitrators Jdforrester had said when voting that he was already "unhappy with the broadness of the overall case". You can't now claim you all wanted to make it even broader! The simple fact is that the remedy you, and your fellow arbitrators decided on and then voted for only said "articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". You can't now change that remedy on the grounds that you actually wanted to vote for something different.

Are you seriously saying that that RfA remedy should be applied to, let's say, an entry about the Ottoman-Venetian naval battle at Lepanto, or an entry about the population of Germany if it mentions ethnic Turkish immigrants communities in Berlin, or even to some overly-heated talk page discussion about the football-playing abilities of Galatasaray over Fenerbace! How can you possibly justify such a thing when no such broadness in scope was suggested or implied during the RfA discussion. Meowy 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I must also note that Meowy’s block log shows that he has 2 blocks for 3RR violations and another 2 for harassment of other editors, the last one dated 22 September 2007, i.e. after the end of the last arbcom case. I don’t think that the technical issues should be used as a pretext to avoid the application of arbcom remedies, while it is clear that the scope of arbitration was never limited to Armenia – Azerbaijan related articles and the title is misleading. Both arbcom cases covered the articles concerning wider region than those 2 countries. Grandmaster 06:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your position is understandable: someone who has already been hung several times under Armenia-Azerbaijan RfA1 and RfA2 has no incentive to oppose hanging, and someone who has no interest in accuracy has no inclination to oppose inacuracy. Meowy 19:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from Zeq

Hopefully this is the right place for such question. If not I appologize. As you may recall I am banned from article Palestinian Exodus by previous rulling from few years back and I have followed that ban. There is a new article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus which I began to participate - mostly on talk (made 2 rather small edits to the article - this is the biggest one: ).

I have only now noticed that that article is actually a fork and refernced in Palestinian Exodus. If my ban apply to the new article as well I will of course stay away from it. please clarify.

I will stay away from the article from now until such clarification is provided. Thank You. Zeq 15:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq made 5 edits to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus after his suggestions on the Talk page were ignored. This is a clear violation of the intent of the ArbCom probation and further evidence that Zeq has little interest in adhering to Misplaced Pages policies or editing in good faith. I would recommend that Zeq's article ban be extended to all articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as he has been causing disruption to these articles for two years now. For the record, I blocked Zeq for 24 hours due to this incident. Also, for the record, I have no involvement in any of the articles in question. Kaldari 16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed some edit-warring at Arab citizens of Israel between Zeq and other users. Zeq has been responsive to my intervention (I reported the incident as 3RR, though it did not meet the technical requirements and Zeq himself did not violate 3RR). He communicated with me in a civil manner on my talk page about the reverts and his probation. He is also responding at the article Talk in what I would ordinarily interpret as a good faith discussion. Similarly, Zeq initially started editing (BRD) at Allegations of Israeli apartheid in a manner unsuited to such a volatile page. Since then, he seems to be engaged usefully in the Talk page discussion. Granted, I sense that he tends to promote a POV rather than work entirely thru a neutral viewpoint, but I must say that seems to be quite common for Israel-related topics. Though I don't know the history or severity of the case, I wonder if a topic ban would be hasty. In any case, perhaps you should look at his apparent responsiveness (with me) before deciding. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because POV-pushing is common on Israel-related topics does not mean it is to be tolerated or ignored. Yes, Zeq has learned how to edit within policy (most of the time, and only after severe and sustained efforts to rein him in). However, the extent to which he edits within policy is only just as much as is required to avoid sanctions. He is clearly here for one purpose only - to push his specific point of view. He has been doing this without rest for 2 years. If Zeq was content to channel his POV-pushing into adamant debate and discussion, I would say he's a great asset to Misplaced Pages. The fact that he edits tendentiously and disruptively, however, and has eaten up at least as much administrator time and effort as any of our worst trolls or vandals, convinces me that Misplaced Pages would be better off without him. Misplaced Pages is NOT a battleground. However, as long as Zeq and similar users are given free reign, it sure as hell looks like one. Kaldari 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Since User:Kaldari was kind enough to unblock me I just wanted to say that the facts - as he presented them above, as well as his descriptions of me as "POV pusher" are not true. As for the facts (number of edit, when did they occur) a simple review of the history files will show that the way he describe the issue is not what took place. I will save you the detail unless someone really care. I am not this monster some people try to paint me as. I am working on some of the most difficult articles in wikipedia, I am doing it under conditions of probation for two years and most of the time I only get into problems becausee people think that my probation give them the justification to ignore me (or revert me) and some admins who make the mistake and block me based on some misunderstanding. many of my blocks over the last two years have ended up in being unblocked once the facts cleared. maybe it is time to remove this probation all together or make sure there is policy which allow users under probation - who wish to edit within policy - to edit without the stigma of "probation". Zeq 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, sometimes even I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but when one stumbles across pages like User:Zeq/apartheid propeganda, it makes it a little difficult to see anything but "POV pushing" here. I realize it is an old userspace page, but it kinda makes it clear that you've got a particular axe to grind. Tarc 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarc, it is a priavte page created a year ago during the big "israeli apartheid" discussion. that is all. means nothing and never completed. don't make any concusions from half baked ideas. But it prooves my point: People go out of their way to find fault in what I do. I have forgot about this page and I don't know how you found it. Zeq 04:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Almost uninvolved editor - I don't expect to agree with anyone all the time, and I expect to disagree with some editors a lot. But I don't expect to have to question their judgement. Edits such as this, inserting this little essay on Arab citizens of Israel from User:Zeq are very worrying, and he's reinserted it once and then again only last week. The whole thing appears to be aimed at inciting hatred and fear - worse still, some of the references (eg this, the last one) are totally worthless and could never have said what is claimed of them. This topic, more than most, deserves integrity from the editors participating. PR 15:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Almost uninvolved editor part II - I find more disturbing insertions even in this same article. This edit here suggests that the "PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION has stated" certain things eg "There was no doubt that it had largely contributed to increasing the hostile feelings of the Arabs for the Jews.". But examining the actual report (not referenced, I've had to find it), it turns out this is not what the report has stated, it's what one witness, a "M. Van Rees" has put in his evidence. I've not removed this particular claim and sizable clip from the article so far, I've only provided one historians synopsis of the whole business, but it's quite worrying to discover that this kind of distortion is being inserted into articles. PR 21:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • A reply from Zeq to the so-called "Almost uninvolved editor: You are always welcome to disagree politly with my edit but stop doubting my intentions. Always WP:AGF. I am tired of people accusing me in things I did not do. The facts are clear: The refernced document include a section from which I quoted excatly what is in the article. The source quotes page 31 of the Shaw report. That is what I said no more no less. PS an editor with the name "Palestine Rememebered" (which is also happnd to be a an advocay/propeganda web site can not claim that he is uninvolved in this issue. I wonder alos if your user name comply with Misplaced Pages policy. Zeq 10:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that the original remedy allows any admin to extend the ban to any other article, the question is somewhat moot. Any administrator (e.g. Kaldari) is empowered to ban you from the forked article regardless of whether or not it is considered to be equivalent to the original one. Kirill 04:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

makes perfect sense and simple. Thank You. I will stay away from that article although no formal ban has been issued by any admin as of now. Zeq 10:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's common sense. Fred Bauder 11:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding the MONGO case

I have noticed several editors have commented that the Attack Sites arbcom case which just closed, essentially supercedes the MONGO case. One editor has gone as far as to state that the Attack Sites case findings and remedies now permit linking to the encyclopedia dramatica website. Miltopia, has stated "please update your jargon/update catch-phrases from the asinine MONGO decision in your brains accordingly.". Neil has stated that "your old ArbCom ruling, which has since been outmoded.". Dtobias has even gone so far as to state that the MONGO case is obsolete and outdated and that ED is not "totally off-limits under all circumstances."...so the questions are...is the MONGO case superceded by the Attack Sites case, or do they compliment each other...or are they completely seperate?--MONGO 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Over the last 4 days, MONGO has made 11 reverts to restore the BADSITES language and his arbitration case into WP:NPA. 4*3=12, so this is only 1 revert under a 3RR violation. This behavior has been going on for 4 days. MONGO is seeking clarification from ArbCom in order to sanction his edit warring. SchmuckyTheCat

Sorry you think that is the case, as it is not...didn't you just get through telling me to AGF...now I expect you do the same for me...who knows, maybe the MONGO case is null and void. That is why I asked arbcom for clarification.--MONGO 07:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I echo the need for clarification, in no small part due to an administrator's stated intent to continue enforcing a rejected policy proposal . Milto LOL pia 07:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In light of MONGO's stated adherence to the MONGO case: , both in direct contradiction of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Guilt_by_association (though note that neither Schmucky nor I are active "there"). Please keep this in mind when considering the good faith of MONGO's request here. Milto LOL pia 07:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked for clarification here...if indeed, the MONGO case is now superceded by the Attack Sites case...I am sorry if I used some of your comments, but that was needed in order to demonstrate that, as I stated, many seem to believe that the MONGO case is essentially null and void.--MONGO 07:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem using my comments, I have a problem with you reverting me, your ENTIRE reason being that I'm an ED contributor, which isn't even true anymore for crying out loud! And then that's all you have to say on the talk as well. Milto LOL pia 07:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just asked you a simple question, and yes, I do believe that if an editor is an active partcipant in contributing to ED, and they are trying to remove language from the NPA policy which prohibits linking to that capricious website, then that is an issue with me, and should be for every editor that cares about protecting others from insidious harassment.--MONGO 07:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made it clear to you several times, MONGO, that I have no desire to see that website linked anywhere. I'd revert war to remove sch a link to it if it weren't blacklisted. Further discussion about this is not helpful; perhaps can the committee plz clarify the MONGO ruling I linked to above? "Guilty by association"? Are contributors to a BADSITE free to be hounded and hassled as MONGO has done? If so, does this apply to only active contributors or anyone who has ever participated at such websites? Milto LOL pia 07:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The bigger issue is the probable COI...contributors to websites that harass our editors and want to deemphasize or even be able to link to these websites by making edits to a major policy page is a serious matter. Most importantly, I seek clarification that ED is indeed a "malicious site".--MONGO 07:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Red herring; no one is questioning that. I doubt it will happen but I'd like to request that arbcom make a motion to somehow restrict or sanction those who disrupt discussions by repeatedly, repeatedly, nauseatingly so, make bad faith references to former offsite activities by Wikipedians when it has been made abundantly clear that those activities have ceased. The lack of integrity shown by MONGO in his self-inflicted dealings with Schmucky, myself and I'm sure several others is personally appaling and has been a roadblock to productive discussion ever since the MONGO ruling. MONGO has turned every forum he can reach into a battleground against phantom harassment, dragging several good-standing Wikipedians into the dirt in the process, with the same sort of behavior discussed in the Seabchan (spelling?) case that led to his desysopping for failure to relate to other admins and the community in general on these issues. Victim of past harassment or not, this is disruptive and it needs to stop. Milto LOL pia 08:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at that capricious website, and you have made recent edits there...so cease telling everyone you are no longer active there when you still are. I can't control whether you do contribute there and certainly don't have any right to, but don't expect me to see your removal of links to the NPA policy which makes it clear we don't link to that website as not being a COI.--MONGO 08:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(restore indent) As a participant observer, my take on the matter is that use of overly broad "attack sites" language in the MONGO decision lead to (or set conditions allowing for) the past year's many conflicts over the "BADSITES" proposal and "ATTACK SITES" language in NPA. As the recently closed Arb case was initiated on the very concept of "ATTACK SITES," as it was applied (or misapplied) to a diverse host of issues, it therefore has to supercede the prior MONGO decision so far as that concept, which the ArbCom invented, can be considered useful as support for any current points in policy and related discussions. Regards to all, —AL 14:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• More idiocy on all sides and the page is protected again, I see. As an observer of the Arbitration process I note first that the committee had plenty of chances to specifically repudiate their earlier ruling and did not do so. However, the following principles in the Attack Sites case also passed:
  • Linking to external sites which contain information harmful to another person so as to harass them is unacceptable.
  • Misplaced Pages should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. (Appears to restate the MONGO decision, by the way.)
  • The selection of appropriate external links for an article is a matter of sound editorial judgment.
  • WP:NPA is about conduct, not about content. Concepts that apply to user behavior have nothing to do with article content, regardless of the article subject matter. Article content should be determined in a disinterested editorial manner; applying community policies or guidelines not intended for article content, or allowing one's own opinions of, or experiences with, the subject of an article, to be a consideration, is inappropriate.

So, I don't really understand the dispute. WP:NPA does not apply to article space. In project space and talk pages, don't post links to sites for the intent or purpose of harassing, intimidating or embarassing other editors. Don't link to sites that are primarily or substantially devoted to harassment. Links in articles should be based on editorial content policies. I suggest that these points cover nearly every possible situation (provided editors are not arguing to make a point, or from a position of bad faith--desire to let more trolling on board, for example), and I'm perfectly happy to enforce these principles any time a problem is pointed out to me, regardless of edit warring over the written policy. Thatcher131 15:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What part of "remanded to the community" is unclear? The Committee has no desire to impose a policy regarding which links are permitted or not permitted; the community needs to come together and develop one on its own. Editors arguing over what sites may or may not be banned under some interpretation of the case decision are missing the point in a very big way. Kirill 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hum...so is the MONGO case null and void, or isn't it? Please look over the findings and remedies of that case if you get the time.--MONGO 06:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand and concur with that. The primary issue to be clarified is whether the wording in the recent "Attack sites" case supercedes or renders null or obsolete the wording in the prior "MONGO" case, mainly as concerning the notion of "Attack sites," not whether certain links are still permissible or not. I know the Committee does not write policy, but its decisions are used to support policy points, so the clarification is needed. I respectfully second the request for clarification from members of the Committee.—AL 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 says it well, I think. The specifics of ruling in the MONGO case applies to the MONGO case. The specifics of ruling in the Attack sites case applies to the Attack site case. I don't know how much clearer we can say it. As a general rule, per existing policy, if a site is being used for harassment, to bully, or embarass then the links should be removed as we have said in Principles of our the rulings. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That answers the question adequately for me, thank you. So my understanding of the matter is, the remedies and principles passed in the MONGO case were meant to specifically apply to ED, and still do. The BADSITES proposal, in all its incarnations including at NPA, attempted to use the "attack sites" abstraction to apply the specific remedies passed in the MONGO case against ED to off-site links to various critical sites across en.wiki. This obviously became disruptive, leading to the case specifically on the "Attack sites" concept, which encompassed a number of these instances. While the ArbCom did not revisit the specifics of the MONGO case, it did find that its rulings had been misapplied as policy: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites#Inappropriate_application_of_policy. While the principles between both cases to me seem consistent with each other, in this case the Arb Com did not recommend a specific set of remedies, such as 3RR exceptions, to be applied against ASM and like sites, instead remanding the matter to the community. So the final impression I take away from all this is that the MONGO case, while not rendered null and void in itself as concerning ED, should not and never should have been applied "across the board" to other sites automatically as policy, and with this ruling the ArbCom leaves it to the community to develop appropriate policies for the problem of links to off-site harassment.—AL 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll just chime in to say it looks to me that that Arbcom doesn't create policies in general, and in the Attack Sites case in particular, Arbcom explicitly very much reiterated that it doesn't create policies. If we want to know what our policies towards BADSITES should be, we should be asking the community, not the committee. That's what _I_ think the attacksite ruling was basically trying to say, anyway. --Alecmconroy 04:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification regarding the Attack sites decision

Moved to the talk page for further discussion. Newyorkbrad 21:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page.)

