Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Tagremover disputes		22 January 2013	{{{votes}}}

[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).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	none	none	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Tagremover disputes

Involved parties

Tagremover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Blackmane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Thumperward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The Bushranger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Marteau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Andros 1337 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bwilkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Tagremover

I am absolutely desperate. I have been the main editor mostly of technology related articles since many years, first as IP. As i am a scientist, i think my contributions mainly to articles were valuable. English is not my mother-language.

I had two blocks: One for edit-war at Fisheye lens, where the other editor was blocked, too: Somehow understandable.

A second recently: For Edit war/ tag removal at Superzoom, where a user requested a reference about the exact definition of the "Super": There is and never will be such an definition, as there is no clear definition for ship or boat, see Talk:Superzoom. I was blocked without getting heard: Without discussion. My reason: WP:Ignore all rules: to improve Wikipedia.

At recent incidents of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner i posted an original research on the talk page: [11] to start an discussion. I used a bold language, as the consequences calculated by me were serious, and later events and analysts joined my results. But this was the main fault: Other editors regarded me as: Anti-Boeing.

I was taken to ANI: [12], done some article edits and posted detailed reasons, why 3 sentences should be changed.[13] First sentence is solved, a second has a proposal.

Its got worse at ANI, and i see questionable valuations, even from admins. I have no intention that other parties get blocked. But i see a high probability i am blocked for questionable reasons and valuations.

Actual details at ANI [[14]] and Talk:Boeing_787_Dreamliner.

I am sorry to occupy your time, but i see in this case a problem of minority editors.Where is help for editors if the majority of editors is somewhat biased?

If i am getting blocked or topic banned, i will leave Wikipedia for ever. Tagremover (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SilkTork: But thats exactly whats being disputed: Neutrality. [15]Tagremover (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline: Can see it, wouldn't done if differently in most cases. Tagremover (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a decline of this case seems to be clear, i propose to close this case (i withdraw this request) as i am not interested in consuming anybodies time. Thank you very much. Tagremover (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Bushranger

It should be noted that my sole involvement in this dispute, to my knowledge, was a WP:BEANS caution to a different editor on the AN/I discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marteau

Several days ago, I stated that I "gave up" on the article in question due to Tagremover, and that is still the case, and as far as what happens to Tagremover (or to me, actually) from this point on, I really and quite honestly don't much care.

I did call Tagremover "insufferable" on the talk page and advised him to tighten up his prose because it was painful to read. When he said the article was biased but did not (at the time) give specific examples, I said he smeared the entire editing pool for the article (for allowing that to happen, was my intent, and I should have added). I stand by these words.

I've washed my hands of the article and Tagremover and actually care little what the outcome of this arbitration is. I am not "invested" in the article or what happens to him, and if I never get to edit it again because he remains, it will not bother me. I will, in any event, not edit any articles in which he participates because it would be, in my limited experience with him, a highly distasteful and unpleasant task and I don't edit here to find new ways of causing myself stress.

I honestly don't care if he stays or goes or if he is banned in some way, or if I am sanctioned for calling things as I see them on the talk page. I believe he is a liability to the encyclopedia, and if I had my druthers, I would choose to see him not participate, but quite honestly, I care very little what happens to him. I do however stand by everything I have done or said regarding him and the article.

If there is something I have not addressed, please let me know, I am more than willing to answer any direct queries. Marteau (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andros 1337

I totally disagree with User:Tagremover's statements. He/she is simply abusing Wikipedia policy to impose his/her anti-Boeing POV onto the Boeing 787 article, making all of these disruptive requests to administrators to get his/her way. This seems like an obvious case of WP:POINT. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 23:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Blackmane

I have no content dispute with this user and the only interactions we have had were on the ANI where they were reported. I made a few comments and suggestions is all. Blackmane (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Tagremover disputes: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/5/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Decline. Tagremover and his concerns are currently being discussed on ANI: [16], and the admins there are able to decide if Tagremover's manner of raising his concerns are appropriate, or if sanctions are needed. It would only be if the community were unable to decide what should be done that ArbCom would get involved. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Silktork. Other means of resolving this are underway, and most of the steps listed at WP:DR have not even been attempted yet. This is premature and likely can be handled at a much lower level. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 22:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. This is a dispute that the community is perfectly fit to handle. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline in hopes this can be resolved sort of arbitration. Courcelles 04:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per all the above. Carcharoth (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]