Revision as of 19:41, 25 March 2009

Template:Active editnotice

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

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. 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

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

wise_dude321

Initiated by Wise dude321 (talk) at 16:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• wise_dude321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party

• Darkness2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1 I am confirming that I am aware of the Arbiration

• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Spyro_(series)&curid=976412&action=history Repeatedly asked to go to talk page, no talking commenced.

• Link 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Darkness2005 Warnings were given about disruptive edits.

Statement by wise_dude321

A while ago, I completed a review score table for the Spyro (series) article. It was delted, the party that deleted it discussed it with me, and we were happy in the end. I have been trying to uphold that descision. Lately though the second party in this case (Darkness2005) has been re-adding it. I repeatedly deleted it telling him to go to the talk page. When that didn't happen, I had to warn him. Today he went on a spree of trying to re-add it. I had to delete many time. His persistence almost filled up a full page of history. That is all.

Statement by Darkness2005

Comment by uninvolved Sandstein

The issue here seems to be Darkness2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wise dude321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit-warring with each other on Spyro (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) without any useful communication from either of them. I am issuing a 24-hour edit warring block for both, on my own authority, to stop this for now, and recommend that the Committee decline this request because no attempt at prior dispute resolution has taken place.  Sandstein  17:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Due to be filed as rejected in 12-24h--Tznkai (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/10/0/0)

• Decline, no dispute resolution has happened yet. Try WP:3O. Wizardman 19:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Reject On Misplaced Pages, Arbitration cases are the last step in dispute resolution. Please try some other steps. Getting the opinions of more editors usually helps. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Wizardman and FloNight. -- FayssalF - 19:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per others. Earlier steps in dispute resolution should be tried here. Continue assistance from uninvolved administrators should be helpful in resolving this dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Perhaps the most appropriate place for this dispute is the editwarring noticeboard. As others have said there has been no previous dispute resolution. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. per others — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline, per the above. I would recommend to both parties that they review Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, which explains the many options on Misplaced Pages for settling disputes. --Vassyana (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline  Roger Davies 05:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. John Vandenberg 08:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline - Sandstein has dealt with this. Parties are asked to discuss changes to articles instead of edit warring. Carcharoth (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. per all of teh above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability/Use English/Burdens in proxy battlefield article

This template is currently non-functional due to T39256.

Initiated by Tenmei (talk) at 20:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Tenmei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Teeninvestor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kraftlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PericlesofAthens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arilang1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1 Teeninvestor
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring -- diff? deleted by Teeninvestor
• Link 2 Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty

Statement by Tenmei

This complaint encompasses 3 specific issues and 1 broader topic. Teeninvestor's refusal to agree to mediation thwarted the opportunity to have his views confirmed or modified. I cannot walk away from this because the concepts are at the very heart of my participation in collaborative writing. ArbCom cannot allow this to go unaddressed because the consequences are too grave:

• Issue 1: I posted the following diff; and if I was wrong in any part of it, I must know so that I will not continue to make similar mistakes in the future.

Teeninvestor insists that words and actions consistent with this diff are disruptive. If what I've said and done is persistent disruption, it needs to stop.

When I and others questioned an unfamiliar text in Chinese, Teeninvestor asserted forcefully that I and others had the burden to prove error before deleting the edit and/or before posting a "dubious"-tag or a "synthesis"-tag on an article page. This view was expressed with increasing levels of derision personal affronts. Example: diff. If what I've done is persistent vandalism, it needs to stop.

• Issue 2. Teeninvestor denies that WP:V incorporates any WP:Burden other than formatting. Example: diff If

• Issue 3. Teeninvestor denies that WP:RSUE incorporates any WP:Burden in Chinese. Example: diff

• Issue 4: In Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, real-world factions have vied for control, turning it into a polemical battleground. In the venue which evolved before my eyes, long-term warriors have proven to be toxic. Under "battlefield" conditions as I encountered them, academic integrity becomes an all-encompassing priority. Any other course of action undercuts the credibility of the article and our collaborative wiki-encyclopedia. Although Issues 1-3 stand on their own, they have become conflated in real-world disputes over 21st-century borders or oil and mineral rights. The initial impetus for this article was "salting the earth" in an article about Central Asia in the 7th-8th century in order to undercut a dispute in an article about China in the 12th-13th centuries; and the article has been continually attacked by those intending to affect current affairs by re-writing history. This perverts my ability to conribute to an article about a relatively minor topic; and it became increasingly difficult to follow on a coherent thread of reason.

• A. diff -- genesis of battlefield?
• B. diff -- genesis of a tag team coordination? diff -- "consensus was made out entirely of pro mongolian editors"?
• C. diff -- "mongolia was owned by chinese before mongols ever appeared, and belongs to china"?
• D. diff -- pro-ROC? pro-PRC??
• E. diff -- "Chinese histiography is quite reliable. In any case, its far better than vain attempts to create a supposedly 'Mongolian' identity"?

The title of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty suggests something to do with the history of 7th-8th century Central Asia, but an unexplained backstory or subtext intruded unexpectedly again and again. This bigger problem cannot be resolved with this case, but at least ArbCom is now expressly alerted to the existence of a pernicious metastasis which will continue ad nauseam in other articles until effective counter-measures can be contrived. On the basis of my editing experience, this is not an isolated incident. The specifics are limited to the article and parties here; and the ambit of this dispute is also emblematic of problems affecting unrelated editors and articles. --Tenmei (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to John Vandenberg

The issues here are quickly devalued and the focus is easily distracted. This is evidenced by Teeninvestor's hollow POV-argument below and in that argument's tentative acceptance by Wizardman, who seems initially inclined to construe a "content dispute" in the empty sound of one hand clapping.

Issues #1, #2 and #3 do happen to involve a Chinese language text, but the disruptive views which are affirmed below by Teeninvestor are independent of any specific content or language. In the narrow context of the three inter-related issues, the presumed need for a "Chinese-literate" consultant would seem unjustified; and yet, Newyorkbrad and Coren both endorse this notion.

Opinions such as these demonstrate that, despite its obvious clumsiness, the unconventional composite "Verifiability/Use English/Burdens" does need to remain part of the title in order to underscore explicit non-content-related issues. For redundant clarity, I intend that "Verifiability"=WP:Verifiability; "Use English:=WP:Verifiability#Sources (Non-English sources); and "Burden"=WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. No one disputes that my wording is awkward, but the development of this thread reveals that Issues #1, #2 and #3 are readily conflated with distracting corollary matters.

In view of what others have posted, I endorse changing the title to read

In this analysis of Issues #1, #2 and #3, there is no opportunity to perceive a content-specific POV. Nor is there anything to do with WP:NPOV. Nor does it matter whether Teeninvestor's proffered text was published in Urdu, Wolof, Navajo or Chinese. I'm mindful of Misplaced Pages:Silence and consensus; but my restraint in responding thus far should not be taken to imply qui tacet consentire videtur ("He who remains silent is understood to consent"). --Tenmei (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Risker and Carcharoth

If an ArbCom review of Issues #1, #2, and #3 can be helped by contributions "with respect to the interpretation/verifiability & sourcing issues," here are arguably relevant googled links:

• "Verifiability" Wiktionary definition ...?
• WP:V mirrored in Wiktionary policy re-stated in different words ...?
• WP:V mirrored in Simple English Misplaced Pages policy re-stated in different words ...?
• WP:V mirrored in Wikiversity policy re-stated in different words ...?
• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defintion: "verifiability" parsed analysis, distinguishing (a) a confirmation of truth or authority; (b) the evidence for such a confirmation; and (c) a formal assertion of validity ...?
• Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military definition: "verifiability" parsed analysis, distinguishing (a) the process of establishing the truth, accuracy, or validity of something; and (b) the process of ensuring that the procedures of a validation process are followed ...?

In this non-controversial context, a more nuanced vocabulary might develop. This is a practical step, which could be part of what Risker and Carcharoth had in mind? --Tenmei (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Roger Davies

Yes, an otherwise intractable problem is presented; and its parts are easily conflated as a Gordian Knot. Unraveling this knot is well within ArbCom's ability and purview. Crucially, as John Vandenberg observes, "a more appropriate way forward hasn't presented itself."

No, the non-specific "other avenues" you mention are unavailing. The nested, narrowly-focused policy fundamentals are ill-served by abstention, which is neither practicable nor practical. The slim history of this "request"-thread offers proof enough that there is no better venue than this one.

Issues #1, #2 and #3 are ripe. Much of Issue #4 may not be ripe, but abstaining becomes indistinguishable from failure to acknowledge how its emblematic conflation affects every attempt to construe Issues #1, #2 and #3. Candidly, all other dispute resolution venues become mere exercises in futility if your ArbCom colleagues join you in deciding to abstain here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Teeninvestor

The problem from my POV is outlined below:

1. Tenmei's misguided editing of the article, despite his lack of knowledge on this article, as shown by this statement:

Example: diff. In working with him, he has deleted many sections without explanation, despite them being sourced.

2. Tenmei's violation of WP:V; Although Tenmei insists I violated WP:V, he has so far refused to provide a single source to back up his claims. This is in itself violative of WP:V. Other users have already informed him of this error, as shown by this post from a respected fellow editor. So far, however, Tenmei has refused to provide a single example or source to support his claims. This, I believe, sums up the main point of the dispute:

Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty#diff So far, Tenmei has failed to find a single error with the source or the article itself, but he insists on pushing his own POV and deleting large sections of it without explanation.

3. Tenmei's violation of WP:CONSENSUS. In his refusal to collaborate and listen with other editors, he engaged in pushing his POV on others.

User_talk:PericlesofAthens#diff

Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty#Sources_used Tenmei even engaged in vandalism in violation of WP:POINT, attempting to merge the article with "Salting the earth", as seen here.

4. Tenmei's misunderstanding of the policy with WP:BURDEN:

WP:BURDEN means that I must cite and source my information, which I have done accordingly. His insistence that I provide a "translation" of every piece of information that I used in Chinese is not only unduly burdensome, and would in fact prevent the use of any foreign-language source on wikipedia. This is not to mention that I have not used any direct translations from the book, which I believe the policy refers to.

Tenmei made repeated attempts to impose his POV, even when I was working on other articles. I only hope this committee can put an end to Tenmei's attempts to impose his own POV so me and other editors can use our efforts in more useful matters. To sum it up, a quote about what must be done: Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty#diff

I would prefer it if Arbitrators did not hear this case, as I believe this is, at heart, simply a misunderstanding of wikipedia policy and a minor content dispute between a majority of editors and one obstinate one; it would be a waste of mine, Tenmei's and arbitrators' time to resolve this. It would reward users for hounding others through abusing wikipedia's dispute resolution process. I believe Tenmei demonstrates the below signs: "http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:DE#Signs_of_disruptive_editing". Teeninvestor (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Yaan

The source I am using is a history book published in China. Also, this adds to my point that this is really the result of a content dispute/obstinacy of one editor, user:Tenmei. It is a tertiary source, I believe(compendium of old histories which were secondary sources). In addition, I provided links for the site of the book, which (unfortunately) Tenmei did not use.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Links to source in question(in Chinese)

• Template:Zh icon - "http://www.dushu.com/book/11657212/"
• Template:Zh icon - "http://www.haotushu.com/press/61"
• Template:Zh icon - "http://www.ilucking.com/press/neimenggurenminchubanshe/."

Teeninvestor (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know that the Inner Mongolian People's Publishing House exists (I knew that before, I even own a book published there), but I am actually more interested in who the authors are. Btw. WP:RS suggests that tertiary sources "should not be used for detailed discussion". Yaan (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So, is the Li Bo who wrote the book this guy? Yaan (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it would be a secondary source, as it summarizes ancient histories(primary sources). As to the author, he has the same name, but im not sure it may be the same guy.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tenmei

Tenmei, you're not getting the point. You have yet to present a single source or other thing rejecting my source, and have not explained any of your reasoning besides using unintelligble bureaucratic doublespeak that belongs more in a government file than on wikipedia. Remember WP:BURO. Also, you have yet to address the concerns of editors such as Pericles and Myself regarding, to put it kindly, what is your problem with the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to FayssalF

I believe, and I will iterate again, this is not a matter for arbitration. It is, at most, a content dispute(in which one editor repeatedly insists on something that without consensus for others). I believe Chinese-language editors are being looked for to deal with this issue. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to CaspianBlue and arbitrators

I do not believe this is a "nationalistic" feud. In fact, I have yet to be informed of tenmei's "issues", so to speak, with the article. What we had was a tag team of editors repeatedly deleting large sections of text with comments such as "Chauvinistic bullshit!", "Reverted vandalism" and the like, without explaining why. When these deletions are repeated without explanation, that is a form of vandalism.

I will reiterate, so far Tenmei has not yet presented a single problem, error, or bias in the article(and neither has any other editors) that was inserted by me. So far, the only concrete issue raised by Tenmei is the supposed "unreliablity" of the source, which could easily be solved by a third editor checking the source. Then again, Tenmei has repeatedly demonstrated he could care less about the opinions of others. He seems to be unable and unwilling to work constuctively with other editors, resorting to long-winded arguments that, frankly, shows his failure as a communicator and nothing else.

The IP editor, on the other hand, has engaged in some trolling and disruption(which has been reverted by me and other editors) but I believe that Tenmei's treatment incensed the IP editor and increased his determination to disrupt wikipedia through dubious practices such as crossing out his comments and deleting them. In any case, this is not a case for ArbComTeeninvestor (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Til Eulenspiegel

I was requested to comment. My only encounter with User:Tenmei is at Talk:Salting the earth which he filled with bizarre proposals to merge that article with "Asia during the Tang Dynasty" or whatever it is. There is no mention in the article Salting the earth whatsoever of the Tang Dynasty, nor has he made clear any context for merging these two unrelated articles. Because of the lack of context, I took this as disruptive and deleted most of his lengthy additions to the talkpage. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by PericlesofAthens

What more needs to be said from my end? I feel that I have criticized User:Tenmei's actions enough at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. If, as the arbitrator's opinion suggests, you are looking for an experienced editor who can clear up verifiability issues with the Li Bo and Zheng Yin source used by User:Teeninvestor, then perhaps I can be of some help. Frankly I've been busy with other things; otherwise, I would have taken the time to do a little research, as I still have access to a university library. However, I'm not going there today, so I don't see how I'll be of much immediate use. Bowing out.--Pericles of Athens 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Arilang1234

1. I am here to support user Teeninvestor, because Teeninvestor is a keen content contributor, only need some editors to verify the source.
2. User Tenmei seems to have a confused sense of logic and historical time line, because no nation in the world is going to make any serious claim of oil and gas field based on 2000 years old historical facts.
3. I suggest user Tenmei to start his/or her own wikipedia, and make up own wiki rules. Arilang 13:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Yaan

I think there are two somewhat separate problems here. One is that there is some trolling going on by an anonymous IP (the one who created the article in the first place). I think previous statements of this IP are clear enough to rule out WP:AGF, even if some editors in the AfD discussion did think otherwise.

The other problem is that the academic credentials of the source used by User:Teeninvestor are unclear and that Teeninvestor has made no attempt to deal with this. Maybe because both Teeninvestor and Tenmei were a bit too involved in their conflict to clear this isssue up. I am aware this is a problem of a lot of WP articles, but I think it really is the burden of the contributor who introduces a source to give evidence why it is relevant, at least in the case of disputes. I don't really think Teeninvestor is misrepresenting his source, certainly not consciously. But that still leaves open the question who the authors of his source are: amateur historians, local politicians, or maybe experts who studied Central Asia in the 7th century for all their life? It is also unclear what kind of source is used, secondary or tertiary. I don't think asking for clarifications on that matter and treating stuff as unsourced if no clarification is forthcoming is inappropriate. Yaan (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Caspian blue

I will leave my opinion for arbitrators to figure out what is a problem and "who are the involved parties". First, this can be shown as a nationalistic dispute between China and Mongol, or a failure to abide by principle rules such as WP:Edit war, WP:AGF, WP:Civil, WP:NPA, WP:Own, WP:V, etc. But the request may be a due course because nothing was sorted out after tendentious edit warring and disruption were happening since the creation of the article. Tenmei and Teeninvester both violated 3RR (4RR ~ 6RR), but no admin did enforce to them for probably the lengthy, and weird report.

The selection of the involved editors are also odd and totally excludes Mongolian editors and others who actively participated in this dispute such as Gantuya eng (talk · contribs), GenuineMongol (talk · contribs), and G Purevdorj (talk · contribs) (see: AFD). All of three should appear here to give their opinion as the "involved party" for ArbCom to decide whether to pursue to the case. In fact, Kraftlos, PericlesofAthens, and Arilang1234 were not involved at all, but the latter two just came to give "3rd opinion" per Teeninvest's request to turn down the flame for his stance. Though the two are members of WP:WikiProject China and colleagues of Tenninvester. The meditation attempt was failed because of Teeninvester's unwillingness and Tenmei's failure to communicate civilly. So at least, RFC/3O/Mediation were tried except RFC/U before the request.

It should be noted that the creator of the article, Sarsfs (talk · contribs) and NYC Verizon anons are likely a sock of banned troll, ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who has caused "big troubles" to East Asian subjects and harassed editors. Given the extreme Pro-Han Chinese agenda, abusive sockpuppeter (over 200 socks), and harassment, I don't think he gives up appearing to the article(see:1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6)

As for the contested Chinese books, I can confirm notability of only one book, Outlines of the History of the Chinese ISBN 7538700420 written by Bo Yang who was a very famous Taiwanese author with a radical political view. Translated versions of the book are sold in other countries.(review) However, the problem is lied in the other book "5000 years of Chinese history" (中华五千年) written by Li Bo and Zheng Yin, that is primarily used for Teeninvester's claimed contents. I can't find any review nor information from "reliable news or sites" in any language except advertising sites. The two authors do not seem like notable too according to g-hits/books/scholar/news. I doubt that Nlu would help out because he does not seem to care about nationalistic feuds, and tends to use just Chinese primary sources for his articles.

Plus, everyone point finger at each other's behaviors on the article and AfD (eg. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) so I recommend Arbitrators to look into both content disputes and behaviors of the involved editors if you take the case. I doubt that this dispute can be resolved in other venues(WP:ANI/WP:RSN/WP:WQA) because of the sock's constant trolling, the involved editors' too long-winged and endless arguments, dismissals to the request for verifying sources, ensuing disruptions to other articles and bickering each other as well as edit wars.--Caspian blue 22:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• I would ask the the parties please clearly sign their posts, also will be checking for length. MBisanz 23:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• I think this request is in need of a simpler name, such as "Mongolia during Tang rule" or "Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty", or something (discuss on the talk page if necessary). I have added a notice for the Mongolia work group, and notified user:Fritzpoll, user:PericlesofAthens and user:Til Eulenspiegel. John Vandenberg 10:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree - simpler title is needed, hopefully that will help point to the crux of the dispute. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• If necessary, I could be of assistance in reading over the sources, though if I were to do that I would, of course, have to recuse. - Penwhale | 03:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/2/0/6)

• Comment. Please provide the archive link for the relevant request at the edit warring noticeboard. Have any of the content noticeboards, such as WP:RSN or WP:NORN, been tried? Have any other reports been filed on the administrative noticeboards, besides the edit warring report? Has anyone sought a third opinion or filed a request for comment? --Vassyana (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  Decline, for now. From all appearances, there are still multiple avenues left untried and available for the resolution of both the conduct and content portions of this dispute. Some of the issues may be a bit complicated and/or require a bit of expert assistance, but in the scheme of things that can be said about quite a large portion of the topics we cover. I'd encourage the participants to make use of the content and conduct noticeboards as necessary and to seek out the input of one or more uninvolved Chinese-speaking editors. --Vassyana (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Some input from a Chinese-speaking administrator or experienced editor on the sourcing/verifiability and related issues might be helpful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'm going to second that request from an uninvolved Chinese-literate editor; it does appear that any case would revolve around the sources, and a good interpretation of them appears indispensable. — Coren  00:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• I have asked at the Arbitration Clerks' Noticeboard for one of the clerks to try to find a suitable wikiproject at which to post a request for assistance from an experienced editor/admin with respect to the interpretation/verifiability & sourcing issues. Risker (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: for what it's worth, User:Nlu might make a good person to take care of that, though I'm not sure whether or not he's involved. He'd be my go-to guy in this case though. As for the case, I'll say decline for now since it's basically a content dispute, though i coud be persuaded. Wizardman 18:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - this will take some time to review and understand (for me at least). Noting here that I'm aware of the request, but unable to fully review for a few days. Hopefully more statements will have been made by then by uninvolved users who may want to opine and explain what they see happening here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Default to Accept. There are issues here, and a more appropriate way forward hasnt presented itself. John Vandenberg 01:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I see that we are stuck here. Has any Chinese-speaking editor who would help been found? Do the parties agree with that step? I read user:PericlesofAthens said they would take care of that but—since they are a named party of the dispute—do the parties agree with them helping in that direction? -- FayssalF - 20:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Accept - Caspian Blue statement brings new elements which warrant a case's acceptance. -- FayssalF - 18:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Abstain for now, per my colleagues. There is clearly a problem but there are better avenues for resolution, which appear unexplored.  Roger Davies 06:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Although the situation is more premature than most disputes ArbCom accepts, I think that an arbitration case has a better chance to have an amenable resolution in this particular situation than would happen without ArbCom's involvement. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

• 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

• Misplaced Pages arbitration