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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Liancourt Rocks disputes

Initiated by Wikimachine at 03:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

(There may be more interested, but so far these are the only ones that are active)

• Opp2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LactoseTI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Phonemonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Clownface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikimachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Opp2
• LactoseTI
• Good friend100
• Komdori
• Clownface

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Requests for mediation/Dokdo Request for mediation
• Request for comment
• Requested move
• Requested move
• Requested move
• recent discussion about the introduction
• Another in the past about "physical presence" (=intro)
• same discussion 1 year ago

Statement by Wikimachine

This Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks article has troubled so many over the last 2 years - it needs arbitration. It’s not just one single disagreement or requested move – it’s the subject in its entirety. Unless the arbitration committee draws a clear line over what is POV and what is NPOV, what is acceptable and what is not, what is prescription and what is description, and what is reasonable and what is unreasonable, these POVs will continue to ravage the article with revert wars while hiding behind Wikipedia’s procedural & policy-based shields. They make a change on the article that is being discussed about in the talk page, and then when we revert they say we’re reverting against consensus when in fact the change was based on no consensus to begin with & changes require consensus to begin with. And when we (in the latest case it is "I") revert, "they" suddenly multiply from what was 2 editors in dispute to 4 - it's so perfectly coordinated . But the whole situation is us vs. them - no actual thing as consensus (they agree amongst themselves & then say "consensus") l consensus here - it's just a cold war with revert wars & 3RR ban being the leverage. In the end, this is about how many guys you have on your side able to participate in a revert war & 3RR but you've got to run a movie to make it all seem legitimate. (in the last 2 years, they never agreed on anything or never worked out a compromise & the only thing that would force them to was the poll - unless they have a compromise that is just as bad as the original). In fact, the entirety of the Liancourt Rocks talk page & the archives is the evidence that so many other steps throughout the last 2 years have been tried by the both sides. No one is ever satisfied and some main players here don't do anything else other than to edit on the Liancourt Rocks talk page (i.e. Opp2 & Clownface). (See this article to test & see my neutrality) These ppl (JPOV & KPOV) are too lazy or obsessed with their POVish beliefs that they refuse to add but emphasize certain points (for example, the most recent: instead of controlled & claimed, they want "claimed-claimed, and controlled" in the 1st paragraph of intro when these things are plainly explained in the 2nd para of intro & thoroughly covered in the main body - in order to emphasize that the Japanese claim is on equal level as Korean claim over the island & to imply illegitimacy behind Korean control - why would any country claim a territory that it's already controlling?).

The most recent conflict is on the intro - (2 versions advocated here) (rv1rv2 - they take turns reverting, this happened since they made their accounts, see contribs). I never agreed with the proposed introduction from Komdori, LactoseTI, and Phonemonkey & I was never aware of the change on the article that was unilaterally made by Opp2 (notice POV with Japan coming first, S. Korea coming 2nd). All throughout the talk, I disagreed with many things that make up Opp2's version & the fixes thereafter: Moreover, I did not know that there was any change made in the main article: I'm not seeing any changes on history, so I'm not sure what you guys are talking about And then Komdori replies: "A half dozen or so editors worked" - oh yeah the 6 editors listed above - 4 vs 3 -that sure is "worked over" "a lot went into". None of us agreed with anybody else & those 4 LactoseTI, Komdori, Opp2, and Phonemonkey agreed amongst themselves. Komdori says "We don't need your permission." but they do because they have permission from no one else outside their party either.

This article is a very different environment - like Europe, the old alliances are already fixed - there are old timers here who meddle in every dispute (including me). It's not random editors coming in & making edits & contributing to discussions w/ good faith (b/c no other ppl are interested in this dispute except for the nationalists) Everything is fixed & a self-fulfilling prophesy & we're trapped in this framework, & that's why arb is necessary. Whatever we do we're POVs unreasonable nationalists & uncivil (they can make us so). If we go on revert war, we'll be outnumbered. If we continue on talk, we'll be outvoiced & outpolled. Even if they are wrong, it's justified b/c we have to accept all views per NPOV - yet at a closer examination this is not a problem of NPOV but matter of reasonability, reality, and description over prescription. If we accuse them of being unilateral & cheap (this infuriates me) they reply w/ "Wikimachine: why don't we try the other steps first".

2nd dispute: Opp2 wanted to get rid of the word "administer" for S. Korea b/c Japan didn't "administer" in the sense of control but mere paperworks of registering the islets as a province. The way he aimed at this was by searching on google & listing several sites that used "occupy" to describe the situation and the same for "admnister". So, Opp2 says, you must replace all equivalents of "occupy" with "occupy" and "occupy" is the only word you can use b/c it's most neutral b/c Opp2 listed few more websites that use "occupy" rather than "administer". This is Original Research. I want to emphasize that none of our reliable, NPOV, and cooperative editors here - LactoseTI, Komdori, and Phonemonkey attempted to explain to Opp2 that it was original research & actually defended him.

Another is: Last requested move from Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks at first ended in no consensus. However, they lobbied the admin Husond at his talk page & weeded out several early accounts to just reach the % that another admin holding the previous RM defined as consensus & then overturned the decision. This incident bothers me on two levels - first, they failed to weed out a few of their own early accounts, and second, even when I showed the admin that if he were to consider the illegitimate accounts on Liancourt Rocks side there would be no consensus the admin didn't listen.

3rd dispute: 1) about the info box which contains "administration" section showing Japan & South Korea, their respective provincial titles, etc. 2) originally not there, but somebody put it there to show Japan on top of S. Korea b/c of alphabetical order - which I disagree b/c Liancourt Rocks, whether disputed by Japan or not, is a Korean territory). Shows how vicious & vicious they're. In other words, S. Korea controls the island & therefore is the only country with administrative rights over the island (i.e. ~ tax, census, if we were to say that ppl lived there). Japan can "administer" or "register" the island as "Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane" but that's as far as Japan can ever go & the info box doesn't ask for "administer" in the sense of "register". LactoseTI & Phonemonkey say that "control" does not mean "administrative rights" b/c it could be illegitimate. I see how they link "rights" and "legitimacy" but even with illegit occupation a country can "administer" a territory &, even if LactoseTI's saying that Japanese viewpoint is that the occupation is illegitimate, all info box asks for is just that control.

A related problem is that it's JPOVish to present this Japan-Korea dispute with Japan on equal level with Korea. It's just like (made up) Russia disputing Alaska with the US. Sure, both countries are disputants, but who controls the land, who controlled the land before, which side has better historical evidence (in this case, the ev. that the US bought Alaska from Russia) (in Liancourt Rocks, according to Yale Global, Korea) (a better example is Tsushima Island except S. Korea disputes over it) The simple act of disputing doesn't put the disputer on equal level with the disputed. Even if I concede that Dokdo was Japanese to begin with, it is within Korean territory - just like Tsushima is within Japanese territory. It is unrealistic for Japan to try to take Dokdo - all Japan wants currently is a disputed status & therefore equal level of dispute is JPOVish. Wikipedia should describe, not prescribe, but here they prescribe a less accepted view as equivalent to the dominant view. It's cheap b/c they use the NPOV policy that all views must be represented as a leeway to emphasize heavily on JPOV. And this also spills over to the current title of the article -it's more JPOV than NPOV (even if slightly) b/c it challenges Korean claim's legitimacy even when Korea controls the island. It's like changing Tsushima Island to something in English just b/c S. Korea disputes it.

Another thing is WP:CIVILITY - sure both sides use exclamation marks & bolds & few "wth" sometimes, but the other party's superior & condescending attitude really bothers all of us here (we don't do this, however). When accused, they reply "stop being paranoiac", "you're mistaken", etc. For example, I reverted the edits on the info box b/c I thought that the order of administration was based on the alphabetical order of the geographical subjects, not the disputants. And in fact, I reverted myself even before anybody replied back in response on talk page (see this. And then something so ridiculous - the other party - (none could boast as many edits or as long stay as me) happened - they all remind of the wikipedia rules! "unfortunately this is not Wikipedia policy" "It's from WP:NCGN. WP:NC itself is a Wikipedia policy but WP:NCGN is a naming conventions guideline" I even replied "Well, I saw that & I changed it back." But Macgruder goes further, even 1 day after my own revert, "If you have a problem with that page go over there and deal with it. You don't edit to be parallel with another page which itself may be wrong. You edit to be parallel with Wikipedia policy/guidelines. Frankly I don't care which way round they are but J does come before K." Oh sure you don't. Then comes the bullseye: "Stop constantly making your argument personal and people might have a modicum of respect for you".

Finally, the other side's action is very well coordinated - almost like a conspiracy & wait, we have evidence. Google, Ginnre's talk page, although link is now modified by the forum, Ginnre's talk page, showing the exact forum discussion, deleted due to copyright In short, there are forum discussions in Japanese outside of Wikipedia about Liancourt Rocks - and 2chnet example was a thorough analysis of all KPOV editors on Liancourt Rocks. I can't accuse directly any of them here, but I know that Komdori & LactoseTI are nearby friends and since their first edits they participated & coordinated together in a requested move (see my previous sock accusation data and the previous sock accusation case where I specified 2 links on their first edits [1] [2]. And also their efforts at the previous requested move was very well coordinated & their arguments (made individually & separately) all fit well & were well structured, based on Wikipedia's policies (I was really surprised, so I responded to make things clear for everyone at here). (Wikimachine 14:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Therefore I'd like for the arbitration to accomplish following things:

• First decide if the last requested move was legitimate, and if the current title is POV or NPOV (b/c ppl are planning another RM in the future) (look at my analysis of the requested move at this archived link.)
• Second decide if S. Korea & Japan are disputing over the island at equal level or not or if it's a case similar to Tsushima Island.
• Third specify which version (b/w the 2 reverts) is better & elaborate on additional compromises & specify certain things that are needed to make the article NPOV.

