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

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal	none	none	11 December 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Current requests

Phi Kappa Phi

Initiated by Angtitimo (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Angtitimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Lhakthong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried.

See Talk:Phi Kappa Phi. Lhakthong and Angtitimo agreed on 03/10/2009 to bring the contentious issue to arbitration after failing to agree on wording of lead, and continuing, daily edits by Lhakthong of the Phi Kappa Phi article.

Statement by Angtitimo

Dispute was raised by above filing party:

1) Phi Kappa Phi article is protected, but being edited daily by Lhakthong. Please settle dispute over why there is preferential treatment given by admin (unknown to Angtitimo) to Lhakthong who is being allowed to edit a protected or semi-protected article as of 02/29/2009. Lhakthong is editing it daily apparently to market/advertise Phi Kappa Phi; and 2) Improper editing by Lhakthong. Lhakthong continues to edit contentious lead by making the non-neutral, POV, misleading and unqualified "claims" that Phi Kappa Phi is the "largest" and "most selective" all-discipline honor society, and by wording the third and fourth sentences in the lead as "claims" to evade NPOV rule. I have suggested that the third and fourth sentences be qualified to indicate that other similar societies are factually just as large and selective, if not larger or more selective. There is factual and verifiable information I listed in Talk:Phi Kappa Phi to show that claims made by Lhakthong are false and baseless. There is no need to do any OR on the part of anyone because information is available and factual concerning equally very selective honor societies which were reference in Talk Page. Angtitimo (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lhakthong

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/9/0/0)

Decline, this is a content dispute, which we don't rule on. WP:MEDCAB might be a better bet. Wizardman 23:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, per my colleague. — Roger Davies ^talk 23:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Phi Kappa Phi is protected only from page moves and not from content. No question of violation of protected page policy therefore arises. And per Wizardman. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Content issue and not much attempt at WP:DR. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - content dispute. Consider a third opinion request or even a content-oriented request for comment. I've looked at the talk page of the article as well, and note the interaction is civil and respectful; it appears the key question is the degree of exclusivity of this honour society, and I urge all parties to look for reliable third party sources (i.e., something other than the websites of honour societies, such as books on honour societies) to find a neutral reference source for this information. Risker (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. As Sam has pointed out, the page is only protect against edits by very new users who are not yet "autoconfirmed". Angtitimo, you have cross the threshold, and should be able to edit the page now. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. per all preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, per above. Vassyana (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, per above. No further advice to add. Carcharoth (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases