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

Current requests

Template

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

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

Irate

Involved parties

• Irate
• Smoddy
• Matt Crypto
• Violetriga

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Letting Irate know [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

This is just a procedural request, in follow-up to a previous ArbComm decision. I'm not sure whether it simply counts as a "request for clarification", so I'm listing it here. [[smoddy]] 13:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Statement by smoddy

Not much to say, really. Since the end of a 3-month ban for personal attacks (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate), Irate has arrived back and is once again stirring things up. He has filed three petty RFCs (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Smoddy, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Matt Crypto, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Violetriga. He has also labelled my edits as "vandalism" (see User talk:Irate and the page's history) and has removed lines from Violet/riga's user page.

Clause 1.1 of the first decision allows the ArbComm to put in place a revert parole. I am requesting that the Committee does so, so as to provide a more congenial atmosphere to other editors. [[smoddy]] 13:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Matt Crypto

Unfortunately, this is Irate returning to the same sort of behaviour that got him banned the last time. The various spurious RfCs filed against anyone he dislikes are unpleasant and unwarranted. He's also been bandying around phrases along the lines of "book burner" and "vandal" at myself and Smoddy, e.g., [2]; our crime? Reverting his deletions from User:Violetriga's user page. The ArbComm may wish to implement the parole mentioned above, or consider some other remedial action. — Matt Crypto 13:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

This is a joke. I have not attacked anyone, tough I have been attacked by people including Smoddy. I suggest you censor the Smoddy for his behaviour.--Jirate 13:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

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

• I consider the unfounded allegations of vandalism etc. to be personal attacks, and so vote to activate the personal attack parole. (I agree this does not need a new case, a vote here should be sufficient.) -- sannse (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Whcih ones are unfounded. You should identify them--Jirate 13:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This may not be a full list, but some examples are: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] As far as I can see, these all relate to reverting your edits of someone else's user page, or adding comments to your talk page. Neither of these actions are vandalism. -- sannse (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • Well having read the first one and nowing that the accused user had destroyed my edits, for there own reasons. It's not realy worth looking at the reast is it.--Jirate 14:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• I am very concerned about the abuse of the rfc proccess. RFCs are not there to use as a tool to whack someone over the head with just because you don't like something they did. It says at the top of the RFC page that "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed." Starting an rfc that is bound to fail is simply a way of making a personal attack. I vote to activate the personal attack parole. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Joke137

involved parties

• user:Joke137
• 216.112.42.61

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Party 1: User talk:Joke137 notified on July 23, 2005
• Party 2: 216.112.42.61 initiated this request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Other methods of conflict resolution are fruitless, the reason being that Joke137 has demonstrated absolutely no desire to make the article in question objective and/or non-selectively informative. He/she has constantly removed such information.

• n.b. mediation not attempted. –Joke137 22:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 1

Statement by Joke137

I am perplexed by this request. The Talk:Cosmology page contains the full details of this. My response to the points raised:

• the fact that Georges LeMaître was a priest — I initially edited this to use the more specific term Jesuit. After checking, I now realize this is an error (he went to Jesuit school, but was a generic Catholic priest) and will change it back to "priest."
• the fact that Edwin Hubble was a devout Christian — Irrelevant to the brief article.
• the big bang hypothesis was claimed to have been proven by the red shift — The little controversy that exists about the interpretation of the red shift (there is almost none in the scientific community) is discussed at the redshift page, as well as several of the other physical cosmology pages. The cosmology page is meant to be a succinct description of the various uses of the word in physics, philosophy and religion.
• act that big-bang believers attribute the red shift to the doppler effect or to cumulative intergalactic anti-gravity — The anonymous user is misinformed. I explained on Talk:Cosmology that "anti-gravity" (perhaps the user means dark energy?) is not the explanation of the redshift, and that gravitational redshift and the Doppler redshift have a complementary interpretation in cosmology.
• The fact that Einstein's theory is not amenable to a stable universe is perfectly well known.
• The fact that physicists', particularly Einstein's, philisophical prejudices caused them to expect a static universe is well known. (I'm sure Singh's book, cited in the big bang article, discusses the above two points.)

I did not remove the NPOV tag.

I should also point out that another contentious issue has been whether Einstein was a practicing Jew. Per the Albert Einstein page, I contend that he is not. In any case, it is perfectly irrelevant.

I always thought I would be more likely accused of being anti-creationist before I was accused of being creationist. Those are the breaks, I guess, and I really don't know what to make of any of this. Best, Joke137 22:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC).

Incidentally, Arbitration policy states that cases will generally be rejected when the dispute relates mostly to content and not to disputants' behaviour or earlier steps in dispute resolution have not been tried, and the Arbitration Committee feels they will help. On these grounds, this is spurious. I should say that I encouraged the anonymous user on Talk Cosmology to see dispute resolution, and the user chose to submit a request for arbitration. (added Joke137 22:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC))

Statement by party 2

Statement by 216.112.42.61

Joke137 has vandalized the article cosmology with an extremely biased POV, most likely creationist, that big bang hypothesis is correct (as opposed to a self-regulating universe). The vandalism occurred specificly in the section 'Physical cosmology'. Joke137 has deleted numerous facts that relate to the big bang hypothesis. It is difficult to try to remember and list ALL of them, but I will try. The following are facts that Joke137 has suppressed from the physical cosmology section, and truthful statements that he/she has replaced with false statements:

• the fact that Georges LeMaitre was a priest (meaning that he is biased to believe in a universe with a beginning)
• the fact that Edwin Hubble was a devout christian (meaning that he is biased to believe in a universe with a beginning)
• the fact that the big bang hypothesis was CLAIMED to have been proven by the red shift (Joke137 said that it was absolutely proven (paraphrased) )
• the fact that a red shift may be caused EITHER by the doppler effect or by gravity
• the fact that big-bang believers attribute the red shift to the doppler effect or to cumulative intergalactic anti-gravity, as opposed to cumulative real/classical gravity
• the fact that Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts a big bang because it makes the assumption that the stability of the universe requires a precise balance between gravity/mass and energy (ignoring the regulatory mechanisms of quasars and particle-pair creation from photons)
• the fact that physicists originally believed that the universe was stable and infinite due to a-priori logic (Joke137 said that it was a 'prejudice')

Also someone (possibly Joke137) has suppressed the fact that objectivity of the cosmology article is disputed by deceptively removing the NPOV tag (which I added). That constitutes a gross violation of wikipedia policy.

That's all that I can think of now, but still, that's SEVEN (or possibly eight) facts suppressed right there. The fact that Joke137 has deleted all of those facts shows that it is clearly his/her intent to make people blindly believe in the big bang hypothesis as he/she does. I have talked to Joke137 a great deal in the cosmology discussion page. There WAS progress made in the discussion, as I learned more about the details of what the big-bang believers believe (It is all based on grossly flawed logic that even a child can see, as I have pointed out). However, despite my explanations of why the big bang hypothesis is flawed, Joke137 has not only remained adamant in his/her faith in the big bang belief, but he/she has continued to suppress facts, though the suppression of important facts can not be justified by anything anyway, so that distinction is trivial. I therefore recommend that Joke137 be banned from wikipedia.

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

• Reject. This is clearly a content dispute. Put the cosmology article on the rfc page to get the views of the wikipedia community. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Reject ➥the Epopt 23:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. Sorry, but the Committee is not a forum for content disuputes, as Theresa says. James F. (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon

Involved parties

• Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs)
• UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [9]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• A quick look at Mr. Simon's talk page will make it clear that I (UninvitedCompany), Ed Poor, and many others have done our best to work with him and deal with him leniently. There is presently an Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon, and I find the ruleslawyering reponse to be particularly illuminative. I believe that mediation is unlikely to be helpful, see my comments below for rationale.

Statement by party 1

Mr. Simon has been blocked for 3RR violations on no fewer than six instances in the past three months, in addition to duplicate blocks and reblocks by admins fiddling with the block durations. These blocks have been placed by eight different administrators (when duplicate blocks are included), making it clear this is not anyone's personal vendetta.

Mr. Simon's past edit wars have been fuelled by his unique views on capitalization, punctuation, and animal rights. His most recent edit war has been on September 11, 2001 attacks (history), where he has become the most recent in a long list of those who simultaneously espouse conspiracy theories and relabel the attacks as something other than terrorism. I can find no contributions of brilliant prose in his editing history that would serve to mitigate these problems.

While Mr. Simon does appear to mean well, he has not responded well to several patient attempts [10][11] [12][13] [14] to help him contribute in a constructive fashion in accordance with project norms. It is for this reason that I believe that mediation would be unhelpful; Wikipedia is not therapy and past efforts attempting it have been notably ineffective.

Respectfully, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

ive been trying to adapt how i do things to more constructive methods, the aforementioned edits on the 9/.11 page were me trying to remove the word terrorist, becasue i thougth that it was a word to avoid , according to policey. people tend to misinterpret what i say, partly because of not so great choices in how i say things, this happens irl as well, so i simply got used to it. some times people even get mad at me for my spelling mistakes, which i do try not to make, but a combination of nerve damamge and a low attention span becasue of ADHD doesnt makle this the easiest thjing in the world. i personal;ly think that the uninvited compay person is over reacting, but thats just me.

its not like im not putting effort into trying to do things better. Gabrielsimon 21:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

i havnt vandalized, and i havnt doe an thing even remotely simmilar, id say that should lend me some credibillity Gabrielsimon 21:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

most of the blocks are the result of me not being carefull, and accidentally ovweerdoing things, with respect to 3rr. its a part of the qttention span thing... its not as if i am unrepentant, but if your going to look at mty talk page, why not check the archives as well. Gabrielsimon 21:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

• Reject, let's give this guy some time to learn and grow. Gabrielsimon, please do all you can to listen to the advice others are giving you. These are experienced editors - learn from them -- sannse (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Reject along the same lines as sannse. James F. (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, concur with sannse. Neutrality^talk 07:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject ➥the Epopt 23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. Hopefully Gabrielsimon will learn and grow, and we will not be seing this request again. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

User:AI

Involved parties

Party 1:

• User:AI

Party 2:

• User:MarkSweep
• User:NicholasTurnbull

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Party 1: --AI 10:14, 22 July 2005
• Party 2: User:MarkSweep initiated this request, User:NicholasTurnbull joined voluntarily

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

User:AI has explicitly refused any communication from ordinary editors. Attempts to engage him in discussion on his talk page are futile, because he deletes comments[15] and explicitly refuses to engage in conversations.[16]

A mediation request filed by User:Modemac regarding AI's behavior on Talk:David S. Touretzky (edit | [[Talk:Talk:David S. Touretzky|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has apparently failed.[17][18] In any case, the problematic aspects of AI's behavior extend well beyond that single talk page (see e.g. Talk:Keith Henson (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Keith Henson|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)).

Statement by party 1

Statement by User:AI

"Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" contains lies. I will not submit further statement until the lies are corrected. --AI 11:00, 22 July 2005

AI, please tell us what you consider in the statement above to be lies so that we can do something about it; we cannot correct lies that we are unaware of. Please give us further information. --NicholasTurnbull 21:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What I consider to be a lie is that I have "explicitly refused [any] communication from ordinary editors." I have communicated with many ordinary users[19],[20],[21],[22],[23] [24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35].

Marksweep speaks POV instead of just providing simple explanation with evidence and letting facts speak for themselves. My view is definitely not idiosyncraic and is shared by others in Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. Surveys[36],[37] also support my point of view regarding personal comments and refactoring talk pages.

