Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

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
Mzajac	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Prem Rawat 2

Initiated by Durova^Charge! at 08:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Rumiton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jayen466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Francis Schonken[1]
• Will Beback[2]
• Rumiton[3]
• Momento[4]
• Jayen466[5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat
• Last summer's mediation
• Content RFC[6][7]
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat-Balyogeshwar

Statement by Durova

Since the last arbitration there have been seven arbitration enforcement threads about this dispute,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14] three of which occurred after New Year's. The administrator who closed the most recent AE thread referred matters to arbitration. There was a content RFC within the last month, a mediation last summer, and a new mediation has been requested.

Normally we'd give time for other dispute resolution to play itself out, but this instance is unusual. Momento insists that he is being harassed by Will Beback. When a person believes they are being harassed then it is understandable that they would regard negotiation with the harasser as an inadequate solution, and instead insist upon intervention to stop the harassment. Will Beback insists he is not harassing Momento, and regards Momento's continued complaints as something like stonewalling. I specifically asked at AE whether mediation could resolve their problems and both parties to the new mediation replied that the issues exceed the scope of mediation.

Other policy issues exist such edit warring as the proper scope of BLP. People who have observed this situation for months have noted that when one page gets full protected the dispute tends to migrate to related pages. The Committee's decision last year to delegate discretionary sanctions hasn't worked. Although there's a measure of agreement that sanctions are needed, no administrator has threaded through all the conflicting arguments and made a determination. Durova^Charge! 08:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Added links to individual AE threads per John Vandenberg's request. Durova^Charge! 08:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Bainer's request, invited input from the following. Durova^Charge! 18:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Shell Kinney
• PhilKnight
• Sandstein
• Cla68 (not an admin, but very experienced)
• Jehochman

Will Beback has added Jossi as a named party. If there is is strong evidence of recent socking since Jossi's retirement then that would be appropriate; otherwise suggesting the name be removed.[15] Durova^Charge! 18:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

Arbitration is too blunt a tool for the Rawat articles. Several parties in the last arbcom case, on all sides of the debate, stated their feelings upon conclusion that the outcome did not justify the amount of time and energy invested. I'd rather see formal mediation, where specific content issues can be discussed and negotiated. Informal mediation, which was in place several months last year under Steve Crossin, proved at least partially effective. Jayen466 10:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note: The list of parties above is not complete. It should include as a minimum those Rawat editors who commented at the AE threads. Off the top of my head, people missing are Msalt (talk · contribs), Sylviecyn (talk · contribs), Nik_Wright2 (talk · contribs) and Pedrero (talk · contribs). Jayen466 11:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• I've left notes on the talk pages of the above editors. Jayen466 11:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

This dispute predates Wikipedia. There are two opposing camps: the current members and the former members. They have profound and irreconcilable differences in their views of the topic. There've been seven AE filings and numerous threads on various noticeboards since last May. The topic went through a very extensive informal mediation from June to August 2008. While that mediation effort did result in some progress, it took over 100,000 words of talk, ended with the banning of the mediator, and has been substantially undone since then. The editors at WP:AE seem unable to handle this issue anymore, writing that the most recent dispute was either too simple or too complex for AE.

Momento has accused me of harassment at least 12 times since October, but when I've asked him to provide proof he's been silent. He uses the term very broadly.[16] Momento is a single purpose editor: fewer than a dozen edits out of his last 1600 (since May 2008) have been to other topics.[17] Keeping negative material out seems to be his greatest concern.[18] I've also learned that Momento has an undisclosed conflict of interest, and that he's promoted his own writings as a source without acknowledging his authorship. Rumiton, while not quite an SPA, is primarily focused on this topic too. Together with Momento they form a tag team to promote a particular POV.

The "anti-" editors have problems of a different kind. They mostly seem to have little understanding or patience for Wikipedia and their involvement has been often marked poor behaviors. They've insulted both the subject and the "pro-" editors, have engaged in edit wars, have inserted inappropriate links, have been blocked repeatedly, and have shaken their fists at the system in frustration. As a whole, they haven't been productive or NPOV editors.

Jayen466 and I are essentially in the middle. I believe we're both trying to bring the topic towards a more neutral middle ground but it's mostly been an unproductive activity. The previous remedies haven't worked. Other dispute resolution steps have been unsuccessful (or show little chance of succeeding). It's necessary to reopen this case to find a better resolution.   Will Beback  talk  11:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• I will submit the evidence about Jossi privately to the ArbCom.   Will Beback  talk  17:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• I've removed Jossi from the list of parties, and will submit the evidence as a separate matter.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I routinely patrol WP:AE and am the one who referred this matter to arbitration. Enforcement of lengthy or complex threads risks the enforcer getting drawn into the dispute. Observers will not read a wall of text to determine whether the enforcement is proper or not. When a thread does not provide a simple answer to the question was an arbitration remedy violated? it cannot be acted on. This particular situation is too messy to be cleaned up by any single admin acting under prior findings or authorizations from the Committee. We need new, comprehensive findings of fact to establish what's been going on and who may be subject to sanctions. In particular, I would like to see all the evidence related to the alleged socking by Jossi and the alleged harassment by Will Beback. This evidence should be presented in public, the same as the accusations were. Jehochman ^Talk 18:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Momento

WillBeBack is a fiercely anti-Rawat editor and over a long period of time, he has consistently violated WP:CIV to harass me, particularly -

• Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors

Example 1: Demonstrates a long standing pattern of "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors". Here WillBeBack asks me three times if "Collier is the most reliable source available", I say "No" three times. He then misleads another editor by falsely claiming that I assert that "Collier is the most reliable source available". [19]

Example 2: Demonstrates the intensity of "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors". In the second AE complaint WillBeBack writes "Momento bears blame in this matter in that he instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable. And then he proceeded to edit war over it".[20] A check of the history shows that Cla68 is the editor who "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable" and WillBeBack's and four other editor's edit warring before I make my second edit.

Cla68 starts to alter the lead [21]

Rumiton reverts [22]

Cla68 inserts a new and undiscussed title "Lord of the Universe" into the lead [23]

I remove it [24]

WillBeBack reinserts it [25]

Rumiton removes it, [26]

Surdas reinserts it [27]

Pongostick removes it [28]

WillBeBack reinserts it [29]

Pongostick removes it [30]

Surdas reinserts it [31]

I remove it [32]

FrancisSchonken files his complaint [33]

Wowest reinserts it [34]

Anon removes it [35]

Surdas reinserts it [36]

Anon removes it [37]

MikeR reinserts it [38]

Pongostick removes it [39]

WillBeBack makes his comment that I "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable. And then he proceeded to edit war over it" [40] And repeats it again a week later, "The last edit war started with a single edit by Momento to remove the same information".[41] The obvious reality is that Cla68 was the editor "instigated changes to material that had already been discussed, was sourced, and was stable". And that Cla68, Surdas Pongostick and WillBeBack were edit warring before I made my second edit to remove undiscussed, and completely inappropriate addition.

Example 3: Demonstrates a willingness to selectively quote edit history to mislead other editors. Here WillBeBack writes I have "a pattern of misbehavior regarding this particular bit of information" [42], giving this diff [43] but fails to disclose that my edit was to remove an undiscussed three hour old addition to the lead that had been stable on this point for four years made by FrancisSchonken [44] WillBeBack provides two more reverts from me but fails to disclose that during this period FrancisSchonken continued inserting this undiscussed addition 5 times and was also reverted by another editor. [45]

Example 4: Demonstrates the harassment persists. In the third AE complaint WillBeBack wrote that the three protections in 2008 were "due to edit conflicts of which Momento was a part".[46] In fact, I was only a minor participant in one. [47]

I can provide plenty more examples of how WillBeBack but the above evidence is more than enough to prove my claim that "I am being harassed by Will Beback". And, therefore I "insist upon intervention to stop the harassment".

The only further comment I wish to make regards Sandstein's comment. This RFAR isn't about "the strong and contrary views some editors seem to have about the subject" as WillBeBack would have us believe; it's about my clear and unambiguous complaint that WillBeBack has been using "lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors" and has been doing it on such a scale as to constitute harassment. Settle this issue first and I will be more than happy to pursue Sandstein's proposition that some editors "lack the social skills or mindset necessary for productive collaboration in a consensus-based neutral encyclopedia project". I will not accept that the investigation of my complaint and the purpose of the RFAR becoming buried under a torrent of irrelevant side issues.Momento (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

As one of the admins involved in discussing and closing some of the several recent WP:AE requests with respect to this area of conflict, I comment here on Durova's invitation. Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is a WP:BLP and therefore particularly sensitive, is the subject of numerous long-running disputes. These may, as Will Beback believes, be a manifestation of the strong and contrary views some editors seem to have about the subject, but mostly, I think, they have caused disruption (edit wars, personal attacks, frivolous requests for admin intervention etc.) because many of the editors involved on either side do not have the social skills or mindset necessary for productive collaboration in a consensus-based neutral encyclopedia project. Since AE is manifestly unable to deal with the issue, I recommend that the Committee accept the case, identify said editors and issue them with lengthy topic bans.  Sandstein  21:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Jossi (talk · contribs) has not edited since January 1, 2009, should he still be listed as a party for the general case or will that be dealt with separately and privately? MBisanz ^talk 14:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

• Comment Could we have links to the seven AE threads please. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment 2, I am still considering this request, however I will recuse if any party in the previous case requests it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse. --Vassyana (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Accept to review the behaviour of all involved editors. A cursory review of these arbitration enforcement discussions seems to indicate that there are a number of parties engaged in editing the relevant article who are resistant to any form of collaboration. Normally this sort of situation might call for remedies to be amended or added to by motion, but given that this involves matters not covered by findings of fact in the first case, I don't think that would be appropriate. I think perhaps that the uninvolved admins who commented in the various enforcement discussions should also be invited to comment on this request. --bainer (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Will Beback, please submit the evidence you have collected with respect to sockpuppets to the Committee using the mailing list. Awaiting further statements before deciding on the case. Risker (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Bollywood films and plagiarism page

Initiated by Zhanzhao (talk) at 10:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Zhanzhao (talk · contribs), filing party
• Shshshsh (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1
• Shshshsh (talk · contribs) Posted 10:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[[48]] under "Plagiarism: explanation, guidance and warning." Talk:Bollywood_films_and_plagiarism under "# 17 Oldboy/Zinda and Hitch/Partners", "# 18 Clarifications for identifying plagiarism" and "# 19 Zinda is an a prime example of plagiarism"

Statement by Zhanzhao

I'd like to request arbitration on the state of the Bollywood films and plagiarism. Recently, there has been mass removal of listed movies that has been plagiarised. Previously, links and citations have been given for the reasons the movies were included, but the list was stil being removed, citing a vague WP:RS as reason. When the other party claimed 2 of the sites were not credible (without saying why, especially for iefilmi.com), alternative links were given as citations, with explanations on why I think the citations are valid. And still the list is still being removed without explaining why the new citations were not good enough.

A good example of this is for the movie Zinda which was not only identified but being sued for plagiarism [[49]] by the owners of the original Oldboy according to news releases. The Zinda article even gives a point-by-point of what was copied, and yet it is still apparently not good enough to be accepted by Shshshsh as a legitimate entry. I had specifically asked him why the movie should not appear on the list, but the only response was its removal yet again.

The other user has also resorted to unreasonable requests to make my contributions harder including:

1) Multiple threats to force me to stop what he claimed was unfair undoes,

2) Requesting that I list the new entries one entry at a time (for the whole list). Which I did.

3) Disallowing reasonable citations with a vague reason, requesting alternative citations other than the ones previously given, then later rejecting the new citations as invalid without reason yet again.

4) Repeatedly failing to elaborate why the citations are rejected.

5) Repeatedly removing the list from the page even when previous requests have been carried out (point 2 and 3)

The other party claims that the list will be removed soon as "That's the decision of established editors and admins." I don't know how credible this threat is, so am requesting an objective third party authority to step in regarding this matter. I am also doing this as the other party had threatened to take "admin action" against me, and I want to have my say in case anything happens to my account.

Thanks in advance for your help on this.

Best Regards. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to other parties

I find that some of you guys are a little too zealous and overboard in the management of this article. Case in point, the films Zinda and Partners are so obvious copies that they are already in the danger of being sued by the original owners for infringements 2 3 and yet these items are being removed from the list? How more concrete can you get with this? Websites that state the exact plot similarities 4 are not allowed, individual reviews from multiple sites are apparently are not allowed either. And yet any editor with an account is allegedly more credible than any of these sources.

I seriously beg to difer. For one, I see nowhere on the page where the 2 sites I mentioned are disallowed. For one, iefilmi.com is a website of an actual advisory board composed of film and movie professionals an journalists, and specifically states that it takes "all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by the site are objective, accurate and factual on the stated date of publication or last modification". Which unless you yourself are in the industry, holds more credibility than any mere fan or editor.

Statement by Shshshsh

Just to make it clear to you Zhanzhao, imdb, bollycat, letfilmi, akhilesh, oneindia are not reliable sources. There might have been others which I did not catch. I suggest you to read first WP:RS, that will help you understand the matter. Newspapers are most welcomed for example. Also, the sources must mention the fact that a film is plagiarised. If it says that it is a remake - it is not alleged of pagiarism. You are not the one who will "allege". Reputable sources are. Everything must be sourced, and the burden of proof is only on you, not on me. You can prove something only with using a reliable source. In this case the source you cited is ureliable.

I demand that every line be followed by an inline citation which contains a reliable source (preferably from newspapers) and which clearly states that the film was accused of plagiarism (or accuses the film itself).

Another full version reversal from your part will be considered violation of these policies and therefore a deliberate act of vandalism which most certainly may cause to your immediate block.

Statement by Dr. Blofeld

User:Shshshsh is correct to regard imdb, bollycat, letfilmi, akhilesh, oneindia as unreliable. Most editors either add POV to these Bollywood articles saying it was a "super hit" and superstar Aamir Khan etc which makes the articles dreadfully sound like a fan blog or blatantly vandalise the article or add unreferenced potentially libelous material such as "John Abraham cheated on Bipasha and she blew up his Mercedes in revenge" or "Salman Khan was one of the instigators in the 1993 Bombay bombings" etc rubbish like that so are correctly reverted. Other than this, some editors occasionally think they are adding something useful which is done in good faith but more often that not do not use ereliable sources, they often cite blogs such as those above which are against our source guidelines or just add information which is really not relevant to the article e.g "Kareena Kapoor buys her sausages with her name customised on them from Hamburg, Germany, or Preity Zinta has her socks shipped from Guinea as she loves the West Africa look", things like that. At least 95% of the time editors like Shshshsh are doing an excellent job of blocking out these bad edits and trying to maintain some level of decency in the articles, without editors such as this protecting them they would quickly degrade to a lower level. However very rarely some additions are appropriate but may require citations to back them up, so I would ask Shahid to check these out rather than being too dismissive. Most of them time I believe he does this, for example him finding citations to Bollywoods releases overseas. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/10/0/1)

• Decline. This would be best sent over to WP:RFC, as dispute resolution hasn't been tried yet. Wizardman 14:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. There is nothing here that indicates to me that the community is unable to resolve this. Please utilize the available dispute resolution options. Vassyana (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Other methods of dispute resolution, such as RfC, a third opinion request, or if necessary mediation, are in order here. I would also like to urge all editors to be mindful of our policy on biographies of living persons with respect to this material: an insufficiently supported allegation that a motion picture professional has "plagiarized" a film would be a very serious matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. I concur with my colleagues above, and would also encourage the editors to consider the biographies of living persons policy in their handling of articles about people. Risker (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - not entirely sure how valid the request is, seeing as it was posted whole by one of the parties, and later modified by the other party. But assuming both parties are happy with the statements that have been posted under their names, I am leaning to decline for now, for various reasons which I will expand on once it is clear how valid the request is. Carcharoth (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline; suitable dispute resolution methods like WP:RSN, WP:BLPN and WP:RFC have not been attempted yet.
  Note: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) has merged/redirected the page to Bollywood#Plagiarism (merge). There are plenty of sources[50] that could be used to expand this topic, however any attempt to do so should be very careful about RS/BLP/etc. The prior version of the article was accusing Welcome (film) of plagiarising Mickey Blue Eyes based on a glowing review from the BBC which says "Inspired by the Hollywood flick, Mickey Blue Eyes, Bazmee packs Welcome with slapstick humour and rib-tickling hilarious comedy throughout till the end.". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline as premature per above. Accusations of 'plagiarism' are by their nature controversial and need to be particularly well-sourced; however claims that a film is 'inspired' by another are much different. Does West Side Story plagiarise Shakespeare or is it merely inspired by it? Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline FloNight♥♥♥ 20:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. RFC would be a better course (although I think they are right that these aren't BLP-worthy reliable sources). Cool Hand Luke 23:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Clarifications and other requests

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

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
Mzajac	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision#Adequate_framing

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

In articles such as psychic, telekinesis, and so on, where the subject's very existence is heavily in dispute, it seems to me to be necessary, to adequately frame the subject, to acknowledge that in the lead sentence. For instance, you could describe it as a "purported ability", but to simply define it as what proponents say it is seems to directly imply its existence, which is a problem. However, it's been said that this Arbcom ruling means that such framing is forbidden. Can you clarify whether this ruling was meant to apply in articles about such abilities and subjects themselves, or whether it was intended to instead mean that it's usually not necessary to rehash such debates in every article? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)