Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

< Wikipedia:Arbitration
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jdforrester (talk | contribs) at 18:53, 23 August 2004 (→[[User:VeryVerily|VeryVerily]]: Reinstate Snowspiiner's deleted comment.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

The last step of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is Arbitration, (see arbitration for a general overview of the topic). If, and only 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


Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
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
Article titles and capitalisation 2 22 August 2025
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Venezuelan politics none (orig. case) 6 August 2025
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 25 August 2025
Motion name Date posted
CTOP/AE page protection logging 21 August 2025

Earlier Steps

Please review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other avenues you should take before requesting Arbitration. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request for Arbitration will be rejected.

Structure of this page

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. 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. New requests to the top, please.

What belongs in Requests for Arbitration

  • The Complaint including enough links to evidence that an arbitrator considering the matter can find examples of what is being complained of. Include links to any policy which applies.
  • The Response which should address the matters raised by the Complaint. Again, links to edits or other evidence are useful.
  • Any Complaint by the defendant against the user who made the original Complaint as well as against other users who have seconded the Complaint or were intimately involved in the events complained of.
  • Information regarding what steps of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedures were followed. Not the details, especially not what happened during any mediation.
  • Users may join in the Complaint by seconding the Complaint or elaborating on it, but by doing so they implicitly respresent that they wish to be a party to the case and are thus subject to counterclaims which they may have to respond to.
  • The Plaintiff(s) and the Defendent(s) should limit their posts to their own section, the Complaint and the Response to it; this is not the place for debate.

What doesn't belong in Requests for Arbitration

  • Comments regarding the viability of the Complaint by persons not involved in the matter.
  • Comments regarding how the matter is to be titled or the effect of choosing one title or another.
  • Any posting by anyone who is not involved in the case. These are welcome on the talk page.

The numbers in the ====Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/0/0/0)==== sections correspond to (Accept/Reject/Recuse/Other).

Current requests for Arbitration

VeryVerily

This user has been listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment for some time but has not changed his behaviour of reverting parts of George W. Bush against talk page consensus (where polls have gone 20-3 and 5-0 5-1 against him), causing the page to be protected regularly. I suggest putting him on a strict three-revert limit, if not excluding him from editing the Bush page entirely. Gzornenplatz 14:20, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I don't think VV's conduct can be reasonably looked at without looking at the larger issue of his treatment by the community at large, and, specifically, by people who are supposed to be in the position of settling disputes. I refer here to [1], which I think probably had the effect of making both requests for comment and mediation ineffective options for VeryVerily. I'm not asking for sanction against Danny (Or against Mirv or Hephestos, both of whom later signed this summary), but I think that this action and the consequences it probably had for dispute resolution with VV need to be taken into account. Snowspinner 16:45, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

I also request that user VeryVerily be examined by the arbitration committee. I am particularly concerned with the user's conduct on the George W. Bush page. Kevin Baas | talk 19:51, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

I am concerned with the user's:

  • complete disregard for consensus
  • complete disregard for the 3-revert rule; constant reversions
  • failure to discuss changes, justify edits, make reasoned arguments, address reasoned arguments, etc.
  • insertion of POV
  • suppression of relevant and significant information
  • complete obstinacy in this conduct

Kevin Baas | talk 01:42, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)



Evidence

  • [2] - Page history of George W. Bush showing lots of reverts and four five page protections. Notice edit summaries. Notice consistency of user conduct.
  • [3] –page history, anti-american sentiment
  • [4] –page history, u.s. presidential election


Dialogue


Brief response

I'll try to be brief, as I don't want to waste my time or the arbitrators' on what seems to me a frivolous request. I feel this conflict is largely due to Kevin baas (KB)'s "discussion" style.

To illustrate, here are two examples of KB's approach: He said on the Bush page that responding to my points "would be a waist of [his] time" [5], thus making it clear it would not occur. And on the PNAC flare-up, he wrote this, and then, after my response, simply cut-and-pasted it again with new indentation as his "response" [6]. Such "smart-alec" behavior is indicative of his general manner, which makes discussion of points well-nigh impossible.

Which brings up the polls, which KB flocks to in lieu of talking. In general I believe polls are a poor substitute for discussion. Besides my own sour experiences, it's the case that the core issues often fail to be addressed in any depth by such a crude approach, and moreover here they turn into referendums on Bush, who is unpopular on the 'pedia. I believe Wikipedia:Survey guidelines reflects my views. In this case there are two polls being used against me. The short answer is that the meaning and significance of these polls are in dispute. The long answer requires less brevity than I had hoped for.

The first poll was initiated by KB between my version and his, with me favoring something brief without heavy language. Other versions got tacked on, and Neutrality's late addition, perhaps seen as a middle ground, wound up flocked to. As such, I accepted N's general framework, longer coverage with country details - but I did not regard the wording as set in stone, and still believed it required editing for balance and neutrality. Implicitly N may have agreed as, as I pointed out in my RfC, he repeatedly altered his own text after many votes were in [7] [8], in my view quite dishonest. Again, my position is that the poll was too coarse to decide anything but the framework for the information, and the NPOV policy trumps it. One can see that my changes beyond that were not substantial, simply adding in "the other side" of the coin.

Since KB was not communicative, but at points Gzornenplatz was, I wound up conversing with him on User talk pages about what the concerns were, and we came to an agreeable para. That is the version I have been pushing, but it is getting reverted too. Gz no longer favors it, citing "consensus".

The second poll is even more dubious. Gz describes it above as "5-0", but Rex voted for my version. Furthermore, I sat it out on principle and Texture said he preferred my version [9], so the tally might really have been 5-3, hardly a consensus, or anything at all, especially given anti-Bush sentiment. Again, polling is no substitute for discussion, where the issues come out.

I would also like to say I consider KB to be a heavy pusher of POV. The versions he has sought are skewed and one-sided and unreasonably so. But more on point his discussion tactics have turned this into a revert-fest.

Sorry this is so long. VV 21:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the second poll is currently at 5-1, but you were already reverting when it stood at 5-0. I don't know how you can accuse others of turning this into a revert-fest, when no one reverts as much as you. If polling is no substitute for discussion, reverting isn't either. The issue here is not about the content of the article (I have no problem with your version of the popularity section myself, I just don't think it should be pushed against consensus), but about your behaviour, which only results in the page being protected half the time. If a poll goes 20-3 against you, you can't just say everyone is biased or uncommunicative. It's up to you to make your case on the talk page and try to convince people to change their vote. Gzornenplatz 22:16, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration policy

From Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy: Where a dispute has not gone through mediation, the arbitrators may refer the dispute to the mediation committee if it believes mediation is likely to help.

We are very doubtful that mediation is likely to help in this case.

The arbitrators will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus.

If need be, this consensus can be demonstrated.

Kevin Baas | talk 17:33, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators

I just noticed that no notice of this request was made on User:VeryVerily's talk page. I have now given him notice myself, but I can see that we need to make it very clear that notice is required. Fred Bauder 19:08, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

  1. Reject. My feeling is that neither serious negotiation or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation has been tried in this matter. Fred Bauder 14:50, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Reject; concur with Fred. James F. (talk) 16:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Reject also, for essentially the same reasons. Jwrosenzweig 16:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172

172 has been reverting me at New Imperialism and he refuses to discuss the matter. I request that the arbitration committee examine this uncooperative behaviour. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I strongly request that User:172 be examined by the arbitration committee, regarding a general tendancy towards edit wars and incivility. Sam [Spade] 04:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I second this request to examine 172 Rex071404 07:10, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See Dialogue below for an interaction. Sam [Spade] 22:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I also request that User:172 be examined by the arbitration committee, because of his extensive edit wars with VeryVerily, and Lir.--Plato 22:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A note: 172's proposed solution to the problem at New Imperialism was a poll between the two versions - virtually identical to what Lir did at one point on Saddam Hussein. I'm interested in how Lir distinguishes between the two. Snowspinner 12:52, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your concern. I do not recall ever requesting a poll at Saddam Hussein -- however, we will take your point into consideration. Lirath Q. Pynnor

172 has repeatedly deleted contributions by others in the "Evidence" section. I'm disturbed by his actions in this regard - surely a party in an arbitration case should not be permitted to delete contributions by other parties? The issue is being discussed at [10]. -- ChrisO 19:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade, Lir, and Plato did not follow dispute resolution procedure so they should also be considered defendants. 172 14:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, we have -- but you continue to reject mediation. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Has there been an RFC filed? Have there been attempts to mediate with this user? →Raul654 19:20, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

There has been a couple rfc's, and I have attempted mediation w 172, which he has turned down a couple times. Sam [Spade] 21:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Evidence

If people could refrain from removing evidence, that'd certainly help. I don't appreciate my job being made more difficult. Thanks. Martin 17:51, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dialogue

Comments and votes by arbitrators (2(+2)/0/2/0)

  1. Recuse Fred Bauder 12:18, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Accept. James F. (talk) 03:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Minor change: leave hanging as with Martin. James F. (talk) 21:07, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  3. Leave hanging while the two existing Lir cases are resolved - the outcome of those two may render arbitration in this case unnecessary. Martin 23:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Recuse - Involves Lir which biases me in favor of 172. --mav 09:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Accept hesitantly. I feel what we are being asked to examine above is very, very broad, and I am a little unsure as to how we're going to limit the number of parties being addressed, and the issues at stake. There is, however, clearly a dispute, and I believe it has been sufficiently demonstrated that alternative dispute resolution (such as RFC) has been attempted, but only just. I would appreciate it very much if one or more of the parties requesting arbitration would clearly define (on my talk page, at least, if this page is inappropriate or likely to be contentious) who the parties are, and what specific acts brought on this call for arbitration. Jwrosenzweig 22:47, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Accept only to consider the matter of 172's revert warring. →Raul654 20:04, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

Rejected requests

  • Avala vs various users - Rejected - try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Avala
  • 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.

Completed requests

  • /Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 11th Februry 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.
  • /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.
  • /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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=5395099"