Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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:

• 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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct		21 October 2024	4/3/2
Marine 69-71	Motions	26 October 2024	0/0/0
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

2004 Madrid train bombings

Initiated by Southofwatford at 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Southofwatford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Igor21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Randroide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Larean01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Raystorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Burgas00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Igor21 [[1]]

Randroide [[2]]

Larean01 [[3]]

Raystorm [[4]]

Burgas00 [[5]]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Attempt to create new neutral main article [[6]]

Attempted RFC [[7]]

Attempted request for mediation 1 [[8]]

Attempted request for mediation 2 [[9]]

Latest RFC [[10]]

Statement by User:Southofwatford

Statement removed because it exceeds the length limit. Southofwatford has been invited to submit a shorter statement. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've temporarily restored his statement; I believe his original statement was under the word count, and it was only because he replied to concerns and questions raised by myself and Jpgordon in the acceptance section that the statement's overall length went above 500 words. I don't see any reason to penalize him for responding to our requests for clarification, although I do encourage him to use a shorter statement if he so wishes. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The articles on the 2004 Madrid train bombings , together with its subsidiary article, Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings, have been subject to a lengthy dispute that has been running since July last year. It is difficult to summarise all issues in such a long dispute. The key question in the dispute has been the treatment to be given to conspiracy theories concerning the Madrid bombings. There are also important but secondary issues, most notably the acceptability of sources for information concerning the bombings. Although each user has their own opinions, the main division of opinion is between those who believe that the main article should not be dominated by discussion of these theories, and one user who supports the conspiracy theories and who believes they should be given at least equal weight.

We currently have a situation where the disputed nature of the affected article is not being respected [[11]], [[12]], and since the New Year the dispute has deteriorated sharply as a result of this. A continuation of things as they are at the moment makes the outbreak of an edit war at some point very probable; as we have a situation where one user wants to carry out unilateral and disputed changes, whilst all others involved in the dispute have voluntarily avoided any significant editing of the article while attempts to resolve the dispute are made. In the end such a situation becomes unsustainable as the article continues to shift towards the point of view of a single party to the dispute. Also, articles tangentially related to the subject are being “infected” by insertion of POV material concerning the conspiracy theories in an attempt to circumvent the dispute, leading to multiple references to the same issues appearing in different places.

I have tried to launch two mediation processes and one RfC, none of these have got off the ground. Prior to this there was a significant effort made to find a wording for a neutral main article that would permit the separation of the conspiracy theories and other controversial issues into a separate article; this effort was also unsuccessful despite getting close to a reasonable conclusion. I have reached the conclusion that arbitration is needed to settle the key issues, a point of view endorsed by an administrator who has been witness to the dispute [[13]]. In my opinion the article as it currently stands is simply not useful as a reference on the bombings and associated events. Despite very substantial edits, and the addition of more recent information, it is in many ways in a worse state than the version which existed 12 months ago. Unfortunately, the politicisation of the bombings in Spain has led to the English account of the train bombings being targeted as a political platform.

Let me add a brief comment on the question raised by jpgordon - the key issue at the heart of the dispute is the treatment of the conspiracy theories within the article(s). If it becomes an issue of particular users it is because we have been unable to reach any solution to the dispute - Randroide has resisted any solution which does not give equal (or greater) weight within the article to the conspiracy theories. Southofwatford 19:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Two requests for mediation got to the point where they could be submitted - there was agreement on bullet points. The first was destroyed by Randroide deciding he preferred to start making contested changes to the article instead. The second got halted at the last minute when Randroide decided he wanted an RFC instead. Southofwatford 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Randroide

This statement has been removed because it exceeds the length limit. Randroide has been invited to submit a shorter statement. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote not a single "conspiracy theory" assertion into the article. It´s up to my adversaries to prove the opposite by (nonexistent) diffs.

The controversial part of the contents I introduced has been reflected, in its essentials, by international media in english

A report I wrote about the notability of the supporters of the "Controversies" about the 2004 Madrid bombings (thinking, of course, about WP:WEIGHT).

I ask for User:Gimferrer and User:Dr Debug to be listed as involved parties.

