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.
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.
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.
Now that the arbitration policy is complete, we are currently taking suggestions for improvements at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy comments. After implementing those improvements, we'll have a formal vote. At this point we will take requests directly from Wikipedians, on this page. In the mean time, please make alternative arrangements or, in emergency cases, ask Jimbo to refer the case to us.
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. It's probably best to ask him at user talk:Jimbo Wales for now.
Complaint (summarised): The arbitration ruling has "added a time delay between reverts". However, Wik fails to "calmly discuss matters on the talk page and seek compromises", has an "inability to discuss with his opponents", and sometimes "unilaterally declares some version of an article NPOV" and defends it by reversion.
The following users have requested the arbitration committee review the case of Wik based on later behaviour:
- — Jor (Talk) 19:31, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Eloquence* 11:41, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Kosebamse 13:38, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Wik's response (summarised):
- I made my view clear in all disputes. I just don't like to repeat myself, so if people repeat an argument that I've previously replied to, I don't feel obliged to copy-and-paste my previous reply.
- Any reversion war necessarily has two sides doing the exact same number of reverts, plus/minus one.
- You will not get me to play along with trolls and POV pushers. If you succeed in getting me banned or prohibiting me from reverting which I'd consider equivalent, then I'll simply be off.
Full text to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wik
arbitrator's opinions on hearing this matter
Support
- Fred Bauder 17:26, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose
Mav v. 168
What is the status? Kingturtle 01:13, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Mediation was declared over, on the 29th of February [1] and transfered to arbitration, at the request of 168 (reported by User:Anthere and seconded by Maveric (see Mav second).
- Following these recommandations (actually preceding them, but do not make a fuss about it :-)) [2], the help of an advocate was requested by Anthere, on the 9th of march. Discussion is under way.
- The community is now waiting for arbitration to decide whether to accept or to reject the case. -anthere
- Does that mean the ball is in Jimbo's court? Or is Jimbo out of the process now? Kingturtle 00:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- As it says above, "Currently, the arbitrators accept referrals from Jimbo Wales only". This will soon change (I know I keep saying that, but it really will--as soon as the arbitration policy has got a stamp of approval from the Wikipedia community and Jimbo himself, in fact), but at the moment, we're still only dealing with cases referred through Jimbo. --Camembert
- According to jurisdiction, you should be taking the cases directly ? ant
- Not to speak for the AC, but Anthere, I believe what Camembert is saying (and what I've understood the case to be) is that the Arbitration Policy page is a document that is agreed to by the AC but not yet approved by the community at large, although we have been invited to respond on its talk page, and if there are no objections, the AC will put that page's policies into effect very soon. Jwrosenzweig 00:59, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- That's correct. I'll see if I can tweak the policy page to make this clearer. --Camembert 01:02, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Why isn't Jimbo referring this case? Kingturtle 00:50, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Where is the stamp of approval taking place? Kingturtle 00:50, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Just at the moment, we're asking for comments and suggestions on Wikipedia talk:arbitration policy comments regarding the arbitration policy itself. Once everybody has had time to comment on the proposed guidelines there, and they've been revised to reflect any concerns, we'll likely have a simple "yes" or "no" vote among the whole community as to whether to accept the policy - this will most likely also take place on Wikipedia talk:arbitration policy. If it's a "yes", and Jimbo has no objections, then we'll be fully functional, and won't need to wait for Jimbo to refer cases (at that point, we can consider whether to accept the 168 case independently if it's not already been referred to us). --Camembert 01:02, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Upon referral by Jimbo, or the arbitration policy going live (whichever occurs first), I intend to vote to hear this case. Martin 13:53, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The question may be moot. 168... is MIA. By the time the committee is ready to hear the case, 168... might be long gone. This process is taking much too much time. If Jimbo is so busy, he really should hand power over to the committee immediately. And we, as a community, should really stop discussing the minor points of the process, and approve the process once and for all. Kingturtle 17:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I second King on this. Also meant to mention that I was still in contact with 168, but that indeed, hopes of him coming back are limited due to the lack of reaction of the community, first to what he considers as subvandalism from Lir, and second from his perception the whole community considers the current case only having to do with his unsysoping, which is not the case. FirmLittleFluffyThing
- The question may be moot. 168... is MIA. By the time the committee is ready to hear the case, 168... might be long gone. This process is taking much too much time. If Jimbo is so busy, he really should hand power over to the committee immediately. And we, as a community, should really stop discussing the minor points of the process, and approve the process once and for all. Kingturtle 17:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168 and Mav
arbitrator's opinions on hearing this matter
WHEELER and 172
I would like to request oversight on the dealings 172 has with my posts. First, I posted a direct quote from Mussolini with reference. He deleted it. Second, I posted book references in Talk section of Fascism. he removed them, Placed his selections before mine and labeled mine 'polemical'. He will archive a section. Move his stuff forward and archive my posts. Third, I posted images for talking points at the top, he removes them to the reference section as if he doesn't want anybody to see them. I need some help and I need a referee. CAN'T THIS MAN LEAVE ME ALONE AND MY POSTS. He uses one rule for everybody but uses another rule for me. I am getting sick and tired of being harrassed by his edits and reverts, edits and reverts. He is constantly moving my stuff. He doesn't talk to anybody else now. There is a group on there that only talk within themselves and not address others as if we are below them.WHEELER 23:28, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You should probably try some form of mediation. See wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Martin 12:32, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
arbitrator's opinions on hearing this matter
Recuse
- Fred Bauder 17:20, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
Current requests from Jimbo Wales
- Only Anthony DiPierro left (see below).
Matters currently in arbitration
- /Anthony DiPierro - Accepted for arbitration with four votes (though five arbitrators voted against), on 4 April 2004. Evidence to /Anthony DiPierro/Evidence, please. For discussion and voting on this matter see /Anthony DiPierro. Note that this case is accepted solely to investigate use of VfD.
Rejected requests
- Matter of Haephestos - 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.
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 abstentions 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.