Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
Requests for arbitration
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repeated accusations and harassment | 2 August 2024 | 0/0/0 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae | Motion | none | 20 May 2025 |
| Amendment request: Venezuelan politics | none | (orig. case) | 12 June 2025 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
Repeated accusations and harassment
Initiated by Wikieditor662 (talk) at 21:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Proposed parties
- Wikieditor662 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Softlavender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Graham87 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Aza24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Usedtobecool (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
- #Ban_threats_from_User_talk:Graham87 (In Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)
Statement by Wikieditor662
It started when Graham87 suggested I was a sockpuppet and told me that I deserve to be banned in #Composer is a common word under User talk:Wikieditor662. This was despite sufficient evidence (it was because I redirected the word "composers" to a timeline of composers, and linked the word on a bunch of composers' articles, and if I recall correctly I stopped after being told not to do this. He also said my edits seemed weird for a newcomer) which I believe to be a violation of the Wikipedia:Assume good faith and later I was told also Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. In dispute resolution, where usedtobecool explained why there was no point in calling me a sockpuppet if he wasn't sure, and Graham87 admitted that he has become less kind to newcomers because of his past experiences. Softlavender then commented calling me a "timesink" because I sometimes question the more experienced members (although I usually do what they say) and because some of my edits were undiscussed, reverted, and seemed to be too advanced to a newcomer -- all of which I don't believe count as sufficient evidence and again violate the previously mentioned policies. Thank you. Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Softlavender also said they struggled to find more than one useful edit. However, I expanded, reworded, and added citations to multiple articles such as C.P.E. Bach and Vivaldi. For the color codes on List of classical music composers by era, some composers were in a transitionary time period between two eras so I spent hours coloring and figuring out the colors of the transitionary composers between their two eras. And while I don't believe I asked before making these changes (I don't think it's required anyway), one of the members (Gor1995) said that my edits were ok on the first conversation on my talk page. I also don't think asking on there would've gotten any response, I asked about something else on there and nobody responded.
- Also, I need to correct one of my statements about when I stopped linking the word composers. Usedtobecool explained it best: "Best I can tell, OP [me, Wikieditor662] made a couple edits of the same kind after they received the original warning but did not persist once it became clear the edits were controversial beyond a simple disagreement with Gerda. So, Gerda's expression of disappointment came a bit quick too, in my opinion. I can see how OP might have felt cornered."
- Thank you once again. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I had no idea Graham87 was an administrator until filing this case. Still, I should've stopped when he asked me too, although I don't think it violated any rule, since I thought he was an ordinary member. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Softlavender
Statement by Graham87
I don't think I'll dignify this request with a full statement but there are some things that are worth responding to here. Wikieditor662, you didn't stop after being told not to add these links, as clearly shown by your contributions at the time. I like Robert McClenon's term "Bizarre ignorant errors"; Wikieditor662 seems to make many more of those than useful contributions. Graham87 (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Wikieditor662: (6:35 (UTC) message): To your credit, you did stop adding these links after I asked you to, because my message came about seven hours after Gerda's, but you still kept on defending the link additions. Graham87 (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Gerda Arendt
Statement by Aza24
This is a rather extreme overreaction to a relatively civil conversation at ANI. I don't see any nee for arbitration at this point. – Aza24 (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Usedtobecool
Statement by Just Step Sideways
This is clearly not a matter for the committee and should be speedily dismissed instead of being voted on for a week. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon (Wikieditor662)
ArbCom is the only conduct forum in which there isn't a boomerang principle. So the question for the community of English Wikipedia administrators is how much patience they need to have with the filing editor before deciding that a competency block is necessary. By the way, one reason to assume good faith about this editor actually being a new editor is that redirecting a plural from the singular to a list really is the sort of bizarre error that shows ignorance rather than disruption. But bizarre ignorant errors sometimes require a competency block. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2024 (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.
Repeated accusations and harassment: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Repeated accusations and harassment: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)