Case Opened on 15:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 14:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

DarrenRay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2006BC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AChan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ambi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (filed this case)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

DarrenRay [1]
2006BC [2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

I don't think this is particuarly relevant. These two people are heavily personally involved in articles they've been edit warring on, and have shown no inclination to cease in the future.

Requests for comment

Statement by Ambi

The essential basis of this is that two people are using Wikipedia as a soapbox to wage war on an auditor who is in the process of suing them over allegations of corruption.

A few years ago, the Melbourne University Student Union crashed and burned amidst complaints of dodgy dealing. It was subsequently liquidated, and the auditor, Dean McVeigh, sued three former presidents - Darren Ray, Ben Cass, and Andrew Landeryou, over their role in the collapse. A couple of weeks ago, Ray and Cass both popped up in Wikipedia, creating what essentially amounted to an attack article at Dean McVeigh and edit warring incessantly at the article on the student union (now at Melbourne University student organisations). They've now created Rugs Galore, an article on a company that McVeigh was criticised for his performance in liquidating, with 80% of the article being a long screed about McVeigh's alleged misdeeds. This is a fairly simple case - two people who are being sued by an auditor over their role in the collapse of a company are way too personally involved to be editing articles about said auditor and said company. Ambi 02:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DarrenRay

"Since many people read Seigenthaler's op-ed, and few people responded to the original article, some [citation needed] Wikipedia contributors (known as Wikipedians) questioned his reluctance to simply correct the page. Other contributors pointed out the existence of an autobiography guideline on Wikipedia which is often interpreted to mean that users may not edit pages about themselves, and still others noted that even if he corrected the page, he would have to keep track of it for the rest of his life to be sure that inaccuracies were not added and compared opting-out of spam to the demand that Seigenthaler fix the inaccuracies himself.

From Seigenthaler controversy article

To the very limited extent that I have made edits that relate to myself, I have been motivated by what I believe to be the legitimate objective of ensuring neutrality in the articles that mention me. The alternatives including publicly attacking Wikipedia seemed much less appropriate choices. It's hard not to admire the creation of a free encyclopedia for everyone. I note that that the last time I edited the article that contains some information relating to me was on 11 March and was quite uncontentious and did not in any event relate to me.
I was told by one experienced editor that because I was not an anonymous editor that my contributions would be closely scrutinised if I edited about myself. I don't have any problem with being subjected to that scrutiny. But I don't see why my honesty about my identity should enable anonymous/pseudonymous editors to say that my contributions are - per se - illegitimate and not worth considering. I am not proposing to write a vanity article about myself, I would just like the opportunity to correct errors when I identify them, as I believe Mr Seienthaler ought to have done.
I did not write the Rugs Galore article but there is an afd about it, and I personally think it's worth keeping. I have had some involvement with one of the people (Dean McVeigh) involved in that article but (he's not an auditor by the way) but I read the article and don't have any issue with it.
The Dean McVeigh article had many versions but I don't believe that any contribution I made could be said to constitute an attack. In any event, the article has been for the time being merged with another article and there haven't been any edits about that content for well over a week.
I have tried to reach an understanding about what Wikipedia's rules are and believe I have complied with them. I have - even if I do say so myself - contributed as much as I could to Wikipedia in a short term. I must have caught the bug or something, but the main point is that I believe my openness about my identity should not make me the punching bag de jour. If there are specific edits that I have made that Ambi has an issue with (I certainly have issue with many of hers), I would be pleased to discuss that. I have a lot to learn and am keen to do so.
David Gerard's suggestions that I am another user or vandal are not correct. I stand by every edit I have made. I find it a little ironic that he would suggest that I am guilty of defamation in light of what's being going on.

DarrenRay 06:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 2006BC

Could this arbitration also consider the personal attacks and discourteous remarks made from User:Garglebutt and User:Ambi. Garglebutt has also been engaged in user page vandalism. Is it appropriate now to list those or do we wait for later? 2006BC 01:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if User: David Gerard is making allegations against me (if he is), I believe it would be procedurally fair for him to disclose anything that might later be regarded as relevant, including political associations and so on. I note I make no allegations here at all (I've had enough of all the personal attacks going on) but I thought it might be helpful for me to prompt a disclosure now before we go much further. 2006BC 02:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to David Gerard's statement:

Can you please explain what you mean by "sockpuppet theatre". Far from being a sockpuppet [Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry] I edit while disclosing my name, on my user page where I disclose my political affiliation. I look forward to David Gerard engaging in similar disclosure. Without this a 'private report' will be very hard to take seriously. --2006BC 02:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

Accept. Behaviour here appears to be beyond what is acceptable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Dmcdevit·t 20:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. James F. (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Charles Matthews 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Editing by participants in an external event

1) If the subject of a Wikipedia article is a contemporary external event, participants in that event may be banned from editing that and related articles.