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.

Dispute resolution (Requests)
Tips
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Help desk (Request)
Content disputes
Third opinion (Request) Mediation Noticeboards Request comments (Request) Resolution noticeboard (Request)
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)
v t e

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

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 against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' 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

Under the below Current requests section:

• Click "[edit]";
• Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting 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

• -Ril- (talk · contribs)
• SimonP (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

There have already been a total of three ArbCom cases agains CheeseDreams/-Ril-, as well as several RFCs.

That's a lie. There has only been one prior arbcom case against me, and it primarily concerned my signature. There have been no RFCs since the prior arbcom case, and no attempt at any dispute resolution has been made by SimonP in that time about anything. --Victim of signature fascism 01:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably bad to bring a case to the committee in my first week of as an arbitrator, but -Ril- has returned to his/her old tricks.

At this point I am quite certain the -Ril- is the hard banned user CheeseDreams.

1. Both have the same twin interests in Christianity and Egyptian mythology
2. Both have a deeply held, and similar, opinions on Christianity and a seeming inability to work constructively with others in these areas
3. -Ril- first began editing soon after CheeseDreams was temporarily blocked in January 2005. When CheeseDreams returned for a period -Ril- immediately stopped editing. Only once the CheeseDreams account was permanently hardbanned did -Ril- begin editing again.
4. Both have claimed to be British and to be university lecturers.
5. Both have very similar writing styles, and similar techniques such as mass messaging users and persistent edit wars.
6. I don't have Check User yet, but from times they have edited when logged out they come from the same place. An IP that was pretty obviously CheeseDreams edited History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism from 81.157.11.245, while a user who was quite obviously -Ril- edited Authentic Matthew from 81.156.177.21 and 81.156.176.160.

1. Who is CheeseDreams? And what is the significance of this?
2. I have never edited History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism - you can check the article's history if you like.
3. I don't have an interest in Christianity. My interests are

   • Contemporary international politics, the Islam vs. George Bush conflict in particular
   • Egyptian mythology
   • Greek mythology
   • Ancient linguistics, particularly comparative philology (the evolution of languages, and how they interrelate and share ancestors), and also how we can use it to tell us about the evolution of myth

   This latter interest may have a very minor amount of overlap with Christianity, for example in the subject of theophory of names, historic terminology, etc. though I don't see much discussion of this subject happening in Christian circles.

   The interest in Egypt would I suppose cover the Habiru, Sea Peoples, Shishak, and Hyksos, who do have overlap with Biblical themes, but this is Old Testament not Christian, if anything

   My entire edit history reflects this, and you will be able to see that hardly any of my 7000+ edits are anything to do with Christianity

4. I am indeed British, or rather English, and I am a university lecturer in the subject of linguistics (I generally teach historical linguistics related courses)
5. I did edit Authentic Matthew. I don't exactly see what that is meant to prove, other than maybe I edited Authentic Matthew?
6. I'm not really engaged in edit wars, nor have I been. If you mean persistent controversial discussions on talk pages, then that is perhaps true recently, but that isn't the same thing as an edit war.

--Victim of signature fascism 02:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. could someone explain exactly what I am being accused of here, as this just seems to be a case of "I hate -Ril-, please do something about him" rather than "-Ril- has done X which is bad".

P.p.s. I suspect SimonP's motive in bringing this case has everything to do with sour grapes in him being on the losing side of a community consensus about not including large source texts in an article, which SimonP still refuses to comply with.

• Recuse, obviously - SimonP 01:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse. Dmcdevit·t 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If it can be shown that -Ril- is CheeseDreams, then I don't believe a new case is required - previous decisions apply to sockpuppets/reincarnations too. Let's get a CheckUser done before we go any further. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 09:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IronDuke

Gnetwerker

Dispute about Reed College page and its talk page. [2]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Gnetwerker [[3]]
• Sdedeo [[4]]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Medcabal:[5]

I’ve been having a dispute for the past few weeks with Gnetwerker regarding the Reed College article. Gnetwerker has often referenced a special relationship to the college, and hinted broadly that he is an officer of the college to buttress his edits, going so far as to include references to internal Reed documents to support his (in my view POV) edits, but when challenged will not divulge his relationship.[6] I believe he is a trustee of Reed College, and can provide evidence for this upon request. I have suggested to Gnetwerker that he recuse himself from direct edits on the Reed College page. Gnetwerker believes my suggestion is improper and insists that my doing so constitutes a personal attack, and has deleted reference to it from the talk page.

