Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
Requests for arbitration
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Creationism and NPOV | 14 September 2018 | 0/0/0 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation | none | (orig. case) | 7 June 2024 |
| Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads | none | none | 4 June 2024 |
| Amendment request: India-Pakistan | none | (orig. case) | 7 June 2024 |
| Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions | none | none | 10 June 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
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. 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. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Creationism and NPOV
Initiated by funplussmart (talk) at 22:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Funplussmart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- 1990'sguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Rhododendrites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Acdixon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Statement by Funplussmart
A dispute mostly involving the article Is Genesis History? has caused a lot of edit warring and possible POV pushing. Both sides are accusing each over of bias. 1990'sguy has an admitted bias when it comes to creationism, and while he mostly maintains a NPOV, sometimes his beliefs slip through. The noticeboard discussion is a mess, and concurrences if or how 1990'sguy should be sanctioned is very unclear. I suggested a 1RR restriction, but that hasn't went anywhere either. I feel that other editors are being hard on 1990'sguy only because of his controversial beliefs. I think letting the arbitrators decide what to do about this would be the best course of action at this point.
- @Jytdog:, and that previous ruling has not stopped this problem from happening. funplussmart (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I realize I have made a big mistake filing this case. How can I withdraw? funplussmart (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by 1990'sguy
Statement by JzG
I don't think 1990'sguy's creationist activism rises to the level of an arbitration case. This also falls well below the threshold of prior attempts at dispute resolution. One not-yet-closed ANI thread. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Jytdog
This is a surprising filing to me. We have what I believe is our first set of cases at ANI which have not been fully worked through, so it is not ripe. ( I had been considering an AE case, but decided to go ahead and work with the ANI case that was filed) Creationism unambiguously falls under the existing pseudoscience DS. We do not need a new case specifically for creationism. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- User:Funplussmart obviously I don't agree, and in any case AE would be the next step, not a new case. Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by PaleoNeonate
I don't think that we need to repeat WP:ARBPS. If that's not the intention, the aim of the case should probably be clarified. —PaleoNeonate – 23:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Rhododendrites
As thrilled as I am to be named in an arbcom case request for the first time, I'm not sure why we're here. The first and only ANI thread is not yet closed, has some clear questions, and several people have given clear opinions. It may not result in any kind of action and may not resolve anything, but we're far from exhausting all other options. The article at the center of the dispute is already tagged for discretionary sanctions, there are RfCs that could happen, there are AE requests that could happen, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Acdixon
Statement by Count Iblis
Note: God created the universe two minutes ago, including Wikipedia in the state it was in then. This means that no ArbCom case was actually filed by anyone, therefore ArbCom should not accept the case. Count Iblis (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2018 (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.
Creationism and NPOV: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Creationism and NPOV: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- @Funplussmart: The Committee will instruct the clerks to close the case request. Mkdw talk 00:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)