Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Bitola (talk | contribs)
867 edits
Removing User:Jonathunder from the list as requested by him
Bitola (talk | contribs)
867 edits
mNo edit summary
Line 102: Line 102:
Also, there was a poll for the naming of the Macedonians article, but it finnished without reaching a consensus:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs/Poll].
Also, there was a poll for the naming of the Macedonians article, but it finnished without reaching a consensus:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs/Poll].


==== Statement by user Bitola ====
==== Statement by [[User:Bitola|Bitola]]====


The reason why I’m requesting this arbitration is the edit war around the naming policy of the articles related to Macedonia that is going on for years. I deeply believe that this issue can be resolved only by assistance of the Arbitration committee, because there are so many editors included in the dispute for years and jet, the consensus hasn’t be achieved. I propose the following changes that should resolve this meaningless dispute once for all:
The reason why I’m requesting this arbitration is the edit war around the naming policy of the articles related to Macedonia that is going on for years. I deeply believe that this issue can be resolved only by assistance of the Arbitration committee, because there are so many editors included in the dispute for years and jet, the consensus hasn’t be achieved. I propose the following changes that should resolve this meaningless dispute once for all:

Revision as of 17:42, 1 March 2006

Shortcut

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.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

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).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban none none 12 August 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.

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. 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.

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.



How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

  • Click "[edit]";
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Macedonia naming dispute

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Discussing on the talk page, but without success:Macedonia article talk page, Macedonia article talk page, country article talk page

Also, there was a poll for the naming of the Macedonians article, but it finnished without reaching a consensus:[16].

Statement by Bitola

The reason why I’m requesting this arbitration is the edit war around the naming policy of the articles related to Macedonia that is going on for years. I deeply believe that this issue can be resolved only by assistance of the Arbitration committee, because there are so many editors included in the dispute for years and jet, the consensus hasn’t be achieved. I propose the following changes that should resolve this meaningless dispute once for all:

1. Change of the article name from Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia

2. Change of the disambiguation page name from Macedonia to Macedonia (disambiguation) and including a links to this disambiguation page from the following articles: Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria etc.

3. Change of the article name from Macedonians to Macedonians (disambiguation)

4. Change of the article name from Macedonians (ethnic group) to Macedonians

I would like to explain why I’m proposing these changes:

1. Change of the article name from Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia

Almost every article about a country on Wikipedia uses the short, most commonly English name of the country: Belgium (officially: Kingdom of Belgium), Croatia (officially:Republic of Croatia), Bulgaria (officially: Republic of Bulgaria), Greece (officially: Hellenic Republic) etc...

There is a naming dispute around the official name of the country, but that is already appropriately described in the article and the dispute shouldn’t interfere with the name of the article. I also checked the Naming conflict policy article and I will try to interpret their directions about resolving naming conflicts: A ways to provide the objective criteria are (taken from the naming conflict article):

  • Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations).
I performed the following Google searches:
Macedonia –Greek –Bulgarian –Former -Yugoslavian:[[17]] 82,900,000 results
Republic of Macedonia:[18]- 4,760,000 results
FYROM:[19] 5,050,000 results
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia:[20]- 2,080,000 results
Online encyclopedias:
Encyclopedia.com:[21]
Britannica online: [22]
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.[23]
Canadian Encyclopedia: [24]
  • Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)? The Macedonian Constitution uses the term: Macedonia (Republic of)
  • Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term): Yes, Macedonians are using the term Macedonia and Macedonians when describing its country.

A ways to provide the subjective criteria are (taken from the naming conflict article):

  • Does the subject have a moral right to use the name? : Greeks claim that Macedonians have no moral right to use that name.
  • Does the subject have a legal right to use the name? : Greeks claim that Macedonians have no legal right to use that name.
  • Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights? : Greeks claim that the use of the name Macedonia is an infringement.
  • Is the use of the name politically unacceptable? : Greeks claim that the name is politically unacceptable.

I think it is clearly enough to find which term should be used throughout Wikipedia articles based on the objective/subjective criteria.

Also, the following example is mentioned in the naming conflict article: Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa (Greece) oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" (Macedonia) as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Cabindans (Macedonians) use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans (Greeks) oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans (Macedonians) have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach, arguing that this usage should not be allowed. Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans (Macedonians) call themselves Cabindans (Macedonians) is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans (Macedonians) have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" (Macedonia) does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans (Macedonians) call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan (Greek) objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan (Greek) POV.In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe.

2. Change of the disambiguation page Macedonia to Macedonia (disambiguation)

Several examples that I think are providing appropriate evidence why I’m proposing this:

  • Greece – Greece is a disambiguation term, but when you type Greece in the search box, you will end up in the Greece article and at the top you will get the link to even 2 disambiguation pages: Hellas redirects here. For other uses, please see Hellas (disambiguation); for other uses of the word Greece, please see Greece (disambiguation).
  • Australia – Australia is a name of a continent, but also of a state, but if you search for Australia, you will end up in the article about the state, giving an opportunity to go to the disambiguation page at the top of the article: For other uses, see Australia (disambiguation).
  • Belgium (For other uses, see Belgium (disambiguation).)
  • England (For other uses, see England (disambiguation).)
  • Maybe this last example is the most appropriate, because Luxembourg is a country, but also a province in Belgium (in the same manner as Macedonia is a country, but Macedonia is a region in Greece and Bulgaria as well). When you type Luxembourg, you will end up in the article about the country, with providing a link to the disambiguation page: For other uses, see Luxembourg (disambiguation).

The bottom line is that a country has more relevance than the region in some other country, so the search for Macedonia should lead to the article about the country, not to the disambiguation page.

3. Change of the Macedonians to Macedonians (disambiguation)

4. Change of the Macedonians (ethnic group) to Macedonians

  • If you type Americans in the search box, you will end up in the article about the US, not about the inhabitants of the whole continent.
  • We all know that there are Ancient Greeks, Modern Greeks, but, when you enter the word: Greeks in the search box, you will get the article about the Greeks as the nation. (For other uses of the name "Greek", Greek (disambiguation))

The bottom line is that there is a controversy about the relation between Modern and Ancient Macedonians, but, for that reason the disambiguation page exists, the article named Macedonians should lead to the existing, living nation, not to the disambiguation page that should make a distinction between the modern nation and the people that lived several thousands years before.

Statement by Miskin

I wouldn't consider myself as an "involved" person since I hardly ever edit this article, and most importantly, I'm not involved in any disputes. I've been watching the Macedonian Slavic related articles because they're constantly subjected to POV-pushing by certain not so neutral editors. I really don't see where the dispute is. You have failed to point out a specific on-going dispute here, you're just proposing a bunch of solutions to a problem which is not even mentioned. As far as I'm concerned you're trying to use arbitration as substitute for "Discussion", which is really not a good idea. Miskin 14:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Latinus

I understand that a lot of people are going to be making statements, so I'll try to keep mine short. In Bitola's examples above, he is relying mostly on Wikipedia:Naming conflict, which is not a policy, but a set of factors compiled mostly by ChrisO, to be taken into account when deciding the outcome of this naming dispute and naming disputes in general. They are in no way whatsoever binding, as a formal consensus poll has never been taken (they are too controversial and would surely fail).

Personally, I believe the status quo is a sufficiently neutral. I've made a graph for you:

Greek POV Status quo (IMO very neutral) Rep. Macedonia POV
Name of country Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (used by Encarta and the officially recognised name by the UN and the EU of which this country is a member) Republic of Macedonia Macedonia
Name of people Macedonian Slavs (used by Encarta) Macedonians (ethnic group) Macedonians

Macedonia is a region in southeastern Europe, divided between three countries, Greece, Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia. Greeks (and to a lesser extent, Bulgarians) typically object to the appropriation and monopolisation of the names Macedonia/Macedonian by a country, which covers only part of the region, which all nationalities involved typically viewed as rightfully theirs.

As a result, after many negotiations, the status quo on Wikipedia was established: to follow ChrisO's naming conflict guidelines, which specify that: these overlapping meanings can be resolved by proper disambiguation (this section was conveniently overlooked by Bitola). That is what we have done: we say the Republic of Macedonia rather then the whole region or the Greek or Bulgarian portions and the Macedonians as an ethnic group rather than the Greek Macedonians (who call themselves plain "Macedonians" in a regional sense - the "self-identification policy" in their case seems to be overlooked by Bitola). See the disambiguation pages Macedonia and Macedonian to see how many meanings these words have. I see Bitola's ideas above as tremendously POV and as an attempt to remove all disambiguation from the titles. After all, we have articles on the Republic of Ireland and the People's Republic of China, how bad can it be? Using the full name of a country is sometimes needed and I see that our colleagues at the Macedonian Wikipedia use the full name for their country as well [25].

I strongly urge the Arbitration Committee to reject this case (which is an extremely complex content dispute) and if possible, to refer it to mediation. --Latinus 15:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: If Bitola wants to rename those pages, he should try Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Latinus 16:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

ZAROVE

Involved parties

Michael Snow (talk · contribs)
ZAROVE (talk · contribs)
There also exists a now inactive account Zarove (talk · contribs). This shares some hallmarks with ZAROVE, like frequently severe dyslexic-type spelling problems, but he apparently denies having used that account.

This request involves ZAROVE's conduct in a long-running dispute over the Acharya S article.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Other than several people communicating directly with ZAROVE, and impromptu attempts at mediation on the talk page, no formal dispute resolution has been used. Given the circumstances, as I will explain, I do not think they would be suitable or appropriate, nor do I believe prior stages would be capable of resolving the situation. --Michael Snow 19:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Michael Snow

Acharya S is a pseudonymous New Age author who is highly critical of religion, especially Christianity. The importance of pseudonymity and privacy for her is partly related to her young son, and having been involved in a vicious custody battle that included a kidnapping allegedly organized by the boy's father. I have personally confirmed the relevant information and can provide additional details, but am not willing to do so publicly.

In this context, ZAROVE has threatened to publish material that would constitute a serious invasion of her privacy, such as obtaining her credit history [27]. I gave him a stern warning about this [28], which he simply dismissed [29]. Now more recently, he has directly suggested publishing information about her son [30] (a comment he wiped from the talk page after a few hours [31]). Acharya S has also complained directly about the situation via email.

ZAROVE, who claims to be dyslexic, has posted extensive arguments in this dispute, often barely readable, seeking to expose and discredit Acharya S. He is opposed by several supporters of Acharya S (how many, and whether she has edited herself, is difficult to determine). The article has been protected for a month and the talk page is overflowing with archives. The behavior of Acharya's suporters has not been exemplary either, frequently including personal attacks against ZAROVE. However, because of the implicit threats in ZAROVE's actions I think his conduct in particular needs to be addressed, and I ask the Arbitration Committee for an injunction that ZAROVE is banned from editing anywhere but the relevant arbitration pages (he does not seriously edit on topics outside the scope of this dispute) pending the resolution of this case. --Michael Snow 19:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZAROVE

With all due respect, if you read the dispute, you will find my actiosn are nto as damnign as you preent them.

1: Though Acharya S's disciples, who come form her malign list in droves to fight for her cause, have accused me of such, I did not write the initial article to be a hit piece against her. Im not Hostile to her. I am hostile to her attempts to Bias Wikipedia. I want a Neutral article. This neither Acharya S nor her legions will allow, while claiming this is what they want themselves. Rather, they endeavour to re-write the aritcle in her favour. To this end, any evidence you how them, any source that is not from a supporter of Acharya S, is rejected. They have removed links to relevant pages, because it doesn't support their desired end. They openly critise any source that is critical of her work. This is why I offered my article. I can put it on the web, and let this be a source.

Incedentlaly, ylou are mistaken. Her motivaiton to remain Annonymous has nohtign to do with her Young SOn.her Ex-Lover happens to alreayd know her PSeudonym. She has stated such herself on her mailign list.She may have told you, in an email exchange, that htis is her reasoning, btu then, her word is not known to be trusted.I say this not lightly.

Please also do not fall for her sympathy tactics.

Credit Hisotry and Grades in school are open on several persosn whom Wikipeida has already written artilces on,and is inclused in such articles. And the soruces for my informaiton are legal. I wrote an articl eon her a few years back. I was a reporter. I have the article on disk somwhere still. I am not obsessed with ehr and am not stalkign her. But if they will nto allow any other osuce, claimign it Bias if it critises her owrk, why not a newsarticle?


2: As to her son, they claim I gaiend this informaiton form her ex-lover, and this is evidenc eof inpropriety. I added the commetn abotu her son when she posted it on her website. Again, I did htis in acocrdance to Wikipedia Policy. As she posted ghe infrmaiton on her site herself, I do not see how this is a VIolation of her privacy.


3: All this said, don't you think acitosn agaisnt me is a bit silly? It only encoruages Acharya S and her follwoers ot further bully and harrass, by giving me a bad name. Notice how muhc of the tlak page centres aroudn her disiples makign personal attakc son me. They wan tot discredit me, and bannign me gives htem a vicotry. With it, they will be enheartened to further their sceheme, which is to bias WIkipeida in her facour. Im not makign this up. Ive fought alone here. I dotn have yes men, but Acharya S does. Look at what they posted on my talk page. Im also not "Zarpve03", and, as to the claim that disagreeign with me means I attack ytou, please look at my own detractors. Disagrre with them and their Guru, and they viciosuly atack you, and are likely to call you sick and Psychotic. ( They clal virually anyone this...CHeck her refutaitons.) Noentheless they felt compelled to vandalise my page to create a terribple ( And childish) rant abotu me. DOe this seem like I am a monster, andhtye the voice of reason?

I mean, coem on, I didnt make this personal. I also didnt make this about my personal beleifs, which I didnt brign up.


Think for a moment. If I include Neutral Informaiton, its considered Bias. if they post claism that ar euttelry unsubstamtiated except on her own website, abotu her, tis valid.


They simply want the reader to htink she is what she presents ehrself as, to elimiante all Critical cvoices againt her, and to make the pice a glowing advertisement for her. This is why they want rid of me, and wy they distort everyhtign I say. Im not stalkign her, I didnt get informaiton in an illegal way, and Im not obsessed with her. I even post in other arilces and have for a coupel of years now.


This is not rlelay abotu me, its baotuthem wantign to silenc soemone who doesnt give them their way.


Pleaw see through this and relaise whats gpign on. After all, this isnt rellay abotu me. They only seek to discrdit me personally so as to silence opposition to their agenda, which is to coopd the WIkipedia aritlce of their Guru, so that they can write a glowing review of her, and htis hasbeen noted by several others.


Oh, and I rellay am a Dyslexic.


ZAROVE 04:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

RJII (3)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Infinity0

I have tried to add criticisms of anarcho-capitalism to the Anarchism#Anarcho-capitalism and Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism articles. RJII accuses my edits of being "communist" and "distorting facts", then repeatedly re-words the paragraph so either no criticism remains or the focus is taken away from the criticism.

RJII is already on probation and general probation, for violation of NPOV, NPA, and CIVIL: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug#Remedies

WP:NPOV

  • Attaches POV comments to dispute tags: [33] [34]
  • Repeatedly refers to source writers as "communists" even though they are not: [35] [36]
  • Persistently removes key points and replaces them with irrelevant or repeated ones: [37] [38] [39]

WP:NPA and WP:AGF

  • Accuses me of distorting ideas: [40] [41]
  • Accuses me of trying to attach communist ideas to Tucker: [42] [43] [44]
  • Accuses me of "injecting communist POV into Tucker": [45]
  • Claims I am coming from a communist perspective: [46]

WP:CIVIL

  • When I ask him to stop POV pushing, he re-asserts his own view as the truth: [47]

False claims

  • Falsely claims that my version claims C, or does not claim D, when it does/doesn't: [48]
  • Reverts because the article did not make claim C when in fact it did: [49].

