Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

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

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct		21 October 2024	4/3/2
Marine 69-71	Motions	26 October 2024	0/0/0
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Thomas Basboll

Initiated by MONGO at 10:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Thomas Basboll [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 2
• Inter-party discussion
• Inter-party discussion
• Previous Arbitration Request (rejected)

Statement by MONGO

Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account (SPA), whose edits are concentrated almost exclusively on articles related to the events and biographies centering on the September 11, 2001 attacks. Articles in relation to this event that Thomas has edited include the primary one regarding the event itself already linked, as well as Collapse of the World Trade Center, Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Steven E. Jones and 7 World Trade Center. Basboll has over 2,700 edits and of those, more than 2,300 of them have been directly related to the mainspace areas of those articles or to Afd's regarding those articles.(slowish link). Basboll has repeatedly stated he wants to see more conspiracy theory (CT) coverage in the articles related to 9/11, citing the need to do so based on WP:NPOV [2], [3]. My view is that there is no reason to broaden CT coverage in these articles since our efforts need to be focused on sticking to facts and to not minimize these facts with unproven and biased sources....and I have stated that adding more CT to these articles violates the undue weight clause of NPOV. I generally have no complaint about SPA's if they are indeed concentrating their efforts on one set of articles and sticking to our policies regarding reliable sourcing and neutrality, especially the undue weight aspect, so that pseudoscience isn't overemphasized at the expense of the known evidence. Basboll has repeatedly demonstrated, by both action and comments, that he feels that CT regarding 9/11 are not emphasized enough. Anyway, Basboll tried to alter the page discussing single-purpose accounts, which is one of the few areas outside his normal realm he seems to have edited lately [4], [5], [6], "edit summary:revert to more SPA-friendly wording". Basboll seems to think that we are unable to work together constructively and in fact, I have stated that I left two articles he worked on to avoid him and to avoid disputes [7], so maybe he's right. I guess I am a man of a particular kind of science [8] anyway, at least according to Basboll.

Violations

There are multiple violations but just listing a few here for now.......

• WP:NPOV (the undue weight section primarily) [9], [10]
• WP:SYNTH
• WP:OWN
• WP:SOAP (advocacy) [11], [12]
• Wikipedia is not an external links repository, [13]

Battleground

Basboll has been engaged in hounding and forum shopping to get sanctions brought against me for a protracted period. I believe he sees me as the primary obstacle in his efforts to incorporate more CT in our 9/11 articles. A complaint was filed after I commented poorly to what I percieved as an insult from Basboll and comments where mixed, but I was blocked and that block was quickly overturned.[14] Basboll subsequently filed a Rfc here where I apologized for the supposed slights he felt I had made. Unsatisfied with the results of that Rfc, Basboll took the issue to arbitration were it was soundly rejected and Basboll withdrew his request a day after filing it...still dissatisfied, Basboll filed a request with the Association of Members Advocates on May 14,2007 here, where it remains. When the Rfc was soon closed, he was apparently very disappointed and asked it to remain open, despite a consensus to close it as not being further productive. He commented to the closing admin about it [15] and not getting the response he wanted, reported it to AN/I [16]. He then withdrew from editing for a period of almost four months but upon his return, resumed editing articles related to 9/11. Interestingly, during Basboll's hiatus from editing, User:Aude was able to get the disruption free period she needed to get 7 World Trade Center to featured level. I was able to help her with some copywriting issues [17]. It remains the only 9/11 related article to achieve FA status. Basboll made numerous comments regarding the article upon his return to editing here and next several threads. Upon his return, Basboll was apparently still seeking some sanction against me, in a matter that had nothing to do with him [18], and has subsequently stated we need to return to arbcom to get resolution to our ongoing dispute [19]. I have little doubt that this has much less to do with his perception of me being less than cordial than he wishes and a lot more to do with his efforts to get me sanctioned so that he won't have to "deal" with me on 9/11 related articles. This is a misuse of the dispute resolution process to gain an advantage in a content dispute. The committee needs to accept this case and decide if SPA's who are slowly and methodically eroding the factual integrity of our articles should be allowed to continue to misuse this website as an advocacy platform for the impossible.

To arbitrators

I urge you to reassess this case for acceptance. Though of course I initiated this arbcom request, it was done only because I see a urgent need to put an end to Basboll's ongoing efforts to see me sanctioned for what he claims are my efforts to intimidate and turn the articles he edits into a battleground. I haven't presented exhaustive evidence since that is requested to only be submitted if a case is accepted. My evidence can easily demonstrate that Basboll has been engaged in a long standing effort to eliminate me from 9/11 related articles...he sees me as the primary obstacle for adding more conspiracy theory jargon to these articles. his repeated efforts at seeing sanctions applied to me is a misuse of the dispute resolution process to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Furthermore, he has been misusing Wikipedia as an advocacy platform for his conspiracy theories...the article he has been the main contributor to, namely Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center was just rejected as a potential "Good Article" and I think comments in the rationale for why it was rejected are germaine...and can be read briefly here. Basboll's primary goal has long been to misuse this website to promote CT in 9/11 articles...that is his only goal as far as I can see. No other venue can adequately deal with his ongoing efforts to misue this website to promote his agenda and without resolution here, he will only be emboldened to continue with his advocacy, his single purpose effort and his tendetious editing.

Statement by Thomas

I have read MONGO's request and largely agree with the description of the dispute. I too believe it will be useful for ArbCom to decide whether my activities (including my attempts to resolve this dispute) contribute or disrupt Wikipedia. Should ArbCom take the case, I will of course provide a different perspective on the events. But the way MONGO sets this up seems on the face of it reasonable to me.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

PS MONGO is right to frame this in terms WP:BATTLE. If ArbCom can reduce the amount of "us" vs. "them" combativeness in these articles it will be very helpful.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute?

I understand how arbitrators have come to think of this as a content dispute about the relative weight that conspiracy theories should have in WP articles. But I think that is unfortunate. MONGO and I have never really dealt with that content question "in a spirit of cooperation", nor did we "approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion". I am quoting from WP:BATTLE. I use "we" in order to leave open the question that ArbCom could usefully settle, i.e., the question of who is the problem. In my view, MONGO edits these articles "uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly, or intimidatingly" whenever he is dealing with people he thinks are conspiracy theorists. And dealing with such people seems to be his main purpose when working on these articles. His request here argues that I am guilty of the same (albeit for dealing in such theories, rather than with them). In fact, although "Wikipedia is not an anti-leech community", MONGO regularly criticizes me for not devoting time to edit" (more broadly)--a charge he repeats here. Regardless of who is in the wrong, "Wikipedia is not a battleground" is a community-related policy, not a content-related one. The battle is the problem, not the content issue. The content issue can't be settled before the community issue is dealt with. And that is where ArbCom can really help.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Can ArbCom end this dispute?

MONGO makes some serious charges. Please keep in mind that he has been making these charges about my motives and actions for a long time. And he has be treating me as though they were true from the very beginning (leaving aside the question of whether their being true would make his incivility acceptable). My use (and alleged misuse) of the dispute resolution process were attempts to get him stop saying this sort of thing to me and about me (which only has the effect of personalizing the dispute) and to start treating me with ordinary, Wikipedic respect. The effect has only been to intensify it, leaving me with little time to "expand my horizons" as MONGO suggests.

So, as a matter conduct, not content, one of us (at least) must be wrong. Wikipedia would be better off with a clear decision about who, if anyone, is "right" in that sense. We certainly need to know who is behaving badly. The conduct (on both sides) has been going on for well over a year. It is time to stop tolerating something that cannot be condoned.

I think the articles could have been improved much more efficiently without us, i.e., without the conflict between us. If you look at the RfC (MONGO 2) and the recent incident report, you can see that I been clearly branded a CT-pushing SPA--though thankfully not "the worst" among them, at least until recently. (I note that the incident report, which I filed, has been renamed in the archives from "MONGO" to "problems with an SPA", i.e., from being about him to being about me.) MONGO (as he makes clear here) has been at the forefront of the effort to construe my work in those terms.

Either he has been valiantly fighting a POV-pusher long enough, in which case he deserves to see his efforts rewarded by having me banned (or paroled, or something), or he has been wrongly bullying a narrowly focused but good-faith (if sometimes mistaken) Wikipedian for just as long, in which case that editor (me) deserves to be spared any further, well, yes, obstruction (though not to what MONGO thinks).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved AGK

The issue here is clearly the status of Thomas with regards to being a disruptive editor. It's early days here, but there does not appear to be too critical an issue here, according to the evidence put forward by MONGO.

Granted, there's been a fair bit of questionable behaviour; but does this really warrant Arbitration scrutiny? Is Thomas' editing having a negative effect on Wikipedia? On the face of it, the answer is a cautious nay.

Anthøny (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolvedish Amarkov

If this is accepted, please review MONGO's behavior too. -Amarkov moo! 19:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved CyclePat

I though Mongo and Sept 11, terrorist attacks where synonyms here at Wikipedia. What I mean to say is, I believe Mongo has been advocating and defending this article for years! Perhaps it's time to take a look on whether he's been advocating a type of Western (North American) POV or if in fact he has been doing a good job to maintain WP:NPOV. One question: Why does this article seem so controversial as demonstrated by the amount of times it has been protected? --CyclePat (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Penwhale

Re: CP: One man's act of terrorism is another man's act of heroism. It's all in the eyes of the beholder. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved Wayne

I have been editing Collapse of the World Trade Centre so i can only comment on Thomas's actions on that particular article. Although a SPA, he does not appear to be unduly biased and has done some good work on that page. On the other hand I have found MONGO difficult to work with as he has a habit of paraphrasing facts or gives undue weight to otherwise marginal points to eliminate any hint that they even remotely could be used to give support to a conspiracy theory. This POV bias against CT's is highlighted by MONGO himself here where he says "advocacy platform for the impossible". If impossible, then it follows there would be no CT's at all as they all rely on some possibility no matter how unlikely. I believe this is the source of the problem between them with this article if not any other. Some edits Thomas made that have seemed (to me) to be POV were reverted and there was no problem, other edits led to a small revert war where I supported Thomas because it looked like a censorship issue rather than a genuine revert and no one was willing to take it to talk to support their case apart from Thomas. MONGO's claim that Thomas uses "unproven and biased sources" is spurious as it makes no difference if he even uses MONGO's own source, he still gets reverted. If accepted I feel both parties behaviour should be examined. Wayne (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved kaypoh

A few months ago, ArbCom rejected a case about MONGO. They ignored the problems and let them get worse. ArbCom, please stop ignoring the problems. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/2/0)

• Recuse. The World Trade Center complex was located three miles from my home. I have strong feelings about some of the conspiracy theories that have arisen concerning the events of September 11, 2001 and am not sufficiently certain that I can evaluate editing in this area dispassionately. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. This seems primarily to be a content dispute. --bainer (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Re Thomas Basboll's "is this a content dispute" question: the statements presented so far do not to me identify any behavioural issues which would necessitate arbitration, nor do they outline any recent failed efforts at dispute resolution, and instead they seem very much to be about asking the Committee to decide which one of you is "right". This is why it seems to be primarily a content dispute. I'm open to being convinced otherwise; you just need to demonstrate the need for arbitration in your statements. --bainer (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reject; still essentially a content dispute. Kirill 08:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reject; per bainer. FloNight (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Recuse; similar reasons to Brad. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reject, similar reasons to bainer. Arbitration is a venue of last recourse; other more routine dispute resolution methods such as mediation, and administrative involvement/RFC (for general conduct issues) should be genuinely tried first in the attempt to resolve this matter. It seems both sides agree there is a use of the article as a battleground, and a disagreement how to balance certain significant viewpoints, but little evidence is presented to show a dispute of such difficulty that those involved and the wider community cannot resolve it between them if they wished to. (This also reminds me strongly of WP:SRNC which went all the way to Arbcom only to be passed back to the community with encouragement to find a consensus solution that didn't involve battling. Which they did.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reject per Bainer, FT2. James F. (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. I have looked through the edit history of the articles in question and do not find editing misbehaviour such as would need an arbitration case. There is a dispute over the articles but both sides have generally conducted themselves with restraint and within the rules. MONGO's concern that Thomas is attempting to bait him into doing something that gets him sanctioned is a novel interpretation of what constitutes editing misbehaviour; I do not think there is reason to think this is Thomas' motivation, but even if it was then the remedy is to continue to act with restraint and not do anything that brings about a sanction. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

---

BlueAzure

Initiated by HollywoodFan1 (talk) at 19:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• HollywoodFan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BlueAzure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[20]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Some of the steps I have taken prior to filing for arbitration (from most recent on top):

• Wikipedia:Third opinion‎
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/64.30.201.109‎
• Template talk:COI
• Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests‎ ‎
• Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard‎
• User talk:BlueAzure

Statement by HollywoodFan1

User:BlueAzure has been WP:Stalk me, and a group of other editors in relation to a specific group of articles starting with a COI case he/she began under MetaphorEnt, December 9, 2007. Conflict on interest noticeboard When the case wasn't going where he/she wanted it to, they continued the harassment with a sockpuppet charge Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/64.30.201.109 which was closed because of "pure nonsense". BlueAzure has now put an Afd on an article I started and is listed in their original COIN case, which if you look at the Mimi Fuenzalida article history already had an Afd tag on it by a co-editor BlueAzure has been working closely with on Conflict on interest noticeboard , and the Afd was cleared by non-partisan editors. I believe User:BlueAzure may have something personally against the management company representing all of the talent listed in the COIN complaint and shouldn't be allowed to edit or tag any of the listed articles (BlueAzure "outed" the management company which doesn't even have any article written about them, or have any articles on WP where they are mentioned). I also would like BlueAzure to stay away from me and the articles I may edit in the future. For the record, I have no relationship to The management company. I am in a completely different business. I would like to continue to help create WP, but have been afraid to do anything beyond this mess, since this has all started.

Statement by BlueAzure

This request was improperly filed, as the COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MetaphorEnt is still in progress and there has not been an RFC. I am concerned that this is an inappropriate attempt to stop the COI case. The actions referred to in HollywoodFan1’s statement were taken as part of resolving the various issues in the COI case and HollywoodFan1’s remedy would effectively block me from working on the COI case. BlueAzure (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

2nd Statement by HollywoodFan1

The COI case was opened Dec 9th. On Dec 19th an editor who does a lot of work on the COI board proposed to close the MetaphorEnt thread, which has remained open regardless of the fact that no more COI questions have come in to play. Instead BlueAzure has inappropriately used the COI board to advertise his sockpuppet proposal, Adf and now copy write issues. This is the exact reason I requested arbitration and hope to find a justifiable and peaceful resolution.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Request by HollywoodFan1 regarding RFC vs. 3rd Opinion

Thank you for looking at this so quickly. User:BlueAzure has put three articles up for Afd, and one for immediate deletion and it's important that some sort of resolution is found before a large number of articles are deleted. Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment and WP:DR " If you need neutral outside opinions in a dispute involving only two editors, turn to Wikipedia:Third opinion." I did this. I will do an RFC if this is required in addition to the already posted third opinion. Please let me know what I should do next.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• (Posting here because my term as an arbitrator doesn't officially start until Tuesday.) In answer to Hollywoodfan1's question, third opinion is most suited for situations where two editors disagree over something and another opinion might lead to a resolution. An article-content RfC is suited for more complicated disputes where outside users can post their thoughts on an issue. It is expected that the editors who filed the RfC would then take those views into account as they continue editing the article. A user-conduct RfC is a different procedure in which the behavior of a specific editor is considered; this is a more serious step and be sure to note the requirements listed on the RfC page. If the parties are willing, mediation might also be tried here. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

