Revision as of 04:21, 31 March 2013

Requests for arbitration

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Malayalam cinema industry hub

Initiated by Prathambhu (talk) at 19:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Prathambhu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• 69.47.228.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aarem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Salih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Samaleks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In addition several IPs (possibly sock puppets) also are involved.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:69.47.228.36
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Aarem#Arbitration_notice
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Salih#Arbitration_notice
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Samaleks#Arbitration_notice

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Malayalam_cinema#Location_of_Malayalam_movie_industry
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Malayalam_cinema#Page_protected
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Malayalam_cinema#Request_for_Comment

Statement by Prathambhu

The matter of dispute in Malayalam cinema page is the hub of the Malayalam cinema industry. The version existed till February 18, 2013 said the present hub of Malayalam film industry is Kochi. This information was supported by citations based on published information in reliable sources in English such as The Hindu, Times of India, Indian Express, New Indian Express, Passline Business Magazine, Deccan Chronicle and in Malayalam such as Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi and Deshabhimani which are the most widely read newspapers of India and Kerala. All of this published information stated that Kochi is the hub of Malayalam cinema industry presently. Some reports also said that Malayalam cinema industry have shifted to Kochi from its earlier bases in Chennai and Thiruvananthapuram. The same information existed in South Indian film industry page too for many months.

From February 18, 2013 onwards IP numbered 69.47.228.36 started editing out the information existed then, along with citations. In place of it, IP number 69.47.228.36 inserted the claim that "Thiruvananthapuram is also a hub of Malayalam cinema industry". There were no citations from reliable sources s/he could provide for this claim. IP number 69.47.228.36 removed the citations that existed as s/he found that most of those news reports contradicted her/his claims. Despite talk page discussions this continued. There was a prolonged edit war in which user IP number 69.47.228.36 was supported by User:Aarem, User:Salih and numerous IPs, many of them numbered alike (suspected sock puppets).

The edit war spilt into South Indian film industry where information existed there for many months were removed by the above editors and also User:Samaleks. It further spread into Cinema of India too. Followed by a freeze of edit of Malayalam cinema by administrator User:Ged UK, there was an even longer talk page discussion. The dispute remained unresolved. Further under the suggestion of administrator User:Ged UK, I placed a Request for Comments in the Talk:Malayalam cinema. Apart from IP number 69.47.228.36, a few other IPs similar to the ones that took part in the edit war also made comments in the Request for Comments section.

In there, I tried to point out that any claim needs to be supported with information published in reliable sources as per core sourcing policy of Misplaced Pages Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and also Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth.

The problems with the present version inserted by the above editors in Malayalam cinema page is that

1) not a single published information is found in support of this claim

2) it contradicts most of the available published information in reliable sources such as the ones mentioned above.

Presently IP number 69.47.228.36 insists that her/his claim be accepted without any evidence in the form of published information from reliable sources. In the Talk:Malayalam cinema page, IP numbered 69.47.228.36 even went on to overrule Misplaced Pages sourcing policy. As one can see in the latest response from IP number 69.47.228.36, s/he has referred to all media as liars, apart from calling me so.

In view of this, I am forced to abandon any hope for reasoning with this group who are here with a set agenda. This group have shown the audacity to overrule Misplaced Pages's policy and I found it safer to end the discussion in talk page and request arbitration. Let me request the Misplaced Pages administrators to kindly to look into this issue and hope for a resolution in accordance with Misplaced Pages's stated policies. Thank you, Sincerely Prathambhu (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Aarem

Malayalam Cinema is not centered in Kochi. Most of the production facilities are in Trivandrum. The leading production facilities in Kochi includes Max Labs, Lal Media, Navodaya(not fully functional now) and sound recording studio annex of Chitranjali. There is no leading animation studios in Kochi and no studios with large campus for outdoor shooting facility. 60% of the films that are now released in Malayalam is being shot in Kochi and suburbs. But that alone does not make it to be called the centre of industry. If in that case, before 10 years, 60% of the films were shot in villages of Ottapalam and Pollachi. Can it be then declared as the centre of the industry?

Trivandrum is having the maximum number of studio facilities and production facilities. This includes:

• Chitranjali studios - with and indoor studio of around 12,000 sq.ft. (second largest indoor in Asia) with sound proof floor

Outdoor campus of 70 acres. Pre built Out door of Police station, Hospital, Class room, Office rooms, Village houses, Temple, etc are available. Chitranjali studio has a single window system to obtain permission from the Government Departments and agencies for various locations for shooting. It has recording studios, preview theatre, four outdoor film units, reel printing facilities

• Prasad Colour Labs - The leading colour labs in South India has its facilities in Trivandrum.

This is the only processing lab in Kerala. They are the pioneer in Digital processing and negative processing in South India. They are the leading colour lab in Graphics (VFX) and not only Malayalam films are processed in their facility in Trivandrum (eg; Enthiran post production works were done here).

• Merryland studios - with a big outdoor campus facility of 36 acres. Now mostly used for mega serials

• Accel Animation Studios – More known for its motion capture facilities and 3D graphics.

• Vismayas Max – First DTS studio in Kerala. It has both animation facilities and regular film editing facilities. The sound recording unit of Vismaya is having a branch at Kochi too.

• Toonz Animation – Subsidiary of Singapore based Toonz company. Major works include Indian releases like Tenali Raman, Hanuman, etc and international releases like XMen and Wolverine, Gatturro etc.

Also, if you look at the addresses of actors published in the official website of AMMA(Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes), majority are given the address at Trivandrum as their permanent address.addresses link Even AMMA is headquartered in Thycaud, Trivandrum. If Kochi is the centre of the industry, why Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes(AMMA) is not headquartered in Kochi ?

There are many companies in Kinfra film and Video park with full SEZ facilities for animation and gaming. There are hundreds of small studios in the city to support all the "serial" shooting and production for various TV channels. Trivandrum has much more production facilities than any other city in Kerala. Events like International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK) and presence of organizations like Kerala Film Development Corporation, Chalachitra Academy, Soorya etc are in Trivandrum.

Citations are available for all these organizations. The links provided by User:Prathambhu are featured articles in the city page with peacock terms and biased reports to promote real estate and business in a region.

So in short, the movie industry in Kerala is not centred only in one location. Major facilities are in Trivandrum followed by Kochi. So to be impartial, no one can say that Malayalam movie industry is only centered in Kochi. Infact, it is scattered across Kerala with more presence in Trivandrum and Kochi.

The current statement is the article is as follows : " Malayalam film industry returned and established itself in Kerala with a major chunk of locations, studios, production and post-production facilities in Thiruvananthapuram and Kochi. " There is nothing wrong in this statement, as you can find majority of the studios and production facilities in both the cities. There is no official status like "centre of film industry". Cheers, -- Aarem 10:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: I support a sock puppet investigation as the User:ChroniclerSanjay(Special:Contributions/ChroniclerSanjay) is suspected to be the sock of User:Prathambhu.

@Newyorkbrad: Note: You may check here, what a neutral user has to say as a response to "Request for Comment" : by User:Jack Sebastian and response. -- Aarem

Statement by Salih

No case for arbitration has been made out. What is happening at Malayalam cinema is that a bunch of users (probably socks) want to glorify their city - Kochi. For this purpose they are cherry picking the sources to conclude that Kochi is the 'hub' of Malayalam cinema. This not true as an equal number or more film studios and production facilities exist in Thiruvananthapuram as well. Besides, the shooting of Malayalam cinema, as User Aarem points out, is scattered across Kerala with more presence in Thiruvananthapuram and Kochi. This case may be closed without further action. Salih (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Malayalam cinema industry hub: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Comment: This sounds like a situation where page protection or a community discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard might be helpful at this point. Administrators who happen to be perusing this page might want to take a look and see if the pages involved should indeed be semi-protected, and whether or not a bunch of blocks should be handed out. A few hours of work now might nip this in the bud. A sockpuppet investigation request might also be in order. Awaiting other statements. Risker (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• On a preliminary review I am in general agreement with Risker. Some participation by previously uninvolved editors with subject-matter expertise might also be helpful here. (I seem to be saying that a lot lately.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Decline per above. NW (Talk) 15:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Decline, there are problems here, but should be able to be dealt with short of arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesus

Initiated by Humanpublic (talk) at 18:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Humanpublic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• History2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeppiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Seb az86556 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Censorship_by_archiving
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Jesus_Resurrected_.28Unfortunately.29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_62#Jesus.2CArgument_from_silence
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_144#History_Dept._at_U._Massachusetts
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_143#Dictionary_of_Foregon_Terms_as_Historical_Method_Source
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive787#Long_history_of_PA
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive246#Topic_ban_for_Humanpublic

Statement by Humanpublic

I believe there is a dispute requiring intervention involving Jeppiz, History2007, Seb, and several others regarding the topic of the historicity of Jesus. The handling of the dispute thus far is characterized by unequal treatment, a topic ban based on wrong info, misleading characterizations of editors (such as yours truly), stereotypes of religious skepticism, lawyering to keep legitimate skeptical content out of Jesus, lawyering to trick and trap editors into being banned, forum shopping, misleading and fallacious insertion of sources into articles, and hounding an editor (yours truly) from one article to another.

Examples:

• Active Talk discussion forciby archived, twice. When I try to de-archive it, I am insulted "your useless deaf ears", reported for 3RR, and warned The editor who insulted me is not warned. (This editor, Ian.thomson, previously said to another editor on Talk:Jesus: "Take your WP:BATTELGROUND attitude and bigoted and unfounded accusations of bias elsewhere, you blind fool....you're too much of a crusading bigot to contribute anything worthwhile.)
• Then Seb az86556 does the whole forced archiving thing again, I complain, and Seb is warned

• I went to ANI to complain about Seb az86556 on Feb. 15.

• Jeppiz shows up at Jesus immediately thereafter, and repeatedly reverts me , , . Feb. 17 he follows me to Christ myth theory, where his only edit is to revert me. . Then he shows up at Argument from silence, which I've been editing, where he doesn't directly revert me (I've mostly stopped editing articles by now), but does oppose my view of the article.
• Seb az86556 follows me to Christ myth theory, where his only edit in the history of the article is to revert me . He makes no comment on Talk. Then he follows me to Argument from silence where his only edits are to revert me . Again, no comments on Talk.

• History2007, who almost exclusively edits Bible-related articles, frequently misrepresents sources. In one of Seb's reverts of me above, History2007 had used an example of usage of "argument from silence" from a dictionary as a claim about the concept. Recently, he added this text "arguments from silence themselves are also generally viewed as rather weak in many cases; or considered as falacies." which misrepresents source #7. While editing Jesus, he copy/pasted an entire paragraph of text from Christ myth theory that included several book-length sources. I asked him to provide the quotes from the books, and replied: "Trust me on that one per WP:AGF. I do not need to quote my source so you can assess it" and it became apparent he hadn't read all the sources he copy/pasted.
• The other observations I wish to make 1) I'm the only editor to attempt DR, yet I was banned for lack of collaboration, , 2) I am constantly being accused of arguing Jesus didn't exist: ""POV-pushing, fringe and unsourced personal agenda....etc" I don't have an opinion on the historicity of Jesus. The fact that there is no evidence that dates from his time belongs on Misplaced Pages without being pooh-poohed and downplayed. I also think there are no RS for what "ALL scholars believe". Those are the main two positions I've advocated. Neither is fringe or POV promoting, it is not “forum” to make the case on relevant Talk pages. I am now topic-banned from discussing the validity of a source that mentions religion, regarding an article not directly related to religion Argument from Silence.

There are also multiple false accusations of vandalism, etc. that are on my Talk page. Obviously I haven't been a little angel. But I've been harassed, characterized in unfair and stereotypical ways, and admin treatment has been unequal. So, I'm frustrated. There is an overall atmosphere of vindictiveness, gamesmanship, and stereotyping in these areas. I asked for DR, and then was topic-banned with nobody trying DR first. Humanpublic (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken. I made this request because, among other reasons, I was told it is how I should appeal my topic-ban. Humanpublic (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

@Arbitrators. I can't return to ANI and AN with these points. I would immediately be accused of "forum" and "point" and disruption. There would be an immediate proposal for a site-wide ban. I can't believe you've read through all the threads that are basically popularity contests, understood the atmosphere there, and think I should go back. It needs something not based on quick judgements by the crowd. Humanpublic (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this policy: "If a user in good standing believes that something is part of your topic ban, then it is part of your topic ban, period." You might as well sew a yellow badge on me. Humanpublic (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I was expecting arbitration to find out the facts. The comment by Newyorkbrad, widely endorsed, is utterly wrong as a matter of fact: "Many of Humanpublic's edits consist of his pointing out, in articles about Biblical topics, that Biblical events such as the resurrection of Jesus are not possible according to science"

• I've made one edit on that topic to an article (Resurrection of Jesus) in my time on here.
• I've never made an edit to that article's Talk page.
• I've seriously edited one article on Biblical topics (Jesus). My themes on that article are what I said above (and nobody read): A factual, sourced addition to the article about lack of evidence, and questioning whether it's fair to make an aboslute statement about what "ALL" scholars believe. That's it.
• The theme Newyorkbrad mentions is not something I care about, or have pursued.
• The theme Newyorkbrad attributes to me wasn't mentioned in any of the discussions on ANI or AN. It has nothing to do with my topic-ban or why I'm here.
• Newyorkbrad's comment is reminiscent of previous discussion in that it is based on assumptions and stereotypes: I am presumed to think Jesus didn't exist, presumed to be anti-Christian, anti-faith, POV-pushing, and agenda-driven. I'm none of those things.Humanpublic (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding civility--"repeated instances of grossly uncivil commentary and personal attacks". Everything I've said to others is identical or similar to what others said to me. I believe History2007 consistently misrepresents sources. If there is a strong community preference for that wording over "dishonest", then make it clear. And don't selectively enforce the rule--my use of sources was called dishonest. I'm "grossly" uncivil, yet those who called me dishonest, self-important, vandal, and who hounded me to other articles just to revert me, are not even warned.... The atmosphere on Jesus is so hostile that an editor wrote "GTFO (get the fuck out) bigot", but Newyorkbrad sees no problem there.

This I cannot accept: "If a user in good standing believes that something is part of your topic ban, then it is part of your topic ban, period." I find no support for it in policy. I was blocked for violating my topic-ban because I discussed an allegedly religious source. The admins haven't even read the source, and in fact my discussion had nothing to do with religion....

There is no concern for the fairness of my treatment here. You aren't getting the facts rights, and your "advice" isn't acknowledging my concerns. Humanpublic (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jeppiz

In brief: in the discussion at AN, all admins who commented supported a topic-ban on Humanpublic. Among ordinary users, most supported the topic ban and one was neutral. The only one who opposed it was Humanpublic's pal Strangesad who said AN is a lynch mob and urged Humanpublic to create a sock to evade the topic ban . So either Humanpublic is the victim of gigantic conspiration involving all admins who have looked into his case, or all the admins who have supported a topic -ban on Humanpublic, several of whom suggested a total block, did so for a reason. While individual diffs can be cherrypicked to support either of the two alternatives, I suggest anyone interested in getting the full picture study the discussion about the topic-ban as well as the edits of Humanpublic after the topic-ban. As for the accusations Humanpublic makes about me, I'd point out that my reverts at Jesus simply restored what the source said. At Argument from Silence I actually supported Humanpublic in part, finding the article a bit POV. As is clear from my edit histort, almost all of my edits (luckily) have nothing to do with Humanpublic.Jeppiz (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Addition As the user who proposed the topic ban at AN, I should add that the topic ban is of course not based on Humanpublic's views, but on Humanpublic's repeated disruption when editing topics related to religion. I'm sorry to say that nothing I've seen after the topic ban was put in place suggests any change. On the contrary, Humanpublic has challenged a lot of (previously) uninvolved admins both on their pages and on his own. This recent edit summary in response to a user who had tried to explain Misplaced Pages's policies is revealing , not to mention this comparison between those who disagree with him and the nazis . Humanpublic is the viction of nothing but the consequences of his repeated breach of WP:CIVIL.Jeppiz (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by History2007

WP:OWB is an interesting essay, and per item 3 there, I will be brief. I did not participate in this user's topic ban discussion; but it was a straightforward case of WP:NOTHERE. This brouhaha is now a case of user doesn't like his topic ban. Given that the account has 47 article edits in 8 months and has been banned and blocked in the process, and has been frankly advised about how Misplaced Pages operates, OWB item 4 may be a gem as well. History2007 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Since Humanpublic is under an editing restriction "Indefinitely banned from making edits related to faith and religion, broadly construed", why is this request even being considered? Surely this is editing on that topic, broadly construed - and an attempt at a "back door" hit at editors HP disagrees with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: I agree that everyone should have the right to appeal a sanction placed against them, but what Humanpublic has filed here is not that appeal, it's a request to open a case against other editors. That's more on the order of an attempt at retribution rather than an appeal. Besides, wouldn't the proper place to appeal a community sanction be to the community, or BASC? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

Humanpublic says above that one of the reasons he's filing this is to appeal his existing topic ban. I guess Humanpublic might not be particularly familiar with ArbCom, but I tend to think that WP:ARCA would be the appropriate venue to request changes to his existing sanctions. John Carter (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by King of Hearts

Just a quick clarification: @Beyond My Ken: Yes, Humanpublic is allowed to appeal his topic ban. However, @John Carter: ARCA is not the correct place; that is for ArbCom-imposed sanctions only. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Opine by Hasteur

Just a suggestion, perhaps the only thing the committee needs to deal with is the question about the topic ban being valid and in need of modification. If the ban stands, then the rest of the complaint is moot. If a modification to the ban permits reasonable discussion then the remainder of the complaint can be referred to another DR venue (which would bypass the forum/admin shopping concerns). Either way, a full case is not needed, simply a motion from the committee once they feel enough statements have been presented regarding the topic ban Hasteur (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Jesus: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/5/0/0>-Jesus-2013-03-25T18:56:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Decline: this seems to me too blunderbuss, too premature, and with too much of the dispute focusing on content, for us to accept. I suggest unpicking the components and raising each separately at the applicable forum. It will be much easier to deal with this in bite sized pieces.  Roger Davies 18:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)"> ">
  • The potential problem with that is that Humanpublic is currently topic-banned, and for him to raise issues on this subject in any other forum would be in breach of the ban. The triage here is probably to first ask whether Humanpublic has a reasonable objection to his topic-ban. If so, we should proceed to consider the request for arbitration, which might include our referring issues to some other venue. If not, we should decline the case which would close the matter, at least unless and until another user without such a restriction raises the issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Decline - aspects of this may need attention, but arbitration is the wrong venue. Suggest taking Roger's advice. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Updating to reaffirm my decline. Newyorkbrad's advice is good, please take it. Carcharoth (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Contrary to Roger's position, I actually think this dispute could be appropriately handled in arbitration, albeit with some of the obvious points of disputed content stripped out. However, the dispute as it stands seems to be in a relatively early stage, and too few attempts have been made to use higher levels of community dispute-resolution. DRN, ANI, and RSN (which are for low-level disputes) have already been used, but other methods of dispute resolution have not. At this point, proceeding to formal mediation or an RFC would be more appropriate than proceeding to arbitration. Decline as premature. AGK 14:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Same comment as above: Humanpublic is currently barred from proceeding in those forums. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. As noted above, Humanpublic is currently topic-banned from edits regarding faith and religion, which obviously would include edits concerning the historicity and reported miracles of Jesus Christ. On a review of Humanpublic's editing and the topic-ban discussion, the topic-ban seems to be necessary. Many of Humanpublic's edits consist of his pointing out, in articles about Biblical topics, that Biblical events such as the resurrection of Jesus are not possible according to science—thus overlooking that a definition of a miracle in the religious sense is precisely that, an occurrence that is not possible in the everyday world and can only be explained, if it occurred, as an instantiation of the ineffable or divine. Misplaced Pages's policy of neutrality, as well as respect for the common-sense intelligence of our readers, render it unnecessary to point out the scientific inexplicability of (for example) the resurrection of a human being three days dead every time our coverage of the New Testament mentions the Resurrection. Moreover, for us to realize this does not bias the encyclopedia in favor of a Christian point of view, any more than our failure to interpolate "(but of course this is just a silly story and this couldn't possibly have happened)" into every article about a Greek or Roman myth biases the encyclopedia in favor of an Ancient Greek or Roman point of view. For his failure to understand this and related precepts after multiple explanations, and for repeated instances of grossly uncivil commentary and personal attacks, the topic-ban was properly imposed, after a sufficiently thoughtful discussion on the noticeboard. Nothing that Humanpublic has posted above leads me to believe that the necessity for the topic-ban has ended. Therefore, to the extent the request for arbitration can be taken as an appeal from Humanpublic's topic-ban, my vote is to decline. As for the allegations against other editors, I see little evidence of misconduct, and in any event, being topic-banned Humanpublic is in no position to pursue an arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Decline per Brad. T. Canens (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• Decline per Newyorkbrad. NW (Talk) 15:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)