Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scarpia (talk | contribs) at 18:32, 8 June 2006 (→Statement by jbolden1517: signing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal none none 11 December 2024
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

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.

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.



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

Pudgenet's disruption

Involved parties

Pudgenet is unable to control his emotions on discussions related to Perl. In earlier month this took the form of very hostile personal attacks. Lately it has become more serious and converted into sustained personal attacks as part of a campaign of harassment against Barry and attempted intimidation against other editors who have attempted to intervene to prevent further harassment.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Attempts by Barry to engage in productive dialogue deleted:
    • Deleted requests for mediation [1] [2]
    • Attempts to join in discussion (see edit summary) [3]
    • Other attempts at mediation turned down [4] [5]
    • Third attempt never responded to [6]
  • During the RFC process for Barry, jbolden1517 and Simetrical attempted to instruct Pudgenet that his behavior was unacceptable and constituted sustained personal attacks against Barry
  • Attempted administrative intervention by Durin in which Pudgenet attacked administrator questioning his understanding and his ethics once he attempted to prevent Pudgenet's harassment of Barry
  • Failed mediation in which Pudgenet refused to engage (mediator was jbolden1517 very active member of Mediation Cabal)
  • Administrative guided mediation which Pudgenet has engaged in sustained personal attacks against the mediator and has been successfully disruptive preventing much progress (governed by jbolden1517 under Durin's supervision).

Statement by -Barry-

Pudgenet has been a problem for an administrator (User:Durin) [7][8] regarding the Perl article, and for me regarding Wikipedians with articles, where he's continually reverted the links that I added to brian d foy's entry, which had been agreed to here. I managed to get Pudgenet to discuss this a bit here, before that discussion was considered off topic and reverted by a mediator for a different issue. Pudgenet has an unusual interpretation of what was agreed to on the talk page of Wikipedians with articles, and I believe he's not being honest. He's certainly not trying to work it out on the appropriate page.

Pudgenet has also been uncivil in this and this edit summary, in this post to my talk page, and has criticized me here, on his user page, without me being able to respond because he deletes everything I post to his talk page without responding [9]. Probably worst was when he vandalized the Perl article with this paragraph (at bottom left) in which he insulted me.

Pudgenet claims that use.perl.org is his site [10] and I believe he's biased in favor of Perl and in favor of notable Perl guru brian d foy, aka Scarpia, whose biased edits he keeps covering up by reverting my links to them. -Barry- 06:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jbolden1517

I became involved in Perl mediation as part of a request made to the Mediation Cabal. I generally specialize in mediating religion cases (which needless to say are often very heated); but I took this programming related case because in a language that I am knowledgeable about and the subject matter was highly technical (issues like various compiler flags used to modify the runtime engine have come up). The culture on the discussion board related to Perl was entirely unacceptable and in my opinion crossed the line into abusive. My attempts at stopping this abuse and creating an environment designed to write a high quality encyclopedia article have met with limited success mainly as a result of Pudgenet attempting to intimidate me (and possibly other editors) into allowing his personal vendetta against Barry to continue. It should be mentioned that Barry and Pudgenet know each other from other discussion boards going back at least to early 2004, as do many of the other editors. Pudgenet has successfully driven Barry off other Perl related discussion sites and this campaign of harassment did not start on Wikipedia.
Actually, Barry caught everyone's attention by trying to defame O'Reilly Media, Randal Schwartz, and brian d foy, and arguing with Harmil over trivialities in the definition of PerlMonks, revert warring with Harmil over benchmarks [11] [12] [13]

[14] [15] [16]. Barry had already caused problems before Pudgenet showed up [17], after which he continued revert warring [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] and attempting to embarrass Randal Schwartz and O'Reilyl Media [28] [29] [30]. Unsucccessful the actions of several editors, Barry decided to declare the entire Perl article as biased [31], which several editors removed. Barry then removed Perl from the Good Article list. Pudgenet had very little to do with any of that, and most of the things of which you accuse him happened in over Talk places, which didn't really affect the editing of Perl. I think you may have skipped most of this history is deciding Barry is "reasonable" and "admirable". It was certainly happening before Pudgenet and I got involved. Scarpia 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As part of my investigation I conducted a survey of Pudgenet's postings on Perl related discussions (Perl related includes biographies of leaders in the Perl community, and cross programming language discussions) . There were 50 which violated policy (out of approximately 75 posts) so his major contribution to Perl appears to be insults and harassment. None involved any substantial content, which is curious given Pudgenet's substantial expertise in this area. Conversely on other discussions about the Iraq war and political figures (Iraq war, Doug Roulstone, Stacey Tappan, Mike McGavick) there was not a single violation and he has conducted himself admirably. So Pudgenet knows how to be an effective wikipedian he is either unable or refuses to do so on Perl related topics.
It is likely that Pudgenet is going to respond to this filing by arguing that Barry in some ways deserved this campaign of harassment, and that I am incompetent. I can provide references from other cases if my judgement becomes a primary point of dispute. However addressing the issue of Barry, his actions have been examined by 3 senior wikipedians. All have agreed that while there are minor problems with his edits the much more serious problems were in Pudgenet's edits. Given the history that I was not aware of until recently I would say that Barry has conducted himself admirably. More importantly, Barry has graciously accepted guidance from more experienced wikipedians and responds to critique in a positive manner and has acted to facilitate the dispute resolution process.
jbolden1517Talk 11:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Actually, Pudgenet did not know who Barry was until last month, when I pointed him to Barry's alternate life on Perlmonks. You really just don't know enough to be making these sorts of accustations, so you should really try to stay within what you know. It's pretty clear that you have an emotional reaction to this because you two don't get along, but don't confuse that with actual knowledge. Scarpia 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

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

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

Raphael1

Involved parties

It is the opinion of many administrators and users that Raphael1 has continued tendentious editing on many Islam-related articles, refused the acknowledgment of any wrong-doing, attempted to modify Wikipedia policy at the behest of a banned user, and posted very questionable things in his userspace that are little more than attacks on administrators claiming abuse and "persecution of Muslims".

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Cyde Weys

Raphael1 has consistently, over the period of many months, been disruptive in regards to the page Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. He continued trying to remove or hide the images on the page despite an incredibly strong 80% consensus of over 200 editors. Eventually, after more than a month of this, he was finally blocked for a sufficient length of time to get him to stop – at which point he started compiling a list of blocking admins (see deleted edits) claiming "persecution of Muslims". I am bringing this to arbitration today because he has just recreated this deleted page in another form here. Consistently throughout this whole ordeal Raphael1 has continued to insist that he has not done anything wrong and he makes it clear that he is not going to desist. He has also been closely associated with Resid Gulerdem, a banned user. Raphael1 is serving as his mouthpiece both on-wiki and on the mailing list, pushing for extreme (and utterly rejected) forms of policy overhauls. Don't think I am throwing this term around incorrectly, because I mean it in the true sense of the word: Raphael1 is functioning as a meat puppet of a banned user. --Cyde↔Weys 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Netscott

I can equally attest to Cyde's words above as I have born witness to User:Raphael1's long time tendency to be disruptive as an editor on Wikipedia. Even before registering his username, Raphael1, on March 4 was censoring the JP cartoons citing non-existant "consens" sic. Raphael1 has dwelled almost exclusively on this point in his editing on Wikipedia and it is the core of his "contributions" here. In his efforts he has not only removed the cartoons himself but has spammed other users towards such ends. When he created his first "Persecution of Muslims" list he proceeded to spam a select list of self-identified Muslim editors on Wikipedia and thereby setup the blocking admins (who were just doing their jobs) for attacking. His latest endeavor is to act as a proxy for permanently banned user Resid Gulerdem in trying to bring into existence a policy proposal created by Resid Gulerdem called Wikipedia:OURS (WP:OURS). As Cyde mentioned, this policy was proposed via the WikiEn-I mailing list. Raphael1 didn't like being called a "proxy" despite it being an accurate description of his relationship to Gulerdem and he subsequently filed a WP:PAIN report against me whereupon I illustrated nearly all of our fellow editors who described his actions using such terminology. I have repeatedly tried to counsel Raphael1 to "let it go" but my counsels have fallen on "deaf eyes". Now with this latest recreation of his list (note the mention User:Cyde and User:Pegasus1138 in this historical version) I actually have the impression that he truly is incorrigible and short of someone possibly trying to mentor him (ie:User:GTBacchus perhaps?) he should just be banned outright as an editor on Wikipedia lest he continue to be disruptive in his own right or at the behest of Resid Gulerdem. Netscott 02:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Relative to User:Raphael1 mentioning interest from User:Jimbo Wales while that is indeed true I think it's safe to assume that Mr. Wales was not aware of Resid Gulerdem's blocked status. Netscott 17:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I too have reviewed and confirm Cyde's assessment of the situation. Raphael's claim that he was ignorant of consensus because it had been archived before he joined does not hold up: he was made aware very early on that his actions were against consensus. As so often with those who have strong convictions, where Raphael's convictions conflict with policy, he allows his convictions to win. I stand by my outside view in the RfC Raphael raised; while I fundamentally agree that the images should be linked not displayed inline (I think this is a perfectly acceptable way of handling any images which can be shown to cause genuine offence - there is no need to ram them down people's throats), Raphael's actions are completely unacceptable and his interactions with others show a refusal to abide by policy and precedent. It is impossible to run a project of this size if people won't sit down and talk. So much for the cartoons.

As for meatpuppetry, Raphael is very clearly working to help Resid, an indefinitely blocked user on both Englisha dn Turkish Wikipedias, to promote an agenda. He should stop this. Now. Resid is pushing his barrow on WikiEN-l, many editors and admins have seen what he has to say (as has Jimbo) and his agenda has been comprehensively rejected here (Wikipedia:Wikiethics) and on the list. Wikiethics goes against WP:NOT censored; as such it will never gain consensus. Resid's other proposal, Wikipedia:OURS (now I think deleted) is similarly unlikely to succeed, since it starts by stating that we must follow "well-established guidelines such as Wikipedia:Wikiethics", which as I say has already been comprehensively rejected. That is not meatpuppetry, but it is disruption, and quite likely violates WP:POINT. Raphael's attempts to thwart the GA nom for the cartoons article undoubtedly violates WP:POINT.

I commend to Raphael the "notes for the passionate" penned by William Pietri and held at WP:TIGERS. Just zis Guy you know? 17:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Raphael1

If anyone thinks, that I should be blocked, because I dissent from the results of the polls in February (which had already been archived, before I joined Wikipedia), you don't have to read any further. I am guilty on that charge. If my charge is tendentious editing, I am guilty as well (as is Cyde [32][33][34] and Netscott [35][36]), because I tend to prefer decency over profanity.

I have stopped touching the cartoons on the 24.3. until a month later the article was nominated as a "Good article" and Anjoe changed the GA rules to take away everybodys veto-right to prevent me from delisting it. This is when I decided to be bold and make the article deserve its "Good article" nomination by moving the cartoons behind a link again. Though Cyde has been engaged in this content dispute[37], he blocked me for a week because I did so twice in five days. Since I think, that everybody should be aware of the consequences of enforcing the poll results, I decided to compile this list, which I initially entitled "Persecution of Muslims". I admit, that the choice of the title has been inept and immediately consented to rename it to a less offensive title.[38][39] Regardless of that Zoe decided to delete that page and block me for a week.

The meatpuppet charge is completely ridiculous. Neither do I know Rgulerdem personally nor have I edited any of "his" articles apart from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (after he stopped editing it) and a few minor edits on his Wikiethics proposal, which user space copies have been unwarrantedly removed under CSD G4/G5. Is Cyde a meatpuppet of Netscott, because he filed this Arbcom case on his behalf? [40] And what about the meatpuppets, who came from sites like [41] [42] to vote on the cartoon poll? I read Rgulerdems WP:OURS proposal draft on the mailing list and found that it contains interesting ideas. Since Mr. Wales expressed interest in the proposal as well and in order to discuss it in Wikipedia, I revised his ideas and created this proposal, which got removed a few hours later for CSD G5 after Netscotts intense "proxy" campaign. Raphael1 14:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that since I've created my account on the 5th of March, I moved the cartoons behind a link eight times in total. The last time I did that change on the 29th of April before I've been blocked by Cyde for one week. Raphael1 17:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the Clerks: The attempts at dispute resolution I removed are invalid, because firstly the polls were already closed before I joined Wikipedia and secondly the Mediation on Islamophobia has not even started yet. Raphael1 18:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sam Blanning

Rapahael1's claim that his involvement with Rgulerdem's Wikiethics proposal extends to "a few minor edits" is somewhat at odds with the fact that he recreated the page in his userpage at User:Raphael1/Wikiethics and, after it was deleted there, argued vigorously at WP:DRV for its undeletion, going so far as to solicit 'votes' [43]. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further - on my speedy deletion of one of User:Raphael1's subpages

I have deleted User:Raphael1/Consequences of enforcing results of polls in February as a recreation of User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims. The only difference was that the usernames of the blocking admins were blacked out, and as the blacked-out usernames can be found in three clicks (one with popups) by looking at the block logs of the blocked IPs and accounts, this does not constitute a substantial difference - particularly as the names were not removed, but blacked out so you can see how long they are. If that makes me a party to this arbitration, so be it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this a burking of evidence. Raphael1 17:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All administrators, which includes all of the arbitrators, can view the text of the deleted page. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Zoe

I became involved with Raphael1 when I was repeatedly having to revert his deletions of the Mohammed images despite a clear and overwhelming consensus to leave them in the article. When he refused to stop his disruption, I issued him a temporary block. Since that time, I have been listed as abusive to Muslims for having restored his deletions, and I deleted his attack page which calls people who disagree with him abusers. He has outworn his welcome on Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by David Oberst

While I have not been directly involved with Raphael1, I have followed many of the events with interest, and would like to encourage the Arbitration Committee to accept this case. If I could suggest some points that would be useful to address if the case is accepted, most of which relate to Raphael1's RFC against User:Cyde in regards to admin activity on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. Phrased as assertions, they would include:

  • That a consensus clearly was formed to keep the cartoon images in the article. The polls conducted in the article's Talk area are not the only basis for determining a consensus was achieved, and do not invalidate the consensus. This is the key point for all that has followed, as Raphael1 appears to reject the notion that a consensus was formed, or reject it as illegitimate due to the methods used in forming it. Frankly, given the amount of support for keeping the image, it would be hard to imagine how to determine that a significant consensus had formed in any controversial situation if it can't be stated that one formed here. It was this aspect of the RFC that originally caught my attention.
  • That repeated removal of the cartoons, as opposed to further discussion on the Talk page, was not a valid means of "testing" or disproving a recently achieved consensus.
  • That repeated removals of such a discrete and central item (the cartoons) that has achieved such a consensus can be considered disruptive and (in some contexts) vandalism.
  • That reverting of cartoon removal (after a consensus had formed), referring to some of the removals as "vandalism", and blocking accounts (especially anonymous IPs) that repeatedly removed the images was within the scope of admin discretion.
  • Such action by admins is categorically not "persecution of Muslims", the blocked users are not "victims", Raphael1's original Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims page was in violation of WP:NPA and/or disruptive to Wikipedia's functioning, and its deletion was appropriate.
  • That Raphael1's RFC produced a clear consensus (see especially the "Outside view by JzG") that the admin blocks in question were not the "misuse of power" claimed.
  • The "milder" re-creation at User:Raphael1/Consequences of enforcing results of polls in February with the "blacked out" list of admins is thus misleading, and at the least an inappropriate use of user space.