• Reject as premature; please try a user conduct RFC before bringing this here. Kirill 18:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, per Kirill. RFArb is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. FloNight (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Decline per all above, including the clerk note. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Decline as above. Further advice:- COI is taken seriously, if it leads to questionable editing, and the handling of this by COI noticeboard (WP:COIN), advice from the community (WP:RFC), mediation between parties (WP:RFM), or for serious breach of policies, administrator help (WP:ANI) is often all that's needed. AFD will delete articles that lack good foundation, but it is not an "aggressive" process per se, it's up to anyone who wishes on either side, to show evidence (especially actual citations) which demonstrate the article does or doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. Either side can do so, or not. Overall, not inclined to pre-empt any community process on this dispute. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reject as above. James F. (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to past Arbitration cases in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. Place new requests at the top.

Appeal regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

Some of the restrictions imposed on me by the Arbitration Committee in stages between November 2005 and July 2006 expired in November 2007; however, according to former arbitrator User:Raul654, I am still subject to two of the restrictions—remedy "X" from the original November 2005 ruling, and remedy 4 from the July 2006 amended ruling—and they will remain in effect indefinitely, until lifted by the ArbCom. (I don't know if the rest of the ArbCom agrees that they are still in effect, but the only arbitrator who has spoken about it says they are in effect, and therefore I must assume they are until or unless the other arbitrators say otherwise.) I am not concerned about falling afoul of these rulings, and have no intention to ever do the things they prohibit, but by remaining in place these remedies act as a "scarlet letter" impeding my participation on Wikipedia, enabling people to ignore, dismiss or insult me because I am "not a user in good standing", and rendering it almost hopeless for me to attempt to regain my adminship through RfA, which was taken from me by the ArbCom in 2006 for an issue unrelated to the case in question. I think these remedies accomplish nothing except to marginalize me and should be lifted. Everyking (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The committee has seen a fairly large number of aggrieved parties to previous arbitration hearings present appeals immediately after the changeover in membership, so please accept our apologies for not responding immediately. The term "in good standing" is an imprecise one capable of being taken strictly or loosely. Could you help us by pointing to recent examples where you feel you have been suffering through the presumed continuation of these remedies? Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 announced on behalf of the committee on November 14 that one of the remedies against Everyking (parole on music articles) was being suspended for 3 months, but would automatically go back into effect 90 days later unless otherwise decided by the committee. This means that we will need to review Everyking's recent editing in early February so we can make this decision by February 12. For the sake of efficiency, I suggest that we review this request for relief from the remaining sanctions at the same time.

For those of us who were not active at the time of the prior decisions, the history of these cases (including even locating "Remedy 4" and "Remedy X") is a little bit difficult to follow. Either now or when this request is renewed in February, could either Everyking or a Clerk please provide a more complete set of links and a quick summary of the history? Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Brad's suggestion of hearing everything together in February is all right by me, although of course I would prefer if it was heard now—these sanctions have been in place for an extraordinarily long time. My editing on pop music articles has varied very little over quite a long span of time and I don't see how it could be expected to be any different in February, so I see no reason that issue could not be conclusively decided at the present time as well.

The key issue concerning the effect my arbitration sanctions have on me is that very many people simply will not vote for someone with ongoing sanctions in an RfA. Some of those opposing said that they would be willing to vote for me when the sanctions expired, which was understood to be in Nov. 2007, but as it turned out the ruling was interpreted (at least by Raul) to mean that certain aspects of it remained in place even after that point. I don't have many other clear examples, although I think there is a widespread subtle effect; because I have stayed out of disputes for so long there have been few occasions for people to blatantly batter me with reminders of my low status. In October, after some articles were deleted purely because the person who wrote them was believed to be a banned user (I believe that content should be judged on its merits and not based on its author), I requested that User:Lar provide me with copies of the articles so that I could determine if they were suitable and potentially vouch for them, or at least put them through WP:DRV, and he told me that he would not because I was not a "user in good standing". I never obtained the copies and as far as I know the articles are still deleted. Everyking (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Responding to your last point, the circumstances surrounding the particular banned user are exceptional, as I believe you are aware. As someone who generally supports giving second chances to users, I strongly advise that you would probably be better served by not using your interchange with Lar as an example of something that the remedies have prevented you from doing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, well, if we're going to get into a discussion of strategy here: I thought about not mentioning that because some people have particular feelings about the issue, but it was the best example I could think of in recent memory, and he asked for specific examples. Everyking (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for increased enforcement /Brahma Kumaris

A previous request by Thatcher131 was declined declined in April however the the pattern of disruption has continued, has been experienced by non-affiliated editors, and evidence of the disruption being due to the same editor using a succession of different accounts has been built up. Yes, the article has improved substantially due the input of editors with no association with the article subject, however the disruption is something the article, and other editors, could well do without. Relevant sockpuppet reports are [21] [22] [23].

The pattern of disruption usually involves editing with contempt for consensus, edit waring, taunting other editors based on their affiliation, incivility and ranting against the article subject. Strong enforcement of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:NOR and WP:CONS would effectively screen out the disruption.

I have tried using normal dispute resolution methods but this is getting tiring for me, other editors who have dropped by to help and also the admins that have to deal with the constant requests for help. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that there has been little to no "disruption" at all and this is just another preemptive strike by an individual that admits to be part of the organization in question, a new religious movements' called the BKWSU, own Internet PR Team; and is acting in accordance with the organization's PR aims. An individual that has invested a huge amount of time, effort and admins' energy in attempt to control the topic for his affiliated organization.

To state this for the sake of new admins coming to this issue is hardly "taunting". It is a statement of fact. I hope that eventually the Wikipedia admins will appreciate this for what it is. Simon has become incredibly skilled in his manipulation of Wikipedia admins and constructing accusations.

Let's look at the timing of this and the collusion of yet another BKWSU contributor, User:76.79.146.8. Bksimonb requests an early unprotection, User:76.79.146.8 reverts and accuses vandalism, attacks etc. Both complain to admins etc. Bksimonb puts RfA.

Putting aside the loaded and hysterical language, the seemingly endless accusations and complaints, if we look at the differences between the BKWSU's chosen version, the main differences are really;

• the removal of weblink to an informed independent website that makes public and openly discusses the BKWSU's core teachings, the only independent website about the organization and one that the BKWSU's USA trust spent considerable amount of money attempting to recent silence via legal action and failed to do so.
• the attempt to play down the centrality of channelling and mediumship to its practises. The channelling and mediumship of a spirit guide its followers are told is God and a centrality which illfits with its public face and political ambitions.
• the instant removal and erasure of considerable time and effort made making neutral and beneficial formatting ... etc the 65 edits, here;[24].

Personally, I just want to get on and contribute to the Wikipedia. I am sick of being the target of these people. I know the subjects I edit on. I add form, content and provide citations. It gives me no pleasure to be continually subjected to wasting admin's time and constantly tripping over the stumbling blocks these people are persistently using in an attempt to exclude me.

I am happy to discuss this in detail and supply all the diffs that illustrate just exactly what Simon and the BKWSU are up to if required. but, frankly, the Wikipedia admins cannot see this for what it is by looking at nature and amount of complaints this individual has made, then I am afraid that I would wasting my time.

References;

• Suspected sock puppet [25]
• BKWSU IT violation [26]
• WP:3RR pattern [27]
• Long term use of affiliation to discredit [28]

• Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 76.79.146.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As a remedy I am asking for strong enforcement of Wikipedia's policies. If this causes a problem then it is clear where that problem lies. I am not asking for unilateral enforcement. I am happy for the same rules to apply to me and other editors. It is clear from the above post that there is a strong bias against the BKWSU and a rather obvious attempt to discredit me and other editors based on our affiliation and non-agreement with the the above editor's own views. In the above post alone I am being accused, as if it were some indisputable fact, of "collusion", "PR", "preemptive strike", "manipulation" and censorship. In fact, I am most grateful for the above post as it clearly illustrates the problem. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the need for enforcement of Wikipedia's policies. In particular WP:COI where it states;

" Editing in the interests of public relations is particularly frowned upon. This includes, but is not limited to, edits made by public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image."

BK Simon B is a member, if not leader, of the BKWSU Internet PR team. In fact, I think the correct title is "core Internet PR team". The Internet PR team of the organization in question. If Simon choses to deny this, here, then I am happy to provide evidence to support this assertion. He is and has been supported by other BK followers (BK is the title followers given themselves) and they also work together to suppress other internet source, e.g. they (Simon and other BK Wikipedia editors) recently acted in a failed attempt to close down an independent website via a domain name dispute. This is the same domain that BK Simon and the other BK contributors keep removing from the article; http://www.brahmakumaris.info.

I do not think it is fair that the Wikipedia's admins have their time used up protecting the PR interests of a new religious movement but that it is only in this context can we understand what is going on here.

The BKWSU has invests a considerable amount of money on its public face and generally keeps hidden from newcomers the more extreme elements of its beliefs, e.g.

• the practise of mediumship or channelling of a spirit they claim is God himself via their mediums at the Indian headquarters
• the belief is a 5,000 year Cycle of time that repeats identically
• numerous failed predictions of the End of the World in which 6 Billion are meant to die so that 900,000 of their faithful followers will inherit a Golden Age heaven on earth (all, of course, backed up by independent, academic sources).
• their historical revision and superiority as God's chosen religion

The last year or more has been one long war of attrition in which the BK followers, with varying degrees of finesse and investment in gaming the Wikipedia system, have attempt to distort the topic to hide these core, identifying elements to bring the topic inline with the 'vanilla' version presented on their websites. This gaming continues with a barrage of complaints, accusations, unfounded vituperative depending each time on some new admin or contributor not knowing the history and not knowing the organization.

I think it is wrong that the Wikipedia allows this waste of volunteers resources. I think this individual has made a disproportionate amount of complaints underling his and his organization's single intent ... which is to break the spirit of any informed, independent contributor and push their PR agenda. Even the Scientology article includes independent websites and external links. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just an outside view from a regular user, but the article is on probation and adding unnecessarily positive or negative stuff without reference to core policy seems to be against the terms of this. The remedy reads, "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee", which both sides appear to have done in the section above. Also in Principles: "Users with a deep personal involvement with a subject who edit in a disruptive, aggressive biased manner may be banned from editing the affected article or articles, per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest." User:Bksimonb has a self-declared conflict of interest, and per WP:COI as cited in the arbitration, needs to consider whether the edits are promoting his organisation, or promoting the interests of Wikipedia. I can't tell exactly what has been added by the user, but I made a reverse diff of Lucy's revert which gives some clue as to what matters are under dispute. The article was reverted to the pre-Lucy version and immediately full-protected by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry on 26 December 2007. I am unsure at this stage whether User:Lucyintheskywithdada also has a conflict of interest in the opposite direction - user commenced editing on 21 December 2007 and, strangely, their main edits have not been focused on this article. However, their reference to the BKWSU Internet Team in their very first edit to the page suggests they may be a historic participant in the dispute. Orderinchaos 08:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have a go at trying to get this one on track - it does seem to have rather gone off the rails. If Wikipedia policies were strictly enforced here it would be necessary to ban everybody involved, which while resulting in peace and a complete end to edit warring on the article, would certainly not be a desirable outcome. Strict enforcement of the rules before has led to a situation where it appears the article overly favours one side, is far from encyclopaedic and needs a lot of sourcing. I'm acting purely as a content editor and negotiator with no past history and no particular views on the subject, and am quite happy to defer to arbitrators on any matter. Orderinchaos 09:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orderinchaos. Although I obviously find some of your initial assessment challenging the important thing for me is that you are prepared to work with us, and I really appreciate that. As far as COI issues are concerned I have tried my best to act within limits and leave the most drastic edits to outside editors who have dropped by. I appreciate that it probably doesn't look that way without a detailed analysis of the article history and talk archives. I don't expect you to do that so I'll just take it all on the nose for now knowing that everything will transpire in it's own time if you stick around. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with you Orderinchaos, the article is, or at least has been prior to the BKs revision, very highly sourced. It lists all the major and many minor BK sources. One of the problem it has suffered is the BKs team persistently removing not just references and citations but also perfectly good copy and formatting edits. This is not bitching, the history demonstrates it and it worth studying. The purpose has surely been the same as all the admin complaints; a bad will disincentive for any informed non-BKWSU contributors.

I am sorry but although I have been cautioned to let this go, I must ask for action to be taken on the obvious WP:COI by the Internet PR team. Fine, a Christian editing a page on Christianity, that is acceptable. But the representative of the "Core Internet PR Team" of the organization warring on the organizations own topic, I am afraid that really is too much given all the illwill.

Whilst doing my laundry, I made a spreadsheet of this individual; Bksimonb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Of 1266 edits only a handful were not related to the BKWSU. Going by the summaries alone (approximately ... my attention to detail has some limits)

• 103 were Administrator requests related to the BKWSU (including 26 "Reports" and 50 re "enforcement")
• 76 were "Suspicions", e.g. "Suspected" complaints related to the BKWSU,
• 76 Revision of non-BKWSU contributors
• 88 related to Sockpuppets accusations related to the BKWSU
• 69 Related directed to Adminstrators noticeboard related to the BKWSU protection
• 13 checkusers complaints related to the BKWSU
• 13 POVs related to the BKWSU
• 3 were page delete requests related to the BKWSU

This equals approximately 428 non-constructive edits, or a third of the total. These are then mirrored by the other BKs such Appledell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I suggest this is disproportionate to the value to the Wikipedia, the time and efforts of other volunteers. I think I can find 4 time he actually added a reference, the rest are just passing judgement on or removing other's work.

In his original arbcom statement [29] he writes, "we (BKWSU Internet PR Team have no problem with critical websites". But then in reality, he and other members of the BKWSU team both persistently remove all independent websites links from the article under a variety of guises and work together on a failed legal attack to silence the leading one. As I state before, even the Scientologists are mature enough to allow criticism and critical links on their topic.

Surely it would be naive of us not to consider that "creating a problem" is in order to achieve an end result within which even uninformed inaccuracies are better than referenced precision. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Certainly there are some pro-BK or BK-affiliated editors working here. There are also some people committed to "exposing the truth" about BK. Interestingly, brand new editor Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) is making exactly the same arguments as a number of previous editors, including the editor who used 195.82.106.244 and was banned for making personal attacks. The "truth" about BK often comes from alleged internal BK documents that are in the possession of former members, and which do not meet the reliable source guidelines, although I understand there has been improvement in this area. Ultimately, the article probation that passed had unique wording that makes it unenforceable except by the Arbitration committee. What is needed therefore is a review by the Committee to determine whether the current disputes are within the normal scope of the dispute resolution process (thus directing the parties to RFC, mediation etc.) or whether the disruption is sufficient to adopt a more muscular remedy. Thatcher 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a factual correction here.

The "internal BK documents" that have been referred to as such by the BK editors, or debate with regards to this topic, are the channeled messages believed to be God speaking through their mediums called the Murlis. It was discovered that some at least had been published with an ISBN number after all but, in principle, it is accepted that the main body are disallowed. Other early sources of literature, including Indian ones are all taken from publicly sources are equally held by the BKWSU. So there can be no controversy over these.

There is some inconsistency towards the use of BKWSU produced materials, e.g. the BK editors refusing certain publications but then using other publication or their websites to support their own claims, e.g. that charity projects are theirs, where the documentation appears to support they are not BK ventures. The debate has really be about "who" gets to use and chose them, i.e. whether they are a BK or not; what is a "contentious" citation or not and the guiding principle being whether or not it matches their current publicity or not.

