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

European Union

Initiated by JLogan at 16:27, 9 August 2007 (CEST)

Involved parties

]JLogan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Lear 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notice has been given. Newyorkbrad 12:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Lear has not agreed to discussion or mediation on the topic, which is part of my point. [1] [2] [3]

Statement by JLogan

This is a long running disagreement, primarily between myself and Lear, although I myself have had backing on issues from a few other editors (but I am not claiming I have total backing from them). Two names I would mention are RCS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Arnoutf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but see the talk page for everyone's positions - only they can speak for their opinions.

As this is very long, I will try to keep it brief. I believe the talk page itself is the best place to see what is going on. Also to see Lear's attitude and lack of engagement with anyone else. For the edits, this is the diff between what we went with to GA and by the time Lear had finished [4] - same edits he had made every time (some other editors in the middle, include a few of mine when I was willing to compromise and talk on his first few).

• First: GA turned down on number of points, e.g. lack of refs.
• Missing citation tags added as part of drive to improve, always removed by Lear on account they did not add anything to the article.
• Then: Major improvements by other editors, almost to GA again.
• But: Contribution from Lear: reverting a number of out changes: these mainly being images that didn't belong there. See in particular, talk- use of images.
• Lear's obsession with sports section, adding uncited and duplicated information.
• Other unilateral edits against agreements on talk page (e.g. Language box, agreement not to include Russian). Or generally changing the format which had been agreed on the talk page - if you look you will see reasons for everything have been stated to Lear time and time again but he has never addressed those concerns. Just kept to his own edits, stating it was "standard" - even though there is no standard for a unique organisation like the EU.
• All above without consulting other editors and against most other editors. Again, see talk page for amounts and names.

If you read the amount of times in edit summaries I've asked him to come to the talk page, asked if we would consider mediation, and then look at his replies. You can see why some editors might be slightly annoyed with his attitude. This is why I bring it here, we were just applying for GA when it has started again. Something needs to be done, I wouldn't mind if I was simply outnumbered in opinion but this is just Lear's unilateral edits. And it is not just on the EU article, see similar situation on articles such as List of countries by population. - J Logan ^t: 15:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a small addition, if you look at his latest edit diff: [5], he has gone even further, back on points I thought we were over and also removing content without reason. One thing I'd like to point out is that while he is "enhancing visual content", he removed a map displaying the enlargement of the EU from the enlargement section. Guess what, I made that map. He is making personal edits now, I implore you to do something to settle this. - J Logan ^t: 15:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

• Decline. This is a user conduct case. There has not been a user conduct RFC. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Premature. Please get the assistance of more editors in resolving this dispute. This is the fastest way to resolve issues. If after several editors have failed attempts to address the issue informally per polite discussion then use the user conduct RFC. FloNight 20:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Decline, premature. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Decline, premature. Paul August ☎ 01:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson

Involved parties

• Jmfangio (talk · contribs)
• Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs)
• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Chrisjnelson: [6]
• Jmfangio: [7]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Discussion between editors on talk pages, including Template talk:Infobox NFLactive, User talk:Seraphimblade, User talk:Jmfangio, and User talk:Chrisjnelson.
• Several unsuccessful intervention attempts by other editors.
• Community enforceable mediation (closed unsuccessfully)
• Rejected mediation request
• Request for comment [8]

Statement by Seraphimblade

While I believe that both Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson do have a wish to improve the encyclopedia, at this time, their behavior regarding one another has been wholly unacceptable. Problems include revert warring [9], [10], hostility, incivility, and personal attacks in any discussion in which the two engage, ([11], [12] as examples but by no means an exhaustive list, see the above-listed talk pages as well), and a general lack of respect and assumption of good faith. It appears that at this time is nowhere near resolution [13], and attempts at intervention and discussion from other editors have failed to solve the problem, as have the above listed attempts at dispute resolution. ArbCom cannot, of course, decide the content issues on which the two disagree, but at this point, I believe that arbitration is the only step which will stop the creation of a poisonous atmosphere at several pages from the bickering and edit warring. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jmfangio

It essentially boils down to this: weeks of discussion have been futile. Said user is convinced that his way is not only right, but that it is the only right. Several others have presented a valid/viable alternative. The fact that both sides are valid results in edit conflicts (as confirmed by a person not named in this case). An impartial solution has been proposed, and despite no other suggestion, it has been rejected by Chrisjnelson simply because he feels he has the only correct "answer". The neutral solution seems acceptable to most "commentators", and they have agreed that the best way to satisfy Chris and "the other side" is to find a neutral solution. The arbcom would have been asked to address the behavior issues revolving around this, not the content. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Status??