In fact, he has deleted all of my comments on all of the edits I made, even ones which concern subjects that are not in dispute – this is directly contrary to our medcabal mediator’s stated opinion on this matter [7]. Also, just after we reached medcabal-assisted resolution on a contentious issue, Gnetwerker began reverting my edits without discussion.

Gnetwerker has made personal attacks against me and been generally uncivil, despite my best efforts to make peace with him. To wit: Gnetwerker has referred to my edits as “nonsense” more than once, as “vandalism” more than once[8], as “BS,” as “drivel,” [9] and has threatened to have me banned as a vandal[10]].

I would like to see a temporary ban on Gnetwerker editing the Reed College page, with the proviso that he refrain from POV editing if he returns. An apology from him for incivility would be nice, but not absolutely necessary, merely a promise to cease the behavior would suffice. Thanks for your attention. IronDuke 16:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Jan 12 (17:43 UTC) User:IronDuke made the following comment on the Reed College page: "deaths from heroin overdoses by members of the Reed community were not uncommon in the early to mid 90's"[11]. This statement was false, not sourced, deeply unverifiable, and possibly defamatory. Since the "Drug Use" section of the Reed College page is the frequent target of vandals, IronDuke's edit was simply reverted. When he re-inserted the statement without discussion, citation, or change, a quick perusal of IronDuke's edit history showed him to be primarily involved in Talk and edits on controversial subjects, reenforcing the impression of him as a vandal or near-vandal. When presented with evidence (the subject of substantial research) of the error of his statement, his response was: "you are in any case quite wrong about the number of heroin deaths among members of the Reed Community"[12]. Over the next three days the argument played out, with two users (JeseW and Matt Gies) who disagreed with IronDuke essentially chased out of the argument.

On Jan 16, after being presented with evidence of his eror/POV regarding the above statement, IronDuke first attempted to intimidate me into leaving him to edit the page: "I would ask you to recuse yourself from further edits to the article". He repeated he charge: "My suggestion is ... that you may have ... a fiduciary responsibility to Reed College and, as such, a duty to recuse yourself from this page". (17 Jan 02:28 UTC). While denying I have, in any sense, a fiduciary interest in Reed, I posted the question on Wikipedia talk:Autobiography. The community seemed (with little comment) to support members of a College community editing a page about the college. I have always stipulated that I am a member of the Reed community, and have never hinted that I am an "officer" or have a special relationship, other than that I live near Reed and can walk onto campus and ask the administration questions about these matters. IronDuke's assertion above is another unsourced, unverifiable accusation.

During this period, IronDuke made 10 additional edits to the Reed page in quick succession and repeated his threat ("I would ask that you not edit the article directly, but simply post suggestions on the talk page." (18 Jan 02:41 UTC)). I posted a POV Dispute Tag on the page and asked for the page to be temporarily blocked for a cooling-off period. IronDuke repeated his charge on the Talk page of the Admin who protected the page[13]. When IronDuke objected to an attempt at refactoring the edit war onto a dedicated page, he publicly accused me of "removing" his comments, when in fact a large, red box at the top of the page pointed to all refactored comments (including my own).

After a lengthy mediation process, I stipulated my agreement to the mediation was contingent on IronDuke refraining from personal attacks on me. When the mediation was completed the mediator User:Sdedeo posted "I'll do is take care of the talk page archiving myself" (26 Jan 20:35 UTC). Shortly thereafter, IronDuke reverted the refactored Talk page and resumed his harassment of me there. He continues to call the refactoring "deletion" or "removal", attributing it to me, and is now objecting to the insertion of new edits supported by supplied citations, because they overlap some (by no means most or all) of his previous edits.

In summation, my position is that User:IronDuke has systematically violated WP:NPA, WP:HA, WP:NPOV, Editing_policy, and possibly Wikipedia:Libel. His repeated requests for my removal from Reed's page constitute "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" from WP:NPA. His charge of comment removal is demonstrably false. This arbitration request is a component of his threats and harassment. While I did not originate this action, I would request, at a minimum, that he be banned from editing the Reed College page or placed on probation as a disruption. -- Gnetwerker 22:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse, I am a student at Reed College(!) Dmcdevit·t 22:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Charles Matthews 22:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept ➥the Epopt 23:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Mackensen (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept —Matthew Brown (T:C) 18:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. - SimonP 18:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification from the Arbcom on matters related to the arbitration process.

I've heard some users comment on a lack of people with CheckUser rights, and I notice a backlog of about a week on the CheckUser board. As such, I was wondering if the ArbCom intends to extend CheckUser rights to some of the new Arbiters. Radiant_>|< 02:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have been discussing giving it to one person (a non-arbitrator) for the last day or so. We'll probably soon end up giving it to some of the new arbitrators too. Raul654 02:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the fact that a certain previous arbitrator has been doing most of the checkuser requests for awhile now is it to be assumed also that the arbcom is happy with allowing those who already have it to keep it despite not having a current position on the arbcom? Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I was still on, I did say I'd happily give it up if asked (though I'd rather not), but that Kelly at least should definitely keep it 'cos she plans to actually work on the CheckUser feature when her Linux box is back to life. Considering the present CheckUser extension is more or less a quick hack Tim Starling put together for my personal use so I wouldn't have to bug the devs, it could do with a lot of polishing up! - David Gerard 16:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well when I mentioned a former arbitrator who did the majority of checkuser checks I was referring to Kelly and the fact she's planning on making the checkuser feature better is all the more reason former arbitrators should be able to keep their access as long as they don't go postal and blatantly misuse it... and I seriously doubt that will ever happen. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The decision of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine was that he, I, and Robert West (who is still having technical difficulties with WP) should collaborate on a consensus version.

Since my return to Wikipedia, Ultramarine is continuing his habit of referring to edits he has made as the "good", "superior", "correct abd complete" version. I find this uncollegial, and ask if it is consistent with the spirit of the arbitration decision. Several diffs of such claims be found in the evidence in the case, and the usage has continued on Talk:Democratic peace theory, and I believe elsewhere. Septentrionalis 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that none of the remedies in this case have actually been implemented so far. Does anyone know what happened? --TML1988 23:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Nobs01's case, he hasn't posted since 12/23, which is when the decision became final. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the other remedies? For example, Cognition has made many posts after the decision came down, and Lyndon LaRuche 2 has not been touched since last February. --TML1988 15:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the case was not closed properly. Fred Bauder 15:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then can someone "clean up the mess"? --TML1988 02:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time to ask for a banning of Zen-master. For how long, I do not know. But. Probation (which was prescribed for him at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master) has failed miserably with him. He was just blocked for violation of the 3RR on Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. It's his 3rd 3RR ban in the last 6 weeks. In addition, he has been banned from several articles for periods of time, including conspiracy theory and Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. He also joined an edit war at Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which if anything else shows continued poor judgement and lack of understanding of his probation, which is supposed to keep him out of any edit wars. I put a notice on WP:AN/I for others to chime in here as I believe I am missing an article or two he was blocked from in the last 2 weeks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconded. Zen is belligerent, assumes bad faith, does not listen to other people, revert wars, and calls his opponents vandals. He is unable or unwilling to understand such concepts as consensus, or the fact that policy is not created by voting upon it, and has created or promoted several snarky policy proposals in an attempt to give false credence to his opinions. For instance, Wikipedia:Information suppression, which is a faux addition to WP:NPOV with the underlying intent of not allowing scientific sources to "put down" psuedoscientific articles.
• I would recommend putting him under the zero-revert rule, and banning him entirely from the Wikipedia namespace. But frankly he hasn't done much that is useful the last weeks. Radiant_>|< 10:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Many of Zen-master's violations stem from his crusade (over the past 7-8 months) to eliminate the term "conspiracy theory". There's been endless discussions on at least a dozen pages and a straw poll showed strong support for keeping the term. Zen is basically attempting to force through his opinion through Death by a thousand cuts, hoping that other editors will eventually wear down and give up. I'd support a permanent ban from any "conspiracy theory" related article as well as a several month ban from the Wikipedia namespace (perhaps allowing for AfD and RfA). Carbonite | Talk 15:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the main issue with Zen and to me it's what demonstrates the failure of probation. The idea of probation is supposed to change people's ways. Well, if you look at zen's edits since his probation started, I think he's gotten worse, not better. He still doesn't even quite understand why he was put on probation in the first place. Probation is just wasted on him. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd say it's time for a long term block of a month or more. Can we get a vote by the arbcom? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. Zen-master is causes disruption on practically every page he edits. He even managed to try to start drama on WP:FAITH. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the 'nood ArbCom decisions "1) Instantnood (talk · contribs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week."

What should be done when he doesn't actually propose a move, but just uses subterfuge to get what he wants?

