Hosta

The last step of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is Arbitration. Please review the Dispute resolution for other avenues you should take. If 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, /Standing orders, /Template

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.

168.209.97.34 or Lothario-- or :-lothario-

The anon user (168.209.97.34 also has used 196.2.134.163, Lothario-- and -lothario-) is a tenacious pusher of anti-Islamic POV and is known for disfiguring the articles. For months, he has insisted on inserting the same highly slanted texts, phrases, and words in articles such as Margaret Hassan, Allahu Akbar, Nick Berg, Jihad, Muhammad, and Aisha causing some of them to be protected. He even vandalized my user page User:OneGuy. He makes minimal effort to engage in dialog on Talk pages.

Examples of abuses

On 9 Nov 2004, he added out of context verses to Jihad page. One example, "Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies." Surah 8:60 .. The verse with context reads, "Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies. But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)." Surah 8:60-61. After this was pointed out by the User:Mirv and me, 168.209.97.34 went into extensive revert war, refusing to allow the correction.

On 17 Nov 2004, he changed the last sentence in Margaret Hassan article, "handgun by a masked man" to "handgun by a masked Muslim man." (made bold by me). After the word "Muslim" was removed from the killer description by other users, he continued this for the next two or three days. (without discussing it on talk page).

Since 17 May 2004, to the article Allahu Akbar, he has been adding phrases like, "when they attack people of a different religion" and a link to a hate site with text, "hooded Muslim Men yelling "Allahu Akbar" while cutting off a civilian's head", "the phrase invokes fear as the phrase is often spoken by Muslims while attacking others", and on and on. This continued for many months.

On 28 Sep 2004 he added irrelevant links to Nick Berg and continued revert war with other users. Plus many other abuses followed after that on that page.

On 25 May 2004, to the article Aisha, he added the highly offensive and POV phrase She "was raped by Muhammad when she was nine." He continued this abuse for days. Later around 17 Nov 2004, he started deleting arguments from the article that some Muslims use to show Aisha was older than nine.

He also has a long history of disfiguring Muhammad article and adding anti-Islamic POV to that page. See the history and talk page.

Moreover, he vandalized my user page three times.

The IP used in above examples was 168.209.97.34

I request disciplinary action against this user: 168.209.97.34, 196.2.134.163, Lothario--, -lothario-. -- OneGuy 09:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL - This is funny. Please look at the history of OneGuy and you will see he has blind faith in Muhammad and is an extreme Islamic apologist. OneGuy constantly ignores the 3 revert rule and wherever he goes a protected page is bound to follow. He reverts without explanation and will revert a users entire contribution even if he only disagrees with one segment of it. In the past, wherever there was a revert war and page was protected, OneGuy actually loses out because the resulting page that's put up after arbitration is more neutral than before. With Aisha, he hid the facts and quotes that showed she was indeed 9 at the bottom and put his quotes (actually, not even quotes since the book he is quoting doesn't even talk about Aisha) on top. This caused a revert war which he lost. He also lost the revert war in Muhammad too. -lothario- 11:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The complete history is here for anyone to make the decision; inserting abusive language, deleting counter evidence (and the quotes are on the page, so I didn't "lose"), adding out of context verses and then reverting them, vandalizing user page, adding the words "terrorist," "rape," "incestuous" and "Muslim" to killer description to disfigure and slant articles, and everything else documented above. OneGuy 11:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Visit http://www.dictionary.com and look up those words. I was just calling it what it was. A 9 year old girl is not old enough to concent to sexual acts and is called statutory rape. Marrying a family member is incest. Fact is that the person who shot Hassan was Muslim (I know some Muslim apologists are blaming the Mossad, CIA, etc.) You have also started multiple revert wars and clearly ignored the 3 revert rule and ignored other people warning you about it. You should be banned. -lothario- 11:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, we let the arbitrators decide whose edits have been violating wiki policy of NPOV (for months now) and who vandalized the user page. Most of your edits were reverted by everyone else, actually, not just me. Easy to check that by examining the history. Anyway, have a nice day :) OneGuy

Arbitrators, please also investigate OneGuy's history. He has been warned many times about the 3 revert rule and ignores each and every one of them. It's either his way, or no way. In most (all?) cases, at the end of the edit war the rest of the wiki users agreed with my version. He constatly removed facts that paint Mohammad in a unfavorable manner. He demands that all changes/reverts be discussed in talk before taking action, yet he doesn't even follow his own advice. He has also given me veiled threats by tracing my IP with name dropping the technical contact of the netblock my IP is assigned to by Arin. His clear disregard of the rules should not go without repremand. -lothario- 14:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In response to comments by arbitrator James F below, according to dispute resolution page, "Vandalism and flagrant violations of Wikipedia policies and behavior guidelines by repeat offenders may be handled using expedited procedures." I believe 168.209.97.34 behavior has been vandalism (he vandalized my user page three times) and flagrant violations of wiki policy of NPOV.OneGuy

Three words: Pot, kettle, black. OneGuy has started numerous revert wars causing the said article to be locked. Even after several warnings about his constant violation of the 3 revert rule he continues on knowing full well what is he is doing is wrong. He uses POV terms (calling Jews killed by Muhammad "traitors" and such). I feel the major reason for this request for arbitration has less to do with him wanting a resolution and more to do with an armchair-jihadist doing an online slaying of an infidel. The timing is also suspect since I have had no interaction with OneGuy for several days. Previously he would look at my contributions and follow me around. -lothario- 07:22, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"armchair-jihadist doing an online slaying of an infidel". See: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This can be added as another example of abusive behavior. This should also be a hint to his anti-Islamic POV on wiki. I told him several times that I am not Muslim, but even if he doesn't believe me, the above statement is clearly abusive behavior OneGuy 15:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure. It can be verified who has been flagrantly violating NPOV policy by examining the history and evidence, including vandalizing my user page. Moreover, there were dispute resolution attempts. I and others left messages on talk pages, such as on Talk Jihad (which is now mess but the evidence should be on archive page) and Talk Aisha, "Ready to Comprise," asking him to comprise, but 134 ignored them and continued with deleting material from the article until the article got protected. Please examine the complete history, including the evidence I posted above and his vandalism of my user page. I request disciplinary action. OneGuy

Votes and Comments by Arbitrators (3/0/0/0)

• Accept Fred Bauder 13:11, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Forgive me for perhaps being somewhat dense, but I see no evidence of attempts at earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, upto and including Mediation. James F. (talk) 21:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) Accept. James F. (talk) 11:19, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Accept --the Epopt 01:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni

I request Arbirtration concerning User:Alberuni. Alberuni frequently violates Wikipedia policy, especially the rule against personal attacks, which is the primary reason for this request. This effects everyone, as it makes other users more aggitated and more likely to make personal attacks as well. Other methods of dispute resolution have failed, such as an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alberuni. Other policies Alberuni consisently breaks are Civility, Assume good faith,and 3RR.

Examples of abusive comments that in edit summaries, from November 20 and 21.:

1. "roach infestation deleted" [1]
2. "Zionist lies deleted" [2]
3. "Why don't you read the illiteracy you are blindly editing into Wikipedia, then I won't have to revert mindless Zionist trolls so much" [3]
4. "Zionist garbage taken to the curb" [4]
5. "oops, the Zionists made me do it" [5]
6. "hasbara is for liars and cheats" [6]
7. "Talk pages are useless for dealing with biased extremists" [7]

Examples of reconciliation attempts:

1. Talk:Yasser_Arafat/Archive_2#HistoryBuffEr.2C_let.27s_open_the_dialogue_here
2. User_talk:Alberuni#The_three_revert_rule
3. User_talk:Alberuni#thanks_for_staying_cooler_recently
4. User_talk:Alberuni#comments_on_Israel_Shahak
5. User_talk:Alberuni#Final_attempt_at_a_return_to_civility
6. Talk:Yasser_Arafat#Who_is_wasting_time_here.3F

--Josiah 16:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, I must second this request for arbitration. Alberuni has made quality edits and has represented a viewpoint which is scarce in the English Wikipedia, but unfortunately s/he has mixed this with unrelenting revert wars and numerous personal attacks against other contributors.

I am quite sympathetic to Alberuni's perspective and I think s/he is capable of representing it fairly, but I also think that his/her often hostile and aggressive style is counterproductive. It causes article discussions in which s/he is involved to degenerate into morasses of personal attacks, reminders to stop those personal attacks, and arguments over whose behavior is worse, thus destroying what should be the focus of talk pages: discussing how to improve the article. Since unofficial efforts have not been effective, I think that official paroles on personal attacks and reversion would help shape his or her editing into something more productive. Yoshiah ap has provided some evidence above; more follows.

• Talk:Dore Gold:
  • Please try not to be a dull-witted troll. I have explained it to you in simple language that even you can understand.
  • There are too many of us who believe in Wikipedia:NPOV to allow you and your Zionist gang to conduct your insidious manipulative effort at inflicting systematic Zionist bias on Wikipedia.
  • All you do is insert pro-Israeli POV into every article you touch all day and night. You are the epitome of POV. You are so disingenuous, it boggles the mind that you can stand to live ith yourself.
  • Now, surely even a dense troll can see the connection.
• Talk:Jihad
  • These encyclopedia articles need to be NPOV, not the Franklin Graham hate-speech POV version that you are pushing.
  • The most recent attempt at undocumented POV editing by the hatemonger Pename.
• Talk:NGO Monitor
  • You are in denial for some inexplicable reason. Zionist bias again?
  • When the content of the article is warped by a fanatic Zionist, it is difficult to avoid recognizing the pathetic narrow-mided bias of that individual.
  • Zionist vandalism is rife, needs more reverting.
• Talk:Propaganda
  • Your extremist Zionist POV is getting in the way of Wikipedia yet again Jayjg.

There is more, much more, but that should be enough for now. —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll add another:

• Talk: Munich massacre
  • These are Zionist schoolchildren. They've been raised to see the world only one way. It's like cult brainwashing. There's no use trying to communicate with them. Hence, the suicide bombers.

As you can see, s/he advocates death for those who disagree with her/him. S/he throws the word "Zionist" around as a catch-all epithet for anyone who disagrees with her/him. A2Kafir 06:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:Mustafaa agrees that Alberuni needlessly incites people:

Look, Alberuni, I sympathise with your intentions, and I've had to fight ignorant pro-Zionist or anti-Muslim editors before. But the fact is that you simply don't engage your opponents most of the time, and add comments guaranteed to fan edit wars. I can understand you getting into edit wars with bigots like "Pename" or some others that I won't name just yet, but it is entirely possible to calmly and rationally discuss edits with people like Jayjg or Zora, even when their POV is diametrically opposed to yours or mine, and it is your own highly emotional editing methods that seem to be the main cause of those edit wars' continuation. - Mustafaa 03:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Copied from User Talk:Alberuni Lance6Wins 18:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Votes and Comments by Arbitrators (3/0/0/0)

• Reject, despite a request on his talk page User:Yoshiah ap has not supplied diff links to the specific edits he complains of. Fred Bauder 17:53, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 13:10, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 21:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Accept --the Epopt 01:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arminius and Darrien

It is bad enough that Wikipedia has overwhelming American bias, without it being enforced.

Darrien, as well as generally trying to Americanise the project as much as possible and being thoroughly obnoxious in all his dealings ("rv vandalism" in the edit summary is his favourite way of changing something he disagrees with), has specifically got on my nerves by reverting the seemingly uncontroversial page Apple pie three times to a POV version. I was going to have to reason with him on the talk page, but then in stepped Arminius, who agreed with Darrien's POV and abused his sysop powers to freeze it as Darrien's version. This is bigotry. All non-American Wikipedians need to combat this sort of thing.

The story about the edits is basically that the pie article was written from a US viewpoint. It mentioned how to make it, it included the expression "as American as apple pie", and it had a picture of an apple pie next to baseball gear on a Stars and Stripes. This is all OK in itself, but needs balancing. For example, I put the caption "Apple pie presented as All-American", because I think it's OK to present it like that as long as it is pointed out — it shouldn't be implied that it is the normal way of showing such a pie. I also changed the general implication that apple pie is American (it's European), and offered a possible explanation of what the "American as apple pie" expression would therefore mean. I was of course open to the explanation being balanced and refined. I am not open to it being reverted and the revert being protected.

This is the only channel I am aware of to have pages unprotected. Ideally, those two would be blocked too. Chameleon 11:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you should be more conciliatory, actually. What mostly is required on the page is some segregation of apple pies (global), from the American view. Charles Matthews 12:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't be conciliatory because the page is blocked. That's the problem, and that's what I'm trying to sort out here. Chameleon 12:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have been referred to this dispute by Chameleon. This is clearly a prima facie misuse of sysop powers and is entirely unacceptable. The article anterior to the intervention of Chameleon was woeful and systemically biased, and wholly devoid of the remotest vestige of NPOV in its alignment. I do not however think this is a case for arbitration, rather it is a case of submitting this page for clean up and flagging it as NPOV. We probably need a mechanism here, however, for issue resolution when an admin oversteps the mark. My golden rule regarding page protection is simple: protection only as an absolute and final last resort (except in the case of drive-by vandalism where a temporary protect may be necessary). All admins should in my opinion bear this firmly in mind. Sjc 14:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request modification of the article. The problem is not bias, per se, but exceptionally poor structuring. The article should 1) present a proper history of the dish from Chaucer (and earlier if known) to the modern day; 2) present an consideration off the dish in different nations, including a discussion of its metaphorical power in modern America. (Look up Dutch apple dishes); 3) present a list of cultural and literary references.Icundell 12:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[Re. attempting previous steps in the dispute resolution process]

But I can't. I started to discuss it on Arminius's talk page and he just reverted it. They cannot be reasoned with, so it is necessary for me to call in external help (especially since few people are watching that article). You are the external help. Chameleon 12:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to suggest that the two parties agree to a factual correction to one statement, so that it reads as follows: "As American as apple pie" is a common saying <in the United States> due to this association.

The article as it stands is fine except for the incorrect implication that "As American as apple pie" is something that a non-American might say, or that apple pies, of all things, are generally regarded as having anything to do with America. Indeed the phrase most usually appears as "As American as mom and apple pie." I think we can all agree that the statement is even more puzzling in this form, unless interpreted in an ironic sense. Moms are not particularly American. Well mine isn't.

Having said that, I think Charles Matthews has hit the nail on the head. How about moving all the American stuff into a section titled "Apple pie in American culture."

I don't think Arminius should have reverted the last-but-one version, which provided a pretty good analysis of a puzzling saying that always bemuses non-Americans: "As American as apple pie" is a common saying, which could be seen as ironic, given that apple pie is not particularly American. It may be that "American" in this context does not mean "invented in America" or suchlike, but instead "apple pie" is used as a symbol of what is folksy and wholesome, and therefore "American". This could be compared to the use of the expression "that's not Christian", which should not be taken literally but instead means "that is cruel or immoral behaviour". Has he explained why he reverted that and then protected the page? (I'm not an arbitrator, for what it's worth) --Minority Report 13:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I concur with Icundell's suggestion the the draft Talk:Apple pie/draft be used as the new page.

@ Minority Report. It's the spelling of the word(s) (mom/mommy)that's American, not that all mothers are American by default :) Martin TB 14:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I get a sense that there is some more history on other pages in this case. Looking at the page on 27 Oct before Chameleon's first edit, I would have to agree that the article was pretty poor with remarkably strong American bias. Chameleon's edits look essentially correct (not sure I like the Christianity analogy) and Darrien's revert flagged as minor and labelled NPOV is clearly wrong. But my biggest problem is quite why Arminius jumped in reverting and blocking the page - this looks like an abuse of administrator power. Chameleon may not have been too courteous, but note that Arminius' explanation on the Talk:Apple pie (which are also obviously wrong) only occur a couple of hours after blocking the page and after he had ignored Chameleon's complaint on his talk page.

Quite why things escalated so quickly I don't know. Non of the parties seem to have taken any of the other normal steps in dispute resolution. I'm guessing there have been some tussels between these parties on other pages. Fortunately the apple pie page looks a lot better now. -- Solipsist 15:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it did seem to escalate rather quickly. To my knowledge I have never encountered any of the other participants, however, except Theresa Knott. Chameleon asked me to put my opinion on this page, presumably because I have quite often internationalized pages by insertion of phrases like "in the USA" in entries where a writer has written from an American viewpoint, and has apparently either assumed that his statement applies globally or was not aware that the English language edition is likely to have a predominantly non-American readership.

