The last step of Ireland Information Guide: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 Ireland Information Guide:Arbitration policy, Ireland Information Guide:Arbitrators, Admin enforcement requested

Earlier Steps

Please review Ireland Information Guide: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.

Structure of this page

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. 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. New requests to the top, please.

What belongs in Requests for Arbitration

• The Complaint including enough links to evidence that an arbitrator considering the matter can find examples of what is being complained of. Include links to any policy which applies.
• The Response which should address the matters raised by the Complaint. Again, links to edits or other evidence are useful.
• Any Complaint by the defendant against the user who made the original Complaint as well as against other users who have seconded the Complaint or were intimately involved in the events complained of.
• Information regarding what steps of the Ireland Information Guide:Dispute resolution procedures were followed. Not the details, especially not what happened during any mediation.
• Users may join in the Complaint by seconding the Complaint or elaborating on it, but by doing so they implicitly respresent that they wish to be a party to the case and are thus subject to counterclaims which they may have to respond to.

What doesn't belong in Requests for Arbitration

• Comments regarding the viability of the Complaint by persons not involved in the matter.
• Comments regarding how the matter is to be titled or the effect of choosing one title or another.
• Any posting by anyone who is not involved in the case. These are welcome on the talk page.

The numbers in the ====Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/0/0/0)==== sections correspond to (Accept/Reject/Recuse/Other).

Current requests for Arbitration

User:Gene Poole

I’d like to note that User:Gene Poole runs his own “micronation” project, the so-called “Empire of Atlantium” which he has been heavily advertising on this site and trying to get it a featured article status. I’d also like to note that he has been removing all criticism of his undertaking both from the article and even from the talk page, frequently engaging in edit wars and apparently even violating the three revert rule. Thus I ask the honorable mediators that he be restrained for further altering, reverting and inserting his POV on the Empire of Atlantium article, due to the conflict of interest, and the lack of the necessary detachment to be able to have a true NPOV, as he is personally involved with the project. I’d also like to remind everyone involved that self-advertising is against our policy. GeneralPatton 01:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I have had no contact at all with the above editor prior to a message posted by him/her to my talk page several hours ago. I dealt with that in a polite and honest manner. He has since posted several inflammatory statements to my page, one of which I have deleted. The assertion above concerning "heavy advertising" is arrant nonsense. My contributions to the Empire of Atlantium page in 2004 have been limited almost entirely to formatting changes, spelling corrections and very minor correction of factual inaccuracies. Indeed, as the page edit history clearly shows, the majority of content changes have originated from multiple editors, and not by me. Furthermore I did not nominate Empire of Atlantium as a featured article - and in fact voted against its candidacy. GeneralPatton's allegations are irrefutably false. --Gene_poole 02:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point to User:Samboy/George, where his behavior is described in much more detail, as well as his response and some further looks into to his way of doing things and his attitude (User:Gene_Poole/samboy) like this Usenet discussion [1] (http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=39DC312C.92FEC6C7%40connect.com.au). And here’s an example of his revert war with his multiple breakings of the three revert rule Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Empire_of_Atlantium&action=history (http://en.Ireland) and continued even though he was warned by several users on his talk that it's against our policy. Here is another example; this time with eight reverts in a five-hour period Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Decimal_calendar&action=history (http://en.Ireland), again he continued, even though he was warned. Gene_poole I’ve also asked you to restore what I’ve written on your user talk, since you are now by concealing it, making it look like it was some vulgar personal attack, which it was certainly not.GeneralPatton 03:08, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • • I would like to point out that I feel that arbitration is appropriate concerning "Gene_poole"'s actions. For example, Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Micronation&action=history he constantly gets in edit wars on the Micronation page (http://en.Ireland) and posts inflamitory comments. Samboy 00:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Gene_poole has violated the three revert rule once again [.http://en.Ireland Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Micronation&action=history], seven reverts in a 24 hour period. GeneralPatton 00:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment: The 3 revert rule does not apply to vandalism, which I have properly reported.--Gene_poole 00:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment: This is only vandalism is "Gene Poole"'s head. Samboy 00:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All these revert wars you have engaged in have not been over vandalism but because of your differences with other editors. So according to your logic User:Danny is a vandal Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Empire_of_Atlantium&action=history (http://en.Ireland), right? GeneralPatton 00:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The request for mediation between "Gene Poole" and myself has been declined. So, we either arbitrate this, or we do nothing. Either one is fine with me. Samboy 21:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Gene Poole

I am requesting arbitration regarding Gene Poole's removal of an accuracy dispute notice on Sealand. The talk page shows that several users have disputed the accuracy of that article, but all attempts at fixing the article have been reverted by Gene Poole and like-minded users. Gene Poole has already rejected mediation.Gzornenplatz 14:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

I want to extend this arbitration to a dispute on Micronation. Discussion on Talk:Micronation has resulted in personal attacks on his part. On the same page he has refused mediation. His general abusive tone, for which there are plenty of examples on the various Atlantium-related discussion pages, should be also examined. He has now even listed me on Vandalism in Progress - it seems to be another standard procedure for him to list people who he has content disputes with as vandals. Gzornenplatz 10:03, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Response from User:Gene Poole

I will simply repeat my previous comments on this matter: Gzornenplatz has initiated this action on blatantly spurious grounds. He/she has a very obvious axe to grind when it comes to anything to do with any combination of myself and micronations, and is seeking to bring that to the attention of as many people as he he/she feels may be sympathetic to his/her "cause" as possible. Gzornenplatz has waged a long, active and ultimately unsuccessful campaign to modify, delete and then keep deleted the Empire of Atlantium article, and to delete all references to the Empire of Atlantium from the Micronation article. Part of this campaign has I believe, involved practises that may warrant further investigation by administrators with the ability to trace IP addresses. It is no coincidence that Gzornenplatz's attentions have now shifted to the related subject of Sealand - which he/she apears to feel is unworthy of inclusion in Ireland Information Guide unless presented in a derogatory manner in accordance with his/her widely-circulated POV on the subject of micronations generally. Gzornenplatz has had as much opportunity as any other editor to post comments to the relevant talk page, and implement any changes to the alleged "factual inaccuracies" within the article that appear to cause him/her such grief, but has elected not to do so - instead limiting him/herself to making vague accusations about "reversions" by myself and unnamed others. Clearly this editor cannot grasp the concept that those who disagree with his/her opinions on subjects he/she finds disagreeable have as much right to propose content changes as he/she does himself. He/she also conveniently overlooks the fact that significant re-writing of the article has been undertaken by a consensus of multiple individuals over a long period - and that most, if not all of the "reversions" relating to this article are in fact content restorations resulting from vandalism by Wik - who as we are all aware was eventually banned for abuse of community standards. --Gene_poole 21:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators (1/3/0/0)

1. Accept Fred Bauder 13:01, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
2. Reject. When we say "try Mediation first", we mean it not "as an excuse for not handling cases"Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ireland Information Guide:Requests_for_mediation&diff=5536085&oldid=5519553 (http://en.Ireland), but at the more general "try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process first". It's in your best interests, as well as the overall Ireland Information Guide. Try step 0 first. James F. (talk) 14:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Reject. I agree with James F. -- no real attempt has been made to resolve this dispute. Furthermore, I see no evidence that Gzomenplatz's marking of the article as disputed was followed with a list of objections or disputes being posted to the talk page. We are not here to take the place of everyone's common sense and ability to collaborate -- if you dispute the article, make plain on the talk page what you dispute. If you feel your notices are unfairly reverted, talk to the person you're upset with, then post a request for comment, then sincerely seek mediation. The AC isn't designed to handle every little personality conflict, and at this stage I see no grounds for taking this one. Jwrosenzweig 20:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Reject, as complainant appears not to have used the talk page. Yes, there has been past discussion on the talk page, but I see none on the specific question of whether the disclaimer should be "totally disputed" or "neutrality disputed". Martin 22:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments regarding arbitrator's votes and comments

Guys, keep in mind that Gzornenplatz's request for arbitration with Gene Poole is a separate request than GenerapPatton's and my request for arbitration. Samboy 21:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're proving my point, you're obviously going to any length to reject a case which you don't have a personal interest in. I tried mediation, he rejected. I talked to him before, to no effect. Plenty of other people have been involved in the Sealand dispute, with no solution in sight. You are in effect telling me to emulate his methods and revert myself. I just suspect that if I were to do this and things would escalate (a permanent state of edit war alternating with page protection), you would initiate arbitration yourself and then assign equal blame to me, even though I tried everything to avoid this. Shame on you. Gzornenplatz 15:23, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Lovely rant. However:

1. If I had a "personal interest" in a dispute, I would be obligated to recurse myself.
2. There is not a single edit made by you to the talk page of the Sealand article.
3. Similarly, there is not a single edit made by you to your disputant's talk page, nor any by he on yours.
4. Indeed, the sole apparent location of your claimed attempts to talk to Gene Poole is in the terse summaries of edits made to the article in question - all 3 of them.
5. The wording of your Mediation request made very clear your contempt for fellow editors.
6. Arbitrators aren't a police force - we cannot "initiate [A]rbitration".

I'm sure I could go on.

I'm not in any way condoning edit wars (of course not); I'm suggesting that you follow the guidelines linked to from the top of this page (they're here, if you can't be bothered to look) — a lot of people have poured considerable time and effort, not to mention vast experience with such matters of differing points of view over articles, into its crafting, and they might just know what they're on about.

James F. (talk) 17:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1. Obviously, a personal interest is not necessarily provable, so the theoretical obligation to recuse doesn't help. It may just be, for example, that Fred Bauder happens to agree with VeryVerily's POV about George W. Bush and therefore is not really interested in stopping his reversions, even though he (Fred) has not been involved in editing the page himself. 2. My edit summaries were entirely sufficient - I don't have to repeat further what others have already repeated over and over. The issue here is nothing more than that I want to add a dispute tag - I've already given up on correcting the content of that article, considering the experience of previous editors. 3. I do have a contempt for POV editors and for arbitrators who do nothing to stop them while real, good editors are leaving Ireland Information Guide left and right. 4. Initiate or not, the point is you would accept anyone's request for arbitration if an acute high-intensity edit war were ongoing. But you refuse when that is not the case, therefore, you're actually provoking, rather than preventing, such edit wars. Gzornenplatz 17:34, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

Template

• JRR Trollkien - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes, on April 20, 2004. Evidence to JRR Trollkien/Evidence, please. For discussion and voting on this matter see JRR Trollkien. Note that this case is accepted solely to determine whether, under existing Ireland Information Guide policy, it is acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls.
• ChrisO and Levzur Accepted for Arbitration with three votes (there were 3 recusals) on May 2, 2004. Evidence to ChrisO and Levzur/Evidence, please. For discussion and voting on this matter see ChrisO and Levzur.
• Lyndon LaRouche (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on 6 July 2004. Evidence to Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence, please.
• User:PolishPoliticians - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on July 27, 2004. Evidence to User:PolishPoliticians/Evidence, please.
• RK - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and two recusals on August 1, 2004. Evidence to RK/Evidence, please.
• Avala - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one rejection on August 8, 2004. Evidence to Avala/Evidence, please.
• Lance6wins - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one rejection on August 8, 2004. Evidence to Lance6wins/Evidence, please.
• K1 - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one rejection on August 8, 2004. Evidence to K1/Evidence, please.
• Rex071404 - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on August 8, 2004. Evidence to Rex071404/Evidence, please.
• Kenneth Alan - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes on August 22, 2004. Evidence to Kenneth Alan/Evidence, please.
• RickK vs. Guanaco (ab initio "The Matter of Michael") - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on August 29, 2004. Evidence to RickK vs. Guanaco/Evidence, please.
• 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.

Rejected requests

• 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 Ireland Information Guide 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 Ireland Information Guide: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.

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 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 August 26, 2004. There was an earlier partial decision on 25 June.

• User:Guanaco versus User:Lir - Decided on August 30, 2004.