Consensus

  • Support for my version: [50] [51]
  • Consensus reached and support: [52] [53] ([54] - [55])
  • Support for his version: [56] - the only sign of support from the whole debate, from User:Hogeye (block log) - and I had already stopped using the term "wage labour", nor is it a purely Marxist definition.

Avoiding consensus

  • Adds his disputed version to an article I am not watching: [57]

Statement by RJII

Infinity can't get away with distorting information about Benjamin Tucker in various articles, so he's filing an arbitration case. I provide sources showing he's wrong time after time, yet he refuses to acknolwedge them. He's trying to attribute a communist POV to the guy, when Tucker even called anarcho-communism "Pseudo-anarchism." There is nothing communist about Tucker. I'd like to file an case against him as well. Should we just do it in this case or do I need to make a separate case? RJII 18:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it's bizarre that he calls my assertions of him making Tucker look like a communist as personal attacks. Go figure. He's the one making the personal attacks, as can be seen in this edit summary: [58]

He complains I'm adding things when he's "not watching." LOL!

Also, Infinity is wrong about a consensus. The fact is, no one supports what he's doing. Infinity has obtained no consensus whatsoever. RJII 18:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Without a trial? I've done nothing wrong. RJII 19:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RJII, you had a trial, very recently. :) You don't need a trial every single time someone has a problem with your editing. Anyway, I'm banning RJII from Anarchism, and I very much argee with Dmcdevit. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Pages concerned

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Mediation was offered after an earlier Request for Arbitration: it is the Mediator's opinion that further discussion would be detrimental to the project.

Mediation pages

Statement by Physchim62

Mr Salsman has strongly held views that exposure to uranium is a cause of Gulf War syndrome, views which he wishes to give the highest possible exposure on Wikipedia. In doing so, he does not hesitate to use selective citation from his sources, invented citation (pretending that a reputable source says something which it does not) and ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with him. He has previous engaged in serious, for not to say libellous, attacks on other editors [59]. He has now accused a non-involved editor of sock-puppetry [60]. His lack of good faith dooms the mediation to failure and his hypocrisy prevents other editors from improving these articles. I am now of the opinion that a case can be made purely on the conduct of Mr Salsman: he will doubtless attempt to cloud the issue with the dispute over content, but this is ancilliary. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum
(since these seem to be in fashon around here)
"Invented citation" might be a bit harsh a term: I think that James honestly believes that his sources support him. Unfortunately they don't and, even if they did, it would not excuse his conduct. Physchim62 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by James S.

My views on the relation between Depleted uranium and Gulf War syndrome are widely held because they are directly supported by several recent and longstanding peer reviewed sources from the medical and scientific literature, whereas the opposing side in mediation has been apparently unable to cite a single peer-reviewed or recent source in support of their position, and most of the sources they do cite are economically conflicted.

The charges of selective and invented citation and ad hominem attacks are unspecified, new (as far as "invented citation" go), and so vague that I can not address them fully until specific charges are made. I have raised serious issues about the content of some of the parties' statements, but have not made ad hominem attacks. I asked for guidance on this issue and I believe I have followed the consensus advice. I stand by my comment referred to above as a civil, reasonable, measured, and appropriate comment on the seriousness of the issues involved and correctly reflecting the facts. I have avoided making any legal threats, but another party has demanded that I be banned for alleged "libel" against them (a pseudonymous editor who refuses to allow their claimed medical doctorate to be verified.)

I deny any lack of good faith; depleted uranium and Gulf War syndrome are heated issues upon which reasonable people can reasonably disagree, and upon which there are documented instances of the production of misinformation on both sides of the issue. I am certainly not the only editor who has been supporting the truth in the articles in question, and the other parties to mediation are certainly not the only ones who have been removing carefully sourced facts from them.

My questions about sock-puppetry were so well-founded that mediator Physchim62 chose to run CheckUser to investigate them; this clearly shows my suspicions were reasonable.

I am sorry that the mediator has withdrawn. I thought we were making good progress when he explained the calculation of quantities of production of UO3 gas vapor from U3O8 particles, but when I raised the issue of the ratio of surface area in micrometer-scale particles to those cooling from the plasma of a flame, he has not yet directly responded to the question. Moreover, I have provided dozens of pages of peer-reviewed primary source material at the request of the mediator, who has chosen to withdraw from mediation rather than discuss the relation between surface area and the total amount of uranium trioxide gas produced; indeed, the production of uranium trioxide has been admitted by the opposing parties. As the peer reviewed literature states, "health impact assessments for ... DU munitions should ... take into account the presence of respiratory UO3...." (Salbu et al. 2005.)

I have done nothing wrong. My hundreds of hours in the library working to bring verifiable, peer-reviewed sources to this controversial issue which the opposing parties would whitewash, as evidenced by their frequent attempts, should be commended.

