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 Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024 [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases). Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024 Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) none none 26 July 2024 Arbitrator motions Motion name Date posted Historical elections 7 August 2024

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
• Contact the Arbitration Committee

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. Place the request itself on this page, rather than a subpage, but if you need to, link to detailed evidence in the standard template format elsewhere.
• You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against. You should confirm this by providing diffs of the notification at the bottom of your complaint.
• Please sign and date at least your original submission with "~~~~."
• New requests to the top, please.

New requests

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

User:Baku Ibne aka banned User:Osmanoglou aka banned anon 84.154.xx.xx …and User: Twinkletoes

Statement of complaint

I am appealing to arbitration as a last resort to deal with continuous personal attacks, insults and extremely disruptive behavior by a person currently hiding behind the User:Baku Ibne (contrib.) and User:Twinkletoes (contrib.) This is the same person as previously banned User:Osmanoglou (contrib.) also operating under various anon IPs 84.154.xx.xx, who was “distinguished” by continuous and deliberate acts of vandalism and personal insults, mostly directed against me. (For details on these banned users, or user (one person), to be more precise, please see, Vandalism in progress page). His actions and deeds are so blatant and outrageous, and his insults have gone so far, that arbitration is the only way to deal with this unprecedented case.

At the moment I was preparing this appeal, I noticed a new user emerged today (March 2) named User: Twinkletoes (contrib.) who posted another provocative and senseless comment in Nagorno-Karabakh talkpage. I am confident that this is a new username used by the same one person as part of a unprecedented farce and campaign against me, a farce never seen in Wikipedia so far. I came to this conclusion because of the style of his post and most importantly the “slogan” in his userpage “Dancing is my life”. I want to drag the attention of the arbitration committee that anon 84.154.xx.xx when vandalizing the page always added “dancer” to the page content. (pls, see, my report on anon 84.154.xx.xx in Vandalism in progress and see the similarities between this vandal and User:Twinkletoes, esp. with regard to “dancing”. In particular, see, 2nd vandalism notice by anon 84.154, in which he adds “dance” virtually everywhere and also uses word “Twinkletoes(!) at one place. Similar repeated mention of “dance” (this time w/o “Twinkletoes”) can be found also in third and fourth vandalisms by banned anon 84.154.xx.xx aka User:Osmanoglou).

Background

The roots of the present unprecedented conflict between me and the person operating currently under name “Baku Ibne” (who as I said, previously operated as anon 84.154.xx.xx and then User:Osmanoglou) started in mid February with a dispute over Safavids page content. At that time there was a fierce discussion and a revert war between myself and User:Pantherarosa. Subsequently, my arguments were proven more convincing and were supported by third party editors, first of them being User: John Kenney (see, his initial post in Safavids talkpage here). Immediately after this turning point in Safavids discussion, a whole new group of previously non-existing users appeared (including, User:LIGerasimova, User:StuffedTurkey, User:Osmanoglou). Seeing that their arguments were proven wrong and their real intentions were exposed, these users resorted to continuous vandalisms and/or personal attacks (mostly, User:Osmanoglou also acting under anon IP) and/or groundless accusations (mostly User:LIGerasimova and User:StuffedTurkey). In fact their actions continue up to day. If interested, please, view my post here, in which I expose this group of “avengers” one by one. However, this request concerns only one of them, User:Baku Ibne aka User:Twinkletoes aka User:Osmanoglou (banned) aka anon 84.154.xx.xx (banned). My complaint about another User:LIGerasimova is pending in Requests for comment. Just for info, I want to stress that in the future I may also appeal to arbitration committee with regard to User:StuffedTurkey and User:Rovoam (banned temporarily). (I want everyone, including these users, to know this in advance and be prepared).

Evidence of violations

Below I give incomplete list of Wikipedia violations by the person specifically acting under username Baku Ibne

• Personal Insults: calling me “ibne”, which means “homosexual” in Turkish (“YOU ARE 100 percent “IBNE”, Tabib”) ([1], repeated in my talkpage [2]). On another occasion he also wrote something like “…your [i.e. mine] apparent unsavory preoccupation with homosexuality” ([3]).

It’s important to note that previously same person acting under banned User:Osmanoglou and anon 84.154.xx.xx used the SAME word when attacking me (you can still see extremely rude curse in Turkish in User talk:Osmanoglou).

Moreover, this person libelously called me “vandal” at least five times, in my userpage and in his own userpage, without any grounds for that whatsoever.

• Using sock puppets for circumventing Wikipedia policies (esp. block evasion), deception and impersonation (details on the person hiding behind User:Baku Ibne, as well as User:Osmanoglou aka anon 84.154.xx.xx can be found in [Vandalism in progress]. Also, when this appeal was written a new sock-puppet User:Twinkletoes emerged, to further complicate the issue, deceive public opinion and undermine my position in Wikipedia.

• Adding false and fraudulent/misleading comments to Talk pages (e.g. having called me “ibne” which means “homosexual”, he now pretends that it is actually myself who called him “homosexual” (?!), see, [4], same as [5] (accusing me in allegedly “implicating [him] with HOMOSEXUAL connotation to [me]” (?!) whereas it is exactly the opposite, it was him who called me “ibne” –homosexual. These manipulations were aimed at confusing other editors and hiding from responsibility.)

• Advancing groundless and deceitful vandalism reports directed against me. See Vandalism in progress page. This report was deleted twice, as other editors (namely User:SWAdair and User:Tony Sidaway warned this “user” not to push with this unfounded accusation. User:SWAdair even left a warning message in his talkpage

• Attempting to delete and hide the criticism coming from other users. This person tried to delete the warning message by User:SWAdair who as I mentioned above, warned him not to file false vandalism complaints. I restored this message, which this "user" tried to delete and hide. As a reaction, this “user” started to accuse me in “vandalism”, spammed my talkpage with his groundless accusations and filed a false complaint against me in Vandalism in progress page.

This list may enlarge even further considering this person’s obsession to harass me by any means possible. I ask the arbitration committee to deal with this unprecedented case with the utmost seriousness.--Tabib 19:51, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0)

• Accept to investigate sockpuppet abuse. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:02, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Viajero

User Viajero is not whiling to arrange compromise in this article. When I enter Wikipedia, I was devoted to the cause of stating NPOV in every article that I will contribute. Unfortunately, Viajero continued to revert most of the my contributions without eveng bothering to explained why their were wrong. My mayor mistake was the fact that unfortunatelly in Wikipedia there is also people that stated POV that they considerated politically correct, disregarding the oppinions of other users. In my first edits (since I didn't Vandalize the page), I explained most of my mayor modifications:

• just saw that somebody remove the "Disputed Article" of the Page, and I decide to take action about it. First them all, I believe that this article is higly biased against the former president, since it lacks to present an NPOV.

• I will explain them steep by steep:

- The self-coup was made in order to remove APRA and FREDEMO from power. Until 1992, Fujimori couln'd get any piece of legislation to pass Congress. The APRA was making this in order to have another chance to get elected in the 1995 elections, after a "failed" Fujimori Government.

- The Fujishock did not created a social disaster in Peru. It was proved that betwen 1989 and 1990, the Garcia Government artifially keep the prices of most basically needed products in order to create a sence of "stability" and at least give the party enough votes in congress to avoid being investigate. The Fujishock was the elimination of government subsides on this. Unfortunately, when the subsides dissapeared, the real cost was show.

- Terrorist activities that does not involved him where deleted

- He did not run away from Peru: He was representing Peru on a International Forum that was located in Brunei. The real motive for his self exile in Japan is that opposition parties already have control of the congress, and they were ready to impeach him. He submit his resignation, but this was rejected in a really controvertial vote on congress.

- The level of corruption during his government was high, but it was not the biggest in the country. The Garcia Administration was far more corrupt than his government.

- the ressecion on Peru was also caused by the Asian Crisis on 1997. At that point, Peru stop to grow. Privatisation was mostly of inefficient government owned companies. (i know this fact becouse my father worked in ENTEL, the telephone state company during the 80's and later on Telefonica)

- I don't think that the foreign opinions about the self coup add a NPOV. I see them as an attemp to create a sence that he use illegal force to seised power.

- Interpol image is of poor quality. If you have a good picture of Fujimori (as President) please put it here. If you want to put the interpol image, at least one of better quality.

