Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
The last step of dispute resolution is a request for arbitration. Please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.
- 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.
| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.
0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.
This is not a page for discussion, and arbitrators may summarily remove discussion without comment.
- Arbitration policy
- Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
- Developer help needed
- Arbitration template
- Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents
Current requests
Template
Involved parties
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
If not, then explain why that would be fruitless
Statement by party 1
Please limit your statement to 500 words
Statement by party 2
Please limit your statement to 500 words
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)
User:Meelar and User:Firebug vs. User:Mlorrey
Involved parties
Firebug and I contend that Mlorrey has ignored NPOV and refused to discuss such on talk pages, and has instead behaved in a hostile manner not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Mlorrey contends that Firebug and I have stalked his editing, seeking to impose our own political point of view, and also claims that Firebug is my sockpuppet or vice versa.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- I inform Mlorrey and Mlorrey shows he is aware of my request
- Firebug agrees to be a party
- I, Meelar (talk), am aware
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
If not, then explain why that would be fruitless
- Talk:Gun politics in the United States--led to no productive discussion, which caused the formation of...
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mlorrey, which also led to hostility and no productive movement on article wording, followed by...
- A request for mediation, which I believe would fail. Mediation is for the resolution of disputes through compromise and discussion, something which has been lacking throughout this matter; also, Mlorrey seems to see mediation as a sort of "lower court", designed to decide right and wrong (see this)
- Meelar does not have the right to make the determination that mediation would fail, unless it is Meelar who intends not to operate in good faith while in mediation, does not intend to resolve this through discussion and compromise. Meelar has no right to determine what my state of mind is. This is an issue for a mediator to determine, NOT Meelar or "Firebug".Mlorrey 17:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Statement by party 1
Please limit your statement to 500 words
I have actually provided a significant number of sources, including quotes of the individuals involved (including historically documented quotes by Yamomoto, Reagan, among others, which Meelar denies the validity of but which are documented in multiple locations on the internet.
Meelar's accusation that I present opinion as fact is also false, I present facts as facts. For example, the definition of the word "fascist" is a political agenda that includes the use of the police forces of the state to control what property private citizens can own and how they are permitted to use that property, to the point of imprisoning or killing citizens who dispute that control. This definition is the very point of gun control laws: they control what sort of guns private citizens can own (and which sorts of citizens can own them, see the history of gun control in Jim Crow legislation as well as the German National Weapons Law of the 1930's)and under what circumstances private citizens are allowed to own and use them. Ruby Ridge and Waco are prima facea evidence that gun control laws are fascist. Thus gun control laws, by their nature and implementation, are fascist. This is not opinion, this is fact, and will be a fact so long as the definition of 'fascist' is at it is and gun control does what it does. Others may have an opinion of the validity of this fact, but that does not change the existence of the fact. Presenting this position as a fact is thus NPOV. Disputing it is non-NPOV. What Meelar's real objection is that s/he is anti-gun and therefore dislikes the idea that s/he may support fascist laws.
Meelar continues his or her typical behavior of revisionism in reverting and deleting my quote of Admiral Yamomoto when he advised Tojo not to invade the mainland US, saying "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass" as an example of an instance when the very existence of the citizens right to keep and bear arms dissuaded a foreign nation from even attempting to invade another. Meelar accuses me of "cherry picking" in presenting this quote, which is a ludicrous accusation, since there have been almost no wars that the US has been involved in from which to research, in which the enemy contemplated invading the US, and demonstrated both a willingness and ability to do so (Pearl Harbor and the invasion of Attu and Sittu), going back to the War of 1812. "Cherry picking" is actually an error of statistical analysis, in which a researcher cherry picks statistical samples that support his or her argument rather than looking at the whole body of data. Presenting the one or two isolated quotes that exist because there is a dearth of documented quotes on a subject is not cherry picking, thus Meelar's complaint is non-NPOV until proven otherwise.
Nor is my comparison of Sen. Chris Dodd, or his father, Thomas Dodd, as fascists unique on wikipedia, as there is similarly extensive documentation of the fascist ties of the Bush family during the 1930's presented as fact here. If I erred at all, it was in not clearly stating whether the Dodd's are nazis, followers of italian fascism, spanish fascism, stalinists or trotskyists in particular, but I am still researching this point, cannot make a definitive labelling yet, and will present more detailed articles on this soon. Should wikipedians be dissuaded from developing articles on subjects by political supression witchhunts like the one Meelar has instigated? I don't think so, doing so would be non-NPOV.
My quotes of Ronald Reagan, in speeches before the NRA as well as in presidential interviews and debates (particularly one in which he joked he was only in favor of private citizens owning "small" atom bombs) clearly demonstrates that Reagan's policy was that gun ownership was an individual right. The claim that Ashcroft's policy declaration as being some "major shift" that was "unique", that the 'community rights' interpretation had been the accepted policy of the executive branch back to the 1930's is a claim that has ONLY been made by biased and non-NPOV gun control groups in their attempts to alienate Ashcroft's position and paint his policy as an extremist one that even other Republican Presidents did not agree with, thus Meelar's opinion, that my quotes of Reagan are false and that Ashcroft's policy was unique, represent a non-NPOV, not my position. Wikipedia should not take the word of biased gun control groups on this and should examine this issue neutrally. That is all I ask, and it is what Meelar is fighting against.
I have, on several occasions, asked Meelar, when s/he complained that something was written non-NPOV, that s/he provide an example of presenting the facts in a NPOV, which s/he has failed to respond to. Meelar has been hostile and agressive in instituting reversions without discussion and seems to hold the opinion that non-NPOV is anything that s/he disagrees with. When I have pointed out non-NPOV edits of Meelar's, I have been met by silence. If anybody should have an RFC page on them, it is Meelar, not myself. Meelar, in fact, has blown through the gun control pages on wikipedia like a buzz saw, excising vast amounts of information which s/he disagrees with. Furthermore, an examination of Meelar's user page clearly demonstrates that s/he is a Democratic Party operative in Washington, D.C. Like many Democrats, s/he is convinced of their own neutrality and middle-of-the-road status, when in reality s/he is engaged in a campaign of editing reality consensus on fora like Wikipedia to shift the political middle. Mlorrey 01:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Objection
Mlorrey challenges the reality of Firebug as a person independent of being a sockpuppet of Meelar.Mlorrey 04:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Objection 2
Mlorrey also challenges Firebug's certification as a co-plaintiff, as Firebug intentionally initiated agression against my edits, AFTER this dispute began, which is a violation of dispute resolution protocol, in order gain this certification, and therefore is intentionally 'throwing himself in front of a bus'. This is fraud and his certification should be dismissed by whoever is ajudicating this kangaroo court.Mlorrey 04:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Temporary Injunction/Restraining Order invoked against Meelar/Firebug
Mlorrey has also previously requested that this be moved to mediation, but has not been notified of any mediator taking jurisdiction of this case via message or email. Therefore, this case cannot move forward, nor can the alleged co-plaintiffs take further action until mediation jurisdiction has been established. Under the Hague Service Convention, he is entitled to be served proper notice. As a website providing service in many Hague signatory nations (including the US, Canada, and Europe), wikipedia is bound by this treaty. Until such is done, Mlorrey hereby revokes Meelar/Firebug's further authority to initiate force against him or his edits in wikipedia. This is to be considered a temporary injunction/restraining order against further changes of his edits and all reversions committed by Meelar/Firebug since the date of this RFC must be reversed, until such time as an official Wikipedia mediator acceptable to both sides agrees to accept jurisdiction over this case. Mlorrey 04:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Objection to Arbitration
Meelar and Firebug have failed to establish standing by pursuing mediation first. They have never attempted to negotiate resolutions to anything. Intead they have always agressively reverted or edited out my edits with rude commentary about 'extremist groups' and 'conspiracy theories' and the like demonstrating that they are not NPOV. They have attempted to jump over the mediation process in pursuing arbitration, while Firebug agressively initiated editing after the start of this dispute in order to fraudulently get himself (who is accused of being a sockpuppet of Meelar) certified as a co-plaintiff. I refuse to arbitrate until mediation has been attempted for a reasonable period of time (not a matter of a few hours) and a mutually acceptable mediator determines mediation has failed. Until this is accomplished it is my opinion that Meelar and Firebug lack standing to pursue arbitration, and are merely trying to railroad me. I hereby require that the arbitration committee remand this case to mediation.
Description
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
User:Mlorrey has refused to follow the NPOV guidelines, specifically on articles relating to gun control (see, e.g. Chris Dodd, where he wrote that "His votes and public statements in support of gun control legislation demonstrate he carries on the legacy of his father in supporting the imposition of fascim on America." [1]. This is only one example; he has made numerous anti-gun-control edits to plenty of others (see below). In addition, he holds numerous other views which could be described as very uncommon, even fringe, yet insists that these views receive front-and-center prominence in articles, and be accepted as fact, rather than opinion (see e.g. the history of neo-luddism.
These edits seem to show a basic misunderstanding of the NPOV policy. In essence, Mlorrey holds a very strong and very uncommon set of opinions (e.g., that all gun control is fascist) and treats this as a fact, not an opinion. There is nothing wrong with including significant points of view on appropriate pages (for example, Gun politics in the United States has a pretty good description of the controversy over gun control), but including very uncommon opinions--and giving them undue weight in articles, let alone treating them as facts--is not neutral. Especially, these statements should not be made in unrelated articles such as Chris Dodd.
I've attempted to discuss these issues with Mlorrey on article talk pages, but I'm uniformly met with hostility and derision, rather than an honest attempt to consider my points. He sees talk pages as a place to debate these issues, rather than a place to discuss how to make the article better. In addition, he is unfailingly dismissive towards anyone who he feels doesn't share his point of view (for example, he writes that "The claim that the collective view was the 'de facto' position is false revisionist history promoted by the Bradyistas" [2]).
When I tried to follow the dispute resolution process, Mlorrey was uniformly hostile. He accused me of editing with a political motive, which I am not; he also said that my user page "clearly demonstrates that s/he is a Democratic Party operative in Washington, D.C." Although my user page does say that I'm in D.C., it has nothing to say about my political affiliation--intentionally so. Essentially, he has treated the whole dispute resolution process as a way to "prove" that I'm wrong and that he's right about gun control and other contentious political issues.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for advocacy. Mlorrey is violating this policy, and should be made to follow it.
Meelar (talk) 13:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Statement by Firebug
I think that the following statement by Mlorrey epitomizes the problem:
Ruby Ridge and Waco are prima facea evidence that gun control laws are fascist. Thus gun control laws, by their nature and implementation, are fascist. This is not opinion, this is fact, and will be a fact so long as the definition of 'fascist' is at it is and gun control does what it does.
Mlorrey has a very strong and deeply felt belief that gun control is fascist. That, in and of itself, isn't my concern. (If it matters, I think gun control is questionable policy and bad politics, but calling it "fascist" goes way too far and is an insult to the victims of the Nazis.) The real problem is that Mlorrey can't seem to recognize that this is indeed personal POV, and not objective fact, as indicated by the quote above and the edits cited by Meelar. He has difficulties working within the boundaries of Wikipedia policy - see this edit, in which he claims that I was "aggressing against" his edits. Needless to say, statements like this misunderstand the collaborative spirit that should characterize Wikipedia. I have been willing to engage in reasoned compromise on these issues; see Mlorrey's original attempt to insert POV into the Gun Control Act of 1968 article [3]; after a few back-and-forth reverts over this insertion, I removed the "Nazi Origins" section and replaced it with a more neutral and broad "Controversy" section [4], which mentions the JPFO claim, but does not endorse a POV; this edit appears to have been accepted, as it is still in place.
Some of Mlorrey's behavior has, to be frank, been downright bizarre. See this edit. I could barely make sense of it, but it seems to border on violating Wikipedia:No legal threats.
I feel it would be better if Mlorrey concentrated on articles where he has more of substance to contribute and is less likely to inject POV.
Statement by party 3
Please limit your statement to 500 words
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)
ChrisO vs. Argyrosargyrou
Involved parties
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmed - [5].
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Repeated requests on talk pages have proved fruitless. A Request for Comment has also proved fruitless; if anything, Argyrosargyrou's conduct has worsened since then.
Statement by ChrisO
Since joining Wikipedia on 16 May 2005, User:Argyrosargyrou (talk / contribs) has mounted a literally daily campaign of edit warring on articles related to Cyprus. This has involved the creation of wildly POV articles, multiple recreations of said articles following votes for deletion, POV forks of protected articles, a complete disregard for the 3RR, persistent refusal to debate contentious changes, refusal to compromise with other editors, personal abuse of other editors and the systematic use of open proxies to evade temporary blocks.
In the relatively short time that he has been editing, he has shown absolutely no willingness to engage with the community in any way other than blunt opposition and uncompromising partisanship. His willingness to make illegal use of open proxies indicates that he is willing to go to extremes to force his POV into Wikipedia articles. He has been informed of the conduct and content standards expected of editors but clearly has no intention of abiding by them.
My own involvement in the ongoing conflict over the articles in question comprised an attempt to rewrite parts of Cyprus reunification referendum, 2004 to comply with the NPOV requirement (which Argyrosargyrou promptly reverted) and votes for the deletion of his POV forks. I have blocked him once for 24 hours following violations of the 3RR and have systematically blocked open proxies as he has used them in sequence to evade his block.
It is worth mentioning that his involvement with Wikipedia seems to be part of his wider anti-Turkish campaign on the Internet - see e.g. [6], [7].
Detailed evidence with diffs is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Argyrosargyrou/Evidence.
Statement by party 2
Please limit your statement to 500 words
Wikipedia is being used for political motives by Turkish Apologists and Holocaust Deniers
ChrisO is a Turkish apologist that wants to rewrite history by equating the Greek Cypriot victims of Turkish perpetrated human rights violations and warcrimes with the brutal and savage aggressors. Every time I try to include the historical facts and figures which are accepted by the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations such as the issues of misisng persons, the enclaved Greek Cypriots in Karpassia, the destruction of Cyprus Churches and other cultural heritage by Turkey, the illegality of the Turkish occupation regime and the pseudo-state in occupied Cyprus, the Greek Cypriot refugees property rights and the gross human rights violations contained in the text of the Anann plan, ChrisO and other Turkish apologists that he is in league with keep vandalising the pages and removing my contributions and rewriting or reverting the pages using unfounded Turkish propaganda in order to exonerate Turkey of all blame and cast the Greek Cypriot victims as villains. The pages edited or reverted by ChrisO use terminology intend to give legality to the Turkish occupation regime which is both illegal because it violates UN resolutions 541(1983) and 550(1984) which declared the pseudo-state in occupied Cyprus "legally invalid" and call on all UN members not to facilitate it in any way, and is also insulting to Greek Cypriots. ChrisO along with the other Turkish apologists he is in league with voted for the deletion of the page I created (with full references given) on the "Hellenic Genocide" which makes him a holocaust denier. Even though the vote of the RFD was overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the pages the page was still detested in violating of Wikipedia rules. It is is truly sickening that Wikipedia would go to such lengths to deny the genocide of 4 million Greeks whose ancestors had lived in Asia-Minor for over 3000 years. On top of that even though there was an RFD on the page on the non-existent "Turkish Cypriot Genocide" (which is not even referred to by Turkey) which was overwhelmingly in favour of deleting that page the page was still kept despite the vote. It is clear that Wikipedia is being used in order to promote unacceptable Turkish propaganda against Greeks.--Argyrosargyrou 15:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0)
- Accept - rapid fire revert warring by both parties (see [8] for example) needs to be stopped ASAP. (This means an injunction will be forthcoming.) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:43, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
- For the record, the 3RR does not apply to reverting edits by blocked users: "Reverts: All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." (Wikipedia:Banning policy) -- ChrisO 22:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Requests for Clarification
If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here.