Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests - Wikipedia


Article Images

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The last step of dispute resolution is a request for arbitration. Please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

Please place comments on the talk page, not here.

Structure of this page

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Important points:

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

New requests

Template

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

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

User:B1link82

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]

Statement by Rhobite

In the few weeks he's been here, B1link82 has personally attacked many editors [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], revert warred on several articles (see blink-182 history, Special Air Service history), and vandalized several articles [10] [11]. He has been blocked three times in the past nine days: Once for vandalism [12] and twice for three-revert rule violations [13] [14]. He is the subject of a current RFC. His response to the RFC was to call the complainants "some of the stupidest people I have ever come across" [15], call a user a "cock sucking prick" [16], vandalize the RFC [17], vandalize user pages [18] [19] [20], etc.

This should be a short case. I was tempted to simply block him forever due to vandalism he committed today, but I figure this should go through RFAR since he has made attempts at valid editing. As soon as his words are edited, however, he has a tendency to go on vandalism/personal attack sprees.

Due to his vandalism and personal attacks, I'd like to request a temporary injunction against B1link82 preventing him from editing articles and article talk pages. Rhobite 17:12, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

He has also removed and changed other users' comments on his RFC [21] [22], so I think there should also be a strong injunction against that behavior on the RFC and on this RFAR. Rhobite 17:51, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
To Grunt: The blocking policy states that "user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner." I don't feel comfortable blocking him, because he has made valid edits. This would also let him off the hook for his personal attacks and revert wars, since he'd be free to make a new account and continue his incivility. Please reconsider your vote. Rhobite 19:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Alkivar

Wow! I knew he had a bit of an aggressive personality like myself, but this is rediculous. I never directly targetted him, this user seems to have a persecution complex. I don't think there is anything I could add that Rho didn't already. My RFC on him documents pretty much everything else.  ALKIVAR™ 17:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He also created a sockpuppet titled "Alkivar's boyfriend" ([23] during this RFAr (it's since been indefinately blocked).  ALKIVAR™ 16:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Necrothesp

This individual has continually deleted factual text from Special Air Service, while reverting and insulting anyone who dares to change any of his own text (even if this is merely to correct a bad link). For some reason, he refuses to accept that facts which can be checked easily on a Google search are true, seems to believe that once he has edited it he owns an article, and claims that he is more intelligent and knows more than anyone who disagrees with him. I wish I could believe that he could become a responsible editor, but sadly I feel that his arrogance and persecution complex will prevent this for many years to come. -- Necrothesp 23:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do I have to say something

I have no idea what the fuck this is and don't particualrly care. --B1link82 12:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


lol you lot should be honoured to have someone as intelligent as me on here! lataz oh and necrowhatever - sit down and shut up.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA sockpuppet what a fuckin stupid name! --b1link82 16:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

  • Reject - dedicated vandals can be shot on sight without our intervention. Consult the other administrators if you're not sure whether this is warranted. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:07, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
  • Accept, seeing Rhobite's response to Grunt. Though I'd run it past WP:AN/I as well for other admins' opinions. By the way, it seemed to be a GNAA standard method for a while to start an account off with "good" edits then go batshit - David Gerard 22:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept if necessary, but would prefer to see account blocked indefinitely for vandalism anyway. Ambi 02:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:STP

Involved parties

User:STP

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User talk:STP

Statement by party 1

Personal attacks, abusiveness, POV pushing, general obnoxiousness. [24] [25] [26] [27] to start. I may move this to requests of clarification as I look into some talk I've heard that he's a sockpuppet of Alberuni. Snowspinner 23:47, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC

Sockpuppet evidence

This is adapted from an e-mail sent to me privately. I will note that the sender has had great success identifying Alberuni sockpuppets in the past:

First of all, it's clear STP's a sockpuppet. His third edit on Wikipedia refers (correctly) to "original research", something no newbie is aware of. [28]

Next, look at STP's telling edits on Muhmmad al-Durrah and Anne Frank; immediately upon noticing Muhammad al-Durrah has been added to Category:Hoaxes, he removes the Category[29] and adds it to Anne Frank instead[30], echoing the analogy Alberuni had made between the two months earlier.[31]

Now lets look at STP's editing pattern. As with Alberuni's other sockpuppets, he starts by editing unrelated (likely random) articles, but quickly zeros in on articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. As well, his edits, when not pushing his POV or pretending to be a non-native English speaker, are high quality copyedits; e.g. [32] [33] [34] [35]

Now compare STP's edits: [36] [37] [38]

Finally, his comments in Talk: and on his edit summaries match Alberuni style. Snowspinner 01:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

How can the Arb Comm decide whether to accept this case on the basis of these four pieces of evidence? The first two represent one incident, similar edit summaries ("delete POV whining") made on two reversions of an edit. The third is the reversion of an edit made to a Section title on a Talk page. The section title in question accused "editors" of bigotry for removing an NPOV tag in the article. This was not a personal attack but a general comment about "editors", and in any case, STP did not make it originally, but only reverted the removal of it. The fourth example is STP objecting on her Talk page to SlimVirgin accusing him of vandalism and characterizing the accusation as trying to "censor everything you disagree with by calling it vandalism". This last statement can't be evaluated without looking at the accusations of vandalism to which he was responding. So, an accusation of "POV whining" -- not the most egregious personal attack to be found on the Wikipedia, and two other less clear episodes. Maybe this case is justified, and everybody knows it, but this isn't a kangaroo court, and Snowspinner should do his homework and present evidence, especially when the complaint is so comprehensive as "personal attacks, abusiveness, POV pushing, general obnoxiousness". --BM 12:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, if "everybody knows it", including you, who STP has referred to as a "Zionist racist censor", why don't you add to the evidence? Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Because I'm not the person bringing the Arb Comm case; Snowspinner is, and he hasn't done his homework, apparently expecting the Arb Comm to just go along with him because STP has made a lot of enemies. Besides, I don't care that much about personal attacks against me. As far as I'm concerned, even people who call me a "Zionist racist censor" deserve to be treated with procedural correctness. Or, if this is all just a charade, and the Arb Comm is here basically just to whack people whom "everybody knows" deserve to be whacked, then let them dispense summary justice and skip the window dressing. It would be a lot more honest, not to mention, efficient. --BM 18:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Four diffs, a reccomendation from an arbitrator that they might want to look at this, and a sockpuppet accusation seemed to me to be enough to list. Not to convict, but to list. If any arbitrators want more, though, please ask. Snowspinner 18:59, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

  • For the moment, I'd be amazed if Alberuni was silly enough to act detectably. But I'll ask the devs for info. The edits (and particularly the personal attacks) look remarkably similar in style to me. I'd like to hear in more (a lot more) detail from those who've dealt closely with both STP and Alberuni. If STP is a sock, he would of course be blockable immediately - David Gerard 08:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I asked Tim Starling on IRC and he said the login data from Dec/Jan is largely gone, but I've asked them to look at other things for correlations. In the meantime, amassing a pile of edit evidence will probably help convince people on WP:AN/I, even given the querulous - David Gerard 15:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Holding off on voting until we hear back on a possible sockpuppet connection. If a link is confirmed, view this as a "reject" vote with advice to shoot the sockpuppet. If a link is explicitly nonexistent, view this as an "accept" vote. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:33, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC) Accept, due to lack of technical evidence of sockpuppetry; we'll need to make that decision on other forms of evidence. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:08, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
  • Accept, based on [39] Fred Bauder 14:40, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept as is, since sock can't be proven technically. The diff Fred cites is a perfect example - David Gerard 03:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Fadix vs User:Coolcat

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

  • I know about it. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Coolcat warned about it. Fadix 00:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I noticed it, worse luck. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I have been aware of User:Coolcat for some time now. Davenbelle 18:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am aware of it. Stereotek 19:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 1, Coolcat

I kept a polite attitude, I asked him to stop multiple times. Asked User:Tony Sidaway to help me out, he told me to follow various ways. It is imposible to discuss things when you are accused of , hidden agendas, being a troll, being a revisionsist, being type here. User is ignoring the "No Personal Attacks" policy. My discussion with him is clear in Talk:Armenian Genocide as well as in archives. User did not vandalise my user page or anything but it is stull quite irritating. At this point I am not sure what else I can do aside from showing up here. Just as I was typing this I was asked on my user page: "Mr. Coolcat, for the interest of the entire Wikipedian community, why have you lied about you." --Cool Cat My Talk 00:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Please advise me on any issue that requires my attendance. Thanks. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Point is the personal attacks are unacceptable, we are not discussing what is pov or not. You do not have the right to asign me things like hidden agenda accusations. Mulltiple users turned bad, which makes the situation worse. You are required to have a civil and polite tone. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Just because one claims something is accepted by the majority doesn't make it factual. I need sources I can rely on, preferably not devoted to the issue to minimise propoganda material. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In regarding out side interference: I do not think Personal Attacks are tolerated in wikipedia. Fadix cannot stop it. I suggest you stop it as I couldnt. Oh btw no matter what you do do not THREATEN me. This is not about an article, this is people not following Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Here is what I currently think. Following users are ANNOYING me and I fail to reason with them, I am been acused of things not just in articles but here as well.
Solution: SHOOT ME or HELP ME. Thanks.

Please check user contributions by:

  • Stereotek
  • Davenbelle

Now tell me what you see is common with my contributions. Any addition I made to articles remotely related to Turkey or Kurds or Armenia, have been removed in a join effort by these two parties. Their latest edits are devoted to private comunication or removing my edits. This is a verriy serious problem, I am nt having a confortable stay on wikipedia due to these two users while fadix is just insulting. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2, Fadix

(Coppied from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee --Cool Cat My Talk 00:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Coolcat was not accused of hidden agenda by only me, but as well, by various other members and he knows it. He got involved himself in every articles directly or indirectly involving Turkey, editing them with his POV by claiming to neutralize them. He came in with the Armenian Genocide entry and did the same thing. I have proposed everything and he has refused any propositions. I have proposed to present the Western version, the Turkish government version etc. and the critics for each according to the Academia and researchers in the field. He has refused, he wanted to dump every versions and merge them, edit etc. and get the entire article as the Turkish government version. I asked mediation, I made many concessions, but he has ignored. He has edited the World War I entry reference to the Armenian cases, a Holocaust entry because it got the Armenian cases, Genocide history entry, editing the Armenian cases. He got involved in many such articles, and now he is proposing himself to mediate Karabagh entry. A historian has told him to stop in the Greek Turkish relation entry... and many other people in other entries. I have tried everything, nothing worked. I have enough of this anti-elitist position. I wanted to participate in the genocide entry, because I know a lot about it, while Coolcat is trying to color with his nationalist aim, any entries directly or indirectly involving Turkey. I have enough of making concessions, and his ignoring of those concessions... I just want him officialy out of the Armenian genocide entry, as others want him out from other enteries. I advances the cases, that for one to be respected, that person must respect you, Coolcat has only harmed Wikipedia, and I admit that I just can't smell him anymore and that he does not worth my respect. And I believe that many will come here after being warned of Coolcat new attempt, and support my position. Fadix 00:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Follow up. I would first like to point out, that I really don't appreciate my post from the talk page being presented as my case here; this was a unilateral action by Coolcat, that he notified me of after the fact. Had I known of his intention, I would have objected and would have written a statement specific to the arbitration. Secondly, Coolcat has presented this case as a case against me. It is Coolcat who has done everything to place me in a corner, knowing full well that in a proper forum he would have no position to defend.
I would also like to comment on Grunt's suggestion of mediation. I did ask for mediation, without any answer. This is beyond a content dispute, well beyond. While I will be focusing the evidence I present on what was done in the Armenian Genocide entry, there are many, many POV pushing edits by Coolcat elsewhere in Wikipedia. I have reviewed his edit history, and frankly, it goes beyond content. Coolcat is here with an aim... he tries to hide this by working on unrelated issues, most particularly when accused, and then, he will resume doing the same thing. Just recently he did the same in the Turkey article.
I admit to not being completely innocent and blameless. I have attacked another user, Torque, and have admitted it to an administrator, but I am confident that reading our exchanges, it will be apparent that Torque's abrasiveness (who Tony has already characterised as a problematic user) has no place in Wikipedia. What I reject though is the notion that I have attacked Coolcat; I contend that I have accused him, not attacked him. For me, there is a clear distinction between attacking and accusing someone. I also admit that when I first came here, I did not understood NPOV well, primarily during my early edits in the “Armenian quote” entry regarding Hitler, and later in Armenian genocide. But I have corrected myself, and once I better understood Wikipedia's neutrality policy, I accepted it. I have to thank Stereotek here, for his efforts to neutralize the Armenian Genocide article I was working on.
I know now what neutrality is all about, I have worked on a very neutral article, Ottoman Armenian Population, with sources from every side, and will be doing the same with my upcoming entry regarding Ottoman Armenian Casualties. I think I have conformed to Wikipedia's rules. What I contend though, is that Coolcat has NOT. And I have fresh evidence concerning it; evidence that should not be ignored. In fact, Coolcat has shown no change in behaviour indicating that he will be conforming to Wikipedia policies. Had this been only a content dispute, we could perhaps hope that a mediator might correct the situation. I have asked for mediation for the genocide entry, which was an issue over content; what this case is about is beyond that. Coolcat's approach is against NPOV entirely, it is not just a simple case of POV pushing. Fadix 00:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 3, Tony Sidaway

If this goes any further I guess I'll end up giving evidence, so I may as well have a say upfront. Coolcat and Fadix are opinionated but not malicious editors with radically different points of view. I have found both to be fairly responsive to reason and highly appreciative of good faith intervention. Both have attracted some extreme personal attacks as well as a fair amount of legitimate criticism, and both have produced excellent work that is a credit to Wikipedia. While it is true that they seem to have had what could become a feud, it hasn't really been that nasty given the extremely contentious ground upon which they encounter one another (Armenia/Turkey). I am on reasonably good terms with both, and I don't think the behavior of either is yet beyond the reach of normal dispute resolution. I ask the arbitrators to reject this case unless evidence of gross abuse by either of them comes to light. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 4, Davenbelle re User:Coolcat

I request that the Arbitration Committee accept the case regarding User:Coolcat. I have encountered this user on many pages and found him to be a flagrant POV-pusher. User devotes much time and energy to hunting down all references to Kurdish issues and Armenian Genocide and edits the articles to advance his point of view. User has listed numerous articles for deletion (unsuccessfully), deleted factual material, has been reverted by many, many users (including Tony Sidaway), and has consistently returned to seek a new way to advance POV. User has attempted to dominate discussion on talk pages and quotes absurd interpretations of Wikipedia policies there and in edit summaries. User edits at warp speed running up an editcount of almost over 4,000 edits in 2 months.

I have already compiled an extensive evidence page and only await an official evidence page upon which to post it. In the course of reviewing User:Coolcat's 'contributions' I have found numerous examples of other users' conflicts with User:Coolcat, many of whom might well present further statements and evidence. I have posted a very small example of my collected evidence on my user page (earlier example here); my talk page also makes for interesting reading.

I will post further examples here given the slightest indication that it is welcome and appropriate.

Sincerely, Davenbelle 18:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

re Grunt's 'Reject' – A request for mediation has already been filed re Coolcat and Fadix; I was not party to it and can only say that it does not appear to have worked. — Davenbelle 19:23, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

This is about more than POV-Pushing; the root of the matter is behavior that is harmful to Wikipedia. User:Coolcat's. not-so-hidden agenda is a process of finding and 'neutralizing' (in a pejorative sense) content on Wikipedia that relates to Kurds and Armenian Genocide, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Cyprus and Greco-Turkish relations. User:Coolcat asserts that all of his edits have been reverted; this is far from the case. User:Coolcat conducts his crusade against the 'offending' content at a furious pace and has removed much content and structure that many editors have built-up over the life of the project. The editors who have noticed his actions have managed to limit the damage to a degree, but the goal here is a Death by a thousand cuts; for every bit of content or structure that has been saved by a revert or a subsequent edit, another has slipped through and may be irretrievably lost. Sure, they're all here, but are they ever going to all be reviewed and reasonable remediation performed? There are thousands.

As you'll have noticed, User:Coolcat reacted hotly to the statements made here yesterday. Twelve minutes before the first of his above comments dated 01:38 thru 01:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC). He made this edit to Kurdistan with the edit summary "Link is related to the Kurdish people, not the region. Already avalible [sic] in Kurdish People article" which removed the link to Kurdish music. This is just one small cut, to one article. But an article entitled 'Kurdistan' should have links to most, if not all, of the other articles related to Kurds, including to the article about their music, as, of course, should the 'Kurdish people' article. This is fundamental, and to relentlessly conduct a systematic campaign of extermination against any specific content and structure is harmful to the project. And if User:Coolcat gets away with it, others will follow in his footsteps and more harm will befall this great project.

It is no coincidence that my argument here against User:Coolcat's agenda echoes my statement to him on my talk page (diff) excoriating his efforts to deny the Armenian Genocide. The issue is the same: that harmful actions motivated by animus towards a culture are abhorrent and that failure to oppose such actions encourages more of the same and incurs a responsibility for the next such action.

Sincerely, Davenbelle 12:08, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 5, Stereotek

I request that the arbitrators accept the case, Fadix vs. Coolcat.

Coolcat has continuously disrupted Wikipedia by promoting a pro-Turkish government POV in highly unusual ways, and has among other thing insisted on 'mediating' in various Turkey-related articles, despite his obvious non-neutral views, and a clearly expressed wish from other involved editors not to make use of his 'mediation' (See: Talk:Greco-Turkish relations). In connection with his 'mediation' efforts Coolcat has been utilizing a highly unusual 'mediation template', and insisted that other users should follow the color scheme included in this template when commenting on the talk page. (See: Talk:Armenian Genocide). With POV edits confronted, Coolcat has made allegations about his opponents using sockpuppets to "overwhelm" him in discussions. Another reaction from Coolcat in connection with content disagreements has been numerous personal attacks against several users, that have resisted his ways. Coolcat's response to suggested compromises has been extremely disappointing. In connection with a lost vote on the discussion page, Coolcat repeatedly changed the Abdullah Öcalan into a PKK redirect, despite clear consensus on articles talk page not to merge it with the PKK article. Other violations by Coolcat include personal attacks against named Wikipedians on the users private user page. If the case is accepted, I will contribute to the evidence, which in Coolcat's case will include several hundreds of examples, of violations of Wikipedias policies. -- Stereotek 19:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

  • Accept. Ambi 01:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject; this is a case mostly related to content which could probably be solved by methods that are not as extreme as arbitration requests. This is merely one battle in an ongoing war regarding Turkish points of view and their statement as fact; I've seen numerous other instances in which conflict has been based on this underlying cause and have seen mediation etc. be successful. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:11, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
    Also please don't use a template to hold this case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:11, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
  • I spent a great deal of time reading the talk page and page histories of Armenian genocide. Both parties seem to have violated minor policies and to have an uncivil tone. No clear pattern emerges of major policy violations. If you think otherwise please point to specific edits, not in a general way to all pages which concern Kurds and Armenians. Fred Bauder 16:39, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:IZAK

