Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[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

Current requests

Catalonia and Valencian Community

Initiated by Physchim62 (talk) at 16:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Casaforra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dúnadan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toniher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Casaforra: [1]
• Dúnadan: [2]
• Toniher: [3]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [4]

also several hundred kilobytes of talk page archives

Statement by Physchim62

Since at least February 2007, Catalonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Valencian Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and various related articles have been the scene of serious edit-warring. I feel that the users above are the "main culprits": they act as a group, and there are strong suspicions of sock puppetry concerning at least some of them.

The modus operandi is fairly classic in such cases. The said users attempt to revert certain edits which cite reliable sources but which do not conform to their point of view. They themselves are less than able to provide reliable sources for their assertions, or sometimes even to remain civil. The result is edit warring, talk-page diarrhea and a paralysis of constructive editing.

A Request for Mediation relating to Valencian Community failed because of the refusal of the concerned parties to participate. I am bringing the case to Arbitration because of the shear length of disruption, and because of new indications of disruptive sock puppetry which, if confirmed (as far as these things can be), would cover the much of this six-month period. As such, I feel that a case can be made on the basis of user conduct rather than on that of article content.

• In partial reply to Casaforra below, User:Benimerin has now been unblocked and informed of the request for arbitration here. Physchim62 (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Maurice27

I agree with this request. Each change or edit even if proven with legal and/or graphic sources has to be discussed, sometimes even for weeks, on talk-pages. --Maurice27 16:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Casaforra

If a Request for Arbitration happens, then please include all the users involved in the edition of those articles. That is (inalphabetical order): Boynamedsue, Maurice27, Mountolive, and the proposer Physchim62. I don't know if a blocked user could also take part, Benimerin.

As for me, I should say I'm only editing on the Talk page of the Valencian Community, I haven't ever edited in the article or the talk page of Catalonia.

But, please, go on, and read the archived talk pages as well. Psychim62 was very prompt to block indefinitely two anon IPS and one new user (Benimerin), but has done nothing regarding a very disruptive and incivil user, Maurice27.

I don't know where to sign but I fully agree that, once for all, somebody setles peace and gets some heavy consensus. I'll stand for whatever arbiters say. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mountolive

I definitely agree to this. The medical symptoms couldn't be explained better by Physchim62: talk page diarrhea. Talk pages haven't proved effective at all in those articles.

Me personally I have been mostly out of these articles for a few months now. Actually, these very articles are responsible for having quite disengaged me from wikipedia. It would feel nice if we got a solution good for everybody who is there in good faith and this is, I guess, one more last opportunity, for I think that Casaforra is mainly in good faith (even though the fact that he is calling now that major vandal called Benimerin to be revived is really puzzling). I don't know how he's been acting recently, but Toniher has proved to me once or twice in the past that he can also be agreeable and in good faith. Thus, I guess there is a chance.

So, yes, you can count on me for this...if it is going to be different than those talk pages mentioned, of course.

Mountolive

Statement by Dúnadan

The situation at the aforementioned talk pages wouldn't have been as drastic as to request for arbitration had the administrator involved acted promptly and fairly. I agree with Casaforra, the admin in question has blatantly ignored the repeated insults, swearing and disruptive behavior of some users, one of which was permanently blocked by another administrator and then unblocked yet again. Yet, he permanently blocked a new user with a different POV by assigning him a purported puppeteer without solid evidence, and without a fair "trial" (no case was opened at WP:SSP). When confronted and asked to open an investigation to confirm the identity of the purported sock puppet, he said that this sock-puppetry case was evident and ultimately responded that "it is none of your business". His sympathy for the POV of one of the parties involved has been evident, not only by condoning their lack of etiquette and disruptive behavior, but also by naming in this request for arbitration only those users who disagree with his POV (Toniher, Casaforra and myself), but not those who happen to agree with his particular POV (Mountolive, Boynamedsue and Maurice27).

