Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Subject: Formal complaint and demand for independent oversight – Repeated rejection of Draft: Faust: A Return from the Future

Subject: Formal complaint and demand for independent oversight – Repeated rejection of Draft: Faust: A Return from the FutureTo Wikipedia Administrators and the Arbitration Committee,I am Maria Alexea, creator of the independent feature film Faust: A Return from the Future (2018). I write to formally protest the repeated rejection of my draft article despite clear evidence of notability.This film was created in total artistic independence — I personally served as director, screenwriter, lead actress, choreographer, dancer, cinematographer, scenographer, costume designer, editor, composer, cellist, kithara performer, and adapter of Goethe’s material. This level of singular authorship by a female artist is virtually unprecedented in cinema history. The Jaipur International Film Festival officially selected it as the closing film in 2020 and publicly called it a "masterpiece".Despite this, plus:Coverage in Greek national press (Ta Nea, Zougla.gr, Kathimerini) Mentions in TheTOC and Diari de Girona Screenings at Cinecôa (Portugal) A full published analytical book dedicated to the film’s philosophy An existing article on French Wikipedia

…English Wikipedia reviewers continue to reject the draft, claiming insufficient "significant coverage".Meanwhile, other Faust-related films with far more institutional backing (such as The Last Faust) receive articles with relative ease. My work stays in the spirit of Goethe’s humanistic vision. The pattern of rejection, combined with the simultaneous existence of other Faust productions, raises legitimate questions about selective enforcement and protection of certain narratives.I have already won court cases defending my intellectual property. My film has been plagiarized and copied, yet when I seek basic encyclopedic recognition for a work that achieved real international festival validation, I face repeated obstacles and accusations (including false claims that my text is AI-generated).I am not asking for special treatment. I am demanding consistent application of Wikipedia’s own rules. Festival curatorial decisions that publicly name a film a "masterpiece" and use it as closing night should count as significant coverage. Total one-person authorship should be treated as culturally notable. Multilingual independent press should not be dismissed simply because it is not in English or from major anglophone outlets.I request:An immediate, truly independent review of the draft by uninvolved administrators. A clear explanation why the Jaipur "masterpiece" designation and closing film status is considered meaningless. Permission to include the official film poster under fair use, as is standard for virtually every other film article. Transparency on why similar or lesser productions appear to face lower barriers.

Wikipedia claims to document human culture, not merely reinforce existing industry power structures. My film exists. It has been recognized internationally. It deserves fair evaluation free from apparent institutional gatekeeping.I await your response.Maria Alexea Mariaalexea (talk) www.mariaalexea.com 24 May 2026 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariaalexea (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This page is for discussion about the operation of the Request for Arbitration page, and is not the place to make such requests. Forum shopping is not going to help you, and you may be blocked should you persist in disruptive behavior. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration request: Handling of source reliability dispute in Haplogroup R1a and Sayyid articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

DQOsource (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Initiating party: DQOsource

Other parties:

• InfernoHues
• Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa
• Redrose64 (involved in closing discussions)

Statement (max 500 words recommended):

I am requesting arbitration regarding the handling of a source reliability dispute concerning the source Decoding Quraysh Origins (Sheikh Abrahams, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.20078805).

I attempted to include information based on this source in Haplogroup R1a and Sayyid articles. The source was rejected at:

• Article talk pages (Talk:Haplogroup R1a, Talk:Sayyid)
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard (strong opposition)
• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard (closed immediately)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents (closed as wrong venue)

I believe the involved editors have refused to consider any compromise or attribution, even though:

• Zenodo accepted the paper and sent an official acceptance email
• The paper is indexed on OpenAIRE
• It compiles data from peer-reviewed sources such as Belle et al. (2010)

The repeated rejections appear to be based primarily on the paper's disclosure of LLM assistance for polishing. I feel that editors have been dismissive and are applying policies in an overly rigid way that prevents reasonable discussion.

I have attempted multiple avenues of dispute resolution as required. I request that the Arbitration Committee review whether the conduct of the involved editors has been appropriate and whether a more balanced approach to this source can be found.

Evidence (to be added later if case is accepted)

DQOsource (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

ArbCom does not address content disputes, full stop. It's written in the Arbitration policy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 04:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.