Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

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	4/1/2
Marine 69-71	Motions	26 October 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.

Current requests

Instantnood 4

Initiated by SchmuckyTheCat at 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This will be Instantnoods 3rd ArbCom case. Other dispute resolution has already failed.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3, closed March 2006

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2, closed December 2005

Statement by User:SchmuckyTheCat

Instantnood has been through ArbCom sanctions two times already. The last put him on permanent probation and said he should be banned if he can't stop revert warring. He has not stopped, whatsoever. He's been article banned repeatedly - that works. He's been put on time based blocks of up to two weeks multiple times and when he returns he just has a larger list of things he needs to revert. The last remedy from the last ArbCom case was an absolute user ban forever. I don't particularly want that outcome.

The nature of the reverts is exactly the same as always. It doesn't really matter whether consensus exists in any of his reverts - he reverts to what he prefers no matter whether talk page discussions agree with him or not. Some reverts are silly (dozens of reverts over the spelling of Macao, insisting it be spelled with an o, rather than a u) and some are absolutely unacceptable POV warring [2] (removing Macau and Hong Kong from the Category of People's Republic of China). Some of the participants in the edit wars are the same, some are new. What's clear is the problem is centered around Instantnood.

In other words, same content and edit wars as before, same violations of polices as before. The existing remedies have not convinced him to change his behavior and the enforcement is lacking in effectiveness to curb it.

Proposed remedy

The remedies from the last case have been ineffective. The only effective remedy has been article bans; so I propose an extension of that. Instantnood should be placed on 0RR. He should never be able to revert an article to a previous version. He should be able to create new content and participate in discussions regarding content and the direction of policies. 1RR would be ineffective as he simply moves the revert war, making the same edit to different articles.

Evidence

Just a cursory examination of his contributions over the last 24 hours (19 February 2007) shows more than 100 reverts out of 200 edits. It's absolutely robotic, nearly mechanical and absolutely overwhelming. He's also making new POV re-organizations of exactly the same sort he was prohibited from doing in the last case.

Procedure

Does this really need a total case opening? It's the exact same case that's been argued twice before, there's no defense to it. I'm simply asking for a new remedy.

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

---

LUCPOL

Case opened by: Retiono Virginian 18:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• LUCPOL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• R9tgokunks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jadger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JFBurton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wildnox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Appleseed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 83.12.15.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 83.18.242.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 83.28.235.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I don't recall being informed. Could someone provide the diffs? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody informed anyone from the looks of it, I only found this request by having Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration on watchlist. --Wildnox(talk) 01:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: It is the responsibility of the party initiating the case to notify the other parties. I will remind Retiono Virginian to do so. Newyorkbrad 01:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Retiono Virginian

The user over since may 2006 has been engaged in disruption, WP:SOCK violations, constant 3RR violations, personal attacks and general disruption. Constantly blocked, doesn't seem to learn, and several cases of investigation has been carried out, and soon a checkuser. Reguardless of his poor English. The personal attacks are by use of templates and he knows what they mean.

All evidence found here:

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7] (personal attack)
• [8] (happens yet again here)
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26] (R9tgokunks' historical moves of Silesia City, which both took place after LUCPOL had moved Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union 2-3 times, without consensus)
• [27] (User LUCPOL finally decided to use factual information, and he agreed and put Silesia City up for Speedy Deletion with the title "The name is wrong... please delete!")
• [28]
• [29]
• [30]
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37]
• [38]
• [39]
• [40]
• [41]
• [42]
• [43]

Statement by Piotrus

Although I have not had interacted much with User:LUCPOL, I have seen several Wikipedians complaining about him being controversial. I have not, however, seen that he is really more controversial then his opponets (one of which is currently blocked for one month, and 2 out of 4 have had several 3RR blocks in the past, just as LUCPOL has). Further, I don't see that any steps of WP:DR were taken (particulary, mediation or RfC), other then an RFI request here, where I had recommended to the parties that they should start a mediation (the party which requested the RFI failed to reply to lasted LUCPOL reply. and neither commented on the mediation proposal). I find it interesting that this RfArb fails to mention this RFI, where LUCPOL, as far as I can tell (and I was translating his replies) tried his best to achieve a compromise in a civil way. Further, I wonder if the 'sockpuppet' claim is confirmed - the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of LUCPOL was created by users involved with a dispute with him, and I consider their recent attempts to tag his page as that of a sockuppeteer disruptive and bordering on vandalism (please note that similar attempts to change his userpage has taken place in the past). Lastly, LUCPOL has poor command of English language, which likely means he will have trouble defending himself and need speciall assisantce - again, something that was ommited from this RfArb. Stressing that I am neutral in this debate, I'd like to ask ArbCom to see if this request has been made in good faith, and I strongly recommend reffering this to mediation and getting LUCPOL a Polish-speaking advocate.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by R9tgokunks

I had been satisfied with LUCPOLs behavior in the past 2-3 weeks, he had appeared to be changing his attitude, until today. All of my statements are cataloged on User:R9tgokunks\User:LUCPOL, and the included materials with my former discussions, and some recent ones. I feel as if and am almost certain that, LUCPOL is out on a "Pan-Silesian crusade", which is how his contributions seem like to me when compiled together. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 19:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by LUCPOL

Translated by Piotrus from [44]. Please note I don't have time to translate too often.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:R9tgokunks (User:Hrödberäht) has been pestering me for some time. We had a conflict, and due to my poor command of English language R9tgokunks found himself a victim who has limited capacity of defence. First, he created a blacklist at User:R9tgokunks\User:LUCPOL, which he later copied to FRI. On RFI thanks to translators I managed to explain the issue, admins closed the RFI, and R9tgokunks now repeats his claims based on User:R9tgokunks\User:LUCPOL ignoring my defence. It is trolling and manipulation. Further he constantly tried to convince others of my (so called) vandalism, repeating the old and already expalined issues, constantly stalks me checking my contribs and edits the articles I edited even if he has no knowledge of the issues related to them. He constantly spies on me. He created a category Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_LUCPOL for IPs which he claims are socks. Every one has an IP and he doesn't complain about others. This user is pestering me, I cannot edit the Wikipedia project normally due to this. He is not a saint he claims to be, he has not only many 3RR blocks in his history but many!!! edit wars in the last weeks which I can prove (but only in Polish). Please help because R9tgokunks is constantly persecuting me. LUCPOL 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet you attempt to justify yourself by creating false socks of him and continually abuse his userpage? Other disruption is also listed in those links and he is not disrupting you but dealing with your case. Retiono Virginian 19:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Wildnox

Let me first add that I agree totally with Piotrus that the Good faith of this request may be suspect and that there should be an attempt at mediation with a polish translator before arbitration. I'm not sure why I am included in this report, I haven't had any interaction with any of the involved users since mid january. I'll offer whatever information I can to help though. I can speak with relatively decent knowledge about R9tgokunks and LUCPOL, I don't have too much connection with any of the other users though.

I'll start with LUCPOL. I would not doubt LUCPOL to be using sockpuppets in this case. I have not seen too much that would totally confirm sockpuppetry in this case, but I have seen LUCPOL use sockpuppets in a disruptive and abusive manner before.(See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LUCPOL) One of the IPs mentioned as possible sock puppets in this case was also mentioned in this previous case. This being said, some understanding is needed with LUCPOL. I think much of the disruption is caused by a frustrating language barrier. I think with a fluent translator, much of the problems here could be resolved. As Piotrus stated above LUCPOL tried at one point to make a compromise, R9tgokunks did not respond.

Now for R9tgokunks. R9tgokunks in many ways appears to have been disruptive. One simple example is an attempt to edit war wikilinks into LUCPOL's userpage, for no specific reason other than an attempt to pester LUCPOL. [45][46][47] The recent edit warring over sockpuppet tags makes neither user look better. As summary, I think both users have been disruptive, and this should be in mediation before arbitration. --Wildnox(talk) 20:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel.Bryant

Seems a bit premature, in my eyes. IMO, RFC is perfectly suited to this situation, as is formal mediation. Daniel.Bryant 22:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

• Decline as premature; please try one of the preliminary steps in the dispute resolution process first. Kirill Lokshin 20:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline as premature as well, but without prejudice for future reconsideration if other attempts do not succeed and problems, if any, persist. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Decline, aye. James F. (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

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

Question to Arbcom

see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

I have had a Arbcom case against me in the past. I am now, I believe being harrassed based on it. Any dispute with a user, meaning disagreement involves a user threatening an Arbcom hearing against me. There is a page for enforcement that lets people complain about those who have had hearings, where do those who feel they are being harrassed because of them, have to go to be heard? Is there an equal place where Arbcom will here their points? --NuclearZer0 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

These kinds of disputes should be handled through the normal mediation process first. If you have specific examples of harassment, please take them to WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB for resolution. The past ruling against you by the Arbitration Committee does not give them original jurisdiction over all disputes or complaints raised by you in the future. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Lord knows NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults can be a pain in the ass, and an edit warrior. But I can list off the top of my head three instances where the first thing an editor did when he saw an edit by Nuclear that he didn't like was to either threaten him with arbitration, or post a complaint to Arbitration enforcement. I'm not aware that being on probation relieves other editors of the expectation that they will at least make a good faith attempt to discuss a disputed edit before applying for sanctions. When an editor reverts Nuclear's edits with the edit summary "Suggest that he's violating the Arbcom ruling for the 4th or 5th time," and it's the first time Nuclear has been reverted at that page, and no prior (or subsequent) discussion was attempted, its hard not to see that as creating a corrosive environment for him. Since the arbitration committee places enforcement of its decrees in the hands of the admins at large, I do not expect they will take any concrete action here. But I don't know what to do either. Thatcher131 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No indeed. Nuclear could help by not going nuclear so quickly, I think. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification on remedy of the Requests for arbitration/Kosovo

On 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have a couple of questions regarding this remedy.

• why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
• it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
• is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Sincere regards Osli73 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this happened. I don't see any edits at all that you made to Kosovo. Fred Bauder 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please also refer to my note on Fred's talk page as well as the conversation on my talk page. El_C 02:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred, what is the process I need to go through to appeal the decision of the arbcom? Regards Osli73 09:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Oh, I see it has already started.Osli73 09:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that Dmcdevit is arguing not to revoke the decisions. My comments on his reasons for not doing so are:

1. dmcdevit doesn't answer why I should be 'punished' a second time for a 'crime' which I had already been punished for. If so, could I be 'punished' for the original edit war yet another time?
2. I don't it mentioned anywhere in the Kosovo arbcom case that edits on the Srebrenica massacre article should be considered. It might be worthy of interest that Asterion already asked Dmcdevit this question (here) to which Dmcdevit answered that "It's reasonably related enough for me". What is the 'jurisdiction' of the Kosovo arbcom? Why were not edits on other articles considered?
3. It seems somewhat odd that a, in my opinion, wrongfully made decision should be upheld by events which took place after that decision was made. In my opinion, the original arbcom decision should be upheld or revoked based on what took place prior to the original decision. Any subsequent behaviour should be judged on its own merits. I see this process as revoking an incorrect judgment, not as an appeal for 'early release'.

Regards Osli73 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73 has repeatedly violated the terms of his parole. He created a sockpuppet KarlXII with which he created fake conversations between Osli73 and KarlXII in a willful attempt to deceive people. With the sockpuppet KarlXII, he continued the behavior that got him on parole in the first place. What purpose does it serve to lessen (?!) the penalties at a time when he should be facing more restrictions for this behavior?89.146.130.23 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have explained before, this inappropriate behavior was due to personal threats (off wikipedia) and harassment (much of it by you, some recent examples [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]). The identity change was to avoid personal threats, not avoid the remedy (KarlXII existed before the ARBCOM decision). This does not excuse the sockpuppeteering, but it explains it. Regards Osli73 10:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Would this biographical stub be associated with depleted uranium?

I am prohibited from editing articles "associated" with depleted uranium, but what is and is not associated has never been defined. This has caused some difficulty, but not so much as to be insurmountable. For example, an arbitration clerk has claimed that Gulf War syndrome is associated with DU, while my erstwhile arbitration opponents insist that there is no such association.

