Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SOS~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 04:35, 27 October 2004 (served). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

The last step of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is Arbitration. Please review the Dispute resolution for other avenues you should take you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request for Arbitration 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.

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Structure of this page

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

  • Be brief - put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence elsewhere if you need to.
  • You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.
  • Please sign and date at least your original submission with '~~~~'.
  • New requests to the top, please.

The numbers in the Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/0/0/0) section corresponds to Accept/Reject/Recuse/Other.

Current requests for Arbitration

Users Chuck_F, 203.112.19.195 and 210.142.29.125

Chuck_F, 203.112.19.195 and 210.142.29.125 have repeatedly broken the 3 revert rule, engaged in repeated personal attacks, multiple edit wars, unjustified, unexplained reverts, large-scale deletions of relevant material, inappropriate language etc. He has refused to negotiate, or to use Talk productively even when given the opportunity from others keen to engage him. There is currently a request for comment on Chuck_F. Comments to Reithy 00:30, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/2/0/0)

  1. Reject. Please add your information to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reithy which has already been accepted for arbitration and concerns the same users and issues. Fred Bauder 16:08, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Fred. Jwrosenzweig 20:53, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users Ruy Lopez, Shorne, and VeryVerily

I request arbitration with User:VeryVerily for the matter described below at "VeryVerily and reversion" (entry "User:VeryVerily") and, most fully, at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily. My request for mediation, now in its third day, has gone ignored by VeryVerily, who has failed to accept or decline mediation despite several requests. I believe that arbitration is the only appropriate avenue at this point, and I request quick action, as VeryVerily is riding roughshod over numerous articles.

Since there are already two other cases involving VeryVerily, it has been suggested that this one be merged with one or both of the others. I am willing to merge it with the case filed by User:Christiankavanagh, listed below.

As user Ruy Lopez added his name to the request for mediation, I have taken the liberty of listing him as a party to this request as well. Thank you for your attention. Shorne 10:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators (0/0/1/0)

  1. Recuse Fred Bauder 11:40, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


Users Shorne and Fred Bauder

User:Shorne engages in edit wars on the articles, Great Purge, Communism, Communist state and People's Republic of China. He claims to be removing POV material and demands documentation, but no matter how minutely referenced, removal continues. Most references are unacceptable in his view including references which are generally accepted in the scholarly community. When negotiation is attempted he pleads lack of time and energy, but continues to have plenty of time and energy for his edit wars with me and other editors. Extensive discussions on article talk pages have been to no avail, see especially Talk:People's Republic of China, for example this edit: [1]. Mediation has been refused, see [2] Fred Bauder 22:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (3/0/1/1)

  1. Recuse Fred Bauder 22:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Accept. James F. (talk) 16:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Accept. The Cunctator 06:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) I'd love to see more evidence...
  4. Abstain until more evidence is presented -- Fred, I need more than one diff to tell if there is a pattern of behavior in need of addressing. Jwrosenzweig 19:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Accept. →Raul654 06:59, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

User:66.20.28.21 contribs and other accounts

The above user has engaged in a edit war that's epic in scope (stretching from June 2004) and completely flies in the face of consensus. Specifically, he has targeted the articles Phil Gingrey and Rick Crawford, inserting material that is extremely POV (he asserts that Gingrey is a war criminal for his role in Guantanamo Bay) (diff). Upon first seeing this material, I reverted in June 2004 and attempted to discuss the matter on Talk:Phil Gingrey (June 23 version of Talk). However, no matter how much discussion was done, there was never any willingness to compromise. I believe the material to have essentially no place in an article on Gingrey, and so removed it. I considered the matter closed, as the anon user did not edit again for some time.

In July 2004, he returned (I believe) as User:168.9.250.3 (contribs). He repeatedly inserted the same material into the two articles, and was reverted by several users, including myself, User:Hcheney, User:Alteripse, and User:TacoDeposit. This pattern continued through August and September, during which he was also reverted by User:Khalid and User:Isomorphic. No users wanted to include any of his material.

In September, several new accounts began editing the two articles, such as User:GreatLeapForward, User:Dreisshh, User:AMoll, User:InHere, and User:EasyMassood. They all made exactly the same edits to the articles, and all displayed the same refusal to discuss their edits, despite repeated requests (User talk:AMoll, User talk:EasyMassood). I believe them to be sockpuppet accounts.

On September 25, Phil Gingrey was protected; it was unprotected on October 8. During the interval when it was protected, the same edits continued to be made on Rick Crawford. Immediately upon unprotection, the pattern continued on Phil Gingrey.

Recently, the intensity of the editing has increased; over a few days, a reader had an equal chance of encountering the neutral version and the POV version (which includes sentences like "Gingrey's single-minded focus on social issues misses the mark" diff). He has also taken to attacking articles that I have listed on my user page, such as inserting his own opinion of the electoral college in swing state (diff). In addition, he has begun using misleading edit summaries, such as "New link", for inserting the same inaccurate and biased material (diff).

I really don't know what to do about this. There would seem to be a few options, none of them very palatable--permanent blocking of the IPs, permanent protection of both pages--so I'm hoping the arbitration process will provide a solution. If there is no possibility of discussion, then permanent blocking would seem best, but I'm willing to defer to the wisdom of the committee--any ideas would be helpful.

After repeated requests on article talk and user talk, there has never been any compromise or, recently, even willingness to engage in dialogue, and thus I believe mediation would not be helpful. I respectfully request arbitration. Thank you. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:04, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I support banning this editor and sockpuppets, not because of his political views, which are probably shared by many here, but because of offensive behavior.

  • He refuses to honor or even acknowlege our NPOV policy.
  • He usually refuses to discuss changes.
  • He reverts without negotiating content even when factual errors have been pointed out.
  • His edit summaries are frequently dishonest, misrepresenting reversions as new material.
  • Ample examples in the history of Phil Gingrey and Medical torture.
  • Very few of his edits add anything of value to the articles.
  • This person does not appear to be here for any reason other than political advocacy, if not just to exasperate and annoy, and has been given many explanations, requests for improved behavior and warnings.
  • He has no respect for this project and the other editors here and I resent the time wasted for the rest of us.

This is the kind of behavior that drives away good editors. Please, can we show that we can protect ourselves from this? Alteripse 19:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So what is the answer? Page protection one by one? How do we protect ourselves against someone like this? Alteripse 12:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[In response to Fred's comment]

    • Fred, look again. I don't give two hoots about this article, but do you think his description of the community attitude toward a landmark as "grotesque" "pervasive ugliness" "pathetic emotional need" belongs in an encyclopedia? This user is not pasting nonsense, and I did not claim no portion of any edits have been decent. Your comment unfortunately sounds like defending an accused obdurate pickpocket, burglar, and forger by saying, "he just walked past that person without stealing from him." Just review the idiotic POV stuff in Phil Gingrey and medical torture under all his aliases and you will understand this clown knows exactly that his postings are POV and is telling us he doesn't care, he has no intention of accommodating community standards or respecting other opinions. Fred, don't you think a user is a problem for the community if he is a problem for multiple usefully contributing members of the community? If we tolerate this clear an abuser of multiple policies, we have no standards and will do nothing to defend or enforce our policies. If so, it hardly seems worth my efforts. Alteripse 21:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Comments and votes by Arbitrators (3/0/0/1)

  • Is an arbcom ruling necessary in this case? If he has no good edits to his name, and ignores attempts to communicate, then I don't really think an arbcom ruling is necessary. →Raul654 05:02, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
    This edit seems reasonable enough: [3]. Fred Bauder 14:08, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  1. Provisionally accept, though cases without communication from one party are regrettful and normally short. James F. (talk) 16:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Accept. Jwrosenzweig 19:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Accept the Epopt 13:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Turrican and VeryVerily

Since going quickly to arbitration seems to be the "in" thing to do, and has been condoned by the two users who accepted CK's complaint, I will register a request for immediate banning here.

