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 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:Arbitrators, /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 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.

Current requests for Arbitration

Everyking

Everyking has been reverting most edits to Autobiography (album) since its creation, despite numerous attempts to rewrite the article. Several users have attempted discussion with him, including but not limited to myself, Ambi, iMeowbot, Reene, Dr Zen and Tony Sidaway. Reene has attempted mediation, but that is currently on hold due to her taking a leave of absence from Wikipedia. I, Ambi and Tony were contemplating mediation, but it is apparent that Everyking is refusing to participate: from Ambi's talk page, I quote, "I'm not going to mediate . . . [a]nd if talking with Johnleemk is what's stopping you, I'll stop talking with him, too."

Ambi and Tony have given up on mediation, and if that's how Everyking is going to behave, I too have no recourse. I am seeking arbitration for a final judgement on this dispute; I do not know if the others will participate, but Ambi has indicated she is willing, and has only been waiting for the results of my mediation with Everyking and somebody to open an arbitration case.

The crux of the dispute is basically that Everyking argues against removal of information from the article, despite the fact that as all of us have argued, most of the information we have been trying to remove is not relevant and does little to enlighten the reader (Calton has compiled a few statistics on WP:PR's entry for Autobiography). When his efforts have proved futile, he has spun off the article to Autobiography album design (deleted per VfD consensus) and Autobiography sales and chart positions (currently going through VfD).

That's a very brief synopsis of this dispute (which spans several pages worth of discussion). I hoped this could be resolved amicably, but I and everyone else apparently feel the same way: editing Autobiography in a manner that only Everyking disagrees with is impossible. I bring this before the arbitrators in the hope that at last we can all achieve some sense of closure over this. Johnleemk | Talk 15:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment by Tony Sidaway

I don't think we're ready to submit to Arbitration yet. I move that, if Johnleemk is willing, we take this to RfC. I will cooperate with such a move by providing one part of the necessary certification by two users to an attempt at dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not think that would be wise; I fail to see what that can accomplish. It brings community attention to the dispute (literally, requests comments), which I think has been sufficiently done before by the page's protection, and then the several VfDs. As has been proven by the sheer number of people trying to edit the article, nobody prefers Everyking's version but himself. A lot of people have tried to negotiate with him and failed. The point of no return for an RfC was passed a long time ago; he has refused to stand down despite community pressure. iMeowbot seems to agree as well; see my user talk. Johnleemk | Talk 16:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seeing that Autobiography (album), around which this dispute revolves, has been on RfC since the end of November, it would appear that route has already been covered. The same discussions have also been carried out at length, repeatedly, in WP:FAC. What might another round of RfC accomplish at this point? iMeowbot~Mw 16:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Response by Everyking

I don't know what John hopes to achieve; I'm willing to discuss anything and everything and listen to whatever compromises anybody wants to put forward. I don't know what I've done that he thinks should be punished; I haven't broken the 3RR (well, I did back in November on one or two occasions, but I've long since taken a pledge not to ever do that again). It's just a content dispute that's proving difficult to resolve. Autobiography sales and chart positions was a way to try to address the complaints of John and a few others without losing any of the information, and currently it appears that it will be kept on VfD, so I'm not even sure what the other side is still fighting for. By taking this to arbitration, it gives the distinct appearance that John does not want to continue to negotiate on this and wishes instead to use arbitration as a tactic to get his way, hoping I'll be blocked from editing so he will be free to edit the article according to his own wishes without any opposition from me. Everyking 15:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rebuttal by Johnleemk

That's stance completely at odds with the one you were displaying on Ambi's talk page; you refused to continue constructive mediation/discussion with her, and stated you would refuse mediation with me as well if you did not get your way. I don't intend to push for a block, but you are indeed preventing constructive editing of the article which seems counter to our norms and policies. Reene attempted a rewrite that was well-received by everyone involved except you; not a trace of it is left. My rewrites have both been reverted. Dr. Zen's edits have also been reverted. You only keep edits that add to the article. Verifiable does not automatically mean a factoid is encyclopedic. Removal of material is justified on occasion. Discussion with you is proving futile; I've been involved with this whole rigmarole from the very beginning and for once I'm beginning to feel there is no more recourse. Talking just won't solve anything since all you do is stonewall. It's clear we disagree; what seems unclear to you is that nobody is agreeing with you. Dr Zen, iMeowbot, Tony, Reene, Ambi and I have all been saying the same thing to you yet you refuse to budge. Your compromises aren't working very well, and that isn't the point anyway; the point is that you continue to take an attitude of ownership over Autobiography (album) and I don't think that is in line with policy. You say you support the idea of a wiki and yet openly revert edits supported by everyone but you. Johnleemk | Talk 16:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My stance on Ambi's talk page was a function of temporary insanity brought on by days of constantly having the threat of arbitration hanging over me and by her complete unwillingness to disclaim that threat. That was especially hard to deal with over Christmas. How you are supposed to get a ruling on whether I think I own Autobiography (album)? I say I don't, and you say I do. It's clear enough from the VfD debate that people do agree with me, otherwise there wouldn't be all those keep votes, would there? I want to know what you hope to accomplish. Do you intend to respect the outcome of VfD? If so, what are you still pushing for? Everyking 16:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the VfD voting pattern. At least some of those keep votes are in response to your threats to leave, not an affirmation of the article's value. iMeowbot~Mw

Stop looking at it in terms of a zero-sum game. I don't want to accomplish anything but closure. I'm tired of this dispute spilling over everywhere and disrupting Wikipedia. The issue here is that while you may not believe you're taking an attitude of ownership to "your" articles, your actions indicate otherwise. Calton calculated that as of December 13, you had made over 80% of the edits to Autobiography alone. I believe that if anyone bothered to seriously take a look at the article, most of it is nothing but your prose, because you have reverted everyone else unless they added to the article. By taking such a stance on "your" articles and yet not others, you indicate that subconsciously, you believe the article to be yours and resent others editing it without your prior consent, believing you have some special status due to your privilege of being most learned in the field of Ashlee Simpson; indeed, you admitted as much the first time we thrashed this issue over a few months ago. I and numerous others have persisted since then in trying to change that but nothing has worked. Johnleemk | Talk 16:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"...most of it is nothing but your prose, because you have reverted everyone else unless they added to the article." Do I have to point out the logical error here? Anyway, John, you want me punished for what you believe I believe on a subconscious level? Man, this case would really set a precedent, huh? On Wikipedia, we talk. We try to reach consensus. We work within the rules, and we try to reach a compromise acceptable to everyone. We don't edit "boldly" when we know that the edit will be extremely controversial and is almost guaranteed to lead to a revert war—we take it to talk and try to work something out. And most of all, we don't take someone to arbitration for the heinous crime of having an opinion. You didn't answer my question: what do you want? The subarticle will almost certainly survive VfD. So what are you still arguing for? Everyking 16:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive1:

Absolutely it belongs to everyone, which means Hemanshu, Gentgeen and Reene can't just storm in and disregard my opinion and start trashing the article. I have no desire to keep them from contributing to the article, but they've made it quite clear that I am not to continue working on it, and I'll face blocking if I do. Which is heinous on three levels: first, because I'm an editor like anyone else, with equal rights; secondly, because I wrote virtually the entire article myself, and so excluding my opinion is insane; and thirdly, because I'm more than likely the only one among them who is knowledgeable enough to write a proper article on this subject.

Community consensus is against you; you have refused to accept it. Fact it, how many people disagree with you on the article? I'm not talking about the articles on VfD; forget about them. I'm talking about Autobiography (album). By my (and your) count, the people who have disagreed with you are: Me, Calton, Reene, Dr Zen, Tony Sidaway, Ambi, iMeowbot, Hemanshu and Gentgeen. How many have taken your side? One — you. (This list of editors is compiled of those who have tried discussing this with you on Talk:Autobiography (album) at one point or another.) This is precisely why the 3RR exists — if more people are reverting your side, then more likely than not, your side is the one going against community consensus. The reason why the article consists of your writing is because we've been polite enough not to revert it. Our edits are not controversial because they go against consensus; they are controversial because they go against your opinion, and you make a gigantic fuss about it. Johnleemk | Talk 17:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I note also that your "temporary insanity" lasted until as recently as 11:23 UTC today. Johnleemk | Talk 16:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's ongoing. Everyking 16:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jguk

Jguk, previously known as Jongarrettuk, edits in the Wikipedia namespace with too little regard for communication, cooperation and consensus, and too little understanding of what constitutes consensus and when it is called for.

1. Despite requests from two users, he blanked and redirected a mass of guidance that he consolidated at Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles.
2. But my main complaint concerns his editing of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. For the purposes of this request, I will try to make a long story short. Since October 17, he has been trying to weaken the style guide. He has been pushing for changes to a couple of elements especially, concerning the abbreviation "U.S." and serial commas. He has not gained consensus, but he reverts changes that he disagrees with, even when they are as benign as a reference. His stated purpose is for what he calls "neutral" language, favoring neither British nor American preferences. But some of his actions are contrary to his avowed preference. For example, he has changed "serial comma" to "Oxford comma".

Previous attempts to resolve this problem include:

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes), which is now 111 kb.
• An RFC about the more-recent style guide changes.
• An RFC specifically about his behavior. That RFC expired. I was the only person who signed to show that I tried and failed to resolve the dispute. However, three people did endorse my summary, and no one showed any support for jguk at the RFC.
• I asked jguk whether he would be open to mediation about the changes. He said he would only accept mediation on the condition that I agree "that Wikipedia should allow any form of standard English".

I should acknowledge that in between the two RFCs, jguk once contacted me on my talk page in a more concilatory tone. He proposed that the two of us have a cooling-off period of about two weeks and that the two of us discuss our differences. But:

1. He suggested this after he reverted changes to the style guide for which he appears to be the only person objecting.
2. After about a day and a half, he had not responded to my reply, although he had edited on Wikipedia.
3. His past behavior has not exemplifed or encouraged patience. For example, he deliberately deleted my comments from a talk page. His rationale was: "Essentially, I didn't like any of the three points you added - rather than expand the section into a point by point rebuttal, I thought it would be easier just to revert".

Maurreen 07:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Response by jguk

I edit Wikipedia in my spare time as a leisure activity, and that is because there are many elements that I enjoy. I have created and developed many articles - as can be seen on my userpage. I am a bold editor - for which I make no apologies. The Wikipedia instruction is to be bold. Sometimes when I am bold I am right, other times I am wrong. But always, in discussion with other editors, I feel the page has benefited through being bold. I have found this also works with controversial articles too. For instance, I have refactored Adolf Hitler, JFK assassination and September 11, 2001 attacks. There have been times when my rewriting has earned praise from editors I am in disagreement with (for example, recently in Moss v. Bush. And I have (apart from with Maurreen Skowran) always been able to resolve disagreements with other users; and usually with an improved article, paragraph or phrase as the result.

Maurreen Skowran has been different. I find it difficult to understand why, apart from noting that as she does not write or make major contributions in the main article space (staying mostly on talk and Wikipedia namespace pages) (see [1] and note that even the article namespace edits tend to be small tweaks), so she may be unaware how article disputes are usually dealt with. Maurreen Skowran seems to have taken an early dislike to me when I was a new user unused to Wikiquette - and has never been willing to assume good faith since. She has also taken every opportunity to escalate rather than de-escalate disputes. Any comment I make on some pages appears to attract a response from Maurreen Skowran. If anyone agrees with me - she immediately escalates the issues, opening up multiple lines of dispute, or introducing Requests for Comment on a page with her views and summaries plastered all over it, rather than risk allowing the initial discussion to continue in a direction with which she does not approve. If, instead of responding, I do not give an immediate response to something, I have a Request for Comment and now a Request for Arbitration made against me. I suggest a cooling down period - as soon as it ends, Maurreen Skowran's first move is to reopen the old dispute rather than letting sleeping dogs lie. I feel harrassed by her - and would very much like these constant arguments she insists on having me to disappear.

I think my main sin was to challenge Maurreen Skowran's ownership of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. She seems to have taken particular offence at my suggestion to "weaken" the advice (as she puts it), even though all that would be doing is to make the Manual consistent with the approach already adopted by a very high proportion (and in one case, I would suggest the majority) of Wikipedia pages. However, Maurreen Skowran does not oppose only my suggestions. Indeed, she opposes many others, and Maurreen Skowran's attempts to maintain control of the page can be seen from the talk page's history [2]. It's unclear why she is so protective of the page. Maybe because she is a copyeditor by trade, maybe she has little experience of how people actually write articles on Wikipedia, or maybe because it is necessary for Maurreen Skowran to enforce a single style of her preference on everyone so that her planned book or CD-ROM of Wikipedia ("Wikipedia 1.0") is internally consistent.

But whatever it is, she seems to wish to continue to engage in harrassing me and preventing me from what I really want to do here - which is improve articles in the main namespace. What I really want is her constant obsession with arguing with me - and escalating measures to RfC or RfAr when I haven't given an immediate response in order to force me to give one - to stop. I am frustrated by it. It gives me no pleasure at all to argue with Maurreen Skowran, and I wish for these arguments to stop.

I ask for the Arbitrators to reject this case, which I take to have been brought as another attempt to harrass me, rather than as an attempt to end or resolve her disputes with me. What I would like is to continue to improve Wikipedia by writing and developing articles - as I have already been doing (see my userpage. I do not want to spend my leisure time in constant disputes (least of all with Maurreen Skowran), and have no intention of doing so. jguk 20:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/2/0/0)

• I think we could do something with this, as the disputed matters do not involve article content, but content of suggested guidelines for editing. Please make a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, and only if, with the help of the Mediation Committee, you are unable to establish terms for mediation, return here. So, reject for now but keep us posted. Fred Bauder 12:58, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Don't skip the previous steps in Wikipedia:dispute resolution [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 20:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alterego

User:Alterego continues to make repeated Ad hominem attacks agaist me. He has repeatedly attacked me personally on both the commentary for Graffiti and the discussion page. I have repeatedly asked user to stop pushing his specific picture to the top of said article due to its width. I have also stated I am more than willing to use his image should he crop it to a useable size per discussion on FAC (which complains about overlarge images overlapping TOC). User STILL continues to revert image. Refers to discussion he had on IRC as rule of law. Someone please step in here and do something. I just want to reach over and strangle the guy and I know I'm at the point where i'm gonna start being nasty. Alkivar 05:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alright, look dude. You are you can cry ad hominem until earth freezes over. The facts of the matter are that a) you said it was a superior photo b) you just sent me to RfA without attempting any other form of dispute resolution c) the photo does not interfere with the TOC and has never interfered with the TOC. this is because i am quite familiar with wiki syntax and used the |center| command which takes it out of being inline with the TOC d) i have asked eight people in IRC if they think it looks nicer than the other one and they all accord and lastly e) the article in question is currently a FAC, submitted by you, and you have been pretty snooty with the people in their. my point is that this is all a manifestation of your subconscious protecting your ego. f) for anyone's reference here is a version of the article looking quite nice --[[User:Alterego|Alterego^☺]] 06:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Grand Canyon features an even wider photo, which he has no problem with, making this whole discussion ridiculous. --[[User:Alterego|Alterego^☺]] 06:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

• Reject, please follow earlier steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Fred Bauder 14:53, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Reject - Agree with Fred. →Raul654 16:23, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Reject [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 16:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Reject - as usual, Fred has it right. Jwrosenzweig 18:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rienzo and his sockpuppets

Rienzo has in the past committed homophobic vandalism to various user's talk pages

• This resulted in an RfC (last July) - A
• Toward the end of the RfC, Rienzo promised to cease such attacks to an admin (as recorded in the RfC)

Rienzo (who claims to be from Sweden) has since created (at least) the following sockpuppets

• Lady Tara (first edit - upload from Swedish wikipedia, minimal edits since then, predominantly personal attacks)
• Piglet/Nasse (claims to be from Sweden)
• Baffinisland (exhibits a Swedish IP)
• 148.136.141.172 (swedish dial up IP)

The following issues then arose

• "Lady" Tara has predominantly engaged in homophobic and religious personal attacks
• Nasse/Piglet has predominantly engaged in childish taunts
• Baffinisland's only edit to date is personal attack vandalism
• Rienzo has attempted to fake evidence at an RfC
• 148.136.141.172 has only edited so as to cause homophobic user talk page vandalism

Connecting these sockpuppets is a consistent phraseology, including the use of the term "cheesycake", and "This is your funeral, ha ha ha, etc...", including consistent choice of victims

I request the arbitration committee deal with this problem user, and enact steps to permanently prevent any continued act of this form CheeseDreams 01:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good luck, C(Cispyl) D(Dumris)! :-D Lady Tara 04:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the benefit of Jwrosenzweig

As stated elsewhere,

• This resulted in an RfC (last July) - A
• Toward the end of the RfC, Rienzo promised to cease such attacks to an admin (as recorded in the RfC)

Please note that he has not ceased such attacks.

On my talk page, you will find confrontation with the issue, which, as you will see further down this page (in the Slrubensteing RfAr), the sock puppet of the day is completely ignoring, and continuing to misbehave.

The action by this particular sock puppet was so severe that a comment made by it on my talk page resulted in a ban.

Further virtually 100% of its edits are of this kind. Also the other sock puppets, in particular, Baffinisland, and the IP, engage in total vandalism.

An important thing is to for you to read the contributions lists for each sock puppet to see the severe extent to which this raises.

No, I do not think Jwrosenzweig is an "interested party" in this issue, and see no reason for him to recuse. Unless Lady-Tara/Nasse/Piglet/Baffinisland/Rienzo does?

You're so cute, CheesyFlissy! Please sign your "comments" next time, sweety! Lady Tara 02:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Votes and Comments by Arbitrators (2/0/0/0)

• Before I vote (and I'm not sure whether you would consider me an interested party in this dispute -- if you would, I'll recuse), I would like to know what attempts at dispute resolution have already been made. (i.e., have the sockpuppets been confronted, has mediation been requested, etc.?) Jwrosenzweig 22:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks, CheeseDreams -- as far as I am aware, I am no longer an arbitrator (I did not seek reelection, and the results have been announced), but if my vote does still count, consider it a vote for acceptance. Jwrosenzweig 22:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You are an arbitrator til the end of your term, December 31, 2004 Fred Bauder 14:58, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Accept, it is not clear who the parties are but it might take the arbitrators (with help from the developers) to determine the identity of the alleged sockpuppets Fred Bauder 14:58, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Accept [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt of the Cabal]] 16:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

• /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.
• /Gene Poole vs. Samboy - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on September 11, 2004. Evidence to /Gene Poole vs. Samboy/Evidence, please.
• /User:66.20.28.21 and other accounts - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one other comment on October 27, 2004. Evidence to /User:66.20.28.21 and other accounts/Evidence, please.
• /Netoholic - Accepted for Arbitration with three votes and two recusals on November 4, 2004. Evidence to /Netoholic/Evidence, please.
• /IZAK - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes on November 6, 2004. Evidence to /IZAK/Evidence, please.
• /HistoryBuffEr - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on November 8, 2004. Evidence to /HistoryBuffEr/Evidence, please.
• /Jayjg - Accepted and Merged with /HistoryBuffEr with four votes on November 9, 2004. Evidence to /HistoryBuffEr/Evidence, please.
• /Snowspinner vs. Lir - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes on November 28, 2004. Evidence to /Snowspinner vs. Lir/Evidence, please.
• /168.209.97.34 - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes on December 2, 2004. Evidence to /168.209.97.34/Evidence, please.
• /Alberuni - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes on December 6, 2004. Evidence to /Alberuni/Evidence, please.
• /Chuck F - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on December 7, 2004. Evidence to /Chuck F/Evidence, please.
• /CheeseDreams - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one recusal on December 10, 2004. Evidence to /CheeseDreams/Evidence, please.
• /ArmchairVexillologistDon - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on December 14, 2004. Evidence to /ArmchairVexillologistDon/Evidence, please.
• /Ciz - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on December 17, 2004. Evidence to /Ciz/Evidence, please.

