Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

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: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	31 July 2024
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Historical elections	21 July 2024

Requests for amendment

Use this section:

To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems.
To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly)

How to file a request (please use this format!):

Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page.
Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests.
Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~.
If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification.

This is not a page for discussion.

It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment:
1. The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header),
2. The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision,
3. The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and
4. A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words.
Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys

Initiated by Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} at Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Russavia-Biophys arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Hodja Nasreddin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) formerly (Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Hodja Nasreddin

Amendment 1

Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted
I would like the interaction ban to be reciprocated, which would prohibit Biophys from interacting with myself, and commenting on myself.

Statement by Russavia

Berezovsky

I was active on the Boris Berezovsky article.
There was an strong concern from numerous editors that Kolokol1 (talk · contribs) has a COI with the subject[1][2] and is whitewashing the article of much negative information[3][4][5][6][7][8]
In response I was accused of working for the Russian govt [9]
Kolokol was told not to make such accusations lightly[10]
More accusations followed, and COI admitted[11]
Another warning[12]
Another accusation[13]
I respond to the accusations and again raise the COI[14]
Another accusation - fellow traveller is equivalent to useful idiot[15]
Biophys enters on Kolokol1's talk page[16] and again links to these accusations from almost 3 years ago by another user. His words insinuate that i was responsible for the editor being banned -- in actuality the editor was eventually banned for abusive sockpuppetry.
Biophys has used that diff in different discussions concerning myself in the past, and it is used to insinuate that I am not an Australian Russophile, but rather KGB, FSB, MID, MVD, etc, etc. Excuse me for not supplying specific diffs where he has done this, I don't keep such records. If diffs are indeed required, I will either find them, or remove this.
Such accusations have been found in the past to be without merit
The Committee refused 3 years ago to do anything in relation to Biophys and such accusations, as he
- 1) Promised never to do it again
- 2) Stayed on the right side of the line
Use of such diffs by Biophys does not stay on the right side of the line, and only cements a particular mindset with other editors in regards to editors whom accusations are levelled against

AE request

On 25 October, I made this edit
Biophys has never edited the article before, nor has he ever used the talk page
24 hours later he posts this on the talk page
3 hours later he posts this on my talk page
Biophys then appears at Talk:Controversies_and_criticisms_of_RT#Comment; another article he has never edited before
I respond and tell him to stay away from my talk page
Biophys returns to my TP
I post this
I am advised of AE request
AE request here
I raise different issues in the request, including hounding and misrepresentations on the part of Biophys
Biophys states he made the request because no-one would - i.e. no-one else saw major problems, nor was watching
The following of others contributions was found to be unhealthy by the Committee
This echoes what I stated at WP:ARBRB; which saw me being placed with an interaction ban
FPaS considers placing a mutual ban on Biophys under other sanctions[17]
Other admins refused to even look at this problem

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 2

Wikipedia:ARBRB#Biophys_topic_banned
Biophys topic banned from all articles relating to Aeroflot, broadly construed. This would also include BLP articles such as Viktor Ivanov and Boris Berezovsky. It may be appropriate, given past history to consider topic banning Biophys from all Russian BLP articles, broadly construed. This ban to be set with no expiration, but rather to be lifted only upon onwiki appeal to the Committee.

Statement by Russavia (2)

Aeroflot

In mid-September, I began to introduce rewritten information and an expansion of Aeroflot [18]
The Boris Berezovsky article issues interrupted this (as detailed above)
As part of the discussion on the Berezovsky talk page, I posted this.
Almost immediately after that, Biophys makes this edit to the Aeroflot article.
The edit is almost identical to an edit from September 2009[19]
This information was removed from the article by other editors in 2009 due to this.
Note The information that Biophys has re-included into the article, includes reference to Aquarium (Suvorov); a fictionalised autobiography. As noted on the talk page, it is a novel.
Including negative information based upon a novel into any article is IMO forgivable only on the first occasion.
The information also includes a WP:BLP violation, in that it notes that Viktor Ivanov is in the FSB hierarchy, thereby implying that his position at Aeroflot is connected to his position in the FSB; ignoring that he is also involved in other business and is also involved in politics.
Biophys has a long history of reintroducing information into articles which has previously been removed. This case is full of such examples.
Given the short time frame between my post on the Berezovsky talk page and Biophys' return of two year removed information into the article, it is fair to assume that he did this due to my post on the BB talk page
Biophys knew I would be 1) unable to remove it or 2) discuss it -- for all intent and purpose it would be left in the article, even as I was going to continue with rewriting it.
I revert his addition
I post this on the talk page
I implore that Arbs read the entire section, as it is evident that Biophys attempted to use the interaction ban as a weapon to sideline myself from the article entirely
Biophys posts this[20] - he uses the interaction ban card to try and lock me out of conversation
This is posted on another user's talk page, asking for advice on what I should do in relation to the situation as it was at the time (e.g. accusations against myself coming from numerous editors). It was not an invite nor even a call for help on the Aeroflot article, but a request only for advice.
Another editor, aside from Igny, agreed with the removal of information.
Immediately after the appearance of User:Collect on the talk page, given his misrepresentations against myself, I had enough and retired
It was my intention to leave enwp entirely, but returned after a week/week and a half and made it clear I wouldn't be hounded from the project.

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Biophys was allowed to return to this topic area after an appeal. Arb comments are at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_4

Please note Biophys has again retired. As evidenced in the initial case this is often done by Biophys to escape scrutiny and sanctions. This request should be allowed to continue regardless. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 03:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Statement by Collect

An "O Cataline" moment on the arbitration pages? This is not the best place to seek bans on such wondrous bases as "he retires to avoid it" considering a recent block and [21] a request for an unblock because he was still complaining at AE, [22] with edit summary can someone deal with this shit - stay away from my talk page doesn't mean come back and post yet again - GO AWAY) which shows a possible civility concern, [23] showing a rather cargumentative nature about me daring to call myself "uninvolved" in a case where I was actually uninvolved (and where he edited my post to change it to "involved"), [24] his own one week "retiremenet" and all in a short period of time. I rather think Russavia should simply be told to stay away from routine posts to ArbCom and to let things quiet down a bit. And have a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC) By the way, he did not give me the courtesy of a note that he accuses me here of "misrepresentations. Again - simply telling him to have a cup or two of tea should work, I sincerely hope. Collect (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Colchicum

Quousque tandem abutere, Russavia, patientia nostra? The idea that the mention of Viktor Ivanov's FSB affiliation, not in the least contentious, is a BLP violation is just ridiculous. I have a hard time trying to believe that Russavia is even serious here. The rest of the request is probably of similar quality and needs very careful research and scrutiny before placing any sanctions on anybody. Well, everybody here has probably learned by now that his allegations should never be taken at their face value. Also note that per the same reasoning Russavia himself should at the very least be topic-banned from all things Baltic and Polish. Supporting evidence abounds, but I can point it out specifically if anybody doesn't know what I mean. As to the retirement tactics, Russavia himself temporary "retired" in September, shortly after this [25], which would most certainly yield him a lengthy block otherwise. Colchicum (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request to amend prior case: Climate change

Initiated by Scjessey (talk) at 15:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Climate change arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Scjessey's voluntary editing restriction

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

none

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

n/a

Amendment 1

That the voluntary editing restriction be lifted.

Statement by Scjessey

Per this comment and this discussion, I have completed a voluntary editing restriction in the topic of climate change for well over a year, and per advice given by Roger Davies here, I would like to request that the binding voluntary restriction be lifted. I have no specific goal in mind, but I would like to the opportunity to contribute to the topic again. Since voluntarily withdrawing from the topic, I have been variously employed at patrolling recent changes (including checking new pages and removing vandalism), editing in topics of interest and volunteering at WP:MEDCAB. I am not currently under any active sanctions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this comment by Collect, I would like to point out that I was not subjected to any sanctions - my restriction was voluntary. In stark contrast to most of the editors involved in the ArbCom case, my involvement in the topic of climate change concerned only a single article (Climatic Research Unit email controversy) and no BLPs. Accordingly, it would make more sense for my proposed amendment to be treated independently by ArbCom, rather than lumping it in with any amendment involving sanctioned editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect - That's all well and good, but your proposal suggests certain bans and restrictions (such as on BLPs) that I'm not currently subject to; therefore, imposing them upon me would actually be adding, rather than removing restrictions. For this reason, it is not unreasonable for me to expect my amendment to be handled independently of any that may concern other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect - No, it is not "spot on". You propose converting a voluntary restriction covering the scope of the topic ban into actual sanctions covering specific things like BLPs. How would you justify imposing these sanctions upon me after a voluntary 14-month absence from the topic, concerning BLPs I've never edited? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect - You are missing the point entirely. Right now, I am not on the list of people under active sanction, but your proposal would put me on that list. So I ask again, wow would you justify imposing these sanctions upon me after a voluntary 14-month absence from the topic, concerning BLPs I've never edited? To be honest, I expected this amendment to be a formality. I did not imagine for a second I had to fend off calls for me to be sanctioned. Do you think I deserve to be sanctioned? If you do not, please excuse yourself from this amendment proceeding. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad - In contrast to most of the other editors who became entangled in the Arbcom case on climate change, my activity didn't really go beyond the article on the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. I know very little about climate change and I didn't frequent articles in the topic. I first went to the CRU article after reading about the hacking incident that took place at the University of East Anglia. Being English, I was interested in how the hacking incident was being covered in the British media at the time. I was dismayed to see that the article discussing the incident was being exploited by a group of editors who seemed convinced that some grand conspiracy by climate scientists to deceive the world had been uncovered. I'm not going to re-litigate everything that followed, but at the time I felt that Wikipedia was being used and I didn't like it. With hordes of skeptics/meatpuppets/sockpuppets attacking the project, my defensive stance evolved into a combative stance.

My behavior seemed perfectly reasonable to me at the time, but looking back on it I can see that I achieved absolutely nothing but unnecessary conflict. I've been volunteering at MedCab since then and it has been instructive to observe these sorts of fires from the uninvolved position and then try to help involved editors extinguish the flames. I still edit articles that interest me, but I've tried to avoid those that are generally controversial; however, I continue to edit at controversial articles like atheism, pseudoscience and Barack Obama without getting into conflict. To be honest, I didn't really understand the "binding" part of my voluntary restriction (which seems to make the "voluntary" part redundant), so I think my application for this amendment demonstrates my willingness to tread carefully moving forward. There's no reason to think that any editing I would do in the topic of climate change would be any different from editing I have done (or are doing) elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

As the entire area seems to be relatively calm, and with the WMC precedent, perhaps the time has come to make each and every person addressed by the original sanctions now be bound by a "zero tolerance" rule, enforceable by any administrator, for any battleground behaviour, including any use of tags and substantive reverts, singly or by multiple editors, with a new specific ban on any of them yet delving into any BLPs, or articles reasonably falling under WP:BLP, related to Climate Change? Collect (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SCJ - I recognize that your restriction was voluntary, though, IIRC, you were a potential candidate to get a less than voluntary restriction. My suggestion is not based, however, on such fine legal points, but on what I consider a desirable method for ArbCom to handle the additional requests likely to ensue, and was aimed only at giving my own personal suggestion as to how the committee might reasonably and expeditiously deal with such potential requests. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)\[reply]

@SCJ Alas - looking at 16.1 does not appear to coincide exactly with your recollection. Positing the BLPs related to CC as a subset of the entire topic would certainly imply that such were included in your status (16.1) Scjessey has proposed a permanent binding voluntary restriction that he makes no edits within the scope of the topic ban, with the exception, as part of Recent Changes patrolling, of making routine cleanup-style edits and reverting cases of obvious vandalism. Scjessey is instructed to abide by these restrictions. seems to be rather all-encompassing, and a mandatory version of the voluntary restrictions). Thus my suggestion appears to me to be "spot on" in this discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SCJ - ok - a "permananent binding voluntary restriction" covering all of Climate Change had absolutely no force when it comes to BLPs which are in that area. I think I understand your position. It is wrong, though. Any normal reading would find the CC BLPs to be a subset of CC articles and not totally outside the area of the binding restriction. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@WMC As I was not actually remotely an active editor on the CC articles, and I only became "involved" as a result of some statistical studies I made, I am rather at a loss to explain your post. I have made many posts in many areas of WP, and even on different areas other than enWiki, I fear I do not understand any reason why I ought not continue posting in such varied areas as I see fit. The purpose here was to suggest a simple solution to what I fear might otherwise become a long series of requests which could be dealt with by a single motion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by William M. Connolley

I am in favour of Scjessey's request. I am opposed to Collect's idea. I am opposed to a blanket amnesty at this point.

It really isn't clear to me why Collect feels the need to offer his wisdom on all the ARBCC stuff and to argue his points so strenuously.

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Since the huge climate change arbitration of 2010 things have become very peaceful in the topic. I'm pleased to see that some of the editors covered by injunctions and sanctions under the case have acted well since then and are gradually being allowed to contribute again. The old "wild west" atmosphere of constant conflict has gone so, provided the general sanctions remain in operation, I encourage the arbitration committee to consider requests to edit again generously in the light of the improved circumstances and much improved editing conditions. --TS 01:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

I would back the request of Scjessey and agree with the statements by William M. Connolley and Tony Sidaway. Collect's proposals do not seem to be realistic; for the time being requests like this should probably be handled on a case-by-case basis. Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Awaiting further statements. I would welcome Scjessey's thoughts on what went wrong in the past and how, if this request is granted, things would be different going forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Scjessey's response to my question is helpful. I anticipate supporting the motion that Risker suggests she will propose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be reasonable to consider lifting this restriction; if nobody else does it sooner, I will probably offer a motion over the weekend. Risker (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]