While I cannot claim to have a NPOV (we all have different POVs), let me offer a brief explanation of the discussions for which Physchim62 is, presumably, requesting for arbitration:

• Conflict of sources and their interpretation concerning the proportions of the Valencian Flag (both parties have presented arguments and sources, but no consensus was reached): a user presented several pictures of hoisted 2:1 Valencian flags in historical and government buildings, another user presented a law that establishes that municipal flags of the Valencian autonomous community should be of 2:3 proportions and claims that, even though the flag in question is that of an autonomous community and not a municipality, the law applies to the Valencian flag as well (no clear picture of 2:3 has been provided; pics of blurred or folded flags in which the proportion cannot be determined have been provided by this party).
• Disregard of what the constitution of Spain and Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia say (some users even claimed that these two legal documents were biased ). Since both documents use the word "nationality" (a term coined by the Spanish Parliament to refer to regions with cultural identity within Spain); and the latter uses it to describe Catalonia (i.e. "Catalonia is a nationality constituted as an autonomous community...", in the first article of the Statute), some users decided to use it in the lead paragraph, properly referenced, to describe Catalonia. The other party which claimed that the term and/or constitution are biased, or that the term does not apply to present-day Catalonia, opposes it. Even though a rough consensus was reached, whereby the term was avoided in the lead paragraph, but later introduced in a subsequent section in which the first article of the Statute of Autonomy is cited verbatim with no words added of our own, Maurice27, when unblocked, contested the consensus, claiming that it was biased, even though it is a mere citation of a legal text.
• Disregard for what international linguistic authorities say (by issuing single ISO-639-1, ISO-639-2 codes: "ca" and a single ISO-391-3 code: "cat") and what the Valencian Academy of the Language says: that català (Catalan) and valencià (Valencian) are one and the same language, most commonly known in English simply as Catalan. (Britannica uses the word Catalan to refer to the language and Valencian to refer to the dialect). The consensual phrase "the official languages of Valencia are Spanish and Valencian (as Catalan is known in this territory)" was being contested by some users who either claim that they are two different languages and that the phrase is ridiculous and that we shouldn't mention that Valencian is also Catalan. User:Physchim62 is sympathetic with this claim. There was a rough consensus on this matter since no user has engaged in an edit-war over the last weeks, but another user has proposed that we use the local term of Spanish (Castilian) in the same way as the local term of Catalan (Valencian) is being used; that is, he proposed to say that "the official languages of Valencia are Castilian (see names for the Spanish language) and Valencian (as Catalan is known in this territory)". Being a new proposal, it was still being debated.

I ask the Arbitration Committee to do a comprehensive review of the cases and of the actions and comments of all users and administrators involved, and to take whatever action is necessary to solve this issue fairly and justly. --the Dúnadan 06:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

---

Rotary International

Initiated by User:PierreLarcin at 07:40 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• PierreLarcin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bombastus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Talk page

Statement by User:PierreLarcin

This is a claim about conservative fiddling on the Rotary wiki. It is a difficult claim, as the field is our en.wiki, while Rotary works worldwide, and, in each nation, Rotary clubs work actively in each langage. But be sure that en.wiki is central, for Rotary page as other, as experimented users often compare versions, for exemple their national version and the English version.

For example, we have only one Rotarian-declared wikipedian CeeGee, whose nation is obviously Turkey and works in the military area. CeeGee works on en.wiki on Rotary. He never translated the Rotary wiki into Turkish langage.

For example, Bombastus works on Rotary page, and he began an edit war against me on on en.wiki, and fr.wiki, simultaneously. He presents himself a declared conservative activist, but ONLY on fr.wiki.

I came on wiki when I saw that Rotary built in the different langage versions the same structure of "positive" presentation about the Rotary clubs.

User Bombastus came very recently on en.wikipedia.org, in june. He worked about only on Rotary, and only to revert the negative facts I collected. He proceeds an edit war on both wikis about Rotary International, at the present time on en.wiki and on fr.wiki. On French wiki, he systematically marked the IPs that I use to make a clean wiki and collects as an argument that I am against Jews, homosexuals and freemasons, in a short way a real nazi.

The problems lies on this simple point : may we, or not, begin a list of famous lecturers at the Rotary. For me, yes, as it is open. Despite I am an opponent of the Rotary as an international pilar of the most conservative right politicians, namely a public relation office, I never, NEVER, blanked any "positive" facts about the Rotary. I had to fight severe edit wars by declared Rotarian CeeGee, or users AndyJones, JohnSmith or Bridesmill, all users that I find, by their centers of interests, close to the Rotary, namely non self declared Rotarians. AndyJones is a clear example : he lives by Shakespeare festival location, edits frequently on Shakespeare, and the UK Rotary is a sponsor of that festival. So the context of my claim is the use of wiki as a showroom, a public relations page, for the Rotary, and POV-oriented "never negatively" by Rotarians, declared or non-declared. Another example was the severe fight of BridesMill about the presence of Pinochet in the list of members. This list was blanked several times in en.wiki. It has been also blanked in es.wiki or fr.wiki : they do not allow mentions of the president-dictator Pinochet, or the antisemistic Lindbergh as HONORARY Rotarians.

The backbone point is thus WIKIPEDIA FIDDLING on Rotary International wiki done by Rotarians or conservative activists, blanking negative points.

I remind you that Bombastus, on his fr.wiki presentation page ONLY, present himself as a right activist ("liberal" : in France, it is the right side of the Parliament. Strict Tories in a way)

Bombastus blanked at repeated times the inputs of - a list of famous speakers giving allocutions to Rotary - the fact that Rotary went at repeated times to the nazi party court to proof its compatibility with the NSDAP doctrine. - the fact that Rotarians are active on Internet and not always declare themselves when acting on Wikipedia, which include wiki on Rotary International

Bombastus destroys the collection of facts that I buill, despite the fact that these inputs are open, sourced and discussed. He does not care that this list is open, that these speakers (allowed by Rotary to give allocution) to its members are famous as having their own wikis, or deserve to have they own wikis. Of course, the point is that allowing such speeches, evidently, shows a convergence between their values and the values of the Rotary International.

This seems to be done by Bombastus as he defines himself as "a liberal" (which means in France to be a strong conservative...as Alain Madelin, an old extreme-right "Occident" activists, who as a wiki where Bombastus edited), is thus a conservative, and as the fact as this list mentions and can only mention conservative personalities. The purpose of Bombastus, by blanking this list, seems thus to hide that the Rotary International supports conservative politicians and personalities by its public relations activities.

As a fact, I mention that when I arrived on wiki, I found different versions of wiki about Rotary who were always the same or about the same, obviously built or initiated by Rotarians (see es.wiki about RI and the other contributions of the initiating user of that es.wiki), showing same structure and icons as the actual indonesian wiki. You can still find traces of that common structure on Indonesian wiki and Esperanto wiki of the Rotary, with common phrases and pivs. I had difficulties to bring non-admitted facts as the public relation support given byRI to Lindbergh, an antisemistic personality, to the NSDAP nazi party between 1934 and 1937, and the support given to Pinochet named by Rotary an "Honorary Rotarian". An edit war conducted by declared Rotarian users as CeeGee, or eventually non-declared Rotarians consumed my contributing time. I state that AFTER my edits on wiki about "Famous Rotarians", documented by links on wiki pointing to "FamousRotarians" Rotarian site, Rotary CHANGED his site "Famous Rotarians", distinguishing Famous Rotarians between Active and Honorary, and burying Pinochet and Lindbergh in deeper pages accessible throught little-font links.

I find self-speaking the recent blankings of Bombastus about the REPEATED Rotarian actions done between 1934 and 1937 (established by researcher d'Almeida), the fact that Bombastus changed my "d'Almeida writes" into his "d'Almeida claims" , the Bombastus blanked in the section "Rotarian internet activism" the very probable activity of Rotarians (4 millions worldwide) on Wikipedia and the fact that they are maybe active on this onlyne encyclopedia project without declaring themselves as Rotarians (except user CeeGee), which is certainly allowed, but IF they "only positively" contribute to the Rotary wiki, is a POV attempt to fiddle on Wikipedia.

That why I think that the simple blanking of simple facts, even but only blanking negative aspects of the Rotary, by Bombastus, should be convicted and blamed.

I have difficulties to see. I hope my request is properly formed in the forms. For the forms only, I would appreciate some administrator's help, as the ergonomy is difficult for me, and I will come in 2 or 3 passes to enhance my arguments and presentation.

In a few words, I'll resume that : the point is to know if I may begin a list of known speakers allowed to speak in Rotary, with as criterium "known" the fact to have a wiki. Bombastus says that the list I began and let open is POV and full of "bad" people (In a way as bad should be in my mind "to be politically conservative"). This is fake as I put "Davidovits" and "Louis Michel", who are famous and brought active and interesting points in social life. Bombastus is POV as he forgot to mention that I never blanked opposite opinions, as he did himself in a real edit war (more than three reverts)? Bombastus oppose me a group of people who blanked only "negative" points, as BridesMill, AndyJones, or CeeGee. These people does have an interest in the Rotary image, as I do. The fact that they hide the reason of they interest (AndyJones refused to answer to that question) (Bombastus hides on en.wiki that he is a conservative activist, as he mentions on the fr.wiki), that they never allow opposite (negative) views or facts shows that they are POV, it is self-speaking.

I have the right to mention the fact of these speakers allowed to develop their views at the Rotary Clubs. Allowing such speakers is obviously a mark of support given by Rotary Clubs. We do not have to make "a full" list of speakers, including unknown John Georges of Jamestown or unknown Mary Jane of Elisabethville. Rotarians have already showed their capacity to "bury" dictator Pinochet, racist Senator Jesse Helms and antisemistic Charles Lindbergh in the depths of THEIR "Famous Rotarians" site. They also "flooded" these names in a "full" list of "Honorary Rotarians".

About that "full" list of Honorary Rotarians, I may mention that AndyJones and BridesMill milited actively in a way to class that in an alphabetical order, which allows Pinochet to be buried also. It is an idea that I didn't fight, but the effect is indeed to hide Pinochet.

About the list, I want to mention that Bombastus systematically hide mentions of "conservative" in about the politicians in the list, so pupils or scholars may not remark that there at Rotary just ONE profile of politicians supported by Rotary club. Strange for an "open" club ! Strange to blank !

For the Rotary and for conservative activists, the interest of blanking "negative" facts on Wiki is this : 1/ Rotary clubs go frequently into schools. 2/ Wikipedia is VERY consulted by scholars and pupils 3/ Rotary in different phases shown his support to conservative actors of social life 4/ Rotary has to face a crisis in its recruitment (see their sites and also built of "Rotary e-Clubs") 5/ Rotary (see "right activists" on the discuss page) members actively work ONLY in conservative political party, in France 6/ Bombastus is a conservative activist, working POV on fr.wiki and en.wiki at the same time 7/ Rotary, this can be seen on their sites, tries to recruit among the young people who previously passed into their "scholarship" programs to recruit new members 8/ Rotary uses wiki as a showroom to smooth its public image 9/ Rotarians and conservative activist blank "negative" points on RI wiki, for POV reasons.

We need to show to these people that we are actively defending our neutrality, plurality of POV, and, if the Rotary MAY be a public relations office, we on Wikipedia are NOT a PR office.

Thank you for your patience on my poor English, and enforcing the respect of our community principles

Pierre 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bombastus

Mediation request by PierreLarcin has already been rejected for "Insufficient discussion and prior dispute resolution" by the same PierreLarcin. Indeed, despite my several messages on the talk page, I'm still waiting for any logical argument advocating the changes made by PierreLarcin. I also add that the same PierreLarcin already faced in 2006 the same logical arguments I stated and never gave any answers to them.

You can read the Talk:Rotary International page to get a good opinion of the user and see that already several experienced users as User:AndyJones, User:J.smith, User:Bridesmill, User:Aldux, User:SuperNova, User:Jkelly or User:CeeGee.

Here is an excerpt from PierreLarcin's rethorics "Of course you fiddle ! and you will be kicked out of wiki. You bet I spoke of arbitration as for a joke. You and Rotarians are in the error. As you are in error when you defend the most conservative and criminal politicians in the world : Bush and Pinochet. For freemasonry reasons and for money reasons. This can not continue. PierreLarcin 84.102.229.40 07:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)".

Logically, I will lose no time here on an arbitration that can bring nothing, as it brought nothing on French WP except 5 bans for PierreLarcin: a three days, then a one week, then a two weeks, then a one month, then a three months ban on all the IP adresses he used. He has also been blocked on WP NL for POV pushing. The only viable solution with this user is a life ban, I'm sorry to say it.

Statement by User:AndyJones

I have to confess that I long ago lost patience with Pierre Larcin's bizarre edits to the Rotary International page, his repeated failure to assume good faith, his constant charges of "wiki-fiddling" (whatever that may be) and the weird strange accusation against me personally that I am "pro-Rotary" (supported above on the grounds that I'm interested in Shakespeare (!)). I've copied below the analysis I made of Pierre's behaviour (for AN/I) in June 2006:

I think an admin needs to review the behaviour of User:PierreLarcin2 and his IPs in relation to the edit war on Rotary International, and consider a block. Incidentally, since I started reviewing this, I see the user I'm complaining about has put in an RfC and claims to intend to start an arbitration. If true, I'd suggest that any block should permit him to pursue those, even if (as I'd recommend) he cannot edit at Rotary International for a time. A review of his behaviour took me far longer than I'd expected, but can be summarised as follows: POV editing: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Illiterate editing: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Just plain weird editing: [16] [17] [18]. Advocating POV: [19] [20] [21] (especially the motherfucker comment). Failure to assume good faith: [22] [23] [24] [25]. Breaches of the no personal attacks policy and civility policy: [26] [27] [28] [29]. Accusations that editors who change his edits are Rotarians engaged in a conspiracy against criticisms of Rotary: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. Wikilawyering, and accusations of "wiki-fiddling", whatever that may be: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]. Evidence User:PierreLarcin2 and 84.100.98... IPs are one and the same (about halfway down):[54]. Evidence User:PierreLarcin2 and 84.102.229... IPs are one and the same: [55]. Evidence of trying the patience of the community: [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]. An odd piece of duplicity was the argument that these strange "how to use the links"-links were there to assist blind users, which led me in good faith and (in consultation with User:127) to initiate Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Accessibility for blind users] (now fallen out of archive). In fact, these edits, and a few around them, make clear the actual intention was to give prominence to "bad" Rotarians like Pinochet and Hubbard. On the whole, I think the guy needs a lengthy block: he's disruptive, he's uncivil, he angers and attacks people, he adds bullshit to wikipedia, and he just fundamentally doesn't get it: but it's a shame: he seems kinda genuine in his own beliefs. AndyJones 22:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The current edit war is exceedingly odd: Loads of 3RR, not much substance. I've previously recommended a block, and I think that may be the only way to achieve a sensible Rotary page. AndyJones 18:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0)

• Accept. Kirill 18:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

---

David Laibman

Initiated by User:Jurriaanat 20:16 8July 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Jurriaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Akliman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[62]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[63]

Statement by User:Jurriaan

In response to objections against his edits of the David Laibman article, Dr Andrew Kliman (User:Akliman) has inappropriately and without permission from concerned parties reproduced private email correspondence between him and myself on the wikipedia talk page at [64]]. I request that the arbitrators REMOVE this private email correspondence from the talk page of the David Laibman article because it does not belong there, and publishing it in wikipedia is incompatible with wiki norms.

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Upon seeing this request, I have removed what I believe is the e-mail correspondence in question from the article talkpage as its presence appears to be upsetting some contributors, including Jurriaan, and serving no useful purpose. This material should not be restored by any editor. I have also removed a series of subsequent threads on the same talkpage, which basically vented several contributors' dislike of one another in violation in several policies and served no collaborative purposes. I have noted that this material should not be restored either. Hopefully this resolves the issue raised by the arbitration request and an arbitration case will not be necessary, although continued attention to this article from a BLP perspective certainly may. Newyorkbrad 21:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

• Reject. The community can handle this matter better and faster than ArbCom. FloNight 21:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Reject; it's been handled. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Decline as moot. Paul August ☎ 05:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Kirill 18:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Boris Stomakhin

Initiated by Diez2 at 04:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Biophys
• Vlad fedorov

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Boris Stomakhin
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biophys
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Boris_Stomakhin
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Boris Stomakhin
• Talk:Boris Stomakhin

Statement by Biophys

First, I would like to apologize for inability to resolve this problem. Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Boris_Stomakhin#Biophys. This case (if taken for arbitration) has very little to do with article Boris Stomakhin. As Daniel said, "This RfM, which initially started out as a content dispute, has become a conduct dispute". The initial RfC was filed by User:Colchicum in February. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov. The RfC was about alleged wikistalking of Colhicum and me by User:Vlad fedorov. This conflict involves at least 20 articles that I created or extensively edited, and perhaps many other articles and other users. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Boris_Stomakhin#Articles_involved. If this were only a problem between Vlad and me, it could be easily resolved. See this proposal: [65] , which I thought was great. It treats Vlad and me equally. It resolves all our problems forever. It saves a lot of time for everyone involved. Finally, no one gets blocked or punished. Biophys 03:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by partially involved Diez2

I was the mediator of the Mediation Cabal case above all the way back in February. Since then, I did file the Rfm for them, and have been following the case as it slowly proceeded, but now I think it warrants arbitration because there has been a lot of failed mediation, and both users have been blocked for edit warring. Furthermore, the article in question has been fully protected several times. I think it's time a final decision was handed down on this. Diez2 04:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Even though I am not directly involved, Looking at your compromise, it doesn't look like it worked. Even with the compromise, Daniel still closed the case as "Beyond the realm of mediation." Diez2 05:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by non-involved Ghirla

I have never commented on the issue and I have not followed the Biophys-Fedorov debacle, but I would like to point out what a controversial person Boris Stomakhin is. Several quotes from his proclamations:

The Russians should be killed, and only killed - among them you won't find a normal, clever, intelligent person with whom you could talk and on whose understanding you could rely on... Henceforward, we should make no division between the militants and civilians. [66]

Kill, kill, kill! Drown all Russia in blood, show no mercy to anyone, at least one nuclear explosion on the territory of the Russian Federation is mandatory... Let the Russians reap what they sow! [67]

Death to the Russian invaders! Death to the bloody empire of fanatics! Freedom to the enslaved nations! [68]

Those who don't see incitement to ethnic or racial hatred or sedition in these lines, attempting to cast Stomakhin as a "freedom fighter" or an innocent "victim of anti-Semitism", should be held responsible for using Wikipedia as a soapbox.

It needs to be demonstrated that the dispute is ongoing. There have been no Vlad's comments on the issue since June and the article has not been edited since May. I believe the arbitrators have more urgent cases to examine. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

---

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)