Involved parties

This is a request to re-open Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK, regarding excessive cross-posting of personal attacks by User:IZAK.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User:IZAK has been notified. -- Netoholic @ 17:16, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Statement by Netoholic

It has recently come to my attention that User:IZAK has recently continued to cross-post personal attacks – an activity that the previous arbitration sanctioned him for by invoking a 10 day ban and a 2 month personal attack parole, which recently expired. I'd like the arbitrators to re-open for the purposes of reinstating and extending this parole.

Recently, IZAK has cross-posted this verbage to multiple talk pages ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]), using edit summaries like "User:STP is a bigot, read his hate for yourself", "User:STP is a vandal and hate monger" and "User:STP is filled with hate speech against Jews".

While I have no opinion about User:STP, "calling him out" in this way and demanding the user's removal from Wikipedia is over the top. This tactic is identical to the ones IZAK has used before, and creates an overly hostile environment. -- Netoholic @ 17:16, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Statement by IZAK

Please limit your statement to 500 words


It makes absolutely no sense for Netoholic to come to the "defense" of poor old User:STP for the following reasons:

  1. It was User:STP who created a case which is completely REJECTED at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:SlimVirgin and User:IZAK are repeatedly removing the NPOV tag from Lavon Affair article, including false and innacurate claims against me. There is presently a very strong debate going on there, see [49] about when and how User:STP should be banned and blocked very soon!
  2. As a service to Wikipedia users unaware of User:STP's hate I posted (cited by Netoholic) the message which I had originall written at [50] which I then re-posted, and now here too, in full:
  3. User:STP has in fact been cited for vandalism by User:ElTyrant, see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Current alerts#April 4 [51] and is suspected by both User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg of being a sock puppet of banned User:Alberuni see User talk:STP [52] and Mossad "Project"? No, it was Mossad terrorism [53];
  4. UserSTP is also guilty of using anti-Semitic slurs, such as: "traitor Jews can't be trusted" [54] ; "Judaism is a cult but Jewish cultists, of course, deny it" and:
  5. User:STP added the blood libel: ":Ethnocentric Jews killed Jesus 2000 years ago and in the past century they have killed thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians and other innocent victims in their quest to maintain their racist state." [55], and again repeated it "The Jews killed Jesus, among many others" [56] ! So who is this guy to "complain" when he should be booted off Wikipedia ASAP.
  6. This RfA should be dropped immediately as the number of my posts (about 9) are not excessive, and because I am in fact doing Wikipedia a service by hastening the removal of an offensive presumed sock-puppet for a banned user who has no shame in using raw Anti-Semitism and accusations of blood libels. In fact, I think I treated the Jew-hating scum-bag too kindly, with all due respect to Netoholic's unfounded concerns. IZAK 05:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To Grunt: I am not able to find any attack campaigns during the parole, though this recent one was only barely outside of it. The old case closed on Jan 18th, IZAK was banned for 10 days, and then a two month parole commenced, ending less than a week before this. I encourage you to re-open, because this is too similar to his previous actions. I can't think that any other remedy is needed except an extention of the personal attack parole. -- Netoholic @ 06:10, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

To IZAK: I don't see any relevance as to whether STP is truly anti-Semetic. Let him have his beliefs, just as you have yours. Do not take his comments out of context and wage a campaign against him - Wikipedia does not need that sort of "service". Wikipedia doesn't care what any editor's beliefs are, only that those beliefs are expressed in a way which is neutral in articles. If his edits are not NPOV, then discuss that issue with him or file a WP:RFC. Comment on the edit, not the editor. I hope you and the Arbitrators can see the distinction is an important one. -- Netoholic @ 06:05, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

User:STP's comments and edits have been highly inflammatory, and certainly well outside the bounds of what is permitted on Wikipedia. While IZAK's visceral reaction to this kind of incitement is understandable, he should nevertheless avoid commenting on other editors, and stick to discussing edits and article content only. Jayjg (talk) 20:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • In fairness to IZAK, STP is suspected of being a sockpuppet of banned user Alberuni, though this has not been proven. Whether this is true or not, s/he behaves in the same deliberately provocative manner that Alberuni's dozen or so sockpuppets used to. STP left this remark [57] on Jayjg's user page, implying certain anti-Semitic slurs of Jayjg; made this edit [58] to Immigration_to_Israel_from_Arab_lands, stating that the Lavon Affair was an example of treachory, treason, and terrorism (and while there are people who would agree with this, we can't state it in an article as undisputed fact); then complained on WP:AN/I because the edits were being reverted, making this comment to Jayjg and Mirv: "What a creepy couple you two are! Illiterate, conceited, arrogant, biased, blind, emasculated, losers. C YA - Wouldn't want to be ya!" [59] Given that STP seems to have been determined to cause trouble, he's probably quite pleased that he's caused Izak a problem here. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

  • Comment - were there any personal attacks during the parole itself? If so, such paroles normally reset at the time of notice of breach of parole - in which case the parole can still be considered to be in effect and there is no need for us to hear this. If this is a resurgence after the parole ended, I would be inclined to open this as an entirely new case and not to reopen the old one. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:16, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC) Reject in favour of the STP case above, where we can hear anything that might have an impact on IZAK's reactions to him there. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:28, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • Reject. While I would caution IZAK to be more careful with his words in future, the evidence IZAK presents suggests to me that it's too close to calling a spade a spade for us to become involved. Ambi 05:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject. However, the matter of STP may be of interest. But not until a case is brought - David Gerard 23:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject ➥the Epopt 17:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject. Neutralitytalk 01:34, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject, however please use more civil language in the future. Have some faith in the rest of us. We will take action with obvious anti-Semites. Fred Bauder 16:46, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:Geni vs. User:Earl Andrew

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[60]

  • I was aware, last time I checked. I'm adding myself to this case because I intend to contest it strongly as a fellow defendant, for the misdemeanor of acting like a fool on April 1, 2005. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 1

User:Earl Andrew broke the 3RR rule on Wikipedia:April 1, 2005/-2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia-. As a result I blocked him for 24 hours[61]. Earl Andrew then unblocked himself[62] in violation of policy as made clear on the WP:3RR page. His defence was that the 3RR does not apply to april fools day pages. He stated that if I reblocked him he would pull the block again and file an arbom case[63]. Thefore I am saving him and the block button some effort Requested remedy:noneGeni 11:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

Hello, I would first like to apologize for unblocking myself. I am too unfamiliar with IRC and mailing lists to appeal the block. However, I believe I should never have been blocked in the first place. The page in question was obviously a joke page, and therefore no strict rules should have been applied to it. This was my understanding. I did not vandalize the page, and if anything, the removal of my submission may even be considered vandalism in itself. I made sure that paragraph I wrote tied into the whole fake news story. What I believe is that there should have been more discussion before anything drastic like blocking me should have taken place. Thank You, --   Earl Andrew - talk 23:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 3

It was a joke page. Its very existence was an anomaly condoned by Wikipedia. to inject rules into such an environment would be, well, silly. Earl Andrew's attitude "I'm an extremely busy person on Wikipedia, with lots of projects open. I cannot afford to be blocked for even one minute" sounds worrying, but nothing that couldn't be solved by a good long holiday away from annoyances like modems and networks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (1/6/0/0)

  • Accept to clarify the role (if any) of humor should have in Wikipedia — is humor not allowed? — do humorous pages enjoy any special exemptions from the rules? ➥the Epopt 15:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject; de minimis non curat arbitrator - i.e. this is not worth our attention. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:23, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • Reject - concur with Grunt. Ambi 00:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject, not ongoing matter with problem user; ergo, trivial dispute. Neutralitytalk 04:29, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject, not ongoing matter. Please sort it out amongst yourselves, you're all reasonably sane grownups of good faith - David Gerard 22:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject. As above. mav 02:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject, this nonsense was bad enough the first time around. Fred Bauder 16:49, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat & User:Instantnood

Involved parties

User:SchmuckyTheCat & User:Instantnood & User:Jguk

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[64] [65] [66]

Statement by User:SchmuckyTheCat

I am making this request for Arbitration after spending the last two months in daily edit wars with Instantnood. I previously brought it up in an RfC which did not change his behavior. Mediation in this case would be unproductive.

I've thought about whether to take this drastic step for awhile. This evening he began reverting several hours of my organizational work because it did not agree with his agenda. I'm done trying to explain or be civil when he's violating the naming conventions he usually holds up in his defense.

Initial glob of evidentiary links: /Instantnood/Evidence

POV Instantnood is a Hong Kong patriot. He is using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy. He often expresses this as a matter of presentation rather than direct content editing. He has mostly lost arguments in "list of xxx by country" to have Hong Kong included as an equal member with the People's Republic of China. His current front is to denigrate the People's Republic of China to a regional term "mainland China", a disputed term currently under discussion. By declaring the rest of China as "mainland China" instead of the People's Republic of China it again makes Hong Kong equal, in presentation, to the entire country. There are valid uses for the term "mainland China". The term does have it's supporters. However, Instantnood is using the term in extreme ways that push his POV. He uses the (disputed) naming conventions as backup, but even the disputed language says that "mainland China" should only be used in non-political contexts. When he edits articles about elections, laws, and political parties that appear in categories BY COUNTRY, he is creating a country of "mainland China" and deleting the country called The People's Republic of China.

Edit summaries Instantnood marks major and disputed changes, and even reverts, with "minor edit" even after being reminded on multiple pages and his talk page multiple times to not do this.

Revert wars Instantnood was warned about 3RR in an edit war with Huaiwei. Since then he has taken his reverts right up to three, but not crossed it. He is gaming the 3RR rule and treating it like an entitlement. There have been literally dozens of these miniature revert wars over the last few weeks.

Edit wars Instantnood involves himself in edit wars. This came out in the RfC against him even by people who approved of his edits. This has not changed.

Content Subterfuge Instantnood has created parallel articles and categories on several occasions. He has hidden controversial changes by hiding them with other edits.

Avoiding concensus As shown in the evidence about POV pushing, Instantnood has created or populated categories that are in parallel to established categories when concensus to move to his new naming scheme has yet to be approved and unlikely to ever be approved.

The most jarring episode of concensus avoiding, however, occurred on the articles about Hong Kong and Victoria City. Around the end of February and the beginning of March, it was the concensus of everyone - except Instantnood - that was editing those articles that Victoria City was not, in fact, the capitol of Hong Kong. Instantnood repeatedly reverted the articles to reflect his opinion that it was. A matter of fact should be easy to prove, and emails to the Hong Kong government, multiple times, even, proved that Victoria City was an antique term and was never, in fact, the capitol. Instantnood continued to question this until people ignored his discussion.

User Space/Recreation of Deleted Material Though this issue is resolved, it remains as damning evidence that Instantnood games the rules and cannot be expected to be a good citizen and interpret reasonable policies if it conflicts with his attempts to push POV. After losing the edit wars over the status of Victoria City as the capitol of Hong Kong, Instantnood copied "his version" of the articles to his userspace. That kind of preservation is absolutely OK. However, he left the categories intact specifically so that his alternative articles would be seen in parallel in the main wikipedia. He had to be told, specifically, several times, that it was NOT OK to do this before he finally accepted that he could not create a parallel universe inside his user space.

Assume good faith I fully admit to losing the assumption of good faith in Instantnoods edits. It has been apparent to me for a long time that he has an agenda. Even so, I have thanked him when he has improved my edits (for instance, by adding the Chinese characters for a name of a person or city). I realized that Instantnood lost good faith in me by his most petty of reverts. I found it quite common for him to revert me regardless of why I had edited some articles. In one instance, I realized that it was petty: 99 Ranch Market. A grocery store I regularly shop at when in the United States. It is an asian grocery store, it carries products from across the globe. I changed a link from "mainland China" to "China" because China is more encompassing, and Instantnood, who lives on the other side of the planet from the nearest 99 Ranch Market, reverted my edit, TWICE, and demanded evidence that this grocery store carries products from Hong Kong, asking "how do you know?"

Furthermore, when I presented emails from the HK government about the capitol city issue, Instantnood hounded me and insinuated that I even have made them up. I told him which website I went to and which links I clicked to get the answers, it was not like I had some inside source, yet he continued, even on the RfC page, to insinuate that I was hiding something.

Talk Pages/Rules of Engagement/Work towards a resolution/Filibuster The other large problem with Instantnood, is that he fails to give up gracefully. In a discussion, long past the point where he has exhausted his arguments, he simply turns around and repeats himself until the other side stops talking. At this point, he takes that as capitulation to his filibuster and makes the changes.

On occasions where he would be on the losing side of 3RR and there has been no talk page discussion, he simply adds various dispute templates to the articles. At first it was template:twoversions, lately it has become template:controversial. Special note: I keep changing his controversial tag to the disputed tag. In most cases where he adds the tags, he does not make a problem statement or attempt to resolve the dispute - to the frustration of other third parties who may not be aware of his overarching agenda to re-categorize anything China.

SchmuckyTheCat 04:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Instantnood

This is a content dispute, and this is not a dispute between two users. Many users are involved.

There are ongoing discussion across several discussion pages on Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). The issue has been put up on WP:RFC and Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance by me.

The edit wars do not actually exist. I would say the situation was rather marginal. Although my username was listed onto WP:AN/3RR by SchmuckyTheCat, I did not violate the 3RR rule. I have not reverted more than 3 times (i.e. 4 times or more) in 24 hours.

I do not agree that a content dispute could be made an arbitration on a user. Rather, this should be an arbitration of the disputed content. I am looking forward to necessary assistance from administrators. Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 04:25, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

List of ongoing discussions:

(Note: this list will be updated from time to time)

See also additional information regarding ongoing discussion on the issue among many users, and recent edits by SchmuckyTheCat. — Instantnood 06:05, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jguk

I am now enjoining myself to this request for arbitration on Instantnood's behaviour. Instantnood, when he first came to WP, proposed changing almost all references to "Taiwan" to "ROC" and all references to "China" or "People's Republic of China" to "Mainland China" in article titles, categorisation schemes and templates. He, of course, had every right to do that.

His proposals did not meet community support. Since then, he has made them again and again and again. Each time he has failed to gain community support for his proposals. A number of users have asked him to stop making these proposals now it is clear what the community view is. And there has been a RfC on the issue. However, the problem persists.

By way of recent example see: [67], and [68], where he has just started no fewer than 25 votes on the issue! Read, in particular, the comments at the bottom of the second link.

Under the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, the ArbCom has the power to make an initial decision to order that Instantnood has failed to gain community support for his proposals, and that his persistence in continuing to re-propose them is disruptive. The order should also required Instantnood to stop arguing for changes in the naming of China and Taiwan related articles, categories and templates, etc. on sufferance of a 1 week ban, jguk 16:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Instantnood

Jguk does not agree with the current set of naming conventions. She/he, and some other users, did attempt to revise it, but it was not successful. Nonetheless she/he should not block the enforcement of the current set of naming conventions, and requests for arbitration for the behaviour of a user who try to help the naming conventions be truly enforced. She/he has a record of voting against retitling of articles from "..in China" to "..in the People's Republic of China", which is definitely about mainland China. (one of the examples) She/he also failed to recognise that my view is not unanimously objected.

More important, quite opposite to what she/he said, I did not propose to change all titles of "the People's Republic of China" and "China". I did mention the moves do not apply to some articles/categories (see #1 and #2). If there's anything confusing that made her/him misunderstood, I am most willing to further elaborate to her/him. — Instantnood 16:44, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Updates to Arb requests

Response [69] SchmuckyTheCat 09:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the evidence and her/his latest response, I have responded at this section of the additional information to my statement. — Instantnood 11:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

  • Please provide direct evidence (i.e. diff links) of your claims. Ambi 11:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a case to take, but please provide diffs to support the claims - David Gerard 13:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
/Instantnood/Evidence was created with the filing.
  • Abstain pending response to allegations that this is a content dispute. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:45, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC) Continued abstain; I attribute the general apathy of arbitrators in this vote to being excessively verbose in statement. If you can possibly be more concise in your statements please do. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:37, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

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

User:Ger6, User:Nulla, et al

Based on my previous interactions with banned users User:Reithy and User:Libertas/User:Ollieplatt (same person), I have a strong suspicion that one of them is behind the current attempts to insert POV on Oliver North. For background see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reithy/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Libertas/Evidence. See this edit by Libertas/Ollieplatt for instance [70], and this example of Reithy's typical POV editing [71]. Compare with the current version of Oliver North which is being inserted by Ger6, Nulla, and many other sockpuppets: [72]. I'm requesting arbitrator/developer assistance in determining whether these users are sockpuppets of either Reithy or Libertas/Ollieplatt (some have already been banned for obvious violations of the username policy):

Thanks. Rhobite 23:18, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Being entirely too familiar with Libertas's M.O., I share Rhobite's suspicions. RadicalSubversiv E 05:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would like to extend Rhobite's request to cover User:StanleyBirch, User:Arnold4Prez, User:Tacosmell, User:Gmyu, who have been engaging in POV edits to Laura Bush, George W. Bush, and Soviet Union. See WP:AN/I#Sockpuppetry at Laura Bush. RadicalSubversiv E 19:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would like to further extend that to User:Fearfacter for Oliver North buggering (see [73]). TIMBO (T A L K) 05:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've added to the list six more accounts apparently being operated by the same person (all making the same edits to Oliver North), the most recent of which, User:Sandleroneill contribs has a user page. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:39, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt we have technical evidence stretching far enough back to determine exactly whose sockpuppets these accounts are. If they're simulating behaviour of a banned user, shoot on sight and report the incidents somewhere such that the current ban tally (in the case of Libertas/Ollieplatt - Reithy is hardbanned per action of Jimbo) can be updated to reflect attempts at sockpuppetry. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:17, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

User:Robert Blair

The ArbCom recently decided upon the case of Robert Blair.

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

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

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

User:Iasson and User:Faethon

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

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

Does this injunction also apply to User:Faethon and his sockpuppets? Faethon is still claiming to be a separate entity from Iasson. User:Aeropus II of Macedon (A Faethon sockpuppet) made an anonymous vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Tetragrammaton in the Bible [74], and is apparently using, as his defense, the fact that he is not User:Iasson to get around the injunction. history

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

This may be a moot point now because User:Aeropus II of Macedon is blocked for being a public account. --Deathphoenix 23:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I see it's currently in play on WP:AN/I. If it's not seriously disputed, common sense (the identical behaviour, the public account status) would be enough for shooting on sight to be reasonable action in good faith IMO - David Gerard 17:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What David said is true, but the public accounts can be shot on sight anyway. Ambi 11:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

Please also see Template:ArbComCases.

Archives