I suspect that the above is a good approximation of the basis on which most people have been dealing with these issues currently, and confirmation by ArbCom would be extremely helpful in further attempts to handling the situation. David Oberst 17:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

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

Raphael removed valid attempts at dispute resolution. I have restored them. Johnleemk | Talk 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason not to list failed mediation attempts, and it would be appropriate if the other parties be given the chance to explain their reasoning before removing anything. Also, when removing, provide reasons; simply stating that certain items are invalid is too vague. Johnleemk | Talk 18:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. Accept - SimonP 18:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moby Dick

Involved parties

In the opinion of several administrators, Moby Dick continues to stalk another editor despite warnings. He is believed to be the sock of an editor who was formally warned by the Committee not to engage in this behavior. He may also be in breach of a one-year ban on editing articles which concern politics.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

See:

Statement by Tony Sidaway

In the opinion of myself, Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and MONGO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Moby Dick exhibits stalking behavior similar to that of Davenbelle (see Cool Cat arbitration) who was one of three editors warned against stalking Cool Cat. He has persisted despite warnings. Davenbelle's last edit is too old to permit technical means to be used to verify this user's identity.

Davenbelle is also enjoined from editing articles which relate to politics (Trey Stone and Davenbelle arbitration, August 2005) and Moby Dick's identity may have a bearing on that ban. --Tony Sidaway 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moby

This is absurd. User:Cool Cat and his friends are defining stalking as making reasonable edits to articles that he happens to not like. I have made many reasonable edits to articles and talk pages, added cited facts, and have sought consensus. Unfortunately, User:Cool Cat does not like the facts and does not seek consensus. He seeks his way and harasses anyone who does not yield to his will. His allegations of sockpuppetry are merely an attempt to run me off from the very group of articles that he was found to have made many POV edits to.

User:Tony Sidaway has stated that User:Cool Cat repeatedly attempts to promote the removal of categories, templates and content related to an ethnicity that, while not having a single national entity of its own, is significant enough to be treated seriously by an encyclopedia. Editors who complain about his activities and his attitude thus have a solid basis upon which to do so. diff

In User:Cool Cat's current complaint about my editing on wp:an/i, he states that I opposed him on all of the vote options on Talk:Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict — Not True, he also opposed four of the moves that I opposed. And it is entirely reasonable that I'm involved in that article. I voted on the AFD that resulted in its being renamed and I edited the article proper before User:Cool Cat ever did.

Of course I participated in the CFD on Category:Kurdish inhabited regions, as I did the previous CFD. I have been attempting to categorise Kurdish homelands and User:Cool Cat hates the Kurds and has been highly disruptive of such efforts by myself and others.

User:Cool Cat has shown up on a number of pages right after I've edited them: Talk:Nationalist Movement Party diff, CFD of Category:Imposters of Moby Dick diff. And he has bee hyper-aggressive on pages such as Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 27#Category:Kurdish inhabited regions, badgering every user that does not agree with his POV.

It is User:Cool Cat who is stalking, harassing and seeking the deletion of encyclopaedic content related to Kurds and the users who edit in ways that he does not like.

See also: User:Cool Cat's disruption of Kurdish categorization efforts

--Moby 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cool Cat

  1. I have a script that allows me to automaticaly watch articles I edit (primarily for vandalism), on occasions I manualy add articles to this watchlist such as various political parties and other potential vandalism targets. If Moby Dick edits articles on my list (weather it is an article talking about an Oh My Goddess! or Nationalist Movement Party) I would have a way of knowing about it.
  2. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is an intresting article. Unlike what moby claims I actualy particiapted in that AFD. All of the faces on previous RfAr are present on the AFD. We have:
    • User:Karl Meier (my former stalker) who voted 4 minutes after nom. Karl is currently revert waring on the article [45]
    • User:Moby Dick (a suspected Davenbelle sock) who voted 10 hours after my vote on same day.
    • User:Fadix (my former stalker) who voted after me on the same day (10 hours after Moby).
    I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
  3. Here is a complete list of the deletion votes I participated involving kurds. You'll see over a half are red links as the concensus was over half of the time was delete.
    • I'd also like to point out that some of these categories were created by User:Diyako and/or his other aliases, a user arbcom banned for a year.
    • As for Category:Kurdish inhabited regions, my views are still the same. It should be deleted for the same reasons as Category:Hispanic inhabited regions was deleted. I am not going to bring a content dispute here but I believe I have very good reasons from my stand point which I can discuss if arbcom requests.
  4. It is irrational for someone interested in the novel featuring Moby Dick (so much that he choses it to be his nick), to make minimal edits to that area (hardly any edits, in fact none to article Moby Dick) and make majority of his edits to issues regarding Turkey and Kurds.
    • I would not be suprised if a checkuser placed Moby into the same geographic region as Davenbelle who said he was in bali.
    • The more I look at Moby's contributions the more evidence I can come up with...

