Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Shortcuts

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

This page is for statements, not discussion.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

{{subst:Arbitration case request

|Scientology R2-45: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

|admin = no

|party2 = The Wordsmith |P2 admin = yes

|party3 = Prioryman |P3 admin = no

|party4 = Feoffer |P4 admin = no

|party5 = Damotclese |P5 admin = no

|party6 = Slashme |P6 admin = no

|party7 = Thimbleweed |P7 admin = no

|otherDRsteps =

8 April 2016 - Query to RSN on whether the Tony Ortega blog is a WP:RS to support extraordinary criminal allegations.
15 April 2016 - Query to ANI on copyright violations of (1) an image used in the article and (2) a link to a page hosting an unlicensed copyright recording.
21 April 2016 - FFD decision. Admin decided image is in violation and deleted it. The file had been uploaded and linked by Feoffer on 15 April 2016.
30 April 2016 - Query to ANI. I reopened to get definitive answer on WP:ELNEVER. Instead of an answer on copyright, I was threatened with being blocked.
5 May 2016 - Query to ANI. I reopened a second time to get definitive answer on WP:ELNEVER. It was answered and I closed the question.
26 may 2016 - AE closure. I asked for enforcement of the Scientology 2009 provisions on Prioryman.
30 May 2016 - AE closure. A week later, Prioryman retaliated with a counter-request for sanctions against me.
6 June 2016 - AE appeal closure. I appealed the 12-month topic ban sanction.

|statement = (BiologistBabe (talk · contribs) was a minor WP:TEAM member.)

A TEAM of editors/administrator is working against Scientology arbitration of 2009 to advocate against Scientology. The editors of R2-45 use/d WP:cherrypicked quotes, blog speculations, an image in violation of WP:COPYVIO, a single book mention from 50 years ago (no other critical books mention the subject), and WP:FRINGE theory from a non-expert to accuse Scientology of

publishing lists of people to be killed,
death threats to intimidate enemies,
ordering people to commit suicide,
advising believers to commit suicide, and
being founded by a "malignant narcissist". R2-45 cites a diagnosis by sociology professor Stephen A. Kent, though Kent is not a psychiatrist, never met Hubbard personally, worked from anecdotes, and did not have the essay peer reviewed by psychiatrists or published in a psychiatric journal. The diagnosis is not in standard medical texts, and Kent is considered FRINGE by members of his own field (as told on the Misplaced Pages page).

Conspiracy to murder and threat to murder are criminal accusations. All these allegations are highly infamous and need reliable sources, but these are the weakest. The article violates WP:REDFLAG: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." But as one TEAM member Thimbleweed admitted: The problem here is that there aren't any proper secondary sources, we'll have to make do with what we have. None of the other TEAM members objected to that assessment.

Yet the TEAM has repeatedly agreed on the talk page that the article is in tip-top shape, and two members of the TEAM have nominated it for GA.,

In AE, The Wordsmith deprecated Prioryman's editing violations: "The sources are an editorial matter, not a disciplinary one."] But under Arbcom , editorial and content violations are sanctionable. There is real factor of WP:BLP. The accusation reaches into present time because Hubbard's words are dogma for the church. The Church leaders, now and in the past, are alive and known by name. Every person who identifies as a Scientologist from Tom Cruise to John Doe is accused of being in a murder-suicide cult.

Not all editors named edited this article. But all added "consensus".

I am topic banned for a year (as of June 1) for opposing the TEAM. The Wordsmith presided over the AE, which was wrong:

The Wordsmith has a private collection of Scientology literature and knows more about the cult than "most Scientologists" -- i.e., possible WP:COI (cultist or ex-cultist)
After filing the AE, complainant Prioryman canvassed The Wordsmith to preside over the proceeding.
The Wordsmith banned me as an SPA,WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive193#Sfarney which proved false in the appeal.
The Wordsmith announced that secret information justified the banning, convincing others to affirm the sanction, but later admitted the secret information was untrue.

The findings were reversed, but the ban remains in place. And the members of the R2-45 TEAM are in violation of Scn ArbCom.

NB The Process: The sanction "was, in fact, suggested by an Arbitrator I consulted for advice". That Arbitrator should be identified and recused.

}}