Revision as of 16:43, 6 March 2009

Template:Active editnotice

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. 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:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

• 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.

Current requests

Iberian-Guanche inscriptions

Initiated by Iberomesornix (talk) at 09:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Iberomesornix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fritzpoll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Fritzpoll
• Kwamikagami

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried.

• Kwamikagami has recommended me to go for arbitration ().

Statement by Iberomesornix

Introduction
a. Page Iberian-Guanche inscriptions was put up in English Misplaced Pages by me.
b. T_L_Miles says that this is mainly one single group's study.
c. Trigaranus suggested deleting the page, but with "no doubt, inscriptions exist".
d. Iberomesornix showed that the study was a result of several groups:

• Wermer Pichler collected the inscriptions as "Latin", without noticing they were written in Iberian.
• Renata Springer studies again Pichler's "Latin" inscriptions.

We edited the page questioning the Arnaiz-Villena translation, as suggested.
e. We stated in the discussion the authors who follow Arnaiz-Villena's Basque-Iberian interpretation.
f. Iberian-Basque theory has nothing to do with the page, but was brought up to be dismissed only 60 years ago. Since 16th Century, all scholars agreed it was right, including Humboldt.
g. dumu eduba says that Basque has nothing to do with any other language. This has nothing to do with the page, which was further edited to make it clear.
h. Iberomesornix dismissed dumu eduba's arguments with references. Even Ruhlen (Proffesor at Stanford University) and Bengston had supported them.
i. Trigaranus brings about a reference which he says dismisses the Iberian-Guanche inscriptions page. However, the reference is unrelated, because there was another Pichler reference showing what he calls "Latin inscriptions" and we call "Iberian-Guanche incriptons" .
j. However, this reference was completely deleted by Kwamikagami and later restored by me.
k. We think that this deletion is unjustified because permission was never criticized by anybody, and it might have been done for avoiding comparison with the key reference which was used to delete the page. We had permission to use it, which was asked by nobody.
l. Trigaranus and dumu eduba decided to tagging this page for deletion.
m. Reference given by Trigaranus is irrelevant for the page. The first ones are about Lybic inscriptions, and this page is about Latin or Guanche inscriptions. Please check the in both references and see they have nothing to do with each other.
n. This spureous reference was used as an argument for deletion by Fritzpoll .
o. In Deletion discussion it was made clear by me that discussion was unrelated to the page itself. It was brought about that Arnaiz-Villena had been persecuted and censored because of a Palestinian paper years ago, and that persecution is still ongoing by the same people that censored the Palestinian paper . Deletion discussion was balanced and repeating the same non-applying arguments.
p. Another distinct page with more documents (scanned Iberian-Guanche inscriptions on the rocks themselves) , and much editing, doubting about translations. As the critics did not like the term Guanche, the new page was renamed Iberian-Canarian scripts.
q. This new page was deleted by Kwamikagami arguing "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" .

'Summary'
1. Content of the page itself has not been criticized.
2. They have centered criticism on Basque-Iberism and translations (these matters were avoided, as explained in the Canarian-Iberian page discussion. Arnaiz-Villena is probably being persecuted again.
3. There is a conflict of interests about Iberian-Basque relationship. This has nothing to do with the page, and particularly with the fact that 2000-years-ago Iberian-Guanche inscriptions have been found in the Canary Islands since 1980's at least and they are silenced by scholars who feel damaged by these findings.
4. Trigaranus, Fritzpoll, and Kwamikagami have ignored common sense when following this case, in spite of perching to some Misplaced Pages regulations that are doubtfully appliable to about 2000-years-ago facts: the writing on Canary Islands rocks of Iberian scripts.
5. I am seeking a way out for keeping this important 2000-years-ago information in the Misplaced Pages. Arnaiz-Villena seems to be the target for deletion, instead of my page's contents; I would suggest either to reduce his references to the minimum.