ABOUT 2004 Madrid train bombings

The article as it was 12 months ago:

• Only 3 (THREE) references Vs. 115 (One hundred fifteen) references now.

• Southofwatford
  • New sources inserted into the article by Southofwatford: One [14]
  • Notable edits by Southofwatford: Watch out this edit: Southofwatford reintroduces unsourced blocks of text and typos, deletes sourced text and even restores a nonfunctional image, all in one single edit. Four sources deleted in a single edit

• Randroide (me)

• New sources inserted into the article by Randroide (me): Sixty five sources in forty five edits See here the relevant diffs.
• Sources deleted by Randroide (me): None.
• Unsourced statements pasted into the article by Randroide (me): None

ABOUT Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings

The article was tagged as "unsourced" in August 2006 [15].

Southofwatford tagged the article as "total dispute" in September 2006 [16], with the purpose (his own words) of providing a light level of protection [17].

In January 2007 I, Randroide, tagged +50 unsourced blocks of text [18][19]

The subsequent discussion with Southofwatford is here: This is the place to see how far you can go with discussion and consensus with Southofwatford, even in a clear-cut issue as the deletion of unsourced text.

In February 2007 I, Randroide, hided the unsourced statements [20]

Southofwatford reintroduced the +50 blocks of unsourced text, thrice [21][22][23]

• Unsourced statements pasted into the article by Randroide (me): None.

Randroide 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ABOUT UserIgor21

• New sources inserted into 2004 Madrid train bombings by Igor21: One [24]
• Sources deleted by Igor21: Four [25]
• Personal attacks by Igor21 (non exhaustive list):
  • I am "mad" [26], I should be blocked forever [27], I have "paranoid threats" (!)[28], I am in a state "of mental confusion and fluctuating consciousness" (!?) [29], I am a simulator [30][31], I am part of a "very small group of right winged fanatics" [32], I am a simulator [33], I use "poisonous" (or "toxic" [34]) sources, and Igor21 has nothing to talk with me [35], I am a "fanatic conspirationist" [36]. I cheated Durova [37] and I am a "Filibuster" [38]
  • El Mundo (Spain) -the second general information newspaper in Spain- is a "vomiting source of nauseating lies" and "a libelous t**d" [39], not acceptable as a source [40][41][42][43][44]
• Igor21´s positions on WP:NPOV:

"Open your eyes, Wales is objectivist and takes Rand´s crap as a coherent philosophy. It is sad, but revealing about where he finds his epistemological rubbish about his definition of NPOV" SPANISH

This is the Wikipedia´s foolishness. It is clear that some sources are more credible than others, but NPOV won't allow to remove lying sources and forces to publish them with the others. SPANISH

Statement by Igor21

The problem is very easy when correctly explained. What we have here is the typical discussion about what to do with conspiracy theories. Everybody except user Randroide want them to be in a sub-article. The key point is that Randroide do not accept a hierarchy of sources so he not accept that what the mainstream world class sources say about the bombing must be stated in the main article, and the minoritary counterintuitive opinions of one local Spanish newspaper -BTW with well know biasing about the subject- must be in a subarticle. So what the comunity is being asked about is if a structure similar to 9/11 (with the conspiracy theories confined in a subarticle) is a good way to go since 1)is what the majority of editors involved wants and 2)is what is rutinary done in other articles that boast associated conspiracy theory. Regarding behaviour, Randroide is an extremely formally polited person but he uses his particular interpretation of wikipedia rules as an arsenal to push his ideas in the main article. This has caused some tensions with other editors who see how Randroide simulates to respect wikipedia rules when in reality is just following the letter and breaking sistematically the esprit of those rules, introducing his minoritary point of view in the main article and accusing respectful editors as Southofwatford of all kinds of misdoings. E.g. during Christmas and ignoring the dispute, Randroide embedded completely the article with conspiracy theories and when Southofwatford tried to fix it, he accuses him of removing "sourced material", purposely ignoring that the source was heavily contradicted by the rest of the media of the planet.

Statement by Durova

I recommended arbitration after touching bases with these editors repeatedly over several months. They've given the dispute resolution process several fair tries and the disagreements appear to be intractable. As I understand the dilemma, there's a difference of opinion about the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV and the appropriate way to prioritize sources per WP:V and WP:RS. The Committee has handled conspiracy theory disputes before and this one has drawn out long enough that it seemed appropriate to refer the participants here.

It's been difficult for these editors to solicit unbiased outside opinions here because any RFC or 3O respondant soon sees that both a reading knowledge of the Spanish language and a familiarity with the leading newspapers of Spain would be necessary to discuss the dispute at the editors' own level. My own broken Spanish isn't up to that task.

Fortunately their quarrels have remained fairly civilized so I don't anticipate a lot of theatrics if the Committee agrees to hear this case. That situation comes with a downside: I doubt the community would line up behind a disruptive editing ban - even if one of the editors may actually be disruptive. This looks like the sort of problem that would continue to smolder until good editors gave up and quit, so I ask the Committee to give this a hearing. I suspect this would be one of the less time consuming cases on the roster. Durova^Charge! 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Raystorm

I began to edit this article on X-mas unaware of the situation between the different editors (mainly, Randroide on one side, and Southofwatford and Igor21 on the other). I soon ran into conflict with Randroide, but he has always remained civil and polite. Randroide defends a 'conspiracy theory' (called as such by Spanish media and people). This theory was produced by Spanish newspaper 'El Mundo'. The problem is that the article has become a battle of who produces more El Mundo and anti-El Mundo sources, giving excessive importance to what a single newspaper (refuted every step of the way by judiciary and policial sources) says.

Every single assertion El Mundo has made has been refuted, but they keep on 'investigating' and producing shocking new data that invariably points to the basque terrorist group ETA as the sole author of the March 11 attacks. This implies that a fantastical conspiracy by the judiciary, policial and political authorities has taken place to rise the Socialist Government to power (the attack happened a few days before the elections). Not even the opposition party (People's Party of Spain) openly supports El Mundo assertions, and they vaguely state they wanna 'know all the truth' about what happened. The trial of the March 11 attacks has begun in Spain: 90,000 pages of investigation, 29 al-Qaeda related suspects and not a single shred of evidence for what El Mundo (and those who support it by echoing their 'revelations') states. Not a single mention of ETA, except to say there is no connection between them and the attacks. Per WP:Undue Weight, the amount of information currently given in the article based on El Mundo's claims is excessive. It gives the false impression that there are incredible doubts about the investigation in Spain, when that is not the case, per the 90,000 pages investigation and evidence provided. It may be relevant to note that El Mundo's director ran into trouble during the previous Socialist government, and that the few groups that support El Mundo are openly against the socialists.

I suggest placing what the majority of editors consider controversial (i.e, most El Mundo claims, or whatever is decided) into a sub-article that also contains sources that refute those claims, and only make a small mention of those claims on the main article. Raystorm 18:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/2)

• Comment: I can't really tell from this exactly what we're being asked to arbitrate. Are particular users behaving badly? That we can maybe do something about. I know from poking around this is more than a content dispute, but the case presented does not show that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, more study shows an RFC was never even attempted. The idea was discussed but not actually enacted; from the archives of the talk page, everyone seems to have missed the point completely. An article RFC is not something people agree on; any single user, at any time including right now can go over to WP:RFC/POLITICS (or whichever you think is the best category) and start it up. For example, a single sentence saying "So-and-so article: editors could use some previously uninvolved editors to help determine the weight to be given certain points of view regarding the perpetrators of the bombing". Or something like that; I'm sure many of you are able to craft the sort of neutral-sounding statement that works best at WP:RFC. Otherwise, it really seems like this is an argument that's never gotten past the article's talk page. Unless I'm mistaken about this -- no RFC, no mediation, no request for third opinions -- I'll be rejecting this request as premature. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I see your reply to Jpgordon's comment, but I need something clarified: was any mediation ever submitted or attempted? Your two diffs show comments stating that you would begin a process of mediation: was an attempt ever started with either the mediation committee (see requests for mediation), mediation cabal, or other informal mediation? Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC) (your response has been noted and is being considered.) 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 16:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Request for clarification of Derek Smart case

The recently closed ArbCom case for Derek Smart, found here had a number of findings related to sock puppets, single purpse accounts, and a decision regarding "surrogates" of Derek Smart.

I would like clarification from ArbCom on this case. Am I considered a "harmful SPA" with respect to this article? Am I considered a surrogate of Derek Smart?

In my defense, I would like to say that while I have a tendency to focus in on one article and stick with it, I am not a single-purpose account. A quick scan of my activity will show that I have pursued other articles besides this one (albeit following my self-described "one article at a time" habit). Furthermore, while editing this article I pushed no particular POV, sometimes making edits with content that reflected favorably on Smart[45] and sometimes not[46]. In the past I've been vocal in debate against SupremeCmdr and Warhawk/WarhawkSP[47]. I think my position was best summarized by an anonymous respondant to the ArbCom case's workshop page, "Mael-num seems to me to be a neutral editor with a conservative view toward the negative aspects of the article subject's notability, who may have felt that after other editors had been banned from editing, there were potential troubles maintaining neutrality.". The consensus of other editors involved was that I was not working in collusion with SupremeCmdr et al.[48][49][50] Which leads me to my request for clarification. Most important to me is that I would like to know that I am not seen as guilty of something I have not done. It's a matter of principle that I don't want to be seen as a sockpuppet, SPA, or POV-pusher. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Mael-Num 03:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Request permission to conform citation formats

I have been forbidden from editing articles related to depleted uranium. The current version is missing almost all the footnote references from the Health considerations section which are correct in this earlier version, because unlike all the other properly formed footnotes, most of the health consideration sources in the current version are just in-line URLs. May I please conform those references, which would clarify and improve the article? James S. 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification regarding the Bogdanov Affair

Yes, the thorn-in-the-side returns! Three sock puppets — Bester (talk · contribs), Stern (talk · contribs) and Tron (talk · contribs) — have in the last three days vandalized the Bogdanov Affair article, subject of a 2005 ArbCom ruling. All of their accounts are older, in contrast to the one-shot sockpuppet accounts created to muck with that article earlier, but they have been inactive for a long time (Bester since 3 July 2005, Stern since 2 August 2006 and Tron since 26 February 2004). Edit mannerisms (diff, [51]) are similar or identical to the sockpuppets encountered last year (such as these).

Samuel Blanning (talk · contribs) and I both suspect that these may be compromised accounts. In that light, I'd like to request an emendation of the enforcement decision which currently states the following:

New user accounts and anonymous IPs which focus on editing of Bogdanov Affair shall be presumed to be participants in the external dispute and, despite not being specifically mentioned in this remedy, are subject to it.

Is it possible to amend this statement so that it also applies to user accounts which have been inactive a significant length of time (say, greater than six months) and which may be compromised, particularly if they exhibit the same editing behavior as known offenders? These are, I should add, very predictable puppets. Anville 22:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit to add: Sam Blanning has created a long-term abuse entry for this matter, which see. Anville 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been operating under the assumption that previous rulings, e.g. RFAR/Iasson: One user or several? (a ruling repeated in other cases which I don't remember offhand), allow for the blocking of such compromised accounts, but a change to the wording of the specific case would be appreciated. Only place I disagree with Anville is that I don't think it would be a good idea to include a time limit ("greater than six months") in the amended ruling. The length of time isn't the giveaway, it's the fact that these accounts first display none of the characteristics, then they fall dormant, then they suddenly spring up as Bogdasocks. I wouldn't like to be in a situation where the fact that the account had been compromised would be as obvious as in the case of Bester, but it only fell dormant five months ago.

Arbcom rulings are generally slow to change and risky to ignore, so the Arbcom shouldn't, in my opinion, seek to set out exactly how administrators may act to fight a specific abuser once they've ruled that they need to be dealt with - whether a particular account has been compromised should be left up to the judgement of administrators and the community in general on a case-by-case basis. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Sam Blanning's comments and upon further reflection, I've struck out the "six months" part of my remark. Anville 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're on safe ground blocking the accounts as socks. I don't believe it's necessary to formally change the remedy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification regarding a self-identified pedophile

Matters of this nature should be addressed by email to individual arbitrators detailing problematic behavior. Please do not place notices on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or file a request for arbitration. Likewise any concerns regarding actions taken regarding such problems should be emailed to individual arbitrators for private consideration by the Arbitration Committee. Fred Bauder 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)