Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Statement by Che Nuevara

I began mediating the Omura case after User:Aguerriero left Wikipedia (?). Richard, Crum, and I discussed some avenues to explore and began discussing the disputed material. The discussion was long and tedious, and yielded little if anything, but was civil. During that time, Rat resurfaced as his provocative account Whiffle, but relented that strategy and joined the discussion as TheStainlessSteelRat. Eventually we came to the conclusion that agreement between the involved parties was unlikely and we considered putting up an RfC.

A couple of offers were made by outside editors to draft a stub, but these never came to fruition.

Then I was away for about a week (week of USA Thanksgiving) and, when I came back, the situation had regressed to a revert war. A very basic stub had been produced -- I'm not sure by whom -- which I attempted to encourage work from, but both sides pushed in opposite directions towards other versions they preferred. Eventually, with no reasonable end in sight, I decided to close the case as unworkable.

Despite Richard's stated intention to continue appropriating my words, I do not believe that Crum is solely to blame for this conflict. I believe that all parties with whom I dealt in the mediation (I had no contact with Philosophus) have, at some time or another, edited tendentiously, edit warred, failed to act in good faith, displayed incivility, and the like. I do not hold Crum to be the reason that the mediation case could come to no reasonable end; I ended the mediation because no avenue available could reach agreement between these editors.

I will detail specific incidents, with diffs, in a formal statement if this case is accepted.

Peace. - Che Nuevara 19:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by mostly uninvolved user:Cowman109

I believe that this case has issues of WP:AUTO and multiple violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to address. Mediation has failed to produce any positive result due to strong disagreements by the opposing parties, so an arbitration case to determine what the cause of the potentially tendentious editing and edit warring is and how to remedy it would be beneficial, as the disputes between the parties has made it impossible for any progress to be made on the article despite numerous blocks for 3rr violations and full protection of the page. Cowman109^Talk 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection?

I had unprotected this article recently and now a new SPA has started removing big chunks of content. I assume that is what this arbitration is about? Do I need to re-protect it? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)