Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

The last step of dispute resolution is a request for 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.

Arbitration policy
Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
Developer help needed
Standing orders
Arbitration template

Structure of this page

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Important points:

Be brief. Put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence in the standard /Template format elsewhere if you need to.
You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.
Please sign and date at least your original submission with "~~~~."
New requests to the top, please.

The numbers in the Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/0/0/0) section corresponds to accept/reject/recuse/other.

New requests

When adding new requests, please give them an appropriate title as well as a subsection for arbitrator's votes.

Safavids

Discussion about the origins of the Safavid dynasty of Iran (1501-1736) turned into a fruitless dispute and revert war between me (Tabib) and user "Pantherarosa". I contend that Safavids were Turkic-speaking whereas "Pantherarosa" argues that they were of Kurdish/Persian origin. My complaints and claims:

Pantherarosa repeatedly tried to falsify and misinterpret the historical facts and stubbornly refused to accept the facts cited in authoritative Western and even Iranian academic (as well as online) sources.

The fact that Safavids were Turkic-speaking should be spelled out clearly in the relevant Wikipedia article(s).

Pantherarosa deliberately reverted my editions aimed at widening and improving the text, and even accused me in copyright violations without no ground for that.

Pantherarosa should stop reverting my editions and deleting pictures which I rightfully placed in the Safavids page.

Please, see Safavids talk page for further details. --Tabib 13:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

/Axon

User Axon has been very persistent in adding POV to article Open gaming. This has been going on for months, and no end is in sight.
User Axon has repeatedly edited comments of other wikipedians on the Talk:Open gaming page, deleting anyone's comments he does not like, and re-arranging other people's comments to put his own scurrilous (and irrelevant) allegations at the top of the page. It has been pointed out to him that this is not appropriate, but he has vowed to continue doing so.
Attempts to discuss the matter have been ignored. A community survey has been ignored. A request for mediation has been ignored. Arbitration appears to be the only remaining recourse. I am sorry: I would not take this step if there were any other option left, but his persistence has proven that this is not simply a mistake or a misunderstanding -- this is deliberate, premeditated vandalism, and it needs to stop.

(Please forgive me if I have not followed the Request For Arbitration procedure properly. I have never done this before. I hope never to do so again.)

~~ Bblackmoor 06:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have created an arbitration page at /Axon, and evidence has been added to the /Axon/Evidence page. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do. -- Bblackmoor 17:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

huh? Why did you create the arbitration page before the arbitration was even accepted? OneGuy 22:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Be brief. Put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence in the standard /Template format elsewhere if you need to." Does this not mean what I thought it meant? If I misunderstood, I am sorry. I have never done this before. -- Bblackmoor 23:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't know. You might be right OneGuy 23:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Either way is fine for our purposes, as long as we're pointed at enough evidence to initially consider the complaint - David Gerard 23:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Response from Axon

Before anyone else's time is wasted I would like to bring the following to the attention of the arbitrators:

First and foremost, I have not deleted anyones comments, and never have done. I have taken great care to perserve BBlackmoor's and others comments and remarks. I am confused as to why BBlackmoor would say that I have "vandalised" and deleted his comments and, without the evidence he claims was deleted, I would ask people to disregard this. Quite the reverse, I have only eve re-arranged the remarks on the Open Gaming talk page to their original order since BBlackmoor has consistently edited this page in an attempt to move my comments to the bottom of the page and give his comments precedence at the top of the page (Please see my comments on the talk page[1]). I have no small doubt he will make some attempt to further adulterate my comments on this page.

The "survey" BBlackmoor is arguing for consists of himself and one other person whom, no offense meant, would unfortunately seem to know little about the subject himself. BBlackmoor is himself the author of said license and is highly motivated in removing all mention of it from the Internet - a fact that he constantly tries to delete.

My attempts to reason and compromise with BBlackmoor on other pages have been met with nothing but hostility and contempt. Previously, BBlackmoor has been highly offensive to me, labelling my edits as "stupid"[2] and "loony"[3] and me as a "liar" and a "lunatic", among other things. In response, I have always tried to be civil despite his constant provocation.

The dispute is related to this page and has been ongoing, on-and-off, for, at most, a couple of weeks.

I have to admit, the topic in question is obscure and esoteric, in fact the subject of "open gaming" is pretty narrow. But, I'm sincerely interested in the subject and have edited widely on related issues. I have evidence to back up all my edits and I can supply this for anyone who wishes to see it.

BBlackmoor continues to revert the order of comments on the page and - with the above un-civility - this is why I have decided to waste no more of my time and await such time other editors knowledgeable on the subject in question make themselves available so that a more civil discourse can continue with them.

To summarise, I feel this "dispute" is entirely the creation of BBlackmoor who unfortunately would rather make a legalistic appeal to a higher authority to steam roller the issue when things don't go his way, rather than actually make any real effort to talk and compromise. --Axon 18:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (3/2/0/1)

Reject for lack of evidence. There's clearly a dispute, but it's not obviously apparent who, if anyone, is at fault, and if any breach of policy has occurred. Would be prepared to change my vote if evidence of wrongdoing (i.e. personal attacks, and including diffs) was presented. Reject - concur with sannse. Ambi 08:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not going to make an actual vote until I can see some actual hard evidence (the Arbcom is not a private investigator; we're not responsible for finding evidence). -- Grun t 🇪🇺 14:15, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC) Accept on the basis that there's at least one individual working against consensus here. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 15:53, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
Abstain pending appearance of evidence ➥the Epopt 14:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Accept for consideration of several minor questions including conventions for posting on talk pages and negative application of self-promotion, a section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Autobiography Fred Bauder 15:49, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Accept for consideration of the matters Fred mentions - there's certainly something amiss here - David Gerard 22:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Reject. I think that this dispute could benefit from a Request for Comment on the individuals involved (rather than on the content involved, which has gone through RfC). A wider community view could be useful here -- sannse (talk) 12:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

/Robert the Bruce - Accepted with five votes and one recusal on 28 January 2005. Evidence to /Robert the Bruce/Evidence, please.
/Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux - Accepted with four votes and one recusal on 25 January 2005. Evidence to /Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux/Evidence, please.

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 When adding new requests, please give them an appropriate title as well as a subsection for arbitrator's votes.
+=== [[Safavids]] ===
+Discussion about the origins of the Safavid dynasty of Iran (1501-1736) turned into a fruitless dispute and revert war between me ([[User:Tabib|Tabib]]) and user "[[User:Pantherarosa|Pantherarosa]]". I contend that Safavids were Turkic-speaking whereas "Pantherarosa" argues that they were of Kurdish/Persian origin.
+'''My complaints and claims:'''
+* Pantherarosa repeatedly tried to falsify and misinterpret the historical facts and stubbornly refused to accept the facts cited in authoritative Western and even Iranian academic (as well as online) sources.
+:The fact that '''Safavids were Turkic-speaking should be spelled out clearly in the relevant Wikipedia article(s)'''.
+* Pantherarosa deliberately reverted my editions aimed at widening and improving the text, and even accused me in copyright violations without no ground for that.
+: Pantherarosa '''should stop reverting my editions and deleting pictures''' which I rightfully placed in the Safavids page.
+Please, see [[Talk:Safavids|Safavids talk page]] for further details.
+--[[User:Tabib|Tabib]] 13:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 === [[/Axon]] ===

Revision as of 13:30, 8 February 2005