--Cat out 12:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

As a participant, Tony Sidaway is recused as a clerk.

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

Conspiracy theories in History of South Africa in the apartheid era

Involved parties

User:Phase4, User:Kuratowski's Ghost, edit war in History of South Africa in the apartheid era under "Destablization and Sabotage" subsection regarding the inclusion of the text:

Although South Africa agreed to cease supporting anti-government forces, their support of RENAMO continued. In 1986 President Machel himself was killed in an air crash in mountainous terrain near the South African border after returning from a meeting in Zambia. South Africa was suspected of sabotaging Machel's Soviet-built presidential aircraft.

On December 21 1988 UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, was en route to the signing ceremony in New York, whereby South Africa was to cede control of Namibia to the UN, after over a decade of defiance of Security Council Resolution 435. Carlsson was among 270 people killed when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland. Because foreign minister Pik Botha and a 22-strong South African delegation were due to travel on the doomed flight — but cancelled their booking at short notice — some also suspect South African involvement in the PA 103 sabotage.

Statement by User:Kuratowski's Ghost

User:Phase4 insists on including the above conspiracy theory text at the end of the section. It includes original research claiming South Africa continued to aid RENAMO after the Nkomati Accords. It includes weaselly repetition of the conspiracy theory that SA somehow sabotaged Machel's plane, already receiving questionably large coverage in the Samora Machel article. It repeats the conspiracy theory that SA was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing already given ample coverage in the article Pan Am Flight 103. These fringe conspiracy theories do not belong in the section, at most there could be a sentence mentioning conspiracy theories of ongoing sabotage by SA linking to the articles dealing with them, but it makes no sense to give detailed repetitions of these bizarre claims as if these are substantiated cases uncovered by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and / or other Commissions.

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

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

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

Editor Abuse, Threats, and Uncivil Conduct

Involved parties

User:DV8_2XL
User:Ewrobbel

DV8 2XL has been abusive, threatening, and uncivil in mediation case and before.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
User_talk:DV8_2XL
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-28_Editor_abuse_and_threats

Statement by Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

Review of DV8 2XL's remarks in the mediation case will show a pattern of abusive and threatening treatment of me, and intimidation of both myself and the mediator.--Ewrobbel 23:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DV8 2XL (talk • contribs)

This editor has been attempting to insert a link to his website where he sells books he has written and self-published. A quick look at his contribs [46] will show that he has only made edits on this one topic. Discussed with the editor who is complaining on his talk page here: [47]; Discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here:[48]; went to the Mediation Cabal the first time here: [49] (mediator e-mailed a response explaining spamlinking, case closed); returned to Mediation_Cabal here: [50]; and finally in edit summaries here: [51], here: [52], and here: [53].
This Request for arbitration is just a transparent attempt to game the system and stop me from keeping his spam off Wikipedia. I do not think this issue is worth the committee's time and at any rate Ewrobbel has not exhausted all other dispute resolution options. --DV8 2XL 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup by Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

I am not arguing the case. I lost. That's over. I am accusing DV8 2XL of being abusive, threatening, and uncivil in the mediation case and before. His behavior shows a pattern of abusive and threatening treatment of me, and intimidation of both myself and the mediator.--Ewrobbel 03:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved party Christopher Thomas (talk • contribs)

I tend to agree with the AN/I statements that User:Ewrobbel is linkspamming and self-promoting. In particular, he's been adding references to his own books to Transistor radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Crystal radio receiver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and links to his web site under Walkman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). As far as I can tell from both the links and the discussions linked above, the only work of utility to Wikipedia from these would be the photograph of various old Walkman models.

Skimming several of the discussions involved, I don't see any serious justification for User:Ewrobbel's statement that threats are being made. User:DV8 2XL stated his intentions to continue removing linkspam in accordance with Wikipedia policies. In my past interactions with User:DV8 2XL, I've only ever seen him act in good faith. While I think he could have phrased his statements more diplomatically, I get the strong impression that User:Ewrobbel is using this as a delaying tactic in order to continue self-promoting. The discussions on AN/I and elsewhere make it clear that classifying the edits as linkspam has substantial community support.

This has been through a mediation attempt and was discussed at length on AN/I. I don't think further attempts at dispute resolution would work. User:Ewrobbel brought this to ArbCom; let him reap the results. --Christopher Thomas 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: As far as I can tell from the mediation case and elsewhere, the claims of attacks and threats are baseless. The statements that User:Ewrobbel considers "threats" were along the lines of, "I will continue to remove edits that violate Wikipedia policy". --Christopher Thomas 04:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion... Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

No one is claiming "attacks" as Christopher Thomas misstates. DV8 2XL is simply accused of abusive, threatening, and uncivil treatment of me, and intimidation of both myself and the mediator. I trust the arbitrators will be more careful in their reading of the accusation and their review of the mediation case than Christopher Thomas has been.--Ewrobbel 15:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Culture of Rudeness? Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

When DV8 2XL tells me "don't let the door hit you on the way out" on my talk page, and that (among many other things) is considered by admins SimonP and James F. as "at worst a bit curt," I can only suggest that there is a culture of rudeness in these back pages of Wikipedia which many seem so steeped in they don't even notice it anymore.--Ewrobbel 16:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

Election

The complainant has never even sought mediation (there has been no survey, no 'third opinion', etc.), nor a request for an advocate, before bringing this RfAr. How is it that the case has been accepted? Are cases brought by admins subject to lesser restrictions vis-a-vis process?

