the discussion was mediated as good as possible, real informal or formal mediation is not an option due to the willfulness of users involved
an RfC proved to be inconclusive
80 users from all affected projects were invited over, but the move received only meager attention

Statement by Prime Blue

I am requesting arbitration based on the ongoing discussion on the MOS:JP talk page, which is centered on the inclusion or exclusion of romanizations for katakana words of English origin (such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー, Fainaru Fantajī)).

The discussion was started by Ryulong who disputed a guideline of WikiProject Video Games which states to omit such romanizations, originally added on grounds of a discussion in 2007. The originator of the current discussion was a change in the guidelines by Ryulong who added these romanizations to an abundance of video game articles in early July. The resulting debate on the project's talk page showed that there were some people who disputed the guideline, though the majority of comments still supported it. Simultaneously, the matter was brought up by Ryulong on the MOS:JP talk page. A lot of arguments were put forth there, but neither of them convinced the exclusionist party (largely WP:VG members coming over) of including the romanizations. The aim of the MOS:JP discussion was to form a site-wide guideline on how to handle these romanizations, which could then supersede WP:VG's current approach. However, suggested compromises were rejected due to concerns about other guidelines such as WP:ACCESS and WP:ENGLISH, WP:VG was repeatedly urged to change their guidelines, and Ryulong continued his edits despite being warned and justified his actions with ignore all rules.

The discussion strongly leans towards "no consensus" currently, as neither party is willing to accept the opposite party's point of view and no compromise found universal support. The last discussion from August 2009 already proved this to be a multi-faceted and complicated matter, though all things considered, this is rather trivial to the overall goal of writing a good article – which is the reason why I think the Arbitration Committee should help prevent this problem from creating any further bad blood among editors.

While it cannot decide on a site-wide guideline on how to treat this problem, some sanctions on the involved parties are required. Either WP:VG needs to drop their guideline to be in line with other projects, or editors have to respect WP:VG's guideline. Otherwise, this will never be resolved.

Kirill: I think the fact that there is no heavy edit warring (though still some sporadic reverts) at the moment is mostly due to WP:VG members having grown tired of opposing Ryulong's revisions. They still are a very blatant example of misconduct, as he, despite knowing that there is no higher consensus on the matter, moves against established project guidelines and also disregards all warnings he has received in the past for doing so. Some closer encounters on the matter between Ryulong and Odokee resulted in an ANI notification. Both projects threatening each other with deletion is another example of the sharper measures taken.

I know that this discussion, with its 100-something pages in one's average editor, is hard to be skimmed over. But looking at just a few select comments will make it clear that formal/informal mediation would be pointless as there is a strong sense of dogmatism on either side – a simple "yes" and "no" is refused, compromises are refused. With all users sticking closely to their point of view, a site-wide guideline is impossible to form. I would not resort to the Arbitration Committee if I thought the discussion could result in a clear-cut consensus that will satisfy everyone involved. At this point in time, I am just tired of all the stubbornness I have witnessed regarding this trivial issue. Either the WP:VG guys have to drop this one guideline, or others have to follow it. Prime Blue (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the he said/she said comments here are further proof of just how much of a standoff this whole discussion has become. If the Arbitration Committee decides to decline a hearing, then we at least need some sort of guidance of what to do next. Coren and Risker's comments imply that there are other steps that could still solve this situation before referring it to the ArbCom. I am not sure, though, if I am in the minority here when I say I honestly have no clue what should be done at this point in time. Normally, mediation would be a reasonable way, but knowing the individual points of view here (and that the last attempt completely and utterly failed even without compromises suggested), I do not think this is an option. Prime Blue (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie: We already had a style RfC, the "outcome" of which is located here. Again, I am sure that mediation will be completely pointless knowing how adamantly both parties stick to their view, but if it is a necessary step to be taken before bringing the issue to the ArbCom, I don't mind. Prime Blue (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryulong

Two conflicting manuals of style (guideline issue, not policy issue) is not an arbitration issue (as far as I am aware). Myself and several editors adhere to one (WP:MOS-JA). Prime Blue and several other editors adhere to another (WP:VG/GL). I don't think the arbitration committee has the power to make anyone follow one manual of style or force the manuals of style to change, but I might be wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Prime Blue's statement on my "revisions", I have not made any sort of revert to any video game related article since Odokee (talk · contribs) repeatedly reverted me with completely rude remarks regarding the added text. The last article I edited on a video game where I added romanization was Metroid: Zero Mission because an IP removed the romaji within the past week, and that sort of edit is being cited as an example of me opposing WP:VG/GL and editing against consensus, when I am editing within the regulations of WP:MOS-JA. And concerning this comment, there has yet to be any sort of reason as to why a specific WikiProject's guidelines should differ greatly from a site-wide guideline.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Odokee's statement: His behavior has been far from perfect throughout this whole ordeal. Within the past three days he's been using misleading edit summaries (or no edit summary at all) to hide his removals of romaji where he feels it's unnecessary such as at Nintendo DSi, Super Mario RPG, and plenty of other pages. I have attempted to talk to him directly on his talk page but every single message I left for him, and others left for him, were removed and called "spam". I attempted to bring his behavior to a larger audience but I was ignored because it was related to this style conflict, and Anomie threw the "fait accompli" thing in there as he is here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: The last comment in the discussion on WT:MOS-JA relating to this dispute was on September 2. Nothing has happened between then up until this case's filing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thibbs

I have not been very active in the ongoing discussions related to this issue. I came to the discussion early and after making a few suggestions I realized that I didn't have the time to get involved in such an issue. As I suspected, the discussion has now become a sprawling novel of a debate and it would take me several hours to catch myself up to speed. (N.B. For what it's worth, I quite like the looks of the {{Nihongo tip}} template offered as a compromise).

I don't have much to add here except that like User:Prime Blue, I too have suggested (NOTE: not warned) that User:Ryulong refrain from making the kinds of edits he has been making with regard this issue (see my July 10 recommendations). Although WP:BRD (as a supplement to WP:CONS) describes how to reach consensus through discussion alone when dealing with a single article, I think that the general CONS principle that the BRD supplement attempts to codify is that editors should not be making edits that are contentious without discussion and renewed consensus. Thus I think BRD can fairly be applied to the issue at hand even though it deals with a great cloud of articles instead of just one.

As it stands, Ryuong's edits to articles falling under the aegis of WP:VG are contrary to the prior WP:VG consensus. One could say that he WP:BOLDly began to change the WP:VG consensus model (BRD Step #1). In several instances his BOLD edits were Reverted (BRD Step #2). Since July he has been involved with the ongoing Discussion (BRD Step #3). I think it would be fair and not overly heavy-handed if the arbitrators could decree that all involved editors cease to make edits related to the ongoing issue (which is anyway a purely mechanical/stylistic matter) and instead resolve the issue through discussion.

I am unclear as to whether Prime Blue is suggesting that the underlying dispute has reached an impasse. If so, perhaps the Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee would be better starting points. I believe these mediation groups are only supposed to deal with content issues, however. So if Prime Blue's request is for a moratorium on edits related to the underlying issue (i.e. a conduct issue) then I think ArbCom is appropriate. -Thibbs (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anomie

Since one of my posts is called out above, I feel I should make a statement here. First off, I, as a peripheral (at best) member of WPVG, certainly cannot be said to be speaking for "the project". My statement was also mischaracterized: I never threatened the MOS with deletion, I just expressed my opinion that there are enough editors who concentrate on the MOS as a way to try to force their preferences on the whole project that (again in my opinion) it could be beneficial to wipe out the whole thing and start over; the comment linked was a reference back to an earlier comment which itself was in reply to another editor's assertion that their MOS automatically supersedes everything else.

As for the actual dispute, haven't really been paying much attention lately. I offered my views when I noticed it come up at WT:VG, in the discussion now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 82#VG guideline and romaji. I noticed Ryulong digging in, violating WP:FAITACCOMPLI, seemingly being willing to edit war on articles were he to find a partner, and generally refusing any sort of compromise; and I left as I really don't care enough to want to fight him over it. See in particular this post and my reply. I popped back in to opine on both the compromises that were claimed to be receiving actual support, but that's about it.

While there has been a bit of WP:FAITACCOMPLI and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT making compromise unlikely, I don't think there has been enough widespread disruptive editing that ArbCom needs to go as far as something like the Ireland naming situation. Anomie ⚔ 03:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Prime Blue - Part of the "stubbornness" is simply due to the fact that there isn't much middle ground: either the transliteration of a transliteration is included or it isn't, and the WP:ACCESS faction refused the one actual compromise (transliteration of a transliteration in tooltips) proposed so far. The related "hottip" suggestion (see tvtropes:TextFormattingRules) never really got off the ground as it would require support in Mediawiki:Common.js, and would probably be opposed via WP:COLLAPSE anyway. Anomie ⚔ 03:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jinnai

This round was originally brought up by myself on a related discussion no longer particularly relevant to the current situation. During this discussion Ryuong contended that because a large amount of video games, though not all and certainly not computer games which also falls under WP:VG, are Japanese in origin then the VG guideline automatically supersedes the VG guideline even though it was never created as a daughter guideline. Since neither is policy and VG guideline did not automatically give deference to MOS-J, it shouldn't have to.

The reason for the usage in the VG guideline is that it was deemed that the information conveyed to the user from that is not really relevant as its mostly pronunciation of a word that is meant to be an English word and the pronunciations are often the Japanese language's best approximations of that. The guideline does allow for exceptions though for local consensus.

In contrast, the Japanese MOS seems to contend there are no ifs, ands or buts - all pages with Japanese text must conform to it. Nor does the MOS give alternative ways of doing this; it only allows for one very precise way which amounts to wording you'd see in a policy, not a guideline.

A compromise was tentatively reached from most parties on both sides, but had objections because it used a tooltip function which was claimed to be too broad to be an exception to WP:ACESS even though it would only affect users who wanted to know the romaji, were using a browser or aid device that couldn't handle tooltips and only on a minority of the pages; it would not affect the katakana.陣内 _Jinnai 04:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie: We had an RfC which didn't make any real progress and just muddied the waters. Having a second RfC on the same exact issue will not do anything.
While it is true we did not go through mediation, there is really nothing to mediate. They will either say the Japanese MOS supercedes the VG guideline or it doesn't. There's no real room for compromise unfortunately.陣内 _Jinnai 18:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nihonjoe

I've only been half following the debate as it seems neither party is willing to work with the other. I have made comments indicating a willingness to work out some sort of compromise, but nothing ever came of it. I think I'm just tired of the issue. As it is, This is not the place for this discussion as ArbCom has no jurisdiction at all when it comes to Manuals of Style guidelines (no more than any other editor here, anyway). This is better discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guyinblack25

I stopped contributing to the discussion as I felt too many tangents popped up. Though I still tried to follow it in the event a final decision began to emerge. I slept very little last night, so I may not be in the best mind to comment. But I have to say that this whole matter has become ridiculous and deserves a place on WP:LAME. I agree with some of the comments listed above, but not all. Regardless of which ones, I stand by my comments in July.

This is rooted in such a trivial matter (How many of our readers are really affected by this?) and should have been resolved early on. A few reasons come to mind for this:

we're all too stubborn or blind to realize that our side might not be the best idea, or
filibustering is going on.

All that being said, I hope that a compromise can be reached. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Odokee

I'm not sure where arbitration really comes into this issue except to possibly stop one rogue editor from trying to recreate Wikipedia in his own image. There was already a consensus within WP:VG on this topic, and Ryulong willfully set out to disrupt it. He was obviously told repeatedly [1] [2] [3] that he was going against the grain, but continued to mass edit every article he could find. When I tried reverting the transliterations that were almost exactly the same as the English counterparts, mini edit warring ensued and Ryulong attempted to be an internet bully by citing a bunch of unconvincing rules. I can't think of any other user that has outright turned down every single proposal of compromise.

As for the necessity of the romanization in the case of foreign words, it should already be covered in the article by having the English title, especially when the transliteration ends up being a very close, if not virtually identical, approximation to the original English word. e.g. Nintendo DS (ニンテンドーDS) instead of having the superfluous addition: Nintendo DS (ニンテンドーDS, Nintendō Dī Esu), which is in fact factually incorrect and even seems facetious in the light of this whole issue; what I refer to by that is the obviously overreaching "Dī Esu" part, which is actually now not a romanization but a "Japanification" and goes against most arguments put forth by Ryulong. Therefore the "Nintendō DS" romaji seems outrageously redundant and even detrimental to the average reader. It shouldn't have to be forced in front of us just for the sake of a minority of complainers.

Anyway, it has been established that romaji and other variations outside of the original foreign title and/or English title can be safely stowed away as references or notes, so I don't see how any users can solely determine that things should be one specific way across all of Wikipedia. If there is a consistent issue, as seems the case in WP:VG, then this option should not be ignored so fiercely.

