Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 01:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed 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, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Requests for comment

None provided

[edit] Statements by Kingofmann

I am David Howe, the subject of a Wikipedia Biography.

My initial dispute had to do with the inclusion of a business that I own, that has nothing to do with my notability, on a biography page about me. I requested to Admin Hu12 that he aid me with the removal on his talk page and I cited WP:Blp#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy as the reason why. I eventually deleted the material I felt violated my privacy and stated why on my talk page. User Newguy34 reverted it twice and that is when I requested page protection which was issued.

In response to what seemed like several editors of my biography page, namely Newguy34, Heraldic, Wjhonson and some anonymous users involvement in what seems to be an orchestrated effort to circumvent WP:BLP and present a negative point of view see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal, Admin Hu12 on his talk page as well as my biography's talk page stated, "The Media bias is evident in many of the sources, which are attributable and doesn't surprise me since its rooted in forms of Cultural biass. The subject of David Howe is no doubt a Political one to many, however lets keep these biases out of the article space." His request has had no effect.

There are numerous examples on the biography's talk page that show the well telegraphed intent of some editors. Just a few are as follows: December 27, 2007, editor Newguy34 was an advocate for the Wikipedia blacklisted site that has since be revised several times to appear less libelous. Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)/Archive_2#Celebrity_Friends_and_Royal_Cousins Despite the fact the site isn't a reliable third-party source, addressing another editor's objection to the site he stated, "Your bias appears clear, namely to advance Howe's claims. The author of the website is well respected in genealogy circles and has fully cited and referenced his "opinions."" In fact none of these things are true. The author of the site at the bottom of the first page describes himself, as of January 9, 2008, "an accountant with a keen amateur interest in history and genealogy."

Heraldic and Wjhonson advocating for including libelous blacklisted site see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#unrealroyal.com and then attempting to get it removed from the blacklist See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal. Here it was also revealed that Wjhonson had conspired with the author of the blacklisted site to misuse Wikipedia.

Note: per arbitrator request, all statements made by Kingofmann have been merged into the one section heading for brevity. Per directions, this also included a statement made by this user using an confirmed alternate account. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Second Statement by Kingofmann

With all due respect, I am I to understand correctly there is an expectation that I must personally hash this dispute out with each of the other parties involved first in order to try and remedy the problem when I have an urgent need for privacy and protection against a negatively slanted biography before I can bring it to the arbitration committee?

Is this the same expectation of others who are the subjects of a Wikipedia biography?

This process has already been an extreme drain on my time and resources. The editors that I have noted in my original statement share a negative view of me and they have not hidden this in their edits or discussion on my biographies talk page or other related talk pages. I feel that it is part of a larger agenda. I also feel that any extra steps required of me in this process and in this public forum are an invasion of my privacy and is an embarrassment.

Is it really necessary that I, the subject of a Wikipedia biography, be required to do anything more to gain some urgently needed protection from Wikipedia? I really hope that this is not the case.--Kingofmann (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofmann (posted by Lazydown, see below)

Today, 1/11/08, User Carbonlifeform, started an articles for deletion page for this BLP Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann) and then proceeded to nominate it for deletion. So, I don't know if that quite qualifies as having no involvement. Beyond that, I think his motion was very premature.

Most are recommending it for deletion based on the subject being WP:ONEEVENT or WP:NN. But, all pretenders to a throne as well as all Kings and Queens are notable for only one event and all other things are as a result of their station. HRH Prince Charles of Wales is notable for one thing. I can't imagine deleting his BLP. If this is the grounds for deleting this subjects BLP then it should be applied evenly across the board and not selectively to those lacking popularity and fame.--Lazydown (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that Lazydown is a sock of User:Kingofmann. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Statement 3 from Kingofmann

The presumption above is that I want a Wikipedia page about my claim. I did not create the page and I would not miss it should it meet a speedy demise. I would, however, not have a problem with my biography here if two things could be achieved. First - A general respect for my privacy concerns. Second - An encyclopedic biography that states the five Ws free of extraneous and ill informed attempts to chip away at various aspects of my claim citing dubious sources. I don't feel that these are unreasonable expectations and seem to conform with Wikipedia's policies -- we want the same thing. The fact that a hand full of editors were not interested in improving my biography to meet Wikipedia's standards is why I brought the issue here.

