Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayjg (talk | contribs) at 21:11, 3 November 2004 (→[[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

Jayjg

This admin protected the POV version of Cultural and historical background of Jesus rather than the NPOV version. I think this is an abuse of adminship. CheeseDreams 08:53, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Check m:The Wrong Version. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 09:16, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
OTOH Jayjg did revert to one side's version (not the pre-edit war version: see diff) before protecting, which admins are not supposed to do when both are equally belligerent in the edit war, which was the case here. (I've since reverted the article to the last version before the present dispute started.) I agree that this is a misuse of admin powers, but it certainly could have been an honest mistake rather than an intentional abuse. —No-One Jones (m) 09:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I thought the version I was reverting to was the version before the edit war. And I've seen other admins revert to a stable version before protecting. Jayjg 15:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By the way, I'm assuming that one can revert to a stable or pre edit-war version of an article before protecting, is that correct or not? Jayjg 17:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, one may revert to a stable version before protecting, and it seems in this case that you were just mistaken about which version was stable. I think CheeseDreams should retract the complaint. —No-One Jones (m) 19:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am of the opinion, given some of the other edits that Jayjg has made, and a comment on his talk page by Slrubenstein, that Jayjg made the change to support his POV, and then protected it. It is possible that he made an honest mistake, but I find it odd that the version he chose should have been by Slrubenstein, whom I was having the "edit war" with, which was an edit AFTER I made my first change. CheeseDreams 19:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A comment made by Slrubenstein makes you think I did it to protect a POV? I thought Slrubenstein was just reverting you to the original version; with the incredibly poor performance I've been getting on Wikipedia recently, I frankly wasn't able to sort through the whole edit history. I'm amazed I was able to revert it at all; as it was, it took me almost 25 minutes from the time I restored the older version until I was finally able to mark it as protected. Jayjg 21:11, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/2/1/0)

  1. Reject, while there was no basis for reverting before protecting, and doing so violated policy, it was an isolated event not a pattern of wrongful actions. Fred Bauder 13:32, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Reject. De minimis non curat arbitor. --the Epopt 14:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Recuse. Jwrosenzweig 15:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RickK

He banned someone at Larry Sanger over an edit dispute, even though the person was not engaged in vandalism, or anything even remotely similar to vandalism. The person banned was simply adding two brief edits, noting that Sanger only teaches introductory philosophy courses (which is shown by Sanger's official Ohio State website) and that Sanger claims to specialize in certain areas (however no proof has been shown). RickK used his sysop powers to censor Mr. Sanger's vanity page, in violation of the rules on NPOV. RickK has repeatedly refused to discuss the issue, either with the person he banned, or with others at the discussion page. It is clear that the arbitration committee must rule on whether sysops are allowed to ban anyone with whom they disagree. The Wikipedia continues to slide down a very slippery slope... Wert

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

  1. Reject. No evidence of prior attempts to resolve dispute. Also, the complainant's edit history makes me suspect he/she is a reincarnation. →Raul654 18:11, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. This user's edit history seems solely confined to attempts to add language to the article on Larry Sanger that the takl page's consensus indicates is unjustified. Numerous users, including Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger, have indicated their disagreement with these edits by auto-reverting them and/or talking about them on the discussion page. I do not see that RickK's conduct in this has been anything but an appropriate administrative response to either a returning user attempting to "troll" an article, or else a new arrival who hopes to slant the article against Larry Sanger without the justification of evidence. If, as Anthony seems to suggest, there have been other arbitration-worthy actions, I suggest that a case be brought on that evidence. On the evidence here presented, I reject. Jwrosenzweig 20:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Reject: insufficient evidence. Give us something to work with. --the Epopt 21:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Reject, not much to this. Fred Bauder 22:54, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Reject. No evidence of RickK doing anything inappropriate. James F. (talk) 11:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aranel

I am requesting arbitration because user User:Aranel keeps removing all my contributions to Favicon article without good reasons:

  • 1. Removal of link to useful resource which gives information which you cannot find in article.
  • 2. Removal of FAQ section. Reason: "I'm sorry, but the FAQ format is not appropriate to an encyclopedia". I was unable to find this in Wikipedia guidelines.
  • 3. Removal of Troubleshooting section. Reason: "this is not a technical support site, after all" but article gives code and instructions on adding favicon to website. And if favicon doesn't work - it is extremely useful to know possible reasons!
  • 4. Removal of my examples of favicons with new images which are cropped and not so easy to understand as my examples was.
  • 5. Removal of link to Icon Edtitor. There is note about about icon editors in article and it's normal and useful to have link to one of the editors.

All my contributions were removed by fake reasons.

Discussions gives no results, because User:Aranel continues edit wars and deletions of relevant material.

Vitaly 10:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Fred Bauder, I don't mind against link deleteion - I do not want my relevant and useful contributions to be deleted.

By the way - we started to offer this service AFTER link was deleted from Wikipedia. Vitaly 11:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Fred, please, look again at changes 2, 3, 4, 5. They removed useful information.
Vitaly 12:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Press Release

Instead of reasonable resolution of conflict you have grown this tiny issue of some User:Mzajac having personal attack and stalking on me, which continues like a chain reaction between his friends (User:Mzajac -> User:Timo Honkasalo ->User: Aranel -> User:HappyDog -> User:Farside -> User:Mirv) - you can easily tell that they have common interests and when one cannot answer reasonably to a discussion, his friend takes a turn, to a HUGE issue of group harrassment and deletion of everything possible.

I am going to write "Wikipedia: Crash Course" article on major web news sources and you will receive public attention, what you will say then? Don't you think it is self-destructive way to your community?

Wikipedia is ONLINE and FREE Encyclopedia. It is itself built based on links and it cannot exist without the rest of WWW.

Principles of Wikipedia broken by the above mentioned members:

  • 1. Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles. Wikipedia:Wikiquette
  • 2. Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box. Wikipedia:Wikiquette
  • 3. "Don't ignore questions. If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate" Wikipedia:Wikiquette
  • 4. "Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste. Don't make people debate positions you don't really hold."Wikipedia:Wikiquette

Vitaly 17:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

  1. Reject. You twice tried to insert links to your website which sells custom favicons for $49.99. Wikipedia articles are not a vehicle for advertising and self-promotion, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Fred Bauder 11:12, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Reject -- the insertion of FAQs, Troubleshooting, etc., may not be explicitly prohibited by policy (though I'll look around, since I had thought they were), but by their very nature they oppose the encyclopedic goals of this project. Answering questions and troubleshooting would imply the "right way" to do something, and NPOV isn't about telling people the "right way". At most, a description of an item's purpose and function should exist in the article, but it doesn't appear to me that your edits had that simple goal in mind. Discuss your proposed additions at Talk:Favicon and see what the community consensus is. I think you'll find that Aranel was accurately expressing the will of the community in editing as she did, but if not, then your additions could certainly be made. Jwrosenzweig 15:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Reject -- everything Fred and Jwr said, plus I see no indication that you tried the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process. --the Epopt 16:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Reject. Totally agree with Fred. →Raul654 18:08, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Reject. James F. (talk) 11:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users Ruy Lopez, Shorne, and VeryVerily

I request arbitration with User:VeryVerily for the matter described below at "VeryVerily and reversion" (entry "User:VeryVerily") and, most fully, at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily. My request for mediation, now in its third day, has gone ignored by VeryVerily, who has failed to accept or decline mediation despite several requests. I believe that arbitration is the only appropriate avenue at this point, and I request quick action, as VeryVerily is riding roughshod over numerous articles.

Since there are already two other cases involving VeryVerily, it has been suggested that this one be merged with one or both of the others. I am willing to merge it with the case filed by User:Christiankavanagh, listed below.

As user Ruy Lopez added his name to the request for mediation, I have taken the liberty of listing him as a party to this request as well. Thank you for your attention. Shorne 10:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

  1. Recuse Fred Bauder 11:40, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Merge with VV case below --the Epopt 13:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Epopt on the merge -- any evidence here should already be going to the evidence in that case. Jwrosenzweig 19:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users Shorne and Fred Bauder

User:Shorne engages in edit wars on the articles, Great Purge, Communism, Communist state and People's Republic of China. He claims to be removing POV material and demands documentation, but no matter how minutely referenced, removal continues. Most references are unacceptable in his view including references which are generally accepted in the scholarly community. When negotiation is attempted he pleads lack of time and energy, but continues to have plenty of time and energy for his edit wars with me and other editors. Extensive discussions on article talk pages have been to no avail, see especially Talk:People's Republic of China, for example this edit: [1]. Mediation has been refused, see [2] Fred Bauder 22:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

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

  1. Recuse Fred Bauder 22:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Accept. James F. (talk) 16:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Accept. The Cunctator 06:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) I'd love to see more evidence...
  4. Abstain until more evidence is presented -- Fred, I need more than one diff to tell if there is a pattern of behavior in need of addressing. Jwrosenzweig 19:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Accept. →Raul654 06:59, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Turrican and VeryVerily

Since going quickly to arbitration seems to be the "in" thing to do, and has been condoned by the two users who accepted CK's complaint, I will register a request for immediate banning here.

Turrican has stated on my talk page [3] [4] and on Mackensen's [5] that he intends to be and has been carrying out a campaign of reverting my edits without prejudice. Since this has nothing to do with content issues - some are just housekeeping edits (the most absurd is Kim Jong-Il) - I believe this constitutes vandalism.

If you view his talk page, you will see I gave him repeated warnings, including quoting specific policies. Mackensen and GBWR also warned him. I thought he had maybe stopped, and so I was willing to drop the matter, but he has recently resumed.

He has also engaged in personal attacks on me, for instance recently calling me a "disgusting Nazi" (Talk:Henry Kissinger).

To stave off would-be counters:

  1. Re his complaints that I am "destroying his edits", this referred so far as I know to two (2) edits, one adding a dispute notice on a page after he added a questionable section (History of Italy), the other a revert of what I perceived as highly POV additions to an article, where I instead later resorted to a notice (History of Modern Greece). Now he seems peeved that I removed an absurd claim that Kissinger killed 600,000 Cambodian civilians from the introductory paragraph of Henry Kissinger.
  2. My statement that "I am not negotiating" on User talk:Turrican is almost certain to be misinterpreted by someone, so I will clarify now. I am not agreeing to any kind of "trade" in exchange for him not reverting my edits arbitrarily. To do so is "negotiating with terrorists", allowing the threat of vandalism to be used as leverage.

To reiterate, request banning for vandalism and personal attacks. I do not think mediation is needed for someone who is so flagrantly violating Wikipedia rules.

VV 00:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

  1. Reject, no notice of arbitration on User talk:Turrican. Fred Bauder 14:47, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) Accept, see [6] Fred Bauder 14:56, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) I believe swift action is justified with a temporary ban imposed in light of personal attacks. Fred Bauder 23:45, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC). I'm not sure that all the proxies cited by VeryVerily are vandals however, for example this edit seems reasonable, if controversial [7] Recuse Fred Bauder 00:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Accept; also support temporary injunction in this matter to restriction to editing of Arbitration case pages only. James F. (talk) 00:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Accept -- I think I would also accept the injunction. Jwrosenzweig 14:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Accept, with injunction the Epopt 04:27, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Accept, and I am inclined to agree with both of the previous users - put a temporary injunction on him restricting him to the arbcom pages only. However, user has not edited since Oct 5th, so is he still here? →Raul654 12:43, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Last edit was Oct 27 under 213.56.68.29; I stopped listing IPs here since I assumed nothing would be done. VeryVerily 16:46, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


User:Netoholic

Netoholic's propensity for conflict has gone on for some time now. Much of it is well-documented at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Netoholic. The RfC, however, was largely ineffective due to his assertion that, because no one certifying it had been involved with all of the disputes, its certification was invalid. Although I find the irony of the idea that Netoholic had done too many bad things to be actionable on RfC amusing, I find this disturbing, to say the least. To my knowledge, there are four central concerns with him.

  1. His edit war with JamesF and others, which culminated in him accusing JamesF and others of running a bot, and listing them on Vandalism in Progress with no meaningful cause.
  2. His edit war with Mintguy, in which he repeatedly removed a poll and reinstated an expired poll, demanding an extension of the poll until it gathered consensus. The poll, having majority opposition, was clearly never going to do this.
  3. His refactoring of comments, often removing informative information. One example is at [8], though really, you just want to look at the entire edit history of that page.
  4. Delisting of articles on VfD ([9] and [10].

His refactoring is, in many ways, the most severe problem, as he has continued it, most recently on my talk page at [11]. As is often the case, what he is removing is not a personal attack.

Finally, and possibly not actionably, Netoholic opposed my request to run a bot to handle Templates for Deletion at Wikipedia Talk:Bots in the section titled Snowbot. The manner of his objection, particularly with its links to my edits, makes it clear that his only objection was that I had previously objected to his running a bot. Aggravating this was that he PMed me in IRC repeatedly while objecting to inform me that I was a "fuck." A sample exchange follows:

<NetAway> lmao SnowBot. so if I object....
<Snowspinner> If you object, I'll ask you what you object to about me running a bot.
<NetAway> no, my objection should be enough, ya fuck.
<NetAway> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Guanaco&diff=6173231&oldid=6172763
<NetAway> How do I phrase "you're a fuck" in a nice way, to allow me to reply....

At one point, this spilled into the #wikipedia IRC channel:

<Snowspinner> Hey, I'm curious - someone just told me that there was a consensus that I was a fuck. Now, I'd probably vote neutral on a poll as to whether I'm a fuck, but I'm just curious - is there in fact consensus that I'm a fuck? Straw poll.
<cimon> Well, we can all improve.
<ugen64> i would support that argument, as you are a member of teh sekret cebal
--> Cantus (~Cantus@CM-lcon5-181-160.cm.vtr.net) has joined #wikipedia
<ugen64> hi cantus
<Netoholic> I would say you are a fuck, but you're also a channel op.
<bumm13> hi cactus
<-- Cantus (~Cantus@CM-lcon5-181-160.cm.vtr.net) has left #wikipedia
<Netoholic> so i guess i can't say that

I know IRC is not presently actionable, but I contend that his vote against my bot was clearly meant to be construed by me as a claim that I am a fuck, and is thus a personal attack.

Mediation, in this case, will not prove fruitful, simply because I am not inclined to mediate with someone who has repeatedly called me a fuck. Snowspinner 19:02, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

My last comment there is perhaps more flippant than it needs to be. Let me clarify. I repeatedly told Netoholic that, if he would simply avoid any fracases like the ones listed above for a month, I would drop my objection to his bot and even apologize. I pointed him towards situations that I thought he'd handled badly.

Every time I did this, I was called a fuck.

Netoholic's continued abuse of me has driven me away from active editing on Wikipedia. This is not a situation that can be mediated. This is persistant harassment of the same level of ferocity and malice that characterized Kenneth Allen, Mr. Natural Health, Irismeister, and others, coupled with the cleverness to do it through unregulated channels. There is a level of abuse at which mediation is no longer useful or possible. Netoholic has passed that level. It is not reasonable to ask me to go into any negotiation that assumes good faith with a user who has reiterated, again and again, that he considers me to be a fuck. That level of contempt poisons the well far beyond what any negotiation based process can salvage. Snowspinner 21:29, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)


As of today, this request has been listed here for one month. I ask the Arbitration Commitee to remove this listing and delete the associated sub-page. Clearly, one month is far too long for any request to just sit here. These charges are trivial, no attempts at earlier steps of dispute resolution were attempted by Snowspinner, he and I have long-since stopped interacting (except for some occassional personal attacks on his part), and this arbitration request is moot. -- Netoholic @ 16:58, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

"Accept to get it out of the queue. --the Epopt 14:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)" I really feel like this is poor reasoning to accept a case. As evidence that you should "reject" instead, this has been sitting on this page for over one month. If I had remotely done anything in that time to give Snowspinner or anyone else cause for more concern, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they would have commented on this case further, perhaps adding additional evidence in order to move this along? I guess I can't understand being willing to take this into a longer, and more-involved process, just to clear the queue on this page. I don't want to be a victim of the fact that there is no contingency in the Arbitration policy which covers "stale" requests like this one. -- Netoholic @ 19:50, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

I would like to make clear that I don't think Netoholic has reformed in the past month, and that it is my belief that many of the issues here have continued. Should the case be accepted, I'll provide evidence of these, but otherwise, I've got a life to attend to, and there's enough evidence here to establish cause for investigation, I think. But I dispute the claim that this has ended somehow. Snowspinner 20:48, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (3/0/2/0)

  1. Recuse (obviously). James F. (talk) 20:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Reject, try mediation Fred Bauder 20:57, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Abstain, for the moment. I'm torn between recommending for mediation and accepting. I'm discussing the matter with the mediation committee right now, so I recommend the other arbitrators don't vote until I get back. →Raul654 02:23, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
    Recuse. However, after having talked to both parties on several occasions, as well as several mediators, and I don't think there's any hope that mediation will be successful, and I would suggest the other arbitrators take the case. →Raul654 07:03, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Accept (with hesitancy - if any involved party objects to my involvement, I recuse. I was involved at the edges of this dispute, but not, I think, so much so that I am biased. Again, if anyone disagrees, I will recuse for propriety's sake). Jwrosenzweig 22:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Accept to consider matters of etiquette. Fred Bauder 12:53, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Accept to get it out of the queue. --the Epopt 14:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

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 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

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 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 verdict; no ruling necessary, as K1 has ceased contributing to Wikipedia.
  • /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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=7084653"