Nobs01 and others

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others is renamed Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Complaints of Cberlet. The following finding of fact is added: There is no evidence that User:Nobs01 is, or ever was, associated with the Lyndon LaRouche movment or sympathetic to the views of Lyndon LaRouche.

As there are currently 9 active arbitrators, a majority is 5. Newyorkbrad 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Support:

1. Motion Fred Bauder 22:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Kirill 22:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I don't see why this change is necessary. We never did conclude that Nobs01 was associated with LaRouche in the first place. Nothing on this case rests on Nobs01's political affiliations. His bans were based on behavior. Renaming the case, while less of an issue, doesn't feel justified either to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
2. No point. --jpgordon 03:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Per Matt. James F. (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose the motion as stated. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche movement

Original motion

The findings of fact of the original decision Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, closed in September 2004, referred to two problematic behaviours:

• a pattern of adding original material, not an editor's own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Misplaced Pages articles,
• a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

The Arbitration Committee affirms that editor behaviour amounting to such patterns is not accepted on Misplaced Pages. Administrators should draw the attention of editors to these standing principles, which should be known by any editor engaging closely in LaRouche-related articles. After due warning, explanation, and reference to the basic unacceptability of POV pushing on Misplaced Pages, proportionate blocks may be applied by administrators. Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification.

It is also pointed out that the principles of Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement.

As there are currently 9 active arbitrators, a majority is 5. Newyorkbrad 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Support:

1. I move. Charles Matthews 08:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
4. jpgordon 03:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Despite issues on both sides, I think that this is the more pressing part. James F. (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Does not clearly address the issues raised by point of view editing of Views of Lyndon LaRouche by both parties. Fred Bauder 10:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Yes, there are problematic aspects to the behavior of all parties here. Kirill 15:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche movement (II)

The findings of fact of the original decision Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, closed in September 2004, referred to two problematic behaviours:

• A pattern of adding original material, not an editor's own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Misplaced Pages articles,
• A pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

The Arbitration Committee affirms that editor behaviour amounting to such patterns is not accepted on Misplaced Pages. Administrators should draw the attention of editors to these standing principles, which should be known by any editor engaging closely in LaRouche-related articles. After due warning, explanation, and reference to the basic unacceptability of POV-pushing on Misplaced Pages, proportionate blocks may be applied by administrators. Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification.

It is also pointed out that the principles of Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement.

The Committee further notes that Cberlet (talk · contribs) and Dking (talk · contribs) have at times displayed excessive personal zeal in editing the articles in this area, and wishes to remind them of the need to avoid behavior that may be perceived as a conflict of interest.

As there are currently 9 active arbitrators, a majority is 5. Newyorkbrad 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Support:

1. Slightly expanded from the above. Kirill 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Hate the added wording. Lose "excessive personal" and "behavior that may be perceived as a" and I'll reconsider. Charles Matthews 15:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
2. jpgordon 03:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
3. per Charles. Plus I think reality on the ground needs to be considered when making our decisions. To regularly edit very controversial article on Misplaced Pages requires editors to have a high level of determination to be able to tolerate sustained attempts by editors with COI to change the article against our core policies. Also, it is helpful to have editors with knowledge of the topic edit articles on the topic as long as they follow our core content policies. Labeling these traits excessive personal zeal does not seem right to me. I've long felt that the solution is that we need to give these editors more support so they do not become so frustrated that they occasionally lose their cool and edit war to bring the articles back to a consensus stable version that are supported by policy. Having a somewhat stable version of these articles is a good thing, I think, so I see the low level (and rare high level) editing warring in these cases as a symptom of the problem, not the true underlying issue that needs to be resolved. That is the reason that I'm forgiving of some editors less than ideal editing style. That is the case here, I think, and needs to be taken into consideration if we are going to have a stable version that meets our articles standards and the article remains open for editing. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I'm going through the edit history of Views of Lyndon LaRouche and trying to figure out what's going on. I'm not ready to either make a motion or support this one. Fred Bauder 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee