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

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[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)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[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)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notified

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Sorry, arbs, I'd hoped to see the back of Piotrus 2 and its issues after all the grief it caused. However, a concern has been raised about the attempt of User:Piotrus to close an AN/3 thread in a Polish-Lithuanian dispute nominated by a Lithuanian user (User:M.K), in light of his caution in the last Arbitration hearing not to do such things (see see here). Piotrus "warning" of the Lithuanian user (with whom he has a long history of dispute) was removed from the thread by William Connelly who pointed out Piotrus' involvement, and Piotrus subsequently renewed unsubstantiated accusations against the user (repeated from ArbEnf) of "harrassing Polish users".[1] Ignoring the serious nature of accusing another established editor of nationality based harassment particularly in light of such allegations being untrue, there is absolutely nothing the patrollers of AE can actually do about this "admin intervention". Piotrus' response to the concerns show such a complete lack of self-awareness about the issues that I'd like the ArbCom to clarify to him and the community whether such action is acceptable in light of the previous caution; and to avoid future occurrences prohibit future ad hoc "Neutral admin interventions" on behalf of friends/against "enemies" at AN/3. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Tiptoety

Clarification I think (if that's the best way to classify what I have asked for in my text; change it to amend if you think that's better). Piotrus was already notified. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to William and Shell

This is a simple matter, there's no need to fight over it or dramatize it, and I'm not seeking anyone's "punishment". Piotrus attempted to intervene as admin on behalf of a friend, and "warned" a content opponent in the process. This is factual. He doesn't acknowledge this nor that anything is wrong. Again, check the AE thread, this is factual. It is thus clear evidence of a threat to process in dispute resolution, and to the safety of all users likely to be opposed by Piotrus or friends in content disputes (this is where Piotrus is right, I am seeking to protect such users). In light of the previous caution it is clearly reasonable for me to request ArbCom to use their powers to prevent a threat. It is especially reasonable in light of the new committee's pledge to reduce tolerance of potential admin abuse. M.K brought this to AE. I brought it here because I know AE can't do anything. Obviously it's not a waste of time. Arbcom can either vote to do something about it as I recommended (just a ban on intervening on AN/3 on behalf of friends), or vote not to. The posts made Shell Kinney and William Connelly hence don't make any sense in these regards. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Coren

Ah, Coren, I love you too! Maybe the argument we had a month or so ago led you to believe I am naive about Arbcom or daftly malicious or something. I'm sorry if it did, but I really don't think I am. I am fully aware that, even if I wanted to, I'd never succeed if I tried to "misuse the committee into a bludgeon in a vendetta" (you should get used to these words, as you will undoubtedly see them quoted a lot in the future). I hope, if you haven't already, you'll read through Piotrus 2 at a decent pace or at least the evidence that M.K presented on AE to see that the supposedly "tenuous possible conflict of interest" is actually clear and that the situation presented here is that the misuse stems from the context rather than the event on its own. At the very worst, I am alleging a problem exists and exercising my right to ask Arbcom to solve it. I don't think I deserve this kind of dirt thrown at me from you for doing that! It doesn't, if it means anything, bother me though. :) And even if Piotrus had killed my father as a boy and I swore thereafter to dedicate my life to revenge on Piotrus and all his family, it wouldn't detract from the problem presented, nor the fact that the problem is wikipedia's rather than mine (I still don't get where the bad-faith version of my agenda here is seriously postulated to come from?). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Radeksz' post

For the record, Piotrus and Radeksz' public assertions about their own relationship with each other, while being impressionistically contradicted by M.K's AE post, is also contradicted by this evidence of an off-wiki relationship when not so long ago Piotrus requested Radeksz' email address in Polish away over at Polish wiki where Rad only ever made two contributions. One of the snags with Piotrus 2 leading to its inertia was that while it was widely suspected much editorial manoeuvring and gamesmanship by Piotrus took place off-wiki, it could never be proved. The result is that the public distancing with users like Alden Jones and Rad which seems to have so much persuasive effect on its intended audience is believed by Piotrus' normal opponents to be orchestrated merely for "outsider" consumption (such as threads like this) which allows Piotrus to "protect" users with similar editorial inclinations without discrediting himself. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

Let's see. I became aware of the 3RR report via my watchlist, and reviewed it as it concerned an article also on my watchlist I found the report (by MK) biased (it reported only one editor of the two editors warring) and potentially misleading an admin less familiar with the incident that would review it. As I have had already reviewed it, I decided to comment. Since the case was relatively clear (two users were edit warring and on the verge of breaking 3RR), but I was familiar to a certain extent with both of them, I would have not used my admin powers to block or unblock them, but as in this case no blocks were needed (both users are in good standing and are not known to edit war often), simply an equal warning to both sides seemed sufficient (and indeed Radek has already apologized and promised to stick to the 1RR I suggest to the parties). It is my understanding that such warnings can be issued by non-admins as well, so calling my warning "an abuse of admin power" sounds rather bad faithed towards me (and please note that whatever my past interactions with both warned editors, I have treated them equally and fairly, as their infractions were equal - I have not treated one of them better and one of them worse (which would indicate a preference)). Note that decision (to warn the users and close the case) was reviewed and approved by two other admins (Shell Kinney and William M. Connolley).

What I find more disturbing is actions of both MK and Deacon. MK was not involved in the editing of an article recently (although based on a past history I'd assume it is on his watchlist) and certainly does not have a habit of reporting people to 3RR - unless they are editors who have disagreed with him in the past. Thus instead of warning the involved editors that they are approaching 3RR, he stealthily reported only one of them to 3RR (one that has in the past disagreed with him and agreed with me, and not the one that in the past has agreed with him and disagreed with me...). Further, given that he has launched at least one RfC and two ArbCom requests against me and at least one RfC against another Polish user (I am kind of losing track here...), I have doubts if his reporting me to AE is motivated by good faith - or if by desire to stick another ball of mud to my reputation (and/or to force a block of an editor he dislikes via any means possible). How to remedy that, unfortunately, I am not sure, but if a neutral body would admonish MK and advise him to concentrate on building an encyclopedia instead of discussing editors he dislikes, this would be welcome (please note that I don't go around this project criticizing Lithuanian or other editors I've disagreed with in the past, and trying to catch them on the tiniest infractions of our policies...).

Deacon's involvement in the thread, on the other hand, resembles to me very much the actions of Irpen - appearing suddenly in any thread that is criticizing my person, and criticizing me (although I'll give Deacon that he does take things further then Irpen did - Irpen, AFAIR, has never launched threads against me, he just joined them). Incidentally, the last ArbCom involving me took place when Deacon took upon himself to defend another Lithuanian editor against "my harassment", first commenting in AE cases, then intervening in them and finally launching the Piotrus 2/EE arbcom (and then ArbCom found that editor incivil, edit warring and issued remedies concerning him).

Considering that I don't go around this project complaining about Deacon, I'd appreciate if the arbcom would consider issuing a restriction (on Deacon and me, to be fair - even through as I noted I don't go around criticizing Deacon...) similar to the one on Irpen and me (6.1A), preventing us from wasting our time criticizing one another. This would do MUCH to prevent similar wikidrama from occurring in the future.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. In short: I did not use my admin powers; I issued equal warnings to two parties involved in edit warring that seems to have put an end to the ongoing edit war. For restoring stability to an article without blocking anyone I have been dragged to AE and now, here, forcing me to waste my time on wikilawyering instead of building an encyclopedia (good thing I've finished my daily DYK already, as my desire (and time...) to write another one today, which I was planning on doing, has somehow evaporated). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

PPS. Thank you, Shelly, for seeing clearly through all of the dramu :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Novickas

Well, I think I'm involved, since I made this edit to Armia Krajowa on February 4th [2], and the edit war started soon afterwards. It's really, really hard to disentangle the subsequent edits and determine if 3RR was violated there or not. But I cannot see how Piotrus' warnings to his content opponents at the AK article could NOT be interpreted as an admin acting inappropriately. You all have tools at your disposal to check his interests there. At the very least, could you ask him to stop talking about stalking - this expression has been disparaged when not referring to real-life harassment, has it not? Novickas (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tymek

Novickas writes: "how Piotrus' warnings to his content opponents"... but Piotrus warned also the other party in a dispute. Such selective omission of the facts has been common throughout last ArbCom case. So Piotrus stopped an edit war with warnings instead of blocks - I don't see anything wrong here, instead, I think he acted wisely, as a good admin should. See also my post at AE. Tymek (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney

I had just closed this on AE only to find out that Deacon brought this here as well. There's no substance to this complaint - Piotrus appropriately handled an approaching edit war with as little disruption as possible. M.K.'s report on AE reads suspiciously like sour grapes that both parties were cautioned (appropriately) instead of just the one he reported. As I suggested in closing there, M.K. and Deacon may both wish to find hobbies that do not include interacting with Piotrus; it wouldn't be amiss for the Committee to make a ruling to that affect. Shell ^babelfish 20:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley

This should be closed as a dup of AE and whoever brought this here admonished for wasting everyones time. I've commented there [3] but consider me to have said this here too if necessary William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Radeksz

I'm not sure if I even want to reply here since as William and Shell note above this is really just a waste of time. I find the amount of information that MK has gathered on me, things like when I activated my email, who sent me a Christmas card, trying to track me out on Polish wiki etc. to be, frankly, a bit creepy. Particularly since I think I've interacted with him once before if ever. When I saw the report and the subsequent discussion I had to try hard to remember who this person, who appeared to really have it in for me, was. He also misrepresents the situation in several ways. Basically MK is not only being petty, vindictive, dishonest and mean spirited but is just simply wasting other Wikipedians' time. He needs to stop. I'm gonna go back to actually working on an article now.radek (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Deacon

