Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
The last step of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is Arbitration. Please review the Dispute resolution for other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request for Arbitration will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.
See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, Wikipedia:Arbitrators, /Admin enforcement requested, /Standing orders, /Template
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
Structure of this page
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Important points:
- Be brief - put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence elsewhere if you need to.
- You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.
- Please sign and date at least your original submission with '~~~~'.
- New requests to the top, please.
The numbers in the Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/0/0/0) section corresponds to Accept/Reject/Recuse/Other.
Current requests for Arbitration
It is bad enough that Wikipedia has overwhelming American bias, without it being enforced.
Darrien, as well as generally trying to Americanise the project as much as possible and being thoroughly obnoxious in all his dealings ("rv vandalism" in the edit summary is his favourite way of changing something he disagrees with), has specifically got on my nerves by reverting the seemingly uncontroversial page Apple pie three times to a POV version. I was going to have to reason with him on the talk page, but then in stepped Arminius, who agreed with Darrien's POV and abused his sysop powers to freeze it as Darrien's version. This is bigotry. All non-American Wikipedians need to combat this sort of thing.
The story about the edits is basically that the pie article was written from a US viewpoint. It mentioned how to make it, it included the expression "as American as apple pie", and it had a picture of an apple pie next to baseball gear on a Stars and Stripes. This is all OK in itself, but needs balancing. For example, I put the caption "Apple pie presented as All-American", because I think it's OK to present it like that as long as it is pointed out — it shouldn't be implied that it is the normal way of showing such a pie. I also changed the general implication that apple pie is American (it's European), and offered a possible explanation of what the "American as apple pie" expression would therefore mean. I was of course open to the explanation being balanced and refined. I am not open to it being reverted and the revert being protected.
This is the only channel I am aware of to have pages unprotected. Ideally, those two would be blocked too. Chameleon 11:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Votes and Comments by Arbitrators (1/1/0/0)
- Reject. Please try dicussing this matter with the other parties on their talk pages and on the talk page of the article, if you are unable to work out an agreement between yourselves unaided, please request mediation. If mediation fails, this matter (or rather the problems which underlie this matter) may be referred to arbitration by the mediation committee. Fred Bauder 12:23, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
- But I can't. I started to discuss it on Arminius's talk page and he just reverted it. They cannot be reasoned with, so it is necessary for me to call in external help (especially since few people are watching that article). You are the external help. Chameleon 12:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Accept. This page doesn't need arbitrating - it needs editing. The current protected version presents a highly biased view of apple pie, pointing out - in one line - that it has existed in England for centuries, and then spending the rest of the article saying how American it is. Remove the protection and allow the page to be given a much-needed NPOV. Grutness 12:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am still researching the formal basis of my request however report the following facts:
1)I am currently the subject of Arbitration and a temporary injunction
2)I am a candidate for the ArbCom elections
3) In compliance with the temporary injunction, I refrained from editing articles
4) I edited my user page to outline my platform in the ArbCom elections
5) As required under the rules, I nominated for the ArbCom elections by editing the candidates' statements page and related talk page.
6) UninvitedCompany removed my user page and replaced it with his own words.
7) UninvitedCompany purported to terminate my candidacy by removing what amounts to a nomination from the candidates' statements page
8) UninvitedCompany removed comments on the Talk page of the candidates statements page.
I request Arbitration to resolve the legality or otherwise ofUninvitedCompany's actions, particularly the issue of one fellow Wikipedia user purporting to terminate my candidacy. While my candidacy may have started in jest, there is now a very important principle at stake. Whether the unfettered power a few will continue to oppress the many. I may have made mistakes, but none as serious as the abuse of power, the oppression of free speech and the blatant disregard for due process committed here by UninvitedCompany.
I respectfully request rulings be made on this issue urgently and that UninvitedCompany and associates be injuncted from further vandalising my user page and improperly removing my nomination. Reithy 12:42, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- I endorse Reithy's request. Since Wikipedia operates on a capitalist basis, it seems entirely fitting that he should sell his votes to the highest bidder. We'll have the best arbitrators that money can buy. Shorne 13:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Votes and Comments by Arbitrators (0/5/0/0)
- Reject. "Both Reithy and Chuck F and any sockpuppets are to edit only on their respective arbcom case" →Raul654 18:32, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Reject. Same reason as Raul. Whether or not the injunction should be changed to allow this exception is a separate matter. But UC did nothting wrong. --mav 21:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Reject. While I have altered my vote on the injunction to allow Reithy to be a candidate, there is no consensus by the AC at this point that the injunction should be so changed, and until there is, the original injunction stands (and it offered no exception which would allow Reithy to post himself as a candidate). Jwrosenzweig 22:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The candidacy for arbitration committee was not put forth in good faith. If it were, a different fact pattern would be presented and I might vote to accept the matter, Reject Fred Bauder 23:50, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Reject, FWIW. James F. (talk) 12:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rejected requests
- John69 - Rejected - text archived at user talk:John69
- Avala vs various users - Rejected - try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Avala
- Matter of Hephaestos - Rejected - due to lack of community desire or allegations. Case referred by Jimbo Feb 19, 2004, rejected Feb 26, 2004. Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hephaestos.
- Wheeler vs 172 - Rejected - please try mediation first. Discussion moved to user talk:WHEELER
- Cheng v. Anonymous and others - Rejected - refer to wikipedia:username for name change policy. For content dispute, try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Nathan w cheng.
- WikiUser vs. unspecified others - Rejected due to lack of a specific request.
- Simonides vs. "everyone" - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
- Sam Spade vs. Danny - Withdrawn
- Sam Spade vs. AndyL - Withdrawn
- Raul654 vs Anthony DiPierro - Withdrawn after agreement of both parties (see standing order).
- RickK - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
- Mike Storm - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
- Lir (IRC blocking claims) - Rejected due to either a lack of jurisdiction (the IRC channels are not official), or a failure to follow earlier steps.
- Sam Spade vs. 172 - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
- User:JRR Trollkien 2 - Inconclusive deadlock: 3 votes to reject, none to accept. Archived at User talk:JRR Trollkien
- Tim Starling - Rejected.
- VeryVerily - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
- Xed vs. Jimbo Wales - Rejected - lack of jurisidiction over Jimbo, private email, lack of initial litigant's involvment, and various other reasons.
- Emsworth vs. Xed - Rejected
- Gene Poole vs. Gzornenplatz - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
- Mintguy - Rejected
- VeryVerily vs Gzornenplatz - Rejected
- Request to re-open Anthony DiPierro - Rejected - October 27, 2004, see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro
- Chuck_F, 203.112.19.195 and 210.142.29.125 - Rejected, consolidated with /Reithy
- RickK - Rejected
- Aranel - Rejected
- Jayjg - Rejected by 6 arbitrators, 1 recusal, 10 Nov 2004.
Completed requests
- /Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 11th February 2004 that Mr-Natural-Health would be banned from editing for 30 days (i.e., until 12 Mar 2004). The vote was 6-2 in favor of banning, with 2 explicit and 1 de-facto abstention.
- /Plautus satire vs Raul654 - Decided on 11th March 2004 that Plautus satire is to be banned for one year, up to and including March 11 2005. The vote was unanimous with 8 votes in favour and 1 de-facto abstention; a further vote in favour of extending the ban indefinitely was held but not met.
- /Wik - Decided on 15th March 2004 that Wik would have a three month probation during which he may be temp-banned in certain circumstances. There were six votes in favour, three opposed, and one de-facto abstention. Further decisions and minority opinions can be read at /Wik.
- /Irismeister - Decided on 31st March 2004 that Irismeister would be banned from editing all pages for ten days, and banned from editing Iridology indefinitely. Decision can be found at /Irismeister/Decision.
- /Anthony DiPierro - Decided on 25th April 2004 to instruct Anthony with regards to his VfD edits, and refer other issues to mediation. The vote was unanimous with 6 votes in favour and 4 de-facto abstentions. Note that the case was accepted solely to investigate use of VfD.
- /Paul Vogel - Decided on 10 May 2004 to ban Vogel for one year. Further discussion and proposals are available at /Paul Vogel/Proposals.
- /Wik2 - Decided at /Wik2/Decided on 21 May 2004.
- /Irismeister 2 - Decided on 03 July 2004 to apply a personal attack parole. For discussion and voting on this matter see /Irismeister 2/Proposed decision.
- /Mav v. 168 - Closed on 03 July 2004 with an open verdict.
- /Cantus - Decided on 01 Aug 2004, apply a revert parole to Cantus and other remedies.
- /Lir - Decided on 23 Aug 2004, blocked for 15 days, revert parole applied, and other remedies.
- /Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 26 Aug 2004. There was an earlier partial decision on 25 June.
- /User:Guanaco versus User:Lir - Decided on 30 Aug 2004.
- /Lyndon LaRouche (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - Decided on 12 Sep 2004.
- /User:PolishPoliticians - Decided on 18 Sep 2004, personal attack parole applied to PolishPoliticians and all new accounts on affected pages.
- /ChrisO and Levzur Closed on 20 Sep 2004 with an open verdict; no ruling necessary, as Levzur has ceased contributing to Wikipedia.
- /K1 - Closed on 28 Sep 2004 with an open verdict; no ruling necessary, as K1 has ceased contributing to Wikipedia.
- /Kenneth Alan - Decided October 1, 2004, User:Kenneth Alan banned for one year. Enforcement provisions may be added before case is formally closed.
- /JRR Trollkien - Closed October 2, 2004, with no findings of fact or decision. JRR Trollkien has long since left.
- /Orthogonal - Closed October 14, 2004, following his departure from Wikipedia. Subject to reactivation should he return.
- /RK - Decided October 14, 2004. RK is banned from Wikipedia for 4 months. Further, he is banned from all articles directly or indirectly related to Judaism for 1 year.
- /RickK vs. Guanaco (ab initio "The Matter of Michael") - Jimbo unbanning Michael made the matter mostly moot. The only remedy was to award Guanaco for creative problem solving.
- /Jimmyvanthach - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
- /Rex071404 - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
- /Lance6wins - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
- /Rex071404 2 - Decided on 16 November, 2004.
- /Avala - Decided on 17 November, 2004.
- /Irismeister 3 - Decided on 20 November, 2004.