What else can I do to move this forward? The tension continues to escalate and now others are getting attacked. The hostility, wikistalking, and edit warring is starting to spread to other articles. Can anything be done to expedite this process? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC

Statement by Chrisjnelson

First, I will explain the debate as I see it. I believe in listing out Pro Bowl years in a players’ infobox. Further, I believe that the link should look something like this [[2006 Pro Bowl|2005]], or in other words, the link should ‘’show’’ one year and link to the Pro Bowl the following calendar year. Jmfangio feels that this is confusing to some, and that there is an equally valid argument to keep the years the same, as in [[2006 Pro Bowl|2006]]. As a compromise, he feels all infoboxes should only list the number of total Pro Bowl selections, as in 8x Pro Bowl selection or something to that effect. It is my belief that the two sides Jmfangio feels to be valid are not in fact equal. It is my intent to show that my style of edit, the kind in my first example, is much more valid and accurate than the alternative, and thereby showing a “compromise” to be unnecessary. Keep in mind that linking Pro Bowl years as I do has been a fairly common practice here at Wikipedia, and that this dispute only arose with this new template on which I collaborated with Jmfangio. To get a visual idea of each side, see these:

-Junior Seau – This is my style of edit in use. Each Pro Bowl selection uses the regular season year, but links to the correct Pro Bowl.

-[14] – this is the side Jmfangio feels has equal validity to my own. You can see that years shown are identical to the ones in each Pro Bowl linked.

-Brett Favre – this is Jmfangio’s compromise in use. Only the number of Pro Bowl selections is shown, with no individual years.

Now, a basic explanation as to why I link the Pro Bowls the way I do. As you may or may not know, the NFL’s regular season begins in September and runs through the end of the year. The Pro Bowl occurs in early February, after the Super Bowl. Therefore, the years of the regular season and corresponding Pro Bowl are not identical, but rather the Pro Bowl is in the calendar year after any given season.

Please note that I am not arguing against the naming of Pro Bowl articles or to how they are referred. The 2007 Pro Bowl was in fact the one played this past February, and I think we can all agree on that fact. But what I am saying is that, when listing Pro Bowl years in a player’s infobox, one is not referring to the game itself. Rather, the years are there to list the SELECTIONS of that individual player. I personally feel that a list of Pro Bowl years in an infobox is basically a sentence saying “Player X was select to the Pro Bowl in this season, this season, this season, etc.” In that case, the year should correspond with the regular season in which the player earned the Pro Bowl selection.

For example: In the 2006 regular season, Peyton Manning was rewarded with a selection to the Pro Bowl (which took place in February 2007). However, the regular season in which he earned he selection, and the selection itself, occurred in 2006. As evidence, here is a link, dated December 18, stating that “The teams will be announced at 4 p.m. ET Tuesday, Dec. 19 on NFL Network.” This proves that the selection for the 2007 Pro Bowl began, and was completed, during the 2006 season.

This is why it is factually inaccurate to list 2007 in Peyton Manning infobox under Pro Bowl selections. He has not played in the 2007 regular season, and no voting or selecting has taken place in 2007. Peyton Manning was in fact a Pro Bowl selection in 2006, and played in the 2007 Pro Bowl. His selection was a REWARD for the 2006 season, and without that season he could not have played in the 2007 Pro Bowl. Essentially, it was the 2006 regular season that earned him the reward of a Pro Bowl selection – a selection which occurred in 2006.

I must say I am astounded this has even become such a giant issue, because those that follow or cover the sport nearly always refer to it this way. Here are some examples of player bios on their official teams’ websites, and how they convey the Pro Bowl information:

• Peyton Manning – Colts.com bio – The very first sentence states: “Started 16 games for ninth consecutive season in 2006 and earned seventh career Pro Bowl selection (1999-2000, 2002-06).” A look at the season-by-season highlights shows that these years mentioned in the first sentence correspond with regular seasons, NOT years of Pro Bowls.