• I will also write an alternate version of the article. I think that the many compromises will wear down neutrality of the alternate version, & that it'd be best if the arbitration committee would decide if my alternate version at User:Wikimachine/Liancourt Rocks would be acceptable. (Wikimachine 01:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

After these things are cleared, it'll be possible for me to work on the article as I am on Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) (which I aim to make a featured article). You can clearly see that I'm quite NPOV & take interest in article development more than anything like emphasis, I love different viewpoints purely b/c they are interesting, and I try to cite everything --> no WP:OR. (Wikimachine 14:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Statement by LactosTI

Just a comment--this request is really preliminary in nature. Few if any of the dispute resolution steps have been tried recently (in the last few months) and have nothing to do with the issues at hand (the only dispute resolutions tried recently were a few ultimatums by Wikimachine not to undo his revert like this). Wikimachine also explicitly said he was skipping other forms of dispute resolution because of his bad faith for other editors here ("Mediation committee, mediation cabal - they're all meaningless on this one b/c of you Japanese nationalists."). Surely this is a controversial article, so it makes sense that controversy after controversy will crop up as the content develops; still, it's better to work in the framework that is set up (and works!) inside Wikipedia rather than jumping here as a first step.

This case also only lists a handful of the many established editors involved recently, excluding users like Gettystein, Endroit, and Kusunose. The editor filing this request stated on the page he basically wishes to skip the other steps since he doesn't care for the obvious consensus. Wikimachine: Why don't we try the other steps first (along with a big dose of good faith), and see how it turns out? The process tends to go a lot smoother that way. —LactoseTI^T 04:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I'm totally uninvolved here and have only given the dispute a cursory glance, but based on my experience with similar situations, I'd recommend Arbcom take this case and hand out topic bans liberally on all sides. Asking the parties to engage in further dispute resolution first would be futile here. They've been debating this for years and years, what else would they try now? The article has seen dozens of edits since yesterday alone, most of which were reverts. The most disappointing thing, however, is to look at the talkpage and at the request here, and look at the quality of the debate. These guys have been fighting over those islets for two or three years, and they are still framing their debates in terms of which side is right and which side is wrong! Apparently, people are simply not getting it that this is not what NPOV is all about. If they haven't learned that yet, why would we expect they learn it now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz

Just for further information, I just blocked Good friend100 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) indefinitely as this was their seventh block for violating the 3RR rule. My reasoning being that they are clearly unwilling to comply with the basic editing rules that we are all expected to follow. I haven't studied the issue in any detail but there is clearly an ongoing problem. Strange that user RFCs haven't previously been attempted. Obviously, I'd be more then happy to unblock them to allow participation in any arbitration case, or even, if there is a sufficient commitment to behave in future. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject. The Committee does not handle content disputes. Kirill 03:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject; content dispute. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Accept (Of course there is a content disupt, but there is also an obvious problem with achieving NPOV through mutual effort). Fred Bauder 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Violetriga

Initiated by John254 at 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Violetriga (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• John254 (talk · contribs) (initiating party)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[3]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Please see the "Violetriga admonished" remedy of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff.

Statement by John254

In the the "Violetriga admonished" remedy of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff the Arbitration Committee stated that "Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content which was deleted under the BLP policy without going through a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined above. Any future administrator action that violates the BLP policy will result in her immediate desyopping once it is brought to the attention of the Committee." In blatant violation of the Summary deletion of BLPs principle's requirement that articles deleted citing violations of the biographies of living persons policy "must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so", Violetriga unilaterally undeleted a redirect that was deleted citing WP:BLP concerns, then wheel-warred over the deletion (see [4]). This alone would constitute grounds for the "immediate desyopping" of Violetriga. However, Violetriga has recently engaged in more administrative misconduct: on August 28, 2007, she blocked Bouncehoper, with whom she was engaged in a massive edit war across many articles, using administrative rollback (see [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15], etc) in violation of the blocking policy, which expressly prohibits administrators from "block[ing] users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute" and prohibits short "cool down blocks", such as the three minute block Violetriga placed against Bouncehoper. It is high time for Violetriga's extensive administrative misconduct to be addressed. John254 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Penwhale

Um, edit-warring over sophomore<->second is lame. (although I have to say that second is probably more globally accepted). About the BLP redirect... Violetriga was the person that initially REDIRECTED the name to the new article (although naming the person in the article doesn't exactly help?) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with AnonEMouse that if the wheel war was the issue, it should've been brought up last month. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Respond to Thatcher, I believe that the only merit in this request is this at best: Has Violetriga violated Remedy 2.1 of the case? Are we fighting over a (un)deletion of redirect? Why was this not brought up last month if it were the case? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved AnonEMouse

Please reject. Dispute resolution has not been tried here. The RFAR admonishment has nothing to do with the lame "sophomore" edit war, and while it's arguably closer to the redirect, that was over a month ago, and no one has discussed it for weeks. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved GRBerry

A wheel war involves at least two parties. If the wheel warring is going to be an issue in this case, the other participants need to be brought in as parties also. The log demonstrates one admin that did all of the deletions and an admin other than Violetriga that did a restoration. Either add them both as parties and sanction appropriately or drop the whole issue. I recollect discussions at the time, and they would need to be brought into evidence if anyone can find them. (Some are probably on now deleted pages.) GRBerry 16:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AnonEMouse that this case is probably best rejected. Glad he pointed that out while I was typing my first comment. GRBerry 16:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by slightly involved Melsaran

Violetriga seemed to have gotten another (final) chance after the wheel warring incident with JzG. It was over a month ago, and has since been forgotten. Also, the block of Bouncehoper was (indeed) inappropriate, like I pointed out at an ANI thread, but does not have anything to do with this arbitration case. This arbitration case was about BLP undeletions, not inappropriate blocks. Please reject. Melsaran (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Thatcher131

Personally, I feel that Violetriga has seriously breached the community's trust with regards to her admin access several times, and I wouldn't care at all if she were to be desysopped   however, as the request currently stands, it proposes that Violetriga be desysopped because of the admonition in the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration case. An inappropriate block that doesn't have anything to do with BLP does not fall under that remedy. Also, the userbox thing is irrelevant now, because it was more than a year ago and she wasn't sanctioned; let bygones be bygones. The current request is simply not a valid reason for desysopping. Melsaran (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

Violetriga wheel-warred over the deletion of Abhilasha_Jeyarajah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [16]. Note that Violetriga's undeletion of this same article on 30 May was part of the evidence in the previous arbitration case. Violetriga also blocked a user with whom he was edit warring. The block was only 3 minutes, "to get his attention" so he would discuss the dispute, but Violetriga should have involved others. In fact, the whole lame edit war could have been handled by involving additional editors to support (if that was the consensus) Violetriga's position. Violetriga also wheel-warred in the userbox case although no action was taken at this time. Does the Committee endorse Violetriga's continued status as an administrator? Thatcher131 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

I urge ArbCom to accept this case to look into all recent administrative conduct by Violetriga. She is a longstanding Wikipedian and has made editorial contributions of high quality but I believe her conduct as an administrator has of late been completely unacceptable and has fallen below basic community norms administrators are expected to adhere to. She wheel warred on two occasions as described by Thatcher above. When I raised concerns about Violetriga's conduct in the second incident her reply was "Wheel-warring is bad, yes, but sometimes you have to do it when an admin is simply wrong and refuses to go along with what has been decided". I do not think that such an attitude is acceptable - if other admins comported themselves in this manner the result would be utterly chaotic. There is rarely any great rush - admins actions we disagree with can be reviewed and should be overturned by consensus, and not because another admin judges them "wrong". This latest inappropriate block by Violetriga is part of an ongoing pattern that shows that Violetriga lacks sound judgment as to when to use her administrative tools. I do not think it appropriate for an editor who believes repeated reversal of actions of other admins can be appropriate and blocks (however shortly) those she is engaged in a dispute with to continue to serve as an administrator. WjBscribe 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Mackensen

The fact that the redirect to Baby 81 was ultimately kept does not excuse the wheel warring or unrepentant defence of that wheel warring. Daniel Brandt was kept per consensus but Geni remained desysoped, and it now no longer exists as a stand-alone article per consensus but Yanksox is still desysoped - the ultimate fate of the subject matter of the wheel war is clearly not that significant. And the incidents are connected in that they all involve poor judgment as to when to use admin tools. The combination of incidents is now developing into a pattern that seriously calls into question Violetriga's competence as administrator. WjBscribe 21:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion had already taken place before that event, it's just that JzG is allowed to get away with half-hearted deletions that ignore what everyone else has agreed. I didn't expect any other comment from you, to be honest, as you seem to have had it in for me for a while now. violet/riga (t) 22:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JzG

Thatcher puts his finger on it. Not only has Violetriga done something that she was admonished not to do, she has done it in one of the places explicitly discussed at the time, and as the quote cited above by Wjbscribe shows, she is completely unrepentant, explicitly stating that she thinks it's acceptable to wheel war when you think the other person is wrong. Perhaps someone could find an example of a dispute where either party thinks the other side is't wrong? It seems to me that either Violetriga has not taken the admonition to heart, or it was not clear enough, or it requires further clarification, because a lot of us think it was violated and she clearly doesn't.

Consensus never trumps WP:BLP, nor does it permits use of administrative tools to undo another administrator's actions without discussing the matter first. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by violet/riga (t)

I just wrote a load but lost it so I'll be brief. The claimed BLP violation came during the BDJ case before the admonishment decision had even passed (got my dates wrong...). I have responded about the claimed unacceptable block on WP:AN/I - the block worked insofar as it finally got Bouncehoper talking without being a punishment. violet/riga (t) 11:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Baby 81 covers most of this, I feel, as there was consensus on that talk page to include the name and thus a redirect should be present. I don't think that the undeletion of a redirect to something that explicitly includes the name of said redirect is in any way a BLP violation. This matter was discussed at the time anyway and I fail to see the reason for it being brought up now. violet/riga (t) 13:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Fred Bauder

As stated on Talk:Baby 81 BLP said:

"When the reliable sources used as references for an article about a living person or about an event involving one or more living persons refer to such individuals by name, the article generally can as well."

Myself and several others went along with this policy, so I'm not sure what you are on about. We agreed that the correct interpretation of the BLP policy was to include the name. How can restoring the redirect be a BLP violation when the name itself appears in the article? violet/riga (t) 16:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see, in WP:BLP#Privacy_of_names Fred Bauder 16:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mackensen

With respect to my fellow editors, this feels like a "coat-rack" arbitration request. We're being presented with two entirely dissimilar allegations, one month apart. I don't know anything about the alleged misconduct reported by John254 (talk · contribs), but I see no evidence that prior methods of dispute resolution have been attempted. On the other matter, if this was a serious misconduct issue it should have been raised publicly at the time, not a month later as part of a separate matter. There was considerable discussion on Talk:Baby 81 and elsewhere (which I participated in), and there was grudging consensus that inclusion of the name was not problematic, especially given its frequent mention in reputable news outlets. Mackensen (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up

This is Tony Sidaway suddenly re-discovering the article and reverting, without discussion, after it had stood, un-edited, for a month. This is a strange way to go about matters. I've reverted him pending an explanation of just what he's playing at. Mackensen (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Thatcher131, JzG, and WJBscribe's statements should not stand alone. The events leading up to this case, and the parts played by previously trustworthy editors, and even two arbitrators, have shocked me deeply. This disgusting and despicable use of an infant's name as a token in the war against the biographies of living persons policy is not consistent with the ideals of Wikipedia, to create an encyclopedia. For the first time, I feel thoroughly ashamed on behalf of the entire project. --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Recuse. I may make a statement concerning Baby 81. Mackensen (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Accept, based on overruling policy on the basis of consensus [17]. Fred Bauder 15:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. I don't think there's a case here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. The actions at Abhilasha Jeyarajah, which form the heart of this case, do not seem in any way problematic. - SimonP 13:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. There is insufficient information here for a case, I feel. James F. (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Serbophobia

Initiated by Rjecina at 14:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Rjecina

I am having request that Serbophobia article be deleted from wikipedia by decision of Arbitration Committee. Reasons for this request is that wikipedia is taking POV stand with this article. During Yugoslav wars there has been nationalistic hate which has survived until today. Between Albanians, Bosniaks and Croats hate toward Serbs is possible to call Serbophobia. In Serbia it has been hate towards Albanians, Bosniaks and Croats which is possible to call Anti-Albanians, Anti-Bosniaks and anti-Croats sentiment. Example that this hate has been real (and it has been created by propaganda) is this harvard article: [18] . Today on wikipedia articles with names Anti-Albanians, Anti-Bosniaks and anti-Croats sentiment (or Croatophobia) are deleted and only article with name Serbophobia has stayed. In my thinking this is wrong and this is POV. We need on wiki to have all this articles or article Serbophobia need to be deleted. In the end it is funny wikipedia is now having article which speak how people hate state/nation which has started 10 years of war and there is no article which speak why have been (and are today) hated nations which are victims during this period. I will end with fact that until now article has been nominated 4 time for deletion and minimal 1 of this times has survived only because of alert given on Serbian wiki [19] Rjecina 15:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

This may be unnecessary, since one arbitrator has already indicated the likely way this request is going to take, but for the record, here's a bit of background. We have seen the creation of many articles of an "Anti-X'ism" format, listing grievances one ethnic group has about perceived or real discrimination from its neighbours. Many of these articles were put on AfD, sometimes separately, sometimes in small groups. The AfDs were often heated and dominated by ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT criteria, distributed along ethnic frontlines. Some were deleted, some not. Often, the debates revealed a notion of reciprocity: if you can have "your" Anti-X'ism article, I can have "my" Anti-Y'ism. Ultimately however, the decisions boiled down to an assessment of WP:NOR criteria in each separate case: while the mere existence of "Anti-X'ist" discrimination was often easy to demonstrate, its existence as a coherent object of a body of academic discourse and other reliable sources often was not. If I remember correctly, this is what saved the Serbophobia article, unlike most of the other Balkan ones.

Thus, as pointed out rightly by jpgordon, this is predominantly a simple content matter. The only thing that might reach into the domain of arbitrable behaviour is where, occasionally, there may have been an element of disruptive POINTiness, both in writing these articles and in defending or attacking them at AfD, similar to what has been alleged in the case of the "Allegations of Apartheid" series. But it has generally not reached the level seen there, and I don't think there is currently any hot warfare going on, so I don't see what Arbcom would need to do here now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

I don't want to be unduly formalistic about things, but our model of arbitration really doesn't contemplate a case without any parties. Newyorkbrad 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

• Reject categorically. This is the very definition of a content issue, and ArbCom is not empowered by either the community or the Foundation to determine such things. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Decline per jpgordon. Kirill 00:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• An obvious candidate for deletion, but we have a procedure, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, please use it. Fred Bauder 15:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per above FloNight♥♥♥ 19:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. James F. (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

---

The Powerpuff Girls

Initiated by JSH-alive at 14:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Marcus2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Night Leon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rattis1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by JSH-alive

There is a dispute about the popularity of The Powerpuff Girls in the Talk:The Powerpuff Girls#Here we go again... and Talk:The Powerpuff Girls#Enough!. Started by Rattis1, other 3 involved later. Now, it's Marcus2 vs. Night Leon.