I would like to create the following biographical stub:

John Taschner is a member of the technical staff in the Environment, Safety and Health Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory where he is involved in radiological transportation accident exercise planning. Prior to coming to Los Alamos, Taschner was Deputy Director of the US Navy's Radiological Controls Program Office in Washington, DC, and has held numerous key health physics management positions with the US Navy and Air Force. Since the 1970s, Taschner has served on several radiation protection standards committees. Since 1992, Taschner has been the Vice Chairman of the American National Standards Institute's N43 Committee, which writes radiation safety standards for non-medical radiation producing equipment. In the 1980s, Taschner received an award from the US Navy for convincing them to use tungsten instead of depleted uranium munitions in the Phalanx CIWS ship defense system.[56] Taschner has been a member of the Health Physics Society since 1958 and is a member of the American Academy of Health Physics. Taschner earned his M.S. in radiation biophysics from the University of Kansas in 1966 and, in 1973, received his certification in Health Physics by the American Board of Health Physics.[57]

My inclination is that Taschner's association with depleted uranium is not strong enough to consider his biography "associated" with DU. I respectfully request clarification from the arbitrators concerning their opinion on this question. In the event that the biography is considered associated with depleted uranium, I would request suggestions for how I should submit this request to other editors (because a non-existant article doesn't have a talk page.) If no comments are forthcomming within seven days, I will create the biographical article in the interest of making a comprehensive and accurate encyclopedia. James S. 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And in comes the camels nose! Non notable biography and would not survive a Vfd as his name only brings up 79 hits in google Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Taschner easily satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people) because he has made widely recognized contributions that are part of the enduring historical record in his field, and has received multiple independent awards for his work, as TDC's Google hits show (and is even more clear if you include his middle initial.) James S. 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say he's clearly "associated" with depleted uranium. The only even arguably notable sourced detail in that stub is that he received an award for his opposition to depleted uranium. My recommndation would be (1) if you wrote a stub that didn't mention depleted uranium in any respect or link to any page discussing depleted uranium, you would probably be fine; (2) if you do write about depleted uranium, then you're writing about something "associated" with depleted uranium; and (3) since your stub doesn't include reference to multiple independent non-trivial published accounts discussing Dr. Taschner, it will probably get deleted as non-notable under WP:BIO. TheronJ 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: On Feb 5, 2007, James added the John C. Taschner stub that he proposed above, using his new username.[58] As I stated, I personally think that adding a stub for a government employee whose only claim to notability is his opposition to depleted uranium is pretty clearly editing an article "related to depleted uranium," but maybe we need some clarification from an Arb Comm member or clerk. Thanks, TheronJ 16:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, he isn't notable because he was opposed to DU, but because the Navy gave him an award for convincing them not to use it, and because the Health Physics Society awarded him a fellowship -- multiple independent awards, as per WP:BIO. His interaction with DU was a very small part of his life, most of which has been spent on the Accident Response Group preparing to clean up after nuclear weapons incidents. Secondly, without clarification on what is and is not "associated" with depleted uranium, my restriction is unreasonably vague. James S. 03:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

James, you are Wikilawyering. I have nuked it, leave it to some other editor who does not have this sanction against them. It is self-evidently the case that his purported notability rests in large part on DU, and if you edit the article you;re asking for trouble. Please just respect the ruling. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"he isn't notable because he was opposed to DU, but because the Navy gave him an award for convincing them not to use it." Say wha...? Perhaps others can handle cognitive dissonance better than I can. Raymond Arritt 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Asking a question isn't wikilawyering. What is "associated" and what is not? Am I at the mercy of what is or is not "self-evident" to any admin? James S. 07:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

Osli73

On 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have a couple of questions regarding this remedy.

• why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
• it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
• is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Sincere regards Osli73 10:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this happened. I don't see any edits at all that you made to Kosovo. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved that the two remedies applied to Osli73 be revoked. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. When we look at a case, we certainly may take into account a party's total behavior if it is relevant in coming to a conclusion. In some cases ignoring a wider problem because of concerns about scope is harmful; it's a judgment call. Since the case, Osli has been blocked for violation of his remedies, and using a sockpuppet to evade detection. And I note that Osli has repeatedly been edit warring at Srebrenica massacre [59] for months now; in fact, 30 seconds perusing shows that he violated his revert parole yesterday: [60], [61]. Lessening the restrictions at this point seems counterproductive. Dmcdevit·t 05:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Archives

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