Here's Phil's comment about mediation (he never pursued it after Robert's comment) [54]. He did not follow thru on the possibility of mediation. Here's Noosphere's next discussion regarding possible mediation of disputes[55] And again here's Noosphere, not Phil, seeking mediation after a round of fierce warring: [56] and the continuing thread, ending in the removal of the mediation request due to a lack of interest [57].-- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"excuse me, but please let me point out that you all asked for a mediator: perhaps this is a good topic for me to help with. if I don't get something to do here, I'll just go back and say you case is closed because no one is responding. :-) Ted 01:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, mediation was skipped on this article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help." - from WP:AP. I imagine this is the reason. Phil Sandifer 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, Fred Bauder (who said it was his view that mediation should work) or another admin should have referred the dispute to the Mediation committee. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But they are in no way required to. See "may" not "will." Phil Sandifer 18:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred's comment read ""There is a suggestion by RyanFreisling that mediation might be productive, see his talk page. I think that may be a much more productive solution. Having the arbitration committee take the sheep shears to the articles is not going to make for a very nice haircut. " [58]
For you to claim that the 'Wikipedia process has spectacularly failed', don't you think you should have followed the process as closely as possible? Wouldn't that have been necessary for you to make that claim? How can Wikipedia process have failed, if it hasn't been attempted in good faith? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merecat/Rex071404

As mentioned above in my request to reopen 'Rex071404_4', Merecat/Rex071404, who was banned by ArbCom from editing John Kerry and sockpuppeted as Merecat in order to circumvent the ban, has engaged in disruptive editing under the guise of Merecat, resulting in indefinite bans.