I ask for joinder of the parties who originally brought this dispute to the ArbCom. --James S. 18:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addenda

In response to Dr U's statement below, I have accused Dr U of false edits surrounding medical subjects on the topic of depleted uranium, and in many cases he has later agreed and later corrected his mistakes. The fact that he claims to be a medical professional means that his statements do rise to the level of professional misconduct from that perspective. I have never threatened legal action. I have said, "If you think you can make general diagnostic statements, expressing your opinion of the medical condition of tens if not hundreds of thousands contrary to peer-reviewed research, and not run afoul of professional misconduct regulations, then I would like to know why." Still to this day, I would like to know why -- the question remains unanswered. Dr U's assertion that he doesn't claim to edit based on his medical expertise is not consistent with his username and signatures; he claims his medical credentials on his user page. --James S. 19:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Apparently, the subject of the new "invented citation" claim against me concerns a limited-edition book by A. Ross Wilcock, M.D.: 

Uranium in the wind / edited by A. Ross Wilcock.
  -- Woodstock, Ont. : Helical Publications, 2005.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-9736153-2-X : $25.00

1. Radioactive fallout--Physiological effect 
2. Uranium--Health aspects 
3. Uranium--Physiological effect 
4. Projectiles--Health aspects 
5. Projectiles-- Environmental aspects

I. Wilcock, A. Ross, 1940-

RA1231 U7 U72 2005     616.9'897     0501

I propose that we invite Dr. Wilcock to participate. He is familiar with the physical chemistry and epidemiology involved. --James S. 20:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Gerard re sockpuppet checks

James S.'s claim that "My questions about sock-puppetry were so well-founded that mediator Physchim62 chose to run CheckUser to investigate them; this clearly shows my suspicions were reasonable." is not in fact the case. I checked on all of James S., Smokefoot and DV8 2XL. None showed anything that looked like sockpuppetry at a glance. A checkuser check is in no way and has never been evidence there is bad behaviour; however, examples like this show why the checkuser log is not public and is not going to be public - David Gerard 00:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr U

User:Nrcprm2026 has repeatedly bashed me personally. He has accused me of professional misconduct for making wiki edits that don't support his point of view!!!!! Can you imagine the implications to Wikipedia in general if this type of behavior goes unchecked? Ever science teacher will be intimidated from posting anything related to science because they could be accused of "misconduct." Every engineer will be intimidated from posting about engineering. Every nurse. Every professional of every sort. The types of people wikipedia wants to attract as editors will go away.

He has accused me of lying. He badgered me on my user page despite repeated pleas that he stop, and he only stopped because an administrator told him to. He never apologized. He never retracted his statements. Here is the proof:

Proof #1 Proof #2 Proof #3 Proof #4

"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." I should not have to defend myself against personal attacks because of my profession. Especially, since I never claimed my edits were better than anyone else's because of my profession. Acussing me of professional misconduct for a wikipedia edit made in good-faith borders dangerously close, if not crossing the line of conduct addressed on WP:Personal attacks: "Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery."

I ask that Arb:com make an example in this case, not so much for the sake of the article in dispute, but to prevent a chilling effect that will keep editors from all professions from posting on wikipedia because of these types of personal attacks. Dr U 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adenda

Arbs, please note that this was my response to his questions. Also note that in his above adenda above once again accuses me of a "false edit." It also implies that I admitted to mistakes I didn't admit to. My user page and signiture predate my involvement in this topic. One again, there will be a SERIOUS chilling effect if I am allowed to be treated different than any other editor. "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme" is not allowed. Being a physician does not restrict my right to free speech. I am editing the same topics he is; and if my edits can be construed as giving medical advice, then he is doing the same, and without a license. Clearly making wiki edits is not practicing medicine. Dr U 20:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DV8 2XL

For months the article Depleted uranium has been the subject of an edit war between those that would have an encyclopedic article, and those who would use Wikipedia as a platform for conducting a campaign against DU in general and the United States' involvement in the Mid East in general. User:Nrcprm2026 is attempting to insert a great deal of material that violates WP:NOR ether by wildly misinterpreting published results by others, or selectively quoiting published material out of context. This user has no scientific training and other editors who have, have shown a great deal of patience with him attempting to explain where he has made errors. User:Nrcprm2026 is not being reasonable, and is not able to see that perhaps he simply doesn't understand the material he is writing about. While expertise, in and of itself is not (and should not) be a limiting criterion for contributing to this project, at some point the ill conceived opinions of amateurs must yield to the generally accepted paradigms of science.

Other have presented evidence, but I will hold mine until and if the evidence stage has been opened. --DV8 2XL 00:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TDC/Ten Dead Chickens

The above plaintiffs have summed it up fairly nicely, but since my name is here I will elaborate. There was a tentative agreement hammered out by the parties that James scrapped, [61] [62] , [63], [64], [65][66]. This was done in bad faith, and ruined weeks of work by all the editors. James has attacked the credentials of all participants, and I hoped that Physchim62 could step in a settle this, as his credentials are well known and he is a very respected editor/admin. The arbitration committee should use this case to make it clear that Wikipedia can be a source for good current information on a subject, and not the stomping ground for junk science. Ten Dead Chickens 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

-Ril- 2

Involved parties

A notice of this arbitration request has been posted on the talk pages of -Ril-, Phroziac, and Doc glasgow.

