Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
]		17 October 2016	0/6/0

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Shortcuts

About this page

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

This page is for statements, not discussion.
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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Dinesh D'Souza

Initiated by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) at 22:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Involved parties

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
‎Oneshotofwhiskey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

User:Oneshotofwhiskey openly boasts that he is WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia. In his own words, he is an activist intending to expose "the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)"; this mentality has unsurprisingly caused him to challenge basic tenets of WP:BLP. For example, Oneshotofwhiskey replaced the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot, and accused D'Souza of promoting "conspiracy theory" in the lead. Discussion on the talk page has yielded no consensus in favor of labeling D'Souza a "convicted felon" or "conspiracy theorist"—in fact, despite Oneshotofwhiskey's suggestions to the contrary, he is essentially alone in advocating those changes. (An RfC has recently been opened on the "conspiracy theorist" question, with one vote in favor of including the label.) Nor am I alone in challenging Oneshotofwhiskey's POV-pushing language. Although he has since dropped the mugshot angle, Oneshotofwhiskey has continued to attack Dinesh D'Souza with a tenacity and complete disregard for sources or standards that is really quite shocking. Compare the old, accepted "Personal life" section with the Oneshotofwhiskey version, complete with a brand-new "Marriage scandal" subsection. Is there any other BLP written in this manner? Of course not; Oneshotofwhiskey is simply making a mockery of Misplaced Pages policy. Oneshotofwhiskey has mass deleted over 2,000 bytes of previously accepted material from reliable sources like Alan Dershowitz eight times now (, , , , , , , ), claiming it is "WP:SYNTH" to include Dershowitz's attributed opinion because "he was not involved in this trial of D'Souza" (needless to say, that is not a proper application of the policy), and adding "Dershowitz himself is a shoddy source considering his own actions in helping murderer O.J. Simpson get away with his crimes." Oneshotofwhiskey continues to rant about how D'Souza is "a pathological liar, delusional, mentally-unstable, (and) an adulterer", and frequently makes claims that fail verification, as when he attributed the following text to this Slate article: "In 2012, D'Souza released 2016: Obama's America, a conservative political documentary film based on his 2010 book The Roots of Obama's Rage. Both offer his personal partisan opinions and anecdotal observations." Since Oneshotofwhiskey believes WP:BRD does not apply to his changes, I feel I have no choice but to seek your assistance.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by ‎Oneshotofwhiskey

I wouldn't read too much into my statements on the talk. In these political talk pages, they devolve into political debate. Pay attention to my edits. I have MORE than compromised with this editor. If you review this editor's history, he engages in personal attacks as a habit and he currently has confessed to editwarring and violating 3RR on this page.

My edits fall well within WP:CITE and are respected by consensus on the talk page. Wish this editor would do the same.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, here is the current arbitration still underway for this user. In it he has blatantly violated 3RR and has admitted to such. He's essentially confessed to knowingly-editwarring, he's just basically saying he feels justified in doing so. In his defense, in attempt to stop his partisan conservative-POV vandalizing of the page, I may have inadvertently violated the 3RR rule myself. I only mention that since I do not believe that I am above the rules and I readily accept the consequences for my actions, intentional or otherwise. Thank you for taking the time to arbitrate this if necessary. But I don't think this is rocket science. Seems simple enough.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by very uninvolved Ks0stm

Seems better suited to ANI than arbitration as currently framed. Ks0stm 22:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

This is a dispute involving American politics in the twenty-first century and is within the scope of WP:ARBAP2. Disruptive editing can be dealt with by Arbitration Enforcement. I see no need for new arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72

Concur with Robert McClenon & Ks0stm. Suggest this be ~~copied "as is" to AE &~~ declined here. - Ryk72 00:18, 18 October 2016 (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.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Dinesh D'Souza: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0>-Dinesh_D'Souza-2016-10-18T04:59:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Decline This just needs a bit of Administrator TLC and some DR beyond a single talkpage, not 4 weeks of Arbitration. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)"> ">
Decline as Amanda says this request just needs to be handled by an admin and it appears that Oshwah has started to do so. I'll note though, that AE won't be able to help with ‎Oneshotofwhiskey, or TheTimesAreAChanging for that matter, as they hadn't been made aware of discretionary sanctions (they both have now). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Decline AE can solve this issue. @Callanecc: I made Oneshotofwhiskey aware with this edit. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Decline Can be handled elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Decline. Salvio 16:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Decline and divert to ANI. Courcelles (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Decline and divert to ANI. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)