1. ^ Die Schrift der Ostinseln-Corpus der Inschriften auf Fuerteventura. By: W. Pichler. Almogaren, XXIII. Edited by: Hallein. pp. 313-453 (1992).
2. Origen y uso de la escritura líbico-bereber en Canarias. By: Renata A. Springer Bunk. Edited by: Centro de Cultura Popular Canaria. Tenerife. Canary Islands. Spain (2001). ISBN: 978-84-7926-395-9
3. Egipcios, bereberes, guanches y vascos. By: A. Arnaiz-Villena and J. Alonso Garcia. Edited by: Editorial Complutense. Madrid. Spain. 2nd ed. January (2001).

Statement by Fritzpoll

Just to say, this has all caught me off guard - I had a request to explain the close some days ago, I responded and commented that WP:DRV was the next step if the party was unsatisfied. Beyond closing the AfD and deleting recreated pages, I've had no interaction with these editors or their pages and was, until this evening, nothing to do with this dispute. I am suitably bemused.

I did it before the diff that an arbitrator supplies below - see my archive. User_talk:Fritzpoll/Archive_4#Please__restore_Iberian-Canarian_scripts_page:not_a_single_argument_to_remove_it. I heard nothing back (that I can recall, I will check) between then and this request for arbitration. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am also entirely unaware of all of the other actions including one related to references that I have not seen or used in any argument anywhere - the diff provided does not demonstrate that I had any knowledge of such a source - that are attributed to me beyond closing an AfD, deleting another page per WP:CSD#G4 that was identical beyond the title, and recommending deletion review to the filing party. I am unaware of everythig else that has transpired until this request, and I don't believe that there are any diffs that can demonstrate otherwise. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/2)

• Comment What steps in WP:DR, if any, have been tried already? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I have forwarded commons:File:Iberian-Guanche inscriptions.pdf to the arbitrators. John Vandenberg 23:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Could we have a link to where Fritzpoll previously explained the deletion and recommended DRV? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The AfD I am reading now and the DRV recommendation. -- FayssalF - 03:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Decline. There is no evidence of misconduct warranting an arbitration case. The parties should follow the advice given by FayssalF just below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline Iberomesornix, I believe you are a relatively new user and need some guidance and the best one is the one Fritzpoll has suggested to you —which is WP:Deletion Review. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process and yet this looks more than a disagreement about the deletion of the material you brought in than a real conflict. And in order for you to follow that path, you have to limit your participation in the topic to one single account because sockpuppetry is not allowed. You have stated above that user:Kwamikagami has recommended to go for arbitration. In fact, the recommendation was suggested to user:Virginal6. If that is correct please ask any administrator to block your other account before moving forward. -- FayssalF - 06:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline - I agree with Fayssal's comments. Risker (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Fayssal. Wizardman 16:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Skatergal on articles related to the Sindhi community

Initiated by Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) at 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Gamesmasterg9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Skatergal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Master of Puppets (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Skatergal
• YellowMonkey
• Master of Puppets

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Negotiation
• RfC
• Mediation
• AfD for 'Sindhi ethnicity'
• Administrators' Noticeboard
• RfC listing on History and Geography page

Statement by Gamesmaster G-9

I attempted to clean up the original article Sindhi people of numerous POV statements (principally those that attempted to privilege Hindu Sindhis over Muslims). I was blocked by User:Skatergal and a number of anonymous users. All changes I made were reverted without explanation, and I was warned to stay away from "their page". (Please note the edit summaries , ). I provided explanations for each edit (), but to no avail. After requests by User:Yellowmonkey and User:Master_of_Puppets also had no effect, User:Yellowmonkey protected the page. Still, in spite of my requests, User:Skatergal refused to discuss the issue. During this time, she attempted to create a POV fork and add the same material that I was objecting to.

After the page was unprotected, the user has begun making disruptive edits again. Photographs of Pakistani Sindhis were removed and my edits are once again being reverted without explanation. All attempts at mediation and negotiation have failed. I have turned to arbitration as a last recourse. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum

Regarding the suggestion that I attempt other forms of mediation first, I should mention that I have tried posting to WP:AN and RfC:History and Geography. I should have mentioned those in the request, and I apologise for the oversight. The relevant diffs are here and . I am also adding them to the list of evidence.

In the meanwhile, Skatergal has continued to cause disruptive edits in spite of the arbitration proceedings , which have attracted the attention of at least one Pakistani user, and may blow up.

Once again, I would like to submit that this is not a content dispute, but an egregious violation of WP:OWN. I have expressed my willingness to discuss the content on numerous occasions (, , , ), but I have only met with intransigence. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Response

All of you have suggested some other means of dispute resolution, but there is no method I haven't tried. The only concrete suggestion was from Newyorkbrad. Could any of you put me in touch with an admin who is willing to help? Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Vassyana

Thank you for your suggestion. I will approach MedCab and MedCom. The reason I didn't approach them earlier is because I was convinced that this wasn't a content dispute. Hopefully, this will solve the problem. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement about RFC

I didn't start it. GMG09 did and listed it on the listings, he just didn't add the lightbulb template. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/9/0/1)

• Decline, seems like a content dispute to me. If it continues and mediation is refused, I'd actually try a thread at WP:AN first, as it does not seem like the community at large has taken a look at this problem. Wizardman 20:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. I do not know enough about the subject-matter to tell whether this is a legitimate content dispute or more of a user conduct issue, although the edit summary on the the user's latest contribution (the sole edit on March 1) is certainly not promising. A post to WP:ANI requesting attention to the page may be sufficient to address any user misconduct here, Otherwise, Wizardman's suggestion of mediation may be in order. The heavy artillery of an arbitration case, which represents the last and most complex stage of dispute resolution, is not required here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for adding the links to other steps you have taken. They make the request for arbitration seem more reasonable, but I still am not convinced that the problem has quite gotten to this stage. Could I ask that an uninvolved administrator get involved in the situation and see what needs to be done to address it. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, it is a legitimate problem as skatergal does not appear to be entering into any discussions. The RFC initiated by YellowMonkey has received no input at all, but that could be because it has not been added to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/History and geography. Could someone please do that. John Vandenberg 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline; at least for the time being. While there doesn't seem to be very much cooperation at this time, it is likely that less forceful methods of dispute resolution may yet bring positive results. — Coren  00:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline until some other avenues are exhausted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Declineper most of the above from my colleagues — Rlevse • Talk • 02:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. This is not mediation; it is a series of warnings. Mediation assistance can be provided by an uninvolved user acting informally, MedCab, and MedCom. While the document lays out formal mediation under MedCom, Misplaced Pages:Mediation is still a helpful reference about the general nature and purpose of mediation on Misplaced Pages. This is not "negotiation"; it is a short bickering exchange. This is only one attempt to raise the issue to the attention of uninvolved administrators, where the responding admin noted there was no 3RR violation but that if problems continued they could be addressed. I see no reason to believe that admins would not intervene if reports of continued conduct issues were reported at WP:ANI or another appropriate venue. Essentially, a plethora of dispute resolution options remain for both the content and conduct sides of the dispute, and there is no reason to believe this cannot be resolved at the community level. Vassyana (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Vassyana. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Vassyana. There is a problem here, as Skatergal does need to be more responsive and less aggressive, from what I've seen here. If ANI hasn't got much response, maybe try the geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard? Carcharoth (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per my colleagues. — Roger Davies 19:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

• WP:RFAC
• WP:RCAM

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

• 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.

Request for clarification : Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

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

• Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Hipocrite

SirFozzie "clarified" this case here. Is this valid? How could an outside user looking in know this was valid? Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Question for Tznkai

I find your statement an elegent and persuasive answer to my question zero ("Should this be valid"), which leads you to a request that Arbcom clarify my question one ("Is this valid?") with a "yes." I feel, however, that it does not adress my second question ("How could an outside user looking in know this was valid?")

Imagine I were to go edit the page to add a clarification that said "Tznkai is banned from WP:ANI, because that's what I think ArbCom meant." Obviously, I'm wrong. Is it my lack of Sysop flag, or the fact that I'm involved that makes it so? Perhpas it's because I'm a hothead prone to flying off the handle? No, that can't be it, because then User:17Drew could do it, and, arguably, that would be less valid. (Sorry 17D, you were the first admin on the list I don't know), because, well, he's wrong, but he might be taken seriously, unlike me. This is why the Orangemarlin action was so over the top - because not only was it invalid, but it was taken quite seriously and presented with the full pomp and circumstance.

If the only way to tell if something is correct is to verify that it's correct, then that's not a process that works. If a clarification is to be made to ArbCom, it needs to be made by ArbCom, not by someuser. Not even if that user is a sysop, or a clerk, or an arbcom member. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

The topic ban placed on ScienceApologist has proven highly problematic. It has lead to intense wikilawyering and campaigning for blocks on WP:AE. The Arbitration Committee was appointed to decide difficult cases. Decide. Don't fob your responsibilities onto the admin corps. No two users seem to agree on what the topic ban covers. Does it cover a simple article on plants, such as Atropa belladona? Can SA work on an article like Gamma-ray burst? If SA finds unsourced WP:OR in that article, can he remove it? SA has many antagonists who are ready to jump in and claim that SA is violating the topic ban. The decision in this case has made a total mess at WP:AE. You've made the situation worse rather than better. Jehochman 15:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

There are two basic ways to interpret SirFozzie's action. First, as part of the normal discretion implied and neccesary in having to interpret terms such as "broadly construed" and the generally wide berth that admins are given to enforce arbitration remedies, or 2. as an extra-procedural, but I would argue correct modification to an Arbitration remedy.

The exact wording of the remedy is as follows: "3.1) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles."

The key terms are "any article" and "broadly construed" The simplest and plain text reading of the remedy would allow any administrator to block ScienceApologist if he edits on any article that has any relation to fringe science, no matter how minute the relationship. This would include any edit on any such article, even the most uncontroversial. In other words, un-watchlist and walk away, you don't belong here. What others have interpreted it as is articles only tightly related to fringe science, or which the subject is fringe science - paranormal activity, UFOlogy, and so forth. Unfortunately, confounding the issue, some science is "fringe" in that it is generally not considered science, and some science is simply unpopular or in legitimate dispute (is my position that Pluto is a planet "fringe?"). In addition, this would also mean that edits that in themselves concern fringe science, are not restricted. Thus, an edit to Chinese culture is not restricted, even if it is to say "Chinese medicine is a pseudoscientific fraud" - which is clearly related to fringe science topic, but is not a fringe science article.

Fozzie's interpretation more accurately addresses what I believe was the intent of the committee: to keep ScienceApologist from editing on topics he has shown a history of problematic behavior, and thus the edit itself should also fall under the microscope. Otherwise, in order to make the restriction effective, we must go with the plaintext reading, leaving ScienceApologist topic banned from any article that touches the subject of fringe science or fields that are pseduoscientific, or have been related to fringe science in present or past, because of the wording of "broadly construed" - or we can use a common sense approach in reading the topic ban. Excessive obsession over wording minutiae leads us away from the obvious, but I will indulge anyway to point out this: both Bainer and Coren referred to the "topic area" which implies it is the content itself, not the title of the article, that is the problem.

It is my opinion that SirFozzie's clarification serves an obvious purpose: he is essentially publishing his interpretation of the remedy's intent and wording, and thus putting upfront under what conditions he as an administrator will block under - and other admins can endorse his opinion (as I do now) as the interpretation they will use.

If it is the opinion of the Committee that SirFozzie's action was confusing or distressingly extraprocedural, the solution is to quickly come to a clarification, preferably one endorsing SirFozzie's interpretation. Let me remind the Committee however, that Aribtration Enforcement is a difficult matter, and the administrators need a great deal of support, and as this request for comment has shown, the administrators are not getting it. It is the natural result of this situation that AE admins are left to make interpretations on the fly and on the ground - and that overriding such a decision should only be done when there is significant need. If the Committee chooses to disagree significantly and say so, it should also be the first of many acts showing the dedication of the Committee to become more responsive and involved in the administrator work done to enforce Arbitration decisions.--Tznkai (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ScienceApologist

One solution may be to simply lift the topic ban. There was another proposal called "3.2" that was gaining traction (maybe) but the arbitration closed before all arbitrators had a chance to consider it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

• Recuse, will be making a statement.--Tznkai (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• As stated on the proposed decision page, I have recused on issues relating to ScienceApologist because of his role in helping set up the New York meet-ups and Chapter meetings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration