WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

Dispute resolution
Negotiation
Article talk pages Editor assistance Third opinion Requests for comment Wikiquette alerts
Mediation
Mediation Cabal Mediation Committee Requests for mediation
Arbitration
Arbitration Committee Requests for arbitration Completed requests Arbitration clarifications Request Arbitration enforcement
Remedies
Editing restrictions General sanctions Mentorship

Shortcuts: WP:RFAR WP:RFARB WP:ArbReq

A Request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The Arbitration process is governed by the Arbitration policy.

The committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to agreement have failed, and makes rulings to address problems in the editorial community. However it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"). Please do not ask the committee to make these kinds of decisions, as they will not do so.

Requests for Arbitration can also be used to present questions and requests related to previous closed cases. These include clarification of the intent and scope of a decision, appeals of past sanctions, and requests to amend remedies and enforcement measures.

For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and arbitrated, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration guide, which contains important information. You may also wish to review the following:

• Arbitration enforcement noticeboard – Request help here if it involves the violation of a Committee decision
• Administrator enforcement requested – Summary of cases and remedies which are currently in force
• Case archives — closed cases, rejected requests, and closed motions (without a RFAR case)

Prior steps

The Committee will generally accept these types of cases without any previous formal dispute resolution measures being followed:

• Reviews of emergency actions to remove administrator privileges
• Unusually divisive disputes among administrators
• Matters directly referred to the Arbitration Committee by Jimbo Wales

Otherwise, it is expected that other avenues of dispute resolution will have been exhausted before a case is filed—Arbitration is the last resort for conflicts, rather than the first.

Requesting arbitration

Before requesting arbitration, you should read and familiarize yourself with the Arbitration guide, which covers when cases will be accepted, presenting a case, and what to expect. Then, read the following instructions: To make a request, please follow these steps: Copy the request template. Click here to edit this page, and paste the template below the line. Fill in the names of the involved parties, and provide links to any prior attempts to resolve the dispute (such as formal or informal mediation or talk page discussion). State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. If your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint. Once you have done this, post diffs of the notification to the Confirmation section of your request. This is not a page for discussion. Reply to another person's comment in your section. See this. 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. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so. Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee (details). Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one.