Previous efforts to resolve dispute

A previous ArbCom case was closed involving -Ril- in October 2005. It resulted in -Ril- being ordered to change his signature and in -Ril- being banned for one week plus one month for disruption. It is unlikely, after one arbitration, that a second Request for Comments or mediation will result in any change.

Statement by Robert McClenon

In the KJV request for arbitration, editors Phroziac, Doc glasgow, and Robert McClenon have either posted evidence against -Ril- or have proposed remedies against -Ril-. It may be advisable for the ArbCom to split any complaints against -Ril- into a separate case from the KJV case, so that the KJV case can be closed before the ArbCom can complete the review of the complaints against -Ril-.

In October 2005, -Ril- was ordered to adopt a non-confusing signature. He has done that, but has instead adopted a confrontational and provocative signature, "Victim of signature fascism", which is, at a minimum, a violation of civility. -Ril-'s opposition to the concept of clerks for the arbitration committee has been uncivil, referring to the clerking concept as "corruption". -Ril- is now using the KVJ arbitration disruptively, which appears to be WP:POINT. The ArbCom is requested to consider new sanctions against -Ril-, either in the course of the KJV arbitration or in this separate case. Robert McClenon 15:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by -Ril-

  • "In October 2005, -Ril- was ordered to adopt a non-confusing signature. He has done that".
  • "-Ril-'s opposition to the concept of clerks for the arbitration committee has been uncivil". Evidence?
  • "referring to the clerking concept as "corruption"". No, referring to the giving of arbitration-related powers to some of the least community approved people in wikipedia, most of which have had cases against them, including one cosigned by over 150 users, despite them having failed to be elected or gain approval by the recent arb com election, is what I am referring to as "corruption".
  • "In the KJV request for arbitration, editors Phroziac, Doc glasgow, and Robert McClenon have either posted evidence against -Ril- or have proposed remedies against -Ril-". In my opinion, this counts as trolling, breach of WP:POINT, and personal attacks, since it is entirely off topic for the subject of that arbitration.
  • "Prior attempts to resolve this dispute"; erm, where? my talk page? no. RFC? no. RFM? no?

This strikes me as awfully like a "revenge RfAr". --Victim of signature fascism 17:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. I should remind the bringers of this arbitration that most of the arbitrators who are likely to disapprove of me happen to also be those who have behaved in such a way towards me in the past as to require their recusal here, as they have done in prior arbitrations.

Statement by Phroziac

I agree that it's a good idea to split the arbitrations. If they continue in one case, it's unlikely that both complaints (that -Ril- is a troll and that SimonP is violatig consensus) will get usefully and efficiently decided.

My main complaint with -Ril- is that he enjoys causing trouble, without specifically violating policy. He's quite vexatious and incivil. Two admins have, on seperate occasions, blocked him indefinitely, but the blocks were removed. The first one, by UninvitedCompany, was removed so that he could participate in the arbitration case against him at the time. He is still behaving exactly like he was previously. The second one, well, maybe deciding he was CheeseDreams and unilaterally blocking him for it was a bad idea on my part. :)

Since SimonP is a defendant in a case -Ril- brought, he should recuse...but he probably already knew that. :)

--Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/3/0)

Chad Bryant posts real life information

Involved parties


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

I have asked Chad Bryant many many times to refrain from posting this information, he has refused. Other editors have warned him not to post the information, he has ignored them. I have informed him of my request for arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chadbryant

Statement by party 1

Chad Bryant has been continuously posting, what he claims to be, my real life name. He has also recently posted two links to websites that correspond to the individual he claims I am. I have stated many times that I am NOT this person, yet Chad Bryant, despite my requests and the requests of others, continues to do so. (NOTE: The individual Chad Bryant maintains I am does not, by all appearances, have a Wikipedia account and is probably unaware of what is happening) I provide these links to several of the instances where Chad Bryant posts the information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.131.237.219&oldid=40754090 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rec.sport.pro-wrestling&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PyterTaravitch&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AvengerRSPW&action=history

I wish to also draw attention to Wikipedia rules regarding the posting of alleged real life information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:HAR

I feel this matter cannot be solved any other way. The posting ofr real life information, even if it is incorrect, for the intentpurpose of harrassment, cannot be tolerated. Thank you for your time TruthCrusader 23:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This matter has NOTHING to do with the conflict between Alex Cain and Chad Bryant. This is about Chad Bryant posting supposed real life information, not about any flame war between Chad and anyone else. Please try and stay focused on the matter at hand. TruthCrusader 08:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

This is coming from an individual who originally registered as User:ChadBryant to vandalize and harass, and who has posted what he believes is the name of my employer (see [67]). This individual does not have "clean hands", and his request is merely another ploy to cause trouble. I refuse to dignify this request further. - Chadbryant 01:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Gerard

I have some small familiarity with this case. User:Chadbryant is a normal good editor. However, he has a troll who followed him here from Usenet after Chad wrote a Usenet FAQ about the troll many years ago, and who will not let up. I remember blocking multiple sockpuppets of the troll several months ago. I can't say at a glance if this is that troll, but every conflict I've seen with Chad on one side has the troll on the other or pitching in - David Gerard 07:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the different editing style, I just ran a checkuser. TruthCrusader has a consistent IP in eastern Europe, as per his talk page, which doesn't appear to be the pattern for Chad's pet troll. I would assume TruthCrusader is a single individual who is not the troll and would suggest regarding him as such - David Gerard 15:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Curps

The situation between Chad Bryant and "Alex Cain" has dragged on for many months. Dozens if not hundreds of sockpuppets have been created by the "Alex Cain" persona (see Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Dick Witham, which "Alex Cain" repeatedly tries to depopulate), which usually engage in repeated personal attacks (mostly in the nature of schoolyard taunts) and occasional vandalism. Chad Bryant may have crossed the line sometimes in fighting back. I don't believe any kind of mediation is possible. -- Curps 07:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside statement by McClenon

"Alex Cain" is a notorious Usenet troll who uses hundreds of sockpuppets. If the ArbCom were to open a case, they would conclude that Alex Cain is a troll, and would ban him and his sockpuppets. However, I see no reason why ArbCom action is necessary. There should be Wikipedia consensus (with the exception of the hundreds of sockpuppets, who are only sockpuppets) that these trolls and sockpuppets should be blocked. Robert McClenon 08:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think TruthCrusader is Alex Cain (Chad's pet troll) - David Gerard 15:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Notorious Usenet troll?" What brought that up? --Eat At Joes 02:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tv316

While the subject of Alex Cain is still being brought up in this discussion, Chad's recent behaviour to other users has been no better than Alex Cain's. His contributions are full of personal attacks against users not named Alex Cain. But enough of that, because this is about the 'Stephen Signorelli' harassment.

Alex Cain is a troll with hundreds of sockpuppets on Wikipedia whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to harass Chadbryant. TruthCrusader is not Alex Cain. Therefore, Chadbryant has no right to constantly personally attack and harass TruthCrusader as it defines what harassment is on Wikipedia in WP:HAR. TruthCrusader claims to not be this person. Do I know him personally? No, so he very well could be, just as he very well probably isn't. The point is, in WP:HAR it says "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media."

Whether the information is correct or not, TruthCrusader has never acknowledged it on Wikipedia, and, therefore, it should not be allowed to be posted everywhere Chadbryant wants to post it to. Both right and wrong information are against the policy if the person in question does not want his name plastered everywhere. tv316 19:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hamas

Involved parties

user:Tazmaniacs user:Irishpunktom user:AladdinSE

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the requ

User_talk:Irishpunktom#ArbCom_case

User_talk:Irishpunktom#ArbCom_case

User_talk:Tazmaniacs#ArbCom_case

Statement by party 1

The 3 users are removing material that has long been a consensus editing on Hamas replacing it with POV pushing which tries to present Hamas a charity orgnization / resistence organization only, ignoring it's terrorist activity.

The consensus editing (see edits by Slim, Jayjg, Sean, Humusspaiens, Bertilvidet and Zeq) has recognize Hamas 3 roles: 1. An Islamic welfare providing organization 2. A mlitary wing that attacked israeli forces in occupied territories (mainly in Gaza when Israeli forces were there) 3. A terror organization that murdered hundreds of innocent israeli civilians

Objection.Sorry if I am late here. This presentation is rather manipulated concerning point 3. What I have argued, and I have the impression we reached consensus about, is that we should point out that Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by US, EU, Israel and other. I would never accept that we should endorse that POV, as well as I oppose labelling Hamas a resistance movement (even though it is its official name). Bertilvidet 17:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom is requested to put an end to the constant need to edit war over these issues. see history page of Hamas

Statement by Irishpunktom

The Users first attempt at conflict resolution was to run to the Arb Com, leaving a message on the talk page and then ignoring the replies. What does that say about the Arb-Com?--Irishpunktom\talk 10:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean Black

I urge the ArbCom to reject this case. It is, more or less, a content dispute, though it's more to do with one perpetually controversial article rather than any specific issues. I don't think this deserves any special treatment by the ArbCom, or they'd have cases on a good half of all articles on Wikipedia, which is obviously too bizarre for words. Though that does describe the experience of editing Hamas occaisionally. In any case (har, har), I think this is a matter that can be settled via discussion. I'll grant that some of those listed above could be doing a better job of that, but that's life for you. In closing, I believe that the ArbCom should reject this matter, for reasons elicudated immediately above. I now await the torrent of "Reject per Sean Black"'s that will surely flow forth, and I thank you in advance for feeding my vanity.--Sean Black (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zeq

Sean is correct in the sense that there are "specific issues" in the content that are is dispute. The specific issue has been debated forever on the relevant talk page. Now the issue is no longer "content dispute" (other wise there was a "specific issue" in question) but one that has already detoryorating to edit war as the above 3 users are repeating the same edits again and again. There are now two different version of this article each present the Hamas ina different way. If one of the 3 editors is the last to edit the Hamas is one type of organization. If, on the otherhand someone revert them the Hamas is portraid in a more NPOV way.

