Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
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).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

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. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and arbitrators may summarily remove discussion without comment.

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents

Template

Involved parties

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

JarlaxleArtemis 2

Involved parties

• User:JarlaxleArtemis
• User:Psychonaut
• dozens of other Wikipedians affected; they can join themselves to this RfA if they want
  • User:Linuxbeak -- Administrator that has dealt with Jarlaxle in the past

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation on JarlaxleArtemis's talk page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This is the second RfA against this user for the same or similar behaviours. The first RfA is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis.

Statement by Psychonaut

Unlike with the previous RfA, I have neither the time nor the space (in 500 words or less) to provide a full account of the activities leading to this RfA. However, suffice it to say that after an initial period of compliance with the previous decision, JarlaxleArtemis has reverted to his old behaviour of neglect and abuse of Wikipedia policy in spite of repeated warnings from fellow editors. Some notable cases include:

• personal attacks
  • Replaces his user page with a prominent message calling one of his high school teachers a "fucking bitch" and inciting readers to e-mail her at the provided address [1]. He then argues with users who point out that this is offensive, harrassment, and possibly libelous [2].
  • "Fuck you, you annoying piece of shit." in response to multiple users who dispute the copyright tag he placed on an image [3].
  • Calls various other users idiots or morons and mischaracterizes their edits as vandalism. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
  • Multiple instances of troll-baiting. [10]
• vandalism
  • Adds code to Sandbox that he knows exploits browser vulnerabilities to cause them to lock up or crash. [11] [12]
  • Reported for vandalism to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI for repeatedly inserting obscenities. [13] [14].
  • Vandalizes User talk:Ann Heneghan [15].
  • Repeatedly inserts unsupported claims that Michael Jackson is a pedophile to various articles [16] [17] [18].
  • Crapfloods various user pages. [19] [20]
• images
  • Seems to have no concept of what constitutes "public domain", and engages in an edit war on the copyright tag of an image without providing any sources [21].
  • Continues to upload images with questionable copyright tags. See [22] for a partial list. Many (if not most) of these were already listed in the previous RfA!
  • Uploads a copyvio'd image as "fair use"; other user inserts an imagevio tag, which JarlaxleArtemis removes as "vandalism"(!) [23]
• adding irrelevant material to Wikipedia
  • Forwards jokes he received in e-mail to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI and Talk:General Motors. Users complain that he is using the talk pages as a "scribble box for bullshit" [24] [25].
  • Creates article Wikipedia:What the fuck [26].
• deleting relevant material from Wikipedia
  • Attempts to speedy-delete various religion stubs. [27] [28].
  • Attempts to speedy-delete various music album stubs. [29] [30] [31]
  • Attempts to speedy-delete a new user page with no objectionable content. [32]
  • Attempts to speedy-delete various useful redirect pages. [33]

Statement by Linuxbeak

Before I begin, let me make it clear that I refuse to participate in "witch hunts". I do not go cruising around Wikipedia actively searching for behavior that is out of line or violates policy. That's called power tripping, and it's a personality trait that I quite frankly hate. However, when I notice behavior that is clearly out of line, that's when the admin alarm goes off.

My interaction with JarlaxleArtemis is somewhat limited. I noticed a small edit war in action on Wikipedia:Sandbox (of all places!), and I decided to intervein. JarlaxleArtemis wasn't part of this dispute. However, when I refreshed the Sandbox page, I noticed that he had placed a large set of [questionable] animated GIFs on Sandbox. I am using Linux. When I viewed this page, my system waited for a few seconds, and then my X server (that's the server that provides the GUI system) crashed. I went to the same page in the history after restarting X and again, my server crashed. I placed a note on Jarlaxle's user talk page that explained the situation to him, and I thought that that would be that. It wasn't. Jarlaxle continued, despite warnings by administrators to cease and desist, being disruptive on Wikipedia:Sandbox. He was given several warnings (which he erased from his talk page with the edit summary "nonsense"), and when he failed to act properly (instead, he decided to spite the administrators after being told to stop posting nonsense on the sandbox by spamming the word "DISRUPTIVE" about 150 times or so on said sandbox), I blocked him for 24 hours. I noted on his talk page that after the 24 hour period was over, he was welcome to continue contributing.

