Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by P.T. Aufrette (talk | contribs) at 20:01, 29 May 2012 (→‎Statement by P.T. Aufrette: @MakeSense64). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
GoodDay   27 May 2012 {{{votes}}}
[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).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Amendment request: German war effort Motion (orig. case) 13 August 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

GoodDay

Initiated by Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! at 22:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Steven Zhang

It is with great disappointment that I bring this request to the committee, especially in the position that I currently am in, however I feel that all other avenues have been unsuccessful in remediating the issue. GoodDay has been on Wikipedia since 2005, and to his credit has done some good work, but there have been a few sticking points - edits to articles relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the use of diacritics within articles. He's currently under a community-imposed topic ban regarding the former (see ANI thread) and the modification regarding use of diacritics has been discussed in length, a few examples are here, and more recently here, however many other examples exist. GoodDay's general argument regarding diacritics is that because this is the English Wikipedia, no diacritics should be used in articles as they are not part of the English language, and at times he is rather uncivil when discussing his objections with other editors. When questioned on his edits, he will often remove the comments from his talk page, citing harassment [1][2] (and see talk page history). I do not feel that anything short of arbitration will resolve this issue, and therefore ask the committee to accept this case. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 23:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Resolute, an admonishment I think would be insufficient in this situation. I think a topic ban may be in order, but the committee may find other action necessary here. This has been brought to ANI before, as well as the RFC. Advice that has been provided to GoodDay by myself and others has not helped resolve this issue, so arbitration seemed to be the best avenue. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 01:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie, you're preaching to the converted mate. If only people would work on things like article improvement or dispute resolution, Wikipedia would be a much better place :-) Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 03:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom, I'd be open to a resolution of this by motion if it seems like the best solution. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 04:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DBD, the issue of diacritics needs to be addressed for sure. There appear to be quite a few requested moves from dios to non-dios versions and vice versa. Here is an example. I didn't mention it because it didn't seem to fall under ArbCom's jurisdiction, but if there's been a recent RFC on the use of diacritics (link, anyone?) then it may be something the committee can look at. I'm not sure. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 15:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

There's nothing for me to add here, accept that folks should take a look at the English alphabet. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For many articles that are currently under diacritics titles, there are non-diacritics sources, but past-experiences has led me to develope a feeling of hopelessnes - that those sources will be ignored & replaced by diacritics sources. My goodness, there's CNN & NY Times sources that used Zoe Baird, when writing about the US Attorney-General nominee. I'm not looking to mass move articles to non-diacritics (as there'd be -strangely enough- hell to pay), but is it really asking too much to show the non-dios version in the intros? We should atleast freeze page moves, until English Wikipedia decides on how to handle diacritics. Mass moving articles to the dios version (without benefit of RMs) is rather arrogant & annoying -- Heck, Mass moving articles unilaterally, period - is kinda disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute

I've interacted with GoodDay for many years in the hockey project. We've agreed on some things, we've disagreed on others, and in the case of diacritics, we used to agree but now disagree. I don't know much about his conflicts in the realm of the British Isles, but his attitude around diacritics has become increasingly combative as of late in my view. I would also point this edit on Jimbo's talk page out. This type of non sequitur is a not-uncommon behaviour and is disruptive. However, I do not think we are at the point of needing a full arbitration case and at any rate, I am not certain what Steven is actually expecting out of this - admonishment? topic bans? site ban? I would think a topic ban would be the most effective solution, as GoodDay does do some good gnoming work unrelated to his problem areas. Something like that could be done via motion rather than full case if enough commenters of this RFArb support them (or if the committee directs Steven to go to AN to propose something on the community level). I don't particularly want to silence GoodDay on the diacritics issue, but he does need to step back from it in my view, because his obsession with it is bordering on zealotry, and I've seen plenty of zealots run themselves right off Wikipedia. Resolute 00:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies and SirFozzie - The issue of diacritics is a rather trivial thing on its face, but one of GoodDay's oft-repeated arguments against their use lends a clue. He likes to dismiss support for the use of diacritics as being "home country pride". His attitude is borderline xenophobic with a heavy dose of "protecting my language" bent. On the pro-usage side, many feel that dropping diacritics introduces spelling errors in people and place names, which can also be characterized as "protecting my language". In a lot of ways, it can be framed as a sub-plot to the many issues we have had related to nationalism (e.g.: WP:BISE, which GoodDay is/was heavily involved in). Resolute 13:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DBD - We just had an RFC on diacritics not too long ago, and as another commenter noted, it ended no-consensus. I don't believe another RFC would resolve with a different outcome. Since WP:HOCKEY deals with many eastern European and Scandanavian names, the diacritics issue has been on our radar for several years now. After much gnashing of teeth, we've reached a compromise that generally works: North America-centred articles drop diacritics (save some articles about teams/events in Quebec) while European-centred articles and biographical articles use them. It has worked for us for some time. I would note that GoodDay has chafed under that agreement a little and zealously "guards" the NA-based articles against diacritics, but he has always respected the compromise. Resolute 13:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DBD - This seems to be the discussion where we codified our compromise. (Ironically, it was GoodDay himself who led the charge on it). It has been reinforced, debated and in some cases slightly modified in the five years since, but retains general consensus within the project (though I will note that my attitude on diacritics expressed in 2007 is considerably different than my attitude today, but I continue to support our compromise arrangement). As to what GoodDay's respect of the agreement means, I would say it means that I believe he will respect the outcome of this arbitration, even if he really dislikes it. My concern, however, would be if he were topic banned from the diacritics and BISE issues, if he would accept it and get down to some good gnoming work, or if he would find another dispute to involve himself in. Resolute 15:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by P.T. Aufrette

At recent WP:RM surveys involving diacritics in titles, GoodDay has often posted one-line statements that "this is English language Wikipedia & there's no diacritics in the English alphabet".( [3] [4][5] etc). In challenging this blanket statement, I brought up English words like "resumé" and American names like Zoë Baird as counterexamples. GoodDay proceeded to make this edit to Zoë Baird, which was brought to my attention by another editor, and which really seems a bit egregious. I reverted this edit and four other similar edits that he made in the same time period, all of which he re-reverted with the edit summary "stop stalking me".[6][7][8][9][10] This is not an accurate characterization, as I don't recall any prior interaction with GoodDay's edits except on the talk pages of WP:RM surveys and on my own talk page. At that point GoodDay appeared to blow a fuse, several times deleting comments left on his talk page by myself and others.([11] and especially note this edit) I posted to his mentor's talk page[12] and I guess we have arrived at this point. He's been occasionally mildly uncivil,[13] but mostly a bit bullheaded, and somewhat uncollegial in the RM survey discussions in declining to engage in more than just terse repetitive restatements of his core position. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the terse repetitive insistence that English text can never ever contain any diacritics whatsoever (eg, as at the last link above), especially without meaningfully engaging in any kind of debate when attempts are made to draw him into a discussion by suggesting counterexamples, constitutes a mild form of disruptive editing as per the definition of "repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input". Not really a big issue, unless it's part of some longstanding pattern or track record which I am unaware of. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MakeSense64: Edit summaries with "Added English version of name to intro, alongside non-English version" don't appear in GoodDay's contributions until May 27, nearly four weeks after the RM discussion you mention. If there really is some causal-connection extenuating circumstance, let GoodDay state so himself.
But even so it's hardly comparable, because 1) Icelandic letters like ð and þ are more challenging than a mere diacritic on a very familiar letter, so there is a stronger case for displaying an "English" version alongside the name; whereas, who really needs a reminder that   ë   minus   ¨   looks like   e  ? 2) the use of diaeresis, in particular, to break up a diphthong is long-established in English, for instance, the New Yorker has used "coöperation" for many decades, a bit old-fashioned but still perfectly valid. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

Response to statement by Jclemens
As can be seen from his edit history and the user box he added to his user talk page, GoodDay's preferred edits are gnomish ones, applying small corrections repetitively. He is willing to take on tasks that others may find dull, and in this way can contribute positively to Wikipedia. I do not believe a complete ban is warranted. It may be more suitable for a limitation, with specified penalties, to be set on GoodDay being involved in his hot button issues. isaacl (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to statement by Courcelles
Instead of a case, perhaps similar to how Steven formalized GoodDay's self-imposed topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Steven can make a suggestion for a remedy at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, upon which the community can subsequently express its views? isaacl (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to statement by DBD
GoodDay's willingness to abide by an agreed-upon course of action demonstrates that he can remain productive with restrictions imposed. Unfortunately, his chafing has led him to seek out other edits such as those described in Steven's statement which can be viewed as a flouting of consensus views, and so a broader restriction may be warranted. isaacl (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to statement by Steven Zhang
A recent RFC regarding the guidelines on using diacritics is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC. (I believe some more smaller discussions have occurred since then.) isaacl (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to statements by SirFozzie and Jclemens regarding the nature of the underlying disagreement
Given your views on the relative importance of the dispute on the use of diacritics, and the mildness of the disruption—various edits to illustrate a point of view and a re-revert—perhaps it would be more appropriate to re-direct this discussion to a venue such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, with a narrow scope focused solely on GoodDay's behaviour, or to deal with this by motion? I do not believe the behavioural aspects are terribly complex. (The dispute, of course, is complicated, but as a content-related matter, I do not believe it would be within the scope of this arbitration case request.) isaacl (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fyunck(click)

I don't know the full background here of GoodDay so this is generally a comment about his actions lately in several rm's and such. I noticed this because his page is on my watchlist for all his tennis edits. One thing that disturbs me most is that this seems to be one-sided from the point of view of the we must always use diacritics editors. There are just as many pro-diacritic editors who push things to the limit yet nothing is brought here about them. Could he be more civil? Yes. Would it be better if he left more complex reasoning when editing an article or talk page? yes. Do I see dozens of edits a week in RMs and !votes by long time editors that are also the same quality of civility and beating a dead horse analogy? yes. Then what's the difference in this case? The problem isn't so much GoodDay as it is wikipedia guidelines and policies being unbelievably vague and ambiguous on the use of diacritics. The last big RfC on the subject ended in no consensus to use or not use and any attempts to really bring all policies and guidelines in synch hopelessly fails every time. With these policies to follow editors are pretty much cattle driven into having huge battles in article after article and, depending on who notices or is in town that week, articles wind up with or without diacritics depending on the English sources. This happens in tennis articles all the time because a name will be spelled with diacritics in a players' birthplace yet spelled without them in US, UK, Australia, Canada, the governing bodies of tennis, and even a player's own personal English website. We often need multiple spelling versions of a players name in the lead sentence so as not to have unfair censoring. This makes for huge battles and fights because of ambiguous wiki guidance. It's gotta be a shock if one is a new editor here. I can't speak particularly about UK or Ireland articles because I rarely edit them unless they pertain to tennis or music articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ P.T. Aufrette - I've been involved in discussions where GoodDay has left the same sentence answer several times, but there are dozens of others on the pro-diacritic side that seem even more intense and leave the same 20 word Demands every day. Did they get dragged up here? No. Why? Is it because the pro-diacritic folks turn their heads and look away? That would be exceedingly unfair if so. And you're actually bringing up that an editor is deleting posts on his talk page? I've been told over and over that we can delete talk page chatter at any time for any reason unless it is a particular administrative warning or block. And when those items are over they can still be deleted. The link you gave on your post on his page was not exactly anything noteworthy anyway. If we arbitrated every editor that was mildly uncivil, a bit bullheaded, and somewhat "uncollegial" I think the list would be mountainous. And it would include some administrators too from what I've seen. My own skin had to become much thicker around here or I'd have fled long ago. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Filelakeshoe

I realise my experience with GoodDay's crusade against diacritics is not recent, but from what I can see, not a lot has changed. In a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Use English last spring he repeated the same mantras he's repeating now, and in response to clear evidence presented in that discussion that diacritics are used in English, he responded "your argument is unacceptable to me… diacritics should be eradicated from English Wikipedia & there's nothing you can do to change my stance".[14] I hate to bring up something from a year ago, but it's clearly still relevant, he's admitted that nothing can change his "stance", just like the other fringe POV pushers we get on Wikipedia often admit that they will never change their "stance" that dinosaurs lived on Noah's Ark or that astrology is science. I really don't see the difference between this and what GoodDay is doing with diacritics, since the allegation that "there are no diacritics in English" is so demonstrably false. There needs to be a new consensus about diacritics in article titles and leads (and I wish all diacritics related RMs would stop until we come to one), and GoodDay should be welcome to repeat his mantra at every RM in the meantime with the rest of us safe in the knowledge that most administrators with clue will probably ignore it, but the fact that he still feels the need to make edits like this one tells me that this request is necessary. I also hope this will be a step towards us coming to a new consensus about diacritics. - filelakeshoe 09:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: to MakeSense: Sorry, what I meant was, come up with a new clearer, plainer guideline which we just follow and forget about it. The current one is, as you point out, too vague, and that's why admins closing RMs don't (know how to) follow it. As for Zoë Baird, without wanting to get into another long tedious round in circles discussion about diacritics on this page, the crazy part of it was the word "English", implying the accented form was... what language, exactly? And also the circumstance in which the edit was made as described above by P.T. Aufrette. - filelakeshoe 16:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DBD (mentor)

This is disappointing. GoodDay is generally a good editor. Yes, I have often reminded him to wind his neck in and just get on with gnoming. I concur that there should be arbitration regarding GoodDay's behaviour, but I don't believe that the wider issue can be solved until there is a decisive policy discussion regarding use of diacritics. I strongly suggest that either: such a discussion is had after this arb case, or this case is postponed until that discussion has closed with clear and unambiguous policy decisions. ✝DBD 11:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Resolute Thanks for shedding light. I think it might be useful to link the compromise (which I assume had a sort of consensus and thus represents a sort of guideline on this issue). You assert that GD has generally respected (or worked within the terms of) that compromise – how do you see that assertion's effect on this case? ✝DBD 14:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MakeSense64

I have only encountered GoodDay in a couple of RM discussions, most recently here [15], and he does indeed always seem to vote with the same boilerplate text that does not cite any policy or guideline. But so do many other editors who always come to vote with "this is an encyclopedia" or "because it is her real name" as the only motivation for their vote. Can we complain that GoodDay continues to use a boilerplate text, when so many other editors on the other side of the diacritics-saga continue to do the same? The solution to this is not banning or blocking but in closing admins starting to give a bit more feedback when they close a RM. Why don't they simply list the votes that were not counted (because not based in policy) in their closing motivation? Is that asking too much? If editors like GoodDay see that their vote doesn't count, then they get useful feedback and will adapt (for example by educating themselves about our AT policies). This will be a bit more work for admins in the beginning, but will soon reduce their workload as voting editors learn how to vote and bring proper arguments to a RM discussion. That would be real mentoring. Now we just continue to muddle through on the basis of very ambiguous and fragmented policies and guidelines, with nobody being able to make sense of RM closures anymore (because most admins give little or no motivation). We can't complain that some editors like GoodDay continue to vote in the way they do, as long as they have the impression that their votes get counted. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@filelakeshoe. What good is a new concensus about diacritics going to do if it is applied as inconsistently as the current one? Without more consistency and transparency in RM closures, editors can only get the impression that RM are based mainly on headcounts or on the personal preferences of the closing admin. In the first case it leads to editors bringing on votes, in the latter case it leads to travesties like what we saw in the recent closing of the RM at Nico Hulkenberg. The problem is not GoodDay or other voting editors, the problem is hopelessly fragmented and diluted policies, and too many editors who want to keep it that way. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@filelakeshoe. The Zoë Baird edit you mentioned [16] was not at all crazy. Wikipedia:LEAD#Alternative_names requires us to mention significant alternative names (including alternative spellings) if they exist. Several of the sources used for the article render her name "Zoe Baird", so why not mention this commonly used alternative spelling in the lede? It is backed up by sources, and readers may doubt whether some "Zoe Baird" they have read about elsewhere is the same person as this "Zoë Baird". We can say it is most likely, but there might be a different "Zoe Baird" who is also a lawyer. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@filelakeshoe. I agree that "(Also:..)" would have been better than "(English:..)" in the Zoe Baird case. But with regards to that type of edits that GoodDay started making I would like to point the reviewing admins to this recent RM discussion where GD voted: Talk:Eiður_Guðjohnsen#Requested_move. It was brought up that the common English spelling of this person's name was missing in the lede, and several editors agreed that English spelling should be shown in the lede if the article was kept at native title. As it happened, GD put his vote in right after that discussion, so it is quite likely that he has read and picked up on it there. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by In ictu oculi

Apologies for arriving late here. I probably have seen GoodDay around before but the name didn't really register until he complained to me directly about edits (lede edits and sourcing and moves) to a group of martiniquais politician stubs sourced primarily from the French National Assembly website. There is an extensive section on GoodDay's talk page under the heading Thélus Léro. As a result of GoodDay's request I submitted several other martiniquais politician stubs to a RM at Talk:Hégésippe Légitimus which passed unanimously, except for GoodDay, illustrating again that outside tennis/hockey use of European names is generally not controversial - as indicated by any category in the Latin-alphabet name space (although I realise this may not be evident to GoodDay since one would need to know e.g. French to be able to assess whether French names are really 100% in use in France-related articles).

My second encounter was while starting an article on a French WWI pilot Jean de Gaillard de la Valdène where a hyphen edit nearly made me lose part of the content. I accepted GoodDay's explanation that it was a coincidence, but notified the interaction to his mentor, and notified GoodDay that I had done this. My observation of GoodDay is that he is easily upset, and easily egged-on on the diacritics issue, but not malicious. I don't have any knowledge on the UK edits mentioned above. I have no opinion on whether a topic ban on diacritics would be helpful to GoodDay, that is for his mentors to decide. In my view GoodDay's "English Wikipedia" Talk comments are considerably less disruptive than others' actual article space edits.

I do have one comment however, discussion here has centered on the "Zoë Baird (English Zoe Baird)" edit, and I also left a request to GoodDay on this. But now I would have more concern about the "François Mitterrand (English Francois Mitterand)" edit, because it seems to me to possibly have been deliberately selected since François Mitterrand is the example used at WP:FULLNAME and WP:OPENPARA, two examples which are sometimes disputed by those against full spelling of European Latin-alphabet names on en.wp. If that's the case then the selection of "François Mitterrand (English Francois Mitterand)" was not just silly it was also WP:POINTY. Apart from that edit I have no other edit which concerns me. AFAIK mainly GoodDay just Talks, and talk is free. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HandsomeFella

I withdrew a statement here earlier, but I feel that I have to share some of the latest interactions between GoodDay and a couple of other editors, including myself, on his talkpage. The general pattern seems to be that, while other editors mostly go out of their way to be reasonable, GoodDay responds with one-liners full of self-pity, portraying en.wiki as a victim of those hateful diacritics that are "forced" on it, and himself as a victim of unfair treatment.

Key example:
Reasonable input from Isaacl. [17], followed by GoodDay's response: [18].

Btw, GoodDay has admitted [19], albeit misplaced (in another editor's section here), that the bold moves have more or less ceased, yes he insists that bold moves are "encouraged" and occurs "each day", while his bold edits – e.g. adding English: Zoe Baird – are being punished (here, by this process).

My impression is that GoodDay is regressing and behaving more and more immaturely as the dispute goes on, desperate to milk some kind of concession out of the process as a compromise (such as an alternative spelling in the lead section). Maybe he feels that he's got nothing to lose anymore.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Recuse as I have blocked one of the involved parties. Tiptoety talk 05:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/0/2)

  • I note GoodDay's non-response response, and am tempted to support opening the case based on the perspective of a former mentor--having been in that position before, I know the sense of personal failure when one realizes a mentee is just not understanding and/or improving. However, I would like to hear from other community members who have had recent experiences with GoodDay's editing before we have a whole case. If the user is completely intransigent and at odds with the community, a community ban may be more appropriate than an arbitration case. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting for more statements, but I'm currently going to vote Accept, as I think that GoodDay's statement indicates that there are issues that require Committee review. And as a personal note, I may seem a bit befuddled here, about some of the things people will get into endless arguments about. Hypens/Endashing... date linking/unlinking. And now, diacritics. Don't we have other, more important things to work on? Have the BLP issues that Wikipedia has faced solved? SirFozzie (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisionally voting to accept as GoodDay's response to the filing just extenuates the sense that this case is needed =. Open to being persuaded by others, or GoodDay, that this is not needed, however. Courcelles 03:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to examine GoodDay's conduct. Only with excessive time and attention could the community resolve this complex set of issues. AGK [•] 09:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: I would not have this case examine the content issues at play, including diacritics. In order to give GoodDay an opportunity to supply a rebuttal in evidence, I would handle this by a full case, and certainly not with a roving hearing on this page. AGK [•] 16:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=495007596"