Stepping beyond my privacy concerns and into the realm of the extraneous for just a moment. The editor above made a few statements as if they were fact and comprises the secondary reason for my request for arbitration. The particular statement he insist should be included in any mention of my claim "and the fact that he has no particular genealogical standing amongst the many descendants of the Stanley Kings of Mann.", is an opinion and not a neutral point of view. I have an excellent standing among my aunts and uncles and my first and second cousins, roughly thirty people total I can think of right now and all of whom are Stanley descendants. So I would be very interested to know what reliable source he plans to cite when making that claim.

I would also like to point out that the generally recognized head of the Stanley's is Edward Richard William Stanley, 19th Earl of Derby a descendant of Sir James Stanley the younger brother of my great great...grandmother Lady Jane Stanley and Thomas Stanley III the first of the Stanley Lords of Mann. The 19th Earls line inherited the peerage of Derby in 1736 on the death of the 10th Earl of Derby. The House of Lords in 1736 had to go back some 230 years in order to find a male heir with the surname Stanley to award the peerage to. This is just how narrow the Stanley line was. The title of Lord of Mann and the Island were passed to James Murray, 2nd Duke of Atholl a first cousin to the 10th Earl of Derby obviously in the female line. So this notion that there is a vast sea of descendants bearing the surname of Stanely or otherwise who might have a superior claim than I do is totally baseless and comes from one single and completely unreliable source that has recently been blacklisted by Wikipedia.

There were no facts involved in editor Choess statement regarding my standing among Stanley descendants.--Kingofmann (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Final Statement by Kingofmann, please read

I did not create this biography and it appears that it was started by the administrator Hu12. Although I do not have any issues with anything this editor has done. This editor for some time attempted to insure a neutral biography.

Now that I have taken a deep breath and a short break here and asked for some feedback from a few people who know me very well and are familiar with what is going on here I will proceed. That help is allowing me to remain calm and even provided me the ability to look at this more objectively. Though I will admit getting to this point has been a little difficult. I will try to provide a little better perspective for the administrators reviewing my case.

A friend shared with me today that the moment anyone sticks their head above the wall they become a target of criticism for some people. This is something I'm sure can be applied to any Royal or celebrity as any tabloid paper demonstrates. The problem I have had here is that my biography and the talk page attached are being used as a tabloid. I have to imagine that this isn't what Wikipeida is intended to be used for. Wikipedia provides me as the subject of the biography the right to remove statements that are negative or invade my privacy. This is established by Wikipedia as a policy. So it is difficult to accept that deleting or countering general misuse of the biography and negative points of view about me is something I shouldn't have done. My initial reaction when I first saw it was to delete the whole thing. I realized that it wouldn't have been a permanant solution however. Knowing it would stay up I only wanted to see some fair balance and a respect for my privacy which wasn't being given. These are the circumstances and reasons for my editing of the Wikipedia biography about me and I take full responsibility for that.

Wikipedia provides the following and these are the circumstances under which I participated in editing of the biography page about me.

WP:Article_subjects'_FAQ#The_information_in_your_article_about_me_is_wrong._How_can_I_get_it_fixed.3F

It is generally considered okay for you to edit your own article in certain circumstances:

  • If the article is clearly derogatory in tone and was written based on questionable sources or no sources.
  • If it contains private information you strongly don't want shared, particularly if you are not famous. (This might include, for example, your e-mail address, date of birth, religious affiliation or sexual orientation.)
  • If you believe it is libelous.

Not everyone is happy about my claim and many have turned their attention to this biography. Not used to this kind of attention and some of it being very negative has caused a fair amount of stress for my family and I. Many of the things that have been written about me have been baseless. The editor of a blacklisted attack site about me would have you believe I was previously married and fathered a child in 1982 at the ripe old age of 12. That is just plain stupid but that is the nature of the material these editors would see to have included in the biography about me.

Unsure how to react, I go back to the insight of a friend who reminded me that this type of thing is to be expected the moment you go from being a private person to becoming a minor celebrity. My learning curve has been very steep. I hope these things are helpful in providing a clearer picture of what my life has been like in recent weeks and that maybe the committee will extend some empathy my way. I thank you for your time and patience.--Kingofmann (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Wjhonson

When a person has achieved that level of notability that a biography is acceptable, all known facts about the person have an equal chance of being represented. The person, short of pointing out libelous statements, has no special prerogative to exclude certain details. We do not allow this priviledge to Ann Coulter, we do not allow it to Jimmy Wales, we allow it to nobody. It is a red-herring argument that only issues *related* to notability are included. We include a biography based on notability, but once included, each statement does not need to pass notability to be included.

Contrary to the claim that I was involved in "...circumvent[ing] WP:BLP and present[ing] a negative point of view see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal...." I submit that all of my edits have quite plainly adhered to WP:BLP. The issue regarding what I perceive as an out-of-process blacklisting is a seperate issue to this article. That the http: //www.unrealroyal.com site was blacklisted as an "attack site", when IMHO it is a "criticism" site of a *public figure* as the King of Man is most clearly. If the King of Man were not himself a public figure, than pointed criticism might be a valid reason for blacklisting a site which criticizes a Wikipedian. The fact that he is a *public figure* puts him outside that purview and he is then fair-game just as surely as George Bush is himself. We do not blacklist sites critical of Bush, and if Bush became a Wikipedian we would not blacklist sites critical of Bush.

Contary to the assertion that "The author of the website is well respected in genealogy circles and has fully cited and referenced his "opinions."" In fact none of these things are true.", I submit that indeed the author is well-respected in genealogy circles, and his fair-and-even criticism of David Howe is fully cited and referenced.

Contary to the assertion that the site is "...libelous..." is my assertion that it in fact engages in well-reasoned and pointed criticism of a public figure.

Contrary to the assertion that "...Wjhonson had conspired with the author of the blacklisted site to misuse Wikipedia." is my assertion that outside Wikipedia, in particular on the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup, I know the author of the website. My agreeing with his perception that his website was unfairly blacklisted, is not a conspiracy.

I want to add here, that should ArbCom take this case, I sincerely hope they will look at the issue of removing the http:// www.unrealroyal.com site from the blacklist. That is the main reason why I am here, in that, when I saw that message I smelled something bad. We use blacklist for repeated spam postings, not for reasoned, albeit pointed criticism sites. Criticism sites should never be blacklisted, criticism is the basis of a free society. I have already tried to get the site removed using the Blacklist removal request, but a certain admin is blocking the request. If ArbCom does not want to address this here, I'd like to know so I can open a new case for this one issue. Thank you. Wjhonson (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I would submit that many of David's privacy concerns could be taken care of, by he himself, removing that information from his own website. If he does not want us to know the name of his wife, he should remove it from his site. I'm not sure how far this can go, as David has given interviews and been the subject of published reports which do note personal details. Secondly, since I also noticed this claim of a previous marriage in the Ancestry World Tree, I would submit that he should perhaps contact the submitter of *that* database in AWT, since the "blacklisted" site he aludes to is only repeating that claim from the above source, not creating it. Wjhonson (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statements by Newguy34

[edit] First statement by Newguy34

I am disappointed that this has reached the ArbCom, and am not sure quite where to start in this unfortunate episode.

First, either Mr. Howe is notable as an individual (for which information such as his primary business venture is relevant) or he is notable for only a single event (namely his claim) and the BLP should be merged with another article. I think a BLP of Mr. Howe is unwarranted. As it relates to WP guidelines, a person is generally notable if a) the person has received significant recognized awards or honors, or b) the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Further, when a person is associated with only one event, such as an unsubstantiated claim to be related to ancient royalty, consideration should be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

And from BLP, if reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy, which is exactly the situation we are facing in this matter. I fail to see how Mr. Howe has achieved any notability other than through this singular claim, and the recent coverage of it. In spite of this, a single user Lazydown has made the majority of edits in support of Mr. Howe's claim, while several editors (including those involved in this arbitration matter) have been consistent in attempting to achieve a balance and neutrality to the article, Lazydown's (and now Howe's) protestations that we are somehow violating NPOV aside. The support for this assertion is contained on the article's talk page and the edit history, and is clear for anyone to read.

As to the information I seek to have included, I believe the inclusion of Mr. Howe's business is relevant information, which is entirely permissible and standard for a BLP. I cited the information from a verifiable, reliable source in accordance with WP policies. The fact that he owns a Glass Doctor franchise in Frederick is a matter of public record and comes from press releases penned by (or authorized by) him. I can not see how it now should be excluded (in its present form) from a biographical article [emphasis added] on claimed grounds of privacy, especially given that it was Mr. Howe who first put this information in the public domain. That Mr. Howe does not like the relevant information he has placed in the public domain being used in a BLP article about himself is insufficient support for its exclusion under privacy concerns.

I attempted to reach consensus with Mr. Howe on the issue (as evidenced on his talk page), but he refuses to discuss the matter further and instead has made a very serious threat of legal action against me (and possibly Wikipedia) see since-blanked entry here. A threat which I take very seriously, and for which I believe he should be admonished and/or otherwise blocked. He has not engaged in dispute resolution. These are indisputable facts, evidenced in various talk pages.

Mr. Howe's assertion that there are several editors involved in "an orchestrated effort to circumvent BLP and present a negative point of view" is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and represents libel. I have never met any of the other editors. My edits have been to retain NPOV after numerous attempts by Lazydown to edit the article in a light most advantageous to Mr. Howe and his claim. Lazydown's edits are typically accompanied by accusations that the editors involved in this arbitration are violating NPOV and other WP policies. I have posted that I believe we are involved in a content dispute. I have attempted to reach consensus on the issue with Lazydown, but he too refuses to discuss the matter. Instead, he posts accusations of a number of us on the talk pages of several administrators, namely Hu12. As such, I believe that Lazydown has not been exhibiting good faith, and am curious why Lazydown is not also a subject of this arbitration action given the inordinate number of edits he has made, and the generally uncivil nature of his numerous edits on talk pages.

I also take strong personal offense to Mr. Howe's implication that the edits of myself and others amount to a "well telegraphed intent" on our part. Again, I have never met the other editors in question, and there is no evidence or factual basis to support this latest assertion. Contrary to Mr. Howe's assertion, I was not an advocate for the now-blacklisted site, but rather sought to understand the objections of Lazydown in that matter. It is important to note that at the time of my posts on the matter, the website in question was not blacklisted. It is also important to note that the criticism of Mr. Howe on the website in question is fully cited and is fully referenced. The occupation of the website author is not relevant to his recognized expertise in the matters the website discusses. I, too, believe the blacklisting of the website is inappropriate and uncalled for.

In summary, I believe this is a very disturbing series of events, filled with red herring arguments, selective adherence to WP policies, inappropriate COI on the part of Howe, and an exercise of bad faith on the part of Howe and user Lazydown. I welcome the consideration of these matters by ArbCom, but as one who believes in the Wikipedia project, I am disappointed that it has come to this. Newguy34 (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Further to the issue at hand, namely this RfAR, it is confusing to me and others as to why Mr. Howe has sought to remove his wife's full name (Pamela Marie Ahearn) from his BLP. I note that several press releases from his office have been written by a one "Marie Ahearn". I am not sure how the two may be related, but I hope this isn't one of the reasons he has cited privacy concerns over including this information in his BLP, as I believe it would represent a conflict of interest. Newguy34 (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second statement by Newguy34

I am satisfied to see David Howe admit what many of us have known for a long time, namely that he edited his own BLP, to advance his own unproven and unverified claim, by using sockpuppets. He has previously denied doing such, and that is disappointing. As a review of the circumstances that have led us to this point:

David Howe has a documented history of claims to various titles (i.e., Duke of Antwerp, Prince of Mann, descendant of Daniel Dulaney, etc.)
He posts a notice in the London Gazette on January 16, 2007, claiming the use of the title "King of Mann" and waits "...the customary period of 90 days for a competing or counter-claim to be heard." Hearing none, he has himself crowned on March 30, 2007. (Note that 90 days from the date the notice was placed in the London Gazette is April 16, 2007, not March 30, 2007. So it appears (through his actions) that Howe intended to assume the title "King of Mann" whether there was a competing claim or not.)
He makes numerous edits to the Lord of Mann article using one of his confirmed sockpuppets, Theisles. In the process he denies several times on several talk pages that he is himself. We do not know why.
After a BLP is started on himself, he makes innumerous edits using at least two different confirmed sockpuppets, Theisles and Lazydown (who initially claims to be a new user with little knowledge of WP policies). Again, he vociferously denies that he is himself, even after direct questions from several other skeptical editors (e.g., from Heraldic and Pavel).
As his attempts to highjack his own BLP by reverting edits that seek to maintain a NPOV start to fail, he reinserts himself into the discussion of his BLP, this time as himself (i.e., as user Kingofmann).
He has news articles published about himself based on releases from a press agent named "Marie Ahearn", but objects to information being added to his BLP referencing his wife's full name Pamela Marie Ahearn (which was placed in the public domain by him), citing privacy concerns. He also objects to information being added to his BLP referencing his Glass Doctor business (which, again, was placed in the public domain by him), again citing privacy concerns. Both of these pieces of information are included in other BLPs on a normal and customary basis, and this specific information was cited from verifiable, reliable sources in accordance with WP policies. The fact that he owns a Glass Doctor franchise in Frederick is a matter of public record. That his wife's name is Pamela Marie Ahearn is also a matter of public record. I can not see how this information now should be excluded from a biographical article [emphasis added] on claimed grounds of privacy, especially given that it was Mr. Howe who first put this information in the public domain. That Mr. Howe does not like the relevant information he has placed in the public domain being used, to expose trickery he is using to add an air of legitimacy to an otherwise illegitimate and unverified claim, is insufficient support for its exclusion under privacy concerns. This particular point was the reason Howe originally cited for requesting this arbitration.

