Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. [edit] Open cases Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024 [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Historical elections 13 Sep 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024 Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The last step of dispute resolution is a request for arbitration. Please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request 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.

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Standing orders
• Arbitration 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

When adding new requests, please give them an appropriate title as well as a subsection for arbitrator's votes.

Certain Editors Contributing to WikiEn-L

In accordance with Wikipedia policy about users who make legal threats (Wikipedia:No legal threats), and the numerous precedents on the matter, including concerning Wik,

I ask that the following users be banned

• Karl A. Krueger
• Daniel Mayer
• James D. Forrester
• Nicholas Knight

for making legal threats against CheeseDreams on WikiEn-L, respectively at the following posts

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

CheeseDreams 20:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:CheeseDreams

I am concerned by the recent behaviour of CheeseDreams. She has caused various problems: she edited Osiris-Dionysus, in violation of her ArbCom order not to edit articles relating to Christianity. She submitted an RFAr against Slrubenstein, when this was universally rejected by all arbitrators [5]. This was then immediately resubmitted [6] and then immediately cleared by Ambi. I find this to be harassment and would like some way of stopping CheeseDreams from making frivilous RFCs and RFArs. Mav has suggested that a good way of resolving this issue is to create a class of editors called "vexation litigants" (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive5#Cheesedreams), and I think this is a good idea. The idea is that people who are deemed vexatious litigators are put under restrictions where they cannot file a suit without approval from a judge and that we do something similar: those editors can only file RFCs and RFArs with the pre-approval of an arbitrator (not selected by the vexation litigant, it should be chosen by the Arbitration Committee to stop disputes).

My complaint also involves further harassment via an anoymous IP address. CheeseDreams under an IP address (Special:Contributions/81.156.182.159 even though she was blocked for a week), posted to User talk:Ben Standeven, User talk:FeloniousMonk, User talk:Bensaccount, User talk:Sunborn and User talk:Rd232 the following:

Could you add these two pages to your to do list, there is some extremely POV editing going on by TBSDY
*1 - and evidence of TBSDY's extreme POV editing there -  
[7] 
*2 - and evidence of TBSDY's extreme POV editing there -  
[8] ,  
[9], and most of all 
[10]
Also note that the critical books removed are the more respected of the group, but the ones left in more  
dubious. The same goes for trying to tie all of the aspects to people like Hislop, Freke, and Gandy. Also 
note that Freke & Gandy's book was regarded by the Daily Telegraph as "an erudite and well researched 
book stuffed with controversial ideas", and so inserting only the CNN viewpoint is a heavy and 
POV attempt to discredit it.
Here are some links you might find useful for commenting on TBSDY
*WP:RFC
*WP:RFM
*WP:RFAR
Thanks.
Good luck.
And don't give in.
And just to check what is going on
*WP:AN

This is harassment, pure and simple. I never got a message on my talk page from CheeseDreams, except for the following: [11], where CheeseDreams accused me of a) being a sockpuppet of User:Rienzo merely because I live in Australia. She states that I live in Melbourne, of being a "literalist christian" (whatever that is) and speak Swedish! This is, to be frank, bizarre behaviour.

I have further concerns with the amount of accounts she has created. She has the accounts User:CheeseDreams, User:Cheesedreams, User:Cheese Dreams, User:Cheese dreams, User:Cheese-Dreams, User:Cheese-dreams and User:Cheese -dreams. She has the possible accounts User:CheeseyDreams, User:CheezDreams and User:CHEESEdreams though I can't be sure. User:Jayjg says that there are many more sockpuppets than that, including User:Acidmonkey, User:Neutra¦ity, User:Fish lizard, and User:To register select a username, though without a developer checking we can't be sure. My point here: I would like all verified sock-puppets blocked indefinitely. A good-fath editor should not normally need more than one account!

Lastly, I am extremely unimpressed by the fact that CheeseDreams tried to do editing by proxy via her friend User:Tigermoon. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive5#Tigermoon_and_CheeseDreams - many admins feel that this was done to bypass her block. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note, it is not clear to me whether User:Acidmonkey, User:Neutra¦ity, User:Fish lizard, and User:To register select a username are direct sockpuppets of User:CheeseDreams, or of User:Tigermoon acting on her behalf. It has also been speculated that User:Tigermoon may, in fact, be a sockpuppet of CheeseDreams, and not just a friend acting on her behalf. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Apologies if I misrepresented your comments, Jayjg. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Note User:Red before blue is another of these sockpuppets. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Addednum

Can we please have a developer check whether CheeseDreams sends from 81.156.180.239? This is for two reasons: someone has been annoying the Swedish users (see [12]) and for the harrassment done from Special:Contributions/81.156.182.159. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, please check whether User:Tigermoon is a sockpuppet of CheeseDreams. OneGuy 05:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (4/0/0/0)

• Accept. Neutrality^talk 23:43, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept for investigation of sockpuppet abuse. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:46, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
• Accept -- sannse (talk) 13:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 13:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dbachmann

Added a new request, Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann Complaints and evidences listed on the given page. antifinnugor 20:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/5/0/0)

• Reject; we have already dealt with the dispute surrounding this edit war. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:28, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
• Reject, please comply with the decision at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Antifinnugor Fred Bauder 21:48, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. Neutrality^talk 23:43, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, as Grunt -- sannse (talk) 13:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Reject ➥the Epopt 13:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• question: The Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Antifinnugor did not handle User:Dbachmann's abuse of his state as administrator, his fraud, his vandalistic tendencies and support of clique's at all, which are facts, that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann clearly proves. None of these was handled in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Antifinnugor. I'd like these things to be handled. What is the way for that? Thanks, antifinnugor 18:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tigermoon / Slrubenstein

I would like to make a formal complaint against Rubenstein banning me just because of who my friends are

Tigermoon 17:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/4/1/0)

• Reject; please be more specific and detailed in your complaint. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:25, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
• Recuse, I have recused myself at your request, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams Fred Bauder 21:57, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. Neutrality^talk 23:43, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. No evidence of previous dispute resolution and no specific, evidenced complaint here. -- sannse (talk) 13:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Reject ➥the Epopt 13:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Safavids New Situation

The editor TABIB, seeking arbitration is apparently rigging postings!! He is teaming up with "buddies" and apparently tries to enforce POV, in cahouts with them and possible sock-puppets! Himself a case for the Arbitration Comitee? His "contributioins Page" reveals it all.

Please, see Safavids talk page for further details.--LIGerasimova 09:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/4/0/1)

• Reject. No evidence provided, either of conflict or of previous dispute resolution. Please try other avenues before attempting to bring this straight to the arbcom. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:58, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
• Reject. As Grunt sannse (talk) 21:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Makes no sense to make two requests. Your request has been rejected for now, please look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and attempt to edit in that way Fred Bauder 22:04, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  The requests were made by two different individuals. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:46, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

• Reject. Neutrality^talk 23:43, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject ➥the Epopt 13:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

• /Robert the Bruce - Accepted with five votes and one recusal on 28 January 2005. Evidence to /Robert the Bruce/Evidence, please.
• /Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux - Accepted with four votes and one recusal on 25 January 2005. Evidence to /Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux/Evidence, please.

Please also see Template:ArbComCases.

Archives

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests