Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Template:Communitypage 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, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Earlier Steps

Step 0

Hopefully all parties to a dispute have tried to avoid disagreement.

Step 1

If there was tension you should have tried to resolve it by talking together on article talk pages and user talk pages.

Step 2

If tension persisted you should have tried to resolve the matter with the help of others on Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Step 3

You may, if it seemed opinion was lopsided on the matter, have tried a poll of opinion on the matter.

Step 4

The other steps failing you must have requested mediation on the page Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and tried and failed to resolve the dispute through the good offices of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee in order to proceed to the last step, requesting arbitration

Procedure for Requesting Arbitration

Currently, the arbitrators accept referrals from Jimbo Wales only, which they decide to arbitrate on based on the voting procedure described at wikipedia:arbitration policy.

In the longer term, we plan to have arrangements for other community members to request arbitration, under the rules laid out in wikipedia:Arbitration policy. In the mean time, please make alternative arrangements or, in emergency cases, ask Jimbo to refer the case to us.

Completed requests

Case of Theresa Knott and Mr. Natural Health

Case referred to the arbitration committee by Jimbo Wales on 6 Feb 2004, 15:15 UTC. Four arbitrators voted to accept this case: Fred Bauder, Martin Harper, Sean Barrett, and UninvitedCompany. The case was thus accepted for arbitration on 6 Feb 2004, 19:43 UTC. Judgement was made on 18:32, 11 Feb 2004 UTC and can be read at Wikipedia:Matter of Theresa knott and Mr-Natural-Health.

Current requests

Just to remind folks: we're currently not taking requests for arbitration, except from Jimbo Wales.. If you desire arbitration, talk to Jimbo Wales and convince him to refer the case to us.

Raul654 / Plautus satire

• I have officially requested arbitration with Plautus satire. As per the above, I made it on Jimbo's talk page.

168 desysopping

• I would like to ask the arbitration committee to discuss the desysopping of User:168..., and advise as to whether the current emergency desysopping should be extended or revoked. I have made the same request in this wikien-l post. -- Tim Starling 02:24, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • I understand the mediation committee is dealing with this issue. It may come to us at some point in the future. --Camembert 01:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• This is just an updat, following Camembert comment :-)
  

Fact 1 : 168... has been temporary unsysoped, as an emergency procedure. As of the 20th, 168... is still temporary unsysoped.

Fact 2 : 168... has expressed the will to have his sysop status restored [1].

Fact 3 : As the mediator, I do not think there still is emergency, so I gather the temporary measure should be lifted, since it was only meant to be temporary.

Fact 4 : However, Mav (in mediation with 168...over several matters) has expressed the will that 168... not be a sysop again [2] (at least for some probation time). I suggest that those willing to see 168 formally unsysoped make an official (not emergency procedure) request for unsysoping 168... (for a short, or longer time, or permanently), and that this be treated through arbitration (hopefully, after mediation is over :-))

fr0069

See [3]

Darkelf

• I would like to ask the arbitration committee to discuss the banning of User:Darkelf, who blatantly violates NPOV rules by insisting on using German names for cities that are Polish since 1945. --Wik 19:42, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think you need to try mediation first. --Camembert 01:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • For the record, I am open to mediation, but do not wish to deal with Wik directly. I have taken a personal dislike to him because of his behaviour on the 'pedia. Jor 19:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • The point of arbitration is not to resolve political disputes. This goes for lots of comments on this page that have political sources. You are all going to have to learn to deal with each other. Secretlondon 08:18, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Current requests from Jimbo Wales

• From the Wikien mailing list, "O.k., I officially refer this to the arbitration committee, the matters of User:Wik, User:Hephaestos, and User:Anthony DiPierro" [4]
• In a second post to the Wiki-EN mailing list, "O.k., I refer the matter of Irismeister to the arbitration committee." [5]

Would those who are involved in those matters set forth BRIEF statements below of the users and issues involved. Fred Bauder 16:58, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

The Matter of Wik

Accepted- quorum reached at 00:32, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Continues on Wikipedia:Matter of Wik

If any one come across references which are evidence in Matter of Wik please post them on Wikipedia:Matter of Wik evidence. Fred Bauder 19:39, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

The Matter of Anthony DiPierro

• Anthony is a troll if there ever was one. If needed, I can make a long list detailing his trolling, including his frivolous copyright complaints, his sabotaging of VfD, his creation of a purposeless Wikipedia fork named "McFly", and his nonsensical article edits. His useful contributions, on the other hand, are negligible. I propose a permanent ban. --Wik 22:36, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Anthony will enter an edit war on capitalisation, or practically anything. He also removes things from VfD despite having voted to keep them. This means that users have to check his edits to the VfD page to see if there really was consensus to keep as Anthony wants to keep all articles on people, regardless. [...] I believe Anthony to be a troll, and to be destructive. However he is subtle and clever. He will apologise and then continue. He is polite, but contributes very little of worth, and causes lots of time to be spent. Secretlondon 23:27, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

• No mediation or poll has been requested on this matter. Anthony DiPierro 16:24, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Matter of Anthony DiPierro evidence

If any one comes across references which might serve as evidence in Matter of Anthony DiPierro please post them at Wikipedia:Matter of Anthony DiPierro evidence. Fred Bauder 19:39, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Matter of Hephaestos

• I don't see why Jimbo referred Hephaestos to arbitration in the first place. As no one has brought up any problems with Hephaestos here, I propose this is removed from the Requests for arbitration page as no one appears to be requesting it. Angela. 23:44, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Angela's argument and reasoning. Metasquares 03:39, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I second this motion. -- Viajero 11:44, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Matter of Irismeister

Please put links to evidence in The Matter of Irismeister at Wikipedia:Matter of Irismeister evidence.

See Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Theresa_and_Iris and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irismeister.

• I would like the arbitration committee to consider banning User:Irismeister. He violates several key wikipedia rules on a daily basis – most seriously NPOV and "No personal attacks". He is rude, abusive, accusatory and patronising (to newbies and to well respected wikipedians) and he is intimidating other users with threats of legal action. When he is asked to justify what other users see as POV edits, he launches into long and often incomprehensible rants (which he cross-posts to unrelated wikipedia pages) with the aim of evading simple questions and obfuscating debates. Simple (and reasonable) requests for sources or further explanation result in references to Stalinist police interrogations, or boasts of his professional reputation (which is disputed). Due to his inability to discuss issues calmly and clearly, I believe that mediation would be useless, and just give him more time to hound or scare off valuable contributors. - fabiform | talk 14:04, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC).

I would like to add that mediation is impossible. Mediation is a private process, conducted by email. Therfore both the mediator and whoever tried mediation with irismeister would necessarily let irismiester know their email address and possible other information that is contained in the header. I firmly believe that irismeister would try to use this information in order to threaten legal proceedings should the mediator not agree with him on everything he says.I too support the request for arbitration and I too request a ban.theresa knott 14:40, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Note for Theresa - please edit your previous entry for clarity.

Note for Fabiform - thank you for helping Theresa keep the page decently wide : O)

Note for both Theresa and Jwrosenwweigh - my lawyers have all the necessary data, so please relax. If you did nothing wrong in terms of libel and disinformation, then perhaps, like myself, you will have nothing to fear in the immediate future.

• I would like the arbitration committee to admit only serious requests.

The only possible merits of the above request are personal vendetta and matters of vanity from the requestor. Although I NEVER insulted anyone, and for matters of principle will never engage in personal attacks, let alone conflicts, I WAS repeteadly insulted on a daily basis, by Theresa, LordKenneth, etc. As per Wiki rules, Wikiquette and Wikilove, as per good old common sense audiatur et altera partem and valued peace-making traditions, I NEVER considered addressing the arbitration committee. Indeed, I believe we all have better things to do with our time than six-grade-worth rant, loads of lies and libel. All the above has perhaps some merit in attracting some attention to issues of censorship and personal idiosyncratic rejections of real issues - masked as a carnivel of wolves masked as lambs and crying wolf. I believe personally that whatever arbitration would remain gentle to such lambs would in the process be very cruel and unfair to the real lambs. I am never rude, abusive, accusatory and patronising - only mannered and using the style which is proper to me. Fascist and Stalinist attempts to force my expression of individuality and opinion in the unique thinking and a priori proper ways have long since joined only the parties repressing Thoughtcrimes. I do believe that FREEDOM OF SPEECH is not essential to democracy. I believe FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS DEMOCRACY. No diversion of my personal style towards forced admissions of tort would be productive in the advancement of knowledge, happiness or freedom. Neverthelss, if the honorable would-be arbitration committee cares to accept the case, then I will co-operate fully and with all material in my possession. Last, allegations of an obscure aim of evading simple questions and obfuscating debates must perhaps be considered by all parts, as long as we are a group. Inability, from me, to address the group? If anything mine are articulate polite answers, plus the sense of spiritual pleasure. Reading with humor the above interventions I believe the accusations to be obscure at best, false at worst, and ridicule as a consensus-seeking solution :-) If anything, in my view, the above request of fabiform | talk on his behalf and on behalf of JRosenzweigh (as shown from the respective talk pages) qualifies for a personal description of their own behavior. While I scare nobody, perhaps more creative diversions are needed to scare off this contributor. I've been banned before for fictitious reasons which I explained already :-) Sincerely, irismeister 14:47, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

---

• If your honors decide to go on with arbitration, I would like to add as an outstanding issue the mere number of insults I was obliged to survive and cope with, in Wiki, for authoring 27 major articles and editing 24,000+ pages. These include Bully/Dude/Semiliterate/Quack/Nutcase/Full of *--- (full list with links available upon request). Clearing the record with a written excuse on this page by each of the perpetrators clears the outstanding and ongoing libel issue AFAIAC. As we cannot applaud with only one hand, your honors are invited to address both sides of the outstanding issues. Happy editing - irismeister 19:00, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

Irismeister, I imagine that you could create a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Matter of Irismeister evidence and add any information you feel the arbitration committee should be aware of there.

Note, Irismeister is confusing the number of edits listed on his watchpage with his user contributions. He has made nearly 1000 edits on the English Wikipedia. fabiform | talk 19:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps irismeister would care to put links to the insults mentioned above. That way the arbitrators can see the crimes in full. theresa knott 22:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also, Irismeister if you want help with the arbitration process, you should ask the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates.  :) fabiform | talk 00:39, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Arbitrator opinions on accepting these matters

Wik

• I had initially formed an opinion that we could not accept these matters due to the rather tenative state of our policy on reversion, but on viewing an e-mail message on the Wikien list from User:Ed Poor in which he says, 'No one has a "right to instantly revert" -- with the possible of exception of the edits of a hard-banned user.' I have changed my mind and hereby vote to accept these matters in order to address the question of repeated, "automatic" reversions. Fred Bauder 15:58, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

• The community interest in the matter of Wik is high, to the extent that I feel the arbitration committee is almost compelled to hear that case. I therefore vote to hear that case. Martin 00:00, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• I vote to hear the matters of Wik and Anthony DiPierro because there seems to be a fairly strong feeling among the general Wikipedia community that we should, and because I can't think of a reason why we shouldn't. --Camembert
  • response -> Talk. Martin

• I vote to hear the Wik case (will decide on the others after we finish this one). --Delirium 00:32, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

• I concur. We should hear this case since there is a good deal of interest in the community that this dispute needs to be resolved. --mav 08:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• I vote to hear the matter of Wik due to community interest. --the Epopt 14:36, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Irismeister

• I vote we accept The Matter of Irismeister for the purpose of deciding whether exaggerated, aggressive, and persistant advocacy of an eccentric point of view is a violation of Wikpedia practices. And also to consider whether his accusation of libel against User:Theresa knott has any basis in fact and whether raising baseless legal claims against other users is a violation of Wikipedia practices. Fred Bauder 13:29, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

• I concur. Irismeister's comments to Theresa knott are not in accordance with our policy and do not serve the purpose of creating the encyclopedia. --mav 08:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• I vote to accept the Irismeister question due to the seriousness of the libel charges. --the Epopt 14:36, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos

• I vote we do not accept Matter of Hephaestos as no serious infraction of Wikipedia rules is alleged. He was simply contemplated as the plaintiff as in Hepaestos versus Wik which is being dealt with as Matter of Wik. Fred Bauder 13:29, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

• There is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hephaestos, but the issues addressed there do not appear to constitute a pattern of behavior, IMO, and were made during a perceived power vacuum. I do not accept hearing this case. --mav 08:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Concurred. -- James F. (talk) 11:30, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• I vote to decline to hear the Heph case. --the Epopt 14:36, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)