Mr. Howe's actions are in direct opposition to the spirit of WP policies. His assertions that his actions should be forgiven and that he should not be sanctioned because the information is libelous, or private, or that he as a self-claimed minor celebrity is somehow being treated unfairly, are silly. None of the "reasons" he has given for editing his own article through the use of sockpuppets are valid, namely:

The BLP was not clearly derogatory in tone, but rather was often edited by him so as to cast his claims in the most favorable light through the use of selective citations, sometimes from the same reliable source as more balanced information.
The article was written based on reliable sources. Howe, himself, saw to that through his own edits. Additionally, I sought to only include information already in the public domain that was from reliable sources.
The article did not contain any private [emphasis added] information as all information was taken from the public domain, generally, and from reliable sources, in particular. There is no way that the information I sought to include in his BLP could be reasonably construed as private as it was taken from press articles penned by him, from his business website, or from reliable sources (e.g., the Frederick Post). The real reasons why he did not want it shared is a question that will go unanswered.
None of the information I sought to include in the article was libelous. The matter about whether he was previously married is irrelevant to this consideration as the site www.unrealroyal.com was not cited in the BLP. If he has issues with that site, he should take those matters up with the author of that site who has clearly named himself and has provided contact information.

His assertion that those who are "not happy about his claim" are using this as an attempt to discredit him is baseless. I don't know Howe, am a U.S. citizen, and have never been to the Isle of Mann. He has made the claim, he has promoted his agenda, and he has sought press attention for himself and his family, but he now wishes that the 80,000 residents of the Isle of Mann and millions of Wikipedians should just leave him alone with his claim. The scrutiny that he asserts has caused his family and him stress is of his own creation. Things that he has claimed just don't happen in the normal course of human events. That he has been so vociferous in using any means (honest or dishonest) to justify and validate his claim, only raises the skepticism of prudent people. If something is true it will always be true. If something is not true, no amount of threats of legal action or incivility by him, will make it true. The assertion that there are many who are seeking to attack him for having made the claim is silly. That there are many who are seeking to debunk him is probably true (see the plethera of websblogs about him and his claims). That he, through his actions, has done damage to the recognition of this claim, I also believe to be true.

In summary, Wikipedia is a wonderful project with an aim to inform readers. If we allow a few to highjack Wikipedia to promote their own personal agendas, we will seriously devalue Wikipedia and will disrupt the harmony that is shared by many proud Wikipedians, me included. Newguy34 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Heraldic

Firstly, I should say that I have been on steep learning curve when it comes to the Wikipedia way of doing things. Hopefully I am not repeating any of my earlier procedural errors.

Given the nature of Mr Howe’s claims it is understandable that they would come under considerable scrutiny. I do not think that it is in Wikipedia’s interest to allow the Howe article to be perceived in any way as an endorsement of his claims. To that end I have attempted to provide a balance to the Howe article, clarifying certain broad statements or citing references that reflect that all is not as clear cut as Howe may wish.

With regard to the unrealroyal site; whilst the observations of the author may not meet Wikipedia guidelines (as I now understand), I do believe the factual content is worthy of note. It was for the latter reason I questioned its blacklisting. As for its reinstatement, you will see that I stated that if it was to remain blacklisted it should be for its content not because Wjhonson chose to query the blacklisting. I do not believe that simply disagreeing with an admin is a misuse of Wikipedia.

