Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Help

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:27, 11 December 2021

Shortcut

WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Article titles and capitalisation 2	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	01 Aug 2025	15 Aug 2025
Transgender healthcare and people	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	11 Aug 2025	25 Aug 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Indian military history	18 Jul 2025

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Race and intelligence	none	(orig. case)	5 August 2025
Clarification request: Indian military history	none	(orig. case)	22 July 2025
Amendment request: PIA Canvassing	none	(orig. case)	31 July 2025
Amendment request: Venezuelan politics	none	(orig. case)	6 August 2025
Amendment request: IdanST appeal	none	none	6 August 2025

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

File an arbitration request

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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 and this report 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1059793413"

Categories:

Hidden categories:

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=43%</noinclude>}}
 <noinclude>__TOC__</noinclude>
-== LGBT parenting ==
-'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Platyna|Platyna]] ([[User talk:Platyna|talk]]) '''at''' 14:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-=== Involved parties ===
-<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
-*{{userlinks|Platyna}}, ''filing party''
-*{{admin|Diannaa}}
-*{{userlinks|Roscelese}}
-*{{userlinks|DanielRigal}}
-;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
-<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
-*[diff of notification Diannaa]
-https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADiannaa&type=revision&diff=1059778642&oldid=1059777617
-*[diff of notification Roscelese]
-https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARoscelese&type=revision&diff=1059778879&oldid=1056706840
-*[diff of notification DanielRigal]
-https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADanielRigal&type=revision&diff=1059778992&oldid=1057091404
-;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGBT_parenting#Revert
-=== Statement by Platyna ===
->>> I am doing this a first time, I could use some help. The statement I entered originally got deleted, where do I find it? <<<
-I am a human biologist and an autistic LGBT person. I noticed that [[LGBT parenting]] article contains some false claims about the scientific consensus concerning the upbringing of children by same-sex and mixed-sex parents, while this matter is unresolved mainly because, what is pointed out in numerous studies, technical difficulties - small sample numbers, short non geographically and culturally diverse. To make a long story short, there is more data required and to collect more data longitudinal and geographical and culturally diverse samples are required. I was very delicate in my edit, I only NPOV'd the article by changing literally a few words and adding a citation, plus adding a new paragraph. I went as easy and objectively on this article as humanely possible. All research I quoted were respectable, WoS/SCOPUS indexed journals and all according to fair-use and Wikipedia guidelines on citing sources. My edits were first vandalized, because there is no other way to describe a revert done with a reason: "I don't trust your representation" (sic!) "I didn't read your sourced but reverting anyway". Then an admin came and DELETED all my edits, under the fake "copyright claim". In the user talk s/he then revealed that she didn't like one journal, which happens to be SAGE published, WoS/SCOPUS indexed, the oldest bioethics journal, Linacre Quarterly, the admin seems to not understand that Linacre is a college of Oxford University all because ONE OF THE institutions cooperating in redacting its journal has "Catholic" in their name. It is a peer reviewed journal as any other, it even has an article on Wikipedia, the other cooperating parties are SAGE publishing group, Maney publishing group and Taylor and Francis - all respected publishing groups publishing many peer reviewed journals, see [[The_Linacre_Quarterly]]. There are numerous LGBT groups publications quoted in the article without controversy, despite the fact these also cannot be fully impartial, no one can, hence you have anonymous peer review. This publication was a literature review that quoted numerous other studies, all I can confirm, published in WoS/SCOPUS indexed journals, and were not retracted. Despite the fact I quoted several other journals besides Linacre Q, my FULL EDIT was removed, that includes whipping it out of history. This is censorship and cherry-picking of research. If a journal is peer reviewed and WoS/SCOPUS indexed, you can't cherry-pick, all these journals are equal when it comes to default validity. If a party X expects that peer review in one particular journal may be flawed, they should prove it and notify parties responsible. I couldn't find any sources undermining the prestige and peer review quality of this journal. The administrator action shows no understanding how the scientific process work. If an article is submitted to a journal X anonymous reviewers are selected among these who have no conflict of interest, so it can be anyone publishing in any journal from any country, religion, creed or race, who has proper qualification to do such a review. I would like to add that Fitzgibbons, R. P. is a respected psychiatrist and family medicine doctor, has his works published by APA, there is NO WAY to undermine his professional credibility.
-Articles quoted in the edit in question:
-* Fitzgibbons, R. P. (2016). Growing up with gay parents: What is the big deal?. The Linacre Quarterly, 83(2), 332-336.
-* Allen D.W., Pakaluk C., Price J.. 2012. Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school: A comment on Rosenfeld. Demography 47: 755–75.
-* Sarantakos S. 1996. Children in three contexts. Children Australia 21: 23–31.
-* Sullins D.P. 2015a Emotional problems among children with same-sex parents: Difference by definition. British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science (January 25)
-ALL got deleted. I planned to expand on this section, had another 11 papers at hand, but I was rendered unable to do so because my work was being destroyed.
-* To Timtrent:
-: Yes, yes, I know autism is not an excuse to express autistic behaviour, we learn it the hard way the whole of our lives. And yeah I know this is a probably lost case, because a) it touches a deeply politicized topic b) HFAs stating clearly their cases without artificial niceness do not incur sympathy, and let's be frank, for most NTs the most important thing is not what people say but how they say it. But as a scientist, I feel obliged to fight for scientific facts and accuracy. Non-collegial behaviour is deleting an edit and all traces of it out of history, it was a clear message that the person who deleted it does not respect my time nor my work. After the edit was deleted, there is nothing to talk about any more. If the administrator in question was interested in a real article improvement, he would talk to me prior to deleting it and ALL history references, so I don't even have the access to things I wrote, so I can correct it, we would surely work out some feasible solution. This is what my understanding of collegial behaviour is. Instead, the admin tried to first use a bogus excuse and then undermine the credibility of the well respected WoS/SCOPUS indexed peer reviewed journal just because one of the editing party has "Catholic" in their name. To remind you - ALL was removed. And there is a horse in this race - it is about NPOV and cherry picking sources one likes which is against NPOV.
-* Fiddle
-Threats? No idea where did you see any threats. I said I will fill for arbitration and I did. I had a right to do so, right? And now you are working hard too not even grant me that arbitration turning the issue from it really is - an edit containing properly quoted research from respectable journals being just wiped out without a trace and using the fact I am not very skilled in Wikipedia brawling to undermine my point. Do you care about quality content of Wikipedia? Bring back the changes and let's discuss how to improve them. [[User:Platyna|Platyna]] ([[User talk:Platyna|talk]]) 16:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-* DanielRigal
-Are you accusing me of plagiarism because I QUOTED a tiny fragment from a paper? I could sue for that, this is actually a slander. If you revert an edit and in the history you blatantly admit either that you do not read the sources or "I don't trust it" and you call edits, backed up by science "inappropriate" then the problem is you, not me. And your problem is that you cannot cope with the new facts that go against your belief, and while you have to live with it, other people don't. This is an encyclopaedia, there is no such thing as "inappropriate fact". If you claim there is a consensus and then refuse the fact there is not, then it is a fraudulent statement, by any definition. And yes, I do not listen tto you because you are biased and you try to deny the facts you just don't like, and it is a big flaw of a character. [[User:Platyna|Platyna]] ([[User talk:Platyna|talk]]) 16:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-* Eviolite
-You hopped into the discussion without addressing the main issue - all referenced content was deleted, not only one publication, plus the person you responded to clearly stated that the problem is "Catholic" in the name of ONE OF the publishing parties. I am neither nice nor not nice, I focus on the point, so stop your personal trips towards myself and stop discriminating me for the way I speak. [[User:Platyna|Platyna]] ([[User talk:Platyna|talk]]) 16:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-* Eviolite
-Let me "plagiarize" the Oxford English Dictionary for you: a threat is "a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done."  I said "I could sue" not "I will sue", therefore there is no statement of intention. Considering I was just accused of plagiarism, which is basically one of the worst things you can accuse a scientist of, and you didn't stick to the person who did it, it clearly shows your impartiality is compromised. [[User:Platyna|Platyna]] ([[User talk:Platyna|talk]]) 16:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-* Firefly
-Nothing I wrote are threats, see the Oxford English Dictionary I "plagiarized" for people who have problems with underestanding the meaning the words they use. I am now insulted. Not only I was accused of plagiarism, which is horrible and no one stood in my defense, not only an edit containing proper scientific citations both when comes to fair-use AND Wikipedia guideliness got deleted, now I am being accused of threats. I am tired of this personal attacks, I am not interested about ANY futher comments about my person. Stop spamming, stick to the matter of the complaint. [[User:Platyna|Platyna]] ([[User talk:Platyna|talk]]) 16:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-*I beg for ONE impartial administrator, who will be so kind to get off me, have a hard grasp of meaning of the words, and preferably non neurotypical so there will be no search of hidden meanings in what I write, as there are NONE. Get off me, focus on the matter. [[User:Platyna|Platyna]] ([[User talk:Platyna|talk]]) 16:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-* It is clear I am right here:
-Quote from Dianaa: "The source paper is marked as "© Catholic Medical Association 2016", so to copypaste from that source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy." (sic.), while Wikipedia citing guideliness state:
-"A citation or reference in an article usually has two parts. In the first part, each section of text that is either based on, or QUOTED FROM, an outside source", which clearly states quoting is not forbidden as it is one of possibility. Then not only it is not forbidden, it is also encouraged:
-"A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible." Most of scientific research, including some quoted by me is paywalled. I did everything perfectly according the Wikipedia guideliness, therefore my edition should be undeleted. References:
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
-*:How I notify people about this review? There was some code to paste, but I can't find it any more. [[User:Platyna|Platyna]] ([[User talk:Platyna|talk]]) 15:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC) {{small|(''clerking to put reply in the proper section. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 15:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)'')}}
-*::I enter it, and it just displays "You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#CASENAME]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide|guide to arbitration]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitration proceedings|Arbitration Committee's procedures]] may be of use.
-*::: Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice -->" if I am supposed to fill something on CASENAME then what? Is that name automatically assigned, if so, then where is it? Or I just set it? I read the doc, but it does not explain so AFAIR. So no idea how to proceed, I will just paste them a link. {{small|(''clerking to put reply in the proper section. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 15:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)'')}}
-*:::: Ah, I thought I am not supposed to remove form headers. I simply posted them a link to this case. Is it okay? We can remove this discussion later on. [[User:Platyna|Platyna]] ([[User talk:Platyna|talk]]) 16:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Diannaa ===
-=== Statement by Roscelese ===
-=== Statement by DanielRigal ===
-This is a content dispute in which Platyna is trying to defend indefensibly POV (and possibly plagiarised) edits to [[LGBT parenting]]. These were being discussed at [[Talk:LGBT parenting]]. These edits were very poorly written in terms of clarity and grammar and were referenced (at least in part) to partisan religious sources which, while they might have been acceptable in their correct context,  were being incorrectly presented as impartial statements of the overall academic consensus. Platyna is not listening to anybody else telling them that these edits are inappropriate. There is [[WP:OWN]] and [[WP:IDHT]] going on here.
-The content was reverted by three different people: {{ping|Roscelese}}, myself and {{ping|Diannaa}} (in order of reverting). Platyna was asking for administrator intervention in edit summaries and on Talk but never took it to any of the Administrators' Noticeboards. Platyna reinstated the disputed content each time until Diannaa revdeled it for copyright reasons. Dispute has now spilled over onto [[User talk:Diannaa]].
-This seems to be an acrimonious, one sided edit war in which Platyna is accusing multiple good faith editors of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=prev&oldid=1059669952 "fraudulent claims"] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=next&oldid=1059713034 "vandalized reverts"]. They are trying to stand on their claimed authority as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=prev&oldid=1059696512 "a biologist and an LGBT person"] which, given that their edits introduced blatant ''anti''-LGBT polemic, I'm sorry to have to say that I am unimpressed by. Such appeals to mere authority are invalid anyway. Their argumentation on [[User talk:Diannaa]] is almost comically misguided.
-The edit summaries, the talk page behaviour and the edits/reverts themselves are all problematic and I feel that some sort of sanction for Platyna, maybe a topic ban from LGBT issues, is in order here. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 16:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Timtrent  ===
-I am more than somewaht concerned that ArbCom is the place of first resort to discuss this after a very brief interchange at [[User talk:Diannaa]]. I do not believe that this is an issue that ArbCom should be concerned with unless and until every other avenue has been exhausted. I noted the more than a little offensive section heading left by the complainant on initiating the discussion. I also note that they state Autism. Nonetheless that is not an excuse for non collegial behaviour.
-I belecve ArbCom should decline the case (other avenues have not been used frst), and make the complainant aware of [[WP:BOOMERANG]]<s>, while '''not''' implementing any process to invoke it</s> - Statement as Non-party. [[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span><sup><small>Timtrent</small></sup>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span><sup><small>Talk&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</small></sup>]] 15:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-:I should note that I have no horse in this race. I simply saw this on Diannaa's talk page and found the <s>threat and</s> action to come here to be inappropriate [[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span><sup><small>Timtrent</small></sup>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span><sup><small>Talk&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</small></sup>]] 16:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-::I have corrected the foregoing by strikking "threat" of which I am satisified that there was none. This was my error, and I thank the comlainant for pointing it out. [[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span><sup><small>Timtrent</small></sup>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span><sup><small>Talk&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</small></sup>]] 16:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-:The behaviour of the complainant in this case, with reference to the implied legal threat to DanielRigal means I have changed my opinion about not invoking [[WP:BOOMERANG]] processes. I am about to strike through that text in my statement. [[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span><sup><small>Timtrent</small></sup>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span><sup><small>Talk&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</small></sup>]] 16:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Eviolite ===
-(As a disclaimer, I have attempted to reason with the filing party at [[User talk:Diannaa]]. I don't think that makes me a party since I have not interacted with the page in question, though I have no objection to be added as one if clerks find it is warranted.)
-I urge a declination of this case; there is nothing that cannot be resolved at other processes (which have not been tried at all), like [[WP:DRN]] for the content dispute or community discussion at [[WP:ANI]] for possible conduct issues brought up by Platyna and DanielRigal. Although the issue involves an admin, there is nothing approaching a desysopping that would require ArbCom intervention, as that portion appears to revolve around a simple misunderstanding of copyright policy. [[User:Eviolite|<span style="color:#BA5D00"><u>''ev''</u>iolite</span>]] [[User talk:Eviolite|<span style="color:#008484">(talk)</span>]] 16:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-:{{u|Platyna}}, I suggest that you redact your [[wp:NLT|legal threat]] in response to DanielRigal.
-: I think I have said enough about the copyright issue, but to reiterate, the fact that the copyright holder is 'Catholic' has nothing to do with it, and deletion of copyright-violating revisions is standard practice. [[User:Eviolite|<span style="color:#BA5D00"><u>''ev''</u>iolite</span>]] [[User talk:Eviolite|<span style="color:#008484">(talk)</span>]] 16:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-=== Comment by GoodDay===
-A) {{ping|Platyna}} Would you please learn how to correctly indent your posts & ease off of the bullet-pointing. B) We've no way of knowing ''if'' you hold the professional position that you claim, nor should it matter if you do hold such position. C) Arbcom, should decline the request, as it's a ''content dispute''. D) Rubbing my eyes. Did you just make a legal threat to somebody, within your own Arbcom request??? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Ymblanter ===
-I have blocked [[User:Platyna|Platyna]] indef for the legal threat they left above, and advised them to retract this threat in the unblock request. Note that this is clearly a [[WP:CIR]] and [[WP:IDHT]] editor, as is clear not only from their behavior in the current episode, but also from their participation at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)]] (see also edits they removed from their talk page).--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 17:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-: It looks at this point they are convinced they were blocked because they are a scientist with publications, and they do not seem to be interested in unblock. May be this was the last we have heard about them.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 17:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
-=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
-Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
-<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
-=== LGBT parenting: Clerk notes ===
-:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-* I've renamed this case to "LGBT parenting". [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] ([[User talk:GeneralNotability|talk]]) 15:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-* {{u|Platyna}}, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=1059784007&oldid=1059783420 this addition], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1059785046&oldid=1059784937 this addition] to your statement contain accusations against fellow editors unsupported by evidence (i.e. diffs), and are written in an overly-confrontational tone. Please keep a level head during Arbitration proceedings - please also note that unproductive comments may be removed or redacted by Clerks or Arbitrators without warning. [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 16:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-=== LGBT parenting: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> ===
-{{anchor|1=LGBT parenting: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
-*{{u|Platyna}}, it is very likely if you have already saved the page (a couple of times now) that you have lost the text you wrote, unless you click "back" a bunch and somehow get lucky and it is still in your cache. You might have to type everything out again. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 14:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-*:{{u|Platyna}}, please add specific diffs if you can, it makes things a lot easier on everyone who needs to check these things.
-*:That being said, I gave looked at the reverted diffs at [[LGBT parenting]] and they ''did'' violate copyright, so at the very least from an RD1 perspective I see absolutely nothing wrong with Diannaa's edits or her revdel.
-*:I am going to wait for diffs from Platnya, but I currently do not see anything that requires our intervention. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 15:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-*::{{u|Platyna}}, it's <nowiki>{{subst:arbcom notice|CASENAME}}</nowiki>. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 15:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-*:::{{u|Platyna}}, "CASENAME" is the name of the header of this case request. Also, please put replies and comments in your own section. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 15:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-*::::{{u|Platyna}}, stop talking, right now. You're digging yourself a hole, and at the moment "closed with no action taken" is starting to look like the least likely outcome of this ARC. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 16:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
-*This request can be removed as premature. If {{u|Platyna}} would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, I would advise them to (i) retract that legal threat, (ii) read and understand Wikipedia's [[WP:C|copyright]] policies, and (iii) read up on how to work with other editors in order to improve content, (i.e. [[WP:CONACHIEVE|consensus]]). – [[User:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]][[User talk:Bradv|<sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁</sup>]] 17:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)