About the accusation, I wouldn't count as a serious investigation the ongoing ones by the Toledo Government, since it has a poorly sence of Justice: Former President Alan Garcia is free to walk in the streets of Lima, even that he face crimes such as the Fronton Massacre. After 4 years, Accusations are the only thing that they have. Fujimori has not being condem of any of those.

Please state your point of view here if you have any question. Messhermit 04:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But User Viajero simply catalogate them as irrelevants and reverted to his previous work. Isn't the talk page a page were the main topics can be disscused? Unfortunately for me, Viajero didn't show up for a long time and continued to revert the webpage. This is the only answer that I recieve:

Sorry, I am not interested in debating Peruvian partisan politics in this forum. The facts about Fujimori are well known and documented, and that is what the bulk of this article should contain, as well as a small amount of space for presenting various interpretations of those facts. Politicians are politicians; most of them are corrupt or incompetent, albeit in Peru or any other country. If Peru had a extradition treaty with Japan, Fujimori would now be behind bars, where he belongs, sharing the view of the Callao harbor with Guzmán and Montesinos, and answering for his crimes like the two of them. And if he ever returns to Peru, he will be arrested, no? As for the privatizations, it was well-documented, in the Peruvian media, that of the some seven billion dollars raised by privatizations during the Fujimori era, only one billion ended up in the Peruvian treasury; the rest got spent on election campaigns, bribes, etc. Moreover, many of those state-owned enterprises, like the Cerro de Pasco mines, which I have visited, were sold far below market value to Fujimori's cronies, who have made a forture exploiting them. In a country as poor as Peru, that really is a crime. -- Viajero 21:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The remarked lines are a totally disregard toward my opinions, wich I stated them with current information and an effort to achieve a NPOV showing both sides. They are also POV, wich can be interpretated as Hate to the political person in question. How independent or NPOV can be this paragraph with those kinds of quotes? Since when Viajero has become Judge and Jury to decide who belons to jail snd who should not?.

Regarding about HappyApple and AAAAA, the fact that they don't share Viajero's POV appears to be enought motive to prevent them to express its oppinions on the talk page. If they have ever modify the Page, They have done it to prevent Viajero from imposing his own POV. AAAAA is involved in a case appart with the same user (viajero) regarding another Peruvian topic.

One of the most offensives parts on this article is his intention to portrait Alberto Fujimori as a murder. Investigations have not finished on Peru regarding the culpability of the former president, and I don't believe that using Viajero Arguments we, in Wikipedia, are giving a NPOV of the Issue.

Although I realize that Fujimori cannot be held responsible for all the actions of Montesinos, in this particular case, as you may recall, Fujimori took explict credit for the outcome, posing for the press amidst the bodies of the dead rebels. DO you remember those photos? Here is one: http://www.aprodeh.org.pe/mrta/web00.htm

This is a direct attack agains my integrity, since it is clearly trying to impose this POV on my person. Those Pictures are part of the truth, but I stated that the controversy of the Peruvian Embassy should and those photos should be stated on another page.

Following the rest of the article will lead you to another section that clearly shows my efforts to reach a compromise on the page. Viajero used some controvertial and mostly POV based Articles to support his statements, and Iresponded used Articles that most of the time limited to state truth that is undeniable for any side in the political spectrum here in Peru.

The problem with Viajero Modifications is that are poorly informed or badly supported. that is what concern me. Messhermit 16:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That was most of the time what I said during the dispute. I agree on several points, but most of the time they were disregard by Viajero, and Later Jmabel. Regarding User:Jmabel At the beginning I though that he would have participate as a third party person, as a Judge. But I Investigate that Viajero and Jmabel are ussualy distortioning several Facts about Peruvian History and also have a common interest in blocking anything that AAAA was willing to collaborte..

About my previous statements, that are cited above by User:Viajero, I agree that can be controvertial. But I must also said that Viajero in any moment was willing to reach a compromise, and most of his attitude were stated in order to force me to reach that state. I'm a peruvian, And I find sad and in some cases offensive some arguments presented by someone who has not lived the reallity of my country and have a narrow POV about my country History. Peru is made by Peruvians. Effords to siminish the impact that the terrorist acts of Shinning Path or MRTA are simply annoyings, and information that are collected from highly biased Web pages (such as the one of Lori Berenson, an American-Born Terrorist) cannot be used in orther to present a Pseudo-NPOV article.

