Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
The Arbitration Committee is seeking feedback - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC
The last step of dispute resolution is a request for arbitration. Please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.
0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.
This is not a page for discussion, and arbitrators may summarily remove discussion without comment.
- Arbitration policy
- Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
- Developer help needed
- Arbitration template
- Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents
Current requests
Template
Involved parties
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
If not, then explain why that would be fruitless
Statement by party 1
Please limit your statement to 500 words
Statement by party 2
Please limit your statement to 500 words
Guy Montag vs. Yuber
Involved parties Guy Montag Yuber
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
[1] Confirmation is here.
Statement by Guy Montag
Yuber is a vicious POV pusher. He has been constantly warned by administrators and other editors that he is showing bad faith by not cooperating with others. Articles have been locked numerous times because of his tendency to ignore the 3RR rule and start revert wars. [2] [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&action=history] [4] Every chance has been given to Yuber to stop his militant pov pushing. POV pushing was not as much a concern for me and other editors, as for the fact that he fails to cooperate with other editors[5][6]. Evidence of his intrasingence has been recorded on his [page]. Jayjg, SlimVirgin and Humus sapiens can testify to his inability to cooperate.
More evidence.
The discussion entitled "minor changes" [7]. Yuber inserted "sources" which had nothing to do with the subject. He insterted his POV, than tried to cover it up by source spamming. It took us 4 days of close policing of the article before it stood up to NPOV standards.
- Sea of Galilee locked because of Yuber.[8]
See discussion. [9]
- Citations for numerous violations of 3rr breaches and warnings to lock articles because of his editing.[page] Evidence is found in "3RR" discussion on Yuber's Talk Page.
- [10] Jizya page paged locked because of Yuber's non cooperation and edit warring.
Dhimmi page locked because of Yuber's editing [11]
- [12] Another paged locked previously because of his editing.
Guy Montag 21:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Statement by party 1
Many members have tried to cooperate with him, but the leniency editors have been giving to him is over. He has not changed his militant pov pushing, he does not cooperate, he initiates revert wars constantly instead of the talk page, even over single words and after repeated warnings of its POV content. He has shown deliberate disregard to wikipedia rules. It seems that his sole purpose is to turn specific articles relating to his agenda into a giant soapbox for his viewpoint. He should be banned from editing in Middle Eastern related articles, either permanently or for a limited amount of time as a warning. Blocking him for his numerous 3RR violations has had no effect and I am afraid unless he is disciplined for his violations, no amount of reasoning will help in the future.
Guy Montag 07:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There are, as could be expected, flare-ups of edit wars and POV accusations within this topic, but there are those who appear to often confuse their opinion with the objective truth, and Yuber is one of them. His insistence on including a prejudicial photograph of Quneitra, along with his refusal to explain what non-biased purpose this photograph would have; his unwillingness to forge neutral language on contentious issues (e.g., who started the Six-Day War; whether the Golan Heights can be said to be occupied), are destructive and distracting to more worthwhile efforts. --Leifern 11:45, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Statement by Yuber
This rant by the "pinnacle of NPOV" himself, Guy Montag, does little to demonstrate my so-called refusal to cooperate. His edits show him to be a militant POV-pusher with no regard for important Wikipedia policies. His arrogance is evident when he calls me a "useless editor" and says he wants to "get rid of me"[13]. That doesn't really show him to be someone who wants to cooperate. In actuality, an agreement at the Golan Heights page was finally reached a while ago. Leifern's comment is irrelevant since this edit war over the specific picture was solved by me.Yuber(talk) 14:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Statement by Enviroknot
I urge the ArbCom to take up the case of Yuber. He has been vandalizing my user page repeatedly despite being repeatedly told to stop. He is responsible for the locking of the Dhimmi article on Wikipedia. Numerous editors have run into his POV-pushing and revert-warring; indeed he seems to feel that any article related to Islam is his to "defend" no matter what factual information is brought forth.
From Wikipedia Talk:Kharaj: What, yet another article in which he can continually delete well-sourced information that doesn't agree with his POV, while simultaneously making claims of his own which simply don't match the sources provided? That's an appealing thought. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC) - Jayjg in reference to Yuber.
Yuber is in the middle of starting another revert war right now over at Saudi Arabia.
This cannot be allowed to continue. Though I fear it goes beyond Yuber himself, there are a few other editors (Mustafaa and Mel Etitis come to mind) who regularly act in concert with Yuber, including sending messages to each other to coordinate in revert wars on these articles.Enviroknot 20:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (1/1/0/0)
- Reject. There's lots of rhetoric, but not a lot of evidence or examples - if more is forthcoming, it may be a different story. Ambi 09:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Accept, however, having read most recent edits to Al Qunaytirah I am more concerned with Guy Montag's POV pushing than Yuber's Fred Bauder 17:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Everyking request for review
It's been two months since my last ArbCom conviction, and I'd like to ask that the sanctions be lifted (the right to make that request after two months was included in the last decision). I don't have any new argument to make, so I'll just repeat what I said on March 31, since I think it does a very good job of expressing the situation as it concerns me, and my opinions about it:
- "I don't know what the fundamental argument against me is. I suppose, as best I can gather, that it's that I try to "own" these articles, or that I am a revert warrior. Well, I ask anyone considering the case to actually look at what I have said and how I have acted. My position has always been strongly in favor of discussion, consensus and compromise, and recognition of the basic reality that, when a wide range of points are being considered, one person is unlikely to have a correct idea about each and every one of them. This is what discussion is so useful for—sort out differences, get to the root of the questions, and recognize errors on one's own part. So I've always tried to direct the dispute towards the talk page: I think agreeable compromises can be reached on all issues, and in fact I'm almost certain of it, because I am so flexible that I would make almost any concessions. As I have seen it, though, my opponents have generally preferred the logic of revert warring, and when that has failed them—and I have been tenacious in retaliatory reverting, I don't deny it, too aggressive at points, to be sure, but with the correct aim of concentrating the controversy on discussion rather than reverting—they have sought punitive measures against me to win the content dispute. I have made various proposals, such as to discuss everything in the article point by point, and to concentrate contentious editing on a "temp" version of the article to avoid the kind of heated revert warring we've seen in the past. Consensus is not really a difficult thing, if all parties are willing to accept it: there is honest discussion, and if by the end of it all parties haven't reached a mutually-satisfactory agreement, then whoever is in a small minority will have to concede and accept what may not be satisfactory to him or her.
- Now, that's my position—concentrate on reaching a concensus, and let a loser be graceful in accepting a result when it goes against him or her. To say that I seek article ownership is so patently absurd to me that I have generally avoided even responding to the charge—where is the evidence for it? All I know is my statements which in no uncertain terms condemn the idea of article ownership—indeed, it is no great leap to see the effort by Snowspinner and a few others as an attempt to assert article ownership by eliminating me from the discussion and from the process of consensus-building. Anyone who accuses me of revert warring should see the pattern of behavior by a few of my opponents—repeated reverts, unconditionally, ignoring all my attempts at compromise edits. They have continued to do this despite the January ruling which prohibits me from reverting—I make an edit, they revert it; I try a compromise edit, they revert that too. And so on. Eventually, someone will block me for trying to compromise (partial reverting, they call it—you might as well say handing an object to someone is partially throwing it at them). Well, what's the point of condemning reverts if you won't accept attempts at compromise either?
- I defend my theoretical position fully—compromise, consensus-building, civility, and development of a comprehensive and quality article that is satisfactory to everyone. I don't think my behavior in practice has always fully adhered to the theoretical position, but I recognize my errors and try not to repeat them. I have been in error at points in being too aggressive, certainly—I don't uphold such things, I recognize my errors, but it continues to be held against me. How many times has "i'll revert you till doomsday" been cited? Yet that was said at the very beginning of the dispute, and it has never for a minute been in line with my theoretical position—I've always recognized it as an error—and if occasional errors in judgment, even when recognized as such, were worth a punishment such as the one that's being proposed, we wouldn't have any editors left, because we all make mistakes now and then. That's just being human—I get angry, I revert too aggressively, OK, criticize me for it, and I'll criticize myself. That's not grounds for punishment—let's think outside of the box of punitive logic; it's a harmful and negative way of thinking, contrary to the spirit of the project. Overall, I've been conciliatory and have concentrated on discussion rather than revert warring. The article at present is filled from top to bottom with compromises, and I'll keep making compromises as long as there are disputes to resolve."
I don't know if the arbitrators read that last time around, but I hope they will this time. Everyking 00:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly reccomend against lifting these restrictions. To date, Everyking has yet to admit that he did anything wrong in the first place, and has been known to engage in rather vicious crusades against the people he thinks wronged him with this decision. He still denies reverting Ashlee Simpson articles after the first parole. In light of this total failure to accept culpability, and the fact that he's waited three minutes past the deadline, I have to say, I think it's all too likely that we're going to see more vicious edit warring on Everyking's part - particularly in light of his total failure to accept consensus on administrator actions on AN/I - why should we think he would accept it on the articles where his slide into this behavior began? Snowspinner 01:12, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Quite incorrect. If you'll read above you'll see several admissions of errors. In fact I have never hesitated to admit mistakes. Everyking 06:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Have you actually admitted to the error that led to your sanction - reverting Ashlee Simpson articles while under a restriction against doing so? Snowspinner 14:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Well, that issue is a bit unclear. You definitely won't find any cases of plain and simple reverts. I would agree, however, that I was getting too close to the boundaries and maybe overstepping them at points. I wouldn't say they were clear reverts, although in a vague sense of the word I might agree that some of them could be rationally interpreted as partial reverts (some were simply not—they were complete rewordings and restructuring things in altogether new ways), although I think they could have been rationally interpreted as not being reverts as well. I agree that I shouldn't have done it, though. Everyking 14:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Have you actually admitted to the error that led to your sanction - reverting Ashlee Simpson articles while under a restriction against doing so? Snowspinner 14:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- As I'm recused, I've got a few comments here - generally, I agree with Snowspinner. While I'd be happy to see some easing of the Ashlee Simpson restrictions (I was never quite in favour of a full ban), his version of events is so strongly opposed to what actually happened to be of concern, and the fact that he's just cut and pasted his request from last time suggests to me that he still doesn't get it. Secondly, if this issue is to be revisited, his increasingly vicious crusades against those he blames for those restrictions really need to be dealt with as well. It mightn't be a bad idea to reopen it, though, and end this once and for all - I still think the mentor idea might well work. Ambi 02:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- In fact I agreed with Snowspinner to restrict any criticism to his actions alone, and to avoid criticizing his general attitude. I don't see how that's "increasingly vicious". As usual I get no credit. Everyking 06:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- As I'm recused, I've got a few comments here - generally, I agree with Snowspinner. While I'd be happy to see some easing of the Ashlee Simpson restrictions (I was never quite in favour of a full ban), his version of events is so strongly opposed to what actually happened to be of concern, and the fact that he's just cut and pasted his request from last time suggests to me that he still doesn't get it. Secondly, if this issue is to be revisited, his increasingly vicious crusades against those he blames for those restrictions really need to be dealt with as well. It mightn't be a bad idea to reopen it, though, and end this once and for all - I still think the mentor idea might well work. Ambi 02:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If Fred would please explain his reasoning for rejecting the case... Everyking 17:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see any change and our docket is full, I don't think there is enough energy for another round. Fred Bauder 18:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- A change is beside the point, I'm just asking the ArbCom to reevaluate whether the sanctions are a good idea. Whether it is really a good idea to harshly punish someone who is as agreeable and conciliatory as anyone could rationally be. I'm not even asking that the ArbCom recognize that the last ruling was in error and that the past sanctions were unjust, I'm just asking that you make it so the sanctions don't apply to the present time. That doesn't take much energy. Everyking 18:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If your behavior over the last few months is "as agreeable and conciliatory as anyone could rationally be," I have to say, apparently agreeableness is dead. Snowspinner 19:49, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/1/1/0)
- Recuse. Ambi 09:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Reject Fred Bauder 17:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Requests for Clarification
If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here.