Turrican has stated on my talk page [4] [5] and on Mackensen's [6] that he intends to be and has been carrying out a campaign of reverting my edits without prejudice. Since this has nothing to do with content issues - some are just housekeeping edits (the most absurd is Kim Jong-Il) - I believe this constitutes vandalism.

If you view his talk page, you will see I gave him repeated warnings, including quoting specific policies. Mackensen and GBWR also warned him. I thought he had maybe stopped, and so I was willing to drop the matter, but he has recently resumed.

He has also engaged in personal attacks on me, for instance recently calling me a "disgusting Nazi" (Talk:Henry Kissinger).

To stave off would-be counters:

  1. Re his complaints that I am "destroying his edits", this referred so far as I know to two (2) edits, one adding a dispute notice on a page after he added a questionable section (History of Italy), the other a revert of what I perceived as highly POV additions to an article, where I instead later resorted to a notice (History of Modern Greece). Now he seems peeved that I removed an absurd claim that Kissinger killed 600,000 Cambodian civilians from the introductory paragraph of Henry Kissinger.
  2. My statement that "I am not negotiating" on User talk:Turrican is almost certain to be misinterpreted by someone, so I will clarify now. I am not agreeing to any kind of "trade" in exchange for him not reverting my edits arbitrarily. To do so is "negotiating with terrorists", allowing the threat of vandalism to be used as leverage.

To reiterate, request banning for vandalism and personal attacks. I do not think mediation is needed for someone who is so flagrantly violating Wikipedia rules.

VV 00:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (3/0/1/0)

  1. Reject, no notice of arbitration on User talk:Turrican. Fred Bauder 14:47, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) Accept, see [7] Fred Bauder 14:56, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) I believe swift action is justified with a temporary ban imposed in light of personal attacks. Fred Bauder 23:45, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC). I'm not sure that all the proxies cited by VeryVerily are vandals however, for example this edit seems reasonable, if controversial [8] Recuse Fred Bauder 00:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Accept; also support temporary injunction in this matter to restriction to editing of Arbitration case pages only. James F. (talk) 00:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Accept -- I think I would also accept the injunction. Jwrosenzweig 14:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Accept, with injunction the Epopt 04:27, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Request to re-open Anthony DiPierro

Please see [9]. Anthony has returned to his trolling ways concerning deletions. RickK 00:07, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators (1/3/1/0)

  • Recuse. →Raul654 07:21, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Accept Fred Bauder 13:19, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Reject. It appears that at least some of the articles were illegitimately deleted, and Anthony has been able to articulate a reasonable position on several others -- I grant that a few articles appear to be worthy of deletion, but surely one isolated edit (in which several legitimate requests were made) is insufficient evidence for an arbitration case. There is a standing order concerning Anthony -- if admins feel he's in violation, then block him for 24 hours and be done with it. Personally, unless Anthony makes two or three other such edits, I'd call this exactly the situation that a standing order was created for in the first place -- an isolated incident which Anthony will be temp-blocked for. If Anthony doesn't like the standing order, according to his terms, he can request arbitration instead, and at that point I'd accept. Jwrosenzweig 22:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Reject; fully agree with Jwr. James F. (talk) 00:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Reject per Jwr the Epopt 04:29, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:VeryVerily

VeryVerily is endlessly reverting a controversial passage of the PNAC page. His version demolishes a strawman of the opposing side of the discussion, and falsely paints the issue as being resolved in favour of his own interpretations when in fact it's a matter of much debate even in mainstream media sources.

He also accuses me of just reverting everything he does, which I feel is a bit unfair because he was the first to revert (04:44 on the 25th of September). My version presents both sides of the issue, his presents only his own and the strawman.

I've tried to be reasonable but he just doesn't seem interested in any opinion but his own. He seems determined to make the article conform to his own worldview.

VeryVerily "rejects" mediation on the grounds it will be a waste of time and that the discussion isn't complete (when in fact, as a glance at the discussion page will reveal, it's just going around in circles). Is there anything that can be done? I'm a new Wikipedian and this annoying dispute is completely ruining my enjoyment of this place. Thanks. CK 13:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Votes and comments by arbitrators (3/0/1/0)

  • Accept, mediation requested but refused, Fred Bauder 12:56, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC) Recuse Fred Bauder 00:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Accept, though I hope a little more evidence will be presented? But what there is is sufficient to accept, I judge. Jwrosenzweig 14:20, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Accept. Mediation was refused, and while I would be inclined to ask if this was an isolated incident, the sheer number of arbitration complaints concerning VeryVerily would seem to indicate that this wasn't. →Raul654 20:47, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Accept. James F. (talk) 16:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:Netoholic

Netoholic's propensity for conflict has gone on for some time now. Much of it is well-documented at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Netoholic. The RfC, however, was largely ineffective due to his assertion that, because no one certifying it had been involved with all of the disputes, its certification was invalid. Although I find the irony of the idea that Netoholic had done too many bad things to be actionable on RfC amusing, I find this disturbing, to say the least. To my knowledge, there are four central concerns with him.

  1. His edit war with JamesF and others, which culminated in him accusing JamesF and others of running a bot, and listing them on Vandalism in Progress with no meaningful cause.
  2. His edit war with Mintguy, in which he repeatedly removed a poll and reinstated an expired poll, demanding an extension of the poll until it gathered consensus. The poll, having majority opposition, was clearly never going to do this.
  3. His refactoring of comments, often removing informative information. One example is at [10], though really, you just want to look at the entire edit history of that page.
  4. Delisting of articles on VfD ([11] and [12].

His refactoring is, in many ways, the most severe problem, as he has continued it, most recently on my talk page at [13]. As is often the case, what he is removing is not a personal attack.

Finally, and possibly not actionably, Netoholic opposed my request to run a bot to handle Templates for Deletion at Wikipedia Talk:Bots in the section titled Snowbot. The manner of his objection, particularly with its links to my edits, makes it clear that his only objection was that I had previously objected to his running a bot. Aggravating this was that he PMed me in IRC repeatedly while objecting to inform me that I was a "fuck." A sample exchange follows:

<NetAway> lmao SnowBot. so if I object....
<Snowspinner> If you object, I'll ask you what you object to about me running a bot.
<NetAway> no, my objection should be enough, ya fuck.
<NetAway> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Guanaco&diff=6173231&oldid=6172763
<NetAway> How do I phrase "you're a fuck" in a nice way, to allow me to reply....

At one point, this spilled into the #wikipedia IRC channel:

<Snowspinner> Hey, I'm curious - someone just told me that there was a consensus that I was a fuck. Now, I'd probably vote neutral on a poll as to whether I'm a fuck, but I'm just curious - is there in fact consensus that I'm a fuck? Straw poll.
<cimon> Well, we can all improve.
<ugen64> i would support that argument, as you are a member of teh sekret cebal
--> Cantus (~Cantus@CM-lcon5-181-160.cm.vtr.net) has joined #wikipedia
<ugen64> hi cantus
<Netoholic> I would say you are a fuck, but you're also a channel op.
<bumm13> hi cactus
<-- Cantus (~Cantus@CM-lcon5-181-160.cm.vtr.net) has left #wikipedia
<Netoholic> so i guess i can't say that

I know IRC is not presently actionable, but I contend that his vote against my bot was clearly meant to be construed by me as a claim that I am a fuck, and is thus a personal attack.

Mediation, in this case, will not prove fruitful, simply because I am not inclined to mediate with someone who has repeatedly called me a fuck. Snowspinner 19:02, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

My last comment there is perhaps more flippant than it needs to be. Let me clarify. I repeatedly told Netoholic that, if he would simply avoid any fracases like the ones listed above for a month, I would drop my objection to his bot and even apologize. I pointed him towards situations that I thought he'd handled badly.

Every time I did this, I was called a fuck.

Netoholic's continued abuse of me has driven me away from active editing on Wikipedia. This is not a situation that can be mediated. This is persistant harassment of the same level of ferocity and malice that characterized Kenneth Allen, Mr. Natural Health, Irismeister, and others, coupled with the cleverness to do it through unregulated channels. There is a level of abuse at which mediation is no longer useful or possible. Netoholic has passed that level. It is not reasonable to ask me to go into any negotiation that assumes good faith with a user who has reiterated, again and again, that he considers me to be a fuck. That level of contempt poisons the well far beyond what any negotiation based process can salvage. Snowspinner 21:29, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (1/1/2/0)

  1. Recuse (obviously). James F. (talk) 20:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Reject, try mediation Fred Bauder 20:57, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Abstain, for the moment. I'm torn between recommending for mediation and accepting. I'm discussing the matter with the mediation committee right now, so I recommend the other arbitrators don't vote until I get back. →Raul654 02:23, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
    Recuse. However, after having talked to both parties on several occasions, as well as several mediators, and I don't think there's any hope that mediation will be successful, and I would suggest the other arbitrators take the case. →Raul654 07:03, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Accept (with hesitancy - if any involved party objects to my involvement, I recuse. I was involved at the edges of this dispute, but not, I think, so much so that I am biased. Again, if anyone disagrees, I will recuse for propriety's sake). Jwrosenzweig 22:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:RickK

   As one can see at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=6882746&oldid=6882088 -- the extent of my changes were to turn: 

is currently a lecturer at Ohio State University, specializing in epistemology and with concentrations in early modern philosophy and ethics.


Larry is currently a lecturer at Ohio State University who only teaches introductory courses; he claims to be specializing in epistemology... 

   Obviously then, it is wrong to ban me for "vandalism". Yet I have been banned by the RickK, which has chosen to sacrifice rules and NPOV.

Also I might note this is a vanity page!

--···---··· 03:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

Rejected requests

  • Avala vs various users - Rejected - try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Avala
  • 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).
  • RickK - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
  • Mike Storm - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Lir (IRC blocking claims) - Rejected due to either a lack of jurisdiction (the IRC channels are not official), or a failure to follow earlier steps.
  • Sam Spade vs. 172 - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • User:JRR Trollkien 2 - Inconclusive deadlock: 3 votes to reject, none to accept. Archived at User talk:JRR Trollkien
  • Tim Starling - Rejected.
  • VeryVerily - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Xed vs. Jimbo Wales - Rejected - lack of jurisidiction over Jimbo, private email, lack of initial litigant's involvment, and various other reasons.
  • Emsworth vs. Xed - Rejected
  • Gene Poole vs. Gzornenplatz - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Mintguy - Rejected
  • VeryVerily vs Gzornenplatz - Rejected

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.
  • /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.
  • /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.
  • /Lir - Decided on 23 Aug 2004, blocked for 15 days, revert parole applied, and other remedies.
  • /Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 26 Aug 2004. There was an earlier partial decision on 25 June.
  • /Lyndon LaRouche (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - Decided on 12 Sep 2004.
  • /User:PolishPoliticians - Decided on 18 Sep 2004, personal attack parole applied to PolishPoliticians and all new accounts on affected pages.
  • /ChrisO and Levzur Closed on 20 Sep 2004 with an open verdict; no ruling necessary, as Levzur has ceased contributing to Wikipedia.
  • /K1 - Closed on 28 Sep 2004 with an open verdict; no ruling necessary, as K1 has ceased contributing to Wikipedia.
  • /JRR Trollkien - Closed October 2, 2004, with no findings of fact or decision. JRR Trollkien has long since left.
  • /Orthogonal - Closed October 14, 2004, following his departure from Wikipedia. Subject to reactivation should he return.
  • /RK - Decided October 14, 2004. RK is banned from Wikipedia for 4 months. Further, he is banned from all articles directly or indirectly related to Judiasm for 1 year.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=6889873"