Not long after I blocked him, Jarlaxle email-bombed me over 120 times with the word "FUCKER". I have saved the emails from deletion in case there is any need to provide evidence. He also, from what other admins have said to me, politely asked at least three other administrators to be unblocked. Now, obviously, I wasn't going to unblock him after he email-bombed me, and other administrators agreed. He did manage to get unblocked, and with his unblocking, I haven't interacted with him since.

I am not trying to get Jarlaxle in trouble, nor am I trying to get him out of it. I personally must recuse myself from advising that anything be done, because Jarlaxle obviously did something wrong to me. I am, however, asking that everything that I have said here be taken into consideration when it comes time to decide this ArbCom case. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:59, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by JarlaxleArtemis

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by some random outsider

This guy is realy horrible, though I'm no victim of his. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

• Accept, and suspect temporary injunction may be necessary. Ambi 16:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Accept - I agree with Ambi. →Raul654 03:33, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Reopen User:Instantnood

Prior case is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al. (was closed without any action taken).

• User:Instantnood
• User:SchmuckyTheCat
• User:jguk

ArbCom, please re-open the closed case against Instantnood for the following reasons:

1. It was improperly closed. Closing a case requires 4 net votes. At least one member voted to oppose closing it, which means it needed five votes to close.
2. Instantnood took the closure of the case as clear permission to continue the behavior at issue in the case. IE, renaming anything Taiwan to Republic of China (ex: [34] the article is at Education in Taiwan, not Education in the Republic of China, he's linking to a redirect in order to push his naming POV), renaming China to mainland China, [35] (again linking to redirects for his POV), populating dead categories [36] (and the previous diff too), and furthermore, marking most of these controversial edits as minor. He's also politicking to people who agree with him [37] in order to push the exact same issues that spurred the opening of the initial arbcom case.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Making Instantnood aware I've asked to re-open. [38]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by SchmuckyTheCat

The existing case is already overwhelming.

Since the closing of it, Instantnood has made thousands of edits. At least 80% of which are marked as minor edit. I'm guessing of the last 2000 edits, less than 50 have an edit summary. Many of the minor edits include renaming China and Taiwan to his preferred versions - exactly what there was no consensus to do in his massive voting proposals that started the last arbcom case. Marking controversial edits as minor with no editing summary is clearly non-constructive towards building an encyclopedia.

Statement by User:Wally on behalf of User:Instantnood

If I might be indulged, this is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that the ArbCom made a procedural error should not be sufficient reason to put Instantnood under arbitration again barely two weeks after the first issue was concluded. Furthermore, the continued and continuing personal attacks against Instantnood by Schmucky — you can see below for its translation from Cantonese — absolutely pulverize any moral grounding he might have for bringing this case. Obviously he's attempted nothing further in any other area of dispute resolution since this has occured. I implore the ArbCom not to validate the intimidation levied against Instantnood and to let this issue remain concluded or, failing that, at least refer it to mediation before adjudicating it again, so at least a second hearing will have something new to show. Wally 21:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's not just the procedural error, it's that your client hasn't stopped the behavior that started the first one. Procedural (incorrect, even) closure of the previous case isn't carte blanche to go back to the behavior that caused it.
• And give it up about the moral high ground. Say, Wally, just how many of these "continued and continuing personal attacks" are there? If you want to bring an RfC or RfAr against me for my behavior, bring it - it doesn't exist. In the meantime don't squawk and grandstand about "OH NOs, we've been slighted!" It confuses the issue.
• I've given up on counting how many people lash out at your client for his browbeating obstinance. Here is one today: [39] where your client repeatedly ignored being told to go away [40]. I certainly don't blame Calton for saying "bullshit" after he told your client to go away three times previous.
• When multiple editors are lashing out at your client, it doesn't matter how straight faced he remains. It's his behavior that is the problem. SchmuckyTheCat 16:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's not a very good alibi to "legalise" the libellous action, I'd say. In a sense, God forbid, a murderer could say this to the judge: "Sir, just give it up about the moral high ground. Say, just how many of these murders are there?"

Furthermore, Instantnood did not violate any rule of Wikipedia, very likely, when eagerly inviting someone to the conference table, no matter how straight-faced or stubborn or annoying he was. For those who replied in an indecent manner, they perhaps deserve a lawsuit due to their unpleasant language. Anyway, I hope there would be no more insulting dingdongs afterward. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by some random outsider

If this is not re-opened, I would like to hear the ArbCom's opinions on what to do on the entire Mainland China matter. I'm asking because Category:Economy of mainland China appeared on WP:CFD today, with Schmucky proposing a rename and Instantnood opposing that. I hope this doesn't mean we're back at square one? Radiant_>|< 23:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not proposing a rename, the correct cat (and article) already exists and is used. The country is called the People's Republic of China. If Instantnood would like to rename it to "mainland China" he might suggest it to Hu Jintao. I somehow think it unlikely. SchmuckyTheCat 23:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tell me what's this: 唔屌到你唔好以為自己好撚型，屌那星! 含家呤 (Don't think you're damn smart if I don't fuck you. Fuck that star. Go to hell your entire family) I found this threatening statment in Instatnood's talk page.

Obviously, someone has made serious insult plus personal attack before the arbitration. In fact, SchmuckyTheCat used to write indecently weird phrases like 猶太陰莖貓 (Jewish Penis Cat) in his (I use "his" because he's got a penis as he claims) user page, and for many times I see he creates some users' pages by adding a full stop. I don't think that's a patent accident at all. Does it violate some rules of wikipedia? I'm new to here, and I know little about Wikipedia's policy. But I would feel terribly annoyed if someone attempted to "deflower" my user page -- that's just like rape, to be honest. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 猶太陰莖貓 is the name I use on zh wikipedia. It isn't indecently weird. "Schmuck", of course being yiddish slang for penis.
• Yes, I start other users userpage with a . Calling that rape is nearly a Godwin.
• I sent Instantnood some song lyrics, which he knows very well thats all they are. And if he followed y'all around making comments about all your edits, finding offense where there are none (starting user pages with a dot) you might, eventually, get fed up too. If he wants to make a case out of it, let him. SchmuckyTheCat 21:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That should be adopted from songs of Lazy Mutha Fucka, I suppose. Don't tell me they're singing for the Church. By the way, what do you mean by "nearly a Godwin"? Please elaborate. :-D

PS I see the meaning of Schmuck. It's not weird, it's not indecent--its vulgar. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 21:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It What SchmuckyTheCat wrote is indeed takenpart of lyric the song 含家呤 by Lazy Mutha Fucka. But in this context I will take that as a personal attack. SYSS Mouse 14:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

• Accept Fred Bauder 21:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept - it should never have been closed, which was why I voted against the original motion. Ambi 12:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Accept -- sannse (talk) 11:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:AndyL

Involved parties

The parties currently involved in this issue are User:AndyL, myself User:Gbambino and User:Peter Grey

The pages where disputes have been occuring are Monarchy in Canada, Monarchist League of Canada, and the now redirected Elizabeth II of Canada

AndyL has been hijacking articles related to Canada's constitutional monarchy to bully and push his republican POV, at times possibly abusing his administrator status.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

See User talk:AndyL and User talk:Peter Grey

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

See Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance, "Biased Administrator" and Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance, "Serious assistance needed at Monarchist League of Canada".

As well, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, "Monarchist League of Canada and Monarchy in Canada"

No response was heard from either source.

Statement by Gbambino (initiating party)

For some weeks now AndyL has been forcefully editing pages related to Canada's constitutional monarchy. The articles are edited to reflect his POV on a particular matter (especially his opinion that the Crown in Canada is "British"), and when challenged on this he ignores factual argument, with provided examples to back them up, in favour of his personal arguments based on nothing but opinion. When asked to provide supporting references he presents none, and when the articles are therefore corrected to remove his POV arguments he threatens reporting for vandalism and then reverts again.

He has so far challenged the Elizabeth II of Canada, which I do not object to, but in the ensuing VfD discussion accused me of creating the page as POV promotion, and then further accused me of "fishing for votes" from the Monarchist League of Canada. Explinations were ignored. This is recorded here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elizabeth II of Canada. AndyL then attempted to delete the article, which clearly violates Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Deletion policy)

As well he has been causing hassle on the Monarchy in Canada page, as seen here: Talk:Monarchy in Canada, "One Crown or Several" and is currently being abusive on the Monarchist League of Canada article, as illustrated here: Talk:Monarcist League of Canada, "Crown", here: Talk:Monarchist League of Canada, "More on the Tony O’Donohue Petition", here: Talk:Monarchist League of Canada, "NPOV", and here: Talk:Monarchist League of Canada, "Factual Accuracy Dispute".

I do not wish to see anyone banned, but I do believe AndyL needs to be reigned in somewhat. His attitude is offensive and bullying, and a browse of his talk page will reveal that he has incited arguments elsewhere before. I ask for assistance in this matter. Thank you, --gbambino 00:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to bring your attention to a smaller dispute which occured on the Governor General of Canada article, which can be seen on the related history Governor General of Canada History between 12:46, 6 Jun 2005 and 13:55, 12 Jun 2005, and on my Talk page: User Talk:Gbambino, "eventual". --gbambino 01:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement (User:Peter Grey)

My concern is the lack of good faith demonstrated by AndyL. In fairness, some of the discussion has revolved around subtle points of constitutional law and interpreting difficult legal documents, and also some finer points of Wikipedia policy. Some disagreement might be natural. But there has been a consistent pattern of misstating Wikipedia rules, using {{NPOV}} and similar tags to harass rather than constructively identify potential problems, misrepresenting external sources, use of facts known to be obsolete, taking quotes out of context, thinly disguised ad hominem arguments and personal attacks. His obvious objective has been to introduce bias, in the form of the rather insulting and inflammatory (not to mention objectively incorrect) propostion that Canada, a sovereign nation, is in a subordinate, rather than equal, relationship with the other Commonwealth Realms. Peter Grey 16:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

It would be helpful if gbambino could offer some specifics on what I'm supposed to have done wrong, other than disagree with his opinions (which he seems to confuse with fact). I see no actual complaint here and nothing to respond to. gbambino is a member of the Monarchist League of Canada and has succeeded in bringing a few of his comrades onto wikipedia in an attempt to enforce the particular POV of his organization (see the Monarchist League Message Board). He seems to be somewhat frustrated at his failure in getting his way and has concluded that those who disagree with him or are frustrating his efforts must be doing something wrong. The argument at present is simply over whether a sentence in the Monarchist League of Canada article which, to my mind, asserts as fact that the "Canadian monarchy" (ie the "Crown in right in Canada") is "distinctly Canadian". To my mind this is a contestable POV as many, if not most, Canadians would disagree with such an assertion. I have attempted to persuade gbambino and his friends that this statement should be modified with words that make it clear it is the MLC's opinion that the Crown is distinctly Canadian. He and his friend have resisted any attempt at compromise. As a result, I have added an NPOV tag to the article and disputed its factual accuracy. This seems to be a crime in gbambino's books. Pity. Hopefully, with experience, he will learn that just because he believe something doesn't make it a fact and can't be stated on wikipedia as such. AndyL 03:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for his claims that I attempted to "delete" Elizabeth II of Canada, the deletion logs show that no such attempt occured. AndyL 03:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned that much of what gbambino has contributed to the Monarchist League of Canada article seems to have been lifted directly from the Monarchist League of Canada website. See Talk:Monarchist League of Canada for comparisons. gbambino did this once before with his attempt to create a "chronology" of the MLC that ended up being an almost word for word copy of the MLC's published chronology. AndyL 04:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)]

Peter Gray has removed NPOV tags several times simply claiming there is no NPOV violation despite the identification of at least one statement that promotes a monarchist POV as fact and despite the comments by several editors that the article looks like "propaganda" for the MLC. Given that much of the article has now been shown to have been copied verbatim from MLC promotional material the claim that the article is NPOV is difficult if not impossible to sustain.

I do not know where his claim that I have "misrepresented external sources" comes from. I suspect it's my extensive quotations (mostly on Talk pages) from a judicial judgement which directly contradicts the constitutional theory Peter and gbambino promote. If this is the case, his claim that I "misrepresented" the source is wrong, my interpretation my be different from Peter's but I have not misrepresented anything.

His claim of ad hominem is specious, he used that term after I said that he was treating the word "distinct" as if it were a synonym for "derivative". How that could be seen to constitute a personal attack is beyond me. As for his claim that I am trying to "to introduce bias, in the form of the rather insulting and inflammatory (not to mention objectively incorrect) propostion that Canada, a sovereign nation, is in a subordinate, rather than equal, relationship with the other Commonwealth Realms..." here his problem is really with Justice Rouleau's wording where he stated that Canada is under the British Crown as well as Rouleau's citation of Prime Minister St. Laurent's statement that Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the UK, not to mention Canada's Royal Style and Titles Act which gives precedence to Elizabeth II's role as Queen of the UK over that of her role as Queen of Canada.. I cited Rouleau's ruling in order to show that the statements gbambino and Peter defend in the article as fact are actually contestable and should be identifed as opinion rather than passed off as fact. AndyL 15:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should also add that in the Monarchy in Canada article, gbambino persisted in vandalising the article by removing quotations he did not like even after I warned him that his actions were contrary to policy and could result in his being banned. It was only after User:Ground Zero, intervened that he finally stopped. Ground Zero said:

Gbambino, please who live in glass houses.... Deleting a bunch of direct quotations from a court rulings, and then putting "corrections" in the edit summary is abusive. Those were not "corrections". You are just deleting something you don't like or don't think should be in the article, unless you can provide proof the AndyL misquoted the court ruling or fabricated the quotes, but I don't think that is the case (Ground Zero)

AndyL 17:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand the mediation committee is defunct but I think this really belongs more in RFC (which I strated yesterday) or with a mediator if one can be found (on or off the mediating committe). I suggest getting one of the editors who frequents Canadian political pages given the amount of arcana involved. AndyL 17:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

• Reject. RfC or the mediation cabal seem to be more appropriate for this. I can't see any evidence of wrongdoing that warrants us getting involved from either party. Ambi 12:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Reject as Ambi -- sannse (talk) 11:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master

Involved parties

Patrick0Moran, the most quite and patient of contributors, advised me that, "A relatively new contributor, Zen-master, has taken an interest in the article on Race_and_intelligence and has decided to attack Rikurzhen, calling him a racist and a Nazi. I've tried to reason with him regarding the main point of contention, but he ignores anything that anybody says to him and comes back with a personal attack. His latest was, essentially, "Only a Nazi would say what you just said." -- Uncle Ed (talk) 04:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

A deep analysis of the issue will indicate it is not as simple nor as one sided as Ed Poor describes it, in my opinion. I labeled patrick and rikurzhen's actions, not them personally. My offer, made in good faith, to withdraw my interpretation of their actions remains on the table if they explain why they used repetition combined with language misuse so frequently. The prime directive of wikipedia is neutrality and they seemingly, to me at least, appear to be trying to maintain a status quo of psychologically misdirecting language. Framing the article Race and intelligence entirely in terms of "race" seems to me to be an attempt at confusing effect with cause. They can certainly choose to ignore my challenge for a logical explanation if they want to. Also note my username is "Zen-master", T is for talk. zen master T 04:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack on me. [41] Any reason not to block immediately, considering that he's been warned repeatedly? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

How is that a personal attack? It is a question, you can choose not to respond to it as I gathered from you removing it from your talk page. zen master T 22:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Zen-master's contention that he "labeled patrick and rikurzhen's actions, not them personally, please read the following exchange, which I have copied directly from the talk page:

The sooner you explain how language neutrality is original research the sooner you diminish the plausibility of my theory that you are a nazi. If someone was just a random interested researcher of this subject (even if they dubiously concluded race is a cause) I don't believe they would defend and deflect away from the current misuse of language to the degree you have. zen master T 02:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So now I am being accused of being a Nazi too? Let's be clear about what you are saying. P0M 02:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You two do seem to be working together to misdirect third parties away from doing any sort of mental analysis on the neutrality of language used in the article. So yes, I am accusing you both of being neo-nazis based on your posts on this talk page and based on the way you repeatedly defend or ignore the misuse of language. I will withdraw my accusations after you explain how striving for language neutrality is original research and/or after you explain how needlessly commingling cause and effect is scientific? zen master T 02:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In short, he expressed a "theory" that "you are a nazi." I asked him whether he meant I am a Nazi. He said, "So yes, I am acusing you both of being neo-nazis." The fact that he considers actions of mine to support "the plausibility of my theory" as he puts it, and that he bases his accusations "on your posts on this talk page and based on the way you repeatedly defend or ignore the use of language" does not make his accusation less problematical. People generally have some kind of reason for the accusations they make. The question is whether we tolerate ad hominem attacks, and attacks that are groundless at that. P0M 23:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My plausible theory was and is trying to explain your, rikurzhen's and other's words, it was not simple name calling. I stand by my theory that repetition in support of language propaganda and errant framing of an issue is nazi-esque. Since I was warned 2 days ago to avoid "personal attacks" I've tried to be extra clear that I am analyzing your and the article's words and/or comming up with plausible theories that explain them and your motivations. No one has responded to my challenge to logically explaination why you, the article and subject must utilize repetition to exploit language confusion and/or incorrect/one sided framing of the subject. Conclusions should be based on facts, not tricksy language. zen master T 19:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Does his post above count as "awareness"? [42]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

I spoke with Zen Master T about this, [43] [44] but he just accused me of "accusing him". [45]

"Adhere or be blocked." [46] -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Distinguished between objecting to article edits and calling someone names. [47]

Ed Poor, is this evidence of "dispute resolution"? Those URLs do not convey the full context, it can be found at Talk:Race and intelligence. zen master T 17:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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 (2/2/0/0)

• Accept Fred Bauder 13:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) Based on Zen Master T's continuing violation as expressed in his response.
• Accept Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 13:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. This looks somewhat tame to me, and I'm reluctant to become involved just yet. Please make some attempt at seriously working out the dispute between yourselves. If it does get worse, feel free to come back at a later stage, but Zen Master's replies, for the most part, seem quite reasonable. Ambi 16:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Reject for now, Zen Master, if you continue to insult in this way (and it is an insult, however you wish to frame it) then I would change my vote for a future request -- sannse (talk) 11:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:JuliusThyssen

Involved parties

• JuliusThyssen (talk · contribs) aka 195.64.95.116 (talk · contribs) and jult (talk · contribs)
• Rhobite (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Message on User talk: JuliusThyssen: [48]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I have asked this user several times to refrain from using personal attacks. He responded by calling me an asshole. I don't feel that any other dispute resolution would matter to such a rude person. Rhobite 20:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Rhobite

JuliusThyssen, who previously edited from 195.64.95.116, has long been an argumentative and uncivil user on Talk:MP3 and Talk:MPC (audio compression format). He has also gotten into arguments after he advanced POV political theories on September 11, 2001 attacks [49]. People who disagree with his opinions are quickly called "stupid" [50], "Idiot" [51], "you people suck" [52], "smartass" [53], "edgy stubborn nazi type" [54]. Edit summaries include "deleted sheer nonsense of incapable people" [55], "ok, that's what you idiots asked for" [56], "you are a fool" [57], and "Rhobite is an ASSHOLE, how's that for a personal attack?" [58]

Also userpage vandalism: [59] [60]

Julius removed my comment asking him to refrain from personal attacks: [61]

I think a personal attack parole would be an adequate response to this user's incivility. Rhobite 20:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I note in the 'edgy stubborn nazi type' diff [62], he also states that "If you'd rather have it this way, then I will make it my life's task to change that line from each and every library and internet-café I can find."-Ashley Pomeroy 10:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

User:JuliusThyssen has been disfiguring the List of disco artists with non-disco additions (which don't fit standard scientific definitions of disco as a form of music), plus deletions of well-known valid disco hit songs like "Take Me Home" by Cher (1979).

This is just plain bullshit. First of all, there IS no scientific definition of disco as a form of music. This nameless idiot just couldn't handle the fact that I was right and he/she was wrong about many of the tracks he/she decided to put in that list. This goes for all cases mentioned here; Pathetic assholes assuming they are right, when they KNOW they're not. I'm not prepared to behave 'politely' towards such idiotic display of stubbornness, and I refuse to take part in this wanna-be court-like nonsense you call arbitration or rulings on wikipedia. It's obvious you want this to be a medium full of incorrect data, so be it, not my funeral. It ends up being just another silly forum of numbed down stupid and robotic crapologists with big mouths and ego's that are way beyond where they should be. That is the reason I have stopped believing this wikipedia will ever be worth something, it's being ruled by idiots and non-experts. It's even worse in the Dutch version, where tolerance levels are further down the line of toes sticking out miles in front of their delusions of grandeur, where they behave like terrorists (they threaten to send abuses to your internet provider just because some nobody who thinks he is an important part of human history since he 'contributes to wikipedia' was corrected by me). I hereby acknowledge to love to further annoy the likes of you by using proxy-servers and terminals in libraries and gas-stations etc. And no, I'm not the one in need of psychological help here, and you all know it. You people have no lives. In fact, if some rightfully placed insult on some stupid wikipedia website (it's terribly slow, by the way) is enough for you to spend so much time on it, you must be completely insane. Good luck trying to fight the forces of chaos, you know you don't stand a chance against them. JuliusThyssen 09:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He further has insulted me with ageist remarks like "you weren't there when it hit the clubs" and claims to know more than I do about music.

Well it's been quite obvious that I do!

He did not make rational responses to my points to him. He also removes users' criticisms of him from User_talk:JuliusThyssen - when he deleted my comment to him he wrote "deleted sheer nonsense of incapable people". One of my pieces of advice to him was: "Please learn how to technically analyze music. This is not an exercise in nostalgic remembrances of what played in your club but in creating a reference work." On May 22, 2005 he actually removed something that was supposed to be removed ('Nightshift' by the Commodores) but when he did so he wrote "you fool" directed to the person who had added that song.

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/2/0/0)

• Accept Fred Bauder 12:30, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept, though I wonder if we really need to go through arbitration - this seems too obvious. Ambi 12:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Reject, as user has not edited since June 9. If he returns, would just suggest blocking anyway as a clearly bad-faith user. Ambi 16:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 00:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Accept as Ambi. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:27, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
• Accept Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 10:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• reject as user has stopped editing -- sannse (talk) 11:47, 26 Jun 2005 (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.

Forgotten and Hidden sockpuppets of Baku Ibne/LIGerasimova etc.

Dear ArbCom,

Following my brief communication with Fred ([63]), I ask you to immediately block and ban two sockpuppet accounts of previously banned anon 84.154.xx.xx. aka Baku Ibne/LIGreasimova/Osmanoglou etc. (Baku Ibne et al. Case). These sockpuppets are Twinkletoes (talk · contribs) and, as I just found out to my surprise, Deli-Eshek (talk · contribs).

I was aware about Twinkletoes being a sockpuppet long ago (e.g. see, my post in [[Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh, or RFA/Baku Ibne talkpage). The anon 84.154.xx.xx (Baku Ibne et al anon IP) when vandalizing Safavids page constantly added nonsense to the entry and one of the words that he often referred to was "Twinkletoes". (see, e.g. [64], [65].) Moreover, the similar behavior and edit pattern of this vandal, leaves no question that this "user" is indeed a sock. Pls, review his contrib log for details: everything, from edited pages, to time of edits, and lengths and volume of activity points to the fact that this is indeed a vandal sock, which was overlooked.

The most surprising discovery I just made concerns User:Deli-Eshek's real identity. I was rather surprised that this guy is also actually a sockpuppet of Baku Ibne (I was similarly surprised in the past to learn out from Tony that LIGerasimova, whom I thought to be different person, was actually the same person as 84.154.xx/Baku Ibne/Osmanoglou [66]).

Here is the proof of Deli-Eshek being a sockpuppet: [67]. You can see that this person is actually the same as 84.154.xx.xx (see, [68]) aka Baku Ibne/LIGerasimova/Osmanoglou etc etc. Actually, similarly User:Tony Sidaway has found in the past that LIGerasimova was in fact same person as Baku/Ibne/Osmanoglou ([69], fixed in evidences presented by Tony [70])).

This "user" has in the past actually "supported" me in Talk:Safavids. He pretended to be an "ethnic Turk" who "agrees" with me on my argument that Safavids were a Turkic-speaking dynasty of Iran, but he was kind of dark horse whose actions did not correspond to his deeds. Thus for example, I couldn't understand his actions, when he attacked various Azeri users (e.g. [71] (in which he allegedly "supports" me) (or this post, which provoked me to carefully approach him and ask him not to wage personal discussions. Then I thought that this guy is realy an ordinary good-faith editor, and all I cared is to advise him not to play into hands of my opponents in Talk:Safavids by waging unnecessary personal discussions).

Besides these two sockpuppets, there are some more e.g. Luba-Gerasimova (talk · contribs) (which as seen from the name, is same as LIGerasimova (pretending to be a Russian female Luba Ivanovna Gerasimova). The other socks are Kiramtu_Kunettabib (talk · contribs) and StuffedTurkey (talk · contribs). I dont have solid evidences against the last two, but I am sure you can easily clarify the issue with those "mock users" as well.--Tabib 14:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Votes and comments by arbitrators

• Accept Fred Bauder 21:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a request for clarification, not a new case - there's nothing to accept. Ambi 16:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This evidence seems acceptable to me - as far as I'm concerned, they can be banned as sockpuppets and the ban reset. Ambi 16:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I concur with Ambi. →Raul654 16:14, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Archive

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)