While I have no wish to hurt Piotrus' feelings, Deacon's mendacity prompts me to say that in fact Piotrus is not my friend. I mean, he seems like a good guy, hardworking, knowledgeable and collegial but the truth is that I really don't know him that well. Before the whole nasty Arbcom beeswax I had like two interactions with him. And then maybe a few more since then (and those in fact, in large part due to other, bad faith, editors assuming that if two Polish editors have the temerity to edit the same Poland-related article then they MUST be part of some conspiracy). So no, Deacon, the things you say are 'factual' are not 'factual' (I don't think that word means what you think it means). Yes, Deacon, you are wasting people's time.radek (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by M.K.

Well I did not expect that this issue would be presented here. I really don't have much time therefore only few comments.

I noticed on Armia Krajowa, an article which I edited previously, violation of 3RR rule by one of the parties. I reported this violation to the proper board [4].

If the neutral and uninvolved AN3 administrator would decide, that to both parties remedies should be applied regarding this case - fine. If neutral and uninvolved AN3 administrator would decide that article should be protected – fine. If neutral and uninvolved administrator would decide, that one party should be sanctioned – fine. If neutral and uninvolved administrator would decide that case is unfounded – fine. All this fine, until such actions are carried by an uninvolved - neutral in specific situation administrator. While Piotrus, in contrast, was a party of the dispute and has different relations with both parties (also he invited one of the party to that page).

Therefore, in my view, such closing of 3RR report should not be done by Piotrus, but rather by uninvolved administrator (I noted this on the 3RR board [5]), also using his status by issuing "warning" to me [6] on that board, I interpret it as neglect towards Committee's remedy - Piotrus is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent.

Taking into consideration this experience and to avoid similar developments in the future, it would be good that Arbiters clarify how we should understand and interpret - administrators' status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Cla68

This appears to me to be an attempt to bully and intimidate Piotrus. I don't know if it's a first offense or not for the editors who are doing it, but if it isn't, I suggest an enforced wiki-break for them. Cla68 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Poeticbent

The reason why the Eastern European disputes are being revived so quickly—after their hasty amendment at New Years—is because the role played initially by M.K and Deacon of Pndapetzim was not properly examined before the case was closed. I warned the ArbCom about that in my comments to Proposed Decision. These two users are the flamers who ended up getting away free, with the assumption that they are also free to do whatever they want whenever they want.

In the interest of fairness: M.K is the editor who launched (together with his political tag-team staunch-man Ghirla) RfC against Piotrus and Halibutt, and then his first ArbCom against him (that's just citing some of his most notable attempts to harass Polish editors - including me - based on anti-Polish sentiment and bad science). I already spoke about these malevolent campaigns during Eastern European disputes case which in turn was initiated by Deacon. I'm still disturbed by the fact that nothing was being done to end this game. Clearly, these users remain the most adverse elements to any sense of lasting stability in the region. --Poeticbent talk 04:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Is this a request to amend prior case, a request for appeal, or for clarification? Also, please notify Piotrus of this. Thanks. Tiptoety ^talk 19:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm going to be blunt here: what I see is a 3RR report that was closed uncontroversially and properly (and which nobody contests on its face, for that matter), and a thread on AE that attempts to rely on a tenuous possible conflict of interest to invoke sanctions according to a particularily imaginative reading of a remedy which was swiftly (and correctly) closed as unactionable. It is impossible, in this context, to see this request as little more than forum shopping; and an attempt to misuse the committee into a bludgeon in a vendetta. — Coren ^(talk) 22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• I do not see an issue with Piotrus's cautioning both users against edit-warring and warning that they were approaching 3RR, and noting on AN3 that he had done so. I think Deacon is right that perhaps Piotrus should not have formally closed the 3RR report, but the solution Piotrus engineered appears to have satisfactorily resolved the issue, and I find no need for action here. (I will note that I don't think it was necessary for Piotrus's statement in this thread to criticize Irpen. If the point is to reference the remedy preventing interaction between the two of them as a precedent, this could have been done in a different fashion.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• I mostly agree with Newyorkbrad here; it was acceptable for Piotrus to warn both users. Piotrus' closure of the AN3 report is sailing awfully close to the wind, though, as he is far and away the most frequent editor of Armia Krajowa at 343 edits, more than 3 times the edits of anyone else. Closing of an AN3 is widely considered to be an administrative action, and I strongly recommend to Piotrus that he not take administrative actions involving articles in which he is such a major and continuing contributor. That isn't just in relation to the prior arbitration committee caution, but is right out of Wikipedia:Administrators. Risker (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Per Newyorkbrad, it might have been better if Piotrus had not been the one to take the action of closing the 3RR report, but his conduct once he had decided to do so was unimpeachable: fair, impartial and wise. This request looks suspiciously like forum-shopping. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

---