Article on other languages:

• ويكيبيديا:مجلس_التحكيم
• Уикипедия:Арбитражен_комитет
• Wikipedie:Arbitrážní_výbor
• Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht
• Wikipedia:Comité_de_resolución_de_conflictos
• Wikipédia:Comité_d'arbitrage
• Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie
• Википедия:Арбитражный_комитет
• Wikipedija:Arbitražni_komite
• Wikipedia:Välityspyynnöt
• Wikipedia:Skiljedomskommitté

	del.icio.us
	Digg
	Furl
	Reddit
	Rojo
	Add to OnlyWire

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 on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The Arbitration process is governed by the Arbitration policy.

The committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to agreement have failed, and makes rulings to address problems in the editorial community. However it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"). Please do not ask the committee to make these kinds of decisions, as they will not do so.

Requests for Arbitration can also be used to present questions and requests related to previous closed cases. These include clarification of the intent and scope of a decision, appeals of past sanctions, and requests to amend remedies and enforcement measures.

For information about requesting Arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration guide, which contains important information. You may also wish to review the following:

• Arbitration enforcement noticeboard – Request help here if it involves the violation of a Committee decision
• Administrator enforcement requested – Summary of cases and remedies which are currently in force
• Case archives — closed cases, rejected requests, and closed motions (without a RFAR case)

Prior steps

The Committee will generally accept these types of cases without any previous formal dispute resolution measures being followed:

• Reviews of emergency actions to remove administrator privileges
• Unusually divisive disputes among administrators
• Matters directly referred to the Arbitration Committee by Jimbo Wales

Otherwise, it is expected that other avenues of dispute resolution will have been exhausted before a case is filed—Arbitration is the last resort for conflicts, rather than the first.

Requesting Arbitration

Current requests

Aspartame_controversy

Initiated by Twoggle (talk) at 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• twoggle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), filing party
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

• Scienceapologist[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Formal Mediation Request (See Response to Case)
• Mediation Cabal (See Response to Case).
• Request to discuss at end of this section
• Numerous requests to discuss before deleting large sections of article -- See my revert comments
• Prior attempts with discussing massive removal/POVing of article without discussion with Editors who participated in previous consensus.
• Additional prior attempts with discussing massive removal/POVing of article without discussion with Editors who participated in previous consensus

Statement by Twoggle

On October 31, 2008, the existing consensus Aspartame_controversy article was largely replaced with a extremely POV version, without any discussion, in numerous edits by Scienceapologist[2]. [3][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15].

I reverting a few of these edits with pleas to discuss to discuss prior to replacing a consensus article: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] (see my comment in this section).

Requsts to discuss were met with Edit Warring rather than any attempt to discuss: [21] [22].

When attempts at discussion were ignored, I pursued mediation. Informal and Formal Mediation requests were met with both unwillingness to mediate and inappropriate editorializing on the Mediation page. Formal Mediation Request (See Response to Case) Mediation Cabal (See Response to Case).

Several pillars/rules of Wikipedia were ignored, including WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV, WP:Civility, :WP:Disruptive_editing, etc. Of particular concern is that some of the edits: [23] were made with a claim of WP:Fringe and WP:Undue while at the same time, there was an attemped take-over of the WP:Fringe guideline by Scienceapologist[24] and others in a way that the existing Aspartame_controversy WP:NPOV WP:Consensus could somehow be declared WP:Fringe. Please note the significant WP:Fringe rewrite without discussion attempts: [25] [26] [27] [28] and repeated Edit Warning reverts: [29] [30] [31] despite a large number of requests for discussion first. Also please note the significant removal of text related to WP:NPOV and that all significant viewpoints should be represented fairly and without bias.

Scienceapologist[32] finally got a 30-Day ban related to edit warring of the WP:Fringe page: [33].

Attempts were made to force the change and/or start with a version after the non-discussed changes: [34].

Followed by incivility: [35].

Removal of ban notice from Talk page: [36].

Once the single page ban came into effect, the page of the Admin who set the temporary ban came under attack: [37] (see large and major edits by Scienceapologist[38]) which could give the appearance of retribution.

My point is that the WP:NPOV and previous WP:Consensus of the Aspartame_controversy page has been gutted by repeated and eventually successful attempts at massive deletions of one side of the controversy. Attempts at discussion of individual issues and mediation were met with calls for my own banning! When a page about a controversy is taken over by a small group intent on not following Wikipedia WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV guidelines, it seems to lead to an extremely biased page and as is the case now numerous factual inaccuracies. In it's current form, after the gutting of much of scientific discussion and peer-reviewed references on one side of the issue, there are now appeals to personal websites and a made up, potentially libelous and unreferenced story about an alleged activist.

While the Arbitration Committee may not deal with specific article content, I think it is the lack of following Wikipedia Guidelines and respect for other Editors that leads to articles which can reflect very poorly upon Wikipedia as well as destroy the desire of knowledgable Editors to participate.

I have not quite lost hope for WP:NPOV and WP:Consensus on Wikipedia. Therefore, I am requesting that you consider one of the following solutions (but am open to others): 1) Start with the prior consensus (pre-October 26, 2008) and have formal mediation to discuss each concern/issue so that alternative text or references could be discussed to reach a consensus. 2) Split the Aspartame_controversy piece into two separate articles so that each side can be presently fairly. While I would have liked to edit both sides of the issue since I know all of the research and some of the scientists on both sides of the issue, I would avoid pro-aspartame edits if the they did the same to the anti-aspartame group. I do not prefer this idea, but whatever helps produce WP:NPOV results is better than nothing. 3) Freeze the pre-October 26, 2008 consensus article get back to the Arbitration Committee with results of Formal or Informal Mediation to see if further action needs to be taken.

Much more detail as well as defense of claims made against me for requesting mediation (e.g., [[Wikipedia:SPA], WP:OWN, etc.) will be provided on the Evidence page. Cordially, Twoggle (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to the statement by ScienceApologist, the arbitration request is about WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV, WP:Civility, WP:Disruptive_editing, refusal to participate in discussion or meditation, etc. It is true that these actions led to an inappropriate change in content. I am requesting that we start from last consensus and move forward with discussion, mediation, etc. as mentioned above. Twoggle (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to the statement by Jehochman, I requested discussion and then informal and formal mediation because I have never been shy about civil and reasonable discussions of the pages I have edited, including discussions of the scientific literature, scientific conferences, media articles, government hearings, etc. and how these things relate to WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc. A reading of the *whole* page after my edits on a page about controversy clearly show that I went the extra mile in giving equal weight and tried to present each side of the controversy with as much scientific accuracy as possible (as did many other Editors). The sample diffs simple show my reverts of large edits I at least partly disagreed with and a request to discuss. The first diff reverts the removal of a large section of text on one side of the issue backed up by two peer-reviewed papers and one potentially poor source which is why I urged discussion. The second diff was part of an attempt to discuss the previous consensus before numerous undiscussed massive edits. The third diff discussed on the talk page. I agreed with another editor about removing a link to a private page and I suggested it be replaced with a link to a published, peer-reviewed scientific review [39]. The discussion was on the Talk page for 13 days and no one objected before or after the edit was made. Twoggle (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by ScienceApologist

Content dispute at Aspartame controversy and therefore outside the purview of the arbitration committee. Consensus has gone against this particular user, who apparently thinks that because they think that aspartame is dangerous, Wikipedia should give equal weight to their opinion. The user outlines a number of conflicts totally unrelated to this issue, perhaps in the hope of getting their preferred content restored.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I had not noticed Twoggle (talk · contribs) before so I decided to look at their contributions. Since they created their account over three years ago, about 90% of their edits have been related to Aspartame. They also have a few contributions to Monosodium glutamate and Water fluoridation articles as well. The general nature of the edits seem to be pushing fringe views, violating neutral point of view, and generally failing verifiability. I am going to harvest diffs to post something to the user's talk page. There is a strong possibility that the editing pattern falls under our blocking policy's provision that accounts used primarily for disruptive editing may be blocked indefinitely. I will look into this further and await feedback before taking any action. Jehochman ^Talk 05:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sample diffs: [40][41][42] Jehochman ^Talk 06:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Verbal

There is no need for arbitration here. The discussion on the article talk page is clearly against the changes that Twoggle wants to make, which fail our fringe, neutrality, verifiability and reliable sourcing criteria. This is a clear content dispute between Twoggle and the consensus at Aspartame related articles. I would support the action suggested above by by Jehochman. 07:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Clarifications and other requests

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.

How to file a request (please use this format!): Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page. Click the [Edit] link to the right of this section, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests. Using the format provided by the template, state your request and reasoning in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You may add to this in future if needed, but it should be kept short. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~. If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification. This is not a page for discussion. It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts. Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee. Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one.