Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User sabotaging efforts to improve Yitzchak Ginsburgh|User sabotaging efforts to improve Yitzchak Ginsburgh]]		22 June 2017	0/7/0
Cross-Strait conflict: PRC and ROC		23 June 2017	0/7/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

User sabotaging efforts to improve Yitzchak Ginsburgh

Initiated by 238-Gdn (talk) at 22:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Involved parties

• 238-Gdn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1][2](correction)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

discussions on talk page

• [3]
• [4]

Statement by 238-Gdn

Nomoskedasticity has been sabotaging attempts made to improve the article Yitzchak Ginsburgh. As a new editor, I made efforts to adapt new material following his and other editors' comments,[5] yet Nomoskedasticity has persistently removed[6][7] and hidden new material sometimes without valid reason.[8] He has challenged almost every reference, and has insisted on retaining certain parts of the article, even when editors' consensus has been against them.[9][10] All this has pointed to violation of WP:OWN, as pointed out [11]. He had Arbpia restrictions placed on the page, which prevented me from editing it until I had gained 500 edits, effectively gaming the system. Once this was in effect he took the liberty to make extensive changes[12] to the article.

Today, with more than 500 edits, I returned to edit the page, and have already been met with the same stubborn attitude.[13][14] To the list of students, I added a name that Nomoskedasticity had previously deleted because the individual had no wikipedia article about him. The article now exists, but he tagged the new article with a request for deletion.[15] I see this as part of his continued efforts to prevent this page from developing. I have tried to amiably discuss the issues on the talk page,[16] but to no avail. I have not turned to any other form of dispute resolution because this is not a local dispute concerning a one-time act of misconduct or edit-warring; rather, the user obviously has a general aversion to the article and its subject, which is preventing him from viewing new material objectively.

@Softlavender: Thanks for the advice. I checked out the options you mentioned and chose to approach it from here. We're not talking about disputes about the individual content, which could hopefully be dealt with gracefully, but the behavior of the user regarding this particular page. The discussions have been neutral and civil, but all attempts have been met with consistent stubborness, repeated reversions etc., as mentioned above, as well as refusal to accept changes that do not reflect the editor's point of view. The behavior of this editor so far on the aforementioned article points to a deeper problem than disputes about content. 238-Gdn (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

238-Gdn, you are in the wrong place. ArbCom is not the venue for content dispute resolution. The venue for that is via neutral and civil discussions on the talk page of the article. If you fail to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS there, you can also post a neutral invitation on the talk page of the relevant WikiProjects listed on that talk page, and/or utilize some form of dispute resolution. If after all of those procedures have been utilized, you still feel there is a behavioral issue which impedes resolution, you may bring your concerns to WP:ANI, but generally only after you have utlized all of those processes beforehand. Also: Do not discuss article content on user talkpages; keep the discussions confined to the article talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@238-Gdn: You're not getting it. You are not allowed to post a dispute at ArbCom unless you have gone through other dispute-resolution procedures (which you have not) and exhausted them first. If you truly believe this is solely a behavioral issue, then post your concerns at WP:ANI, not here. I predict however that the case will be thrown out even there, because you have not utilized any WP:DR for the content issues, and no matter how you slice it, every issue you are talking about begins with content, and if you have never attempted any form of DR even once, the folks at ANI are going to note that and count it in your disfavor. You are a brand-new and extremely inexperienced editor [17]; please take the advice of extremely experienced editors before you achieve results you do not want, such as WP:BOOMERANG. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

User sabotaging efforts to improve Yitzchak Ginsburgh: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Procedural decline. Engaging in a discussion on the article talk page is only one step of many in the dispute resolution process that must be completed before filing an ArbCom case request. Mkdw ^talk 23:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Decline this also. We are the last resort, not the first one. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Decline per preceding. try WP:3O for starters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Decline per above. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Decline per all above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Decline ditto. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Have a look at the suggestions for resolving this issue at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Cross-Strait conflict: PRC and ROC

Initiated by Supreme Dragon (talk) at 00:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Supreme Dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Matt Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lemongirl942 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kanguole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AjaxSmack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Miklcct (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• George Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• George Ho
• Miklcct
• Matt Smith
• JohnBlackburne

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [18]
• [19]

Pages that related to Cross-Strait conflict for example:

• National Emblem of the People's Republic of China
• Republic of China (1949–71) (now redirected)
• Taiwan
• China

Statement by Supreme Dragon

Because of the PRC/ROC edit confusion, I propose this case to make it similar to how the Israeli-Palestinian articles are treated as such and we wanted the articles related to the Cross-Strait entities under 1RR enforcement. Since many people referred to either the Republic of China as "Taiwan" the island and the People's Republic of China as "China" things came out of hand because Taiwan was a former Japanese colony for 50 years.

How about we propose a WikiProject Cross-Strait collaboration just like how the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration did. Is there a way to resolve this issue?

Another issue is the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAME, why can't most pages like the PRC and ROC follow the Chinese Wikipedia?

Statement by JohnBlackburne

Not sure exactly what is being proposed here, but I have some prior experience of arbitration and this is not a suitable matter for arbitration, both in what is being asked and in other avenues being exhausted.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Matt Smith

I'm not sure about what specific actions you would like to perform. Could you please elaborate? --Matt Smith (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Miklcct

Although undoubtedly, the WP:COMMONNAME of PRC is China and WP:COMMONNAME of ROC is Taiwan, it is not always true along the history, and after the prolonged discussion of Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20, the original Republic of China article (most of which is about the current state commonly known as Taiwan) moved to Taiwan and it is supposed that "An article narrowly formulated about the government of Taiwan and its history can be created at Republic of China."

However, the attempt to do the latter is frequently get reverted over years, leaving ongoing confusion, and against consensus of the discussion.

Statement by George Ho

I have been involved in ArbCom. This time, the issue hasn't escalated yet. I told the requestor to reconsider filing the request. However, seems that the requestor wants to go ahead as intended and do this. Honestly, China and Taiwan titling has been debated for so long, yet I request that the full case be declined. Unsure about a motion as there were disagreements at one talk page (formerly "Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/China"). One editor accusing another of something like this, though it's self-reverted. Still, the requestor (Supreme Dragon) and Szqecs should reconsider pursuing the titling changes further. --George Ho (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, declining a motion either. --George Ho (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

Supreme Dragon, this case request is going to be turned down flat by ArbCom. You have not engaged in even one single form of Dispute Resolution. And this is a content dispute, which ArbCom never deals with. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Question for ArbCom: What the hell is with the plethora of brand-new [20] editors making unwarranted ArbCom case requests this week? Are the warnings about exhausting all other forms of dispute resolution not clear or visible enough? Apparently not, so could someone fix that? I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over and over again. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Cross-Strait conflict: PRC and ROC: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Decline. Seriously: what the editor is proposing is in no way the business of ArbCom. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Decline. I don't think Supreme Dragon understands the arbitration process or the role of ArbCom under the WP:ARBPOL. Mkdw ^talk 02:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Decline premature. Could open RfC for starters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Decline per above. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Decline the "prior dispute resolution" consists of a revert and a fix of a link to a disambiguation page from a year ago? (That has to be a mis-paste, right?) Premature and not really within our scope. Try an RfC if needed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Decline per all above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Decline ditto. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Decline per above. While I realise that this is a difficult and controversial issue at the moment, there are many other (less lengthy and stressful) options (see WP:CONTENTDISPUTE) you should try before arbitration. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)