MarkSweep has not reformed his misrepresentation of me in the "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried." His usage of these words is a personal attack. Marksweep's opinion that I will not try to resolve things is misguided and biased. Marksweep is not assuming good faith, especially considering his statement about fixing broken windows. Marksweep's comment about nipping it in the bud is biting a newcomer and admits in his statement that this request for arbitration is too early. There has been no RfC.

If you look at Banja Luka or Bosnian Genocide you can see I have went out of my way as a newcomer to mediate between two users who were in dispute and edit warring. Very little outside help from experienced users assisted that process. My efforts were successful. And in Muslim Brotherhood, I also volunteered as a newcomer (without asking for permission) to mediate disputes there. Even though I disagreed with Beroul's "apparent" whitewash, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and communicated with him civilly because he never tried to enforce his opinions about how I should behave.

---

Dispute with MarkSweep

The basis of my disputes with MarkSweep is over refactoring and placement of a reference note. MarkSweep's opinion is that refactoring should not be done without consensus.

With reference to Wikipedia policy, I explained to Marksweep why I removed some comments. He responded with an opposing opinion and continued to revert my removals. My refactoring was justified and supported by the policies that I referenced for him. (The Wikipolicies are also included below.) My refactoring has not affected those discussions and I have been unbiased by removing my personal comments and those by others.

EVIDENCE

David S. Touretzky

10:36, 20 July 2005 [38] I made a contribution to [Article:David S. Touretzky] with an edit summary which clearly expressed my changes.

12:37, 20 July 2005 [39] MarkSweep removed my contribution (reference note) to the article.

14:54, 21 July 2005 [40] I reverted to restore my contribution to the article.

20:45, 21 July 2005 [41] MarkSweep reverted my change.

Talk:David S. Touretzky

11:13, 20 July 2005 [42] Modemac filed a request for mediation. (Note this is relevant to my communication with MarkSweep regarding refactoring)

11:47, 20 July 2005 [43] MarkSweep reverted my refactoring.

12:12, 20 July 2005 [44] I notified MarkSweep with my explanation of my refactoring. In light of the RfM, I told MarkSweep I would not communicate with him any further unless he was a mediator.

12:21, 20 July 2005 [45] MarkSweep responded on his own talk page with his opinion

13:21, 20 July 2005 [46] MarkSweep notified me with his opinion as to what defines "personal comments"

11:14, 22 July 2005 [47] MarkSweep reverts my refactoring on the talk page.

12:15, 22 July 2005 [48] MarkSweep reverts my refactoring on the talk page.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:AI

14:10, 20 July 2005 [49] MarkSweep's initial entries into Request for Arbitration.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:AI/Touretzky quotes

23:48, 22 July 2005 [50] MarkSweep attempt to delete one of my user sub pages with VfD.

---

Dispute with Modemac

Modemac makes personal attacks in response to my messages at his talk page.

EVIDENCE

User talk:Modemac

15:56, 14 July 2005 [51] I notified Modemac with a question.

15:56, 14 July 2005 [52] Modemac makes personal attacks in reponse to my messages.

19:44, 15 July 2005 [53] Modemac makes personal attacks in reponse to my messages.

02:20, 19 July 2005 [54] Modemac makes personal attacks in reponse to my messages.

23:11, 19 July 2005 [55] Modemac reverts my refactoring and makes personal attacks in the edit summary.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Talk:David_S._Touretzky

11:13, 20 July 2005 [56] A request for mediation filed by Modemac contained lies as explained on that page.

---

Dispute with User:Jdforrester and admin who blocked me

My 3rr block the other day was a technicality, I only "reverted" 3 times, the 4th was because I made a mistake in my 3rd "revert."20:42, 20 July 200521:11, 20 July 200522:21, 20 July 2005,22:24, 20 July 2005 I tried to explain this to User:Jdforrester and the admin who blocked me, Jdforrester disagreed and the admin who blocked me has not responded to my Wiki-email.