We are dealing with a very specific and narrow topic here with relatively little literature. Any contributor coming forward is going to rely on the same sources and references. I would suggest that there would be no contention at all if Bksimonb and the other BKs were not pursuing their policy of total reversion over even utterly neutral edits (typos, formatting etc) ... and shooting the messenger by way of killing the message.

I think what the topic needs is a chance to develop without persistent and personalised BKWSU censorship before motives are assigned. To that end, I am asking the committee to extend some trust and allow us to do so.

I also think the article needs to be split into a number of others to allow each aspect to be covered in detail, again something the BKs keep disallowing. Part of the problem is a simple dispute caused by the artificial constraint imposed by insisting it all fits onto one page.

I am not a new editor. I joined as Lwachowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) but forgot my password, I rejoined and immediate drew admin attention to this as AWachowski [30] attempting to recover my original account. My diffs are here if they are to be criticised [31]. Please do.

Despite making clear the change of name, these were reported by Bksimonb and disallowed with any chance of comment because they were either too similar (of course, they were meant to be!) or the name of a real person (Wachowski is a fair common name in Poland) forcing me to register another name Creationcreator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

Creationcreator was then contrived to be a sockpuppet account by Bksimonb and reported again on two separate occasions using the L/AWachowski change of name despite his knowing clearly that I had lost a password and made efforts to have it official changed. No checkuser was made other alleged accounts. None of these have ever been used consecutively.

I am happy to use one account IF I can be left alone without an obvious policy of exclusion by the BKWSU PR guy Simonb ... and if it can be recognised what is going on. Please note again the collusion; [32] [33].

I am being open here in trust and good faith, with all the attendant risks. I make no effort to hide this. This not sockpuppetry. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Could the parties and/or administrators with the relevant background please clarify whether this is a request for enforcement of the existing remedies from the prior arbitrator, or whether the committee is being asked to clarify the remedies or enact new ones? If the latter, please clarify exactly what is being proposed or requested. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The existing article probation states only that the parties may ask for a review; it does not have the usual enforcement provisions such as allowing admins to issue topic bans for disruptive editing. Bksimonb appears to be asking that the article be placed on standard article probation so that admins could hand out topic bans and so forth. I have not reviewed the content or recent contribs/talk page to see whether Bksimonb is correct in his assessment that certain editors are disruptive (as opposed to merely disagreeing with him). Thatcher 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate input from administrators active on Arbitration Enforcement (including Thatcher) regarding whether a Review case is warranted and/or whether a motion to add the standard enforcement provisions to the decision should be adopted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested motions to /Digwuren

I request that the Committee consider the following motions. It is not clear where request for motions in a prior cases ought be placed, so could the clerks move this to the right spot if this is not it. Thanks. Martintg (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: I have moved these requests to the "requests for clarifications" section as probably the best place for them. I agree with Marting that it is not clear from the instructions where a request for relief from a prior decision should be posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Committee will be discussing these motions soon-ish. They have move toward the top of our To-do-list. FloNight (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspension of bans for both User:Digwuren and User:Petri Krohn

It is now obvious, after an initial bit of confusion and subsequent clarification, that the remedy 11 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction will be most effective in combating incivility, which was the core issue of this case. No one was calling for year long bans for either party in the original case, in fact most involved and uninvolved were explicitly against any ban, as Alex Bakharev succinctly argued here and seconded by many others including Geogre and Biophys in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Remedies_are_too_harsh. Note too that Digwuren did make a reflective and conciliatory statement aplogising to those he had wronged and forgiving those who had wronged him Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_Digwuren. Compare this to the recently banned Anonimu, where there was a clear concensus for a ban and he was defiant and un-remorseful to the end.

While a year is a long time, and shortening it may be useful, I'd like to see those users expressing remorse, telling us what they have learned and promising not to continue behavior that led to their ban before any shortening or suspension of a ban is considered.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no point in banning these editors, especially Petri, who unlike Digwuren, even sincerely apologized long before the case and was still punished for his actions taken prior to the apology, unlike Digwuren who continued to create "occupation" badwagons, revert war and bait contributors even while his arbitration was ongoing. Still, as far as Digwuren is concerned, I neither proposed nor supported a year-long ban. I have a very thick skin towards incivility and this aspect of his conduct did not bother me much. But if he is unblocked, he must be on the short leash regarding the number of reverts and coatracking.

Overall, I think that case needs a new hearing in light of how editors see it now in the retrospect and by the hopefully wisened up ArbCom as well. Also, there were several new developments, chiefly, editors using the "editing restrictions" to blockshop and vigorously "investigate" each other. This whole matter needs a fresh look, perhaps by a renewed Arbcom after the election which is almost over.

I would object to selective reversals of the original decision. The case was handled badly in a hands-off-by-ArbCom-type way during the entire precedings. Selective return of Digwuren and doing nothing else would just make matters worse. Rehashing that decision overall may be a good thing and hearing all parties in an orderly way by the arbitrators who actually listned and engage would be a good thing though. --Irpen 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the involved parties had findings of fact regarding revert warring. The differentiating aspect for Digwuren and Petri Krohn was using Wikipedia as a battleground. Note that the root cause of this battle was the Bronze soldier controversy, which has now largely resolved itself, the threat for further battling has significantly diminished. Also given that bans are in principle intended to stop further damage to Wikipedia, rather for retribution and punishment for its own sake, and they have already served some months of this ban, I see no reason to continue this ban, particularly since there seems a concensus against a ban in the first place, the parties have shown remorse as I have linked above and the Bronze soldier issues have dissipated. I am not asking for selective reversals, just a suspension. Martintg (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Strike User:Erik Jesse, User:3 Löwi and User:Klamber from the Involved parties list

These people were offline long before the case even started, never participated in the case, and continue to be offline to this day. No or little evidence was presented against them and no finding of fact either. In fact they had absolutely no involvement in the issues of this case and were only mentioned because they were included in an earlier checkuser case. Note however it is a finding of fact that Petri Krohn used Wikipedia as a battleground, and the checkuser case against these and other Estonian users was a part of that warfare. We don't want to perpetuate this wrong against these three editors.

Therefore I ask ArbCom to amend the case such that their names are struck from the list of involved parties and thus the notices removed from their talk pages. In fact I made a similar motion to this effect Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Motion_to_strike_3_L.C3.B6wi_and_Klamber_from_the_list_of_parties during the case and it was seconded by the clerk Cbrown1023 at the time. I know it is a minor issue, but it is an important gesture that ArbCom ought to do to further heal the hurts and encourage them to return, particularly User:3 Löwi who has been an editor of good standing since 2005.

Expand definition of "uninvolved admin" in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction

The principle of involved admins not being permitted to issue blocks is founded on the issue of conflict of interest and that trust should be maintained in the impartiality of the blocking admin. Generally "involved" means personal involvement in the immediate issue or article. However, given that the span of this general restriction covers all of Eastern Europe, and the principle that trust should be maintained in the blocking admin's impartiality, and that political issues (the role of the Soviet Union and communism) is the basis for much of the conflict on Eastern Europe; the definition of "involved" should be expanded for this remedy to include admins with overt and obvious political view points or past significant involvment in content disputes within Eastern Europe

The recent episode concerning blocks issued by El_C illustrates this problem. An admin with a "vanity page" consisting of figures associated with communist oppression and terrorism wades into a dispute involving Eastern Europe, not only is this highly provocative, but alarm bells start ringing as to the impartiality of this admin. Note that this is same admin saw no problem with the behaviour of the recently banned Anonimu, uncivilly branding those who brought the complaint as "ethno-nationalist editors". This fact of questionable impartiality and lack of trust only served to inflame the situation resulting a commited and significant editor and wikiproject coordinator Sander Säde to leave the project.

While one must endeavour to assume good faith, never the less, there would be an issue of trust in the judgement of an admin if, to illustrate with an example, they had a vanity page consisting of images of Osama bin Ladin and Hezbollah on their user page wading in and handing out blocks in a dispute regarding Israeli related topic. Common sense dictates that controversial admins of questionable partiality should not be involved enforcing this remedy.

Good point, but it all boils down to the issue of anonymity. El C at least declares some of his POV on his user page. I, for example, declare quite a few more things. Would you prefer to trust a user who declares nothing? How can we be sure if such declarations are truthful, and not ironic or simply deceptive? Looking back at the Essjay controversy I still think all admins should be required to reveal their identity, education, and POVs... but I am well aware this will not fly. I think "uninvolved admin" should be one that is accepted by the parties; but of course that creates a possibility for the parties to evade judgment by refusing to accept any admin as uninvolved. Perhaps to avoid that but deal with the problem you outlined, we should have a procedure parties can lodge complains about admin's involvement, where this could be reviewed by other admins and if involvement is determined (something like CoI), the admin's action is reverted and warning issued? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that I am one of the most sought-after admins by both the Armenian and Azerbaijani factions. They never cared what is on my user page, they just care that I'm fair, and indeed I have such a record dating back years. Conversely, I've had pro-Palestinian groups or extreme-right Europeans refuse to have me as an uninvolved admin because I am fluent in Hebrew, requests which I always denied. El_C 15:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In this particluar case, I fear the problem isn't actual conflict of interest so much as perceived lack of impartiality. While people knowing El_C may very well feel quite comfortable that he does not let his political leanings influence his judgment, the fact that they are very visible nonetheless will give the impression that he might be siding with one side of a debate, or "overcompensate" for the other. This does not mean that other editors with less visible politics would do a better job, but giving such ammo for complaints is probably a relatively bad idea. — Coren ^(talk) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's important to assume good faith. You are not calling to ban people who exhibit the flag of Israel on their userpage from admin actions on Israeli-Palestinian issue, so why this? Both Azerbaijan and Armenia were former Soviet republics, why are editors there acting differently than editors here? The reason, I think, has more to do with a perceived ^[34] personal dispute than political (see for example the attempt by the user above to delete Bishzilla ^(thread)). Anyway, I would gladly delete my user page, but such ruling need to be applied consistently, anticommunism should not be getting a priority because of easy targets. El_C 20:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to specifically make the point that I didn't feel your impartiality was at issue, and I'm sorry if you understood this differently. My point is that perception is the key here and that leaving the enforcement to another admin would not be so much more trouble. And, personally, yes I would expect someone who displayed an Israeli flag on their userpage to also avoid admin action in Israeli-Palestinian issue — not because I think them unable to act fairly and impartially, but because the appearance of impropriety is a probable source of heat. — Coren ^(talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)