Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 00:37, 16 April 2010 (→‎Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0): decline). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Alastair Haines 2   13 April 2010 {{{votes}}}
Christ myth theory   13 April 2010 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 12 July 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 12 July 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Clarification request: Noleander none (orig. case) 11 July 2024
Amendment request: Durova Motion (orig. case) 4 July 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox Motion none 10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings none none 12 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Alastair Haines 2

Initiated by Kaldari (talk) at 18:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

I have limited this list to people involved in edit wars with Alastair within the past week and people personally attacked by Alastair since his last RfAr. Kaldari (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Kaldari

Alastair is a thoughtful and competent Wikipedia editor. He has done great work on many articles and deserves praise for his high standards of research and writing. He has one outstanding problem, however. He is unable to collaborate with editors who have different opinions than his or to resolve differences in an amicable fashion. He mainly edits in articles related to theology, where, for the most part, he is helpful (with some exceptions). His other interest is editing articles related to gender, where unfortunately he is frequently belligerent and enforces a dogmatically conservative point of view.

Since Alastair's last RfAr, which involved edit wars, disruptive editing, legal threats, and personal attacks, he has embarked on an even more ambitious campaign of edit wars, disruptive editing, legal threats, and personal attacks. Specifically, I am prepared to present evidence of dozens of incidents of edit warring across eight different articles, 2 incidents of personally overturning AfD decisions against consensus, 2 incidents of unambiguous personal attacks, 8 incidents of legal threats and posturing, and various cases of harassment, disruptive editing, ignoring restrictions, and failing to adhere to numerous Wikipedia policies.

The only break in this behavior came during Alastair's recent hiatus from Wikipedia (December 2009 - March 2010). Unfortunately, Alastair has apparently adopted the exact same editing tendencies since his return, and openly declared his intentions "to restore nearly all material in certain articles, removed prior to and since a certain ArbCom".[7]

Statement by Hammy64000

Alistair repeatedly ignores requests that he discuss changes to the article. He also threatens me, either veiled threats or obvious ones. On the edit history of his most recent change, he told me to "be carefull," something about my own actions being used against me. I even conceded, in response to his comments, that changes might be made by me after discussion, and he ignored that.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alastair Haines

I request that ArbCom take this case.

Kaldari makes extraordinary claims that will require exraordinary evidence.

This is an ideal opportunity to support an exemplary editor like myself, who is being badgered by Kaldari for obvious ideological reasons. He doesn't like reliable empirical sources being documented at Wiki if, in his opinion, they undermine his ideology. Unfortunately, he has chosen the course, over a long period, of being obstructive, throwing mud and seeking to use processes to silence the documentation of reliable sources. He is also leading other editors astray by setting a bad example. He has canvassed for people who might find it convenient to silence an editor willing and able to provide sources contrary to their current understanding. I hope to see those editors show better character in this matter than Kaldari. On previous occasions Kaldari has merely been opportunistic, in the current case he appears to be being very deliberate indeed.

The remedy is simple and standard: content issues are sent back to be dealt with as the content issues they really are.

However, there is one additional remedy required, which is for the current ArbCom to redress the unfortunate resolutions a previous ArbCom adopted. Those resolutions had to be modified and were also blanked. We can also see now that they have ended up encouraging Kaldari to adopt his exceedingly uncompromising approach to suppressing sources that he doesn't like.

It is important to note that Kaldari considers that his actions are low risk with potentially high return. He has no expectation of being subjected to restrictions for his behaviour, but realises that even naming another editor in dispute resolution processes encourages others to think less of the named editor, in this case me. In some ways, Kaldari can not be blamed for taking advantage of processes that favour the methods he has adopted. But it's still not fair dealing in the spirit of Wikipedia's basic values. This case is not the place for the discussion, but the case should serve as a catalyst for a review of how processes might be modified to discourage people attempting to use them to stabilize text in favour of their own opinion, rather than stabalizing text the perfectly viable normal way: sourcing, and rational discussion. A method in which I am widely known to set an example. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeffro77

Alastair has repeatedly tried to assert his personal opinion about the status of JWs as a 'Christian' denomination, with long-winded posts that do not properly address the issue.

He has been requested to supply neutral sourced definitions that preclude JWs from being Christian in support of his view, but has failed to do so. (He has supplied a theological (Trinitarian) opinion that Christians must accept the Trinity, but that has been shown as contradicted even by other Trinitarian theological opinions, including the Catholic Encyclopedia.) His statements include (not an exhaustive list)...

Logical fallacies:

  • "JWs themselves distance themselves from broad Christianity"[8] [the JWs' theological opinion that other 'Christian' religions are not 'true' Christians is not relevant to a neutral definition of Christian])

False attributions:

  • "I'm glad you agree that the second sentence serves well as a summary..."[9] (in response to User:B Fizz: "The second sentence is good, but the concept is covered well in the second intro paragraph.")
  • "It's nice to hear you take my point about the arbitrary nature of the "millenial" designation"[10] (I stated that leaving out "millenial" may simplify the lead, but said nothing of its alleged "arbitrary nature" or similar)
  • "It's odd to hear someone being confidently critical of logic they admit they can't follow" (no such admission)
  • "You rightly understand that Restorationist is questionable" (I actually stated that "'Restorationist' is also a specific term with a well-defined meaning") same diff for last 2 statements)

Misapplication of Wikipedia policies:

  • "Sally's already used 2 of your reverts, I'm afraid I'll need to issue 3RR warnings to all three of you if..."[11]
  • "policy demands we weasle it"[12]).

Alastair has also suggested sources that mention JWs as Christian but of which the main point are irrelevant negative insinuations about the religion (e.g. "No major Christian sectarian movement has been so insistent on prophesying the end of the present world"[13], "Jehovah's Witnesses are members of a Christian group that does not allow blood transfusion."[14]) See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Christian??, Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#A neutral lead and Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Avoid controversy in the lead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that EGMichaels presents a distinction between "Nicene Christianity" and "Jehovah's Witnesses" as mutually exclusive options for defining Christianity. However, because the origin of Christianity predates "Nicene Christianity", it is not simply a matter of only those two options.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EGMichaels

Please note that I used to edit under the screen name "SkyWriter".

I have encountered both Alastair and Jeffro77 in the past, and am currently involved with Alastair in a content dispute at Genesis creation myth.

Several notes:

  • The definition of "Christian" on Wikipedia is an ongoing dispute between those whose groups correspond to the Nicene Creed and those whose groups oppose the Nicene Creed. This is a dispute which has been in place long before Wikipedia ever existed and no doubt will outlive Wikipedia as well. At issue is the question of self definition of groups -- can a small group's self definition negate a larger group's self definition?
  • Jehovah's Witnesses do indeed claim they are Christians, but also claim that nearly 2 billion Nicene adherents are NOT Christians.
  • Conversely, Nicene Christians use the doctrine of the Trinity as a litmus test for the term "Christian."
  • Regardless of which side is "right" (and Wikipedia should have no opinion), responsible editors should at least acknowledge that these groups define "Christian" in mutually exclusive ways. While claim to the name should be noted for both groups, the mutual exclusion should also be noted -- out of fairness to both groups. Jehovah's Witnesses as a group insist they are not a "denomination of Christendom". Nicene "Christendom" as a group insist they are not Arians (and would include Jehovah's Witnesses in that label).
  • This is not about Alastair's wanting to dictate who is and is not a "true" Christian on Wikipedia. On the contrary, Alastair's edits simply fall under two imperatives:
  • All notable and reliable views must be noted and cited, and
  • Mutually exclusive groups which claim the same term at the expense of the other should be noted as such so that they are not confused with each other (i.e. so that Jehovah's Witnesses won't be unfairly mistaken for Trinitarians, or so that Trinitarians won't be unfairly mistaken for Arians).

All of this is merely responsible editing.

Here's where Alastair runs into problems:

  1. When reliable sources are removed, Alastair has a tendency to follow Wikipedia policy by restoring them (much to the chagrin of editors who wish to eradicate the existence of notable POVs).
  2. Since Alastair tends to include all "sides" of a dispute in an encouraging and fair minded manner, some editors wishing to push a POV have initially mistaken him as supporting that POV, and then become shocked when they find he will not support the elimination of POVs they do not like.

Please note the encouraging and engaging manner Alastiar has used at Genesis creation myth to support all sides and to make sure that no side of a long content dispute eradicates the other in the article.

As hard as Genesis creation myth is as a dispute, it is far less contentious than subjects involving Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and other groups who claim use of the term "Christian" in a way that by definition must exclude other groups which also claim that term. Again, while we must note that any given group lays claim to the name, we should also note when that group uses the term with a meaning that excludes other groups commonly known by that same name.

A good example would be "Messianic Judaism" and "Judaism." Both groups claim the name "Judaism".

Here is a simple test for the charge of POV for Alastair:

  1. Does Alastair agree with the theology of "Messianic Judaism" or of "Judaism"? (answer, Messianic Judaism)
  2. Does Alastair agree with the theology of "Jehovah's Witnesses" or of "Nicene Christianity"? (answer, Nicene Christianity).
  3. Would Alastair note that "Messianic Judaism" is theologically incompatible with mainstream "Judaism"? (of course)
  4. Would Alastair note that "Jehovah's Witnesses" are theologically incompatible with mainstream "Christianity"? (of course)

So, then, this has NOTHING to do with Alastair promoting a POV, since his editorial decisions would be the same for a group which intersects with his theology (i.e. Messianic Judaism) and one which does not (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses).

In BOTH cases Alastair would note that a minority group self identifies with a certain term, but also note that this self identification is excluded by the larger groups which are normally known by that name.

Finally, this particular "case" unfairly uses a previous ArbCom against Alastair. I was a part of that previous ArbCom, and noted multiple occasions in which that ArbCom contained personal attacks against Alastair of such severity that a third party had to request the entire ArbCom ITSELF to be blanked.

Let's not go down this road again. The previous ArbCom had to be blanked -- not Alastair. Claiming to use such a botched ArbCom against Alastair now is merely an admission of having a poor case to begin with.

Summary: in all my dealings with Alastair, he consistently supports the inclusion of all PsOV (as per policy) and reverts unwarranted deletion of sources (also per policy). Let's uphold policy and ignore this personal attack distraction.EGMichaels (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Per Jeffro77s comment naming me)EGMichaels (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC) -- Agreed that Christianity predates the Nicene Creed. Even agreed that the Nicene Creed could be flat wrong. My point is only that this is a demarcation that both groups use to distinguish themselves from each other.EGMichaels (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MishMich

I have been invited to comment here, although I was unaware that I was engaged in an edit war with Alastair. My only interaction with Alastair is recent, and confined to a single article. I appreciate that Alastair has a difficult history, but have sought to engage and interact with him, and given him the benefit of the doubt. I have had to revert some of his insertions into the article on the hijra, and have encouraged him to discuss changes prior to revising existing established text, although I think we would both agree that article is in need of improvement. He has engaged in discussion, yet still seems to find it hard to resist making sequential changes, often starting with a conroversial alteration (which in the latest case altered the meaning of one source altogether) [15]; in such situations, the only way to rectify such changes is to revert the sequence back to the original text. I want to be fair to Alistair, because I do have a very different perspective to his, but I do find his approach to editing somewhat belligerent, and while he appears to have a strong POV about gender congruence, he seems to think his view is neutral, and other views are POVs. He seems to find it easier to ignore points that challenge his perspective, while trying to refute those he thinks he can, and seems totally unconcerned with WP:MOS#Identity and (LGBT) project guidelines based on these in the context of gender identity. Discussion seems to be for the purpose of legitimising changes he wants to make, rather than forming consensus; and sources are for suppport of his perspective, rather than grounding the subject in what they say. However, I am aware that he would no doubt feel justified in saying the same about me. I cannot add more really, because I do not feel our exchanges have been sufficent to motivate me in seeking to bring any complaint against him - and I do not personally feel they would warrant the time or energy to do so. I do think that when somebody explains things that run contrary to his understanding in certain areas, and they have some expertise in that area, he ought to respect that, rather than ignoring it and insisting his own poorly-informed perspective is the correct one. As a board member of a major international intersex organisation, and social scientist engaged in research into intersex since 2003, I do not appreciate a theologian with no background in this subject telling me he knows better about my subject than I do. I do think he has tried hard to work co-operatively in the article we are working on, and would encourage him to continue in this vein, as it can only make editing a more enjoyable experience, rather than a battle - which is not particularly edifying. I would also urge him to slow down and allow time to work on one thing at a time, as there is no rush. (last sentence appended later than the rest). Mish (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maunus

I have only interacted with Alastair Haines yesterday and today and my impression of his editing style closely resembles that described by Kaldari and Jeffro77. Alastair does not appear to me to be interested in establishing consensus or collaborating with other editors, but to force a specific point into an article by an annoying mix of sophistry, sarcasm, badly concealed contempt and twisting other editors words into positions he can easier attack. Note that I have previously been involved in heated arguments with Jeffro77 and SallyLT, but both have been much more collaborative than Alastair Haines has been in my brief interaction with him. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

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

Christ myth theory

Initiated by Eugene (talk) at 14:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • everything from RfCs ([23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28])
  • all the way to formal mediation: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Christ_myth_theory

Statement by Eugeneacurry

The Christ myth theory article has been a source of constant contention for literally years. As a WP:FRINGE theory it attracts a lot of editors who are sympathetic to the thesis and unhappy that the article clearly indicates it is fringe. They often try to "correct" this through lots of tendentious and disruptive editing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, violations of WP:CON, disregard of the scientific consensus on the matter, dismissal of high-quality reliable sources by mainstream (sometimes premiere) scholars on the grounds that they are Christians (even when they're not) and therefore untrustworthy, and on and on and on. When these editors are opposed they sometimes resort to a lot of edit warring ([29], [30], [31]) and even one instance of IRL threats.[32] The problems and policy violations never go away. Recently, an editor by the name of SlimVirgin has taken up this cause and, her username notwithstanding, she is clearly a Wikipedia heavy-weight. She's attempted to remove material from the article in clear violation of WP:CON--even after being warned multiple times--and has stated that "It doesn't matter what was agreed in mediation." [33] She's being supported in this and other disruptive editing by Graham Colm (another editor new to the page) and SOPHIA and ^^James^^ (both regulars at the article.) This sort of nonsense has gone on for far too long and, as I've exhausted all other possibilities, I think it's time for the ArbCom to get involed and "break the back" of this dispute per your mandate. Help me Obiwan-ArbCom-i, you're my only hope.

New Statement: Given Graham Colm's stated willingness to go a little more slowly with the article and given the gathering oppose vote of the ArbCom, I'm content to withdraw my request for arbitration. I do, however, still feel that the perennial content issues with the article are being exacerbated by subtle conduct problems on (mostly) the Christ myth theory's sympathizers' side. In any event, discussion is taking place on the talk page and I hope meaningful agreement can be reached. To that end, would it be possible to extend the page lock for another week or two? Three days isn't really enough time to make any real progress towards consensus among entrenched positions. Also, I've noticed that a lot of the criticism of and questionable editting on the page comes from editors unfamiliar with the state of scholarship on the historical Jesus or even the entire field of history. Given that the article is a part of WikiProject Christianity and its Jesus work group, could I send a mass message to the members of that work-group asking for their attention? Or would that be canvassing? Eugene (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Akhilleus

Please reject; this is premature, and what Eugene really wants is a content decision that ArbCom can't provide. SlimVirgin has only recently started editing the article, and no RfCs or mediation processes have taken place in that time. There are other steps we should go through before an arbitration. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ^^James^^

I agree with Akhilleus. ^^James^^ (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Kingoomieiii

Just to nitpick, Eugene; I'm not sure where you see the 'scientific consensus' on an entirely faith-based topic. Perhaps you mean scholarly consensus. --King Öomie 16:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History is not a "faith-based topic". --Ari (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ari, I also thought that was a bizarre statement. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean specifically is that unless he meant there is forensic evidence of Jesus's presense in Nazareth at the time of the New Testament, science has nothing to do with it. Scholars and historians make that call. --King Öomie 13:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SOPHIA

Please reject - Eugene has been turned down before by arbcom [34]. This is a content dispute with an editor who's style borders on bullying and harassment. Sophia ♫ 17:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bill the Cat 7

I agree with Eugene. However, I think that mediation should be tried first (with a very accomplished mediator if at all possible), but I'm pretty sure it won't go anywhere. Actually SlimVirgin probably wouldn't even agree to it, since her position is untenable. Still, I think the arbitration is inevitable and I'm willing to do it now rather than later. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I was the mediator in the case mentioned above. Didn't exactly do the best of jobs, but then again, I only took the case for MedCom because no mediator was available to take it. Perhaps this would be a good time to try out User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Mediation-Arbitration Referrals Subcommittee? NW (Talk) 02:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

Just to reply to NuclearWarfare, I would be opposed to mediation at this time. In my view, Eugene has been misusing the dispute resolution process to try to get a certain view of the content accepted, and then to have that view nailed down. He's been saying things like (paraphased): "You can't do this, because it was rejected by peer review. You can't say that because the opposite was agreed at mediation; if you try to say it, I'll report you." [35]

The basic issue is that he wants the Christ myth theory (the theory that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure) to be declared as a fringe topic within the meaning of WP:FRINGE, so that he can exclude or marginalize some of the proponents and arguments. He asked ArbCom in February to rule that the article fell under FRINGE.

It's true that it's a small minority theory, but it's not clear that it's as fringe as Eugene argues. I became involved a few days ago because Eugene nominated it as a featured article candidate, and as a result of the nomination other editors chimed in, and one of them (I believe it was you, NW), suggested a good source who argues in favour of the theory, and who wasn't mentioned in the article.

He is Michael Martin, emeritus professor of philosophy at Boston University—with a PhD from Harvard—who specializes in religion. He argues that although Jesus's existence is taken for granted, and that suggesting otherwise might get a person labelled as a crank, a strong case can nevertheless be constructed that challenges Jesus's historicity. Eugene's response to my adding Martin to the lead (for balance, in my view) was simply to remove it. Martin's not the only senior mainstream academic to express sympathy for the theory, though he is one of just a small number, which leaves open whether this is fringe as defined by WP.

Eugene has been really quite amazingly rude for months about every source he doesn't like, and to just about every editor who disagrees with him, to the point where an ArbCom case would be justified, but it wouldn't be related to content.

The behavioral issues apart, I have some ideas about how to make progress with the content issue, and I'd like the chance to try them out before thinking about mediation or arbitration. SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Eugene

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't canvass at the Christianity wikiprojects at this time. We can ask for other opinions through RfC and the like, and we can inform relevant wikiprojects that those RfCs exist, but the requests need to be worded carefully, and other pages where editors might take a different view need to be informed too. SlimVirgin talk contribs 22:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding here some recent examples of Eugene's posts to user talk pages, [36] [37] [38] [39] where he seeks to change the minds of editors who commented in an RfC to remove the article from Category:Pseudohistory. His long posts include comments such as "It also might be helpful to know that more living professors (active or retired) deny the holocaust than deny the existence of Jesus." It's because this kind of thing is going on that I'd like to see all canvassing stop unless it's the neutral posting of requests for comment or third opinions. SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Shell

Shell, thanks for you suggestion about asking each editor what would satisfy them. I've opened a section about it on the talk page. [40] It would be extremely helpful if each editor could list what they'd like to see, because we'd then at least know what we were aiming for. SlimVirgin talk contribs 23:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Graham Colm

I apologise unreservedly for the edit war that I started. My interest in this article began when I reviewed the article extensively at it's FA nomination. Most of my comments were not-controversial and the nominator graciously accepted them. Following my third reading of the article, I became concerned over it's neutrality and opposed it's promotion on the grounds that it contravened WP:NPOV. This view was supported by others and the article was not promoted. This made me most unpopular and, with the benefit of hindsight, it was most unwise of me to make those subsequent edits to the article. If we could put this behind us, I would be happy to work with the editors, in a focussed way, to address my concerns. Graham Colm (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
  • Clerk note I removed a link in prior DR to a mediation case. Please remember that formal mediation is privileged and cannot be linked or put in evidence in an arbcom case. MBisanz talk 17:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Comment In my vote on the 26th of February, I stated that I saw this as a content dispute. Right now, this re-filed case looks like a content dispute, masquerading as a conduct dispute. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but right now, leaning towards rejecting. SirFozzie (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I see nothing on the conduct side rising to the level of requiring arbitration. I sympathize with the parties involved in a long-running and apparently unresolvable content dispute, but, as the French say, "welcome to Wikipedia" (only they say it in French). Steve Smith (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Long content disputes are painful, but they can't be sorted by ArbCom. I can only suggest that parties be more willing to compromise or come up with unique solutions and keep trying to get help from outside editors - it seems like SlimVirgin may have some ideas that can help. Try focusing on only what each editor would need to be satisfied with the article; not "happy", just "satisfied" and see if you can reach that point. Shell babelfish 15:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: Some suggestions with potential to resolve, or at least ameliorate, the concerns expressed in this request have been made by various editors, and I urge the parties to give them the opportunity to succeed. At this point, I am seeing mainly a content dispute rather than a behavioural one. Risker (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - per Shell and Risker. KnightLago (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per all the above. Nothing insightful to add, except that I agree with the comments from other arbs. Carcharoth (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=356284065"