Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:35, 3 August 2004

• ]

The last step of Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy, Misplaced Pages:Arbitrators, /Admin enforcement requested

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Earlier Steps

Please review Misplaced Pages: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 for Arbitration

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Be brief - put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence elsewhere if you need to. New requests to the top, please.

Sam Spade and 172

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 Misplaced Pages 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. 172 23:55, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Danny withdrew this same complaint against Sam Spade about a week ago, saying that he was willing to try a modus vivendi with Sam. I also tried to do the same. But Sam was so unbelievably unreasonable on his talk page that decided to revive this request.

See also Talk:Gay bathhouse, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Gay bathhouse, User talk:Exploding Boy and User talk:OwenBlacker. —

Can someone find a diff of Danny's withdrawn request? Thanks. Martin 00:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is no difference. I stated so above. I think that Sam Spade is a severe problem user and that something has to be done. Danny's old request hits the nail on the head, so I wish to reactivate it. 00:21, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)172

Is this what you were looking for, Martin? Sam 01:30, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Response

Here are a few policy links and a link to my conversation with 172 which he characterized as "unbelievably unreasonable" User_talk:Sam_Spade#172.

Sam 01:04, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh and in case it matters (I'm not saying it should, but it has been mentioned) I neither justify the murder of Matthew Shepard, nor have I ever done anything to suggest that, nor have I ever edited an article relating to him to my knowledge. Sam 01:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172 has attempted to indicate that Mr. Spade is a pro-Nazi gay-basher. I really don't think its appropriate; and I hope the arbitration committee takes this propagandic twisting of truth into account, as it deliberates the arbitration requests against myself and 172. Lirath Q. Pynnor

When and where did 172 attempt any part of the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution regarding these issues, other than coming directly to arbitration? To my knowledge we've never discussed, nor edited together on these particular issues. Isn't this RfAR therefore fundamentally invalid? Sam 01:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't make it invalid... just slightly dodgy. The arbitration commitee is not required to only take cases that went through other forms of dispute resolution. It's just noted that they'll glower at you. Snowspinner 02:03, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

"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."

Sam 03:29, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators

1. Recuse, based on 172's participation. Fred Bauder 01:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Avala

Avala has been a difficult user for some time now, prone to personal attacks, belicosity on talk pages, and prone to either disregard or inability to comprehend Misplaced Pages policy and convention. He has a tendency towards abusive edit summaries, frivolous nominations on RFA and FAC, and edit warring. Detailed evidence can be found at User:Snowspinner/Avala Evidence.

I'd like to stress in this case that I do not think Avala is a bad user, or even editing in bad faith. I think Avala is a difficult user and a problem user. I'm hoping for the outcome of this to be something that helps the message that Avala is being disruptive to sink in - something an RfC and numerous users confronting Avala about his behavior have not achieved. My personal hope for an outcome would be something akin to the standing order being proposed for the case regarding Anthony. Snowspinner 22:37, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree with all Snowspinner has said. Ambivalenthysteria 04:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As do I. Cribcage 21:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I, of course, disagree. Nikola 23:11, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would like to request postponing arbitration for one week, because I will be on vacation. I informed Misplaced Pages about this earlier before on my talk page. I shall write complete answer to what is found in User:Snowspinner/Avala Evidence. It is located at User:Avala/Answer. ] 11:52, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about trying mediation? Fred Bauder 13:58, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I do not think that would be fruitful, particularly after reading Avala's answer. Avala seems to be completely unaware of the issues that personal attacks, edit warring, and hostile posts on talk pages all cause. These issues have been pointed out to him in the past, and he refuses to see them as problems, always defending that his edit was right, that the people opposing him were POV warriors, that he was just discussing. I think it's telling that he notes that "Many times I said I PROPOSE A PEACEFUL SOLUTION" without seeming to note that the very tone of saying that in all caps negates the peacefulness of the solution. (Though I find Avala's whole response very telling - it displays almost every one of the issues I have with Avala's editing style) I don't feel that Avala has any investment in change nor any recognition that there is an issue, and suspect that Avala would not take the matter with enough seriousness or interest in reaching a conflict-free resolution for it to be an effective solution. I think that what is needed is for civility and compromise to no longer be optional for Avala. I hope that with some sanctions, Avala will finally recognize that this is a real issue. Snowspinner 15:03, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I can see that your only dream is to ban me because we dissagre in many subjects. I don`t think it is very democratic. Evidences you provided are mostly out of subject(80 "evidences"), because you posted every minor edit of mine for an example on discussion about templates nato/natom. "Many times I said I PROPOSE A PEACEFUL SOLUTION"- You seem not to read anything but just point to caps lock. The reason I wrote it like that in first place was to stop fighting in one article and to point to my compromise proposal (in my answer I just copy/pasted). You also said " that the people opposing him were POV warriors" . You again said it yourself. I never said such a thing and please don`t post lies anymore! I said that is normal that everyone in here have some POV, but that it is really bad if you don`t respects other peoples POV(POV is nothing bad, it means Point of View, and everyone should have it unless they are invertebrate), and call for banning them. But I am not he one who said I like to poke Avala and soemthing like all edits by Avala are bad and POV. I think you should think a bit and see that this request for arbitration brought you 6 opposing votes. And differently from you I admit making mistakes, but I was also a good contributor many times and again many times proposed compromise solution. You never tried to rich compromise. Your favourite key seams to be "the revert key". I hope that you don`t expect my answer to be something like :sorry Snowspinner for voting against you on RfA, because I don`t think I am sorry at all after your last comment.

I wish you the best and hope that you will stop being agressive to me, that you will listen to the people because we don`t have anything against you ] 16:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I urge the committee not to send this to mediation. It is one such case where there is absolutely nothing mediation could achieve. It is not a dispute between two users, nor is it a dispute of the content of an article. Passing the buck to the Mediation Committee (as was tried last time Avala was put on here), will just delay the inevitable, annoy a lot of people, and perhaps lessen the opportunity to constructively encourage Avala to change his behaviour. Ambivalenthysteria 03:07, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by "delay the inevitable" ? What inevitable outcome are you expecting here ? SweetLittleFluffyThing

I was referring to arbitration. In my opinion, the issue wasn't going to go away, and needed to be heard by the AC if a positive outcome was to occur. I felt that if, as last time, it was sent back to the MC (due to a dispute that wasn't necessarily mediate-able, and the wide number of parties that have had issues with this user), then it would simply be delaying arbitration proceedings, rather than preventing them. Ambi 10:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators

1. Accept. James F. (talk) 03:26, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. Accept. Fred Bauder 12:00, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
3. Accept. Gutza 15:04, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. The last time Avala was on RfA, he was making a request, over a single edit, and rejecting it was absolutely correct - I'm not going to accept every ill thought out arbitration request just on the offchance that the person making the request will themselves be the subject of an arbitration request some months later. On this new request, I'm undecided at present. Martin 00:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172

172 has been reverting me at New Imperialism and he refuses to discuss the matter. I request that the arbitration committee examine this uncooperative behaviour. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I strongly request that User:172 be examined by the arbitration committee, regarding a general tendancy towards edit wars and incivility. Sam 04:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See Dialogue below for an interaction. Sam 22:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I also request that User:172 be examined by the arbitration committee, because of his extensive edit wars with VeryVerily, and Lir.--Plato 22:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A note: 172's proposed solution to the problem at New Imperialism was a poll between the two versions - virtually identical to what Lir did at one point on Saddam Hussein. I'm interested in how Lir distinguishes between the two. Snowspinner 12:52, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your concern. I do not recall ever requesting a poll at Saddam Hussein -- however, we will take your point into consideration. Lirath Q. Pynnor

172 has repeatedly deleted contributions by others in the "Evidence" section. I'm disturbed by his actions in this regard - surely a party in an arbitration case should not be permitted to delete contributions by other parties? The issue is being discussed at . -- ChrisO 19:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Evidence

• link to evidence
• 172 has thrice removed evidence from this page.

If people could refrain from removing evidence, that'd certainly help. I don't appreciate my job being made more difficult. Thanks. Martin 17:51, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe Muriel G would also agree with this request, the following exchange is from her talkpage:

• As you have learned, by arguing with 172, the cabal is real. They are a group of petty tyrants with no respect for common decency -- their goal is not to make the wikipedia better, but to make the wikipedia theirs. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Thats why i moved to wiki.pt :) Muriel G 10:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dialogue

• User_talk:Sam_Spade#172

Comments and votes by arbitrators

1. Recuse Fred Bauder 12:18, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
2. Accept. James F. (talk) 03:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. Leave hanging while the two existing Lir cases are resolved - the outcome of those two may render arbitration in this case unnecessary. Martin 23:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lance6wins and User:Zero0000

Originally entitled "209.135.35.83 and in the range of 69.138.236.###".

This anon user (thought to be the inactive user user:OneVoice) is a remarkably tenacious pusher of Pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinian POV. Month after month, he doggedly insists in inserting the same highly slanted texts in articles such as Daniel Pipes, Benny Morris, Tali Hatuel, Palestinian Authority, Israeli West Bank barrier, Anti-Zionism, Yasser Arafat, and Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, among others, causing them to be protected for extended periods. 209.135.35.83 makes minimal effort to engage in dialog on Talk pages, and when he does he rarely signs his posts, preferring the cloak of anonimity.

On July 9, he edited various listings on Misplaced Pages:Protected_page concerning articles protected because of edit wars in which he had been involved , an action which was reverted and for which he was reproached by user Texture

On July 22, 209.135.35.83 reverted the article United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East four times , dissing one of our estimable colleagues with the edit summary (Restore Chris73 version....undo Zero(Censor)0000 removal of ambulance photo), and thereby repeatedly trying to circumvent the concensus reached on the Talk page with regard to the inclusing of the controversial photo.

I request disciplinary action against this user. -- Viajero 14:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This anon displays bizarre behaviour which is a mixture of politeness and pathological obsession. Often puts extremely right-wing viewpoints into articles and then reverts endlessly if anyone tries to remove them. Even after something has been fixed for weeks he is likely to suddenly pop up and revert it again. Quite a large fraction of his edits have been reverted (by a wide variety of users). It has been a tremendous waste of time trying to protect Misplaced Pages from him. --Zero 14:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have mentioned this user and some other anonymous IPs who engage in similar behaviour, which I have described, at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Archive 8. -- Simonides 23:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Has now created an account Lance6Wins but the behavior is the same. Something about it feels like an illness rather than pure fanaticism. Recently a good fraction of the little time I have for Misplaced Pages has been taken up by cleaning up after this guy, and I don't see why I should have to put up with it. Now I blocked 209.135.35.83 and 69.138.236.221 for one month. If members of the committee feel I am overstepping my role as sysop here, please write to me. I request the committee to make this block permanent. -Zero

Since hes not on a hard-ban yet, I have unblocked him, asking that he comment here, and adhere to the ID Lance6wins. Since Zero wasnt explicit about where this was filed I have only just now found it. -SV 17:28, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are at least two issues: a smaller immediate one an a significantly larger one.

Smaller issue: Zero0000 and Lance6Wins disagree how an incident in Current Events on July 23, 2004 should be reported. As well as a matter in July 19, 2004.

The July 23rd event is detailed in Talk:Current Events. Several newspapers (BBC, NYT, HaAretz, INN) report the event as a 15 year old shot to death by Palestinian when he and members of his family opposed their property being used as a launch site for Qassam rockets at Israeli towns in the Negev. A single news source (APF) has diffenent details: 18 years old, road side bomb and targeting soldiers rather than civilians.

July 19, 2004 Zero0000 has deleted the refenence to David Hatuel, husband of Tali Hatuel. David was given a place of prominence in the Human Chain from the Gaza Strip to the Western Wall.

Larger Issue: Zero0000, recently given admin privs, is abusing those privs to silence Lance6Wins and block any IP address that Lance6Wins uses to connect to wikipedia. Lance6Wins 18:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note that this is a case being made by Viajero against Lance6Wins (initiated when the latter was anon). I intend to support the case, but I am not a subject of this case. The Current Events and Tali Hatuel instances brought here by Lance6Wins are only his obfuscation. --Zero 08:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators

• Accept Fred Bauder 12:39, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 13:28, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Accept complaints of both sides. Martin 22:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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 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)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation#User:K1 and user:refdoc and archive 8. K1 has refused mediation. Angela., member of the Mediation Committee, 19:07, Jul 26, 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) Accept, given refusal to mediate. *sighs* James F. (talk) 08:55, 2 Aug 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)
• Accept, as mediation has been rejected by K1. Noting . Martin 17:53, 1 Aug 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages : 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 Misplaced Pages, See 12:57, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
2. Recuse - Comments by 142.177 to me were the main reason why that user was banned. --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 Misplaced Pages 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.
• /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, please.
• /User:Guanaco versus User:Lir - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on July 11, 2004. Evidence to /User:Guanaco versus User:Lir/Evidence, please.
• /User:PolishPoliticians - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on July 27, 2004. Evidence to /User:PolishPoliticians/Evidence, please.
• /RK - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and two recusals on August 1, 2004. Evidence to /RK/Evidence, please.

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

• WikiUser vs. unspecified others - Rejected due to lack of a specific request.

• Simonides vs. "everyone" - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.

• Sam Spade vs. Danny - Withdrawn

• Sam Spade vs. AndyL - Withdrawn

• Raul654 vs Anthony DiPierro - Withdrawn after agreement of both parties (see standing order).

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.

• /Cantus - Decided on 01 Aug 2004, apply a revert parole to Cantus and other remedies.