Requests for arbitration
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-Strait conflict: PRC and ROC | 23 June 2017 | 0/8/0 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland | Motion | (orig. case) | 21 June 2024 |
| Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox | Motion | none | 18 July 2024 |
| Clarification request: Desysoppings | none | none | 18 July 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 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 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.
|
Cross-Strait conflict: PRC and ROC
Initiated by Supreme Dragon (talk) at 00:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Supreme Dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Matt Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Lemongirl942 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kanguole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- AjaxSmack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Miklcct (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- George Ho (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
Pages that related to Cross-Strait conflict for example:
- National Emblem of the People's Republic of China
- Republic of China (1949–71) (now redirected)
- Taiwan
- China
Statement by Supreme Dragon
Because of the PRC/ROC edit confusion, I propose this case to make it similar to how the Israeli-Palestinian articles are treated as such and we wanted the articles related to the Cross-Strait entities under 1RR enforcement. Since many people referred to either the Republic of China as "Taiwan" the island and the People's Republic of China as "China" things came out of hand because Taiwan was a former Japanese colony for 50 years.
How about we propose a WikiProject Cross-Strait collaboration just like how the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration did. Is there a way to resolve this issue?
Another issue is the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAME, why can't most pages like the PRC and ROC follow the Chinese Wikipedia?
Statement by JohnBlackburne
Not sure exactly what is being proposed here, but I have some prior experience of arbitration and this is not a suitable matter for arbitration, both in what is being asked and in other avenues being exhausted.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Matt Smith
I'm not sure about what specific actions you would like to perform. Could you please elaborate? --Matt Smith (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Lemongirl942
Statement by Kanguole
Statement by AjaxSmack
Statement by Miklcct
Although undoubtedly, the WP:COMMONNAME of PRC is China and WP:COMMONNAME of ROC is Taiwan, it is not always true along the history, and after the prolonged discussion of Talk:Taiwan/Archive 20, the original Republic of China article (most of which is about the current state commonly known as Taiwan) moved to Taiwan and it is supposed that "An article narrowly formulated about the government of Taiwan and its history can be created at Republic of China."
However, the attempt to do the latter is frequently get reverted over years, leaving ongoing confusion, and against consensus of the discussion.
Statement by George Ho
I have been involved in ArbCom. This time, the issue hasn't escalated yet. I told the requestor to reconsider filing the request. However, seems that the requestor wants to go ahead as intended and do this. Honestly, China and Taiwan titling has been debated for so long, yet I request that the full case be declined. Unsure about a motion as there were disagreements at one talk page (formerly "Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/China"). One editor accusing another of something like this, though it's self-reverted. Still, the requestor (Supreme Dragon) and Szqecs should reconsider pursuing the titling changes further. --George Ho (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, declining a motion either. --George Ho (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Softlavender
Supreme Dragon, this case request is going to be turned down flat by ArbCom. You have not engaged in even one single form of Dispute Resolution. And this is a content dispute, which ArbCom never deals with. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Question for ArbCom: What the hell is with the plethora of brand-new [3] editors making unwarranted ArbCom case requests this week? Are the warnings about exhausting all other forms of dispute resolution not clear or visible enough? Apparently not, so could someone fix that? I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over and over again. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2017 (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).
Cross-Strait conflict: PRC and ROC: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
- Decline. Seriously: what the editor is proposing is in no way the business of ArbCom. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Decline. I don't think Supreme Dragon understands the arbitration process or the role of ArbCom under the WP:ARBPOL. Mkdw talk 02:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Decline premature. Could open RfC for starters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Decline per above. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Decline the "prior dispute resolution" consists of a revert and a fix of a link to a disambiguation page from a year ago? (That has to be a mis-paste, right?) Premature and not really within our scope. Try an RfC if needed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Decline per all above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Decline ditto. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Decline per above. While I realise that this is a difficult and controversial issue at the moment, there are many other (less lengthy and stressful) options (see WP:CONTENTDISPUTE) you should try before arbitration. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)