Rejected requests

• John69 - Rejected - text archived at user talk:John69
• Avala vs various users - Rejected - try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Avala
• Matter of Hephaestos - 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.
• 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.
• VeryVerily - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
• Xed vs. Jimbo Wales - Rejected - lack of jurisidiction over Jimbo, private email, lack of initial litigant's involvment, and various other reasons.
• Emsworth vs. Xed - Rejected
• Gene Poole vs. Gzornenplatz - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
• Mintguy - Rejected
• VeryVerily vs Gzornenplatz - Rejected
• Request to re-open Anthony DiPierro - Rejected - October 27, 2004, see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro
• Chuck_F, 203.112.19.195 and 210.142.29.125 - Rejected, consolidated with /Reithy
• RickK - Rejected
• Aranel - Rejected
• Jayjg - Rejected by 6 arbitrators, 1 recusal, 10 Nov 2004.
• UninvitedCompany - Rejected, our temporary injunction holds.
• CheeseDreams - Rejected , please make requests precise, clear, and focussed.
• Quadell - Rejected, please follow the dispute resolution procedure rather than trying to taking this straight to Arbitration
• Arminius and Darrien - Rejected
• Slrubenstein - Rejected

Completed requests

• /Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 11th February 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.
• /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.
• /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.
• /Paul Vogel - Decided on 10 May 2004 to ban Vogel for one year. Further discussion and proposals are available at /Paul Vogel/Proposals.
• /Wik2 - Decided at /Wik2/Decided on 21 May 2004.
• /Irismeister 2 - Decided on 03 July 2004 to apply a personal attack parole. For discussion and voting on this matter see /Irismeister 2/Proposed decision.
• /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.
• /Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 26 Aug 2004. There was an earlier partial decision on 25 June.
• /User:Guanaco versus User:Lir - Decided on 30 Aug 2004.
• /Lyndon LaRouche (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - Decided on 12 Sep 2004.
• /User:PolishPoliticians - Decided on 18 Sep 2004, personal attack parole applied to PolishPoliticians and all new accounts on affected pages.
• /ChrisO and Levzur Closed on 20 Sep 2004 with an open verdict; no ruling necessary, as Levzur has ceased contributing to Wikipedia.
• /K1 - Closed on 28 Sep 2004 with an open verdictafter.
• /Kenneth Alan - Decided October 1, 2004, User:Kenneth Alan banned for one year. Enforcement provisions may be added before case is formally closed.
• /JRR Trollkien - Closed October 2, 2004, with no findings of fact or decision. JRR Trollkien has long since left.
• /Orthogonal - Closed October 14, 2004, following his departure from Wikipedia. Subject to reactivation should he return.
• /RK - Decided October 14, 2004. RK is banned from Wikipedia for 4 months. Further, he is banned from all articles directly or indirectly related to Judaism for 1 year.
• /RickK vs. Guanaco (ab initio "The Matter of Michael") - Jimbo unbanning Michael made the matter mostly moot. The only remedy was to award Guanaco for creative problem solving.
• /Jimmyvanthach - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
• /Rex071404 - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
• /Lance6wins - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
• /Rex071404 2 - Decided on 16 November, 2004.
• /Avala - Decided on 17 November, 2004.
• /Irismeister 3 - Decided on 20 November, 2004.
• /Cantus vs. Guanaco - Decided on 24 November, 2004. Cantus is limited to one revert per article per day and prohibited from editing Siberia or Clitoris. Guanaco must re-apply for adminship.
• /Reithy Closed without action taken on 3 December, 2004, temporary injunction expires that date.
• /Arminius Closed without action taken on 16 December, 2004, after all participants requested the matter dropped.
• /Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily - Decided on 22 December, 2004. Shorne and VeryVerily banned for two weeks, Gzornenplatz and Ruy Lopez for one. Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VV placed on revert parole. Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VV limited to 1 revert per articles per 24 hours, and required to discuss all edits.
• Shorne and Fred Bauder - Closed on 27 Dec 2004, in light of /Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. Subject to reactiction should Shorne return
• Turrican and VeryVerily - Closed on 27 Dec 2004, in light of /Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily.
• VeryVerily - Closed on 27 Dec 2004, in light of /Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily.