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.

The Return of Noah Peters

I have numerous complaints about Apollomelos. He is shrill and intolerant of anyone who disagrees with him. He also has no problem slandering people. For example, he has written that I am a member of the Ku Klux Klan and that I am a bigot. He also has deliberately fabricated charges of vandalism against me. These are all grounds for libel charges. Apollomelos3 18:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)Apollomelos3

And whose sockpuppet you are Apollomelos3, or 128.143.77.181? Noah Peters again? Since this complaint was your fourth edit, I have hard time finding any evidence of someone attacking "you", whoever you are. Wait, give me a reason for NOT blocking you for impersonating Apollomelos first. jni 18:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've already blocked him, for impersonating Apollomelos. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not "impersonating" apollomelos, you dolts. Look up "impersonate" in the dictionary. How am I impersonating apollomelos when I'm writing a complaint about him? You guys are not the brightest. (199.111.225.59 22:58, 3 Mar 2005)

Impersonating is the wrong word, but you can't just register an account that has a name almost exactly like the name of someone you're complaining about and expect to get away with it. silsor 23:07, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Look, Apollomelos has made several simply false allegations against me, to the point of attributing things I didn't write to me, to the point of outright false accusations against me personally, from being called a homophobe to being called a bigot to being called a Ku Klux Klan member. Apollomelos also claimed I added things I did not to the gays in the holocaust page. Look, I admit to doing 2 things that are wrong: I committed the terrible sin of adding the "gay" template to United States. I also deleted content on fvw's userpage several times in retaliation for him blocking me. That is it in terms of my "vandalism." I NEVER vandalized the Abraham Lincoln page as Cody alleges. I want to clear my name against all of these false allegations. And my usernames have been deleted because I didn't want to be subject to false attacks anymore, so I am posting "anonymously" (though all of these admins will know who this is). (199.111.225.59 23:18, 3 Mar 2005)

Well, you're not going to get anywhere going about it this way. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could you please provide links that show where Apollomelos made false accusations against you, and especially for the behaviour listed in your first post on this page? Also, there's no need to post "anonymously" since logged in users actually have greater anonymity (not having their IP address revealed). silsor 00:26, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I defended you in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:Noah Peters when you wanted your original account name wiped because you had said some things about homosexuality that you didn't want associated with that name. I did so on the understanding that you were intending to leave Wikipedia and that you regretted your disruptive editing. It now becomes clear that you are continuing your disruptive pattern, and I withdraw any support from you.-gadfium 23:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This user Noah Peters is causing continuing troubles on the Wiki. I originally sought an arbcom ruling against him through arbitration but he instead agreed to arbitrator Raul to be permanently blocked rather than face arbitration. His behavior is mere vandalism as evident in the attacks of the past few days against multiple users who voiced concern over his actions prior to his ban agreement which he has illustrated means nothing. Apollomelos 03:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And please note the past incidents in which Noah Peters has lied. He defends himself on the basis that I made false accusations linking him to ip addresses and other usernames. On more than one occasion he has later admitted his link to sock puppets and ip addresses after previously denying them. He cannot be trusted as evident in his violation of his own agreement with Raul and past deplorable behavior. Apollomelos 03:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here is just one incident in long line of vandalism and homophobic crude practices committed by user Noah Peters on the Wiki. [1]

If I sleep for years with my dog, does that mean I'm a beastophile?, his own remark aimed at ridiculing homosexuality. His behavior lacks any sense of credibility or civility. And I can cite numerous other examples including much more vulgar and obscene attacks. Also note that I never criticized him has a person, only his actions. Apollomelos 03:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here are some examples of Noah Peter ip addresses and sock puppets.

• Noah Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 128.143.77.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Apollomelos2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Apollomelos3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 4640orFight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5440orFight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 199.111.225.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 199.111.225.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 199.111.227.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 199.111.226.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 199.111.225.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I can name more if needed but somehow I doubt arbitration or blocking is going to fix this problem. I suppose it is just something we have to deal with while working on the Wiki. Apollomelos 03:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some recent remarks by Noah Peters about Fvw, Boothy443, Knowledge Seeker, and myself:

• [2] I'm glad to see that you're gone. You always enjoyed being aggressive on wikipedia, engaging in long feuds, provoking other members, and making false accusations when it suited your purposes. You also enjoyed punishing those who crossed your path. You used wikipedia not to contribute to articles, which you rarely did, but as an outlet for your anger. Wikipedia is better for your absence!

• [3] Learn how to speak English please: "an anon vandal." Your last response was incoherent.

• [4] No, a consensus has not developed, and yes, the strongest will win this revert war. It is the law of the street, the law of force, the law of survival of the fittest. There will be a "winner" and a "loser," because all we are doing is engaging in a power struggle.

• [5] You know you are stupid when: You are so unaccepting of criticism that you cannot tolerate a parody user page set up by Apollomelos3 and seek to ban that user, a request which is invariably granted by sympathetic wikipedia administrators who hate criticism as much as anyone else.

Apollomelos 05:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we can do I suspect that this is a case for arbcomGeni 05:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this an applicable arbitration case? Can an arbcom ruling do anything more than the already present agreement of a permanent ban to arbitrator Raul during my last attempted arbitration case against this user? Apollomelos 06:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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”) ([6], repeated in my talkpage [7]). On another occasion he also wrote something like “…your [i.e. mine] apparent unsavory preoccupation with homosexuality” ([8]).

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, [9], same as [10] (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)

I can confirm that Tabib is being harassed by one or more users. After blocking Osmanoglou for repeatedly vandalizing several user pages, I've received several childish e-mails from him calling me gay, etc. Not sure whether anything can be done about this from a technical standpoint, since this vandal appears to have dialup accounts with T-Online, NetZero, and other dynamic IP providers. But it should be looked into. Rhobite 23:22, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

All user Tabib seems to be interested in, is spreading personal insults and slandering fellow editors. The pattern of his actions is repetitive:

1. He starts editing articles with the sole purpose of obtruding his very personal "Turkish" perspective on every subject.

2. As soon as he meets intellectual resistance, he starts to polemize and seek "mediation" "arbitration" and other means of pressure on the other editor.

3. He starts whole epics on the objectors' supposed evil, for which he avails himself to a lot(!) of space. This, in addition, on the respective articles' Talk pages, turning them into a mess. Instead of keeping this to himself and the respective fellow editor, he seems to try and drag everybody chancing on those pages into the dirty (filthy?) laundry he is publicly washing.

4. His abnormal conduct evokes revulsion with the innocent readers consulting Wikipedia. For weeks at end the articles he has started to meddle with carry a "DISPUTE" template, not exactly helpful, e.g. for students trying to derive data for their reports (as happened before on "SAFAVIDS" Talk page).

5. The lack of public respect for his despicable conduct will leave a mark on Wikipedia in general: It draws the carpet from underneath serious editors and their work (suffering as a whole from his smear campaigns) as well as the readers, seeking reliable information and doubting Wikipedia's dependability, due to the prevailing confusion.

It is high time for any responsible ARBCOM to rid us all from a psychopath running amok on this wonderful site!!!!! He should be a man and call it quits, instead of forcing us to watch this undignified romping and stomping of his, indefinitely.--Dubistdas Letztearschloch 11:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

  I'll also note that I don't view this case as unprecedented, as Tabib says above. See e.g. /Rienzo for similar circumstances of one user using an "army" of sockpuppets to harass another user. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:44, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

• Accept. Ambi 09:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 17:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept - David Gerard 18:05, 3 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 [11] 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)

I mostly agree with Silverback. I must add that I find Grunt's "conditional acceptance" concept troublesome. It just allows the defendant to pick the best (for him) time for his own arbitration; presumably first nurturing some supporting sockpuppets or just waiting for people to forgot or for any opportunity to "game the system". Announcing to "quit" is a tactic often used by trolls. Especially admin abuse complaints should be handled immediately, the risk of having a potentially rogue sysop jumping in to cause trouble at some later time, when it makes the most disruption, is just too high. I'm speaking of the general case here, not implying that 172 is a troll or would resort to such tactics, although I'm not very confident in his ability to continue as a Wikipedia administrator given his disregard of various policies. jni 12:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely with my fellow primate. If the arbcomm wishes to defer any formal finding of fact until 172 returns, that's one thing. But there really must be some effective procedure to deal with his sysop bit until such time, given at least the theoretical possibility that his 'return' happen in the form of blocking or unblocking someone on a partial basis, applying page-protection without regard to procedure, etc. Alai 00:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[Re. Neutrality's vote of "Abstain"]

I'd prefer if you'd recuse, based on this personal attack. -- Netoholic @ 03:12, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Request denied. You have no particular connection with this case, except bringing it. I'd only recuse if you were the respondent rather than the petitioner. Neutrality^talk 04:04, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hubris.--Silverback 06:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If neutrality refuses to recuse, I think his abilities as an Arbitrator need to be brought into question. A more clear example of bias towards a case would be difficulty to come by. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Given that Neutrality has called Netoholic an idiot, whist posting a message in favour of 172, I can't see how he can be considered impartial in this case. I presume that the technical distinction between "abstain" and "recuse" is that abstain would allow him to vote if it was accepted. Judging from the message on 172's talk page, Neutrality isn't, in this case. I also agree with Jni, above (William M. Connolley 13:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)).

I think Neutrality meant "abstain" to mean "I've seen the case, but I've not made up my mind right now whether to recuse or vote to accept or reject, but I'd like people to be aware that I am considering it and would appreciate input therefrom". Input that, indeed, he has now received. James F. (talk) 15:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/1/4/0)

• 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)

  Enhanced opinion: accept and judge now, with any penalties to commence upon his return (if he has indeed left) ➥the Epopt 18:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Accept. sannse (talk) 18:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse. Neutrality^talk 01:50, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept, though we may then put it on hold until 172 returns - David Gerard 18:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse. Delirium 18:12, Mar 3, 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 (0/1/0/4)

• 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) Reject; lack of a developer response and DG's argument below suggests we, the Arbcom, have absolutely no need to add new input to the matter. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:57, 2005 Mar 3 (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)
• Agree with David. →Raul654 17:06, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

• /JarlaxleArtemis - JarlaxleArtemis with four votes on 3 March 2005. Evidence to /JarlaxleArtemis/Evidence, please.
• /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.

Please also see Template:ArbComCases.

Archives

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