As an Example of a POV:

There are very, very few hard and fast rules in Wikipedia. There are, however, a number of useful guidelines for handling controversial topics, such as terrorism (see Wikipedia:Words to avoid). A substantial number of editors, such as Joe and me, prefer to avoid labelling people "terrorist" for reasons explained on that page and discussed at great length on many Talk pages; namely, that it is not a objective, scientific term and it depends largely on your point of view. My preference is to avoid using it where possible and use the worda "rebel" and "militant", and to speak instead of "terrorist acts", which is less ambiguous.How about simply presenting the facts and letting readers be the judge of whether people are "terrorists"? It is a form of intellectual laziness to simply moralize about these phenomena; it is far more useful to try to understand them. It would, IMO, behoove you to spend less time ranting about SL and MRTA and more time understanding why they came into being. Indeed, SL and MRTA have been erradicated, but the societal problems that led to their creation have not been addressed, and in fact today Peru is demonstrably worse off in many ways than it was ago in the 1970a. So, theoretically at least, it is possible that violent revolution returns to Peru some day. This time you managed to destroy it. Next time, it might destroy you. As for the use of term "terrorist" in Middle East articles, this is and has been an extremely controversial matter for as long as Wikipedia has existed. -- Viajero 14:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, User:Viajero is showing a double standar to label the Terrorist Organization "Sendero Luminoso" and "MRTA". Those organization have been labeled (by most of the civilized governments) of the World as "Terrorists", and a overwhelming mayority of the Peruvian Population also uses that term. The fact that My Preference is already stated on the previous article is not a clearly sign of POV?, regarding the how worst can be my country, It also show how Viajero only relies on Highly Biased information about Peru, since not even here such comparations have been made. And the mos shocking off all, the las quote, Next Time, it Might Destroy you... How I'm suppose to interpretate that? As a treath? as a Warning? as a Joke? Since this is the arbitration, I would retract my precious statedment, as long as you can gave a NPOV interpretation of what he mean by that.

Regarding the Constitutionality of the Thirt term, you can see that both sides, Viajero and I, stated important documents that proves the version of the other. there is no disccussion about that.

regarding this statement that is being useing above against my person:

(Deleted due to irrelevant sources of information and becouse it increase the size of the talk page withouth apporting any reasonable information, just POV "periodistic" articles) Messhermit 16:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the NYT is Biased or any other Newspapers. If you look at most of the articles, the articles are not investigation, but rather periodistic "opinions". And if the Reporter is against the former president, it will obiously try to demonize him. I remove them becouse this didn't support anything but Viajero's own POV and it also increase unnesesary the size of the page, wich is extremely large.

To the person that will give the arbitration, I leave all my defense in this article and accuse User:Viajero and User:Jmabel of imposing his own Personal POV on the Fujimori Aricle and clearly distortioned most of the articles related to the Civil War in Peru during the 80's. I already request several other users to help me to reach a compromise in the page, and I already stated a issue to lock down the page to protected from anybody who tryes to vandalice it. But it seems that The previously accused Users are not willing to see any other article other that the one stating it's own point of view.

As a member of Wikipedia on spanish (alaso as Messhermit) , I was able to settle most of this disscussiong on the talk page with people of different POV and Political paries. It was a great experience, and when I see the article in english, I started with same ideal, Unfortunately, It didn't happened.

I'm not afraid to be banned for a certain amount of time, becouse the defense of my history is important, but i will go to ask for a salomonic solution for this problem and ask that the 3 of us, Viajero, Jmabel and me to be unable to modify the Alberto Fujimori Article or other Peruvian related topics. Messhermit 20:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have notified Viajero of this request. Messhermit

About the Results

Thanks for your advice. But Viajer manage to send my this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Messhermit

Those your rule affect this? I don't understand that becouse he also issue an arbitration against me -Messhermit

The above is a request for comment. It will allow the community as a whole to comment on the dispute. You may well find that people are able to come up with practical ways of solving the dispute without the need for arbitration. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 11:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

• Reject. Arbitration is a last resort - please pursue other avenues of dispute resolution first. Ambi 04:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Reject see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Reject; throwing arbitration cases at each other suggests you're both trying to be somewhat reasonable here, which suggests mediaton or something similar will work here. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:39, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)
• Reject ➥the Epopt 15:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Reject Fred Bauder 16:25, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC) The claim as stated focuses on the content of the article rather than on Viajero's behavior. I think there may be a problem with the way both of you are acting, but this whole thing needs to be expressed in terms of behavior, not in terms of opinions regarding Peruvian politics. Please consult Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please feel free to made a new request which is expressed in terms of Wikipedia policy.
• Reject - David Gerard 19:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

172

172 was the subject of a previous arbitration, which was closed on January 25, 2005.

Aggressive reverts

In the previous case, 172 was placed on a "one month parole to (a) revert only once per 24 hour period (b) give edit summaries when reverting any established user". I have found evidence that during the one month period, he has broken this parole requirement multiple times, and so is still be subject to that parole requirement by extension.

He has shown in the one month since this case closed, that he is still unable to avoid revert wars. He has also failed to consistently leave meaningful edit summaries (typically only section header or rollback "default" summaries).

• History of Russia
• 1992 L.A. Riots
• Communism

Misuse of admin functions

• Repeated use of the admin-only "rollback" (anti-vandalism) function in furtherence of edit disputes.
• Repeatedly unblocking himself after being blocked for a 3RR violation (an action expressly disallowed under the Wikipedia:Blocking policy, even if he believes it was in error).
• Unblocking of User:Gzornenplatz, against consensus gained prior to the final ArbCom confirmation of this person as being User:Wik.
• Blocking/unblocking war over User:195.70.48.242
• Deletion of pages out of process (Guerilla, Beaurocrat, Wikipedia:Historical disputes between users, Image:Frau.jpg).

Notice of this request has been given. -- Netoholic @ 17:42, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

So I should be punished for bringing history of Russia up to featured article status, right? Figures. All of these complaints are bogus, vindictive, and petty. 1) The disputes on history of Russia, the LA riots, and Communism have already been resolved, and involved no violations of the 3RR. 2) I was unblocking Gz when there was some ambiguity as to whether or not he was hard-banned. Since the most recent arbitration ruling, there has been no ambiguity, and I have not attempted to unblock Gz since that point. 3) The dispute over 195.70.48.242 was a two-way conflict between Fred Bauder and me that was resolved (after I gave up and let Fred win). 4) This is the first time anyone has complained about the deletion of a page like "beaurocrat." Netoholic is just hunting for resolved disputes in order to get rid of me. 172 17:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the issue is the unblocking of the account (resulting from a misleading bad-faith report by Silverback--see comments by Dab on all the related pages-- not a 3RR violation), I will stop doing it. I said all that I'd needed to say on Talk:History of Russia already. I don't care about whether or not I'll be able to edit today and tomorrow; I frankly don't care at this point. Wikipedia is increasingly a social club with no regard for professional expertise, and I'm rapidly losing faith in this project. 172 19:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, this is coming out of nowhere-- I did not break the "parole" and ran into no one accusing me of doing so last month-- and Netoholic did not bother to go through prior steps in the dispute resolution process (e.g., waiting for consensus to develop on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, RfC). 172 22:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it was because few were aware of your parole conditions, combined with the fact that a) your edit summaries lack details and often fail to explicitely note when you're reverting and b) that you often follow-up your reverts quickly with a minor edit. I draw attention to these two edits to Communism - at 23:39, 2005 Feb 19 you fully revert to the 21:59, 2005 Feb 19 version and then at 21:42, 2005 Feb 20 you rollback. Off-hand, that is one example of you breaking the parole. From that edit, your parole was reset for one more month, which means your recent 3RR violation falls within it and resets the parole yet again. The point is that you don't seem to have followed through on the promises you made in the last Arbitration, and have compounded that by misusing your admin functions. -- Netoholic @ 23:32, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

User:172 stepped in to page-protect Global warming, citing "edit war" on the page protection log. (More accurately, User:Stirling Newberry seeking to unilaterally re-impose an earlier edit of his own, without any discussion at all; other editors had been having such discussions in the meantime.) However:

• No explicit request for page protection was made;
• User:172 protected the page less than five minutes after a Stirling Newberry revert;
• No 'protected' tag was added to the page;
• The page wasn't added to the list of protected pages.

And: all of the above has happened twice now, most recently while still himself apparently blocked. Regardless of 172's blocked status, this smacks of collusion with a party to a dispute, disregard for all procedure, and over-ready use of page-protection. There's further discussion of this at this page, as well as on the talk page of the article concerned. Alai 05:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I too believe that 172 has probably abused his admin powers (and has ceratinly caused a great deal of unnecessary trouble) by his protects to the global warming page (William M. Connolley 12:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)).

Rule 5 of Arbitration policy: jurisdiction says The Arbitrators will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus. I wish to add my voice to those urging the arbitrators to take on this case. I am satisfied that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to bring into question the extent to which the community can trust 172 to exercise his administrator powers in the interests of Wikipedia. With all due respect to arbitrator Ambi, 172 does not need his administrator powers to produce featured articles. Those powers are not prizes offered to good editors, as a reward for good editing, but as a sign that we trust the editor to perform day-to-day janitorial work without disrupting Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:08, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I don't know if this makes any difference, but 172 declares on his page that he has left wiki.

It shouldn't make any difference. This diff from his page [6] in a passage he deleted indicates some thoughts he had about returning to assist in protecting his pages. Note the list of those he will miss. He has been willing to abuse his admin privileges for Stirling Newberry more than once in the past. It should be assumed that if he retains sysop privileges he may be tempted to do so in the future. I don't mind him staying on as a user with proper sanctions. But the arbitration committee should not be lulled into thinking this question is moot because he claims he "quit", and therefore leave his sysadmin privileges intact. His administrator privileges should be revoked for the above violations, and since his account is possibly going to be inactive, the privleges should be removed anyway as a precaution. Given his past behavior, the temptation to abuse the powers will be even greater when he no longer has a stake, since he isn't active anymore.--Silverback 23:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/1/2/0)

• Recuse. I note that 172 has left and therefore there is no point in opening this case at the moment. I recommend acceptance conditional on the return of 172 - that is, create a case that will remain closed until, and if, 172 returns. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:52, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
• Recuse Fred Bauder 17:55, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. There are some minor issues, but I can't see anything overly serious, particularly considering that 172 has had two massive articles (relating to these topics, too) featured in this period, which suggests to me that he is making an effort to reform. Ambi 04:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept, 172 has been accused of abusing admin powers. I'm pretty certain that the wikicommunity views abuse of admin powers as a serious matter. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 15:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept sannse (talk) 18:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis (Jeremy David Hanson)

This user has shown a pattern of neglect and abuse of Wikipedia policy which has continued despite repeated warnings from fellow editors. Alleged inappropriate behaviour includes:

• posting machine-translated articles (e.g., de:Spira)
• posting duplicate articles instead of contributing to existing ones (e.g., Rasputin, Grigory Yefimovich, Genetic Engineering Career)
• deleting perfectly good information from articles (e.g., Image:Gravity not fictitious.png)
• listing perfectly good articles for speedy deletion without justification (e.g., U.S. gubernatorial elections, 2006)
• engaging in personal attacks on users (e.g., [7], [8])
• damaging templates and image tags (e.g., [9])
• creating a template for the express purpose of attacking other users (Template:Troll, [10])
• posting homework assignments as articles (e.g., [11], [12])
• recreating VfD-deleted pages under another title (e.g., [13], [14])
• adding pointless or libelous comments to Talk pages (e.g., [15])
• consistently failing to leave meaningful edit summaries which, in light of his tendency to make inappropriate edits, means fellow editors keeping an eye on him must check each of his edits individually
• uploading images without including copyright information; most of these are rather obvious violations of fair use (User:JarlaxleArtemis/Picture List).
• uploading images with incorrect copyright information; he seems to have little or no understanding of the terms "fair use", "copyright", "public domain", and "GFDL", and moreover refuses to educate himself on this matter when others point out his mistakes (e.g., [16], [17], [18], User talk:JarlaxleArtemis#Celebrity images)
• uploading images with gratuitous nudity – note that I am not saying that there is anything wrong with nudity per se on Wikipedia, but in these cases it seems to have little or nothing to do with the articles he is modifying (User:JarlaxleArtemis/Picture List)

The user has been warned about these behaviours on User talk:JarlaxleArtemis, but for the most part he has either neglected to respond or responds with personal attacks. In some cases he has apparently stopped the offending behaviour, but in others (especially the last four points) he continues.

