Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

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.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct		21 October 2024	4/3/2
Marine 69-71	Motions	26 October 2024	0/0/0
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. 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.

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents

Purge the server cache

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

Locke Cole, David Levy, et al

Involved parties

• Locke Cole (talk · contribs)
• David_Levy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Netoholic (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• I, Locke Cole, and David Levy are all aware. -- Netoholic @ 07:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• I made an effort once to see if we can mediate (User talk:Locke Cole/Archive/2006-02-17#Conflict). I've also tried discussing privately on IRC. I think we're beyond that now. -- Netoholic @ 07:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Netoholic

Locke Cole and I disagree on several technical points. Beyond that, though, Locke has taken great steps to make my experiences on this wiki hellish, to say the least. I feel like he is stalking me, both by directly reverting items he's never been involved in before and by involving himself on the opposite side of every topic I comment on. He looks for ways to discredit me, he pours gasoline on the fires of the most minor conflicts, and generally is doing everything he can to ensure I have the most miserable experience possible on this wiki. I do not make these statements lightly. As I have previously been involved in Arb cases, I'll tell you honestly, I am scared to come before the ArbCom again and would happily avoid it if I could. Locke Cole's actions have become so malicious, that I cannot avoid this any longer.

I previously made a report about wiki-stalking by Locke COle on 06:25, 4 February 2006, for which he was blocked. Recently, he's been spending almost his whole time here attacking me in several ways, both obvious and subtle. He is reviewing my contribs extremely frequently (which is not bad on it's own), but then using that information to find ways to confound me... even when I act in good faith or on topics he's never been involved.

• Leet - several times, Locke Cole has reverted changes to this article - one he'd never edited before. When it was recently moved to a disambiguated title, he even voted opposing my request to move it back. It's hard to believe anyone would think, after fair consideration, that a disambiguated title is appropriate. He voted to screw with me.
• I made a 3RR report about another editor. Locke Cole commented on it, but only to poison the well.
• I created a template design guideline proposal at Wikipedia:Avoid conditional templates on 20:34, 7 March 2006, unfinished, and still very much in draft form. Eight minutes later, Locke Cole moved the page to my userspace without asking me, and using a snide summary.
• Even though he knows that Arbitrators have clarified my restrictions (that admins should only block me for disruption, rather than strict interpretation), he reported some recent edits of mine to WP:ANI at 05:05, 9 March 2006. At that exact minute, User:David Levy blocked me. This was a coordinated action, as it is implausible in the extreme that this was a coincidence.

Locke has previously recruited others to do similar things, often through IRC channels. I'm listing David Levy as "involved" as I feel like he's acted in coordination with Locke on several occasions, and probably deserves at least a reprimand. He's blocked me three times (all lifted quickly) within the span of one week, despite the fact that he and I've had long-time disagreements. He's clearly not neutral, and is using his blocking power as a form of harrassment.

Please take this case, as this sort of persistent bullying is unfair to anyone. -- Netoholic @ 07:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by party 3

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

---

Uriah923 and omninerd.com

Involved parties

• uriah923 (talk · contribs) (filed request)
• Taxman (talk · contribs)
• Dmcdevit (talk · contribs)
• MarkMcB (talk · contribs)
• Redwolf24 (talk · contribs) (appears not be around any longer?)

In mid 2005, uriah923 added links to various articles published on omninerd.com from various WP articles. The removal of such resulted in edit wars and much arguing. The issue eventually died out with the entry of Redwolf24 and the start of much non-omninerd related contribution from uriah923. Recently, it resurfaced when Taxman found that omninerd-unrelated admins/editors had (in a handful of instances and at the request of uriah923) investigated and added links to articles on omninerd.com from WP articles. The current state of affairs is a blacklisting of omninerd.com at the protest of uriah923.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Taxman notification
• Dmcdevit notification
• MarkMcB notification
• Redwolf notification

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Current attempts at discussion and informal moderation: Talk:ITunes#Blacklist_issues, m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#omninerd.com, Talk:Battle of Poitiers (1356)#Add external link section?, Talk:Conventional_warfare#Alleged_linkspam
• Due to the length, inefficiency and overall messiness of the attempt at a solution for the issue 6 months ago, I see arbitration as the best choice. Hopefully it will result in a swift, objective, clean, clear, public, policy-based solution.

Statement by uriah923

I have listed this request in response to the discrimination of Taxman and Dmcdevit against me and omninerd.com. Admittedly, it began in June 2005 when I began adding links from various WP articles (WPA) to articles published on omninerd.com (ONA). When one of them was removed, I questioned it. (The removal seems obvious looking at the situation now, but I didn't know any better then.) The remover, of course, investigated my contributions and saw they were almost entirely centered on omninerd.com and reversed the vandalism. Arguments and edit wars began, and right when you think it's going to be a story you've heard a million times...

During the course of the seemingly endless arguing, I began to like WP. I mean really like it. I had come with misguided excitement, but ended up wanting to seriously contribute. I tried to communicate this to Taxman and Dmcdevit, but was unsuccessful. Right when it appeared I would forever be dubbed a vandal, doomed to edit without the privileges of other editors, Redwolf24 came along and talked some sense. He recognized I had been making positive, non-omninerd related contributions, encouraged me, and removed some of the restrictions.

After a couple more months of contributing significantly to WP (and quite enjoying myself), I felt confident that I had earned back full privileges. Not the right to break policy, of course, but the right to edit as any other editor - within the rules. Following Redwolf24's directive that I was "permitted to talk about OmniNerd when the context is appropriate" and feeling confident that I was acting within WP NPOV policy, I messaged admins or dedicated editors on a couple of WPA to see if they would review a potential link or reference to an ONA and then add the link themselves - if they thought it worthy. A good example of this is the interaction between Mushroom and me here. Eventually, Taxman stumbled upon this, called foul play, and indiscriminately removed anything linking to a ONA from a WPA. He and Dmcdevit argue that even bringing up the idea was outside of my rights, but I can find nothing in WP policy to support their claim. I took obvious and deliberate precautions to maintain NPOV and stay within policy and feel I acted in the best interest of WP.

I am no longer the WP pup I once was; I have shown myself to be a quality contributor and I plan on staying one. Why even bother with all of this, then? Because I believe in fairness and consistency. Because I don't like the idea of being steamrolled by a couple of admins that act as if they can only see my first 100 edits. Because I believe I have earned the right to edit as any other: within WP rules (not Taxman's rule). Because I believe that Taxman and Dmcdevit have acted without proof in WP policy, my edits, or the content of omninerd.com. Because most of all, I like WP.

uriah923^(talk) 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Taxman

I urge not wasting any time at all on this case. There's already been too much wasted time and it seems like the situation has already been finally resolved correctly. The site (OmniNerd, On for short) that Uriah923 has been promoting has been put on the spam blacklist so the behavior of Uriah923's that was not beneficial to Wikipedia cannot happen. Please reject the case, with specific guidance to uphold the previous consensus that Uriah not promote ON at all, subject to blocking for disruption, and just leave the site on the blacklist. - Taxman ^Talk 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh and lets not forget, Uriah923 is an administrator at ON, and lists as one of his primary roles promotion of the site. Motive, evidence, crime, done. We can't afford to allow sites like this one to use our project for their benefit. See point 2 in UC's essay

For more detail and background:

A specific consensus (of unanimity -1 in September) was developed against his actions, and without any support or ability to get anyone to agree with his position, he has brought this request which can only result in more wasted time. I repeatedly asked him to consider what everyone was telling him, that his actions in this matter are not in the best interests of the project, and to let it go, so no more time would be wasted and everyone could go on to efforts that would improve the project. His unwillingness to do that shows clearly that promoting his site is the most important thing to him. Uriah's other contributions that are not at all related to ON especially since the consensus was developed in September have been reasonable. Therefore the current situation where only the negative behavior cannot occur, and he is allowed to contribute positively is the best situation. Please reject the case, with specific guidance to uphold the previous consensus that Uriah not promote ON at all, subject to blocking for disruption, and just leave the site on the blacklist.

You'll see a consistent pattern in this case of a consensus developing against Uriah's actions, him refusing to stop, and repeating the conversation elsewhere. In September enough became enough and a consensus was developed against Uriah923 promoting ON. Specifically it stated "that links to ON should not be in Wikipedia articles unless added by a longstanding contributor, and not prompted by Uriah." Yes those are my words, but that statement was made or signed onto directly by quite a number of users. I only stopped gaining further support for it to minimize the time wasted on the issue. That consensus was strengthened through discussion on his talk page (Archive, and current) after Uriah had to be blocked a number of times to try to enforce the consensus. This included the following quotes:

It's been decided to not link to the site, or anything in the site's domain from our articles. For now, just links from your user page. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As Wesley said to Buttercup... uriah923^(talk) 02:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Review of those blocks on the Administrators noticeboard only strengthened the consensus for the most part.

After that, despite specific consensus not to promote the site anymore, Uriah decided erroneously that the consensus didn't apply anymore and again inserted links and restarted the same tired debate on a number of different pages: Talk:Conventional warfare, Talk:Battle of Poitiers (1356) (where he had incidentally asked people to include a link to ON when not logged in so that people wouldn't know about the issue here), and Talk:ITunes, where he asked someone who was unfamiliar with the situation and consensus to uncomment the link he added against specific consensus on that very talk page. Due to this behavior, and the extraordinary amount of time wasted on this issue, the site has been put on the blacklist so there can't be links to it from Wikimedia project articles. I believe that is the best way to end the issue with the minimum amount of wasted time. There's no need for an RFC or arbitration committee case to waste hundreds more hours to come to the same conclusion as the consensus page already has. - Taxman ^Talk 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to comment in acceptance vote by James F.:

• Not sure if it's appropriate to comment here, but I'm pretty confident there's no allegations of POV pushing. It's a pure linkspamming issue. - Taxman ^Talk 15:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment moved by

Statement by Dmcdevit

The issue is quite clear, and needs no arbitration. The problem (Uriah923's spam) has been solved by spam blacklisting the site, which is better than the alternative, blocking. Months ago, Uriah923 began adding links to Omninerd articles/essays to Wikipdia articles related to them, and probably touched dozens of articles with these external links. The links were deemed spam for several reasons, mostly concerning the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and despite Uriah's exhortations, Omninerd is not really a Wikipedia:Reliable source: it's user-posted, not published or peer-reviewed, and indeed, not a very noteworthy site, among other possible references. Also, as a tertiary source (like Wikipedia), most of the inclusions in articles were nonsensical; Encyclopedia Britannica is a fine reference book, but not really appropriate as a source (its sources are).

Long story short: links were removed, Uriah continued to protest, so an RFC was formed (User:Uriah923/OmniNerd) and there was consensus from nearly everyone but Uriah, many admins included, that the links don't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Fastforward to present: Taxman finds the links back in articles, removes them again, and Uriah protests. Apparently, having now gained seniority as an editor, he now feels allowed to promote his website again. Well, he isn't, and based on the demonstrated consensus that this is spam, I asked for it to be put on the spam blacklist, which solved the problem rather nicely. Uriah923's frequent and bizarre assumptions of bad faith on our part (when I have had little contact with him) notwithstanding, there's nothing here to arbitrate. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by MarkMcB

I am the founder/primary coder/admin for OmniNerd.com, the disputed site. As Uriah923 states above, this whole issue started with the intent to place what Uriah923 thought was encyclopedic information on Wikipedia. After the battle of words mentioned above by Uriah923, I finally realized that what was going on was not in the interest of Wikipedia and could be viewed as an SEO campaign by OmniNerd, so I asked Uriah923 to cease work on adding OmniNerd article links to Wikipedia. It seems that in the process of all of this, Uriah923 got hooked on Wikipedia and started doing more useful work.