• Michael Vick - AtlantaFalcons.com bio – The first section has a paragraph which states “Earned his second consecutive and third overall Pro Bowl nod in 2005” and the 2002, 2004 and 2005 seasons sections all indicate that the Pro Bowl selections occurred during these regular seasons.

• Jason Taylor – MiamiDolphins.com bio – Not far down this page, there is a section that states “CAREER PRO BOWL SELECTIONS: 5 (2000, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006).” As you can see by looking at the year-by-year highlights, these years correspond to regular seasons, not Pro Bowl years.

• Brian Urlacher – ChicagoBears.com bio – in the first paragraph there is a sentence that states: “Fifth player in franchise history to receive Pro Bowl selections in each of his first 4 NFL seasons.” This sentence’s wording clearly goes along with my style of edit, and there is further support of this on that page for you to see but I feel this is sufficient.

• Ray Lewis – BaltimoreRavens.com bio – Various evidence to support my kind of edit, for example: “Ray earned his 5th consecutive Pro Bowl in 2001 when he led the NFL in tackles (196).” Again, using the regular season year when referring to the selection.

I could go on and on, and if you are still unsure I urge you to look up any former Pro Bowler on any official team website and I’ll wager you’ll find more of the same. Google something like “earned Pro Bowl selection” and see what you find. I did, and what I found were various news articles from all kinds of sources referring to selections by the season. From ESPN to Yahoo to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. This is common practice. The Pro Bowl may be the year after the regular season, but Pro Bowl selections refer to regular seasons themselves.

I believe Jmfangio’s objection to my method is that that it is confusing to the common reader. On this, I disagree. The common reader will see the years of selection and will probably naturally assume it was those regular seasons that he was selected in. But if he clicks on the links, he will also be taken to the correct Pro Bowl for those selections. I will admit that occasionally, someone will see this kind of edit in place and will change the years to match each Pro Bowl. But I do not believe it occurs enough to warrant tossing out years all together. I for one am willing to watch these pages, revert them if someone unknowingly changes the years to be incorrect and post on their talk pages explaining why the original edit was correct. I do not believe that we should avoid putting in accurate information on the chance an uninformed person might come along every once in a while and change it. If we did that, there would be no Wikipedia.

I’m not saying Jmfangio’s compromise of “Pro Bowl selection (x8)” is wrong. It’s not, and there’s nothing wrong with it. But it is my belief that having the years in the infoboxes enhances the articles, and as I have shown they are factually accurate and can be sourced as well. My proposal is to basically continue what we’ve been doing. This has been pretty standard practice for years and I see no reason to discontinue it based on what I feel is one person’s misunderstanding of the situation. No offense to you, Jmfangio, but I do feel you are incorrect in saying both my way and the way with matching years are equal. Research pretty much shows this to be true. If there were differing and equally valid views on how to list years, then Jmfangio’s compromise would definitely be satisfactory. But has been my goal to show that one view is much more accurate and valid than any other, and I feel I’ve done that sufficiently here.►Chris Nelson 18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that I'm going to lose this thing, possibly in large part to my behavior of late. But it's unfortunate, because I know I'm right on this and this is what is best for these football articles.►Chris Nelson 18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Navou

I encourage the committee to look at the user conduct of all involved. Prior dispute resolution attempt ended at WP:CEM with one participant stating he would not budge on the issue, after asked to look at compromises. The mediation closed unsuccessfully at that point and quickly degenerated [read: after it was closed] into an uncivil atmosphere on that mediation page. I believe the arbitration committee can successfully diffuse the abrasive editing atmosphere. I encourage the committee to open this case.

Statement by uninvolved Isotope23

This may be worth looking into for the user conduct issues that have arisen out of the core content dispute. I observed a bit of this last evening at Brett Favre where the two editors proceeded to edit over each other and generally bicker over edits. As evidenced by their posts here today, I don't see much reason to believe they can amicably resolve this and work together on their own.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Dagomar

Hon. Arbitrators;

I humbly suggest the acceptance of this case to at the very least, keep the peace and stop the unproductive fighting that is going on.

