Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland | Motion | (orig. case) | 21 June 2024 |
| Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox | Motion | none | 10 July 2024 |
| Clarification request: Desysoppings | none | none | 12 July 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.
0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/ reject/ recuse/ other.
This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
- Arbitration policy
- Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
- Developer help needed
- Arbitration template
- Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents
How to list cases
Under the below Current requests section:
- Click "[edit]";
- Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), ommitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
- Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
- Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
- Remove the template comments (indented).
Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template
Current requests
Haiduc
Involved parties
- User:Nlu (RfAr requester)
- User:Haiduc
On October 30, 2005, Haiduc created the category and began populating it. When he added Gaozu of Han and Emperor Hui of Han to the category, I objected (on his talk page) and then look at the category's current occupants. Feeling that the category had a number of flaws, I added a CfD -- which led to a lengthy discussion that I feel needs ArbCom intervention. Pages involved: mostly Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 30, but also User talk:Haiduc, the two pages above, and Talk:Gaozu of Han.
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHaiduc&diff=29990792&oldid=29986304
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
No other steps, other than trying to talk it out with the other party (as evidence on the CfD page and on Talk:Gaozu of Han) has been attempted. The reason is that it appears to be inappropriate to request mediation over a CfD, nor, based on the tone of the discussion, would it appear likely to be fruitful.
Statement by party 1
During this discussion, Haiduc has repeatedly accused me of homophobia -- which I let go a couple times -- but I feel has been way too overused to let stand. I have made genuine efforts to try to explain my position -- including translating a passage from Shi Ji, which Haiduc himself indicated that he was unable to read due to his inability to read Chinese -- and explaining why, based on the context of the chapter of Shi Ji where the passage came from, I hold the position that I'm holding. I believe that I got no good faith response out of him. Further, he has called, if not me (I feel that implicitly the statement included me, which he later disavowed, to his credit), other people who participated in the discussion "juvenile." Both of these are, I believe, violations of WP:NPA. He has also further threatened to circumvent the CfD process by simply renaming the category -- which was only one of the objections that I raised with regard to the category and not per se the "meat" of the objection. --Nlu 05:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Statement by party 2
(Please limit your statement to 500 words)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)
- Reject without prejudice — this is (at least as currently described) an issue of content, not behavior ➥the Epopt 05:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Reject without prejudice — premature, use earlier steps in Dispute resolution. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Gibraltarian
Involved parties
Strong disagreement in Gibraltar-related articles. Mainly Disputed status of Gibraltar (main discusion in Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar) and History of Gibraltar
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
I've informed Gibraltarian today. See [1]. His response has been: GET LOST. DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN UNDER ANY PRETEXT. YOU BEHAVIOUR IS BENEATH CONTEMPT. GO AWAY! [2]
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Spangineer has tried to mediate in the process. He's also requested comments with no result. He has adviced me to start the arbitratrion process.
Woohookitty has taken care of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and could possibly report about the "respectful" requests for unprotection by Gibraltarian.
Cyberjunkie has repeatedly warn Gibraltarian against personal attacks, but it's proved unsuccessful.
Statement by party 1
Gibraltarian, apart for refusing taking part in the dispute resolution process, keep on his personal attacks on me.
The following are what I consider a handful of violations of policies and guidelines:
- Violation of 3RR policy. Two "takes" of 3RR violations have been performed by Gibraltarian. The most serious was this one: History of Gibraltar was reverted up to eleven times in five days. He didn't provide any reason even if the edition he reverted was different each time (I kept on adding new information).
- Violation of "No personal attacks" policy. The history of History of Gibraltar is full of insults in the labels of editions. Similar attacks can be found in Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar/1 or Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar
- Misunderstanding of NPOV. I think that this is the underlaying source of the dispute. Compare WP is NOT a discussion forum, and an article about a country, territory or city should be simply information about it, presented in a neutral fashion. Sometimes alternative POV's on an issue can be presented, but most of the time it is quite possible to word something from a neutral viewpoint without being at all controversial [3] with First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them (from NPOV). Here Gibraltarian doesn't even allow other POVs than his (providing that, of course, he defines what is neutral).
- Refusal to provide sources. I've done an extensive research that can be seen in Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar, Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar/1#Disagreements, on in the alternative versions that Gibraltarian insists in removing (History of Gibraltar/temp or Disputed status of Gibraltar/temp). I'm open to provide additional sources if needed or if the currently provided are considered not reliable enough. But it's difficult to know what to do when the other party just says to support his reversions and statements: "I have no need to "justify" anything to an obsessed troll" (label in edition in [4]) and the like.
- Gibraltarian has also accussed the administrator in charge of the mediation of being biased: What a coincidence, the Ecemaml troll was allowed to make his revert just before the protection.....how nice for him. HASN'T IT SUNK IN YET?? THAT WAS HIS INTENTION ALL ALONG, AND YOU HAVE FALLEN INTO HIS TRAP! He is a troll! [5], misunderstanding what a protection is.
I've proposed a step-by-step process to solve this dispute (see Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar), but it hasn't been accepted (nor rejected, just ignored).
--Ecemaml 09:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Statement by party 2
(Please limit your statement to 500 words)
Statement by uninvolved party Dmcdevit
This issue has come up on RFPP repeatedly, and I think I was the one to respond first, so I'll make a note. I recommend that the arbcom accept this case to consider edit warring by both parties, as well as Gibraltarian's incivility/personal attacks (I'm in no position to be able to judge the NPOV dispute). The first time, I blocked both parties for 3RR. Nothing seems to have changed since then, despite Spangineer's valiant, but failed mediation effort. While I think Ecemaml was acting in good faith, he was is at his wit's end and resorted to indulging the edit warring. Gibraltarian, however, has insisted on making personal attacks against Ecemaml in probably every post to RFPP and in talk page discussions, calling him a "troll" at every chance (eg, this is a good example). He, as opposed to Ecemaml, seems to view edit warring as a valid means of encyclopedia writing (an extraorfinarily large amout of his article edits are reverts without edit summaries). This attitude, both in edit warring and personal attacks is unacceptable, and I think is at the point where sanctions are appropriate. Dmcdevit·t 09:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved party Woohookitty
I also have been dealing with this case on the protection page. Just a couple of observations. One is that Ecemaml is an admin on the spanish wikipedia. To me that just gives credance to Dmc's idea that he got into this edit warring because he felt like he had to, not for any malicious reason. What I find interesting is that Ecemaml is called a troll alot by Gibraltarian, but it's Gibraltarian who has shown the troll-like characteristics, such as posting the same information over and over again, personal attacks, etc. Please take this case. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)
- Accept. Fred Bauder 15:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Accept (for behaviour, not NPOV, of course). James F. (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Accept ➥the Epopt 17:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Requests for Clarification
Requests for clarification from the Arbcom on matters related to the arbitration process.
Bogdanov Affair question
Now instead of working on the Bogdanov Affair page, the users who were banned from editing the Bogdanov Affair (including CatherineV) are editing the talk page of the article instead. Can they be blocked for doing that or not? The RfAr decision isn't clear on that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine
I wonder why this one is in the "voting" phase when there is nothing in the "remedies" and "enforcements" sections (not even on the "workshop" page)?
- I am recused, but looks like a work in progress, if you have some ideas go to the workshop page and make some suggestions. Fred Bauder 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Checkuser Awilliamson
From WP:RFM/JoA:
- User:Durova: We seem to have broken the deadlock and the article is much improved. I'd like to solicit Admin's help for one continuing problem. Switisweti and I are convinced that AWilliamson is still damaging the article via anonymous IP addresses. These range from aggressive POV edits to outright vandalism.
-St|eve 07:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Zen-master race and intelligence ban clarification/justification question
The admin Ryan Delaney has banned me (I am on probation) from the race and intelligence article for adding the {npov} template to a highly and fundamentally disputed article (and area of research). A quick look at the talk page will show the article and area of research have been accused (with citations) of unscientific and racism inducing methodologies. It also has as its foundation IQ testing which is itself highly disputed on numerous points.
Another admin has already poitned out to Ryan that (from Wikipedia:Probation) "A ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access". The only explanation Ryan offered was in a check in summary which labeled my action as a "disruption", I challenge Ryan or anyone to show exactly how adding an {npov} template to an article that is (fundamentally) disputed in good faith is a "disruption"? For recent discussion of this see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Impositions_of_a_ban_under_the_probation_remedy. There seems to be a highly coordinated effort to censor, mischaracterize or lessen fundamental criticisms of "race" and "intelligence" "research". zen master T 18:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- You have a history of disruptively adding permanent {npov} templates to articles until you get your way. This is part of a pattern. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- A quick look at the talk page will show other editors agree with me that the race and intelligence article is fundamentally disputed. Please assume good faith and investigate this issue. The criteria here is not about me getting my "way", the issue is Ryan Delaney and other admins repeatedly trying to deny the existence of criticisms of what appears to be a racism inducing article, aren't you at all concerned about that possibility? How can adding {npov} be "disruptive" if an in good faith dispute exists? zen master T 19:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
While there are legitimate issues with respect to the framing of the issues, your way of struggling regarding the framing of issues has been found to be disruptive, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Disruptive_edits. Fred Bauder 20:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)