The 3 users understand it. They know that if this was just a "content dispute" trying to argue that the Hamas is not engage in terrorism is baseless, so instead of trying to convince people in what no one can accept they just change the article. This is now a behaviour issue not content dispute. Zeq 13:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tazmaniacs

I don't understand why you put up this RfA Zeq? You dug up an old version (more than two weeks ago) claiming it was the consensus version between Slim, Jayjg, Sean, Humusspaiens, Bertilvidet and Zeq. Well, things have changed since, other users write (including anonymous editors) and, more importantly, some political and historical events have taken place. If I understand well, you disagree with the fact that Hamas declaration to the Russian newspaper, according to which it would abandon armed struggle in case Israel returned to the 1967 borders and withdrew from all Palestinian occupied territories, should not be included, and you prefer to state that "Hamas follows the destruction of Israel". Whatever your views on Hamas or on this precise declaration, you certainly can't ignore this declaration which has marqued a shift in the Hamas discourse, as mainstream news agencies such as Reuters have written. Furthermore, you don't want to include the fact that Ehud Olmert has decided to cut $50 million transfer of tax-receipts, which is another fact. In other words, you are not contesting what is written, but what is done. At Wikipedia, we can only report what's happening & what others news outlets say, nothing else... Tazmaniacs 15:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

short answer by Zeq

I will not debate politics with you. Your edits on Hamas are clear POV pushing and disruptive. Nothing that took place in the last two weeks have changed what Hamas have done for years but yet you try to hide facts that have long been the consensus editing in this article and replace them with lies, half-truth and un relevant speculations about what will be with Olmert (who is yet to stop the 50Mil you say he stopped) the russions etc... . A clear indication of how you edit is that you removed well sourced infomation about Hamas broke the ceasefire with a sentence about how hamas "observed" the ceasefire....Zeq here is an exmaple to editwars by you: [69] many more examples for your POV pushing and edits which tru to hide material facts about Hamas are on [70] 15:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Update

I decided to bail out of this article. If ArbCom does not want to intervine and let Hamas article become "owned" by hamas supporters this is one more testimony what Wikipedia has become. The latest argument that convinced me to leave was this:

"Hamas kill Israeli civilians. Why do you want to point out "Jews"? They kill indiscriminately without checking the confession of the victims." - what a BS. Only in Wikipedia Hamas is a restitence movment that kills both Jews and Arabs without checking the victim identitiy. It is sindded very Random to enter a Hotel in Netanya in the middle of a Jewish Seder and explode a large suitcase in the middle of a room full of old people (Surly, none of them were Jewish - they were Arabs who came for the Seder not jews who came to a Jewish holiday dinner.

I live nearby I heared the explosition. I saw the blood that filled the streets - random indeed just a resistance to occupation. No terror what so ever. Zeq 19:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed interesting that it should be worse to kill Jewish Israeli than random Israeli. Does the lifes of the 24% of non-Jewish Israeli not count the same? A strong POV, indeed. Bertilvidet 22:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it is worse or better to kill jews or to kill random israelis. What i did say is that there is nothing random at targeting jews Do you want us to think that Hamas is bombing places where there are muslim religious ceremonies (like it dod to Jewish ones ) ? You are trying to hide the facts by hising behind a POV accusation. In any case this is not the place to argue about it. The issue is the behaviour of these 3 editors.Zeq 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AladdinSE

My word, a lot can happen in two days. All right, I've just seen this. I'll reply as briefly as I can. I know the ArbCom has wisely decided to reject, but I thought I better put in my statement since I was named as a participant, apparently. Zeq has been misguided and emotional about this article from the moment he started editing. The terrorist label dispute was settled in Talk long ago, and is a cornerstone of NPOV policy. In such controversial matters, we do not label, we report what credible sources use as labels, with citation. There has been some breach of neutrality in the opposite direction also, presenting the article in some places as a Hamas POV instead of a neutral POV; and that has not been allowed to stand either. However, like others have said above, this is a content dispute, and not ArbCom material. Cheers.--AladdinSE 17:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "terrorist" label was indeed settled. I was the one who took part in settling it in a non motional NPOV fashion. This is not at all the issue of this ArbCom request.
The issue is that (as seen in evidence presented below) you removed the refernces to acts of suicide bombings and left only the Charity activities. This is against consensus editing that have been in this article for long time. Zeq 17:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. My edit specifically included: "Hamas masterminded nearly 60 suicide bombings against Israeli civilians". The other material which seems to present the Hamas POV as fact, such as calling it "carried out resistance attacks" was not my prose, and I support its removal/rewaording. --AladdinSE 11:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

The issue of the request has nothing to do with the label "terrorist". It has to do with Wikipedia editing, nothing about "The world peace" is the issue. Please see the evidence and reconsider your vote. Zeq 18:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has wide participation ever since Hamas won the election. There were attempts to engage the 3 editors in talk but the 3 editors have disrupted what little consensus was there before and after the elections. (please see evidence) but if their behaviour is something that you will accept if the issue is not resolved after a formal RfC I'll be glad to freeze my request and try other resolutions first. I just wonder why in the Palestinian Exodus case this rule was not applied ? Zeq 15:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Even with good-faith editing all round, it would be unrealistic to think that the Hamas article here would take on anything like definitive shape so soon after the elections. If we have to compare with Palestinian Exodus, well, history is one thing, and history-in-the-making is another. Charles Matthews 16:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is not at all about the elections. The issue is 3 editors who decided one sided to change the article against consensus editing. Have you bothered clicking at the 3 links of the evidence before making your hasty decision ? Zeq 06:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

Instantnood 3

Instantnood has made a request [71] that someone representing ArbCom address that the case was opened properly. SchmuckyTheCat 08:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=41775587"