Statement by StC

What?

This should be rejected. It's not even at the level of a content dispute.

Why am I a party? Why was I not notified? Who is the person filing it and why are they related to this at all?

SchmuckyTheCat 16:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Filing party advised to notify all parties of the request for arbitration. (We clerks are slipping; we should have noticed sooner that the notifications section was missing.) Newyorkbrad 16:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

• Decline, premature content dispute; please attempt the preliminary methods of dispute resolution before bringing this here. Kirill 17:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per Kirill. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reject, trivial content dispute Fred Bauder 14:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. James F. (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Initiated by Mofb at 11:43, 28 August 2007

regarding

• Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Involved parties

• Mofb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 62.136.27.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 81.77.230.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 81.77.248.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by the subject

The subject is the maker of the request. He and others have repeatedly tried to prevent posting of libelous material in a section entitled "philosophical and/or political views" which has been inserted into his biographical entry. At present, for instance, there is a reference to an article by George Monbiot, but no reference to the strongly-worded correction which the newspaper in question was compelled to print the following day. The subject has contacted the complaints team, and has given warnings that libel proceedings will follow if the libelous material continues to be posted. All attempts to prevent the libels, including a recent but now-withdrawn full protection of the page, have been unsuccessful. Balancing material is repeatedly removed, and hostile material inserted, to create a false, unfair, and detrimental impression of the subject's competence.

To settle this matter, and to prevent future libels, I should be grateful if my biographical entry were deleted altogether from Wikipedia. Accurate biographical entries are available in Who's Who, Debrett's People of Today, etc., so the Wikipedia entry is not needed. I am mortally ill and do not want my reputation degraded so unfairly at the close of my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofb (talk • contribs)

Comment by uninvolved Sam Blacketer

See Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and its talk page. The reference above to a "strongly-worded correction which the newspaper .. was compelled to print" in fact refers to Christopher Monckton's own reply, which was printed in The Guardian on page 37 on 15 November, 2006; the above gives the incorrect impression that it was a newspaper correction rather than a 'right to reply' which The Guardian did not endorse. The piece was printed in a column called "The Response" which is described by the paper in the following terms: "The Response column offers those who have been written about in the Guardian an opportunity to reply". Sam Blacketer 11:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by ChrisO

I've been watching this article for some time following its appearance on WP:BLPN and WP:AN/I in June this year. This request for arbitration seems extremely premature and this is fundamentally a content dispute, therefore outwith the remit of the Arbitration Committee. The history of the article has seen an anonymous editor (presumably User:Mofb?) repeatedly adding contentious unsourced material (including a copy-and-paste of an entire newspaper article) and being reverted by other editors. However, the anonymous editor has made no use of dispute resolution, not even using the article's talk page. Nor has he even said which content he considers to be libellous, as far as I know. This lack of discussion or specificity has obviously made it rather difficult for the article's editors to resolve disputes. Arbitration does not seem to me to be the best way to resolve this issue. -- ChrisO 18:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I concur with JzG and Daniel's comments below. This Guardian article suggests that there's a long-running wrangle between Monckton and Monbiot/The Guardian. It's worth noting that the same individual also appears to have threatened libel proceedings against Wikipedia at an earlier date concerning the articles Eternity Puzzle, Peter Tatchell, OutRage! and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Apocalyse Cancelled (now deleted) - all topics relating to Monckton. These were blanked by an editor from 62.136.27.125 on December 6, 2006 and replaced with the (very quickly reverted) message "Article removed pending resolution of libel proceedings". The same IP editor signed himself "M of B" in this deleted edit, so it seems safe to assume that it was the same complainant as in this case. -- ChrisO 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JzG

OTRS ticket is 2007082810012738, for reference. I recommend that arbitrators and other interested parties read the subject's letter, the tone of which may inform the decision and handling of this dispute.

The present content has both Monbiot's article and Monckton's rebuttal, which seems reasonable. There is no suggestion that there are errors of fact within the article, only that the subject disputes statements made by another individual, which we report accurately and with attribution. There is no suggestion that our reporting of the dispute is inaccurate, the subject's issue appears to be with the statements made by a notable individual on a shared field of expertise (or at least a field in which both appear to be considered qualified to comment). Issues of factual accuracy should, of course, be dealt with promptly, and we should show all due courtesy to the subject, while not compromising our editorial independence.

Above all, though, while we are not here to publicise agenda-driven reporting, Wikipedia does not exist to fix external disputes. The dispute is between Monckton and Monbiot, with the Guardian as a venue; reporting this controversy does not seem to me to be a violation of policy, and to assert that A is wrong because B says so, rather than to say (as we do) that A says X and B disputes it, would be wrong, I think. It is not a surprise that Monckton does not like what Monbiot says - he does not accept the scientific consensus on global warming, whereas Monbiot is a trenchant critic of the climate change denial industry and a long-time advocate of strong action to reduce carbon emissions. We are not here to fix this problem. As documented criticisms go, a criticism in such terms in a major national newspaper by a widely-quoted authority is, like it or not, a notable criticism.

With those facts in mind, this is not a WP:BLP issue, poses no issue of precedent requiring of ArbCom intervention, and it looks to me as if it can safely be handled as a regular content dispute unless it escalates further. The subject is in contact with OTRS, and volunteers can be trusted to remedy errors of fact promptly.

• Update: OTRS ticket moved to Legal following subject's reply. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

Suggest this case is rejected by the arbitrators and the Wikimedia Legal team are left to deal with it via OTRS, given the recent queue reclassification for the ticket JzG cites. Daniel 00:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject. Premature, and likely a content issue anyway. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Premature. I think the community can handle this content dispute and handle the user conduct issues if needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Accept in order to clarify how the principles of Wikipedia:No legal threats, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons apply to this specific case. Fred Bauder 14:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per Josh. James F. (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Piotrus

As an ArbCom clerk recently noted, "there are no enforceable remedies in that case". Setting aside the question "So what was the point of this entire case?" I would like to ask for clarification of the "Parties reminded" remedy: "All parties are reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future. Failure to do so will be looked upon harshly by the Committee, and may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions against those editors who continue to act inappropriately." What is not clear to me is what are the recommended actions if an editor, named a party in the case (or otherwise familiar with it), is behaving in a manner that I believe violates WP:CIV and related policies and creates a bad atmosphere at discussion pages. Where, if anywhere at all, can I report this, without encouraging the criticism that I am 'forum block shopping'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add to this a request for clarification.

1. All along I wanted to ask who among the editors are considered among the "parties reminded" to be viewed under the parole of the deferred punishment? Several editors who took part in the ArbCom did not have a single allegation brought against them at the workshop. Are they too on the parole?
2. Further, several editors alleged the abuse of gaming the WP:CIV as a shortcut in resolving the content disputes to one's favor. Also, along the same lines, is the devious behavior wrapped in a "civil" wrapper considered more WP:CIV compliant than an utterance of a profanity at the talk page?
3. Also, are the wikipedians allowed to maintain the laundry lists of grievances, black books and other forms of attack pages on en-wiki, other public servers of Wikimedia foundation and in the public areas of internet?

ArbCom did not make its position clear on any of this issues. And those issues are either urgent or already popping up.

I felt from the onset that the clarification on those positions are very much needed but hesitated about starting a request for clarification on that disastrous ArbCom as resurrecting unanswered question could have prompted accusations of "not letting bygones be bygones", "holding grudges", etc. But Piotrus took it upon himself to open the request anyway and since this is going to be studied I would like to add my questions to it. --Irpen 02:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To answer Irpen's question based on view of a bystander:

1. This question would coincide with one of the clarification requests that I wrote below in a way. (See the A-A 2 section below.)
2. I believe that provoking someone to violate WP:CIV should get you in trouble, since instigators rarely get out of the case scathe-free. However, users shouldn't lose their cool under any circumstances.
3. About laundry lists, there's only 1 recent case that I, as a clerk, could recall, and that would be Tobias Conradi case. I'm not sure what the norm on this is, though.

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Remedy

As the closing clerk, I noticed some interesting problems with the remedy 1 of this case. The remedy 1 puts edit supervision on the editors sanctioned in the original case, however, at least 2 editors sanctioned in the original case was not named as a party to the newer case and was surprised/shocked of the development. I'd like some input from the Committee to explain the ruling on this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, under this case, other editors who edit in a similar manner to the previously-sanctioned editors may be placed under the limitations of the original Armenia-Azerbaijan case. Do these sanctions expire one year after the editor in question is notified, or are they indefinite as no time limit is mentioned? The supervised editing remedy from the second case appears to be indefinite, as no expiration is mentioned, so my question is whether this is indeed the case and whether the other remedies are still meant to expire after a year, including on other editors brought in under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this situation requires attention from the committee. Frankly, I was always troubled by remedy number 1, which took all the users who were placed on revert parole (revert limitation) in the earlier case, and now placed them on supervised editing (which I gather is a new term for some form of probation and/or civility parole) as well. This was done despite the observation that although some of the parties to the earlier case had continued to display problematic behavior, others had done little or nothing wrong since the earlier decision, and there was no real reason to be applying additional remedies to them.

The problem is magnified if, as has been stated, some of the parties to the earlier case were not parties to the newer one. The case was such a sprawl and so many editors were listed as parties (and there was edit-warring over the list for awhile) that the clerk handling the case probably assumed that all the (unbanned) parties to the earlier case had been listed again. (From now on, I will check for things like this in every case myself.) If that didn't happen, then at a minimum anyone who was subjected to a remedy without having been notified of the case should be entitled to have the case reopened and to be heard on this issue. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. See below.

As far as the duration is concerned, "until the situation improves" is probably a good rule of thumb. I am content to leave the decision up to the enforcing administrators. Kirill 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Replying to NYB, I was also the clerk in the original A-A case. However, this case was opened anew, so I did not add the parties from the old case to the new one. I never assumed that they were listed. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, there was no reason to look for the additional parties or add them at the beginning of the case. However, when a remedy showed up on /proposed decision (or originally in an arbitrator proposal on the workshop) applicable to "all the parties to the prior decision," we should all have checked then to make sure that all of them were parties in or had all received notice of the new case. My fault as much as anyone's. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• With due respect to Kirill I think this is a non-issue and his motion is a mistake. Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that any editor who edits disruptively on the topic of "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" may be placed on civility parole, 1RR and probation by means of a warning on their talk page. The fact that some editors in the first case were not notified of the second case is easily remedied by a note on their talk page. Passing the motion below would take a small group of editors who were placed on 1RR and exempt them from the civility parole and probation that applies to every other editor on Wikipedia following an appropriate notice. Thatcher131 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • They could be placed back on the remedy, yes; but only if they edit disruptively. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; staying out of the second case does count for something, I think. Kirill 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Dren. I missed that remedy #2 still applied. Sorry. Thatcher131 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Thatcher, I had to look that word up. Clearly I have some remedial TV watching to do. More seriously, Penwhale, could you advise which users subjected to the remedy in the first case were not parties to the new case? (I ask you instead of doing the research myself as you know which users have complained to you already.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Not so much of "complaining", but TigranTheGreat and ROOB323 were the ones affected. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
          • While User:TigranTheGreat was not included in the list of the parties to the second arbcom case, many users provided evidence of his behavior which they considered to be disruptive. So he was definitely a party to the second case, and he was well aware of it as he provided evidence himself. His non-inclusion was just a mistake, because most users considered all the parties to the previous case to be parties to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one complained about ROOB323, so he should be the only one affected. Grandmaster 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Just a quick note, since contributors in the 2nd ArbCom case ended up there due to pretty much the same disruptions as those in the 1st case, would not it be simpler to just place everyone on 1RR parole? I think this would significantly reduce the reporting and decision overhead, whether something should be considered a civility violation or not. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Instantnood3

The arbitration committee has closed the above case.

Restrictions applying to Huaiwei:

• Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week. he may be blocked, for up to a year in repeat case, if he violates this restriction.
• Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation indefinitely. Any administrator may ban him from any article he disrupts, for cause.
• Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is placed on General Probation indefinitely. Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site.

The above is the shorthand restrictions placed on Huaiwei after an ArbCom case more than a year ago. Several months ago, it was found that Instantnood was not only being generally disruptive but also running farms of sockpuppets to disrupt votes/discussions and Instantnood is now permanently banned. Huaiwei hasn't been in any other kind of dispute resolution before or since the Instantnood issues.

It's clear to me that while Huaiwei was wrapped up in Instantnood's belligerence (as were a half dozen others on the periphery) it was Instantnood's wiki-stalking of Huaiwei (which continues with sockpuppets even now) that caused the problem, and not a general problem with Huaiwei as an editor. Without the instigation of a bad actor, Huaiwei is an excellent and dedicated Wikipedian who has been with the project for several years. These restrictions and potential punishments hang on him like an albatross.

I'd like ArbCom to review Huaiwei's contributions since the permanent banning of Instantnood and remove the previous restrictions.

SchmuckyTheCat

• You mean, like, the six blocks for edit warring he's received since then, most recently a month ago? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Instantnood was banned on 16 April. Huaiwei was blocked only one time after Instantnood was banned. --Kaypoh 09:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, Huaiwei has one 3rr with one user that is not Instantnood. I think the sequence of that one was, slow revert, Huaiwei realized he went over and reported it, both got blocked. He was also using the talk page to try and work out what was going on with someone belligerent.

One instance does not justify such harsh restrictions. SchmuckyTheCat

Well, that one instance is not the justification, the entire history is. I'd like to see three clean months before I support lifting the restrictions, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that in a similar situation recently, the committee voted that someone's probation from a prior case would be ended if he remained out of trouble for a specific period of time. That might work here. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm nowhere near a neutral party here (too many underlying reasons), but I second what NYB says. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: See motion in arbitrator voting section, below. Newyorkbrad 05:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

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

Huaiwei

Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: See also the discussion in #Instantnood3 above.

I move that the restrictions, now over a year old, from the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3 case on editor Huaiwei be lifted. While Huaiwei appears to have been involved in some edit wars and has received a number of 3RR blocks, I do not believe that the probation and limits on participation remain relevant at this point.

As there are presently 10 active Arbitrators, and one who has voted but is now away, a majority is 6.

Support:

1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Paul August ☎ 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Kirill 17:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
5. He hasn't received a block since late June. Mackensen (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
6. I'm willing to lift it at the end of September, barring any problems between now and then. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. First, I would like to see a clean block record for at least 3 months and no evidence of edit warring. FloNight 11:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose, per FloNight. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Fred Bauder 13:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Try again in a few months. - SimonP 14:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. As I suggested above, I'd like to see a bit more time. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Extension of remedies in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Those parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan who were not named as parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and were not given notice of the proceedings are exempted from the extension of existing remedies imposed by Remedy #1 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. They remain subject to Remedy #2.

See also discussion above. As there are currently 11 active Arbitrators, the majority is 6.

Support:

1. We messed up here. Kirill 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. There is a defect in noticing everyone in, but the remedy should properly apply to everyone. Fred Bauder 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Abstain:

Archives

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