In the ArbCom case there was plenty of evidence in the start of the case that he was abusing the rename process by repeatedly asking for "Foo of Taiwan" to be renamed "Foo of the Republic of China". Now that ArbCom closed the case with that restriction above, he just avoids the rename process altogether. Yesterday there was an existing category Taiwanese newspapers that corresponded with the naming convention in Category:Newspapers by country (ie, "Foobarnese newspapers" as opposed to "Newspapers of Foobar"). To get what he wants without actually proposing a rename he created a parallel category (Newspapers of the Republic of China), put it in Newspapers by country and other parent categories, then deprecated Taiwanese newspapers by removing it from the parent categories.

Meanwhile, while the new category sits on CfD, with an overwhelming early consensus to delete, he's insisting that either his, or BOTH of the categories should exist in the parent categories [14] [15].

So, he hasn't actually proposed to rename the the category, he just wants to create two parallel categories and move them around in the category structure. (Creating parallel forks isn't new behavior from him, but it fell through the cracks in the case.)

Also meanwhile, he's not "proposing a move" merely "seeking clarification" on another ROC/Taiwan move, Media in Taiwan.

And I'd also like the ArbCom to consider removing the words "relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)" from this restriction on his behavior. I'm mostly not involved, but he's currently edit warring with other editors on half a dozen articles related to the naming of food of all things and whether they should be named with Cantonese, Mandarin, or English. [16] [17], etc. These aren't related to the Chinese naming conventions, but mere mortal editors shouldn't have to try and keep up with his proposals and unilateral moves.

- SchmuckyTheCat 22:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done when he doesn't actually propose a move, but just uses subterfuge to get what he wants? Then it counts as a move. As to the edit warring over food names, guess there are some general problems we didn't handle. Fred Bauder 03:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an enforcement mechanism for this, or just an admonishment? (The same question could be said about the edit summary statement - "is reminded to make useful edit summaries.") SchmuckyTheCat 21:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Instantnood_placed_on_probation will have to serve. However, this requires an administrator with the energy and interest to look into it and actually do something. Fred Bauder 14:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a rename. Republic of China and Taiwan means something different. I am not proposing to move newspapers published in Taiwan to the parent category for the Republic of China, which Taiwan is, contemporarily, a major part of. The relevant Wikipedia policies, including the NPOV policy, have been listed here [18]. As a matter of fact, user:SchmuckyTheCat tried several times to delink the category he has nominated to CfD from all other categories ([19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]), although the CfD is in process.

The disputes around the articles on food is not only around their names, and they're not related to the previous arbitration case. — Instantnood 21:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's your contention, not the communities, that RoC and Taiwan mean something different. The category existed, you delinked it when you created a new replacement category. A duck by any other name still quacks. SchmuckyTheCat 03:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not agreeing with the NPOV policies, please proceed to propose changes to them. Don't disrupt Wikipedia by reverting edits made based on those policies, and, to the worst, nominating something to deletion by producing false accusations there. — Instantnood 09:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the disputes over food names is not related to the previous arbitration case, then could you explain the administrative action of page bans in Barbecued pork with rice, Char siu, and so on? And yes it is not a rename. If it was you would have flouted the arbcom rules outright and STC wont have needed to post this here at all to highlight your gaming of the rules.--Huaiwei 15:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entire exchange here with the numerous openly hostile comments Schmucky has made toward Instant or anyone who in anyway supports a viewpoint like Instant's or even advocates a modicum of decorum shows the action taken by the ArbCom just didn't go far enough here. The edit warring continues across several articles, Schmucky has flat out said he intends on being hostile and continue what sounds like a crusade when he describes it against Instant [26]. The ink is hardly dry from the decision and the warring continues. --Wgfinley 04:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to comment, that my recent dealings with Wgfinley has been far from jovial, given his propensity in openly accusing the "opponents of instantnood" of all wrong doings, while continuing to believe instantnood is a victim of circumstance. I do not find STC's comments openly hostile in any way, and the source quoted above does not show his intention to be hostile or to launch a crusade against Instantnood, since he did insist that he at least still goes by the rules, something instantnood has spectacularly failed to do consistantly before or after the arbcom ruling. I would therefore read Wgfinley's comments with a pinch of salt.--Huaiwei 15:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how is it supposed to stop it? You could endorse one side or the other but in most POV disputes, surely the two sides will not actually go, well, the arbcom says the other POV has merit so I'll just stop fighting for my POV. If anything, it shows the pointlessness of the arbcom, or any other empowered group of editors, getting involved in content disputes. Not that pointlessness will stop them, obviously. -- Grace Note

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)