As part of this arbitration process, I hope that the administrators will also look into the relevant issue of sockpuppets. The dedication shown by users Theisles and Lazydown in the editing the article to reflect Howe’s case and the rigid application of Wiki procedures when it comes to the exclusion of any material that is critical of Howe has given rise to the suspicion that they are either Howe himself or a close associate. The most recent example can be found at Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)#The_Viscount_Howe_claim .Clarification of their status will go along way to calming things down.

For the record, I am not the owner, author or webmaster of the unrealroyal website. Nor have I had contact with any of the editors here to listed other than through Wikipedia public talk pages.--Heraldic 09:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kingofmann

I am David Howe the subject of a biography here on Wikipedia. I have another request open for arbitration. As a result of my request for Arbitration here a campaign of harassment has been started and libelous claims are being made against me at the link above and on the talk page of the biography. I don't know what the intent is and I do not care. I don't understand why I have to tolerate this abuse. What do I have to do here to get immediate intervention on my behalf.--Kingofmann (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that David Howe has been using multiple user IDs at Wikipedia, Kingofmann, Lazydown and Theisles to promote and edit articles covering his claims as per Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kingofmann. --Heraldic 18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kingofmann now not Howe?

At Howe's official website the following FAQ has been added to the News Page;

Featured FAQ:
Q) Was I talking to the real King David of Mann in the chat room / forum I was recently in?
A) No. Anyone can create an account name and claim to be someone they are not. There have been several incidents of impersonation of King David by persons both well intentioned, and not so well intentioned. King David does not participate in any chat room or forum discussions. King David's official information site as well as the official myspace page are his sole means of Internet communications.

[edit] Statement by Hu12

Significant here is the pro/con POV and COI editing that has occurred. However, as per Arbitrators' opinions thus far, a potential conflict between NPOV and BLP should be examined. Also to echo FT2’s statement below, many articles don't reach this level often, and despite that other dispute resolutions steps have not been tried sufficiently, this, perhaps, can serve to define or clarify apparent perceived conflicts or inconsistencies in privacy, NPOV and BLP. --Hu12 (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is extremly relevent discussions and other content being indiscrimantly deleted prior to this RFA?

--Hu12 (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Other relevent stuff, mabey.

--Hu12 (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/1/0/1)

  • Abstain for now. Waiting to see other statements (if any) to see if there is genuinely a basis for us to look at this. If accepted, then to look at the conduct of all parties (without prior assumption) and BLP/NPOV/privacy crossover. Possible thoughts why we might:
    1. There may be important BLP issues here that arise in many articles that don't reach request for arbitration, and which would help to clarify.
    2. Unsure if DR has been tried sufficiently, but BLP disputes are rated "serious" more easily than many other kinds of dispute and if the community genuinely cannot solve, giving direction urgently rather than demanding every step of DR may be reasonable.
    3. BLP is a policy which has great weight in "real life", and NPOV has great weight in articles; both are "non-negotiable" in their requirements. So a perceived conflict may need more clarification. BLP v. NPOV v. privacy is an area that merits experienced eyeballs.
For now though, waiting for (and would like to have presented) further statements, ideally including insight by other experienced users, to help identify if this issue actually needs arbcom to accept, or not. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept. I think both sides of the dispute can better explain the issues involved in this venue than others. The potential conflict between NPOV and BLP needs to be addressed. FloNight (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept. The issues arising here that FT2 discusses ought to be considered. --bainer (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept per FloNight. Also, per FT2, probably this case would clarify in depth our commitment to the non-negotiable BLP policy. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Abstain for now, with the suggestion that other arbitrators note Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kingofmann. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    (To which I've linked in a previous checkuser on Theisles, and a couple of other relevant pages.) FT2 (Talk | email) 11:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    OK, change to Accept now; though some might consider sockpuppeting right here on this page to be an immediate banning offense. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept. In response to a private query, I do not feel moved to recuse despite being an agent of the subject's opposing claimant to the stewardship of the Isle of Man. James F. (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I would reject because I think the situation is less complex than it might at first appear. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

[edit] Case dismissed

The community can take care of this entire issue itself -- the article has been deleted and User:Kingofmann has departed wikipedia.

Passed 7 to 0 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)