Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting Arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

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
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	none	none	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also

• Arbitration policy
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
• Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template

Purge the server cache

Current requests

Valve audio amplifiers

Initiated by Tubenutdave (talk · contribs) at 22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Valve audio amplifiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tubenutdave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

In addition to numerous attempts to constructively hold a critical discussion regarding the problems / errors on this page with Light Current using the discussion and user talk pages, making progess seems impossible. The argument has imho become intensely bitter on both sides. I previous left wiki (and specifically these pages) alone for six months to alow things to cool. When I came back I was "greeted" within minutes by "we thought you had died" and the bad news continued from there Tubenutdave (talk · contribs)

I didnt even think there was a dispute as such over the article! 8-?--Light current 01:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tubenutdave

imho Light current Wikilawyers, corrupts text to point of gross incomprehensibility and gross mispresentation .. obstructs and writes inaccurate copy on the article

Response to Blnguyen's reject vote statement

opinion respectfully noted by I believe the summary given above is factually incorrect (I can agree perhaps because the case was poorly presented)

• The dispute is extensive and goes back to at least april 2006, on "valve amplifier", a page I originated on 19:46, 22 September 2003, before being unilaterally excised by Light Current to valve audio amplifiers so that audio enthusiasts could "vent thier spleen" leaving the main page clear for "serious" applications(Quotations cite Light Current, just one reason I question his neutrality ?) and has also spilled over (at length) to my user talk page
• Within the history of this intense dispute in these places are very many instances of (non exhaustive list) CIV NPA on both sides and imho of trolling and wikilawyering by light current

This is not imho "simply a content debate". Respectfully, tubenutdave 09:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Light current

I believe there is no case to answer. I was merely trying to help tubenutdave by politely introducing him to the proper Wikipedia procedures. Of course I shall be happy to address any criticism of my actions. --Light current 01:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Uninvolved User:Newyorkbrad

This matter is clearly premature for arbitration, as there seems to have been no prior dispute resolution tried at all. Upon seeing this RfAr, I took a look at the filing editor's userpage which indicated that he was leaving Wikipedia over this disagreement. I have urged him to consider dispute resolution instead. I don't have enough subject-matter background to tell whether this is a pure content dispute or a user-conduct issue (and if the latter, who, if anyone, is at fault), but I have posted at ANI asking that someone with some expertise take a look at the relevant pages. Newyorkbrad 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Light current has advised me on his talkpage that mediation was tried several months ago but the other party went on wikibreak in the middle of it. I don't know whether that would be relevant to the present dispute. Newyorkbrad 01:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am unaware of any attempt by Light current to try mediation, specifically I have not noticed any comment to that effect in either my user or article discussion or by private email. *I* originally proposed mediation which Light Current refused to consider claiming there was "no need", all issues could im his viewe be resolved on talk pages. Which unfortunately he imho vandalises destroying the ability to follow the discussion, partly why this matter is now here. Exactly as per Wiki guidelines, I took an extended (six month) wiki break specifically to allow matters to cool in this dispute. Light current restarted the war within minutes of my return.tubenutdave 09:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This request was apparently copied into the commented out template, so I brought it out here and fixed up the formatting. Cowman109^Talk 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved comments from the Arb voting section to subheading of the statement of the user who submitted the comments. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/2/0/0)

• Reject, premature; try a milder form of dispute resolution first. Kirill Lokshin 23:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Accept to consider talk page refactoring Fred Bauder 00:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, discussion on the relevant article Valve audio amplifiers prior to Dec 31 consisted of two posts by Light current, so the dispute is barely a week old, and the total archives is 52kb, which is what some active admins get in one week on their talk page. No indications of policy violations, disruptive editing practices are given. If this is simply a content debate, WP:MEDCAB maybe more useful Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Everyking Appeal request

see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

I would like to request an appeal of my previous ruling at this time. I have now been under penalties from this ruling for 14 months. I have not been blocked by anyone since the ArbCom issued its two-week block in July, nor has anyone warned me or complained about me since that time (to the best of my recollection). I have carefully avoided conflict for several months and have put the incidents of the past, as well as the overzealousness of tone I sometimes used in those incidents, far behind me, while still remaining as active an editor as before. I don't believe there is any reason to think I would be brought to the ArbCom's attention again if these penalties were lifted, even if the ArbCom still regards the penalties to have been justified when they were initially applied. Everyking 10:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What in particular do you wish to be able to do? Return to WP:AN? Return to harassing admins? Not have to familiarize yourself with a situation before commenting on it? Return to pestering and being pestered by Phil? Nothing in the remedies applied to your case prevents you from continuing to do what you do well. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that. You probably know that I disagree with the way some of your questions are framed, so it is difficult for me to respond to them individually. Yes, I would like to comment on AN occasionally, but that isn't what's really important. The main thing is that I do not want to be constantly under sanctions, an inch away from a ban; above all else it is a matter of plain self-respect that I don't want to work on this site for hours every day while being subject to a list of onerous restrictions. I feel the penalties are needless and would like to return to having the status of a normal editor. It seems to me that it should be a simple matter for the ArbCom to reimpose the sanctions for the remaining time if it thinks I am doing what it does not want me to do. Everyking 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a simple matter. It is a lot of gut-wrenching work. We don't have time to watch Ashlee Simpson or closely follow whatever you are doing on the noticeboards, so the effect will be that you would be free to do whatever you wanted. We would only get involved after a general outcry regarding your behavior. If you want to try it fine, but understand Everyking 4 is not going to be fun for you or us. Fred Bauder 19:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with that. You know there are several people who have strong feelings against me and aren't going to hesitate to bring me to your attention if they think I'm causing even the slightest of problems. There would be no need for a new case, anyway; you have already acted with great flexibility in amending rulings, so all that should be required in case of a problem is to reapply the EK3 penalties. Everyking 20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Collaborations involving page-banned users

There are currently two reports at Arbitration enforcement of users who are banned from certain pages seeking to collaborate with other editors to continue to work on the articles.

• Iantresman (talk · contribs) is banned from Plasma cosmology and its talk page for three weeks under the terms of his probation. He posted some comments to User talk:Ionized, which Ionized posted verbatim to Talk:Plasma cosmology [2] [3]. Ian and Ionized argue that even if verbatim reposting is a problem, Ian can provide "information" which Ionized can use to edit the article.
• KyndFellow (talk · contribs), who is permanently banned from Sex tourism and related articles and their talk pages, has been advised that he can collaborate with another editor on article changes so long as he does not edit directly himself [4], and he is seeking to do so [5].

Of course, this is only a problem in cases where an editor is banned from article talk pages as well as the articles themselves. Still, some response needs to be devised, as article bans (either direct or imposed per probation) are part of many arbitration cases. I see a couple of equally logical responses.

1. The policy regarding banned users should be extended to users under temporary or permanent page bans. Proxy editing is prohibited. Editors who collaborate with a banned editor, either by verbatim reposting or by using their suggestions, get the same page bans imposed on them.
2. Page bans are issued for disruptive behavior, not for providing particular content. The banned editor may offer his suggestions to other editors, who, at their own discretion, may choose to make verbatim edits, partial edits, or ignore the advice. If these third party edits are seen by uninvolved admins as carrying on the disruption, the third party editors may be appropriately blocked or banned. If the third party editors behave responsibly, the edits are treated like any other edit the user may make, even though they were suggested by a banned user.

I think either response can be justified with reference to various policies. What is the arbitration committee's intent here? Thatcher131 04:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A user who does a forbidden act for another user steps into the shoes of the other and is fully responsible. The penalty which would have applied to the other user applies to the user who acts in their stead. Fred Bauder 05:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Depleted uranium

To the extent that the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium was influenced by the claimed credentials of anonymous users compared to my admitted amateur status, and a vigorous factual dispute about the production of uranium trioxide gas was taking place at the same time, and the fact that I have been repeatedly shown to have been on the correct side of more than 10 out of 12 protracted factual disputes related to depleted uranium (e.g., per Carter and Stewart (1970) half of burning uranium becomes a gaseous vapor fume), I reclaim the right to edit Gulf war syndrome to remove the very old conflicting graphs which serve only to delay people searching for the table of contents on that A-class genetics article. If this is improper, please let me know why. Please note that I have not been accused of editing Uranium trioxide improperly, and those accusing me of having edited Depleted uranium improperly have been shown to be incorrect. Thank you. James S. 17:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd like to place Carter and Stewart (1970) as a thumbnail in Uranium, because I read somewhere that fair use images need to be in articles, so I'll do that unless an arbitrator tells me not to. James S. 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I also removed a redundancy in Uranium trioxide and believe that to be proper at this stage; if it is not, please let me know why. Thank you. James S. 18:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

All three of my edits were reverted by a participant in my original arbitration case, although the last one was unreverted by a third party as useful. I await clarification. James S. 03:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You are banned from editing these articles. You can appeal or ask for a reconsideration of the remedies in your case, but you can not edit the articles in the mean time. Consequently I'm blocking you for violating the terms of the decision. I would also like to note that the article block was not imposed because the content of your edits was wrong, but because your editing behavior was unacceptable, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#Log_of_blocks_and_bans does not look promising in this area. It appears that you are not banned from the article talk pages; in the future if other editors won't adopt your suggestions, you should try mediation, RFC or third opinion rather than violating your article ban. Thatcher131 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

I need some help. For the past few months I have been just about the only admin to respond to complaints at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. There have been two complaints filed against NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly Zer0faults, under probation at the above case. I have taken no action on these complaints, for various reasons. My judgement has been called into question multiple times. No other admins have weighed in at WP:AE. Last month I posted a request for arbitrator review that sat on the page here for a week before it was archived without response.

Generally, I would say that the people filing the complaints believe NuclearUmpf is continuing the disruptive behavior for which he was placed on probation.

• In this case I declined to enforce probation against Nuclear Umpf in which he was one participant in an edit war involving 12 editors in total.
• In the current complaint I have declined to enforce the probation following brief edit wars over tagging two images as disputed, and over a post to a user subpage being used as a noticeboard (3 reverts in 26 hours) in which there was no attempt to talk with Nuclear prior to posting the complaint at WP:AE.

Perhaps my understanding of probation is at fault. I would appreciate a review. Thatcher131 14:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Our system of probation does not contemplate one user, even an arbitration clerk, being responsible for enforcing arbitration remedies. An administrator is expected to use their discretion when enforcing remedies. If you do not enforce a remedy, that is fine. Just let things take their course. Either the community will live with the consequences or a new remedy will have to be fashioned, after a new request is made. Fred Bauder 05:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred. I don't watch the enforcement page because I'm a clerk, but because I think it's important and almost no one else does it (I was there even before I was even promoted to admin). Thatcher131 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your work is greatly appreciated. Fred Bauder 12:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

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