---

Dispute with others

Other users not originally involved in dispute over content of [Article:David S. Touretkzy] arrive into the discussion with similar opinons about refactoring. Personal attacks by Calton

EVIDENCE

Talk:David S. Touretzky

User:Joolz[57],[58],

User:Calton[59],[60]

---

SIGNED: --AI 08:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

---

"Comment on content, not on the contributor."

---

Wikipedia:No personal attacks - Official policy

Don't do it

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse.

Consequences

Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse. Users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded.

Alternatives

Instead, try:

• Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. This does not mean that you have to agree with them, but just agree to disagree.
• Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.
• Explore issues in a less public forum like e-mail if a debate threatens to become personal.
• Read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Wikipedia:Civility - Official policy Removing uncivil comments

• Strike offensive words or replace them with milder ones on talk pages (this is often seen as controversial, as is refactoring other people's words)
• Remove offensive comments on talk pages (since they remain in the page history, anyone can find them again or refer to them later on)
• Revert an edit with &bot=1, so that the edit made by the offender appears invisible in Recent Changes (do-able on ip contributions, requires technical help for logged-in user)
• Delete (entirely and permanently) an edit made by the offender (requires technical help)
• Permanently delete an offensive comment made on the mailing lists (requires technical help)
• Replace a comment made in an edit summary by another less offensive comment (requires technical help)

Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks - Guideline Refactoring instead of banning

Letting personal attacks linger may well contribute to a deteriorating discussion climate, to edit wars, and to users being scared away from editing certain pages. It obscures the factual and useful discussion in a morass of accusations and counter-accusations.

When you want to remove personal attacks on article talk pages, you may want to start with your own. (But be careful not to be one-sided to make yourself appear good and your "opponent" bad.) Check backlinks to your user page to give a list of pages where you've signed your name - see if any of them contain personal attacks written by you, and get rid of them.

Statement by party 2

Statement by MarkSweep

User:AI has used a very idiosyncratic interpretation[61][62][63] of civility and associated policies to censor comments on talk pages.[64] He has engaged in edit warring[65][66][67], and attempts to contact him are rebuffed with him saying that he is unwilling to engage in any further communication on user talk pages.[68] [69][70][71][72] Attempts to debate him on article talk pages are reverted by him as "personal comments/attacks".[73][74][75][76][77][78] What AI labels "personal comments" by others are not so much comments about him (those would be personal comments), as they are comments directed at him, for example, reminders to respect NPOV, which are perfectly acceptable and only natural on talk pages.

What is especially worrying is that AI apparently intends to hide behind his interpretation of the letter of certain policies without respecting the spirit in which they were crafted. He remained undeterred in his removal of other editor's comments even though he was reverted several times by different editors and was eventually blocked for a 3RR violation. Some of AI's earlier interactions were more along traditional lines, discrediting his opponents[79], listing them for Wikiquette violations[80][81], or attempting to file an RFC against them[82]. As that proved ineffective, he started to show an active interest in policies that would allow him to remove comments[83][84][85], and his subsequent statements[86][87][88] make it clear that he apparently intends to follow a letter-of-the-law approach (while still using his own unique definitions of crucial terms like "personal comment" and "credible source"). The fact that he tries to enforce the No-Personal-Attacks/Civility policy aggressively while blatantly violating other policies like 3RR indicates that he is not interested in Wikipedia policy as a tool for facilitating the smooth operation of the project. Instead, he uses whatever policies may suit him as a means to silence editors who don't agree with him or who question his motives.

I'm bringing this case to the ArbCom fairly early in the dispute resolution process for two reasons: (1) AI has made it clear that he cannot be reasoned with; (2) this is an attempt at Fixing Broken Windows before further damage is caused. Let's nip this in the bud before it spirals out of control. In fact, let's make this short and sweet: AI needs to hear from someone with authority that he cannot censor and ignore comments as he wishes. If that message is conveyed successfully, no further actions are required. Consider this the "small claims" division of the ArbCom, if you will. The way things are headed, if you dismiss this as "too early, come back later", this case will indeed come back later, but will be a major headache then, as opposed to a minor annoyance now. --MarkSweep 23:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[To James F.:]

• • See this diff: [89]. --MarkSweep 22:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • And this: [90]. --MarkSweep 00:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Statement by NicholasTurnbull

User:AI's handling of communication and constructive criticism on Wikipedia has been unpleasant and evasive. This user has arbitrarily edited my reasonable comments on Talk:David S. Touretzky on the grounds of "removing personal attacks" on multiple occasions (see [91], [92], [93]) and reverted my restoration of them (see [94], [95], [96]). It is my opinion that my comments were reasonable (albeit firm), and were merely reporting on the facts of the matter at hand. In addition, User:AI has avoided addressing the specific points in my reasonable requests for the use of reputable sources in article writing on this user's talk page, communicating rudely to me whilst avoiding the question when answering and refusing to conform to NPOV policy (see my messages on User_talk:AI [97], [98]; for AI's response on my talk page, [99], [100]). In addition, User:AI has accused me of making personal attacks, which is an untrue accusation (ref. [101]). --NicholasTurnbull 00:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I must, however, report that following recent communication today with this user, User:AI responded politely and pleasantly to my most recent message on his talk page. Thus, I believe that it may be possible for the matter to be resolved without recourse to disciplinary measures and shows a willingness to cooperate on this user's part. --NicholasTurnbull 23:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted by the arbitrators that, contrary to the statement made by User:AI above, "Repeated personal attacks directed towards me by Modemac, Antaeus Feldspar and a few others in several article talk page.", User:Antaeus Feldspar has never made a single edit to the disputed Talk:David S. Touretzky talk page, which can be verified through the edit history for that page, and I cannot find any possible basis for claims of said attacking comments on any talk pages for either of those cited users. --NicholasTurnbull 00:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/1/0)

Please see Michael Snow's comments above: AI is currently blocked for a 3RR violation. I don't know how this is done, but I'd like to put this request on hold temporarily until AI has had a chance to respond. --MarkSweep 02:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

AI has indicated that he is preparing a statement. --MarkSweep 20:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Recuse - I'm in the thick of this one, and will be contributing evidence. I urge its acceptance, however - David Gerard 09:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral; would like to see AI's response, first. James F. (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC) Given AI's reticence to bother us with his decision, we shan't wait. Accept. James F. (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. I see no need to jump through hoops to get AI to make a statement; it's only to his benefit to do so. →Raul654 22:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Neutrality^talk 07:07, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept - this is going to get us into what constitutes a personal attack? and when is it appropriate to remove a personal attack? and who should be removing them? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 23:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: I am finished composing my statement and will not make any further changes unless there is a request for more information. --AI 08:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Sumnakay

Involved parties

• User:Sumnakay, possibly contributing also as User:62.94.224.221, User:62.94.91.238 and User:Sándor.
• User:Pavel Vozenilek

Statement by User:Pavel Vozenilek

• Contributor to Roma people article doesn't agree with my edits on Talk page, rewrites them and calls me Nazi and sectarian [102].

Some quotes: I would recommend to protect the page from Pavel Vozenilek's Nazi-like declarations against Romany scholars. or A sectarian analysis of recent edits, a Nazi-like suggestion how to deal with them.

I prefere not to be insulted and my edits staying intact. Pavel Vozenilek 28 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)

Statement by User:Sumnakay

• Contributor to Roma people Mr. Pavel Vozenilek has refused to give any reasonable answer to the proposed questions, deleting other editors additions and links to Romany websites. He has refused to show his knowledge on Romany culture, but simply insisted in reproducing speculative assertions of other people of doubtful authority on the subject. His requests to "delete whatever he dislikes" is quite un-democratic. He demonstrated to assert anything without having the slightest certainty, as he said that I am the author of the websites which I linked, which is false. He MUST show a proof before saying anything about other people. I didn't qualify him as a person, but his statements - that is, I didn't say he is a Nazi, but his statements are (Nazi-like suggestions). To conclude, he has shown complete lack of respect for Roma people.

