Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Request name Motions Initiated Votes Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 0/0/0 [edit] Open cases Currently, no arbitration cases are open. [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Historical elections 13 Sep 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024 Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion none 17 August 2024 Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024 Arbitrator motions 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
• Past case precedents
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Standing orders
• Arbitration template
• Contact the Arbitration Committee

Please place comments on the talk page, not here.

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.

Paul Beardsell

Involved parties

User:tkorrovi Paul Beardsell Personal attacks

Statement by User:tkorrovi

Artificial Consciousness article was created by me in July, 2003. There were no problems until March, 2004, and several people edited the article. From March, 2004, Paul Beardsell started to edit it, and started frequent personal attacks against me, which have continued now more than a year. I acted in a civil way and never responded them with offenses, apologized when there were misunderstandings, but the attacks, and also lies with which he, and some others, which I cannot say how many of these were sock puppets, tried to give a bad impression of me to others, didn't stop.

In December, 2004, the mediation started by Cimon Avaro, a member of the Mediation Committee [1], but the mediation failed, Paul Beardsell reacted with more personal attacks on mediation page [2], in addition to personal attacks by others on Simon Avaro talk page.

The article's talk page is also unreasonably long because Paul Beardell et al forced talk about trivial issues, and often nonsese, seemingly trying to make everything concerning the article a nonsense, or hard to follow. He also tried to delete almost all the content of the article several times without discussion, and made several attempts to create a parallel article like [[Artificial consciousness according to Tkorrovi]] [3] without my consent and with mostly not my text. He often reverts my changes without discussion or even explanation. There was also one NPOV label violation, putting label back without explaining, while all the requirements for removing the label required by the Wikipedia rules, were fulfilled [4]. Considering all that I, and probably some others, were almost unable to edit the article in last months. He also added to article a nonsense, not related to the subject, like a text about disabled writer Christopher Nolan.

Personal attacks by Paul Beardsell (same as User:Psb777) against me on the article's talk page only (mostly negative personal comments):
[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
Paul Beardsell was informed of this arbitration request at [20]. Tkorrovi 13:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Requests for Clarification

If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here.

User:Robert Blair

The ArbCom recently decided upon the case of Robert Blair.

Since that time, there has been a significant number of edits by anonymous users on pages that Blair regularly edited. Many of these edits resemble Blair's editing style, though I have not yet amassed firm evidence for ban evasion.

Please would the AC a) advise on what actions should be taken if ban evasion is suspected, and b) make any changes or additions to the final decision, as they see fit? Jakew 14:13, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Comments by Arbitrators

• If a ban is evaded through use of a sockpuppet, the appropriate action is to indefinitely block the sockpuppet account and notify the arbcom such that the ban timer is reset. If such actions continue for an extended period of time, file a request with us. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:15, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
• Concur with Grunt. Could we get a sockpuppet check from David? Ambi 23:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably not - I can only check back a week. Would need dev assistance. In the meantime, shoot the sock - David Gerard 21:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, admins should block socks as soon as they are sure about them. Non admins should post any evidence they have (such as editing styles) on WP:AN/I so that an admin can take the necessary action. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Shoot the socks on sight, sanity-check with WP:AN/I. Robert Blair's editing style is, uh, pretty distinctive - David Gerard 10:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Iasson and User:Faethon

(CC to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iasson)

There is currently an injunction in place against User:Iasson forbidding him from editing any deletion-related article.

Does this injunction also apply to User:Faethon and his sockpuppets? Faethon is still claiming to be a separate entity from Iasson. User:Aeropus II of Macedon (A Faethon sockpuppet) made an anonymous vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Tetragrammaton in the Bible [21], and is apparently using, as his defense, the fact that he is not User:Iasson to get around the injunction. history

For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. Although I contend that Faethon et al display similar behaviour to Iasson, I would like to ask for arbitrator clarification to see if the injunction also applies to the Faethon accounts, and to the Acestorides & the List of Greeks accounts. --Deathphoenix 20:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This may be a moot point now because User:Aeropus II of Macedon is blocked for being a public account. --Deathphoenix 23:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

• I see it's currently in play on WP:AN/I. If it's not seriously disputed, common sense (the identical behaviour, the public account status) would be enough for shooting on sight to be reasonable action in good faith IMO - David Gerard 17:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

• /Rex071404 3 - Accepted with five votes and two recusals on 27 March 2005. Evidence to /Rex071404 3/Evidence, please.
• /GRider - Accepted with five votes on 26 March 2005. Evidence to /GRider/Evidence, please.
• /John Gohde v. Snowspinner - Accepted with five votes and two recusals on 26 March 2005. Evidence to /John Gohde v. Snowspinner/Evidence, please.
• /RJII - Accepted with six votes and two rejections on 23 March 2005. Evidence to /RJII/Evidence, please.
• /William M. Connolley - Accepted with four votes and four rejections on 22 March 2005. Evidence to /William M. Connolley/Evidence, please.
• /Everyking 2 - Accepted with four votes and one recusal on 20 March 2005. Evidence to /Everyking 2/Evidence, please.
• /Iasson - Accepted with six votes on 20 March 2005. Evidence to /Iasson/Evidence, please.
• /Netoholic 2 - Accepted with four votes and three recusals on 20 March 2005. Evidence to /Netoholic 2/Evidence, please.
• /WHEELER - Accepted with six votes on 9 March 2005. Evidence to /WHEELER/Evidence, please.
• /172 2 - Accepted with four votes, one rejection and four recusals on 6 March 2005. Evidence to /172 2/Evidence, please.
• /Baku Ibne et. al. - Accepted with four votes on 4 March 2005. Evidence to /Baku Ibne et. al./Evidence, please.
• /RK 2 - Accepted with five votes and one recusal on 16 February 2005. Evidence to /RK 2/Evidence, please.

Please also see Template:ArbComCases.

Archives

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