Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arbitration Committee proceedings
[edit]
Open cases [edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases) No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
No arbitrator motions are currently open. |
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:Arbitration Committee, /Admin enforcement requested, /Standing orders, /Template
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 in the standard /Template format 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.
New requests
Davenbelle
Davenbelle as demonstrated by a cursory examination of recent edits, is repeatedly breaching Wikipedia policies by:
- False accusations of vandalism, trolling as the basis for reverting every edit I make. [1] [2]
- Repeated unexplained reverts [3]
- Trolling [4]
- Personal attacks in edit summaries, talk pages etc.
I have attempted to resolve this both directly and with assistance[5] [6] but have not succeeded. I believe it is likely that he is a sockpuppet of Radicalsubversiv, as I have not much interaction with him until his RfA request. I considered an RfC although it appears no one else is involved with this so it would not be possible. I also considered doing nothing but believe it has now reached the stage where there is little choice.
I will be posting evidence illustrating the above in the next twenty minutes and would appreciate Arbitrators waiting until the expiry of that time. There is no shortage of evidence.
Ollieplatt 02:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ollieplatt, you might seek the support of User:210.38.84.7, whose edit to Poland I just reverted. — Davenbelle 04:07, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)
- Reject. Please follow earlier steps of dispute resolution, and in future, if posting an arbitration request, please post evidence along with the initial request. Ambi 02:57, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Reject. See also frivolous lawsuit. Neutralitytalk 02:58, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Reject. Cited edits are not particularly objectionable. Insufficient previous attempts at dispute resolution. If this is a serious issue, please try mediation before coming here. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:59, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
Ambi, David Gerard, Neutrality, Grunt
Failing to exercise duties as "Arbitrators" in a manner consistent with natural justice. Failing to provide reasons for refusing to consider serious allegations against User: Radicalsubversiv and his sockpuppets 172, Rhobite et al.
Ambi, David Gerard and Neutrality failed to provide any meaningful explanation for rejecting the request in relation to User:Ollieplatt yet accepted a similar request from notorious leftwing POV pusher Radicalsubversiv. The latter two actually made their decision prior to the evidence being presented.
Recently, David Gerard has made false allegations about me [7] and Neutrality [8] has encouraged fellow administrators to block meOllieplatt on spurious grounds, on the Administrators Notice page and probably elsewhere. I can have no confidence in their objectivity and impartiality in those circumstances. In one edit[9] Neutrality falsely accused me of being engaging in propaganda, removing a sourced and factual edit. In another David Gerard accused me of lying about the extent of opposition to a Radicalsubversiv sockpuppet (Rhobite) blocking on an invented vandalism charge[10]. David Gerard has also accused me of being 'obnoxious'[11] He also implied that there were no good reasons for the Request for Comment against Radicalsubversiv's sockpuppet Rhobite despite many editors agreeing Rhobite had abused his powers as an administrator[12].
Further, Neutrality and Grunt [13]prior to evidence being finally lodged and the opportunity provided to respond to it have already made findings of fact, some of which are patently false.
Further, I posed a number of key questions relevant to the proceeding and vital to my participation in it. None have been responded to, but yet there has been time to already arrive at a verdict from two "judges." This process is comic.
I therefore request they be suspended from this arbitration process.
Ollieplatt 12:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
comment in response to Raul's vote, moved here by sannse:
- In what respect are they mischaracterized or false, just asserting it while ignoring the evidence before you is unacceptable. Ollieplatt 23:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/4/4/0)
- Recuse, obviously. I would also like to note that sufficient time and space is being granted to you to give your defence. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:32, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
- Recuse. But also note that the entire request is invalid. Notice the bold type at the top of the page that says "You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against." Neutralitytalk 22:25, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Reject - most of these allegations are either mischaracterized or blatantly false. And for the record, removing an arbitrator's vote, for which you accuse David of making false allegations, is grounds to block you. →Raul654 22:55, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Reject, as Raul says. Also, there appear to have been no attempts to resolve this outside of arbitration. Ollieplatt, please note: the evidence page is available to you - what you write will be read and considered. Findings of fact and votes can be changed up to the point that the case is closed. -- sannse (talk) 00:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The questions you raise are addressed by periodic elections to the Arbitration Committee. We are unable to examine ourselves in the way that would be required if this case was accepted. Fred Bauder 02:36, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Reject - no indication that previous parts of dispute resolution have been tried. I also agree with Fred that the subject matter of this request is not appropriate. --mav 02:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Recuse - David Gerard 22:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Recuse. Ambi 02:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Matters currently in Arbitration
- /Libertas - Accepted with six votes on 16 January 2005. Evidence to /Libertas/Evidence, please.
- /Everyking - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes and two recusals on 16 January 2005. Evidence to /Everyking/Evidence, please.
- /Antifinnugor - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes and two abstentions on January 9, 2005. Evidence to /Antifinnugor/Evidence, please.
- /Rienzo - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on January 1, 2005. Evidence to /Rienzo/Evidence, please.
- /Chuck F - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on December 7, 2004. Evidence to /Chuck F/Evidence, please.
- /168.209.97.34 - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes on December 2, 2004. Evidence to /168.209.97.34/Evidence, please.
- /172 - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and two abstentions on August 30, 2004 (delayed due to overlap with previously running cases). Evidence to /172/Evidence, please.