Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	(orig. case)	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Shortcuts

WP:ARC
WP:A/R/C

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1017721070"

Hidden categories:

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=43%</noinclude>}}
 <noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
-== China-Taiwan articles ==
-'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Silence of Lambs|Silence of Lambs]] ([[User talk:Silence of Lambs|talk]]) '''at''' 05:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-=== Involved parties ===
-<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
-*{{userlinks|Silence of Lambs}}, ''filing party''
-*{{userlinks|Félix An}}
-*{{userlinks|JMonkey2006}}
-*{{userlinks|DrIdiot}}
-*{{userlinks|Chipmunkdavis}}
-*{{userlinks|Matt Smith}}
-*{{admin|DMacks}}
-;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
-<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
-*[diff of notification Félix An] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AF%C3%A9lix_An&type=revision&diff=1017350759&oldid=1016846146 diff]
-*[diff of notification JMonkey2006] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJMonkey2006&type=revision&diff=1017351262&oldid=1013906125 diff]
-*[diff of notification DrIdiot] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrIdiot&type=revision&diff=1017351219&oldid=1011415576 diff]
-*[diff of notification Chipmunkdavis] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChipmunkdavis&type=revision&diff=1017351176&oldid=1017148296 diff]
-*[diff of notification Matt Smith] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMatt_Smith&type=revision&diff=1017351052&oldid=997233776 diff]
-*[diff of notification DMacks] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADMacks&type=revision&diff=1017351112&oldid=1016692059 diff]
-;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
-* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:China&oldid=1017338930#Move:_Requested_on_11_April_2021 Requested Move RfC]
-=== Statement by Silence of Lambs ===
-On the [[Talk:China]] page which I requested to rename the articles China to People’s Republic of China and Taiwan to Republic of China because [[Two Chinas]] exist, the change was turned down per [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. In addition to above, because a dozen edits on the PRC-ROC articles were constantly reverted most of the time, I am calling for the 30/500 enforcement on any China-related articles similar to the [[WP:ARBPIA|Arab-Israeli conflict arbitration]] and the ones found at [[WP:ARBIPA|India-Pakistan]]. Although I am not good with long words, the scope would target Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan-related articles such as the [[Tibet Area (administrative division)]] reverted by [[User:Kautilya3]] without consensus.
-—[[User:Silence of Lambs|Silence of Lambs]] ([[User talk:Silence of Lambs|talk]]) 05:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Félix An ===
-I think this restriction is reasonable if people are swiftly reverting edits without consensus. It seems reasonable to have [[WP:ECP]] on controversial articles where editors might be trying to get their way so much. [[User:Félix An|Félix An]] ([[User talk:Félix An|talk]]) 14:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by JMonkey2006 ===
-I don't think that opening an arbitration case is necessary. Consensus may change in the future, but for now I think that this debate has concluded. [[User:JMonkey2006|JMonkey2006]] ([[User talk:JMonkey2006|talk]]) 02:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by DrIdiot ===
-Content dispute as others are saying.  The initiator is welcome to begin discussions on the talk pages where their edits were reverted. In most cases, the edits ignored existing discussions and consensus (some of which were recently active on talk). No attempt to discuss on talk, other than the linked move request, was attempted. [[User:DrIdiot|DrIdiot]] ([[User talk:DrIdiot|talk]]) 18:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Chipmunkdavis ===
-=== Statement by Matt Smith ===
-As mentioned by an user in [[Talk:China#Arbitration_discussion]], arbitration deals with conduct issues. While the request starter's reasoning is understandable, this page might not be the place to discuss content dispute issues. --[[User:Matt Smith|Matt Smith]] ([[User talk:Matt Smith|talk]]) 12:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by DMacks ===
-Editorial dispute went through new editor bold-edit against discussed consensus, reverted, new discussion that had same conclusion as usual. The only request made here is for [[WP:ECP]], no evidence is provided to support this administrative measure, and it doesn't need Arbcom (no evidence it was not solveable at [[WP:AN]]). I do not see enough disruption to merit it on the articles the filer has BRDed or widespread disruption in the scope they request. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 12:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Ched ===
-{{ping|Silence of Lambs}} seems to have skipped a couple steps (notifications and DR link), I've gone ahead and done the necessities.  Normally I wouldn't think this was ripe, but [[WP:DR|Dispute Resolution]] seems to be a very minor and relaxed requirement these days. [[User:Ched|— Ched]] ([[User talk:Ched|talk]]) 08:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by uninvolved Ivanvector ===
-Purely a content dispute. Filer proposed a move, their proposal was discussed and did not pass. That's it, that's the whole incident; several of the participants even gave Silence of Lambs advice in their comments. No evidence of disruption or abuse has been offered that would suggest the need for discretionary sanctions here. Committee should swiftly decline and move on. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 10:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by (mostly uninvolved) RandomCanadian ===
-I don't see evidence of long term edit warring or disruptive editing which would require the intervention of ArbCom. '''Suggest decline''' on that aspect, since this is therefore a pure content dispute. As to the requested move; don't see what is wrong with editors disagreeing. If Silence had instead contacted me via talk page (article or my own) I might have given a wee further explanation for my SNOW close, but given they've already escalated here, I am standing by it. Cheers, [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]])  12:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by uninvolved Elli ===
-I don't really see why this is necessary. We don't need discretionary sanctions on every potentially controversial topic area. There is no clear issue here. [[User:Elli|Elli]] ([[User_talk:Elli|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Elli|contribs]]) 12:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-===Statement by Robert McClenon===
-On seeing the title of this case request, I thought that I might say that some topic areas are the subjects of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground editing]] because they have tragically been real battlegrounds in history, and that the [[WP:PLAGUE|plague]] of Wikipedia is nationalism.  On reading the short history of this case request, it does not appear that there has been enough nationalistic editing to require discretionary sanctions.  I have not reviewed the case to see whether this is a content dispute or whether it also has conduct aspects, but it is either a content dispute requiring content resolution, or a conduct dispute that can be dealt with otherwise, or both.
-[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-::[[User:Deepfriedokra]] - It is fortunate for some combative filers at ArbCom that ArbCom doesn't work like [[WP:ANI]], and doesn't accept a case only with the objective of sanctioning the filer.  We know that "Filing party blocked indef" is a common conclusion at ANI.
-::[[User:Jargo Nautilus]] - The nationalism that I was saying is a plague in Wikipedia is the refighting of wars.  Discretionary sanctions are often used to stop the refighting of wars.  I think that we are saying almost the same thing.
-[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Cupcake547 ===
-This restriction is very reasonable, if people revert and revert without consensus on controversial articles, but there isn't as much going on in the past few days. [[User:Cupcake547|Cupcake547]]<sup>[[User talk:Cupcake547|Let's chat!]]</sup> 19:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC).
-=== Statement by Deepfriedokra ===
-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&curid=22747298&diff=1017461694&oldid=1017438178&diffmode=source I was going to say this and held back]. It is ironic that filer is asking for DS for this subject area as they are the one closest to being disruptive. I urge them to seek [[WP:dispute resolution]] and to be less forceful if asserting their opinions. Based on filer's conduct, I'm not sure ArbCom should not hear this case. Other parties have shown great restrain in not taking this mater to ANI. --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> 22:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Floq ===
-I suppose you're close enough to an official "decline" that this doesn't matter, but I'm not sure how this is different from the other cases where a clerk just comes along and says "removed as obviously premature per clerks list".  I always thought that was a smart innovation.  Even a nothingburger like this has probably eaten up several person-hours by now. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by (uninvolved) Jargo Nautilus ===
-I'm a user who is not directly involved in the dispute. On {{u|Robert McClenon}}'s comments about "nationalism", I will say that I personally draw the line when blood is drawn. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on this matter, but many of these controversial issues, especially regarding nationalism, often involve either historical, potential or ongoing genocides. At the end of the day, I will always object when innocent people are slaughtered on the basis of nationalism. [[User:Jargo Nautilus|Jargo Nautilus]] ([[User talk:Jargo Nautilus|talk]]) 01:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
-Regarding the case at hand, I believe that there is an attempt being made at gas-lighting here. The premise that there is no consensus on the issues at hand simply because a few editors disagree with it is dubious. The number of editors who agree with the consensus far outnumber the number who disagree, whether that minority of editors like it or not. The definition of a consensus is not "all people agree", it is only "most people agree". And there is no real justification to escalate the dispute to this place. [[User:Jargo Nautilus|Jargo Nautilus]] ([[User talk:Jargo Nautilus|talk]]) 02:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
-Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
-<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
-=== China-Taiwan articles: Clerk notes ===
-:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-* {{u|Floquenbeam}}, regarding {{tq|not sure how this is different from the other cases where a clerk just comes along and says "removed as obviously premature per clerks list"}}: those removals are made with arb concurrence. I assume we just haven't had an arb email the clerk list to say "remove this as premature" (or a clerk email the list to ask if we can remove this as premature). Haven't checked my WP email today though, it's possible there's discussion that I haven't seen yet. <sup><small>[[User:SubjectiveNotability|SubjectiveNotability]]</small></sup> <sub style="margin-left:-12ex"><small>a [[User:GeneralNotability|GN]] franchise</small></sub> ([[User_talk:GeneralNotability|talk to the boss]]) 16:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
-*:To add to the above statement, for a clerk to remove a case as premature an arbitrator has to confirm removal and usually a clerk prompts the arbitrators about removal. In this case, the arbitrators had already started voting to decline by the time I saw the case request so I did not see much need to ask them if they would like the case removed as premature. Regardless, as the request is at majority decline it can be closed tomorrow morning UTC (48 hours since it was filed) so not much more editor time should be spent on this. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' &#124; ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 16:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
-*::<S>As all arbitrators are now back to active, a majority is now reached with 8 arbitrators and as such the case request can only be declined after 14:30 tomorrow instead of in the morning.</s> [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' &#124; ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 20:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
-*:::I actually stand corrected on that, as the wording is "mathematically impossible for the case to be accepted" which is essentially half of the arbitrators need to decline instead of a majority of arbitrators need to decline. As all 14 are active now, 7 declines means that we can now close. I also realise that the 24 hours since a decline was reached actually isn't present in declining a case request, so regardless of whether is a majority or not the case request can be closed as declined now. I will do that now. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' &#124; ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 08:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
-=== China-Taiwan articles: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0> ===
-{{anchor|1=China-Taiwan articles: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
-*'''Decline'''. No behavioral issues, appears to be just a content dispute. I suggest withdrawing. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 13:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''', content dispute. '''[[User talk:Maxim|<font face="Arial"><font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font><sub><small><font color="blue">(talk)</font></small></sub></font>]]''' 13:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per above. – [[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]] 14:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' though I've sometimes wondered if we haven't reached the point where we have enough evidence that politics and nationalism of any stripe need DS. But I'll think about that some more and post more about that over [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021 review/Consultation|here]]. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-*:Good point by Kevin. Even if this weren't a content dispute I'd have wanted to see dispute resolution first. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''', as a content dispute and because no conduct dispute resolution has been attempted. '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 17:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' Per all the above. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-*:I would add that something that doesn't seem clear to a number of people commenting here is that you do not ''need'' arbcom to make a decision about a couple of pages being put under EC protection. If we did take this case, (which we obviously are not going to) it would be a month-long highly-involved process to make a decision that an admin can make on their own based ona  simple talk page discussion. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 22:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' The matter has hardly exhausted its routes of appeal. As is, the only one that seems to be disruptive here is Silence of Lambs, who has been pushing against a pretty clear community consensus. A case feels like it would most likely [[WP:BOOMERANG]], and I suggest Silence examine how they are going about their goals before they get [[WP:PETARD|hoisted by their own petard]]. [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 21:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per above. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)