Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:46, 13 March 2005

Latest revision as of 03:40, 31 January 2023

Line 1:

{{Short description|Wikimedia project page}}

{| style="float:right;"

<noinclude>{{pp-protected|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>

|-

{{/Header}}

|

{{/Case}}

{{Shortcut|[[WP:RFAr]]}}

{{/Clarification and Amendment}}

|-

{{/Motions}}

|

{{ArbComOpenTasks/Enforcement}}

|}

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

*[[Category:Wikipedia:Arbitration policy|Arbitration policyrequests]]

[[Category:Wikipedia arbitration]]

*[[/Admin enforcement requested|Administrator enforcement requested]] (shortcut [[WP:RFAr/AER]])

*'''[[/Developer help needed|Developer help needed]]'''

*[[/Standing orders|Standing orders]]

*[[/Template|Arbitration template]]

*[[/Arbitration Committee noticeboard|Contact the Arbitration Committee]]

Please place comments on the [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration|talk page]], not here.

== Structure of this page ==

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy|Arbitration policy]]. Important points:

*'''Be brief'''. Put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Place the request itself on this page, rather than a subpage, but if you need to, link to detailed evidence in the standard [[/Template/Evidence|template]] format elsewhere.

*'''You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against. You should confirm this by providing diffs of the notification at the bottom of your complaint.'''

*'''Please sign and date at least your original submission with "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>."'''

* New requests to the top, please.

==New requests==

When adding new requests, please give them an appropriate title as well as a subsection for arbitrator's votes.

===[[User:Netoholic]]===

Currently there is a great deal of evidence on Netoholic in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172 2|172 case]]. It seems that it would be prudent to split the two, for purposes of clarity and convenience. Netoholic's behavior really needs to be looked at separately. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 01:20, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

* Both Neutrality and Snowspinner have added evidence, inappropriately, to the 172 case solely to get a "rise" out of me. Having failed to do so, because I refused to answer their out-of-place attacks on that evidence page, it seems they are taking this action. As yet, I'm unsure what the grounds are for this, and am not sure what sort of defensive statement I can make here. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 03:08, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

*In response to Grunt's question, I think the point of the evidence to the 172 case was made clear when I added it - I wanted to show Netoholic's history of bringing spurious complaints and crusades against people. His crusade mentality is disruptive, drives users away from Wikipedia, and makes every interaction Netoholic involves himself in needlessly tense and hostile. As I think about it, it would probably be clarifying to split this off of the 172 case, as the issues here are at least as complicated as the 172 case. So I'd encourage a split with the intention of this case being to look at Netoholic's tendency towards hostile crusades against other users. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 03:41, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

** Comments like this from one who is probably the most litigious user to frequent [[WP:RFAr]] is ironic. This is in direct retaliation for my participation with [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner]]. If one cannot use the dispute resolution process without being accused of crusading, then what value is it? This is nothing more than an attempt to silence a voice who raises concerns within the community. This is vindictiveness, without credible evidence of policy violation, so I hope the arbitrators see through it. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 04:02, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

***This is laughable. I raised the evidence in 172 days before the RFC was put up against me, and made this exact same accusation about you. Now, somehow, your participation in the RfC caused me to do something that I'd already done? This is exactly why I want the arbcom to look into this. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 04:17, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

*It would make things easier to follow for those of us in the bleacher seats, if Neutrality and Snowspinner stated their complaints against Netoholic (in terms of policies violated) and also stated what specific action they want from the AC concerning him. Reading through the "evidence" given by Neutrality and Snowspinner in the 172 case, I don't see how most of it relates to that case, and I am not sure what it relates to. In that case, Neutrality and Snowspinner are third parties providing evidence in 172's defense, and some of it is. But most of it seems to relate to their own, unrelated, grievances against Netoholic. It seems more in order for them simply to file a Request for arbitration against Netoholic, assuming they want the AC to adjudicate those grievances. --[[User:BM|BM]] 04:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

----

'''to Grunt and MBM''': See [[User:Neutrality/workshop III]]. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 05:23, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

:''Split/Keep merged/Recused/Other''

*Recuse. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 01:19, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

*Recuse. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 01:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Split. Note that the relevant evidence should be ''copied'', not ''removed'', from the 172 case - the ArbCom can consider anything it feels it needs to and I want to check it over for relevance - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 01:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

** David, please recuse. The recent problems around [[User:The Recycling Troll]] are too fresh in mind. I'd prefer if this was heard by people who've not had recent complaints raised against them, since that seems to be the focus of this Arbitration request. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 04:02, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

*<s>Split. Original 172 request has nothing to do with Netoholic's behaviour and should be looked at separately. -- [[User:Grunt|Grun]][[User talk:Grunt|t]] [[European Union|{{User:Grunt/euflag}}]] 01:41, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)</s> Actually, better yet, can we make sense of what the point of the evidence being there is? If it doesn't have any relevance to the 172 case, it should be removed, and we should determine whether or not a separate case is warranted on its own. -- [[User:Grunt|Grun]][[User talk:Grunt|t]] [[European Union|{{User:Grunt/euflag}}]] 03:16, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

===[[User:Jayjg]]===

User Jayjg, armed with admin powers, has a blatant anti-Arab and anti-Islamic bent and is an intractable edit warrior whose idea on enforcing his point of view is to delete and/or revert the changes made to articles that do not agree with his or her agenda. Most of the time he or she is factually wrong, but that seems to be of no concern. I have direct experience in related articles but reviewing all his or her edits it seems to me that the only reason he or she wanted to become admin is to exercise undue powers in enforcing certain ideas. When he or she failed in "discussion" he or she tracked me to my user page and, I guess spitefully, put a request for deleteion on a page I was forced to create so I could heep a copy of what he or she kept deleteing. I request that some solution be provided for this user jayjg's bias.[[User:A.Khalil|A.Khalil]] 04:52, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

:I'll step in now and off the bat, and make it clear that, should this get accepted (Which seems unlikely without some evidence being offered), I am willing to act as an advocate for JayJG. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 04:55, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

::I'd like to offer this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Human_Atrocities&oldid=10981135] as an example of the state that [[User:A.Khalil|A.Khalil]] left [[Timeline of Human Atrocities]] in on February 14, a page he created, it appears, for the sole purpose of making an anti-Israel point. According to [[User:A.Khalil|A.Khalil]]'s edits, there have been only two human atrocities throughout history: the first in BCE 149 when the Romans slaughtered the people of Carthage, and the second in 1994 when Dr. Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Palestinians. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 05:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

:::First, the Romans were not Israelis, unless your history is that far off. Second, both were two of the edits that you kept removing from the article and I remembered them and kept them there. Notice that I have never advertised or linked this article to anything else on wikipedia. You just found it because you intentionally went snooping for something to make the damn Arab pay back for correcting your mistakes. I cannot go to back edits like you, but anyone can see the history of your edits and mine and compare. Also, anyone can see the the complaints on your talk page. This is a pattern of yours.[[User:A.Khalil|A.Khalil]] 14:32, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

::::A. Khalil, you may be confusing me with someone else. I don't recall having had direct dealings with you and haven't found anything in my or your contributions that suggests otherwise. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 12:20, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

====Evidence presented by A.Khalil====

Khalil misunderstood Neutrality's (rather misleading) comment below and started to edit the Evidence template itself. I am moving it here. Text below is due to Khalil. --[[User:Zero0000|Zero]] 13:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am compiling evidence and learning how to use the system at the same time, thus bear with me a little.

* As of Jan 20th, 2005, user Jayjg had the followeing text on his/her page, showing a pattern of paranoia perceiving that pages related to Israel are under attack, and an agenda in, him or herself, weeding Wikipedia of data that is unfavorable to Israel. The same type pages (s)he targets for deletion are, by a twist of moral standard, created and POV enforced by Jayjg and allies for Israel.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jayjg&diff=10543231&oldid=9508837]]

See also

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jayjg&diff=7972610&oldid=7920259]]

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jayjg&diff=7381797&oldid=7347731]]

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jayjg&diff=7090187&oldid=7089684]]

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jayjg&diff=7090187&oldid=7089684]]

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jayjg&diff=6766680&oldid=6765968]]

And there are many many more list of this kind. All showing an agenda of defending Israel at any cost.

* I am not the only one receiving the Jayjg treatment, but rather many others have the same complaint. See [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg&diff=0&oldid=11019159]] for one eloquent sample. See Jayjg's talk page for many other complaints.

* I suspect that user Jayjg and user SlimVirgin are the same person, or related. User SlimVirgin even updates and reverts edits for user Jayjg's talk page. Also, within few hours after I posted the notice of Arbitration on user Jayjg's talk page, user SlimVirgin pops up to defend user Jayjg.

Example [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jayjg&diff=0&oldid=10597632]]

::That is an outrageous claim. Substantiate allegations ''prior'' to directing them towards others (even as suspicions). [[User:El C|El_C]] 14:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::He doesn't have to. A precedent for not having to subsantiate allegations has been set by a member of the arbcom. It's enough that you have them. [[User:Dr Zen|Dr Zen]] 04:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::::Could you provide more conclusive evidence of the precedent? --[[User:Bobber|Bobber]] 21:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

* Next I will search for specific edits and present them here. I will need sometime though, since I have a life to live and a Wikisystem to learn. I'm sure I will have some this evening. (posted by [[User:A.Khalil|A.Khalil]])

::For the record, I have never updated Jay's user or talk page. The link provided by [[User:A.Khalil]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jayjg&diff=0&oldid=10597632] was an example of anonymous vandalism to Jay's user page, which I reverted. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] 13:51, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

===== Response to [[User:A.Khalil]] by [[User:Jayjg]] =====

I'd be interested to know which specific admin powers A. Khalil thinks I am "abusing", and why he hasn't first brought this to RfC, which has a specific section for alleged abuses of admin powers. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 14:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also note that [[User:A.Khalil]] appears to be trying to mount a campaign against me, by putting the same message on the Talk: pages of any person he feels me have had a disagreement with me in the past inviting them to present evidence against me: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doron&diff=prev&oldid=11045264] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zain_engineer&diff=prev&oldid=11083235] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IFaqeer&diff=0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr_Zen&diff=prev&oldid=11051943] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Male1979&diff=0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Ball&diff=0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graft&diff=0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcbos&diff=prev&oldid=11044960] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Addoula&diff=0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sneaky&diff=prev&oldid=11025903] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiller1&diff=next&oldid=11051535]. He has even gone so far as to bring his campaign to the [[Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance]] page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance&diff=prev&oldid=11082486] and even to general Talk: pages of popular articles [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=0]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 05:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:I didn't notice that the last reference was an article's talk page. For this one I'm sorry and I will remove it if you want. The rest, I think that is justified in showing the extent and systematic nature of you edits and reverts. Also, I do not have the "links" your have around wikipedia nor the experience and clout of an Admin, and, thus, I need others' help. Further, AMA is part of the Wikipedia system as far as I could tell from articles around wikipedia. If I am wrong, please let me know.

====Evidence presented by Sneaky====

I'll try to be brief. I'm new here and have only substantively edited one article: History of Lebanon. User Doug_Danner and I collaborated to rework virtually the entire article, in the process removing absurdly pro-Israel bias from the post-1968 narrative. Jayjg was also involved. Doug_Danner, though "proudly a Zionist" (quoting from his profile), turned out to be quite well-intentioned and agreeable when we discussed and debated edits on the talk page (see [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Lebanon]], specifically "Feb 26 2005 round of edits" and "Why the revert?"). Jayjg, conversely, contributed to the discussion in two distinctly negative ways: (1) by taking repeated potshots at Noam Chomsky without citing a single example from Chomsky's writings, and then conflating my edits with Chomsky's views in order to impugn my credibility, though I had made it quite clear that I relied almost exclusively on a standard history of the Middle East (Charles D. Smith, ''Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict'', 4th ed.); and (2) by reverting my edits without substantively commenting on the discussion page, cf. the abovementioned section "Why the revert?", which was started in response to Jayjg's wholesale reversion, without comment, of my most recent changes. In fact, Jayjg even conceded at one point that no comments would be forthcoming: "I'll withdraw from the discussion here, and restrict myself to reverting your edits instead". He wrote this after I had repeatedly challenged his credibility as an editor of Middle East pages, suggesting that he should make some independent contributions to the discussion rather than just echoing Doug_Danner's comments and slandering Chomsky. Apparently, Jayjg thinks that he does not need to explain and defend his edits - which actually tend not to be edits, judging from my brief experience, but merely crude reversions, perhaps with a few links to the "Jewish Virtual Library" thrown in (see talk page).

As user A.Khalil has suggested, I think it is clear that Jayjg is abusing his admin status by positioning himself as an "authority" who doesn't need to explain his edits, whereas in fact, his edits betray a profound lack of knowledge and understanding of the relevant topics. One example from the History of Lebanon debacle was actually a bit comical. I had made a few edits to tidy up the chronology of Malcolm Kerr's assassination vis-a-vis the US withdrawal from Lebanon: in my edits, I said the US forces withdrew after Kerr's assassination, while previously the article had said the opposite. Shortly thereafter, Jayjg reverted to the previous version, in the process restoring the false order of events that I had just corrected. One of two conclusions follow: (1) Jayjg read the entire article before reverting, and was therefore simply wrong about the chronology; or (2) Jayjg didn't read the article, but simply reverted it when he saw that I had made edits (he may have added a few Jewish Virtual Library links; I don't recall). I think (2) is more likely; I refer interested parties to the "Why the revert?" section, where I explained in detail why I made each edit, and why, in each instance, Jayjg's wholesale and unexplained reversion was problematic.

Ironically, Jayjg wrote of me at one point that "I suspect I will have to revert him in the future as well, until he learns the Wikipedia process and policies, and learns how to get along with other editors". As any cursory review of the History of Lebanon talk page will demonstrate, user Doug_Danner and I developed a pretty good working relationship, because we were each entirely willing to substantiate our arguments, debate edits on the talk page, and work toward a reasonably NPOV article. Jayjg, on the other hand, has clearly not "learned the Wikipedia process and policies" and is clearly more interested in pushing his pro-Israel agenda than in "learning how to get along with other editors". (I refer you also to the Norman Finkelstein talk page, where Jayjg recently made some incomprehensible edits - e.g., inserting the clause "According to Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky" - to a basic NPOV statement of fact, another indication of his ill-informed animosity toward Chomsky.)

I do not think it is in Wikipedia's interest to allow Jayjg to continue abusing his admin status in these ways. [[User:Sneaky|sneaky]] 03:30, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

No admin has ever been de-sysopped, so it is unlikely that Jayjg will suffer punishment of this kind. [[User:Razorsharpteeth|Razorsharpteeth]] 21:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:At least one has as the result of an arbitration comittee ruling. [[User:Fastest Cheetah|Fastest Cheetah]] 21:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::I note that for some reason I cannot fathom, both [[User:Razorsharpteeth|Razorsharpteeth]] and [[User:Fastest Cheetah|Fastest Cheetah]] were created solely for the purpose of commenting on this page. Interestingly, their first edits were to create User: pages and Talk: pages for themselves, so that they would not be immediately obvious as new editors/sockpuppets, following which they both commented here. I don't know what to make of this. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 05:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

=====Response to [[User:Sneaky]]'s claims by [[User:Jayjg]]=====

As [[User:Sneaky]] is well aware, but has failed to mention, we were involved in a dialogue about his edits to the [[History of Lebanon]] article when he began to insultingly address me as "Mini-me".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_Lebanon&diff=10636031&oldid=10635919] Sneaky also fails to mention that I did explain to him that his insults were not helpful to dialogue,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_Lebanon&diff=10636175&oldid=10636031] but also explained in detail on the relevant Talk: page exactly why I reverted his edits.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_Lebanon&diff=10677740&oldid=10677212] I did make it quite clear to him that I would not engage in dialogue with him again until he apologized for his insults.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_Lebanon&diff=10719359&oldid=10677740] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASneaky&diff=11044976&oldid=11025903] I note that the "consensus" version of the [[History of Lebanon]] page was substantially different from the first highly POV version [[User:Sneaky]] attempted to create,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Lebanon&diff=10719814&oldid=10376440] and that while [[User:Sneaky]] suggests that he and [[User:Doug Danner]] had a "pretty good working relationship", it was '''me''' [[User:Doug Danner]] thanked for alerting him to the rather blatantly POV edits [[User:Sneaky]] had been making to the page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJayjg&diff=10681921&oldid=10678061]

Notwithstanding our interaction on the [[History of Lebanon]] page, I did engage with dialogue with [[User:Sneaky]] on the Norman Finkelstein page he mentions.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANorman_Finkelstein&diff=10907579&oldid=10896123] Regarding [[User:Sneaky]]'s charges re: that article, he insisted that Finkelstein's criticisms of the book [[From Time Immemorial]] were "initially met with skepticism". What he was not aware of was the fact that this charge and POV, as [[User:OneGuy]] has already pointed out, comes directly from Chomsky's work "The Fate of an Honest Intellectual".[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFrom_Time_Immemorial&diff=10366011&oldid=10364412] [[User:Sneaky]] also fails to note that I also solicited input regarding this issue from the respected and knowledgeable user [[User:John Kenney]],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohn_Kenney&diff=10531627&oldid=10525330] and his concerns reflected my own and [[User:OneGuy]]'s.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJayjg&diff=10537824&oldid=10531109] When I attributed the sources of the allegations in the article, [[User:Sneaky]] challenged me and removed the attribution. In response to further queries from him I presented this viewpoint to him on the relevant Talk: page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANorman_Finkelstein&diff=11018584&oldid=10924450] [[User:Sneaky]] was not satisfied with this, and reverted me again so [[User:John Kenney]] himself came to the Talk: page and explained in detail what was wrong with [[User:Sneaky]]'s POV edit.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norman_Finkelstein&diff=next&oldid=11026365] [[User:Sneaky]] has still failed to repsond to these comments, much less act on them.

In summary, I see a great deal of bad faith in [[User:Sneaky]]'s presentation of the events, and have yet to see any reasonable explanation of exactly which admin powers I have abused. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 02:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

====Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/6/0/1)====

*'''Reject''' pending evidence as put forth in [[/Template/Evidence]]. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 04:57, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

*Reject - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 09:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Reject. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 11:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

* Please add some examples of specific edits which illustrate the problems you are complaining off [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:38, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

*<s>Agree with Fred; please demonstrate evidence of a dispute. -- [[User:Grunt|Grun]][[User talk:Grunt|t]] [[European Union|{{User:Grunt/euflag}}]] 16:18, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)</s> Reject, for the moment, as evidence currently provided does not demonstrate a dispute. Do not remove this case before more evidence is provided. -- [[User:Grunt|Grun]][[User talk:Grunt|t]] [[European Union|{{User:Grunt/euflag}}]] 18:35, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

* Reject for now. If you come up with any evidence I may change my mind[[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (ask the rotten)]] 22:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

* Reject [[User:The Epopt|&#10149;the Epopt]] 21:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==Requests for Clarification==

If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here.

== Matters currently in Arbitration ==

: [[/Template]]

*[[/Dr Zen]] - '''Accepted''' with five votes and three recusals on 10 March 2005. Evidence to [[/Dr Zen/Evidence]], please.

*[[/WHEELER]] - '''Accepted''' with six votes on 9 March 2005. Evidence to [[/WHEELER/Evidence]], please.

*[[/Noah Peters]] - '''Accepted''' with five votes on 8 March 2005. Evidence to [[/Noah Peters/Evidence]], please.

*[[/172 2]] - '''Accepted''' with four votes, one rejection and four recusals on 6 March 2005. Evidence to [[/172 2/Evidence]], please.

*[[/Baku Ibne et. al.]] - '''Accepted''' with four votes on 4 March 2005. Evidence to [[/Baku Ibne et. al./Evidence]], please.

*[[/JarlaxleArtemis]] - '''Accepted''' with four votes on 3 March 2005. Evidence to [[/JarlaxleArtemis/Evidence]], please.

*[[/Robert Blair]] - '''Accepted''' with four votes on 27 February 2005. Evidence to [[/Robert Blair/Evidence]], please.

*[[/Anthony DiPierro 2]] -

*: Request by Snowspinner: '''Accepted''' with four votes and 5 recusals on 26 February 2005.

*: Request by Raul654: '''Accepted and merged''' with five votes on 2 March 2005. Evidence to [[/Anthony DiPierro 2/Evidence]], please.

*[[/RK 2]] - '''Accepted''' with five votes and one recusal on 16 February 2005. Evidence to [[/RK 2/Evidence]], please.

''Please also see [[Template:ArbComCases]].''

==Archives==

*[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests]]

*[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests]]

[[Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution|Requests for Arbitration]]