Purge the server cache

Contents 1 Prior steps 2 Requesting arbitration 2.1 Current requests 2.1.1 Virgin America Focus City Dispute 2.1.1.1 Involved parties 2.1.1.2 Statement by 45Factoid44 (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC) 2.1.1.3 Statement by Statement by Vegaswikian 2.1.1.4 Clerk notes 2.1.1.5 Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0) 2.1.2 User:Abtract and User:Collectonian (and User:Sesshomaru) 2.1.2.1 Involved parties 2.1.2.2 Statement by LessHeard vanU 2.1.2.3 Statement by User:Abtract 2.1.2.4 Statement by Collectonian 2.1.2.5 Statement by Natalya 2.1.2.6 Statement by JHunterJ 2.1.2.7 Statement by {Party 6} 2.1.2.8 Evidence/Statement by uninvolved Ncmvocalist 2.1.2.8.1 Reply to jpgordon 2.1.2.9 Statement by {other} 2.1.2.10 Clerk notes 2.1.2.11 Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/1) 3 Clarifications and other requests 3.1 Current requests 3.1.1 Request for extension: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 3.1.1.1 Statement by Phil Sandifer 3.1.1.2 Statement by SirFozzie 3.1.1.3 Statement by sgeureka 3.1.1.4 Statement by CBDunkerson 3.1.1.5 Statement by Protonk (talk) 3.1.1.6 Statement by Kww 3.1.1.7 Statement by Kung Fu Man 3.1.1.8 Statement by nifboy 3.1.1.9 Statement by Black Kite 3.1.1.10 Statement by DGG 3.1.1.11 Statement by Sjakkalle 3.1.1.12 Statement by Stifle 3.1.1.13 Statement by MuZemike 3.1.1.14 Statement by CharlotteWebb 3.1.1.15 Statement by Randomran 3.1.1.16 Statement by Masem 3.1.1.17 Statement by jc37 3.1.1.18 Statement by Y|yukichigai 3.1.1.19 Statement by Gazimoff 3.1.1.20 Statement by Josiah Rowe 3.1.1.21 Statement by Jayron32 3.1.1.22 Statement by Pixelface 3.1.1.23 Statement by Fordmadoxfraud 3.1.1.24 Statement by Wizardman 3.1.1.25 Statement by VasileGaburici 3.1.1.26 Clerk notes 3.1.1.27 Arbitrator views and discussion 3.1.2 Request for extension: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist 3.1.2.1 Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday 3.1.2.2 Statement by Kww 3.1.2.3 Statement by other user 3.1.2.4 Clerk notes 3.1.2.5 Arbitrator views and discussion 3.1.3 Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 3.1.3.1 Statement by Self-ref 3.1.3.2 Statement by Martinphi 3.1.3.3 Statement by Orangemarlin 3.1.3.4 Statement by jim62sch 3.1.3.5 Statement by NE2 3.1.3.6 Statement by Nealparr 3.1.3.7 Statement by Ludwigs2 3.1.3.8 Statement by Scientizzle 3.1.3.9 Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday 3.1.3.10 Clerk notes 3.1.3.11 Arbitrator views and discussion 3.1.4 Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal 3.1.4.1 Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday 3.1.4.2 Statement by Martinphi 3.1.4.3 Statement by Nealparr 3.1.4.4 Statement by MastCell 3.1.4.5 Statement by Ludwigs2 (uninvolved; commentary) 3.1.4.6 Clerk Notes 3.1.4.7 Arbitrator Comments 3.1.5 Request for clarification: editing the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy 3.1.5.1 Statement by Happy-melon 3.1.5.2 Statement by Barberio 3.1.5.3 Statement by Carcharoth 3.1.5.4 Statement by Martinphi 3.1.5.5 Statement by User:Shoemaker's Holiday 3.1.5.6 Unusually-Short Statement by Alecmconroy 3.1.5.7 Statement by Fred Bauder 3.1.5.8 Statement by SirFozzie 3.1.5.9 Statement by other user 3.1.5.10 Clerk notes 3.1.5.11 Arbitrator views and discussion

Current requests

Virgin America Focus City Dispute

Initiated by 45Factoid44 (talk) at 02:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• 45Factoid44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), filing party
• MilborneOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Aviators99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• HkCaGu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• NcSchu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Saxmanjdb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 172.164.77.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• WFlyer08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Vegaswikian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Virgin America see talk page for all attempted resolution

Statement by 45Factoid44 (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

We have attempted to discuss for consensus without the page protected which failed, discuss with protection which failed, taken a survey which failed, requested informal mediation where we recieved no mediator but did get help from a third party project editor included in the parties involved who's idea was immediately rejected, and considered formal mediation but due to at least one random AOL IP could not file a request that would fit acceptance guidelines because the AOL user(s) could not possibly be located to agree to it. We also have one or more users who have stated that they will not give up unless their solution is accepted without compromise which basically means mediation where a thrid party can't decide for us and close the case is impossible. This dispute has been going on for at least three weeks. We REALLY need a solution from you if you can provide it. The dispute is over whether or not to LAX as a focus city for Virgin America.

Statement by Statement by Vegaswikian

While I received the notice, I don't consider myself an involved party. Based on a request at WP:AIRLINES I just stopped by to offer some suggestions that might have helped to lead to a resolution. I don't anticipate being involved in this discussion. 05:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

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

• Reject, content dispute, premature, etc. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. This dispute primarily concerns the content of the article, rather than user conduct issues that are suitable for arbitration. Speaking for myself, I have no way of knowing what the correct contents of the article that you are arguing over would be, short of my going and researching the article for myself. Therefore, arbitration is not the proper method to resolve this dispute. However, assistance from an experienced administrator to point these users in the right direction would be A Good Thing, and I'd appreciate if one of the arbitration clerks or another admin who reads here would lend a hand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

---

User:Abtract and User:Collectonian (and User:Sesshomaru)

Initiated by LessHeard vanU (talk) at 20:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), filing party
• Abtract (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Collectonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Sesshomaru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• JHunterJ (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) Admin involved in current "Restrictions" review
• Natalya (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) Admin involved in current "Restrictions" review

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

• Abtract
• Collectonian
• Sesshomaru
• JHunterJ
• Natalya

I incorrectly copied over my timestamped sig to the first three parties, hence a discrepancy between the diff time and that on the message. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC).

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract
• Talk LessHeard vanU Archive: Abtract, Collectonian & Sesshomaru

Statement by LessHeard vanU

Apparently, according to the Abtract RfC, I became involved in this matter around 28th April 2008 when I offered to mediate a dispute between Abtract and Sesshomaru. This did not lead to any resolution, as the matter seemed to have abated. The RfC was created by Collectonian, which I certified as being involved in attempting resolution of disputes with regard to Abtract. On the 16th July 2008 I blocked Abtract indefinitely on the grounds of violation of WP:NPA, and 3 days later unblocked and then reblocked for 11 days (if memory serves for a sanction tariff of 14 days less time "served").

As indicated by the linked archive, I then became further involved in attempting to to resolve issues with the activities of Abtract - initially with Sesshomaru but more recently predominantly in regard to Collectonian. It is Collectonian's stated belief that Abtract stalks her contributions, and edits soon after her in a manner designed to promote unease. My view is that this is certainly a valid impression, and that Abtract should (and especially if the expressed view is in error) have made every effort not to edit in such a way as to give this impression of harassment. It does not appear, however, that this has happened but rather Abtract has persistently argued that his edits were techically permissable. Previously User:Ncmvocalist had attempted to agree a form of words between the three parties (Abtract on one "side", Collectonian and Sesshomaru on the other) to limit how each could edit the other parties areas of interest. Collectonian was then unprepared to agree to the form of words presented.

The problems between Abtract and Collectonian, and to a lesser extent Abtract and Sesshomaru, continued and were brought to my attention as a previously involved admin. I again approached Ncmvocalist to provide a further form of words to restrict the interaction between the parties in dispute, which he did so. I gained the support of two other admins (Natalya and JHunterJ) in imposing (since the last voluntary agreement was deprecated by one party refusing to comply) a set of restrictions on the parties, and to policing the said restrictions.

Since that time Collectonian has complained from time to time that Abtract had broken the spirit of the restrictions, and gamed the wording, in an effort to continue harassing her. I have briefly blocked Abtract for these "violations", and he in turn has questioned my impartiality and credibility in policing the restrictions. I have tried to agree the adoption of more precise wordings of the restriction, although I have been reluctant to do so since I hoped that compliance with the spirit of the wording (as exampled by Abtract and Sesshomaru agreeing not to report each other for minor transgressions, and have an understanding where each other might edit in future) would suffice, but have met with opposition from Abtract and non-agreement from the other admins.

Under the circumstances, all other avenues being exhausted, I request that the Committee accept to take this case to review the history of the parties, to ascertain whether Collectonian is correct (or might reasonably be correct in believing) in stating that Abtract has stalked her contributions in such a way as to harass her, whether Abtract has acted in good faith and in accordance to the principles of consensual collective editing over this period, and what measures might be applied to bring this matter to a conclusion.

nb. I would not be opposed to being made a named party to this matter, should Abtract or any of the other parties or members of the Committee so desire.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Abtract

I became aware of Collectonian's ability to see the worst in people and her inability to apologise when wrong, during the bitch episode which I have copied in full below to make life easier for you. I particularly would like you to note that she tells me she has been watching my edits, she never once admits she was wrong or made any conciliatory nods towards mollifying me (nor has she since), and that the editor concerned in my original bitch edits himself thinks I was "stitched up" in his words. Since then I have returned the favour and watched her edits (I presumed that this was ok as she told me she watched mine) just in case she offended someone else as she did me, when I would offer what help I could. I have found her to be a fairly normal editor but with a trigger finger when it comes to warning people, and showing some ownership tendencies (don't we all sometimes). Just occasionally I feel the need to welcome a newbie that she has warned. I have not knowingly broken the restrictions imposed by Less although that's quite difficult to tell as they are vaguely worded and seem to be subject to retrospective change. So far as Sess is concerned, we have had some fun together and probably will again as we are at the opposite ends of the spectrum of editors, but we are getting along ok now and so far as I am concerned he shouldn't really be a party to this. I think that's all I have to say right now. Abtract (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Collectonian

Abtract has stalked both myself and Sesshomaru off and on since May of this year, with me seeing to be his primary focus over the last few months. An RfC/U was filed in May which had no results. He was blocked four times for this behavior as a result of multiple AN/I's filed in June and July. Unfortunately, when he was finally another blocked indefinitely in July, he was given yet another chance and his block reduced to two weeks, then removed all together by a third admin. As already noted above, a non-admin attempted to create an agreement, and intimated that if i did not agree to it no one would care if Abtract continued his harassment. However I did not feel the agreement went far enough to keep Abtract from getting around it, as he would always jump through any loophole left in discussions before, so I refused to agree to it, but the agreement was made between himself and Sesshomaru, and Abtract soon backed out of it and returned to his usual behavior.

In late August, he falsely claimed that he was leaving Wikipedia all together, leaving a snarky "goodbye" message on my talk page.[1]. This was pretty much a completely false statement, as he quickly restarted his stalking and harassing edits, following behind my contribs to make minor edits behind me and edit conflicting me. In particularly he did this after I foolishly took his goodbye as the truth and began editing the Oxford Scientific Films article. He had initially created this article as another form of harassment because it was on my list of articles to create and directly related to Meerkat Manor which is a set of articles I am most involved with and he was warned to stay away from. Before editing, I asked JHunterJ, who had rmeoved Abtract's indef blocked, about editing it and he said to edit as normal.[2] So I did so, doing massive amounts of clean up, removing the factual errors and bad writing, expanding it, etc. Whenever I had an editing session, Abtract would pop in to make minor edits, then complain when we'd edit conflict. In one edit summary after I reverted his inappropriate changing of the date format from British to English, he wrote "get away woman."[3].

Abtract watches my contribs and randomly reacts to them, sometimes undoing them, sometimes filing false 3RR reports, such as he did during a disagreement at InuYasha[4]., or welcoming editors that I reverted for bad edits, including a vandal that was already indef blocked when he left a welcome on the user's user page (the talk page was locked!)[5]. While I thank the multiple admins who attempted to resolve this situation through the agreements, Abtract continues finding ways to game the system and break the spirit of the agreement by nitpicking the wording (or claiming its confusing). For half a year now I have had to deal with this stalking and harassment. As I hope can be seen above, Abtract does this purposefully and willfully because he thinks I have some obligation to "mollify him" and has a personal vendetta against me. I find his behavior disturbing on many many levels. I debated leaving Wikipedia, but I abhor the idea of letting such a person "win" by chasing me away from an activity I enjoy and I continue to have faith that Wikipedia will enforce its own anti-harassment and civility policies and put a stop to this once and for all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Natalya

Not a whole lot to say (or, perhaps, so many convoluted things to say that it's probably best not even to try), but I will say that we've attempted all manner of arrangments and rules and agreements between Abtract and Collectonian/Sesshomaru to allow them to still contibute productively to the encyclopedia, while not causing hassle to the other party. Somehow, sadly, none of these things were able to actually work for very long at all, and while I can't speak for JHunterJ and LessHeard vanU, I know that at least for myself, I have become so wrapped up in this (and they're likely more wrapped up in it than I) that I don't think I can even think straight about the best way to go about handling the disputes between the two parties. I sincerely hope that a better solution can be found, and if appropriate, here through Arbitration. -- Natalya 03:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JHunterJ

Beyond what LessHeard vanU says above and Ncmvocalist says below, I believe the chief sticking points now are

1. Possibility of penalties imposed retroactively against Abtract under restrictions that haven't been adopted.[6]
2. Abtract->Collectonian stalking perceived by Collectonian

The perceived stalking has lead to some complaints that I consider frivolous: This complaint about a welcome message to a user who hadn't been welcomed yet (but had been warned by Collectonian), or this complaint about an acknowledged good edit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 6}

Evidence/Statement by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

NB: L=LessHeard vanU, C=Collectonian, A=Abtract, S=Sesshomaru, J=JHunterJ. Unless arbitrators have specific questions for me, this statement is also my evidence.

Introduction

Rather than at the RFC/U, I commented on this dispute as an outside party for the first time during an ANI report, which had been filed by C. L blocked A indefinitely and put the action for review in the report (16 July 2008), and a few users including myself expressed a mixture of agreement with the block, and disagreement with the indef duration (I felt blocks should follow a sequence - eg; 24hrs, 48hrs, etc.) On 18 July, in the same thread, L requested another review on the matter due to A arguing that the block was biased, and on 19 July I reviewed it. I was unconvinced by (and found problems with) C's complaint to justify the duration. L explained his reasoning in a timely manner (within 3 hours). Still, he respected the outside opinion, and changed the block duration to follow that sequence. (See this thread, and the next 2 threads.)

Voluntary restriction

I then wrote out an agreement for A, C and S to follow. A and S agreed, but despite requests by several users including myself, C refused to sign the agreement - this did not help. Anyway, J unblocked A under the agreement. C was unhappy with this and refused to let me close the ANI discussion without some sort of restraining order being put on A, despite the fact I'd explained that it was not possible. In any case, things did manage to die down (or so I thought) and I didn't follow the dispute for sometime after this. Apparently, both A and S violated their agreement and J enforced it against both users (with blocks). After some discussion, A and S agreed to end the agreement: noted by J on 25 August. (See this.)

Non-voluntary restriction

On 2 September, C complained to L (about A). L then requested for my input. I looked into it and gave my view, along with a few proposals on how to resolve the dispute. See C's complaint, and my view in the next thread at 16:38. After discussing it between all parties and myself, L notified the parties of the non-voluntary restrictions that are in effect on 13 September, which went unopposed at WP:AN. Since then, I have not followed this matter thinking it's resolved.

Request for arbitration

Clearly, the problems have not been resolved and the methods we've tried are not working. There's nothing more I can offer - certainly nothing outside of ArbCom - that has a chance of resolving this dispute. I'm fairly confident the wider community can and will not do much more either. This has gone on for months, and it has come to the point where I (like the rest of the parties listed here) think enough is enough. (I don't want to go back to either the wider community or ArbCom anytime in the future regarding this matter - so that's the sort of remedies that I'd favour in this case). I ask that the case be accepted by the Committee to end this matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to jpgordon

• Been there, done that, per the non-voluntary editing restriction here which is still in effect. Background/context on the non-voluntary editing restriction is available in my above statement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by {other}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

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

• Accept. I can't even tell what these editors are arguing about, in some instances, but the pattern of interaction between them is unhealthy and needs to stop, and there certainly is ample evidence that dispute-resolution methods short of arbitration are not working. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, or rather, question, to all parties: is this not the sort of case most likely to result in a "keep utterly away from each other" ruling? Can a clean break be made? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts: WP:RFAC WP:RCAM

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top.

To make a request (other than a new case), please follow these steps: Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page. Click the [Edit] link to the right of this section, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests. Using the format provided by the template, state your request and reasoning in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You may add to this in future if needed, but it should be kept short. 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 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.