I thought all was well until I got word that Taxman was deleting all links relating to OmniNerd as "SEO campaign" or "spam." I discussed with him that I did not like how he was discrediting the name "OmniNerd" simply because he had a past grudge against Uriah923. Additionally, I told him that I felt he was acting in a biased manner as the booting link he removed was nothing more than a cleaned up version of an article that had been on wikipedia for some time and had been re-written/improved by the original author for OmniNerd. Only the link changed on wiki. Another user even moved it from bootstrapping to booting because it seemed like a better place. Taxman's removal of the link made it clear to me that he was not concerned with the content provided in the article, but rather with his personal bias against Uriah923 and subsequently, OmniNerd. A quick review of the other external links in that article make this more than obvious.

After seeing this, I requested specific information pertaining to why he (Taxman) was doing this and asked for recent evidence he has against Uriah923. All I was told by Taxman was to use "strong words" and have Uriah923 stop promoting my site, with no evidence provided. As Uriah923 stated, all of his actions since his newbie days have been in accordance with wiki policy. I am mostly concerned that this vendetta held by Taxman and a few others is detrimental to my site. The slander tossed about wrongfully labels my site as one with an "SEO campaign" or as a "spam" site. Neither is true and both are slanderous in nature. The fact is that 3rd parties on Wikipedia have found my site's articles to be useful and have posted them. I feel that if there is an issue here, it is with Uriah923 and not OmniNerd. To be clear, I am not concerned with ensuring links to OmniNerd, but rather that links to OmniNerd be judged fairly and not removed for reasons that are not true and poorly reflect on my site. MarkMcB 21:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Essjay

I'm not involved at all with the issue on Wikipedia, but I was involved as a Meta admin, initially putting the site on the spam blacklist on Meta. After issues were raised about whether it was appropriate for the blacklist or not, I removed it, and yielded the decision to other admins. As of 00:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC), it is again on the blacklist (listed by Mindspillage: #1 Mar 06 (requested by Dmcdevit, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uriah923/OmniNerd)). If it is to remain on the blacklist, there isn't much sense in the AC considering the matter, since the AC doesn't oversee the blacklist (as it's a cross-project list, rather than specific to a given project). I encourage the AC to identify the matter as a cross-project issue, rather than one facing only the English Wikipedia, and refer the discussion and decision to m:Talk:Spam blacklist. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 00:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by silsor

The arbitration committee does not have jurisdiction over the spam blacklist.

In relation to this case, I specifically refused to add omninerd.org at one point: [1], on the grounds that it would be "bringing en politics to meta". The situation has obviously changed if other Meta admins felt it necessary to add the site. silsor 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Deryck C.

Whether an external link should be kept depends solely on what does the destination page says, regardless of where is the destination. Each article with omninerd.com links should be dealt separately. The links should not be collectively judged. Deryck C. 03:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum after receiving an email from Uriah923 concerning this arbcom request

It would be very controversial if this omninerd.com case is taken into judgement with reference to the number of links instead of the individual contents of the link destination (which shall be discussed at the article talk and user talk pages, not here). Imagine a rule is set up after the arbcom discussion. Then I strongly believe that somebody would propose an arbitration concerning webelements.com links from Wikipedia. Deryck C. 06:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/2/0)

• Recuse. Dmcdevit·t 22:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  Clarification: I accept merely as to the allegations of POV-pushing and link-spamming; obviously the Committee ex officio has no command over the anti-spam domain list (though many of us are meta sysops too) James F. (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reject. Omninerd is on the blacklist, where it clearly belongs. Nothing here to arbitrate beyond that. Raul654 23:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reject per Raul ➥the Epopt 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Er, as the meta sysop who looked at the request and decided, yes, it seemed to be an ongoing problem and blacklisted it, recuse, I suppose. (FWIW, if someone else decides to take it off, I have no objection.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Link spamming doesn't need the AC. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

