Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/2/0
[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
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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Free Republic

Initiated by Prodego talk at 20:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

BenBurch
Fairness And Accuracy For All
DeanHinnen

Comment

I suggest that this RfA be shelved or rejected pending the outcome of a Proposed_community_ban which was already in active discussion when this RfA was filed. Prodego means well, but I believe he was unaware that other remedies had already been proposed and were being actively debated. - FAAFA 00:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn : The two can run concurrently. - FAAFA 00:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Request for Comment by Dino regarding the conduct of BenBurch. This RfC was deleted only because the second user to certify the dispute, Tbeatty, failed to provide proof that he had previously attempted to resolve the dispute; RfC was never decided on its own merits.
  • Note that this RfC was first certified by proxy by a banned user, then by a now-blocked puppet of the banned user with no significant edit history whatsoever, and only then (and in response to extensive canvassing) by one more editor who had not actually tried to resolve the dispute. Essentially of course, it was struck out as vexatious following a discussion on the admin noticeboard. Leaving aside Hinnen's conflict of interest, his attempt to portray this as a problem of one editor is a gross misrepresentation of the dispute. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Copied from RfM[reply]

Statement by Prodego

These parties have been constantly arguing over the content of the article Free Republic, each inserting their own version of WP:NPOV. On the one side, FAAFA and Ben are allegedly anti-Free Republic, while DeanHinnen, who claims to work for Free Republic, is pro-FR. After an initial revert war, there has been a constant bickering on the article's talk page over sources, including a call that was made to a Wikimedia employee, Carolyn Doran, by someone who was allegedly the author of the source, TJ Walker, saying that the story was fake. However, later evidence, the article appearing on an official list of articles written by Walker. The dispute originally started between BryanFromPalatine and Ben/FAAFA, and Bryan was blocked for disruption (by me). He has since been indefinitely blocked for using sockpuppets to evade his block. Now a new user, Dean Hinnen, who uses the same IP as Bryan [1], and claims to be his brother, has taken that point of view. He alleges that Ben and FAFFA are Democratic Underground members, and that they are adding an anti-FR point of view to the article. Hinnen's first edit was to Free Republic, and was immediately blocked (again by me) as a sockpuppet of Bryan's. However, he was unblocked after discussion on unblock-en-l. He is not currently editing the article, and thus avoiding WP:COI. While Dean could be blocked for meatpuppetry, a binding decision needs to be made on the article and on the conduct of these users. This is not a one sided problem, both sides of this debate have valid complaints. In addition to Dean's problems, FAAFA has contacted APJ, which has involved their legal department in Dean's allegation that their article is fake (or plagiarism). BenBurch has been attacking Dean on the article's talk page. This situation needs to be resolved, before it continues to escalate. Prodego talk 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Picaroon

I endorse Prodego's words. Although this may seem like a content dispute, it goes far beyond that. With BenBurch and FAAFA on one side and Bryan and his multitudinous sockpuppets on the other (I make no secret of the fact that I think DeanHinnen is Bryan's sockpuppet, regardless of the fact that he's tricked some into believing him a meatpuppet instead) this war has been going on since at least November. The article is a mess, Foundation personnel have become involved, and at least one external (non-Wikimedia) party has been drawn in. The parties are downright hostile to eachother, and the pots and kettles are both the color of coal; I'd go so far as to class one of them as one Wikipedia's top most disruptive not-yet-banned users.

The arbcom needs to step in to (a) determine if bans are needed for the other disputants, (b) determine if Hinnen is BryanFromPalatine evading his community ban, and (c) ratify Bryan's community ban. Article probation would be almost an after-thought, but it is probably a good idea too. Among the policies violated at one time or another by the aforementioned parties are WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, WP:CIV, WP:NLT, and WP:NPA. Picaroon 22:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BenBurch

A number of people including several admins have prevailed upon me to stay here, and I will. But if I am less active than usual, please understand. OK? --BenBurch 04:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I rejected mediation as I promised to have nothing whatsoever to do with the Free Republic article, and in fact have recused myself from that article, so could not agree to anything in mediation as I will not be touching that article again.
  2. I have no objection (and have said so repeatedly) with working with ONE copy of BryanFromPalatine, but I object very strongly to block evading and consensus busting sock puppets. He *might* simply be Brian's brother, but if so he only showed up to take up his brother's agenda basically word-for-word. I do wish he would moderate his tone and stop wikilawyering every point that seems to go against his wishes, but I stand ready to work with him in a constructive fashion. (Though I will not be doing so on Free Republic due to my recusal.)
  3. I apologize for being un-civil in my dealings with DeanHinnen, this stems from my conviction that he was there only in evasion of a block and my reaction to his uncivil and threatening tone. I should simply have ignored him, and it is to my own weakness that I did not.
  4. DeanHinnen appears to have manipulated an employee of Wikimedia Foundation into taking action on his behalf with complete falsehoods. He asserted that TJ Walker did not write a piece he did in fact write, he asserted that the piece was libelous when it was not as no true story is libelous no matter how damaging it might be to one's reputation, he claimed to have spoken with TJ Walker, which appears to not have been possible given that he would have Walker denying authorship of a piece we can prove he wrote and published, he claimed to have intimidated American Politics Journal into removing the piece from their web site when the fact is that they were migrating to a content management system and it is taking time to get the older articles back online, all of which he used to argue for removal of sourced and true material that the majority of editors of the Free Republic article had agreed should remain.
  5. Both DeanHinnen and BryanFromPalatine have an identical reaction to not getting their way; They become abusive, threatening, begin wikilawyering, make the edits against consensus, and if none of that works, bring in sock puppets to create the illusion of a change in consensus. This must stop.
  6. I ask for censure for DeanHinnen for his false accusation of felony harassment against me in the recent ANI proceeding; [1]

(And I should note that, thanks to the en-unblock-l list I've known his work address and phone for weeks now, and I have not bothered him or his employer - and never would.)

7. I urge the arbitrators to take this case. If I'm found at fault I'll take my lumps. But this matter needs a resolution for the good of this project. --BenBurch 16:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by peripherally involved Durova

I heartily support arbitration of this complicated mess. Not long ago I proposed initiating this request myself. Despite improvements in the article, the surrounding dispute is troubling - so much so that I declined Ben Burch's request to investigate it. One of the elements the committee could help resolve that I cannot is the appropriate scope of action by WikiMedia Foundation employees: one removed a referenced statement from the article along with the reference without declaring the edit to be an office action. I consider it likely that disputants at this page had contacted that employee to claim the citation was a hoax. The dispute itself, which defies all effort at resolution, appears to have originated at a different website. This exceeds my abilities as an independent gumshoe. If I did get to the bottom of things I wouldn't be able to fix the problems. Maybe the Committee can. DurovaCharge! 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by peripherally involved Merzbow

I myself am extremely curious to know who exactly was the source of the call to the Wikimedia foundation. If it was not in fact Mr. Walker, or his representative, then I think we deserve to know that somebody has been manipulating the system in a possibly illegal way to influence article content. - Merzbow 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fairness And Accuracy For All

(refactored) I will readily admit that I have displayed a distinct lack of good faith, good will and civility towards Dean Hinnen. The question is why - and was it justified. I contend that I can categorically prove yes - my conduct was not only justified but entirely appropriate. Underlying issues are if the conclusive evidence showing that Hinnen had been blatantly dishonest from day one, and had acted far outside the bounds of acceptable user conduct by coercing a WMF employee to edit on his behalf through misrepresentation, deceit, and duplicity, along with implied and/or overt threats of legal action, justified my suspension of AGF towards Hinnen, as permissible under AGF. I assert that it did. I urge Arbcom to accept this case and I am so positive that Hinnen's claim that TJ Walker 'admitted' to him that 'he didn't write' his 1999 article - the claim that is responsible for this whole sordid mess (see below) is a fabrication - that If I am wrong, I ask and implore (I would write 'demand' but understand that demands aren't too popular with you guys and gals ;-) that Arbcom permaban me.

Hinnen's very first edit (Jan. 15 edit #1) was to the Free Republic article discussion page announcing that he had coerced WMF employee Carolyn Doran (not an active editor - not a lawyer - and I presume not an expert on WP) to edit on his behalf, to his POV, after claiming that he (Hinnen) had contacted noted and notable author, pundit, and media coach TJ Walker (CBS and National Review and TJ's Insights) who supposedly 'admitted' to Hinnen that he 'did not write' his 1999 article entitled Is the FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com? ( webarchive of article - well worth reading) Hinnen claimed (in his very first edit): "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." (quotation marks Hinnen's) and raised the spectre of a possible libel suit against Wikipedia if she didn't.

See my evidence page for more evidence

Statement by DeanHinnen

There will be an effort by admins and a temptation on the part of Arbitrators to say, "A pox on both your houses" and ban all three of us. I encourage you to resist this temptation and look past the spin-doctoring by others. Look at the facts.

Please forgive the length of this post. There has been so much distortion by others that a lot of words are needed to clarify the facts. Also, there's the inexcusable escalation to WP:STALK that others have carefully tiptoed around, hoping you won't notice.

Please be patient. There's a lot of ground to cover.

Regarding the contacts to TJ Walker's office and WMF, there has been no effort at dispute resolution by anyone. For that reason alone, this issue should not be considered by ArbCom until the proper dispute resolution proceedings have been followed. Also, it's a complex issue; WP:OFFICE can be expected to take adequate care of itself; and there are a lot of other issues to cover that have been exhaustively discussed at several levels of dispute resolution. BenBurch and FAAFA should not be rewarded for refusing to participate in dispute resolution on this issue. Nevertheless, I'm prepared to bring in Carolyn Doran, Chief Operating Officer of WMF, if ArbCom feels like exploring this issue. Carolyn and I had developed a good professional relationship even before my first edit here.

Regarding the sockpuppet claim that others just keep trying to resurrect, despite the fact that it was cremated by the truth weeks ago, read this: “Not a sockpuppet.” I was called a "paragon of civility" at Unblock-en-l. I revealed a substantial amount of personal information to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that I am not a sockpuppet. In addition to private information made public on Unblock-en-l, I also e-mailed other personal information to some of the admins because I didn't want to make it public.

This started as a content dispute with episodes of edit warring and incivility on one article. Normally it would merit warnings and 24-hour blocks. In response to WP:COI concerns, everyone's attention is cordially directed to the fact I've voluntarily refrained from editing the Free Republic article. This was self-imposed. I did impose it on myself in response to expectations at Unblock-en-l that I'd have to avoid the appearance of being a sockpuppet. But I suggested this specific limitation. It was not suggested by anyone else. I was to be allowed to continue to participate on the Talk page, attempting to convince others to remove a link to an article I find libelous, and no other restrictions were placed on my participation: such as dispute resolution against people who have relentlessly baited Bryan, or editing other articles. Unblock-en-l immediately and unanimously accepted this one limitation as the way to avoid even the appearance of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet.

If only the others involved in this dispute were as proactive in dealing with their own obvious COI problems. And if we are going to have such processes then other editors and especially administrators, for God's sake, should be expected to accept the results unless strong new evidence comes to light. Otherwise the result is constant warfare as you can see. I should have been able to rely on this decision by Unblock-en-l to protect me, and rely on administrators to accept it and enforce it, because I have adhered to that self-imposed limitation to the letter.

When it comes to libel, I'm not going to compromise or back down. Nor should I be expected to do so. The Siegenthaler case should be remembered here. It didn't just cost Wikipedia attorney fees; even more important, it damaged Wikipedia's reputation. My interests here are to protect Wikipedia from civil liability and further loss of reputation, first and foremost; second, to ensure that WP:BLP and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight are obeyed; and third, to turn bad articles into Good Articles and, hopefully, Featured Articles.

As I said at Unblock-en-l, I recognize that Free Republic, and other conservative organizations and politicians, have their share of warts and blemishes. I do not want to whitewash them despite accusations to the contrary by others. I want fair and balanced articles about them. However, others want to put the warts and blemishes under a microscope. They want to make Wikipedia articles all about the warts and blemishes of conservative organizations and politicians. Compare January 14 versions of Free Republic and Democratic Underground, for example; or February 5 versions of Peter Roskam and Melissa Bean.

I tried RfM. BenBurch almost immediately refused, stating at the time that since he was taking a two-week break from the Free Republic article, he didn't want mediation; ignoring the inevitability of his later resumption of this conflict, either at that article or elsewhere. (Eventually he went out of his way to be sure that the conflict was resumed.)

Later, on the advice of JzG, for a few days I stayed away from the Free Republic article. The libelous material I was concerned about had recently been removed. The Talk page had been the scene of many arguments, and a lot of baiting and badgering by BenBurch and FAAFA. JzG also warned the two of them, in the strongest possible terms, to leave me alone. I thought that moving to a different article would make a difference.

They abandoned that article and followed me to the Peter Roskam article, where their baiting and badgering continued unabated, directed at myself and at others. This escalated the situation from a case of content dispute and incivility to a case of Wikistalking. The Wikipedia policy page contains precedents decided by ArbCom and administrators should have followed them, imposing either one-year blocks or permanent bans against these two at WP:ANI.

That would have been the end of it. I don't have much of a problem with any other editor, certainly nothing that couldn't have been worked out. JzG deliberately refused to enforce the official policy and ArbCom precedents contained in WP:STALK, going so far as to post an animated GIF that represented me beating a dead horse.

I had disengaged. They had followed. I gave them warnings and cited WP:STALK. They ignored my warnings and said, "Bring it on!" Just as they have ignored so many, many previous warnings. Since there are two of them and only one of me, the effect of their constant baiting and harassment has been increased exponentially. I'm not responsible for this escalation, and attempted to remain civil. The deliberate defiance of WP:STALK couldn't be more obvious, and yet JzG and others refused to enforce your policy. And here, they continue to refuse any acknowledgement that WP:STALK has been violated.

The archives of FAAFA's Talk page are wallpapered with warnings, and he's recently returned from a 24-hour block for incivility. The same can be said for BenBurch with the distinction that he returned from his 24-hour block for incivility about ten days ago. BenBurch admits that his purpose for stalking me was to bait me into incivility: "I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him." Unbelievably, even after the community solution from WP:ANI, FAAFA continued his baiting.

Despite my efforts I have not always responded to their relentless baiting and intractable POV pushing with complete civility. I've made mistakes in the past and I apologize for those mistakes. I accept responsibility for my actions. Over the past three days I've redoubled my efforts to remain civil despite their baiting. I believe my contrib history confirms this. But as my conduct improved, theirs grew worse. They escalated from a content dispute with moments of incivility to Wikistalking.

Also, they have exhibited a combative disposition and engaged in POV pushing since long before anyone resembling me ever arrived here. Nobody should be allowed to pretend that I am responsible for provoking this conduct. After all, BenBurch got a 24-hour block for "edit warring on Free Republic" in January 2006; and FAAFA (in his previous guise as NBGPWS) was repeatedly blocked. When I arrived, the Free Republic article was a partisan hatchet job.

I ask the arbitrators to recognize the recent improvement in my conduct and my effort to disengage, and the continued escalation of this dispute by FAAFA and BenBurch in refusing to allow me to disengage. The exponential increase in the level of harassment and intimidation in a two-against-one dispute, and in brazen defiance of official WP:STALK policy as expressed by "Bring it on!" should also be considered. Dino 12:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by frustrated Daniel.Bryant

This is a case ArbCom has to accept. At one stage around a fortnight ago, there was seven threads on AN/ANI, most retaliatory to other threads, by these four users.

If that wasn't bad enough, the absolute plethora of retalation in the form of Checkuser requests sums it up nicely.

The constant harrasment by both parties against one another via both AN(I) and RFCU is staggering. I urge ArbCom to accept this, possibly even in a speedily manner. Daniel.Bryant 05:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by peripherally involved Physicq210

Running the risk of rehashing all the above arguments by bystander editors, I urge ArbCom to accept this case. Throughout the past few months, this dispute has turned from a simple conflict into a full-fledged clash of philosophies, complete with spurious accusations, biting incivility, retaliatory complaints, and general disturbance of the community at large. Pleas for restraint by many users on the various noticeboards and similar channels of discussion towards these three (or four) seem to be of no avail, as they seem bent on gaining the upper hand in the dispute, inappropriateness of mode(s) notwithstanding. WP:ANI threads regarding this topic have become more like exasperating eyesores than incident reports as time passed, with the same arguments recycled and regurgitated again and again, with similar results (in other words, nothing). As the three or four seem to be unable to stop, calm down, and withdraw themselves away from this topic, and the community has been constantly rebuffed in its attempts to mediate the dispute, only ArbCom can bring this tragic episode to an end once and for all. --210physicq (c) 07:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:JzG

We've tried telling them to leave each other alone, we've tried telling them not to edit the article, we've tried speedily closing their vexatious processes, and they carry on. It's an off-Wiki fight brought to Wikipedia. BryanFromPalatine was the worst offender, and DeanHinnen has already posted by proxy on his behalf into Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenBurch. We also have the deleted BenBurch, another attempt at vexatious process.

All three have emailed me off list (and presumably others as well). BenBurch and FAAFA have been less overt about soliciting actions against Hinnen than vice-versa, and less assertive, cf. "there is an RfC, can you help" versus "foo is edit-warring". I am also bound to point out that BenBurch's response to being told to butt out is generally "sorry, will do" (see above and the recent thread on WP:ANI [2], whereas Hinnen's is reliably to start arguing how the problem is actually the other two. This may simply reflect the fact that FAAFA and BenBurch have been around a bit longer and know that "but it was him!" does not work well with the parent of two pre-teen sons; I have heard it all before.

What follows is strictly opinion: BenBurch and FAAFA seem somewhat more open to the idea of pulling back, but this may be because in general they have the upper hand. One thing's for sure: it's not going to end without enforceable sanctions. DeanHinnen is not quite right that we are likely to block all three, since the other two seem to have some history of non-disruptive edits, whereas all of the Hinnen brothers' edits appear to be to political subjects and to reflect their highly partisan views (although again neither side is innocent of this).

DeanHinnen's relentless Wikilawyering and pursuit of his vendetta against BenBurch and FAAFA is a large part of the problem. It is clear that he has made it his business to hound them off the project one way or another. Most of his statement above shows precisely this agenda: he wants rid of them because he hates their edits to Free Republic, a site to which he has a known and significant connection. I see absolutely no evidence at any point that Hinnen is prepared to work for compromise, only towards getting rid of BenBurch and FAAFA. They, in their turn, gleefully provoked Bryan into self-destruction (in which he proved a willing participant) and seem to be looking forward to doing the same with Dean.

Ben's statement above is representative of his tone in my dealings with him. In fact, all three are representative: Ben is saying he'll leave well alone, FAAFA describes the dispute showing Hinnen in a bad light, and Hinnen asserts that it's everybody else's fault while continuing to beat the long-dead horse of the sockpuppet case. Cards on the table: I don't really believe him either. A brand new user, at the same IP, piling into the same disputes with the same viewpoint and the same agenda, with zero overlap, and where the supposed brother is a known sockpuppeteer? Maybe it is a different person, but for all the difference we can see it might as well not be.

Guy (Help!) 16:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tbeatty

FAAFA has a long history of tendentious editing, personal attacks and general disruption. He has recently paired up with User:BenBurch and hounded other editors off articles. DeanHinnen and BryanFromPalatine are recent newcomers who have been relentessly hounded by BenBurch and FAAFA. BryanFromPalatine acted inappropriately by using sockpuppets. The others have tag teamed to bully the newcomer and bait him. I certified the first RfC because the focus of FAAFA and BenBurch was on trying to stop BryanFromPalatine and later DeanHinnens voice be heard about complaints they had about editing practices of the two tendentious editors. They have a valid complaint. There are other editors who have interacted with these two that can provide evidence. FAAFA (formerly User:NBGPWS) has a long history of edit warring and POV pushing. BenBurch has a long history of conflict but also generally adheres to the rules. From what I've seen, the following actions would improve the project but this needs to come from arbcom and I urge you to accept the case. User:BenBurch is on revert parole for political articles and biographies for 1 year. User:NBGPWS/FAAFA is banned from political articles and biographies. User:DeanHinnen is banned from editng Free Republic.

--Tbeatty 23:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement of Tbeatty's comments by Uninvolved Observer Blaxthos

I've been watching the theatrics since sometime in December, and until now have resisted involvement. Tbeatty has given a concise version of events, but I think he has downplayed the amount of disruptive behavior that has occured over the last few months. Admins have shown considerable restraint towards at least one user (with two usernames), having only blocked him a handful of times for incivility, personal attacks, and violating WP:3RR. I support an ArbCom review of all the editors' conduct -- people still need to be reminded of standards of conduct we expect of our editors. /Blaxthos 23:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by peripherally involved User:Grand Slam 7

My only involvement in this case has been one comment at WP:AN/I#Proposed community ban, and I was not aware of the dispute until the start of that thread. However, I would like to join with many of the users above in urging the ArbCom to accept this case. From reading the previous AN/I discussions, it seems clear that they will not stop pursuing vexatious processes against one another until official action is taken.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 14:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Yamla

I am the person who unblocked DeanHinnen after discussion on unblock-en-l. These discussions are public. I stand by my statements that Dean was very civil in his discussions on unblock-en-l. I make no claim as to Dean's civility or that of the other involved members on the Wikipedia itself. We unblocked Dean because of a good-faith assumption that the evidence he presented lead reasonably to the assumption that he is the brother of BryanFromPalistine. This is not certain but it seemed to be appropriate to come to this conclusion. unblock-en-l investigates only whether to unblock someone and specifically makes no attempt to resolve conflicts such as this. Additionally, we are a very small subset of administrators and so do not reflect Wikipedia consensus or even admin consensus generally. I would not consider it inappropriate for my unblock to be overturned if that is the conclusion of this arbitration. I state for the record that my opinion is that this conflict will not be resolved without arbitration, that this is not a simple content dispute, and that the conflict has escalated to a significant and annoying level. --Yamla 14:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Lar

I was also involved in the unblock discussions on unblock-en-l and advocated that Dean be unblocked (based on the narrow case presented that he was not a sockpuppet, which was demonstrated to my satisfaction, including by emails to and from me via a work address). Yamla has it just right, he was civil there, unfailingly so, but our decision was a narrow one, not a overall vindication of anything. Dean has, in my view, in some places, acted like he was vindicated in everything because we decided that it was likely he was not a sockpuppet. Subsequent to the unblock I was among the people that warned, counseled, and advised Dean, [3], [4], [5], [6] ... multiple times, that he needed to change his approach. It was my intent to have no further involvement, but I have had some talk page traffic advocating and restating that claim is the last, and some email correspondence from Dean, FAAFA and others (which I will not share publicly without permission, but will make available to ArbCom members on request, but it was garden variety advocacy that I get involved, or advocacy of the rightness or wrongness of the position of various other participants). I had hoped that this matter was not going to come to ArbCom, that community efforts, up to and including the comprehensive set of restrictions referenced by JzG and others, would suffice, and I was intending to advocate that the case be rejected, and the community deal with this. I'm still hopeful that perhaps that would work, and since they seem to be running concurrently, perhaps a go slow approach is called for here, the community may yet deal with this... ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jossi

I offered and attempted to act as an informal mediator during December 2006 (See Talk:Free_Republic/Archive4#Informal_mediation.) We had a good start and an initial agreement from involved editors to improve a Talk:Free_Republic/Archive5#Compromise_version, but very quickly it degenerated into a battleground in which everything was fair game, including abusive sockpuppetry, focus on editors viewpoints rather than the improvement of the article, and a total mess of intrigues and attempts to game the system. ArbCom intervention to assess editors' behavior would be most beneficial. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Accept. FloNight 12:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to investigate conflict of interest, skullduggery and anything else that comes to light. One thing we don't need to be here is a perch for migrating Internet quarrels. Charles Matthews

Trödel–TheGreenFaerae

Initiated by TheGreenFaerae at 10:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[7] [8] [9] [10]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tr%C3%B6del/Archive_9&oldid=99280527 User talk

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGreenFaerae&oldid=99276121

Statement by TheGreenFaerae

I filed an RfA for Val42 a short while ago, and Trödel said that my lack of a substantial history would be an obstacle. I asked him to cite his sources, and he viewed it as a waste of his time. He subsequently banned me from posting any comment on his talk page, as he wrote it off as trolling, and threatened to ban me. I filed an ANI which he responded to by continuing his threats, justifying them by saying I could email him, which he has subsequently forbid me to do, and he began using my edit history as his personal to do list, making sure he agrees with every edit I have ever done. I thought we had agreed, as he agreed to according to his comments, that he would leave my edit history alone, and we would stay way from each other. I took a break from editing, and when I returned, I made two simple edits, one of which was immediately reviewed by Trödel. While this edit was not a deletion, it showed that he was not abiding by the agreement to stay out of my edit history, and I contacted him. He told me that any further comments would be viewed as trolling, and I responded that, as his vulturish watching of my edit history was a disruption, and as such I viewed it as trolling, and I would take action, just as he would against me. He then blocked me for threatening him, and set up an auto block process that lasted until after his expiration. This was an illegitimate use of admin privileges, and he is abusing his admin powers to try to bully me out of Wikipedia. While I disagreed, I was willing to concede that I may not have been polite as I could have been, and I may have taken his initial comment that I was not fit to RfA a little personally, but his subsequent actions have no excuse. I filed an RfC to try to resolve the situation, which, as Trodel had blocked my email addresses, and banned me from posting on his talk page, I was unable to inform him of. He was informed through another user, and he refused to respond, calling it an attempt to waste his time. Only after several Wikipedians chimed in, not totally supporting me, but generally agreeing that he did do something wrong, did he finally respond. His response, I should note, was not endorsed by the majority of commentators. As many of them were not really personally involved, just offering their opinion, I will only list the users that contributed significantly to the process. The RfC reached the point, between Jan 27 and Feb 1, that Val42 offered up a more than fair compromise to try to resolve the issues. I accepted the compromise, which the community consensus agreed was fair, and I thought the issue would be finished. However, tonight, I found that Trodel had once again been wikistalking me, editing an article I recently contributed to, which there was no possible way he would have just happened upon, unless it was out of my edit history. His abuse of blocking powers, I feel was addressed to some degree already, and he agreed not to block me himself again, but he refused to stop wikistalking me, that is, using my edit history as his personal to-do list. I feel that a request for mediation obviously would not work, since both parties would have to agree to it, and Trodel has a history of refusing to agree to things he feels are a "waste of his time." I've tried to walk away form the problem, but Trodel will not stop wikistalking me, and as such, I feel this is the only recourse we have left. I would like to make it clear that the issue to arbitrate on is not on the entire history of our dispute, simply on a resolution. I feel the RfC already dealt with the history of the dispute sufficiently, and I wouldn't want to waste your time going over a case that has already been presented and commented on. Your assistance is simply needed in resolving the conflict. In short, here are the charges I am bringing against Trödel:

  1. Administrator abuse
    Trödel has blocked me for a threat, which he has not proved to be genuine, and has threatened me with blocks for any attempts to contact him.
  2. Bullying
    Threatening someone, blocking someone without legitimate grounds to do so, etc. is tantamount to nothing less than bullying.
  3. Trolling
    As defined by Wikipedia, Misuse of process, i.e. his abuse of the blocking process as a threat, and They are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias., which I believe Trödel was when eh decided he had to "review" all of my edits because he decided I was a bad wikipedian.
  4. WP:NPA
    He regularly refers to me as a troll, not simply because he believes I make statements that he views as inflammatory, but he says I am a troll because I go through the dispute resolution process, and that makes me a troll because it is a waste of everyone’s time.
  5. WP:STALK
    Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking
    He is constantly editing articles that, upon observation of his own edit history, are out of character for him to be viewing. The only possible reason he could be making these edits is because he is wikistalking me by pulling them out of my edit history.
  6. Threats
    Block threats for contacting him about anything.
  7. Targeted personal attacks
    His egregious misuse of the word troll with regards to me.

Comment by Chacor

An RFC is still underway, and I'd advise the ArbCom to decline hearing this case for now. It's a bit premature, especially when the RFC has had activity in the past week. – Chacor 13:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my belief that, while we have reached some sort of consensus with the RfC, Trodel is refusing to cooperate, and as such, i filed this RfA simply as a way to enforce the consensus that the RfC has come to, i.e. Val42's agreement. Trodel will not even stop his activity for the RfC to run it's course, and he seems to be ignoring it for the most part. What further goals can the RfC accomplish if Trodel dismisses attempts to negotiate as rediclous? At what point do you consider an RfC closed, exactly?TheGreenFaerae 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Viridae

Having not been involved in RfArb before I'm not sure if I am allowed to do this, but rest assured I will make my statement when I find the time. Thanks, ViridaeTalk 11:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Decline, for the moment as premature. I will be very interested to see what happens at the associated RfC. If that RfC fails to resolve this issue, then I will strongly consider changing to accept. Paul August ☎ 17:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, premature. Strongly suggest filer withdraw this until RfC has run its course. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as premature, per Paul August, but without prejudice for future acceptance should the need arise. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Raul654 02:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Request for clarification on undeleted Marsden-Donnelly harassment case

Marsden-Donnelly harassment case has been undeleted after a DRV here. Rachel Marsden remains a stub. Given that the Arbcom found regarding the Rachel Marsden articles that it was "Better nothing than a hatchet job" and that the interpretation of WP:BLP which resulted in the previous state of affairs was "liberal" to the point that two named editors were "expected to conform to WP:BLP rather than the liberal interpretation they have applied", does the Arbcom consider it acceptable due weight that we have over 1,000 words on an incident involving Rachel Marsden before she achieved personal notability as a journalist and commentator (with a further 1,000 words on the incident cut after restoration but remaining in the history to be put back in at any time), and less than 200 words on the rest of her life? --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I second this. It disturbs me that the coverage of this case is almost exclusively sensationalist rather than scholarly. It's not a test case, and if it weren't for the political agenda of attacking the subject it would possibly merit a short paragraph in a generic article on university administration procedures. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the framing in the question, which starts from the assumption that this controversy is primarily an incident in RM's life. Our regular editors of Canadian topics seem to be of a clear consensus that the notability of the controversy is independent of what later happend in RM's life, and it would be notable even if she had vanished from the public eye thereafter. Some have, though I don't opine on whether the group would agree, even gone so far as to describe RM as a figure of dubious independent notability in a controverst on unquestionable notability, and thus would frame the question more in the form "Is it worth having a stub on a figure of no great notability if it prevents coverage of an indicident that of unquestionable notability." My personal opinion is that both framings are important ways to look at the question, and neither framing is correct in the absence of the other. GRBerry 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • GRBerry's comment is a good one, and it explains much of the feeling I had that I am not only in a different country from the other camp, but in another universe as well. I had no idea that Rachel Marsden was involved in politics or journalism before the Arbcom case began and I started following it. I only recognized the name from the SFU fiasco. Kla'quot 04:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Sam and Guy, and I'm concerned that GRBerry overrode the deletion review, in which most of those commenting wanted to keep the article deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I missed the vote, so let me support Sam's sentiment here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The DRV close included relisting at AFD. If deleting is clearly correct, why is nobody bothering to contribute to the AFD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRBerry (talk • contribs)
  • Clearly, some sort of clarification is needed. However, if people on different sides of this ask questions separately, they are likely to be loaded ones. Perhaps one of the ArbCom members or one of the more experienced MedCab mediators who has not participated in the ongoing conflict over Wikipedia's coverage of Rachel Marsden could work with each side to develop a short list of questions to be posed to ArbCom. The two sides seem to have different interpretations of how to apply the remedies in its decision. I don't think it's fair to say GRBerry "overrode" deletion review. Endorse or overturn requires consensus, not merely a majority. The most that could be said is that he should have waited the full ten days before sending to AfD, although it's doubtful that we could have attained consensus even after that amount of time. JChap2007 18:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • GRBerry's DRV closure was perfectly proper. The established precedent is that speedy deletions of an article after a keep consensus are considered de-facto challenges to the consensus, so the prior consensus is either upheld or overturned based on the response at DRV. The standard for overturning a previous keep decision and deleting the article outright usually requires near-unanimity, which was clearly not given here. The protocol for such cases is to pass them back to the original deletion forum. ~ trialsanderrors 04:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also to correct Sam Blanning's numbers, the article is currently at 500 words. The version that was discussed at AfD and DRV was 1,100 words long. ~ trialsanderrors 07:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attempt at partial summary. We appear to have two opposing viewpoints here, held in good faith by established users. One, which I'll call Sam's though held more broadly, is that MDHC is primarily an alternate article whose primary purpose is to disparage a marginally notable figure, Rachel Marsden, i.e. that the notability of MDHC is weak since it only derives from notability of Marsden herself. We have Kla'quot's (and others') viewpoint, that the MDHC article documents an event, notable on its own, which happens to involve a marginally notable figure. Certain people have been moving aggressively but in good faith to short circuit usual process in the firm belief that their viewpoint is correct. End of summary, personal views follow. Doubtless both sides can marshall press articles to support their view (and thus I am sure there is a right answer per WP:V and WP:BLP). By pure chance the topic came up at a small dinner I was at 2 days ago with 4 junior Canadian academics active in the legal and social sciences field. I asked whether they remembered the Marsden-Donnelly case, and none of the four recalled it. I mentioned it was the one at SFU with the swim coach, and 3 of the 4 remembered then and one volunteered that "it comes up in discussions once in a while". I said that I hadn't known one of the actors (Marsden) was a political commentator and all four expressed surprise at that fact. This informal bit of OR on my part makes me support the Kla'quot viewpoint. Martinp 14:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: The article has been substantially rewritten and retitled Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy. This change in focus satisfies most of my reservations about it. I am still not convinced it deserves an article of its own, rather than a para in a larger article, but at least it is now much more a critique of the University's processes and does not appear to either support or denigrate either party. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would this biographical stub be associated with depleted uranium?