Rex' 6-month ban from Rex071404_4 has also apparently ended. Please extend the ban and widen it, in light of this willing violation of ArbCom policy and continuing disruptive conduct. If Rex can simply assume another sock, and violate a permanent ban, there appears to be no solution to his attacks on Wikipedia process. Please consider this, in order to minimize the impact of the next disruptive sock proven to be Rex. (update) Mr. Tibbs has above suggested limiting Rex to one account. Please advise on the correct course of action in light of Rex' willing circumvention of ArbCom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Rex/Merecat has spawned more sockpuppets: [59]. Arbcomm please advise what we are to do about this. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Ryan and Mr. Tibbs have not explained the status clearly, this message will: 1) User:Merecat did edit John Kerry. 2) If Merecat was a alternate acccount for User:Rex071404, then Merecat can be deemed a "sockpuppet" and blocked on that basis, because Rex was not supposed to edit JK. However, if you read the full dialog on this (here), you will see that the check user policy is being abused. The users which Tibbs refers to are Neutral arbiter and Wombdpsw, neither of whom have transgressed in any manner. For this reason, if they are indeed alternate accounts, (which is permissible - see here), the Tibbs's drive to "out" them is an egregious violation and misuse of check user. In fact, the original check user which was done that "outed" Merecat may not even have been valid on it's face as the request may not have been properly founded. Be that as it may, Merecat is blocked by User:Katefan0 who has quit the wiki. But Rex is also blocked - by User:Cyde. However, the block against Rex is invalid as it says that Rex is a "sockpuppet" of Merecat. But, even a cursory check of their contributions histories will clearly show that Rex long pre-dated Merecat and Rex himself is absolutely not a sockpuppet. As it stands now, it appears that Rex would like to be unblocked and possibly cede to being deemed to being Merecat so as to be able to quit using the Rex account and instead use the Merecat account. It would seem that the Rex071404 account should be closed in favor of the Merecat account. On top of this, there may be a few loose ends to attend to, but on the face, no editor has made a strong case that Merecat is bad and for that reason, if Rex is Merecat, Rex should be allowed to transition to Merecat and drop the Rex account. On the other hand, if the ArbCom doesn't want to move this forward, then at minimum, Mr. Tibbs should be instructed to stop the witch-hunting. These new users that Tibbs acccuses are not sockuppets. In fact, they are either individual editors or at most, non-transgressing alternate accounts. Rex071404 is not under any sanction or ban that either User:Neutral arbiter or User:Wombdpsw has transgressed. Nor have these editors transgressed wiki rules. They are not disruptive, they are not doing 3RR, etc. There is simply no valid reason to keep fanning the flames of Mr. Tibbs vendettas. Also, if I am not mistaken, Ryan recently accused User:Tbeatty of being "Rex/Merecat". How many times will these two be allowed to accuse non-transgressign editors? It's time to retire the Rex bogeyman. Good ole John Kerry is not being molested and this type of bossing against others by Tibbs and Ryan is bad news. 69.46.20.59 07:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the checkuser indicated that the users are socks of Merecat/Rex. So the above looks most likely to be yet more mendatious doublespeak from a Merecat sock. Not all of the Merecat edits are directly POV pushing, his latest tactic appears to be an attempt to create an alternative reality by posting pieces to his opponent's user pages accusing them of being biased. (For evidence take a look at this [60] then look at the other edits by this IP, it is hard to see why a newbie editor would immediately acquire Merecat's fixations, the post is a transparent attempt at deception and self justification/pity). Other posts are made to complain about the unfair treatment of Merecat. If the above paragraph was indeed factually accurate and the sockpuppets have not been found to be engaged in 'transgressions' it is hard to see how they would be identified as sock puppets. Clearly their behavior was suspicious enough. Merecat is a revert warrior and POV pusher. Keep the ban. --Gorgonzilla 17:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When will this witch hunt end, We have User:Neutral arbiter, User:Tbeatty, User:Wombdpsw all accused of being Merecat. I am waiting for my turn to pop up on the list considering there evidence ammounts to use of "lets keep it NPOV" summaries. Are any of these even proven sock puppets? I think an admin needs just do a checkuser then state how long rex is banned as he and merecat cant both be sockpuppets. --zero faults talk 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To extend the witch hunt, you have people accusing everyone of being merecat, its becoming silly almost: User_talk:RyanFreisling#Another_merecat_sock.3F If you touch an article that this group defends you risk being accused. When does this become fishing or even worse an intimidation tactic. --zero faults talk 17:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that so many people who all just happen to edit the same set of articles in the same particular direction all use the same language in their pleas here. Of course that does not mean that they are all sockpuppets of a single person but there is a remarkable similarity in their approach. --Gorgonzilla 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dug up this old link about Katefan's original banning of Rex/Mercat[61] and the original RFCU.[62] and some interesting arguements.[63][64] Some more recent disturbances.[65][66] And just so everyone knows now theres more talk about this on the admin noticeboard:[67] -- Mr. Tibbs 07:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Love the idea that this is a witchhunt. Um. We have CheckUser evidence. Hello! --Woohookitty(meow) 10:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see any of the following banned for being sock puppets: Wombdpsw, Neutral Arbiter, TBeatty or Cal Burrattino. Provide these check user evidence you have please. --zero faults talk 12:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tactics this individual or clique use to evade bans show through in their edits. This smacks of being a propaganda campaign. They argue black is white then call people fools and liars for saying it isnt. They make the most tendentious POV edits imaginable then accuse others of POV peddling for reverting their nonsense. If someone was running a for fee Wikipedia scrubbing service for GOP pols this is what it would look like. Oh and BTW one does not have to assume good faith after a user is banned for repeated bad faith. --Gorgonzilla 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd the RfC doesn't say that. But you know that already cause its already been brought up else where. --zero faults |sockpuppet| 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep everyone up-to-date Neutral arbiter, Cal Burrattino, and Wombdpsw were all found to be sockpuppets of Rex071404 and have been banned indefinitely.[68]. Also it turned out I'm not a sockpuppet, fancy that.[69] I have no doubt that in the future we will be seeing more sockpuppets of Rex, so everyone keep an eye out. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misread, but is Rex naming more socks here? Does his admission that he only wanted to disrupt Wikipedia alter peoples perception of the RfC against his puppet Merecat, which stated as much? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let it go, will you? If he's really gone, he's gone. If not, it will become obvious sooner or later. Meantime, go edit an article or something. Thatcher131 11:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rex071404 has spent 2 years disrupting Wikipedia and has said on numerous previous occasions that he was quitting. You're right though, it will become obvious sooner or later when he comes back. After his sockpuppets have caused much conflict just like what happened with Merecat. This isn't something that can be "let go" anymore than Rex's indef bans will be "let go". Which is basically what he's asking for in his "goodbye-note" and even in that note he has the nerve to hold Wikipedia hostage: "If and/or when I ever return, it will be under a single new user account and I will not be a source of trouble. However, in order for this promise to be binding on me, I ask that my request (which I am making here now) to delete and protect my user page and user talk page (same as user:katefan0 did) be honored." I have posted another RFCU regarding Rex's self-admitted sockpuppets.[70] Also see Thatcher's incident report here.[71] -- Mr. Tibbs 07:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lou franklin: "Ineffective editor"

This is a matter of curiosity rather than confusion, but what was meant by "this grossly ineffective request for arbitration"? Being the one who brought that request, I naturally wonder whom/what that bit was directed at. Sorry for this rather belated request (I could have asked this weeks ago if I'd been paying attention in class). --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Lou stated on his talk page that he will "raise the red flag" about that article. Do you think this would eventually lead to additional sanctions and/or long-term blocks/bans? 16:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression, a gross error, that Lou franklin initiated the arbitration. We will not be changing the finding of fact, despite the error. Fred Bauder 14:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crotalus horridus

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

The enforcement for Crotalus horridus conflicts with the enforcement provided in the userbox remedy. Presumably the enforcement applies only to Crotalus's probation should that be invoked. Or can admins choose whichever they prefer? (And, if they can, could 5 two-week blocks result in triggering the year-block even though the remedy would not have been invoked since it limits blocks to a week?) -Splashtalk 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, we (I?) didn't do that too well. The options are to remove the enforcement from Remedy 1 or to specify that the enforcement only applies to Remedies 2 and 3. I support the former. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<ping>. I guess it's not especially important since Ch appears to be abiding by it, but it's at least untidy to let it lie. -Splashtalk 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman - Topical ban

Aucaman has made the following query on my talk page. I've given him my interpretation but it occurs to me that it would best be clarified by the arbitrators who voted on the motion in question. --Tony Sidaway 17:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me how this is going to work? I have these specific questions:

  1. How am I supposed to know which articles I can edit? Some articles under question: Kurds, Kurdistan, Middle East, Najis, Geber, al-Khwarizmi.
  2. Those articles I cannot edit, can I still edit the talk page and participate in any (possible) mediation?

You can answer these questions directly or refer me to some literature/examples that illustrate how these bans work. Thanks, AucamanTalk 05:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether an article is related to Iran or Persians is to be decided by administrators, who have instructions that "relatedness is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming." Of the articles you list above, I'd say you can probably only edit Middle East without breaching the ban, and then only if you avoid the subject of Iran and Persians.
You can still use the talk pages, participate in mediation, etc. -Tony Sidaway 11:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony's interpretation is correct. Basically if there is any doubt, don't. However, I think you could probably edit Turquoise which while related to Persia, is not about ethnic or political issues. Fred Bauder 14:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agapetos Angel

Is [72] within the prohibited editing by 203.213.77.138, 220.*, 58/56.* AA et al.? 203 has stated on his talk page that he thinks it is not within the prohibited edit set (see his talk page for details) and so I have brought the matter here for clarification. JoshuaZ 03:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr Blu Aardvark

A question has been asked: "Does Raul, a potential litigant, get to define the parameters of the case so that they do not include him?" I will ask a different question: What are the suitable steps to have the case also include those involved parties who actually hold power, both on Wikipedia and the foundation-affiliated #wikipedia, and have potentially abused it. I urge for realistic means to pursue this. Otherwise, the appearence will be that the powerless (Blu) are fair game whereas the powerful (Linuxbeak, Raul) are absolved, shielded, and unaccountable. El_C 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would be the case except that the topic is very specific; Should Blu Aardvark be permitted to return to Wikipedia? It's not about this whole situation with MSK, Linuxbeak, etc; While the facts leading to his blocks and unblocks are relevant, sanctions against those who took those actions are not. If someone wishes to make a motion to expand the scope of the arbitration case to MSK, Linuxbeak, Raul, and the others involved, and it gets support, fine. Hell, I'd support it. Until that time, there needs to be evidence and motions within the confines of the topic, which is singluar and specific. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 20:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in clarification from the Committee about the scope of the case. El_C 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My own feeling is that it is of utmost importance that we sort out the status of Blu Aardvark soon. His is the customary appeal of a community ban to arbcom (there is similar situation up on this page, soon to be opened as a case). That is a case that has already exhausted dispute resolution. While I have my own opinions about Linuxbeak's unblocking and Raul's reapplication of the unblock (twice), I don't think this case is for that. Rather, the current RFC is the appropriate place for that, and any other necessary dispute resolution, and only after those avenues are exhausted, a separate request should be made here. This has been an extraordinary circumstance to be sure, but I don't really think Blu Aardvark's appealing of his ban should be occasion to jumo the dispute resolution process for administrators that are tangentially involved, even if they have shown poor judgment. Dmcdevit·t 07:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This answer leaves me with a strong impression of cronyism for higher-ups, and I'll be withdrawing my participation in protest. I'm not asking for sanctions, but I strongly object to what I feel is a double-standard masquerading as narrow proceduralism. El_C 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we just want to keep the case reasonably simple. Fred Bauder 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intentions aside, the impression this narrow-sidedness leaves —simplicity over comprehensibility at the expense of accountability— will not address the underlying problems effectively, I fear. But I won't press the point. Still, it leaves one wandering at the whim(?) of who or what are some cases pursued more narrowly or broadly than others. El_C 03:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We take on bureaucrats when they become insufferable, not every time a controversy arises. Fred Bauder 12:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take on the arbitrators when their standards become controversial, not wait till they become insufferable. El_C 22:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Since the conclusion of the Arbitration case, StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs) has continued to assume bad faith and make disruptive edits with the StrangerInParadise account while maintaining a separate, older, user account. Thus, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al is modified to include the following remedy:

StrangerInParadise restricted to one user account

StrangerInParadise is restricted to one user account. Any sockpuppet accounts will be blocked indefinitely and the main account blocked for up to 48 hours if this is violated.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 15:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comment

This motion has been sitting here for almost a month now. Who will officially implement it, and when? 18:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.11.27 (talk • contribs) .

According to the block log: 00:23, 19 May 2006 Cyde blocked "StrangerInParadise (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Per WP:RFAR this user has been limited to one account. If you pick this one then this one will be unblocked and the other one will be blocked indefinitely.) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed this message on User talk:StrangerInParadise: [73] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=57567328"