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

Copperchair

Can anything be done about this user's constant blanking of his Talk page, including the removal of legitimate warnings and ArbCom notifications? I was very surprised this wasn't addressed in his ArbCom case and believe an additional injunction regarding it would be the least that would be appropriate. (Frankly I'm not actually sure why he isn't hard-banned; it's difficult to imagine a better example of someone who is a net negative to Wikipedia. But one step at a time, I guess.) PurplePlatypus 09:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis

moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#JarlaxleArtemis

CarlHewitt

If the anon 24.23.213.158 is CarlHewitt, then I believe he's violating Remedy 1 in editing Arbiter (electronics). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how that is autobiographical editing (and not just editing in his field)? Otherwise I don't see the justification for an IP check. Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have created the concepts, according to the references and previous discussions. But whether or not the Admins (or whichever level administers blocks) agree that his current edits are autobiographical, it should be noted that he and now Anonymouser may be Carl. See the history of Talk:Indeterminacy in computation for details. (Also, to whose attention should I bring questions of identity related to Arbitration remedies.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

These don't appear to check out as Carl Hewitt, according to the location of that ip. Fred Bauder 01:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I know Hewitt edited from User:67.142.130.28, both IPs are from California. I also find User:71.198.215.78's and User:24.147.9.238's edits suspicious. —Ruud 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There's little doubt in my mind that this is Hewitt; Bah, who cares. Not a massive land grab.--CSTAR 19:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur that User:71.198.215.78 sounds suspiciously like Carl, as does User:24.23.213.158. I don't see anything obvious in the contrib history for User:24.147.9.238 — did you mean someone else? --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:24.147.9.238 added an external link to MIT CSAIL to Scheme programming language, but I may be seeing ghosts here. —Ruud 02:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh my... User:Anonymouser. This guy removed the NPOV tag from Scientific Community Metaphor. —Ruud 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood 3

Instantnood has made a request [2] that someone representing ArbCom address that the case was opened properly. SchmuckyTheCat 08:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that ArbCom cases do not have a hard time limit, Instantnood being blocked around when the case was opened is immaterial. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

dyslexic agnostic case

Is the arbcom passing the 6 month ban as a motion because a lot of the votes there appear to be second choice votes and its not made clear by the exisiting pageBenon 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone case

The arbcom recently placed all three on probation, the latter over usage of sources, the former two over edit warring on the issue of allegations of homosexuality and bisexuality in articles. I have deliberately avoided entering the debate on the issue of sources because I do not have access to US biographies and magazines and so cannot prove either accuracy or inaccuracy. I have had to block both Wilkes and Wyss, the former a number of times, for clear breaches of their prohibition on editing biographical articles on allegations of homosexuality and bisexuality. The latter seens to have quit WP in a huff as a result. Wilkes however, while not editing articles, is using talk pages to mispresent onefortyone's probation by alleging that Onefortyone was convicted of lying by the arbcom. See also here. In fact the decision of the arbcom related to the reliability of sources, not lies.

Probation explicitly mentions articles. That could be interpreted narrowly to include just the article and not the talk page, or broadly to include the talk page, given that the talk page discusses and shapes the contents of the article. The arbcom ruling explicitly uses the word "broadly". Does this mean that three admins may also impose restrictions on the edits placed in talk pages dealing with the areas (homosexuality and bisexuality) that Wilkes is prohibited from editing. Wilkes has clearly breached Wikipedia ettiquette but has he breached the implicit conditions of his probation by posting allegations that another user who was the subject of an arbcom ruling is a "convicted liar" when that is a distortion of the arbcom ruling? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The ruling does not make "article" explicit with regard to the newest remedy. That general probation is to apply as a full ban. Any three admins can ban him (as in a block-ban, not ban-from-an-article) for a year or less. This "good cause" can include any kind of disruption, certainly the kind you are describing, if three admins agree. Dmcdevit·t 00:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Never letting the thing go, on and on and on, focusing on that one issue is certainly disruptive. I think the gist of the decision is that it is not up to either of them to police Onefortyone. Fred Bauder 02:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)-->