I am prohibited from editing articles "associated" with depleted uranium, but what is and is not associated has never been defined. This has caused some difficulty, but not so much as to be insurmountable. For example, an arbitration clerk has claimed that Gulf War syndrome is associated with DU, while my erstwhile arbitration opponents insist that there is no such association.

I would like to create the following biographical stub:

John Taschner is a member of the technical staff in the Environment, Safety and Health Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory where he is involved in radiological transportation accident exercise planning. Prior to coming to Los Alamos, Taschner was Deputy Director of the US Navy's Radiological Controls Program Office in Washington, DC, and has held numerous key health physics management positions with the US Navy and Air Force. Since the 1970s, Taschner has served on several radiation protection standards committees. Since 1992, Taschner has been the Vice Chairman of the American National Standards Institute's N43 Committee, which writes radiation safety standards for non-medical radiation producing equipment. In the 1980s, Taschner received an award from the US Navy for convincing them to use tungsten instead of depleted uranium munitions in the Phalanx CIWS ship defense system.[11] Taschner has been a member of the Health Physics Society since 1958 and is a member of the American Academy of Health Physics. Taschner earned his M.S. in radiation biophysics from the University of Kansas in 1966 and, in 1973, received his certification in Health Physics by the American Board of Health Physics.[12]

My inclination is that Taschner's association with depleted uranium is not strong enough to consider his biography "associated" with DU. I respectfully request clarification from the arbitrators concerning their opinion on this question. In the event that the biography is considered associated with depleted uranium, I would request suggestions for how I should submit this request to other editors (because a non-existant article doesn't have a talk page.) If no comments are forthcomming within seven days, I will create the biographical article in the interest of making a comprehensive and accurate encyclopedia. James S. 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in comes the camels nose! Non notable biography and would not survive a Vfd as his name only brings up 79 hits in google Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taschner easily satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people) because he has made widely recognized contributions that are part of the enduring historical record in his field, and has received multiple independent awards for his work, as TDC's Google hits show (and is even more clear if you include his middle initial.) James S. 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say he's clearly "associated" with depleted uranium. The only even arguably notable sourced detail in that stub is that he received an award for his opposition to depleted uranium. My recommndation would be (1) if you wrote a stub that didn't mention depleted uranium in any respect or link to any page discussing depleted uranium, you would probably be fine; (2) if you do write about depleted uranium, then you're writing about something "associated" with depleted uranium; and (3) since your stub doesn't include reference to multiple independent non-trivial published accounts discussing Dr. Taschner, it will probably get deleted as non-notable under WP:BIO. TheronJ 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification regarding Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University edit bombing

This concerns an article under probabion in accordance with an arb com ruling of 12 Jan 2007 [13].

Some intense editing took place between 28 January 2007 and 29 January 2007. Most of the edits were made by user Some_people (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has now been banned on the grounds of being most likely a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of user banned 195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). During these 11 hours a total of about 50 edits took place about 28 of which were by user Some People. Up until that time some of us had been reverting edits by Some_People since we were quite sure that this was a sockpuppet due to the highly distinctive disruptive style, POV and bias, frequency and taunting edit comments.

During this burst of activity another editor, known to have similar views to 244, joined in the editing although perhaps not intentionally to cause trouble, TalkAbout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and one other editor who seems to be just spellchecking, Chris_the_speller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted the article 00:24 [14] and 01:06 [15]. Unfortunately, at this time more than Some People's contribution got reverted. The result of this was a stern warning by Thatcher131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that this was unacceptable [16]. The outcome of the thread is what I would like some clarification on [17]. If I am reading what Thatcher131 is saying correctly then this is how it seems to me,

  • An editor may revert edits made by a sockpuppet of a banned editor,
  • A valid edit by a non-banned editor may not be reverted even if it is on top of disruptive edits from a banned user,
  • A non-banned editor can include content from the banned editor if it meets Wikipedia's content requirements etc.

To me, this exposes a serious loophole. It seems that it is now possible for a banned user to hijack an article overnight by making a bunch of edits through an anonymous proxy and if another editor drops by and adds to it then it is signed, sealed and there is not a darn thing any other editor can do to revert it any more. This is particularly a problem given the nature of 244's edits that Thatcher131 has accurately described in the thread linked to above. I am seriously concerned that we will see the same pattern of behaviour again unless there is some way we can prevent it. Suffice to say, the events of the last 24 hours have caused some grave concern amongst the "pro" editors. We are now looking at a seriously unbalanced article and to try and separate out the valid editor's contributions from Some People's is going to be a mammoth task, if that is what we are expected to do.