Dagomar 01:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Durova

Endorsing the statements of Seraphimblade and Navou: three different methods of dispute resolution have already been tried without success. That's more than many cases the Committee has accepted in the past. One consideration worth bearing in mind is the upcoming football season: an unresolved "hot" conduct dispute on prominent articles there would not be a good thing.

On August 10 I found it necessary to full protect Peyton Manning.[15] The unintended consequence of this action is that it blocks newcomers' access at a popular first point of entry to Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't Usenet, but first impressions often set the tone for new editors' expectations. So in the broader picture, sending this back for yet another (unlikely) attempt at dispute resolution would be a net loss for Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 01:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept to consider behavior of all involved. Kirill 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. I would like to see a user-conduct RFC first. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Commonwealth realms

Initiated by Jonathan David Makepeace at 00:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• G2bambino (talk · contribs)
• Hux (talk · contribs)
• JPD (talk · contribs)
• Reginmund (talk · contribs)
• Brian New Zealand (talk · contribs)
• Laleena (talk · contribs)
• Nightstallion (talk · contribs)
• Chris Bennett (talk · contribs)
• Lonewolf BC (talk · contribs)
• GoodDay (talk · contribs)
• Blur4760 (talk · contribs)
• TharkunColl (talk · contribs)
• Gazzster (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User_talk:G2bambino#Request_for_arbitration
• User_talk:Hux#Request_for_arbitration
• User_talk:JPD#Request_for_arbitration
• User_talk:Reginmund#Request_for_arbitration
• User_talk:Brian New Zealand#Request_for_arbitration
• User_talk:Laleena#Request_for_arbitration
• User_talk:Nightstallion#Request_for_arbitration
• User_talk:Chris Bennett#Request_for_arbitration
• User_talk:Lonewolf BC#Request_for_arbitration
• User_talk:GoodDay#Request_for_arbitration
• User_talk:Blur4760#Request_for_arbitration
• User_talk:TharkunColl#Request_for_arbitration
• User_talk:Gazzster#Request_for_arbitration

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Extensive discussion (involving thirteen editors over the course of over a week) has taken place on the Commonwealth Realm talk page under the following topics: Capitalization in general, Original Research Tagging, Proof that this article is wrong, Mediation and Easily resolved issue.
• A poll resulted in no consensus.
• Requests for Comments were made on History and Geography and Politics.
• A request for mediation was rejected by one of the parties.

Statement by Jonathan David Makepeace

This dispute centers on the capitalization of the word "realm" in "Commonwealth realm." (However, see the last paragraph of this statement for an editor conduct issue.) Wikipedia's article naming conventions state: "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer And Video Games)."

The British monarch is the head of state of the Commonwealth realms, and her Web site does not capitalize "Commonwealth realms"[16][17][18][19][20] [21]. (They are quite consistent.) Neither does the overwhelming majority of authors of academic articles cited in Google Scholar[22]. (One has to search the plural "Commonwealth realms" to find academic articles.) The expression "Commonwealth realm" appears nowhere on the Canadian government's[23] or Commonwealth Secretariat's[24] Web sites, seeming to lack official recognition from either body.

Indeed, there is no evidence that "Commonwealth realm" is an official title or a proper noun. "Commonwealth realm" is a common noun referring to a class of entities, like "Australian cities," "persons with disabilities" or "Commonwealth members." It is unclear why Wikipedia should capitalize "Commonwealth Realms" but not "Commonwealth Members" or Commonwealth republic or "Other Monarchies in the Commonwealth."

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office does capitalize the term in at least some of their documents, but they use a peculiar, arcane style not widely used outside of British government or legal circles.

A couple of my opponents (primarily G2bambino) have tried to claim that "Commonwealth Realm" (big R) means something different from "Commonwealth realm" (little r). However, they have been unable to attribute that assertion, and most editors on both sides of the issue seem to reject it. A Commonwealth realm is, as the article states, "any one of the sixteen sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations with Elizabeth II as their respective monarch."

However, even if you find that "Commonwealth Realm" is properly capitalized, I would ask you to permit me to briefly inform readers at the very beginning of the article that most academics and the British monarch do not capitalize the expression. Otherwise, people will think that the peculiar style used by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office applies everywhere.

Chris Bennett won't even allow me to point out the different usages, exclaiming on the article's history page "When topics are in dispute you DO NOT EDIT THE GODDAM TEXT TO YOUR POV. GODDAM TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!."

Thank you for your consideration.

Statement by Gazzster

'Commonwealth Realm' cannot be used as a proper noun. The term does not describe what we are discussing, ie, nations sharing the same monarch, ie, Elizabeth II. These realms only happen to be in the Commonwealth. The term Commonwealth Realm also excludes nations which are members of the Commonwealth but has native monarchs.

Commonwealth realm is an acceptable phrase, but it is a description, not a proper noun.

I and other editors have been subject to accusations of trolling on account of presenting our arguments against the use of Commonwealth Realm as a proper noun.

I have suggested we continue the present usage and review at a specified time.

Thank you for your consideration.--Gazzster 01:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by hux

I find this request for arbitration both unnecessary and disingenuous. Contrary to the explanation given by Jonathan David Makepeace (hereafter JDM) above, nobody has refused to seek mediation on this. (EDIT: My mistake; I see that one editor did refuse.) Additionally, this matter has been put to a vote twice in recent days: the first time no consensus was reached, as he notes. However, the second time, after extensive discussion, the vote was 6-2 in favor of leaving the page as-is. It seems obvious that the only reason this request has taken place is that one editor is not getting his way, which seems rather unreasonable as the basis for an arbitration request.

Further, the reason given for the request - that "Commonwealth Realm" is not correct because it is not a proper noun - is a red herring. As JDM is well aware from having been an extensive participator in the discussion, the reason that "Commonwealth Realm" is asserted as being correct is because "Realm" on its own is generally capitalized to mean, specifically, "country of the Commonwealth whose sovereign is Elizabeth II" (as opposed to Commonwealth countries that have monarchs other than Elizabeth II). Therefore, if "Commonwealth" and "Realm" should both be capitalized when used separately, they should stay capitalized when brought together. It's the same reason we capitalize both words in Commonwealth English.

Finally, his noting of Chris Bennett's outburst at the end of his explanation, as if it is an indicator of serious conflict, is also unreasonable. That outburst, while regrettable, was a single incidence of frustration after having reverted multiple edits by JDM, who has been changing the article to reflect his POV on this issue even though he is well aware that it is the contentious point under discussion. JDM, having reached 3RR on Aug 5 on this matter, has now done the same on Aug 6, even after having submitted this arbitration request. These are not, in my opinion, the actions of a person who respects Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, but rather the actions of someone who is simply trying by whatever means to get his POV into an article.

Statement by GoodDay

We should abide by the July 27 to August 2 (2007) Rfc. At the venue, there was no consensus to move the article to 'Commonwealth realms'. GoodDay 13:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Chris Bennett

I concur completely with Hux's statement.

I only want to add that the reason I rejected the proposal for mediation is that I saw no point to it. All that was necessary was for JDM to abide by the result of the poll he had himself called. It is a clear indication of his ulterior agenda -- getting his way at all costs -- that he did not try to further justify a need for mediation but immediately threatened to escalate the dispute. Since I had already (and correctly) concluded that the request was disingenuous, I felt that mediation would have been a waste of everybody's time.

I disagree with arbitrator FloNight that there is no user conduct issue here. There clearly is one -- JDM is trying to impose his will at all costs. However, this request for arbitration is premature. It is an attempt, one of several, to game the system. It is better that the other editors recognise what is happening for what it is, and make it clear that such attempts to dictate will not be accepted. That will take time, but I think is slowly happening. --Chris Bennett 16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by JPD

The issue that JDM has raised is a content issue, which as far as I am aware is not an issue that Arbitration can deal with. Chris Bennett has dealt with the content issue very well on the talk page, although I do not agree with all of his conclusions, it would be good for all of us to listen to his clear arguments. Apart from general confusion on a mess of a talkpage, the only user conduct issue is, as Chris says, JDM's obsession and gaming the system, including the lodging of this request. JPD (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Based on further research and discussion on the article talkpage, it appears the underlying dispute is resolved. I have asked the filing party if this case can now be considered withdrawn. Newyorkbrad 11:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/1/0)

• Reject. Seems mostly a content dispute and not an user conduct issue. Any case it is premature. Involve more editors and you can find consensus. FloNight 00:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• I think there's something worth arbitrating, particularly given the refusal of at least one editor to agree to mediation. I'll wander over to the talk page and see what's what. Mackensen (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Reject, things are moving along now. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Recuse. - SimonP 02:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

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

Paranormal Clarification on the use of qualifiers as discussed in various holdings

Five arbitrators voted to take on the Paranormal case; the two who stated their reason for taking the case indicated it was for "conduct issues". Of the 29 principles, findings of fact, and remedies that passed, most did deal with conduct issues; however, an important minority dealt with some of the content that has been at the core of the protracted disputes about paranormal-related articles. I apologize for the length of the following explanation of what I see as the core content paradox within the ArbCom holdings, but I have used examples in order to, I hope, make the situation as clear as possible:

The Wikipedia article on psychic raises issues with the recently closed Paranormal ArbCom. Finding of Fact #5, "Cultural artifacts", states: ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist." Principle #6.2 states, in part, "Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include ... "paranormal", "psychic" ... or "parapsychological researcher". ... "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing."

Lemma 1 the Arbitration Committee sees the label "psychic" as a cultural artifact. Saying that Jeane Dixon is a psychic does not imply that she has psychic abilities or powers, or even that such abilities or powers exist. This is true to such an extent that clarification, such as "Jeane Dixon is a self-described psychic", is disallowed.

In reading the article on psychic, however, I became confused and concerned. The psychic article's lede itself states that psychic denotes paranormal extra-sensory abilities that are inexplicable by "known natural laws". This doesn't seem like a typical cultural artifact, in that this statement implies that there may exist some unknown natural law to explain it (i.e., the description invokes science, not culture). However, several sentences later we learn that the existence of this ability is highly contested. Does this resolve the situation?

No. While this skepticism helps a reader understand that psychic abilities may or may not be real, it still leaves the reader with the impression that "psychic" means "someone with scientifically inexplicable powers" - it's just that now we recognize that such people may not exist. That is, thus far, the word "psychic" has always been used to mean "someone with paranormal powers". The infobox on the right side of the page is even more explicit: "Definition: An ability or phenomona said to originate from the brain, but to transcend its confines. Primarily in relation to Psi" (see the box on the righthand side of the article).

Lemma 2: So what is a psychic? The article repeatedly indicates that a defining feature of a psychic is "an ability". There is no ambiguity. It does not say that psychics have an apparent ability. It does not say that psychics may or may not have abilities. It says that a psychic has these abilities.

Imagine that instead of psychic we were talking about a rare device, the PerpetualMotionMachine (psychic). An article states that the PerpetualMotionMachine is an infinite (paranormal) power-output device (ability). The article also has an infobox that defines PerpetualMotionMachine as "A device or product that originates from the Midwest and is capable of infinite power-output." At this point, it's pretty clear that a crucial quality of any PerpetualMotionMachine is that it is an infinite power-output device. Then, I get to the sentence, "the possibility of infinite power-output is highly contested." Now, I still believe that PerpetualMotionMachines are infinite power-output devices, but now I recognize that the term "PerpetualMotionMachine" may have no real-world referent. I now understand that there may not be even one single PerpetualMotionMachine, but if there were one, a defining quality of it would be that it could output infinite power.

Likewise with the paranormal article. It asserts that psychic powers are paranormal abilities, inexplicable by known natural laws. It also tells me that there may not actually be any psychic abilities in the real world. However, from the definitions, I still gather that if there are psychic abilities in the real world, then they cannot be explained by known natural laws. The phrasing here does not strike me as a simple cultural artifact. Just reading the sentence, I am inclined to think that scientists of various disciplines must have looked into this and decided that known natural laws cannot explain the results.

This is in contrast to the holdings of the Arbitration Committee, which found that the term psychic is just a cultural artifact. The Committee held that "psychic" may not imply that the "a psychic" actually has scientifically inexplicable abilities. Therefore, even if a psychic does exist in the real world, they may not have psychic powers. ArbCom: "Psychic means someone who has, or claims to have, these powers. These powers may not exist, but the term still refers to real people." Article: "Psychic means someone who has these powers. These powers may not exist, and in that case the term has no real-world referent."

Lemma 3: The ArbCom's operative understanding of psychic differs in a subtle but crucial way from the psychic article. Actual paranormal powers are an intrinsic quality of a psychic according to the psychic article (although the existence these powers is contested), whereas paranormal powers are not intrinsic to the ArbCom's understanding of psychic (so even if these powers don't actually exist, there still may exist psychics).

A comment was made on the psychic talk page that I think exemplifies the potential for confusion: "When we call a person a psychic we convey a constellation of meanings, all or only some of which may apply. We might be saying the person has psychic powers, performs on stage as a psychic, makes their living doing readings, fraudulently bilks people out of money by claiming paranormal abilities etc. The word has "a" meaning which is multifaceted and contradictory, and all notable ones should be contained somewhere in the psychic article. One part of the meaning of "psychic" is that a person has powers. Another part is that the person may be self-deluded or a fraud. Another is that the person may be an entertainer, comforter, psychologist..... All of these things, or any one of them, may be conveyed by use of the term psychic. It is largely up to the reader to decide which is appropriate."[25] Such a multifarious term could reasonably, from time to time, be misunderstood.

For consideration: Due to subtly different interpretations, there exist diverse understandings of the word psychic which persist, even within Wikipedia. Judicious, appropriate, and infrequent qualification of "psychic", "paranormal", and similar terms should be allowed when such qualifications are contributory to the clarity and meaning of the epistemological status of a subject. This is especially true given the content of the psychic article. This is suggestion is closely in line with Principle #6.1, and Findings of Fact #6, #8, #9, but somewhat at odds with Principle #6.2 and Finding of Fact #12.

Thank you, Antelan ^talk 08:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Heaven, Soul, and a whole host of other terms that refer to something that may or may not exist do not bother saying that it is "claimed" to exist. Only terms that show up on a skeptical watchlists do. It's an issue on Energy (spirituality) but not on obscure terms that don't make it to the list like Prana. Psychic is a cultural artifact because everyone in the world already has an opinion on whether or not psychics are real, or totally bogus. Wikipedia does not have to inform them that psychics may not exist. They are quite aware of it already. No one will realistically read a technical definition at Wikipedia of psychic that says it refers to "supernatural forces, events, or powers" and walk away thinking "Holy cow, Wikipedia says psychics are real!" It's not even plausible. They have already formed their own opinion. All the other encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc. that don't bother saying that it may not exist don't waste the reader's time, or insults their intelligence, by pointing it out. If nothing else, it fails to meet the notability standard. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

When we call a person a psychic we convey a constellation of meanings, all or only some of which may apply. We might be saying the person has psychic powers, performs on stage as a psychic, makes their living doing readings, fraudulently bilks people out of money by claiming paranormal abilities etc. The word has "a" meaning which is multifaceted and contradictory, and all notable ones should be contained somewhere in the psychic article. One part of the meaning of "psychic" is that a person has powers. Another part is that the person may be self-deluded or a fraud. Another is that the person may be an entertainer, comforter, psychologist..... All of these things, or any one of them, may be conveyed by use of the term psychic. It is largely up to the reader to decide which is appropriate.

So to state it the way I have at other times that the meaning of the word "psychic" is "A psychic is someone who has psychic powers, but those powers may not really exist," is not quite accurate. Rather, the word psychic conveys many meanings. The two most important to skeptics and believers, however, are the two I stated- powers and doubt about thier reality. Both of those meanings are contained in the word psychic, and both are reflected in the current Psychic lead, which is well-framed per the ArbCom. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice prose, but I'm still not buying it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it your consideration. Antelan ^talk 00:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Me or Antelan or Nealparr??

The psychic article says "People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics". " Thus, if we call someone a psychic, is is saying just what Antelan says it should say: "psychic" = "thought to have these abilities," and of course the full understanding would be that the person might or might not. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Antelan's was the nicest. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's true -it was very well done- and UninvitedCompany said "still," which must have been referring to his having not bought it before either. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on ED

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not an ED troll, but an interesting question was raised at a recent DRV (see bottom) for it. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, it was ruled that ED links and material is banned from Wikipedia. However, it was questioned in the DRV that even if reliable sources that established notability were found, would it come in conflict with the ArbCom ruling in that case? Kwsn^(Ni!) 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The ED article itself has clearly posed internal problems for us. I think the turning point for me would be this: Are there sufficient reliable sources about ED which demonstrate that ED so clearly inside our inclusion guidelines that our project would be incomplete without it? If that were the case, I myself would support an amendment to the MONGO decision to permit an article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Instantnood3

The arbitration committee has closed the above case.

Restrictions applying to Huaiwei:

• Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week. he may be blocked, for up to a year in repeat case, if he violates this restriction.
• Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation indefinitely. Any administrator may ban him from any article he disrupts, for cause.
• Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is placed on General Probation indefinitely. Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site.

The above is the shorthand restrictions placed on Huaiwei after an ArbCom case more than a year ago. Several months ago, it was found that Instantnood was not only being generally disruptive but also running farms of sockpuppets to disrupt votes/discussions and Instantnood is now permanently banned. Huaiwei hasn't been in any other kind of dispute resolution before or since the Instantnood issues.

It's clear to me that while Huaiwei was wrapped up in Instantnood's belligerence (as were a half dozen others on the periphery) it was Instantnood's wiki-stalking of Huaiwei (which continues with sockpuppets even now) that caused the problem, and not a general problem with Huaiwei as an editor. Without the instigation of a bad actor, Huaiwei is an excellent and dedicated Wikipedian who has been with the project for several years. These restrictions and potential punishments hang on him like an albatross.

I'd like ArbCom to review Huaiwei's contributions since the permanent banning of Instantnood and remove the previous restrictions.

SchmuckyTheCat

• You mean, like, the six blocks for edit warring he's received since then, most recently a month ago? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Instantnood was banned on 16 April. Huaiwei was blocked only one time after Instantnood was banned. --Kaypoh 09:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, Huaiwei has one 3rr with one user that is not Instantnood. I think the sequence of that one was, slow revert, Huaiwei realized he went over and reported it, both got blocked. He was also using the talk page to try and work out what was going on with someone belligerent.

One instance does not justify such harsh restrictions. SchmuckyTheCat

Well, that one instance is not the justification, the entire history is. I'd like to see three clean months before I support lifting the restrictions, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that in a similar situation recently, the committee voted that someone's probation from a prior case would be ended if he remained out of trouble for a specific period of time. That might work here. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm nowhere near a neutral party here (too many underlying reasons), but I second what NYB says. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: See motion in arbitrator voting section, below. Newyorkbrad 05:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

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

Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: See also the discussion in Section 2 above.

I move that the restrictions, now over a year old, from the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3 case on editor Huaiwei be lifted. While Huaiwei appears to have been involved in some edit wars and has received a number of 3RR blocks, I do not believe that the probation and limits on participation remain relevant at this point.

As there are presently 12 active arbitrators, of whom one is abstaining, a majority is 6.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Paul August ☎ 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Kirill 17:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. First, I would like to see a clean block record for at least 3 months and no evidence of edit warring. FloNight 11:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. As I suggested above, I'd like to see a bit more time. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

With the passage of time and Betacommand's continued contributions to Wikipedia, the Committee hereby restores Betacommand's administrative privileges under these stipulations:

• Betacommand may not operate any bot that utilizes administrative privilege without prior approval. For the avoidance of doubt, the term "bot" is to be construed broadly to include any full or partial automation of the administrative functions not already in widespread use by other administrators. Prior approval may come from the Bot Approvals Group (BAG), or for bots that provide partial automation that would not ordinarily require BAG approval, this committee.
• Betacommand must observe the notification requirements and delay periods specified in policy prior to deleting images.

Clerk note: There are 12 active Arbitrators and none were recused in the original case; the majority is 7. Thatcher131 15:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Raul654 15:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
3. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Uncomfortable with this, given his continually controversial behavior. Kirill 17:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Abstain until I discuss with Betacommand by email his views on blocking established users. FloNight 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Archives

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