Statement by Megata Sanshiro

Statement by Nomader

I'm kind of saddened that such a small issue like this has reached Arbcom, but here we are, so I'll give you my two cents. This boils down to whether something like Final Fantasy should have a Japanese translation next to it, when the Japanese title is trying to sound like the English version. In response to White Cat, a reader who doesn't have knowledge of what romanji are will be extremely confused as to what "Fainaru Fantajī" is, and might confuse it as an alternative title in the Japanese language. It's because of this that I've favored removing romanji when the title is trying to emulate what the English language title is to make things easier (and less confusing) for the reader, who won't understand some of the odd romanji markup and the purpose of having a bad English-Japanese translation to pronounce.

All that said, I think it's a little ridiculous that we've reached this point, but this debate has been raging for months and there doesn't seem to be much of a middle ground on this very minor problem. I share Prime Blue's frustrations about how long this has dragged out, and as I see almost no middle ground (the compromises used markups that might be inaccessible on mobile and other software, and I don't see any readily available alternatives) I'm inclined towards supporting Arbcom's involvement in this matter. Nomader ^(Talk) 23:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie: The RfC that we had was a rather dismal failure. Prime Blue even notified over eighty different people from affected projects (see this section) and it failed at getting almost anyone to come to the discussion. The reason I think this needs Arbcom intervention is due to the edit warring that has occurred due to this highly minor and unimportant stylistic point. This discussion has been going on for years now. The most recent problems began when Ryulong unilaterally added Romanji to Final Fantasy articles back in July without consensus (see [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]), and then after, members of WP:VG reverted and proponents of WP:MOS-JA reverted back (some examples are Final Fantasy: [20], [21], Final Fantasy II edits from 2009: [22], [23], Final Fantasy III edits from 2009: [24], and etc.) shows that this has been forced on the community without an established consensus. I'm highly discouraged by Arbcom's apparent view to not take up this case; something needs to be done to make sure that this point isn't argued ad nauseum. I encourage the committee to reconsider their opinions on hearing this matter. Nomader ^(Talk) 19:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bridies

Statement by Joren

Statement by Ost316

Statement by Golbez

Statement by Shiroi Hane

Statement by Kusunose

Statement by Squilibob

Statement by Jgp

Statement by White Cat

Dear god... This has made it to ArbCom?

My two cents is that in an encyclopedia such as wikipedia we normally present written versions of cities and other items in all conceivable ways. I do not see why some people want to change it.

People trying to remove katakana -> romaji need to demonstrate a reason on why such representation is harmful to the encyclopedia.

From Brussels...

“

Brussels (French: Bruxelles, pronounced [bʁysɛl] ( listen); Dutch: Brussel, pronounced [ˈbrʏsəl] (help·info)), officially the Brussels Region or Brussels-Capital Region[1][2] (French: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Dutch: Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest (help·info)), is the de facto capital city of the European Union (EU) and the largest urban area in Belgium.[8][9] It comprises 19 municipalities, including the City of Brussels proper, which is the constitutional capital of Belgium, the seat of the French Community of Belgium and of the Flemish Community.[10]

”

Or how about Istanbul (Not Constantinople) vs İstanbul

“

Istanbul (Turkish: İstanbul, historically known as Byzantium and Constantinople;[6] see the names of Istanbul) is the largest city in Turkey and 5th largest city proper in the world with a population of

”

As you can see even though every method of writing it is presented. This is an encyclopedia. Such information should be expected in an article and in the lead no less...

Also the romaji of the katakana and the English name do not have to be similar. The name of the lead character in the following manga is based on the Norse Goddess Verdandi/Verðandi and was "translated" to Japanese as ベルダンディー which reads as Berudandī. It was re-translated to English as Belldandy.

“

Belldandy (ベルダンディー Berudandī?) is a character in the popular manga Oh My Goddess! and in the anime Ah! My Goddess.[...]

”

Examples are plentiful... Noir (ノワール Nowāru)... Hand Maid May (HAND MAID メイ Hand Maid Mei)... Sometimes katakana romanization and English name coincidentally are the same such as in the case of Naruto (ナルト NARUTO). I do not see the reason why people want to remove that as it demonstrates the two are the same. Plenty of examples to the contrary exist.

Now... I want my two cents back... with interest.

-- Cat ^chi? 21:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by XinJeisan

Statement by Keahapana

Statement by DKqwerty

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/2)

Are the parties to this dispute engaged in edit-warring or other misconduct? Has mediation been attempted? I'm loath to intervene unless the situation has degenerated; while we could potentially impose a method for resolving this, as we did in cases like the Irish naming disputes, the resulting procedure would probably be more heavy-handed than one developed by the parties themselves. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline; as far as I can tell, this is strictly a style issue. While some editing behavior may have been a bit too stubborn to be collegial, I see no reason to believe this cannot be solved without ArbCom intervention. — Coren ^(talk) 01:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - The focal issue here is one of styles. The editorial behaviour is not ideal; however, other dispute resolution processes should be at the forefront of consideration here. Risker (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline and go through a style/content RfC, possibly binding mediation. SirFozzie (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, please seek other dispute resolution process first. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Has there been any progress toward resolving this dispute in the week since the case was filed? Brief, non-repetitive replies please. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 <br clear="all"/>
 {{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}}
-== Major deletion job by Jclemens ==
-'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Screwball23|<font color="0000EE">Sc</font><font color="4169E1">r</font><font color="00B2EE">ew</font><font color="FF6600">ba</font><font color="FFFF00">ll</font><font color="9400D3">23</font>]] [[User talk:Screwball23|talk]] '''at''' 00:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
-=== Involved parties ===
-<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
-*{{userlinks|Screwball23}}, ''filing party''
-*{{userlinks|Jclemens}}
-<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->
-;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
-<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
-* I happened to see a discussion of this on the complainant's talk page, despite not having been notified. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 03:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
-*Diff. 2
-;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
-*Link 1
-*Link 2
-=== Statement by [[User:Jclemens]] ===
-:While the complaining party doesn't appear to have said much so far, I am guessing his issue stems from [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=History_of_World_Wrestling_Entertainment&action=historysubmit&diff=384999420&oldid=384908116 this] series of deletions and taggings.  Each has an appropriate edit summary, and all material deleted was either unreferenced, BLP, or COATRACK material not pertaining to the subject of that article.  I've clearly identified in the edit summaries which deletions I considered to be BLP material vs. other material which could be readded by any editor meeting BURDEN.  I entirely agree with the implication that the deletion is sub-optimal: really, I don't have the time, interest, or background in the article's subject--it was brought to my attention by [[User:Collect]] as a potential BLP issue, and I hacked away lots of apparent OR in the process of taking out the BLP material.
-:The complaining party has not notified me of this dispute, nor contacted me on my talk page, so it's entirely clear that lesser dispute resolution options remain available and untried.
-:Furthermore, it's clear that to the extent any misconduct has taken place, it has not been mine.  My warning to this user for conduct on a separate page [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Screwball23&diff=prev&oldid=384626727 here] and response to his retort [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jclemens&diff=prev&oldid=384631602 here] bear scrutiny easily.
-:Thus, while I certainly don't have any objection to standing before ArbCom and justifying my actions as an editor or administrator with respect to the complainant, I don't see how this case merits your time: It's a content dispute, other resolution hasn't been tried, and I have done absolutely nothing wrong in the first place.  Cheers, [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 03:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
-=== Statement by [[User:DGG]] ===
-Examining the contribution histories of both parties , and in particular  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jclemens&diff=384629247&oldid=384626983], I do not think this is a good faith Arbitration request. FWIW, I also checked the log, and see nothing wrong  with any of Jc's recent deletions, almost all of which are expired prods, & in each case with a prod reason sufficient for deletion.    '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 01:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
-::If I have misunderstood, and if by "deletions" are meant not articles , but the WWE edits, they seem perfectly proper also--mainly the removal of unsourced opinion.    '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 05:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Collect ===
-No reason for this action at all. No DR tried. And the complainant is ''unlikely'' to like the results of any inquiries into his own conduct.   [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 02:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
-=== Statement by {Party 3} ===
-=== Clerk notes ===
-:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.''
-=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/2) ===
-*Note to Screwball23:  This request is currently malformed, as you have not made any statement about the dispute, have provided no evidence of prior dispute resolution, and have not posted diffs confirming notification the other party. If this is not corrected within, say, 12-16 hours, it will probably be removed.  [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 02:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
-*I agree with Risker's comment above, and NuclearWarfare's comment on your talkpage. Arbitration is a long, contentious process that is the ''last stage'' in Wikipedia dispute resolution. If there is a live dispute requiring resolution here, which is not at all clear so far, please use one of our earlier-stage processes to address it. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 02:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 == MOS:JP – Romanization for words of English origin ==