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User:Sumnakay has been informed.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

• User:Ariwara had asked for discussions and less heat over the edits [103]. Other people on Talk page of Roma people did the same.

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

• Accept Fred Bauder June 30, 2005 13:19 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 23:13, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, please get more input from other editors via a Request for comment -- sannse (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, further discussion as sannse suggests would be helpful, I feel. James F. (talk) 18:35, 22 July 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.

User:Irate

What is the current date of expiration on the ban for Irate? It should have expired today, nominally, but [104] and [105] should have reset it in May to expire in August, if I count right. Am I right on this? Snowspinner 16:45, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

May I, as one of the aggrieved parties in the dispute, say that I would prefer the ArbComm to be lenient, as the edits were minor and one was requesting clarification. I don't see the need for petty rules-lawyering. smoddy 17:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

If the arbcom wants to overturn its own ban, that's fine - I do kind of object to administrators doing it, just because we don't get to make the decision to overturn an arbcom ban. As for leniency, it's probably worth pointing out that Irate returned and immediately began reverting the same edits he'd been reverting in May, calling them vandalism. So, you know, not exactly giving me confidence. Snowspinner 17:20, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I quite agree. I would also prefer the ArbComm to decide. But I was just requesting leniency! I wouldn't overturn the ban myself... smoddy 17:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I would also like some ArbComm input on this. Irate has come back, but he is still accompanied by his provocative style ("revert vandalism" to valid edits by those he has a grudge with). Moreover, while he's been banned from the English Wikipedia, he's been carrying on his personal attacks on Meta instead (peruse meta:User talk:Irate, for example). I don't think Irate is willing to change his ways, and whether we let him back now or in a month, my guess is that we're probably going to have to deal with his behaviour again at some point :( — Matt Crypto 17:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it is very clear that you destroyed valid data simply because you did not like the poster. That seems like vandlism to me. You objections have nothing to do with the content.--Jirate 18:42, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

No, I reverted your edits last month because you were only two months through a three month ban. It isn't unusual to revert the edits of a banned user. — Matt Crypto 22:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I unbanned him because there were only two edits - he shouldn't have been able to do either (because of the block) but didn't continue beyond the two. One was a question regarding his RFAr and one was a revert of a previous argument. Yes, he's showing borderline personal attacks (use of the word "vandlism" (sic)) and the continuation of revert wars, but we should go along with the ruling of the arbcomm. He will very quickly be banned if anything like that carries on, so I have no worries about looking forward to his positive contributions. violet/riga (t) 18:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• As said above, one of the edits was a request for clarification in itself, the other could be regarded as a test. Irate may have been confused by the account being inadvertently unblocked. I'm happy for the ban to end on schedule (that is, for Irate to be unblocked as from now.) That said - Irate, your reaction to this, and your editing style so far does not give me much hope of a happy return. I strongly suggest you calm down and try editing more collaboratively. -- sannse (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• I concur with Sannse. →Raul654 17:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Iasson and User:Bank of Wikipedia (and reincarnations)

Iasson is currently subject to a ban of 1 year or 1 year and 3 months following an arbitration case, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson. At WP:AN/I it has apparently been confirmed that User:Bank of Wikipedia and associated reincarnations are Iasson, if this is true then it is clearly in violation of the ban.

There is no mention in the arbitration pages of whether the ban should be reset (as it does in other arbcom judgments) if it is violated. It is also unclear whether the two bans imposed were to run consecutively or concurrently. Please could you therefore answer the following questions:

• What is the length of Iasson's ban? 12 months (bans run concurrently) or 15 months (bans run consecutively).
• If it is proven that he is in violation of the ban, can it be reset or should some other action be taken?

Thanks, Thryduulf 19:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• One year is our usual maximum ban. In this case I would say the bans run concurrently to the maximum year. If Iasson is evading the ban by editing under another account the ban is reset. I don't think we have a specific page for noting this, I would suggest doing so on his user page. -- sannse (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Archive

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