Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions
Antifinnugor: '''Decided''' |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
:As a legal term, "with prejudice" means that the issue is closed, and cannot be re-opened, as opposed to "without prejudice", which means that the issue may be re-opened at a later date. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 00:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
:As a legal term, "with prejudice" means that the issue is closed, and cannot be re-opened, as opposed to "without prejudice", which means that the issue may be re-opened at a later date. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 00:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
||
===Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/0/0/0)=== |
|||
*Reject strongly, and condemn what is becoming a blatant misuse of this page. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 04:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Matters currently in Arbitration == |
== Matters currently in Arbitration == |
||
Revision as of 04:47, 1 February 2005
|
| ||||||||
|
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. [edit]
Open cases [edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases) No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
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.
Slrubenstein
I object to the manner in which this RFAR was rejected.
- One arbitrator said they rejected it with prejudice. How is that neutral, or unbiased? Any arbitrator with prejudice on a case should recuse.
- The comment given as the reason on the archive below is try earlier steps in dispute resolution. This clearly proves that it was rejected by prejudice, as no-one read it fully - I clearly stated that we had been through mediation and it had failed.
CheeseDreams 23:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- As a legal term, "with prejudice" means that the issue is closed, and cannot be re-opened, as opposed to "without prejudice", which means that the issue may be re-opened at a later date. --Carnildo 00:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/0/0/0)
- Reject strongly, and condemn what is becoming a blatant misuse of this page. Ambi 04:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Matters currently in Arbitration
- /Gzornenplatz - Accepted with four votes on 29 January 2005. Evidence to /Gzornenplatz/Evidence, please.
- /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.
- /Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute - Accepted with four votes on 25 January 2005. Evidence to /Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute/Evidence, please.
- /Chuck F - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on December 7, 2004. Evidence to /Chuck F/Evidence, please.