Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

The last step of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is Arbitration, (see arbitration for a general overview of the topic). If, and only 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.

See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, Wikipedia:Arbitrators, /Admin enforcement requested

Earlier Steps

Please review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other avenues you should take before requesting arbitration. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request for arbitration will be rejected.

Current requests

The procedure for accepting requests is described at arbitration policy. Be brief - put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence elsewhere if you need to.

Requests for arbitration

RK

RK is legendary for his offensive behavior towards other Wikipedians over years. He is especially notorious for accusing his opponents of anti-Semitism. Now he is repeatedly calling two respected Wikipedians Zero and User:DanKeshet "anti-Semites". This cannot be tolerated and I am asking the arbitration committee to put an end to it. This charge does not involve a particular single article. (This is a stub, more will be added.) --Zero 13:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Votes and discussion by arbitrators

1. Recuse Fred Bauder 14:14, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
2. Accept. RK is indeed remarkably rude and a frequent violator of the Wikipedia:no personal attacks policy. We have arbitrated other charges of rudeness and name-calling; we should hear this one. --the Epopt 14:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. Accept. James F. (talk) 23:30, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:K1

He seems to believe that only he can be right and has been offensive to anyone that edits what he wrote. I think he should be banned for bahaviour, or at least, put on probation or something. Antonio Mitsubishi Martin

I support Antonio's request for arbitration. K1 uses all the time abusive and obscene language and keeps deleting my and others' contributions without comment to the actual matter. I am aware that arbitration is the last resort, but my RfC request seems to go nowhere, while the abuse is continueing. K1 appears to be unwilling to accept mediation. Please have look at Talk:William C. Rogers III and the revert history[1] of William C. Rogers III. There are many other examples, but this is probably enough, to see what I mean.

User K1 is currently banned for 24 hrs after insulting various other people on his talk pages. I would be happy and willing to accept mediation after his return. Refdoc 20:05, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would also appreciate arbitration, since K1 has refused mediation, insists on personal attacks (including new targets, which includes me now), and reverts removals of personal attacks. And this is after being blocked once. Roozbeh 23:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He has been blocked again, this time for 72 hrs for multiple abuse and reverting removal of abuse. I agree with Roozbeh, arbitration is needed, though I do remain open for mediation on the three article K1 seems to go ballistic over.- whenevre k1 decides to see the light and agree to mediation too. At teh moment this appears to be far off. Refdoc 00:46, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators

• FWIW, there's a just-started RfC, and a disagreement on the nature of people's comments, with a couple of but nothing ban-worthy, certainly. Please remember that the Arbitration Committee is a court of last-resort. James F. (talk) 12:33, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Refer to Mediation Committee. Actually, first off, just try to be nice. James F. (talk) 12:33, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Mediate; K1 is nothing special, just another foul-mouthed edit-warrior --the Epopt 12:48, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Accept (based on a look at Talk:William C. Rogers III) Fred Bauder 14:45, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

User:Simonides versus everyone

User:Simonides seem determined to exclude material he doesn't agree with from the anti-Semitism article, and has now managed to get the article protected with the material he disagrees with left out. Quite a number of editors have had disagreements with him on this very issue over a period of months, it appears. Can this be sorted out? Jayjg 23:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe mediation has been discussed yet. Take this to mediation before arbitration, and don't come back unless that fails. Guanaco 01:39, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators

• Refer to mediation. Martin 12:48, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Refer to Mediation Committee. James F. (talk) 13:11, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Mediation --the Epopt 17:36, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Mediation Fred Bauder 19:21, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser

WikiUser 18:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) - I'd like some action taken on the following. I read Wikipedia for about 9 months and after reading the guidelines and advice pages for many days decided to contribute. I politely added a perfectly thorough note on my first edit of a factual error- although of course this is not required. I'd decided to do so though rather than not- I needn't have bothered. I found of course that Wikipedia is just like any other chatboard and have just been since I joined targetted for abuse everywhere I "go" on Wikipedia, by a group of people.

I'm well aware of the nature of Wikipedia as I said above - I've read the guides, however I want whoever runs it to take what action they can to prevent the abusive nature of using the system of the people concerned.

The relevant data is at England and if you follow the dated entries you will see that:

A clique of users have decided that the England page can not be changed fom their views and that they own it. The creator of Wikipedia was warned that this would happen and should have put in a better way of dealing with it. Please don't waste my time with nonsense about earlier steps. View the material and you'll see what I mean.

The AC should note that WikiUser has rejected an offer to discuss or mediate as "vandalism" and "abuse", misrepresented the dispute at the Help Desk, ignored evidence presented at Talk:England, and been abusive to at least one person there. If anyone should request arbitration (and it is far too premature to do so), it is those WikiUser has abused and misrepresented publically. Jwrosenzweig 19:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WikiUser 20:24, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Anyone -the owners of Wikipedia, the big donators, Wikipedia's ISP etc. - know how to stop this person from following me around with lies like this? Everything he said is a lie as the records show. These people will have to be blocked. I recieve more abusive messages than I can keep up with from these people and people joining in with them, seconds after I do anything on wikipedia. I just edited my talk page to remove 2 abusive messages and add a polite note asking people to stop "spam abusing" me and MY edit was cancelled but the abuser's stayed-despite the claim there can be no edit conflict on Wikipedia. They hacking now then?

I repeat- I'm unable to use Wikipedia- I spend all my time deleting their abusive messages to me.

Note: User:Wikiuser (talk) seems to be under some misapprehensions about the abilities of sysops. On hir talk page s/he accuses someone of "cancelling" hir edits to hir own talk page. -- BCorr|Брайен 20:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikiuser seems to be under the impression that s/he is the only one allowed to edit his/her talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:WikiUser&diff=4374819&oldid=4373995 illustrates the "abusive messages" that s/he is complaining about - any reasonably sane user would interpret this as an attempt by other users to help. To be blunt about it, WikiUser is just wasting people's time with this complaint. -- ChrisO 21:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In his defense, I probably shouldn't have guessed at what the AC would decide, since I'm not on the AC. But I bet I'm right, all the same. Snowspinner 21:19, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'd bet so, too. :-) I was amused to see that s/he's posted to User talk:WikiUser: "You people are now even interfering with my computer's connection to The Wikipedia!" A candidate for BJAODN, surely? -- ChrisO 21:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To Fred Bauder WikiUser 20:14, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) - I don't know why you want me to "rephrase my complaint". It seems to be in clear normal English to me. Why must I? I won't be on-line (probably) for a while due to work commitments- and don't have time to list the "defendents"! But as you know you can see what happened and who said what -as much as the record allows- from comparing edits. Which would be necessary anyway. Good luck.

Here's the relevant pages: England: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

and talk:england: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:England

My "my talk" page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiUser

and help page with URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_do_I_request_arbitration.3F

Here's my "my contributions" page if you need it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=WikiUser

-Also any donors, big or small, out there who are contributing to the $100,000 that the Wikipedia owners are asking for I'd be interested to hear from you! You can use my "my talk" page and I'll get back to you when I can. (Assuming all records aren't deleted by the Arbitration people.

Comments and Votes by Arbitrators

• Wikiuser, please rephrase your complaint and name the defendents. Please state more explicitly what they have done also. Fred Bauder 21:25, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
• If, Wikiuser, you, 'don't have time to list the "defendents"!', don't expect us to dig though that stuff and try to decide who did what and when. Fred Bauder 21:21, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

• Reject. Martin 22:17, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Reject Fred Bauder 13:00, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Reject. James F. (talk) 13:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Reject --the Epopt 12:52, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade

I would like the arbitration committee to look into the issue of Sam Spade. He has a long history of inserting POV into articles under the guise of NPOV (see Talk:Gay bathhouse and the histories of Racial hygiene and Adolf Hitler for further examples), and this may be a test case of the scope of NPOV really means. Does Wikipedia have a responsibility to present every view? Before answering quickly, think whether we have to present a defense of Nazism or a justification of the Matthew Shephard murder just to ensure neutrality. Is this an encyclopedia, or is it a soapbox where every Internet kook and extremist can make their statements under a veneer of legitimacy--after all, it's in the encyclopedia? I hope you choose to take up this case. Danny 10:31, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my complaint against Sam Spade. I think it is unnecessary, and that a modus vivendi with Sam is possible. I would also ask that no one cites me as a reason to complain against Sam. This does not mean that I agree with everything Sam does, but that I believe that with patience and good will we can find common ground to cooperate. Danny 01:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

• Some facts regarding my issue w Danny

Sam Spade (talk · contribs)

Sam [Spade] 11:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I'd request that this case be heard - not necessarily with any eye towards sanctions against Sam (I'm neutral at best on that subject), but with an eye towards the questions regarding NPOV that Danny brings up. NPOV is a tremendously elusive policy, and could use clarification. Particular points of clarification that I'd like to see include whether every view needs to be represented, and on what pages opposing views need to be represented. (My usual example is that creationism is mentioned on Evolution but not on Punctuated equilibrium). So I think a lot could be done with this. As for the Gay bathhouse article, though I disagree with Sam on this article, I think that it hasn't gone through enough of the dispute resolution process as of yet. Maybe there's something to be said for a case against Sam in general, across a number of articles. But I'm agnostic on that. I just want NPOV clarified. :) Snowspinner 15:37, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

See also Talk:Gay bathhouse, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Gay bathhouse, User talk:Exploding Boy and User talk:OwenBlacker. — OwenBlacker 11:58, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Question - has there been a RfC? or formal mediation? Is Danny saying that Sam Spade is "an internet kook and extremist" because if he is not then I object the the AC getting involved. Content issues should be decided by the community and not the AC. A RfC would let the community have a voice, which may well sort out the problems.theresa knott 12:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The issue regarding Gay bathhouse has been listed on RfC and Peer review for around 10 days now and all attempts at mediation have failed. No formal mediation has been taken (and I mooted doing that within the last 24 hours), but I don't actually think it'd help, as I don't believe it'd have any different effect to the less formal mediation — the differences appear to be too intractable. — OwenBlacker 13:28, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

But what about a a RfC on Sam Spade's "inserting POV into articles under the guise of NPOV"? It is Sam Spade who is being referred to the AC not the Gay bathhouse article.theresa knott 13:41, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly reasonable. OwenBlacker 13:44, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

It seems the next step would be a poll, followed by mediation (begging the question again, between whom?) and then arbitration. The current request is too vague and hasn't followed the clearly delineated guidelines, and much as I admit I'm secretly happy to see Sam get in trouble (because I'm 5 years old...), it's not fair if the proper procedure is not followed, so I reluctantly object to this request. Exploding Boy 13:37, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

I would, however, support a Request For Comment. Exploding Boy 13:46, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to see the Gay bathhouse issue go to formal mediation rather than arbitration, but I'm not sure a poll is worthwhile, given the lack of interest from people not already involved in the discussion resulting from the listings on RfC and Peer review. I'm relatively easy, tbh, as long as it's something more than the repetitive arguments we've been having for the last coupla weeks. OwenBlacker 13:44, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

It seems Peer Review and RFC never produce any results, but we've got to follow the procedure, right? Besides, yet again, who would this mediation be between? Exploding Boy 13:47, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Fair point. I would assume, in the context of Danny's complaint, it would have to be between the two individuals; in the context of Gay bathhouse, I'd guess an advocate for the article becoming FA (you? me?) and Sam. OwenBlacker 13:50, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

It's not so much about the article being FA, though I really believe that Sam's motivation, in part, was to prevent that. It's about adding a NPOV dispute message to a page with no good reason and then basically leaving that page in limbo. Exploding Boy 14:08, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the two in combination, as one would assume that anyone advocating the article being FA would also want the NPOV dispute resolved. OwenBlacker 14:18, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Personally I'd be happy to forget the whole thing if he just removed his dispute and left that article alone. Exploding Boy 14:27, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Official policy states, "Where a dispute has not gone through mediation, the arbitrators may refer the dispute to the mediation committee if it believes mediation is likely to help." Mediation is not a prerequisite; the Committee need ask for it only if it is likely to produce results—they need not do so merely for the sake of form. It would appear, based on the above comments, that mediation is unlikely to help. Therefore, I find myself in support of the request for arbitration. -- Emsworth 17:32, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

Additional information on recent behavior by Sam Spade

Although voting has started, I would like to second this request after some behavior and activity by Sam Spade over the last day that was, IMHO, counterproductive. In short, Sam interfered (although that may be slightly too strong of a word) in the work of the Mediation Committee in the case of User:Herschelkrustofsky and User:AndyL, and managed to short circuit a process that seemed to be moving forward smoothly and without recrimination, resulting in AndyL declining mediation after initiating the process (see this version of Requests for mediation). For more info please also see this version of my talk page. BCorr|Брайен 18:14, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The above is based on this. I feel that I acted properly in providing User:Herschelkrustofsky with that advice, and also feel I acted properly in scolding User:Bcorr regarding this incident. Sam [Spade] 20:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Request

I would request that a decision be made to hear this case, yea or nay, as expeditiously as possible. It has been here over a month, and is already beginning to be used to malign my character [2]. I wouldn't mind the opportunity to discuss violations of wikipedia:No personal attacks and wikipedia:civility in the prominent and public format that an arbitration of this would provide, but this is not a particularly good case of it. While User:Danny has used foul language in the past, and IMO has been uncivil at times, my problems with him are fairly minimal, and largely amount to his apparent unwillingness to converse with myself. I see nothing that either of us has done regarding one another that could possibly result in a sanction from the community or committee, and would find a bit of advice from the arbiters on our respective talk pages regarding our conduct more advantageous than the time consuming and apparently unnecessary trial requested by User:Danny and others. A referral to wikipedia:mediation may be fortuitous as well. Sam [Spade] 20:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators

Accept:

1. mav 23:36, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) I would like to explore the NPOV issue - esp the aspect where a single user can unilaterally put a dispute notice on a page. I don't think that is useful. Nor do I think that including every POV in an article is at all desirable. Consensus should drive the process, not unilateral action (which is currently supported by at least one interpretation of policy - I think we really need to clarify this issue).
2. Fred Bauder 03:55, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Refuse:

1. I don't think determining the fine details of how NPOV is in our jurisdiction. We're a judiciary, not a legislature. I largely agree with Maveric's opinion above that the subject is interesting; I disagree that we few, we overworked few, we band of arbiters are the proper ones to issue an edict on the subject. --the Epopt 12:57, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Abstain or other:

1. I'm not sure. It seems to be, really, a combination of an inter-personal disupute (that I think hasn't escalated to the point where we're needed or would really be all that helpful) and a lack-of-policy point (i.e., exactly how much dissent is required for 'consensus' to be broken and NPOV declared un-reached); we aren't here to write policy, merely judge it, and I don't think that there's sufficient ground-work for us to make a judgment that is likely to be a fair reflection of the overall community's opinion. Perhaps we should form a semi-formal Polcy Committee, and refer this to that? James F. (talk) 01:15, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
2. Like James, I'm not sure. Mav above suggests that we should rule to change current practice regards NPOV disputes - I don't think we're allowed to do that: rather wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute should be used. Ditto the inclusion of extreme views to wikipedia talk:neutral point of view. We're allowed to rule on the status quo, but I doubt that's what Danny desires. Not sure about the personal element, though. Martin 22:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:JRR Trollkien

Evidence of sock-puppetry presented by various users moved to User talk:JRR Trollkien. Martin 00:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Complaint by UninvitedCompany

This user appears to be the same user who was previously banned as:

• User:24
• 142.177.xxx
• User:EntmootsOfTrolls

and who was believed to be, in real life, Craig Hubley (website).

In accordance with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, I have tried to discuss these matters on the user's talk page, as has another user. My concerns have gone unanswered despite User:JRR Trollkien making continued edits elsewhere. I have also asked User:JRR Trollkien to confirm or deny having edited previously under one of the three identities listed above, on a related arbitration page, and he neither confirmed nor denied having made such edits. I do not believe that mediation is appropriate in this case, both because of User:JRR Trollkien's refusal to discuss any edits on any talk page, and because of the existing ban. However, if the committee should conclude that mediation would somehow be beneficial, I would be happy to participate.

Requested relief

If the committee can satisfy itself that this is the same user banned previously, I request that the existing ban be reaffirmed and enforced. I believe this is important, notwithstanding the quality of any current edits, to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of user bans and the right of the community to choose its members.

If the committee believes that this user is unrelated to any previously banned user, I request that the committee ask User:JRR Trollkien to quit adding content written by previously banned users and since removed through the consensus editing process.

Respectfully, UninvitedCompany 23:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

there is something I find a bit problematic here UC. It is simply that some of these edits you mention here, have been done while the previous user was not banned *yet* (for example 24). Besides, the user mentionned has not been banned because of the content provided, but because of an behavior considered inapropriate by the community standards. You are basing a good deal of your argument on the fact trollkien is reintroducing content provided before the ban and not object of the ban.

While I understand very well your concern, I am also worried that what you are asking will set a couple of precedents that could be unwelcome. Right now, it is not current practice to remove edits made by banned users previously to the banning. And I would add that we punish users being bad with the community by punishing them, not deleting contents. What you are now suggesting is that we change this entirely, and use from now on a new law. From a legal perspective, when a law is changed, it is not fair that it is applied by anteriority on people.

So, I'd say, the committee should only feel concerned by one question : if this user is a banned user, the ban should be enforced. If not, this user should not be bothered. In all cases, what this user is doing is irrelevant and the type of edit he is making is only to be used to make the relationship betwen previously banned user. Content made while the editor could edit should not be taken into account directly.

Between you and I, I think you should try to loosen this unhealthy obsession :-) But well... friendly yours. Ant

The original ban of 24 was due to a refusal to work cooperatively with other editors, because 24 engaged in exactly the sort of constant re-insertion of his material that is going on here. 142, as I recall, was chiefly banned as a "reincarnation," and the stated reason for EofT's ban concerned the contents of a specific edit.

Nope. 142 was not banned for being a reincarnation. He was banned for making threats. I think that whatever the reason of the ban, and whatever its validity, it is important to say that the reasons of the 3 bannings were not content itself, but behavior. It would be nice that over time, the reason why people are banned are not distorted. I think it is important. If only to remind and insist that people are banned because of behavioral issues, and not for content issues. If reinsertion of content added by a user who has been banned *after* the edition is motive to ban people, then we admit that we ban people for issues of "content". While if we ban people for being reincarnation of ban user, we inforce banning, but we ban over behavioral issue, not content issue. I am in agreement to enforce ban, I am not in agreement to ban people on issues of content. And I do think that the argument you are giving above is borderline in that context. I'd say it is okay to try to make a link between people using the argument of reinsertion, but it is not okay to ban them because they are reinserting content that did not justify the ban in the first place. I am not sure I am explaining myself clearly enough here Steve, but I hope you will see the slight difference in approach that I suggest. Enforce banning over sockpuppet if you wish. But please, do not put a ban on someone because of an issue of content properly. I think that would be a very serious slippery slope to do so. Do you understand what I mean ?

Several users have counseled me to provde evidence that the user is indeed the same as the ones previously banned. Since there is no technical means to provide such evidence (since we don't try to verify identity and since we haven't saved logs from a year ago to use to compare HTTP headers), I can only point to the editing pattern, which is what I've done. I have already pointed out User:JRR Trollkien's refusal to deny authorship of the 24/142/EofT material, which, IMO, speaks volumes.

The edits being reinstated by User:JRR Trollkien are ones that were removed one at a time, through the course of careful editing by a wide varity of users. None of them were removed by me, and only one was removed due to authorship alone, and that after the ban. By re-adding this content, verbatim, paragraphs at a time, to a fairly wide range of articles, User:JRR Trollkien is undoing the careful work of many people who reworded it or rewrote the articles to make them better in the intervening time, well over a year in some cases. I think that's unfair, regardless of the true identity of the people involved.

Well, that is a wiki, and everyone is free to participate I'd say. Since you consider that readding content removed over a year by 2 or 3 people is unfair, I take it you consider that the opinion of 2 or 3 people only is more important that the opinion of just 1 person. That means that you agree to follow the opinion of the majority then, and that you lend all power to only 2 or 3 people. I think that is also a dangerous direction. It is perhaps interesting to see in the view of current political dispute involving 172. Imagine that WP is providing a very antiisraelite view. And that one user comes around and add his pro-israel view. Then leave for a while. During a year, 2 or 3 people against israel view come along and carefully, quietly remove the pro-israel view. Then the initial user comes back and tries to reinsert his pro-israel view. Would you say that this is vandalism and unfair ? I'd say that it is not; and if you reacted by excluding this guy, you would perhaps be on the slope of censorship and majority of pov promoting. I think I can say that fairly. I have seen work done on antifrench articles. I tried to improve them a year ago. Over a year, a good deal of what I added was removed quietly by anti french people. Would it be unfair that I add it again ? Just because more people removed it ? Arenot we not bordering something bad here ? I agree that some of the work done is perhaps best than what was done previously, but I also wonder if there is not a risk of "paralysing" the life of articles when a set of users decide that "this version" is the good one, and should not receive again input in another anterior direction. This is something I fear a bit for Wikipedia : the organisation of team who will protect some articles and prevent growth. Overprotection. Hmmmmm.... just think about it please, when you are over your hunting energy. Please, do think about it... from a woman working as well on a younger wikipedia, and who can see the protective forces at work. Do not forget that they are cases which could be dangerous to set. That is all I mean, and I wish you see beneath that precise case to think about that. Okay ? :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 19:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As to whether this is an unhealthy obsession, I disagree and would be happy to discuss the reasons why at some more suitable location if you're interested.

UninvitedCompany 17:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think I already know your arguments. But perhaps it is too important to you. I think you consider you have been trapped at some point, and want to compensate now. Well.... no big deal. I still object, but I have other things to do in my life. I think I enough said my opinion. If you understand what I try to say, so much the best, otherwise, it is not worth I go on :-)

User:JRR Trollkien should be permanently banned asap. If WP does not have a mechanism for making such a ban effective, we should really sit down and figure one out. User:JRR Trollkien is a time wasting moron -- get rid of him immediately. BTW I think it's beside the point whether User:JRR Trollkien is the same as some other troll. Same or not, just ban him. Thanks. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I ask the arbitration committee not to ban JRR Trollkien, but to recognize that he and EntmootsOfTrolls are the same person. There is no need for a new ban to be implemented, if it is shown that JRR Trollkien is already banned. Guanaco 08:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos blocked JRR Trollkien and Leo Trollstoy for thirty days. Later on 10 Jun 2004, Mark Richards unblocked, asking (here) "Has the committee already ruled? On both users? If I've missed something here please let me know".

Votes and discussion by arbitrators

1. Accept Fred Bauder. There is strong evidence based on his earliest posts that this user was not a new user when he entered Wikipedia, See [3] 12:57, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
2. Recuse - Comments by 142.177 to me were the main reason why that user was banned.[4] [5] --mav 09:13, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
3. Accept; if he is, indeed, shown to be a reincarnation, this will be a short case. James F. (talk) 09:56, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) This looks like it will be unnecessary, as JRR is currently deemed by popular acclaim to be a reincarnation, as said; however, also accept for purposes of reviewing sysop behaviour in relation to this account &c. James F. (talk) 01:02, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC).
4. Accept. My current belief is that under current banning policy, JRR may already be blocked for being an obvious reincarnation, without even needing an arbitration ruling. As of now, reject. Now that JRR has been blocked as an obvious reincarnation, we only need to consider this case if Mark, Heph, and the community in general are unable to resolve any difference of opinion regards whether the reincarnation is sufficiently "obvious" (in which case, accept). Martin 02:57, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

• /Template

• /JRR Trollkien - Accepted for arbitration with four votes, on April 20, 2004. Evidence to /JRR Trollkien/Evidence please. For discussion and voting on this matter see /JRR Trollkien. Note that this case is accepted solely to determine whether, under existing Wikipedia policy, it is acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls.
• /ChrisO and Levzur Accepted for arbitration with three votes (there were 3 recusals) on May 2, 2004. Evidence to /ChrisO and Levzur/Evidence please. For discussion and voting on this matter see /ChrisO and Levzur.
• /Cantus - Accepted for arbitration with four votes, on 25 May 2004.
• /Lir - Accepted for arbitration with four votes, on 6 July, 2004. Evidence to /Lir/Evidence please. For discussion and voting on this matter see /Lir.
• /Lyndon LaRouche (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - Accepted for arbitration with four votes on 6 July 2004. Evidence to /Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence.
• /User:Guanaco versus User:Lir - Accepted for arbitration with four votes on July 11, 2004. Evidence to /User:Guanaco versus User:Lir

Rejected requests

• Avala vs various users - Rejected - try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Avala

• Matter of Hephaestos - Rejected - due to lack of community desire or allegations. Case referred by Jimbo Feb 19, 2004, rejected Feb 26, 2004. Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hephaestos.

• Wheeler vs 172 - Rejected - please try mediation first. Discussion moved to user talk:WHEELER

• Cheng v. Anonymous and others - Rejected - refer to wikipedia:username for name change policy. For content dispute, try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Nathan w cheng.

Completed requests

• /Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 11th Februry 2004 that Mr-Natural-Health would be banned from editing for 30 days (i.e., until 12 Mar 2004). The vote was 6-2 in favor of banning, with 2 explicit and 1 de-facto abstention.

• /Plautus satire vs Raul654 - Decided on 11th March 2004 that Plautus satire is to be banned for one year, up to and including March 11 2005. The vote was unanimous with 8 votes in favour and 1 de-facto abstention; a further vote in favour of extending the ban indefinitely was held but not met.

• /Wik - Decided on 15th March 2004 that Wik would have a three month probation during which he may be temp-banned in certain circumstances. There were six votes in favour, three opposed, and one de-facto abstention. Further decisions and minority opinions can be read at /Wik.

• /Irismeister - Decided on 31st March 2004 that Irismeister would be banned from editing all pages for ten days, and banned from editing Iridology indefinitely. Decision can be found at /Irismeister/Decision.

• /Anthony DiPierro - Decided on 25th April 2004 to instruct Anthony with regards to his VfD edits, and refer other issues to mediation. The vote was unanimous with 6 votes in favour and 4 de-facto abstentions. Note that the case was accepted solely to investigate use of VfD.

• /Paul Vogel - Decided on 10 May 2004 to ban Vogel for one year. Further discussion and proposals are available at /Paul Vogel/Proposals.

• /Wik2 - Decided at /Wik2/Decided on 21 May 2004.

• /Mr-Natural-Health - Partial decision on 25 June 2004 to apply a three month ban. Possibility of further decisions. For discussion and voting on this matter see /Mr-Natural-Health/Proposed decision.

• /Irismeister 2 - Partial decision on 03 July 2004 to apply a personal attack parole. Possibility of further decisions. For discussion and voting on this matter see /Irismeister 2/Proposed decision.

• /Mav v. 168 - Closed on 03 July 2004 with an open verdict.