Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Baku Ibne, et al./Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 0 Arbitrators are recused and 1 is inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on the discussion page.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] No personal attacks

1) No personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  19:38, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 17:38, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 04:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Sockpuppets

2) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  19:38, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 17:38, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 04:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Impersonation accounts

3) Accounts designed to impersonate other contributors are not permitted (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Impersonation). Accounts designed to impersonate may be immediately blocked indefinitely by any administrator.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  19:38, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 17:38, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 04:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Vandalism

4) Vandalism of Wikipedia will not be tolerated.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  19:38, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 17:38, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 04:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

4.5) Admins may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that vandalise Wikipedia for periods of time ranging from 24 hours (to single violations) to one month (for repeat violations). (See Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Vandalism.)

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:45, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 17:38, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 04:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Civility

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  19:38, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 17:38, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 04:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Consensus

6) As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  19:38, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 17:38, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 04:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] One user or several?

7) For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:29, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 17:38, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 04:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Usability of evidence

8) In order for the arbitrators to be able to decide a case based on evidence, the evidence to be presented by the parties must be brief and well organized, focusing on the principle issues involved with adequate references to examples of the behavior complained of.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:29, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:29, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 00:14, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC) - Absolutely! If you want a fair, well reasoned decision, don't give us trash masquarading as evidence!
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neutralitytalk 04:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Vandalism and POV editing by 84.154.xxx.xxx

1) An anonymous editor from ip 84.154.xxx.xxx has made number of POV and vandalizing edits to Safavids, [1], [2], [3], emphasis on dance, using the word "Twinlkletoes", [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]; other vandalizing edits are on Tabib's talk page or refer to Tabib, [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], also vandalism of Shah, [21].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:58, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  04:47, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Tabib fights vandalism

2) Tabib attempted to fight this vandalism and expressed his frustration, [22], "Will somebody STOP this ongoing VANDALISM? Why I should fight all those lunatics ALONE???" On February 24 Tabib reported the vandalism at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress again expressing his frustration.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:58, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  04:47, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Anon creates account "LIGerasimova"

3) An edit by 84.154.xxx.xxx, specifically 84.154.123.111 made February 9, 2005 was signed with the name, "L. I. GERASIMOVA" [23], later signing it with the first edit of User:LIGerasimova, [24]. User contributions For LIGerasimova, [

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 02:58, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  04:47, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Account "Osmanoglou" created

4) On February 25, 2005 User:Osmanoglou was created. First and last edits included insulting language in Turkish which headed his user page [25] [26] and [27]. Next was vandalism of User:Tabib using the word "Ibne" [28] [29], see also [30], [31], follow up on anon reference to dancing and this trolling entry [32]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  19:40, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Sockpuppets blocked

5) Osmanoglou was blocked indefinitely on March 12, 2005 for user page vandalism.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt   ҈  19:40, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Sockpuppetry

6) A large number of accounts, some of which appear to be deliberate impersonation accounts have been created that show similar editing patterns to LIGerasimova and Osmanoglou with respect to editing patterns and vandalism, and may be considered sockpuppets. Technical evidence also shows numerous accounts to be sockpuppets. The aforementioned accounts include LIGerasimova (this appears to be the user's "good" account, even providing evidence in this case), Hadagoodlaugh, Pansee, -Tabib, -duk, Dubistdas Letztearschloch, Kiramtu Kunettabib, Outhmanoglou, Osmaanoglou, Jeanvaljeanvaljean, Fux Djclayworth, Fuxtony Sidaways, Postman Oglou, Smegman, Goastman Oglou, Hostman Ugly, Blockasock, Suckabloke, Tony Sidaways, Sikeyim, Tony Sideaway, Osman Oglou and Oussmannoglou.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:26, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:31, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Revert warring

7) Tabib and Rovoam have engaged in an unhelpful amount of revert warring on articles such as Safavids [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40], Nagorno-Karabakh [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54], and Caucasian Albania [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63].

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:26, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 03:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 00:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks

8) Tabib and Rovoam have engaged in personal attacks on each other. [64], [65]

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  01:46, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 03:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC
  4. mav 03:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Agree with David Gerard. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. I don't really see much evidence of Tabib making personal attacks. →Raul654 00:17, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 01:20, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  4. On second thought, concur with David.
  5. sannse (talk) 21:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) agree with David
Abstain:
  1. Tabib was being sorely provoked by an apparent nutter here - David Gerard 13:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Personal attacks are inexcusable even under provocation. -- Grunt   ҈  14:33, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
    Yes, but we must look at actions in context. Neutralitytalk 04:02, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prior unusability of evidence

9) Prior to Tony Sidaway's intervention on the evidence page of this case, the evidence provided by the disputants did not follow a recognisable format and was generally regarded as being unusable [66]. Tony Sidaway's intervention has led to the evidence page being stated in a coherent, easily interpretable fashion.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:35, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:31, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. With the note that it's still not very usable. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 21:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Blocking of sockpuppet accounts

1) The accounts LIGerasimova, Osmanoglou, Outhmanoglou, Osmaanoglou, Oussmannoglou, Osman Oglou, Tony Sideaway, Sikeyim, Tony Sidaways, Suckabloke, Blockasock, Hostman Ugly, Goastman Oglou, Postman Oglou, Fuxtony Sidaways, Fux Djclayworth, Jeanvaljeanvaljean, Smegman, Hadagoodlaugh, Pansee, -Tabib, -duk, Dubistdas Letztearschloch and Kiramtu Kunettabib are blocked indefinitely as abusive sockpuppet accounts.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:36, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:33, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:22, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 21:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

1.5) The IP addresses in the 84.154.xxx.xxx range should be blocked under the usual blocking policy guidelines on any occasion that pages are vandalised in any way. No Arbitration ruling is required for this routine blocking.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:48, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:33, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:22, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. sannse (talk) 21:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Tabib: Revert limitation

2) For an unhelpful amount of revert warring on a wide range of articles, Tabib is restricted for a duration of one year to one revert per twenty-four hour period with violations treated as violations of the three-revert rule.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:36, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 03:22, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I really don't see evidence this is necessary - David Gerard 13:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Try FoF 7 above. -- Grunt   ҈  20:48, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 22:30, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) He need a chance to show how he can behave when he is not under sustained attack by other users.
  3. Concur with Fred. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. On second thought, concur with Fred. Neutralitytalk 04:04, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 21:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Rovoam: Revert limitation

3) For an unhelpful amount of revert warring on a wide range of articles, Rovoam is restricted for a duration of one year to one revert per twenty-four hour period with violations treated as violations of the three-revert rule.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:36, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 03:22, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 03:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Fred Bauder 22:30, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. sannse (talk) 21:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) I can't support a remedy on this issue for Rovoam and not Tabib. Both have reverted simlarly - I'd prefer to leave this to the 3RR this time round
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attack paroles

4) Tabib and Rovoam are placed on standard personal attack parole; if they engage in edits judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then they shall be temporarily banned for a period of up to one week.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  01:48, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 03:22, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I really don't think the evidence warrants this - David Gerard 13:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 22:30, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) Not justified in the case of Tabib.
  3. Changed my mind. The attacks by Tabib were not that bad. --mav 00:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Concur with Fred and David. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. On second thought, concur with Fred and mav. Neutralitytalk 04:06, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Concur ➥the Epopt 05:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

4.1) Rovoam is placed on standard personal attack parole; if he engages in edits judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temporarily banned for a period of up to one week.

Support:
  1. David Gerard 13:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 22:30, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. mav 01:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 04:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 05:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Personal attacks are inexcusable even under provocation, and the evidence clearly shows Tabib's engagement in personal attacks. -- Grunt   ҈  20:40, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Formal thanks to Tony Sidaway

5) A formal thanks is extended to Tony Sidaway for his work cleaning up the evidence related to this case.

Support:
  1. Grunt   ҈  21:40, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:33, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:22, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 03:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Nohat 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 13:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) Damn right.
  8. Ambi 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. sannse (talk) 21:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

I have a pile more sockpuppets to add to the list of the many heads of Osmanoglou, including LIGerasimova. We have a major problem here coming in from that T-Mobile IP block. Details to the AC and evidence page later - David Gerard 13:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Move to close; with Theresa's inactivity the majority is six and we have that many votes on everything likely to pass. -- Grunt   ҈  14:42, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. Neutralitytalk 17:31, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  3. sannse (talk) 21:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Not effective until David is done with his housekeeping. mav 02:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 17:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Temporary oppose - my apologies for being late with my housekeeping. I need to list the socks - will do tomorrow, must go to bed now - David Gerard 22:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let this through in 24 hours, and please vote on the new FoF 8.1 and remedy 1.1! - David Gerard 02:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just merged those into the parent FoF and remedy. -- Grunt   ҈  03:13, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Baku_Ibne%2C_et_al._Proposed_decision_a348.html"