As per the policy that "vandalism and flagrant violations of Wikipedia policies and behavior guidelines by repeat offenders may be handled using expedited procedures" from Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, I believe this matter warrants going straight to arbitration. This user is creating far too much work for his fellow editors. —Psychonaut 10:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Notice to respondent)

I would like to second Psychonaut's concerns. JarlaxleArtemis has a lamentable history of poor conduct, despite repeated constructive comments from other users on his talk page (although, to be fair, he has also made some decent edits). Of particular concern to me are his negative comments to new users (particularly B-Ryan who he seems to have scared off forever); his repeated, egregious and wilful violations of image copyright and image tag policies; and his (almost) complete failure to enter into dialogue or even respond to constructive criticism. Also, for what it's worth, he is (by his own testimony [19]) a 10th grade student, hence he possibly lacks a little maturity in these matters. -- FP 13:21, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I concur. JarlaxleArtemis has been creating a lot of work for a lot of editors. Although I hate to jump to this kind of conclusion, as I know we have a lot of good young contributors, his refusal to listen to other users' concerns leads me to believe he lacks maturity to handle with appropriate seriousness anything less severe than arbitration. However, if we make it clear to him that his behavior is unacceptable, and why it is unacceptable, then perhaps he will mature as a contributor. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 20:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

1. Accept. Judging by the behaviour cited other means of dispute resolution are not likely to be adequate. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 18:01, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
2. Tentatively accept. Ambi 04:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4. Accept ➥the Epopt 15:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Banned user request

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate way to submit this request. If not, please advise me of the proper channels.

JillandJack was recently determined to be most likely the same person as DW and other previously banned reincarnations. Less than 24 hours later, a new user with very few prior edits, Oirvine, edited Quebec sovereignty movement to reinsert many of J&J's disputed contributions. This went right down to the level of identical spelling errors, and yet it wasn't a simple cut-and-paste from the page history, because within a single edit, some portions of the article that weren't reverted came between parts that were. On the balance of evidence, I blocked Oirvine as well, but now I've received an e-mail from them stating that they believe they were blocked in error. I know that DW's past behaviour includes the creation of multiple identities, but I'm also willing to concede that I may have reacted in error to purely circumstantial evidence.

Can I request that the developers review User:Oirvine's IP and login against DW's past sockpuppets and advise me if my block was in order? I'm prepared to unblock the user and apologize if in fact I banned them wrongly. Thanks. Bearcat 03:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/5)

• Other than listing a request on /Developer help needed, there's not much else we can do right now. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:26, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
• Concur with Grunt. Neutrality^talk 16:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• If someone is imitating a banned user down to the bad edits and spelling errors, I suspect a block as a returned sockpuppet is very likely to stick. WP:AN/I is good for sanity checking on these matters - David Gerard 18:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with David Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• What David said ➥the Epopt 15:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

• /Robert Blair - Accepted with four votes on 27 February 2005. Evidence to /Robert Blair/Evidence, please.
• /Anthony DiPierro 2 -

  Request by Snowspinner: Accepted with four votes and 5 recusals on 26 February 2005.

  Request by Raul654: Accepted and merged with five votes on 2 March 2005. Evidence to /Anthony DiPierro 2/Evidence, please.

• /JonGwynne - Accepted with five votes and one rejection on 21 February 2005. Evidence to /JonGwynne/Evidence, please.
• /PSYCH - Accepted with four votes and one rejection on 19 February 2005. Evidence to /PSYCH/Evidence, please.
• /Xed - Accepted with five votes and two recusals on 17 February 2005. Evidence to /Xed/Evidence, please.
• /RK 2 - Accepted with five votes and one recusal on 16 February 2005. Evidence to /RK 2/Evidence, please.
• /CheeseDreams 2 - Accepted with four votes on 12 February 2005. Evidence to /CheeseDreams 2/Evidence, please.

Please also see Template:ArbComCases.

Archives

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