I suggest that it sends a bad signal if what appears to be a banned user showing complete indifference to the arb com ruling is allowed to "get away with it" in such a blatent way. I await some clear advice on how to deal with this problem should it arise in future.

Thanks and regards, Bksimonb 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring to your attention this link as well [18] and the fact that the current article is a version of user "Some people" plus TalkAbout. User Andries had a minor participation in it. I have requested the article to be reverted to 17:30 Jan 28 2007 by Riveros11. I made this request to the current admin, Thatcher131 who so far is the only one who appers to handle/postpone our requests. Best, avyakt7 21:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not on, or anywhere near, the ArbCom, but a couple of observations. First of all, what's stopping you from going through the new edits and deciding what to keep and what to toss on the merits of the individual edits? Which exact words may or may not have originated from a banned user is clearly secondary to this. Secondly, if you have good reason to believe that an article-banned user is in fact orchestrating all this, then all legalism aside they're behaving badly and can be treated accordingly; if you need a hand, go to WP:AN/I or WP:AE depending on the seriousness of the problem and call in an admin. Following policy to the letter is not what's important. It's worth pointing out in connection with this that gaming the system - i.e. not quite violating a Wikipedia policy as written, or generally using the letter of the rules to subvert their spirit - is itself a violation of Wikipedia policy. PurplePlatypus 09:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your interest and pointing out the more appropriate places to post. I had a feeling I may have been posting in the wrong place but couldn't at the time find anywhere better. I thought at the time it was a "clarification" issue rather than a "noticeboard" issue since an admin was at the scene. I just couldn't at the time make sense of how things were panning out.
Not sure if the bit about "Wikilawyering" was directed at me or Avyakt7 but I appologise if I caused that impression. This was not intentional.
Please understand that an individual incident by itself may appear trivial when in fact it is just a tip of the iceberg to a long-running issue that may not be immediately obvious to those outside. Editors do get banned for good reason.
Since my original post above Thatcher131 has clarified things further on the article Talk page and I am now reasonably satisfied we know what to do the next time such an incident takes place, as it certainly will if recent events are anything to go by.
Thanks & regards Bksimonb 20:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification regarding Robert Prechter (and Socionomics)

Socionomics is one of the articles at issue in this Arbitration. On January 27, it was listed as being considered for deletion. I've been a contributor to the Socionomics article, though not in the period since the Committee agreed to hear this case; the other editor in this Arbitration dispute and I have both observed an unspoken "cease-fire." I do not want to break that cease-fire.

The RfD has raised issues that edits to the article could address, but I have gone no further than to make my case to "Keep." Nevertheless, the editors who have voted "Delete" seem aggressively eager to proceed, despite knowing that Socionomics is part of this Arbitration. I would greatly appreciate guidance from the Committee regarding these issues. Thank you. --Rgfolsom 16:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is an offshoot of the problems caused by my 3 week Christmas vacation interupting the arbitration on Robert Prechter. It seems that User:Rgfolsom and myself are done putting in all our evidence, etc. on the Robert Prechter arbitration. I'd think it better if the ArbCom decided the issue as a whole, rather than have have socionomics deleted right away. I don't of course argue with editors rights to delete socionomics. Smallbones 18:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Request for deletion can run its course without affecting the arbitration. Fred Bauder 06:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Socionomics has now been deleted. I understand that the long delay in dealing with this matter has been caused by my long absence during my Christmas vacation, but may I ask if this matter will be taken up again, or what kind of schedule might be reasonable to expect? User:Rgfolsom has started up again with complete reversions [19] on articles where he has an obvious conflict of interest, this time on Elliott wave principle. Smallbones 09:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee may wish to note my direct appeal to User:Smallbones, imploring him to refrain from editing articles that are at issue in our arbitration case.
--Rgfolsom 15:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification regarding Naming Conventions consensus finding

Should existing guidelines, such as those presented in the Manual of Style, be treated as a community consensus until and unless consensus is established to change them? Seraphimblade 11:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly speaking, anything that matches established community practice and is relatively uncontroversial can be assumed to enjoy a community consensus, regardless of where it happens to be written down. I would be wary, however, of extending that to those points in the MoS that don't match actual community practice (and there are a few, usually on the more obscure MoS pages) unless there has been an explicit consensus that they be adopted. Kirill Lokshin 13:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, what brought the question on was a section in Wikipedia:Manual of style (dates and numbers) on binary prefixes. This section states that the use of XiB prefixes (such as MiB) should be used rather than notation such as megabyte where the binary representation is more accurate. This guideline was adopted by consensus some time ago, but recently was disputed after a newer editor attempted to actually make the recommended changes, and those changes were reverted (in many cases while being called "vandalism".) The dispute has not reached the level of a consensus to change the guideline. Are there any recommendations for such a situation? Seraphimblade 13:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that the MoS doesn't appear to correspond to what article editors are actually doing in practice, it's somewhat questionable whether it (still) enjoys consensus in this case. I would suggest starting a (widely publicized—try leaving notes with the relevant WikiProjects, and on the talk pages of some prominent articles) discussion with the intent of figuring out what the MoS should say on the topic (rather than the somewhat narrower yes/no question of whether what it currently says is correct). Kirill Lokshin 13:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thank you for your help. Seraphimblade 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=107562813"