Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
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:

Current requests

Adraeus v. Deacon of Pndapetzim in the matter of Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale

Initiated by Adraeus (talk) at 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation of notice
Confirmation of alternative dispute resolution

No formal attempt at dispute resolution was made due to the defendant having status as an administrator and due to the combativeness of the defendant.

Statement by Adraeus

On October 1, I researched the subject and found numerous sources. The information I found was then included in the article with complete and proper citations. On October 27, the administrator Deacon of Pndapetzim reverted the entire article, asserting "rv mass edit ... sorry, most of this is historical nonsense". Deacon made no attempt to explain his actions. In response, I reverted his reversion as vandalism, where vandalism is defined as willful wanton and malicious activity, and made my intentions to seek arbitration on his talk page should he persist in such activity. The following day, on October 28, Deacon reverted my reversion, adding a comment to the article's Talk page where he labelled my researched and cited material as "historical fiction," and proceeded to fallaciously "appeal to authority" without any argument of substance or civil request for discussion. Despite being an administrator, Deacon is apparently unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. I again reverted his reversion as vandalism. Adraeus (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Wikipedia:Verifiability states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." [Latter emphasis added.] This policy burdens Deacon with the responsibility to prove that the sources used are unreliable. Adraeus (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Statement by user:Scott MacDonald
I've been contributing to Wikipedia since 2004. Every article on a corporation in Wikipedia features my work. You've been an editor since May 2008. Who's new now? Nice try. Adraeus (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Lol ... why is this guy being allowed to waste the time of so many users. Can someone just block him for tendentiousness? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Jehochman
Clerk Note: Comment moved from Jehochman's section; "At Jehochman" text added. Keep comments in your own section please! AGK 20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Disagree. Too many good users are wasting too much time on tendentious mediocrity like this. The user has used his allotted community time for this trying (in good faith I'm sure) to decrease the quality of an article, leaving absurd angry messages with accusations of vandalism and threats [to file this] after one revert, and then to file an arbcom case itself without ever posting [under that name] on a talk page. Ridiculous, and it's actually, after your own words, "pussiness" in the respectable part of the community which allows this nonsense to take place. They can be good-faithed or trollish behind a block without bothering anyone else. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:angusmclellan

Unless the committee is minded to rule on whether Bernard Burke's A Genealogical History of the Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages of the British Empire (ca. 1866) is to be considered a reliable source, and to be preferred over the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, there's not much to be done here. This'll be a content dispute. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:Scott MacDonald

Hm, prior to filing this case, the user had never posted any comments to the talk page of the article concerned. I'm calling for a speedy close here.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gazimoff

Firstly, being an administrator does not make one immune from other dispute resolution procedures. Other mechanisms such as requesting a third opinion, mediation, a Wikiquette alert or possibly even opening a request for comment would have been more suitable than opening a request for arbitration. As stated on the RfAr page, a request for arbitration is the last step in the process when all others have failed. That statement counts equally for all editors, including those who carry out administrative duties.

Seccondly, this appears to be primarily a content dispute, particularly the introduction of material from disputed sources. It may be more appropriate to discuss the problematic source on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, or with the support of a relevant Wikiproject, in order to resolve the content issue. Edit warring or reverting is not the optimal method of resolving these disputes, as it does not resolve the underlying issues. Many thanks, Gazimoff 14:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Lolling at people is not helpful. If they are a good faith user, it is dickish, and if they are a troll, it encourages them. Jehochman Talk 20:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved Bishonen

RE statement by Adraeus.
Don't bite the newbies.[1] You've obviously upset poor young Scott MacDonald, shame on you. Be nice to the newbies! Bishonen | talk 21:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Clerk notes

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

  • Some comments shuffled. Keep comments in your own section, please. AGK 20:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Reject. Primarily a content dispute. Not ripe for arbitration since there is no evidence of entrenchment of editor views that are unresolvable through Community intervention. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. Get the opinion of other users on the talk page or through a content RFC. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per FloNight. As an observation on the content dispute for what it is worth, if there is a genuine division of opinion on a historical issue among reliable sources and bona fide scholars, then that should be reflected in the article. On the other hand, if an assertion is asserted by only one marginal source, then it would be undue weight to overemphasize it. Which of these situations, if either, applies to this article is a matter to be decided by the editors involved, using content-related dispute resolution if necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun MBT

Initiated by Chanakyathegreat (talk) at 06:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[5]

Statement by User:Chanakyathegreat

The earlier request was rejected on the basis of content dispute. This issue is going for many months and yet has not been solved. The main problem, which according to me is that the Admins not sticking to rules by not looking at the edit and the explantion on the subject but on the person making the edit. This lead to the Article which was a B-class article's quality being hit. There are grave errors in the article which was pointed out to the Admins and after repeated requests has not been corrected. One simple example can be the Summer 2006 of the talk page. Wanted to correct the article starting from this section onwards. Made a request on OCtober 8 and asked the Admins for their opinion. Till now I had not received a response. I made the edit after waiting for a long time(2 weeks). Instead of correcting the errors, reverted my edit and then blocked me for week. And also I would like to bring to the notice is that valid edits with sources that I make be it in the Arjun MBT article or another gets reverted back without any valid explanation or some invalid explanation. So I request the Admins being told to stick to the rules and check the validity of each and every edit and if they find any problem with my edit, to point it to me and ask explanation rather than revert it without any explanation. Also I would like By78 be told to engage in constructive discussion on the topic and not to derail the discussion with personal attacks and invalid arguments.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by By78

Please see Arjun talk pages (including archives). I rest my case. I will waste no more time on this subject. Thank you. By78 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ricky81682

First of all, I think this is too preliminary for arbitration. We haven't even attempted 3O, let alone an RFC or mediation. I see arbitration was rejected in early September so unless the user conduct deserves it, I think it's again still just a content dispute, albeit more formed than before. Frankly, this is just related to User:Chanakyathegreat's aggressive POV, to the point of outright blatant misrepresentations. My first interaction at ANI was because Chanakya had been complaining about admins that had blocked him (and another who blocked again for continuing immediately after his block expired). His attitude then needed some work.

  • Further discussion at Talk:Arjun_MBT#July_2005 about sources from 2008 used in the 2005 test section which Chanakya refuses to acknowledge is blatantly ridiculous.
  • As you can see from this early September ANI report that all we seem to get from Chanakya are accusations that all the admins are biased to his neutrality.

I'm sorry that I haven't done too much of a compare with the article page (this was enough work for one night) but its history along with Chanakya's talk page (starting around here) should be sufficient in my opinion. I think it's time to put an end to all of this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jauerback

There's too much history on the article's talk page, Chanka's talk page, and even other user's talk pages (including my own) to completely illustrate everything, but Ricky did a great job of summarizing it all above. I also don't think that arbitration is necessary. The whole crux of this problem is not about the Arjun article, but about Chanakyathegreat himself. This problem extends to other articles that Chanaka edits (Great power, Potential superpowers, etc.) as well.

Both Ricky and I came to Arjun article because Chanakyathegreat came to WP:AN and WP:ANI at different times complaining. The first time he had complaints of vandalization of the Arjun article and the second because of further vandalization and subsequesnt admin (me) abuse. I think we've both remained impartial and have done our best to mediate any discussion on the article's talk page. In the past, I've done my best to AGF, but as I recently expressed on Chanka's talk page, I feel he's a few edits away from receiving an extend block at this point. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

My initial impression on reading the first statement is that this dispute is revolving around a problem editor, and the other statements seem to endorse that assessment. The community can probably sort this out if this is the case, but if there are multiple such editors, then this is going to inevitably end up here again. Regardless, I agree in part with FloNight's comments; what's needed is a form of RFC. Article RFC could help. If you need to make an RFC/U (which would also be helpful), a good guide on (what sort of diffs will be relevant and) how to present it overall can probably be found in an RFC/U that I've edited recently. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject. Still primarily a content dispute. Not ripe for arbitration since there is no evidence of entrenchment of editor views that are unresolvable through Community intervention. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. As noted above by Ricky81682 all the steps in dispute resolution have not been tried yet. Get the opinion of other users on the talk page through a 3O or content RFC. Or if needed mediation. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jauerback, maybe mediation or an RFC/user is needed instead of a long block. If that fails then maybe editing restrictions are needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I agree with FloNight's evaluation and comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

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


Current requests

Request for clarification

I have a question concerning an ArbCom decision [6] and how it might apply to the article Bretton Woods II. On October 21, I made an edit to that article, which was only a few weeks old and described as a "stub." I added material from the Italian paper Corriere della Sera, an article called "The Bretton Woods II of LaRouche and Tremonti." The article, which included an interview with Italian Economics Minister Giulio Tremonti, established that LaRouche had been a long-time proponent of the Bretton Woods II concept, and that Tremonti had been influenced by his ideas. I also added a link to LaRouche's original 1997 proposal which had been promoted world-wide, including by Ukrainian parliamentarian Nataliya Vitrenko. Here is a link to my edit[7].

I was surprised when two editors, Will Beback and Boodlesthecat, immediately removed this material, making angry and discourteous edit summaries and talk page comments to the effect that it couldn't possibly be true, that Corriere della Sera was not a significant publication, and that Tremonti was not a significant person. What followed was a series of messages on my talk page from Will Beback which I found very unpleasant because I felt that they were intended to intimidate me. He said that my edit had violated earlier decisions by the Arbitration Committee, specifically that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles."

Looking back at my edit, I would say the following:

1. Corriere della Sera is the preeminent newspaper in Italy, so it could hardly be considered "work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement."

2. The Corriere della Sera article establishes that LaRouche is notable with regard to the topic of Bretton Woods II (i.e., "The Bretton Woods II of LaRouche and Tremonti") so the Bretton Woods II article may certainly be considered "closely related" to LaRouche.

3. Under the circumstances, it was not wrong to link to the original proposal of LaRouche, which predates other uses of the term by minimally four years.

Please let me know whether you disagree, because I have the impression that Will Beback is threatening to block me if I "repeat edits like that." --Guillermo Ugarte (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]




Request to amend prior case: C68-FM-SV

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

Statement by Alecmconroy

Regrettably, circumstance lead me to request the committee consider reviewing its decision in this case, with an eye toward issuing stronger sanctions against one of the parties.

In as brief as possible:

  • In September, SV (as a party in this case) was strongly admonished in what I interpreted as a "final warning" to alter her behavior.
  • Since that time, Arbcom has been privately considering the allegations SV made against Lar and Mackenson. In that case, SV has continually refused to "provide the Committee with a clear and substantive statement of complaint" regarding her allegations against Lar and Mackenson, despite numerous requests to do so from the committee. At the same time, she did not offer any retraction of her earlier public allegations.
  • By 20 Oct, in the SV-LAR proposed decision, seven arbs had endorsed another warning to SV in the form of finding which said:
"SlimVirgin's choice of a forum of discussion was unhelpful, in the sense that magnification and further drama were the likely result. Given the sensitivity of the concerns, it would have been far preferable to have raised them privately with the Committee or with the Wikimedia Ombudsmen rather than in extensive public discussion—an approach that left the CheckUsers unable to fully respond and created risks to the privacy of third parties."
  • Despite the numerous warnings to conduct the case in private, on 20 Oct, SV again made a public statement in which she re-iterated her allegations against Lar and Mackenson. diff redacted for privacy
  • In response, NYB again warned against further public discussion. An arbcom clerk archived the discussion, and another clerk then blanked SV's statement from the archive. The committee stated that
"Parties are instructed to make no further posts to this page pending further input from arbitrators. Other editors are urged to do the same."
  • In response to these warnings, On 21 Oct, SV again violated Arbcom's request-- posting on the talk page despite instruction not to do so.[9].
  • A clerk removed the comment and again warned SV that Arbcom had instructed parties not to post on the page.
  • Again on 21 Oct, SV immediately re-inserted it, again directly violating the request not to post on the page.

In short, SV was warned about her behavior in the C68-FM-SV decision. She was again warned by the proposed decision which had been endorsed by seven arbs. She was yet again warned by NYB and the arbcom statement not to post. She was still yet again warned by a clerk. Despite these multitude of warnings, SV yet again persisted in the violating the warnings and editing disruptively.

In the remedy "Further Review and Sanctions", the Committee promised that they would "impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations"

When the C68-FM-SV sanctions were being discussed, I defended letting SV off with a warning, and I argued she would likely change her behavior after so strongly-worded a warning. The span of 34 days has, regrettably, shown her behavior to be unchanged. If anything, the behavior appears to have worsened.

This cannot be allowed to persist. In addition to the direct harm caused by bad behavior, there is an inherently corrosive effect in allowing one individual to completely ignore so many repeated warnings without consequence. For these reasons, I humbly request Arbcom consider some further sanction against SV. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sam Blacketer: I was very uncertain of the proper venue for this. Could be a new case, could be at SV-LAR, could be at the C68-FM-SV case page, or could be a clarification. I didn't put it at SV-LAR because that case's central focus is on events that happened in private in March, whereas my concerns are with events that happened in public in October. But please, feel free to move this request to wherever you and the other arbs & clerks feel is the proper venue. -Alecmconroy (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Bainer: Just want to clarify-- I'm not concerned about SV's behavior last March/July. We can't expect her behavior in March to have been affected by a warning she received in September. My concern is about SV's behavior during the past week.
As it happens, most of that behavior took place on a Arbcom page-- but that's more or less irrelevant. The location of her behavior isn't important. What's important is that this week Arbcom gave SV some very, very clear "lines in the sand" and warned her repeatedly not to cross them-- and she crossed every single one of them anyway. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


More than anything-- all the debate about the original dispute is irrelevant. Arbcom told her "DO NOT POST THIS" and she posted this. Arbcom told her "DO NOT POST _ANYTHING_" and she posted something. A clerk told her "DO NOT ADD THIS COMMENT" and she added it back.

And still, not a single block has been applied, not a single sysop bit has been flipped. I bet you, right now, if I were to go and edit that page that no one is supposed to edit, I would be given NO warnings, no second chances, no do-overs. I bet if I edit warred against an arbcom clerk, the time it took to block me could be measured with a stopwatch. And I for one, am quite sick of there being two sets of rules around here. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Willing to withdraw this

I submitted the motion in the thought that have an outsider raise it would make it easier to resolve the situation, rather than forcing arbcom to be both "plaintiff" and "jury" in the dispute. But, if the opinion of the arbs is that its existence being helpful, I'm happy to withdraw the request. (although I'll let a clerk or someone wiser than myself make the actual withdrawing/archiving. ). --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avruch

First I should say that I am hesitant to involve myself in this, but I feel both a debt to Lar and a responsibility to point out an injustice that I believe is taking place. Perhaps that puts me on the same level as others - upset by a perceived injustice, taking action in a public forum where many will read of my dismay.

SlimVirgin has repeated and even reinforced her initial accusations against Lar. She has rejected the judgment of the Arbitration Committee and ignored its advice to move on or to make her claims in private, where they can be addressed without the risk of releasing private information or unnecessarily damaging the reputation of a highly trusted member of the community.

The irony is that she posts the following, and variations, in multiple forums: "I've been prompted to speak out because I'm currently being prevented from publishing a defence of myself in a case where I'm being publicly criticized." On her talk page SlimVirgin cites principles of procedural fairness - specifically, that the accused is entitled to view the evidence against him or herself with the confidence that no evidence bearing on judgment is withheld by the accuser. In this case the committee has in fact observed the principles of procedural justice - resulting in substantive harm to the accused: a series of accusations against Lar, with increasing severity, have been made for which he has been denied the opportunity to fully respond.

I don't see that SlimVirgin has been encumbered at all - she has made her case on the mailing lists, on her talkpage, on Jimmy Wales' talkpage, on arbitration pages, on administrator noticeboards and the talk pages of other editors and arbitrators.

These caustic disputes on Wikipedia between trusted community members bring out the worst in us - they reinforce the public image of a Wikipedia divided into sides and factions, where loyalties and alliances are determinative. I don't personally know how to solve this very serious problem, but I do strongly believe that we should begin by basing our conclusions on evidence instead of innuendo. We should expect and require that serious allegations require serious evidence, because lower standards make our community weaker and put the reputations and work of committed editors at risk. Many extraordinarily productive editors have left in the last year, some even in the last month, because of accusations and conclusions based on an inaccurate presentation of the facts. It's a community imperative that we not allow this to continue unchecked.

I'll stipulate that I have no way to know if SlimVirgin's allegations are accurate; no way to know if misunderstanding or malice by either party underlies the dispute. But I would like the Committee to consider bringing this to a close, by definitively stating its conclusions. Accusations of misconduct against figures who have been granted the highest levels of trust in the community are corrosive - they impact the ability of all checkusers, stewards and other trusted figures to carry out their work. If Lar is not found to have abused his position, then further accusations in public forums should be prohibited.

Avruch T 01:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should echo one thing that Sticky has said and contradict another - first, he is completely correct that if the proposed decision talkpage (or any other page of that case) were open to editing then these problems would likely be brought there. Second, there is quite a difference between telling an editor to stop making specific and unfounded allegations against another editor and preventing her from issuing valid criticism of the arbitration committee. The second is something she has a right to do, and the first is not. Avruch T 02:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sticky Parkin

If the talk page of the proposed decision was open people could make this suggestion there rather than here. I don't think SV has done anything like this in the last several days since the proposed decision talk page was protected, so it's not persisting behaviour. I can see her point about not being able to make her case against the things said about her in the discussion section on the proposed decision page itself, and I feel that people who are having 'official pronouncements' made about them should be allowed right to reply in the same venue, especially if comments are being made about them by the Official Arbitrators which they consider false, which will be available for people to see for the forseeable future. But that's a matter for a change to how all arbcoms are constructed, I suppose, and I think that's all SV is saying on her talkpage etc, which she has a right to do, in the same manner as User talk:Giano II makes his thoughts clear about how arbcom is run. It wouldn't be particularly right to sanction someone just for (rightly or wrongly) criticizing arbcom, within reason. Otherwise, perhaps no institution would ever changeSticky Parkin 02:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Aruch what I was saying is I don't know if she's said any other accusations against lar since the talk page was protected, if so then she hasn't since she was told not to a week or go or whenever, and being told not to then was enough. The evidence is private, hence Alec and the rest of us might not have a clue what we're talking about. That said, why didn't Alec just email arbcom with his concerns instead? But that would have no visible acknowledgement or proof of the question/proposal having been made, so perhaps less chance of leading to a response, and also not feel as fulfilling, perhaps. As such, he is in the perfect position to empathise with SV.:) Oh hang on, that would be if his comments were blanked.:) Sticky Parkin 18:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by InkSplotch

Without commenting on the issue here, I would like to point out the only subpage in the current Lar/SlimVirgin case is the Proposed Decision page, which is currently protected both main and talk. Without a workshop or any means for the community to provide input, it seems to me Alec proceeded in the only way available to him.

I understand the reasons ArbCom shutdown the talk page, and support them. I would, however, suggest that if they need to continue deliberating they consider provisionally unprotecting the talk page. The proviso being, should things get out of hand any admin could reprotect with the blessing of ArbCom. It's just that, the longer this decision takes, the more frustrated the community will become being unable to speak about it. --InkSplotch (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Alecmcconroy appears to be overinvolved in "fixing" what he perceives as problems...yet has added little to nothing as far as encyclopedic material for the bulk of this entire year[10]. I think the arbitration committee needs to cease considering any cases brought forth from what can arguably be easily seen as editors who are here for little other than harassment and creating drama.--MONGO 00:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jd2718

This request relies on a finding from an arbitration that is not yet closed. That is reason enough not to consider it. But I agree with SP, above, that the closed talk page is a problem. Open it provisionally, with strong warning to stay on topic. Jd2718 (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by other user

Clerk notes

  • This case was initially provided in a format not in line with that suggested; for the purposes of easy navigation, I have brought this thread as much in line with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Request template for all other requests as I possibly can. The thread pre-reformatting can be reviewed here. No parties to this case were listed by the filer; it may be necessary for Alecmconroy to evaluate whether any parties should be provided. (Please remember any parties must be notified, and diffs of those notifications provided above.) AGK 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My preliminary view is that any misconduct on a different, ongoing arbitration case would be handled within that case rather than by amending a previous one. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Sam. Furthermore, it is important to note that the cases ran concurrently, and these proposals relate to matters that took place before this case was decided and the remedies implemented. --bainer (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every aspect of the SlimVirgin-Lar case has been miserable for everybody affected. I would like to avoid it becoming more of a public spectacle than it already has, if that is even possible at this point. I understand the nature of the request being made and the rationale offered in support of it, but I fear that action on it would be most unlikely to be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=248489249

Leave a Reply