I think Chameleon became unnecessarily abusive, but Arminius could have handled the dispute more fairly prior to that. --Minority Report 18:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I was asked to comment, by C. But... I'm a bit late, because the page now looks fine now, due to other editors getting involved. Its a shame that it took a r-f-a to get the page interenationalised. Could it have been listed on cleanup instead?

Votes and Comments by Arbitrators (0/3/0/0)

• Reject. Please try dicussing this matter with the other parties on their talk pages and on the talk page of the article, if you are unable to work out an agreement between yourselves unaided, please request mediation. If mediation fails, this matter (or rather the problems which underlie this matter) may be referred to arbitration by the mediation committee. Fred Bauder 12:23, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Reject; attempt ealier steps first. However, a quick glance at the talk page reveals no comments at all from either side - nor, indeed, from the protecting sysop. Do better. James F. (talk) 12:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Reject ----the Epopt 16:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

/Template

• /172 - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and two abstentions on August 30, 2004 (delayed due to overlap with previously running cases). Evidence to /172/Evidence, please.
• /Gene Poole vs. Samboy - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on September 11, 2004. Evidence to /Gene Poole vs. Samboy/Evidence, please.
• /Reithy - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on October 22, 2004. Evidence to /Reithy/Evidence, please.
• /Irismeister 3 - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one recusal on October 22, 2004. Evidence to /Irismeister 3/Evidence, please.
• /Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily - Accepted for Arbitration with six votes and one recusal on October 22, 2004. Evidence to /Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Evidence, please.
• /User:66.20.28.21 and other accounts - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one other comment on October 27, 2004. Evidence to /User:66.20.28.21 and other accounts/Evidence, please.
• /VeryVerily - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one recusal on October 31, 2004. Evidence to /VeryVerily/Evidence, please.
• /Netoholic - Accepted for Arbitration with three votes and two recusals on November 4, 2004. Evidence to /Netoholic/Evidence, please.
• /Turrican and VeryVerily - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one recusal on November 4, 2004. Evidence to /Turrican and VeryVerily/Evidence, please.
• /Shorne and Fred Bauder - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one recusal on November 6, 2004. Evidence to /Shorne and Fred Bauder/Evidence, please.
• /IZAK - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes on November 6, 2004. Evidence to /IZAK/Evidence, please.
• /Ruy Lopez, Shorne, and VeryVerily - Merged with /Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily Nov 6, 2004 with one recusal and five votes for merger. Evidence to /Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Evidence, please.
• /HistoryBuffEr - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on November 8, 2004. Evidence to /HistoryBuffEr/Evidence, please.
• /Jayjg - Accepted and Merged with /HistoryBuffEr with four votes on November 9, 2004. Evidence to /HistoryBuffEr/Evidence, please.
• /Arminius - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on November 22, 2004. Evidence to /Arminius/Evidence, please.

• John69 - Rejected - text archived at user talk:John69
• 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.
• 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
• Request to re-open Anthony DiPierro - Rejected - October 27, 2004, see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro
• Chuck_F, 203.112.19.195 and 210.142.29.125 - Rejected, consolidated with /Reithy
• RickK - Rejected
• Aranel - Rejected
• Jayjg - Rejected by 6 arbitrators, 1 recusal, 10 Nov 2004.
• UninvitedCompany - Rejected, our temporary injunction holds.

• /Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 11th February 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.
• /Irismeister 2 - Decided on 03 July 2004 to apply a personal attack parole. 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.
• /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.
• /User:Guanaco versus User:Lir - Decided on 30 Aug 2004.
• /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.
• /Kenneth Alan - Decided October 1, 2004, User:Kenneth Alan banned for one year. Enforcement provisions may be added before case is formally closed.
• /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 Judaism for 1 year.
• /RickK vs. Guanaco (ab initio "The Matter of Michael") - Jimbo unbanning Michael made the matter mostly moot. The only remedy was to award Guanaco for creative problem solving.
• /Jimmyvanthach - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
• /Rex071404 - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
• /Lance6wins - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
• /Rex071404 2 - Decided on 16 November, 2004.
• /Avala - Decided on 17 November, 2004.
• /Irismeister 3 - Decided on 20 November, 2004.
• /Cantus vs. Guanaco - Decided on 24 November, 2004. Cantus is limited to one revert per article per day and prohibited from editing Siberia or Clitoris. Guanaco must re-apply for adminship.