Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 01:43, 26 November 2006 (→‎LaRouche again: thank you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting 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 (ArbCom).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/4/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also



How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

  • Click the "[edit]" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Appeal of Prof02

Initiated by Fred Bauder at the request of Prof02 at 14:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Bishonen and Charles Matthews were notified. Fred Bauder 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Prof02 has been blocked and his user pages protected. Fred Bauder

Statement by Prof02

I would like to request arbitration of the case involving the work-in-progress posted on my user subpage, to wit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prof02/Erich_Heller

This was "split", and one of the split parts was moved from the above-referenced user subpage to Wikipedia main article space by User:Bishonen, User:Charles Matthews, et al., on September 13, 2006, without my knowledge or consent. The action violates established Wikipedia guidelines, such as, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space I wish to request a re-merger of the split article.

Furthermore, while preparing a dossier on the matter at User_talk:Prof02/archive#Conflict_in_need_of_resolution.2Frequest_for_comment, I was blocked from editing Wikipedia, while one of the blocking administrators (User:Bishonen) posted defamatory statements on my talk page (User_talk:Prof02/archive#Block_warning).

I wish to request unblocking and action against the accused.

Statement of Charles Matthews

I played no part at all in the manoeuvres described. At most I expressed an opinion on my Talk page that the userfied page had been there quite long enough. Charles Matthews 19:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

Prof02 often refers to himself on his talkpage in the third person as "the plaintive" [sic]. I ask Fred not to buy into such quasi-legal talk to the extent of referring to me as a "defendant". I don't see myself in that role. I have no intention of defending myself. The ArbCom will have to make do with the following illustrative links from me. For the events referred to, please see:

I also urge arbitrators to read Prof02's usertalk page (the version before it was blanked as an attack page by User:KillerChihuahua), the userfied Erich Heller talkpage and the mainspace Erich Heller talkpage. Most—almost all—of the input on those pages comes from Prof02 himself, and I believe his own words throw more light on his complaint than anything I could say. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by uninvolved party Giano

I am surprised to see Bishonen here being described as "The accused" and "the defendant". I do not intend to dig up edits proving that prof02 is an eccentric in the grand manner, and Bishonen's efforts to solve the problem were correct and in good faith, as that is obvious to most. What concerns me is the attitude and statement of Charles Matthews, a member of the arbcom, who was fully aware of how Bishonen was attempting to resolve a difficult situation. Not only was he fully aware - it was his express wish that she do so, as he wanted too avoid the flak himself [1]. Charles Matthews has known of this situation since September, as a member of the arbcom if he felt an injustice was being carried out, it was his duty to speak up about it. He has not. I do wonder how it is that a member of the arbcom can invite an admin to resolve a problem - sit back silently while they do so, and then when the problem arrives here announce "I played no part at all in the manoeuvres described".

After all the talk of "the accused" and "the defendant" at the end of the day there is no crime committed here by an admin unless dishonourable and disappointing behaviour by a member of the arbcom is a crime. The case should not be accepted because there is no case, but I do hope Charles Matthews is feeling a little shame-faced. Giano 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. I backed off early in proceedings, having had someone say I was handling it badly. I was asking for policy to be enforced, is all. But I am not one to plough on in the face of that kind of comment. How on earth do you get to as a member of the arbcom if he felt an injustice was being carried out, it was his duty to speak up about it? What injustice? User:Bishonen is an experienced and widely respected admin, who could well handle this matter. As an Arbitrator I have to be very economical in making public comments about matters likely to come to dispute resolution. I have throughout tried only to explain policy here to User:Prof02, as my proper role. The fact that Bishonen and I have had little impact, working at it different ways, really speaks to the fact that the 'issue' (i.e. the fact that WP:OWN is not negotiable) is intractable. Charles Matthews 18:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Uninvolved User:Newyorkbrad

The use of the word "defendants" was in the template for new cases and has been changed after I pointed this out (see talk). On the merits of the case, I recommend speedy rejection. This is an unfortunate situation, because Prof02 may have good subject-matter knowledge to add to the encyclopedia, but he appears to have difficulty with the concept of collaborative editing and has now become focused almost exclusively on the idee fixe of who moved Erich Heller into mainspace and why. Newyorkbrad 20:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the use of "defendent" in the template. Sorry about that. Fred Bauder 22:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Uninvolved user, user:Geogre

For clarity's sake, I should like to reassure myself and others that, while this was brought on behalf of Prof02 by Fred Bauder, that the text is from Prof02?

The user wants the block to be overturned. That is not very controversial, although I believe he was blocked after a very long history of misunderstanding the nature of cooperative editing and the GFDL, misunderstanding that led him to increasingly hostile comments that neared paranoia in their disconnect from the reality of the site. The second part, "action be taken" against those who blocked him and locked the talk page, is ill-conceived, nebulous, and without any apparent basis. Prof02's dispute with Wikipedia (because it is, indeed, with Wikipedia) is that he is not allowed to have an article entirely to himself segregated onto his user page, with no sharing and no editing from other people. That is the ultimate form of WP:OWN violation, as well as our general prohibition on people using Wikipedia as a private web host (or text editor). Anyone who has been involved in moving, copying, or editing that one contribution has become an abhorrent figure to Prof02. This, to me, falls well short of the threshhold of ArbCom action.

Prof02 is abusing Wikipedia more than editing it, in my view, although not noisily. He has his own intrasite, it seems, and if he is left as the emporer of it, he will neither be seen nor heard from, but if anyone wishes to make articles of that stuff or take it away, he gets panicked. If he were using his pages for hoaxes or scams, we would have gone to a long block long ago, but the fact is that he uses this private space for research and circumlocutions, and so it looks less noxious, even though it is, fundamentally, the same misuse of services. Geogre 04:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by completely uninvolved User:Ghirlandajo

It takes no arbitration to establish that Wikipedia is free for everyone to edit. Prof02 seems to ignore this basic fact. He hijacked an article for his private ownership and proceeded to edit it in a manner not acceptable for any encyclopaedic project. After the page was restored to mainspace and purged of cruft, he stooped to personal attacks and was blocked from editing. His request for unblocking may be resolved by community on WP:ANI or some other appropriate board. I see no great problem here. It's hard to understand why such a trivial matter should take time and efforts of so many precious contributors and arbitrators to settle it for a considerable period of time that arbitration normally takes. I have interacted with numerous editors who have experienced difficulties in adapting to the norms of behaviour accepted in the project. Some of these have failed to adapt and are currently blocked (User:SuperDeng); others successfully overcame their behavioural problems and evolved into excellent authors (User:Kenmore). Prof02 seems to have selected the first path. Admins from WP:ANI may choose to give him another chance, although I see no compelling reasons why this should be done. In short, I see no arbitration case here and urge ArbCom to move on to tackle some really serious instances of disruption. There are plenty of these around. --Ghirla -трёп- 20:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

Sock Puppets and Dynamic IP

Initiated by Arsath at 04:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Yes both parties- defendants are notified Yes - all other involved parties have been notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Yes, I posted unblock template in my talk page and got no response. Then I contacted all the admins I know that was also of no use. Arsath 04:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arsath

My user account Mystìc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned indefinitely saying it is a sock puppet account of User:Lahiru_k. Which is not true, this was done due to a checkuser request by user:Elalan, the fact is User:Lahiru_k would have been sock puppeting few accounts but my user account was not a sock puppet account of his/her. I was accused of vandalizing user:Sudharsansn's user page and there is no evidence of it. I want my account unblocked.

Thanks Iwazaki for your support on this. I invited EssJay here as he/she is an experienced wikipedian and I sincerely hoped that he/she'd be able to see light. But if such experienced users are turning a blind eye on the fact it is indeed a very unfortunate situation for wikipedia and the wikipedia community.


Anyway for the benefit of the community I'd like to question the checkuser process itself. If the checkuser process only checks for a persons IP and finds users with similar IP addresses and bans them, there cannot be a graver mistake than that an academic community like the wikipedia can do. I dont know how many of you are technical people but any one who understands basic network principals would know that two people on the net can share the same IP addresses at different times (Because service providers proxy randomly assigns IP addresses from pool of IPs reserved for them and in case of Sri Lanka its a very small number of IPs) . As Iwazaki has pointed out third world countries like Sri Lanka do not have many service providers and the number of internet users are also very limited. And the chance of many sharing the same IP address is very high.


The other point is the user Mystic has more than 700 edits to his credit and out of which less than twenty would've been related terrorism in Sri Lanka.


The third point is that I am a Muslim and to call my self a budhist even as a joke is against my faith. I wouldn't dishonor my faith even for my life.


The fourth point I'd like to make is that I stayed away from wikipedia because of some disputes on Template:Islam and wanted to take a brake. But after returning wikipedia has just stressed me out more. If you care to notice my contributions I have done quite a number of beautiful templates. Most are Islam related and the smiley template. Arsath 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another important point to be noted here is I didn't invite any of the users to Arbcomm in Bad faith.. I just want to prove that I am not Lahiru_k thats it.. 222.165.182.205 17:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Signing again after login Arsath 17:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have not brought in any uninvolved parties here..most of you are involved.. Simply because most of you have bad faith in me which is not correct, I have not brought in a single user who didn't list me as a sockpuppet with the exception of Essjay, Snowolfd4 and Lahiru_k (who actually is the puppet master). Of course I dont have bad faith in any of you..Its just the process you followed to block me I want to question.. Arsath 15:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how could you be so blind to all the things going around you! I have opened this arbcomm case to prove that my account is not a sockpuppet account of Lahiru_k.. I just dont care whether he/she is a puppet master or not my account was blocked unfairly as a sockpuppet account. Please try to understand the point I am trying to make. Arsath 15:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel.Bryant

It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to clarify Checkuser results, nor to process an unblock request. I fail to see how anyone's behaviour needs to be examined (everybody acted appropriately, given the evidence, and hence no user conduct needs to be examined), and hence this isn't suitable for Arbitration. In addition, the user has presented a grand total of 0 evidence possibly explaining how the Checkuser results came back that way, other than the obvious one. I also fail to see how I'm listed as a party, given I had near-enough zero input into this, and none of my actions even bordered on infringing any of the behaviour-related policies. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And a further point: unless the applicant can demonstrate how I was involved in this case (other than acting in my role as a RFCU clerk in tagging the userpage and processing the checkuser request through its' stages of positioning, clarification and archiving - which is an impartial position, see the clerks guide linked from the clerks page), I am going to will consult with Arbitrators and AbrCom clerks about having them remove my name from the list of parties. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extension of statement by Daniel.Bryant in response to Fred's accept statement below
Um, is it really needed to run through the whole arbitration process to "to attempt to clarify questions"? The only question here is whether the checkuser results are applicable, and given there is no behavioural queries presented by the applicant (that's because there is no bad behaviour :P), it is of my opinion (which, I acknowledge, doesn't mean much beside a one-year ArbCommer on the face of things) that an extended RFCU, where there is a little bit of interaction between the checkusers and the applicant over explinations etc., would achieve the same goal. Fred, if you were referring to other questions by your acceptance statement, strike this and ignore it; I made this assumption on the basis that the applicant only requests an unblock as checkuser were faulty, so I assume that was the question you were alluding to. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 22:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Essjay

My only involvement here was to clarify an aspect of the checkuser request that was deemed uncertain, and responding to posts by Arsath on my talk page requesting intervention into the matter. Like Daniel, I fail to see how I'm a party to the matter; I didn't block Arsath, and provided direction in line with the established dispute resolution proceedure when asked. My advice to him was to begin with the {{unblock}} template, take the matter to ANI, and if that did not prove fruitful, to request the Arbitration Committee review the block in it's appeals capacity. I can find no evidence that the matter was ever taken to AN or ANI, and I belive filing for arbitration is premature in light of this. Further, listing a large number of uninvolved editors as parties is in bad taste and bad faith. Urge the Committee to direct the matter to AN/ANI for community resolution, and coach the individual on the meaning of "involved parties". Essjay (Talk) 05:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Sudharsansn

To begin with, I would like to be removed from this ArbComm because I have not accused this specific/supposed sockpuppet account User:Mystic of vandalizing my page but the accusations were all directed against the puppetmaster User:Lahiru_k and in this process it has been revealed that along with five other sockpuppets of Lahiru_k this user Mystic is one and has been created for the purpose of votestacking in the TfD for Sri Lankan state terrorism template. User:Mystic has not vandalized my page but a userid similar to that of mine, namely User:Snsudharsan was created and it had vandalized my page and another username, namely that of User:Snowolfd4 was in my page issuing a death threat to all Tamilians!! However, I do have a few points to make:

1). How can this useraccount User:Mystìc claim ignorance about all this when it has been clearly confirmed through the checkuser procedure that this profile along with many others are only fake profiles of the puppetmaster User:Lahiru_k as he himself has accepted it and put it up in his userpage, that he indeed was the puppetmaster.

2). I somehow strongly feel that this is only some kind of a joke being played here, because the puppetmaster himself has agreed that these are his own sockpuppets, and the checkuser procedure has also confirmed that this account is only a sockpuppet, so why does this profile even argue at all? For all we know, we might still be talking to Lahiru_k!!

3). Either there is a flaw in the checkuser procedure, which confirmed that Mystic is only a sockpuppet of Lahiru_k; or this ArbComm negotiation is being taken for a ride by the puppetmaster of these accounts. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 06:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You really don't have to get furious about anything at all To begin with I don't know why I was dragged into this at all. If you have a point please put it forth to the admins and they can sort it out. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RaveenS

I don’t know why I have been made a party to this, I was informed of this by another party not directly. The only comment I have is that all the puppets involved and further suspected of the who ever is the puppet master have different ethnic profiles mostly from Sri Lanka or India. One is an Indian and Tamil and male and Hindu, another Sri Lankan, Tamil and Christian, another Sri Lankan and Muslim and male another Sri Lankan and Buddhist and male another Sri Lankan Buddhist and female. The list is endless; I really don’t know how many sock puppets this puppet master has created. It either represents a character flaw or genuine mistake by a young man/woman caught in the emotions of the situation and a lack of knowledge both cultural and personal about the rule of law that governs Wikipedia. If this is a character flaw he/she should be banned for life. If it is a mistake then he/she should ask for forgiveness and get one as he/she seems to be a good editor. Just my thoughts 14:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


Statement by iwazaki

Though my name is not mentioned here, i would like add a few comments regarding this matter.
I would appreciate if the administrators ,take a very good look at all the contributions made by the Mystìc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)and Lahiru_k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).None of which carry any genuine similarities .If all these accusations are based on the simple fact that Mystic and lahiru share same type of signature, then i would say the whole accusation a violation of wiki policy of sharing knowledge.OR if these allegations are based on the fact that ,they share a very similar IP, then I would like to point out that the most of the IPs issued by SLT, the leading internet provider(only broadband provider/Such as ADSL,ISDN) in Sri Lanka ,are look similar. So, many internet users in Sri Lanka ,may have very similar IPs ,simply due to that fact.Therefore,to assume everyone, is a sockpuppet of someone, and taking their right to contribute to wikipedia, is very unfortunate and should be corrected immediately.

And even the other alleged sockpuppets may well belong to genuine wikipedians ,who may have been unfairly blocked due the reasons i stated above.So,i strongly recommend Administrators to re-check the whole process and undo any unfair blocks.thank you --Iwazaki 15:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dmcdevit

I performed a CheckUser after an RFCU request, and gave the results. As is typical, I made the technical report, without regard to behavior patterns, and left it to the administrators to decide what to do about it, taking all evidence into account. If a block is disputed, it may be discussed on WP:ANI or a similar forum. This request skips all dispute resolution. Besides which, I invite any arbitrators with CheckUser to double check my findings. Dmcdevit·t 18:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Srikeit

My only involvement here is the actual blocking action which when was completely based on the checkuser results posted on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snsudharsan by Dmcdevit. These results were brought to my attention by my fellow checkuser clerk Daniel.Bryant on IRC. It was specifically stated that Mystìc (talk · contribs) was the same as Lahiru k (talk · contribs) and as an admin-clerk, I enforced the results. From my relatively long experience in checkuser clerking, I explicitly trust the judgement and intentions of all the checkusers especially Dmcdevit and Essjay who, along with Mackensen, have handled almost all of the checkuser cases at WP:RFCU so far this year. Like Daniel has said above it is definitely not the role of the Arbitration Committee to clarify checkuser results or process unblock requests. Without any prior attempt at dispute resolution, this RFArb perfectly fits into that category. I, thus urge the Arbitration Committee to reject this case. --Srikeit 20:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snowolfd4

To his defence I believe Mystìc posted the names of everybody involved in this incident in the "involved parties" section, and not just those who he thinks may have made a mistake. I also think the reason he requested arbitration was fact that Dmcdevit did not reply to the questions both me and Mystìc posted on his talk page.

Maybe Dmcdevit should have been given more time to go over the matter and I don't know if it is premature to seek arbitration, but in any case, since I have been listed here, I will provide my opinion on this matter, which is a copy of what I posted on Dmcdevit's talk page 2 days ago.

Hey Dmcdevit, about the checkuser case for User:Snsudharsan [3], the procedure has judged that a number of users Psivapalan, Sri119, Mama007, Mystìc and Ajgoonewardene to be socks of User:Lahiru_k. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Looking at the contributions of User: Mystìc [4] and User:Lahiru_k [5], they seem quite different and their contributins are on varied topics. Even User:Ajgoonewardene and User:Mama007's edits don't seem to be related, apart from the TFD vote.
What I think has happened is this. There is currently only one broadband ISP in Sri Lanka called SLT, and they do not issue static IPs to subscribers. Everytime a subscriber connects, a different IP is issued (like AOL I believe). The WHOIS result for the IP Mystìc used to request unblocking says the status of the IP is "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" and the SLT website says they issue Dynamic IPs [6]. And from what I know, SLT has only a small pool of IPs they assign to their customers.
I'm not entirely sure how checkuser works, but if it checks the IPs from which the users have edited and compares them to see if they are similar, it could well be that it has judged everyone who was assigned a similar IP at one time or other to be sockpuppets of Lahiru_k. And therefore everyone who uses SLT may be may have been banned as sockpuppets.
So can you plase check into this, and make sure whether they really are socks of Lahiru_k? Thanks.

--snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 06:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Sudharsansn

I would like to add a small note here. It should be noted that most of them in this ArbComm, including myself aren't involved in this at all. I was dragged into this as my name was mentioned here without my knowledge and furthermore Arsath had left a message in my userpage eventhough I really do not have nothing to do with this account.

Seeing other comments from users who aren't also involved in this debate/issue, it seems to be only a strong case of votestacking in favor of another Sri Lankan, whom they support vociferously.

As explained above by other admins, I really do not think if this comes under the scope of ArbComm at all as I am able to understand this process by referring to the other cases. My humble suggestion would be to see if the checkuser procedure has been implemented properly in this case, and if so, maintain the current stand on this issue and reject this case!! Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 07:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lahiru_k

Yeah ok here I am. This is what I want to say. I don't know anything about Mystìc or any of these other so called sockpuppets of mine. There has been a huge mistake here even if everyone accepts it or not. If it is because of the IPs that me and the other users including Mystìc have been suspected as being sockpuppets of mine, then that is the biggest mistake done in the checkuser procedure. I too do not like to talk about what has gone wrong with the IPs here. According to Snowolfd4 and others, I also think that there has been some confusion regarding the IPs as the IP pool of the Sri Lanka Telecoms' is very small. If you suspect every user who logs in through SLT as a sockpuppet of mine, what would ultimately happen is there would be no contributions to wikipedia from the Sri Lankan users. Anyone could see that there is a big difference between my contributions and the contributions of Mystìc (Arsath). The primary target of him, as he had said, creating articles about Sri Lankan muslim community. And mine is, creating articles on the Sri Lankan civil war and reverting vandalism. According to my knowledge, Mystìc has done a lot of contributions in wikipedia. I too have created more than 25 articles since september 2006. I can provide evidence if there is any requirement to match my contributions against Mystìc's contributions.

Wikipedia is a great place where one shares its knowledge with others. And as a wikipedian, i strongly believe in this.So, what ever i create, can be used by others and vice versa. Since, i thought user mystics signature was an excellent peice of work, i my self wanted to have it as mine too. And by doing that,i have not broken any of the wiki rules.

And if i am accused because of the similarities in our signatures,then i must say this is unfair.And sincerely hope that the admins will give a further look into this matter and undone block as soon as possible.

I have no idea about this checkuser procedure and how we got involved in this. But there is one thing clear to me, it's really unfair on Mystic's side and mine and also some other users' as well. Some people here are trying to keep us in the same situation that we are today without even helping us to get out of the mess. The user Snsudharsan want to blame his user page vandalism on me which I have no idea why. I hope the other user who are involved in this checkuser procedure (blocked users) will come here, as user Iwazaki had invited them to this ArbComm case. I hope they will all come here and help in solving this issue. I have one last thing to say. There is no connection between me and Mystìc. I am prepared to do anything to unblock Mystìc and other users who have been affected by this. I am ready to face anything regarding this matter even with my busy schedule as I have mentioned in my user page due to which I took a some more time to keep a message here. Thank You!!! Lahiru k Temp 05:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC) (Lahiru_k 05:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Clerk notes

Threaded dialog has been removed. Please only edit within your own section. Thank you. Thatcher131 15:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Accept, to attempt to clarify questions. Fred Bauder 21:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Double-checking checkuser results isn't an arbcom function. Other than that, what dispute are we being asked to arbitrate? Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Charles Matthews 19:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Office product placement

Initiated by 70.185.250.195 at Nov 21 2006

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Yes both parties- defendants are notified Yes - all other involved parties have been notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I wrote several messages in 'discussion' and on his talk page, he deleted some and ignored others.

Statement by 70.185.250.195

L0b0t vandalizing 'the office (US tv show)' and mass removing information for no valid reason.

Statement by {L0b0t}

User:L0b0t would like to apologize to any admins who have to waste their time looking into this silly, bad faith procedure. L0b0t 20:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by completely uninvolved Lostkiwi

I have had no involvement or contact with either party at any time and only looked into it following the posting of this RfA. 70.185.250.195 seems to be a disruptive editor who has no understanding of Wikipedia policies nor any desire to follow community guidelines. As a read of his talk page shows, civility might even be an issue. (Lostkiwi 01:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by completely uninvolved User:Newyorkbrad

Concur with Lostkiwi. Note also that User:70... today also made - and apparently carried out - what could be characterized as a legal or harassment threat here. Newyorkbrad 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've blocked this user for a week following this threat. I don't think we need an arbitration case. But feel free to unblock him if you need him to respond to what's posted here. -Mgm|(talk) 13:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)


Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Confusion on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve

Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. - Mike Rosoft 22:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rosoft 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning seems sound per Wikipedia:Banning policy. If you want an answer from the arbitrators you'll have to post at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. Thatcher131 20:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of the ban results in a reset. Fred Bauder 21:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche again

I've blocked ManEatingDonut (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche, which says "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense." See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche#Enforcement.

ManEatingDonut was warned on Oct 23 about reinserting LaRouche material, [8] and took part in a request for clarification on this page about it. [9] Despite the warning, on Nov 18, he removed the redirect of Eurasian Land-Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to Asian Highway Network and twice reinserted a LaRouche-related text. The Eurasian Land-Bridge is a name that some people use for parts of the Asian Highway, so the title is redirected there. However, it's also a name used for a more complex idea that LaRouche claims is his. Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper wrote the original article that included LaRouche's views; [10] it was redirected to Asian Highway Network in September 2004. The text was restored and rewritten a little by NathanDW, [11] another LaRouche supporter, on October 31, 2006; reverted by Will BeBack; restored by ManEatingDonut on Nov 18; [12] reverted by SlimVirgin; restored by ManEatingDonut on Nov 22. [13]

I've blocked him for 24 hours for the repeated re-insertion, but I'd like to make the block indefinite. He has made 186 edits since August, almost all promoting LaRouche. He has edited logged out (acknowledging that it was him) and used the same AOL IP range 172.192.0.0 - 172.194.0.0 that Herschelkrustofsky/WeedHarper used. There's no firm evidence that it's the same person, but I believe he may be from the same LaRouche group in Los Angeles. As any proposed ban needs to be confirmed by the ArbCom, I'm asking here for your thoughts. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. Both user:ManEatingDonut and user:NathanDW have followed almost the exact footsteps of User:Herschelkrustofsky, including the same aggressive promotion of LaRouche that got HK into trouble. NathanDW says he's independent of the LaRouche movement but his single-minded edit history belies his claim. Both of these editors appear to be sock or meat puppets of HK, and both should be banned indefinitely based on the previous ArbCom decisions, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Sockpuppet abuse: "Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely." -Will Beback · † · 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Righteous Fred Bauder 21:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that no one thought to notify me of this. I left a note on SlimVirgin's talk page asking her to warn me if she thought I was violating an arbcom decision, preferably before blocking me rather than afterward. I made my views on LaRouche clear to the only person who asked me, at User talk:Astor Piazzolla. It is wrong to accuse me of "promoting LaRouche" when I have added almost no material to these articles -- I have only opposed edits that I thought were biased, or looked up sources and added them when sources were requested. As far as those other people are concerned (Herschelkrustofsky, etc.) I became aware of them for the first time when I discovered the talk page of Eurasian Land-Bridge. Apparently there was a lot of conflict between them and SlimVirgin and Will Beback. I have no interest in reviving that conflict, and it is unfair to somehow involve me in it.

I came to this page tonight to ask further clarification. The arbcom decision that I have read says "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." This is now being interpreted by editors at the article Lyndon LaRouche to include the article Lyndon LaRouche as well, and material is being removed such as a quote from Eugene McCarthy that appeared in an EIR interview, or in this case, a quote from Mexican President Lopez Portillo. Since the arbcom decision explicitly says "other than the article Lyndon LaRouche," I would like to know if you think that this behavior is justified. --ManEatingDonut 07:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat8722

I have made motions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop#Motion_for_Clarification and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop#Motion_for_Clarification_and_Motion_for_Procedure] but have not received a response. What is the procedure for notifying arbcom that I have motions outstanding? (I had assumed the workshop page would have been kept on an arbcom member's watch list, but I am now wondering if that is the case). My motions are requesting clarification or their words, and detail on the procedure they have requested I follow in my future action. pat8722 02:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it. If I feel it has merit I will put in at /Proposed decision and it will be voted on. Fred Bauder 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't edit outside your own talk page. Email us if you return to editing. Fred Bauder 16:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

Although not provided for in the penalties, I have indefinitely blocked Terryeo as described at [14]. The reasons amount to malicious and targetted harassment of users as part of his unabandoned quest to advance his POV on Scientology. Phil Sandifer 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the necessity of this, but would not say ab initio that you have abused your discretion. Terreo does fine on Wikinfo, but our expectations are quite different. Fred Bauder 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your link doesn't seem to work. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct link is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Terryeo blocked. The edits in question [15] and [16] link to a site that tracks the activities of Scientology critics. Thatcher131 02:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=90133101"