Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:29, 11 December 2004

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

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

Quadell

I CheeseDreams Restored this RfAr on behalf of HistoryBuffEr based on the principle of Habeas Corpus and Human Rights. DO NOT DELETE IT. If you will not accept his right to have this case brought, then consider it brought by me. CheeseDreams 22:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please note HistoryBuffEr is not allowed to edit via anonymous IP address during his 24 hour block for violating the 3RR. I would strongly advise that this request for arbitration be filed after the block has finished!!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He was blocked by the person he is bringing this RfAr against, and by the person's associates. Therefore, it is an allegation of abuse of adminship. If Quadrell was found guilty, HistoryBuffEr would have been unjustly blocked, therefore would have the right to make this request. As such, Habeas Corpus demand he be able to make that right Now, on the assumption of his innocence ("innocent until proven guilty"). Likewise the general block must stay because Quadell is also innocent until proven guilty. CheeseDreams 00:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to point out, HistoryBuffEr was blocked by myself and UninvitedCompany. UninvitedCompany is no more my "associate" than CheeseDreams; I had never conversed with him before today. – Quadell ] 01:42, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Quadell has repeatedly abused his sysop priviledges by blocking HistoryBuffEr without justification twice this week.

• Quadell had blocked HistoryBuffEr for 24 hours on 23:48, 2004 Nov 29, for alleged "violation of 3RR". Actually, there was no violation, but Quadell did not respond to questions and requests to unblock, so an RfC was filed (, may be deleted now but a copy is available). Quadell admitted his blocking was a mistake, but instead of offering a sincere apology he tried to shift the blame onto HistoryBuffEr.

This RfC was closed on December 2.

• Quadell has now again blocked HistoryBuffEr for 24 hours on 20:07, 3 Dec 2004, for alleged "violation of 3RR".

"16:30, 3 Dec 2004, Quadell blocked HistoryBuffEr (expires 16:30, 4 Dec 2004) (contribs) (Violation of 3RR on Ariel Sharon)"

Actually, there was no violation, as Mirv pointed out to Quadell here, but Quadell insists he was right.

• Quadell has been involved in a personal dispute with HistoryBuffEr (see ). In the RfC, Quadell was advised by Wolfman to ask another sysop to assist in situations where Quadell has personal involvement. However, Quadell has apparently ignored this advice.
• After HistoryBuffEr posted objection to blocking to Quadell, Quadell threatened to extend the ban because such posts were in his words "illegal". And, indeed, Quadell extended the ban shortly afterwards:

"20:07, 3 Dec 2004, Quadell blocked 66.93.166.174 (expires 20:07, 4 Dec 2004) (contribs) (This account is being used by HistoryBuffEr, who is under a 24 hour block.)"

As Quadell appears to be out of control I request a temporary injunction against Quadell to:

• Unblock HistoryBuffEr and related IP(s) so this Arbitration can proceed.
• Refrain from blocking HistoryBuffEr and related IP(s) until this Arbitration is closed.

Submitted by: HistoryBuffEr 21:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S: As for attempts at dispute resolution:

• There was an RfC about Quadell just days ago,
• Quadell has refused requests to unblock .

Update:

Quadell is now requesting other sysops to revert HistoryBuffEr's edits while blocked, see . As the only edits HistoryBuffEr made today were objections to his blocking (including this request), Quadell should be asked to refrain from obstructing the Arbitration process.

Update 2:7

When I tried to post the above update, I could not, Quadell extended the ban to yet another IP:

"21:34, 3 Dec 2004, Quadell blocked 4.232.123.136 (expires 21:34, 4 Dec 2004) (contribs) (Account is being used by HistoryBuffEr, who is under a 24-hour block)"

Update 3:

When I tried to post the above updates, it turned out that UninvitedCompany removed this Request for Arbitration]!!! UninvitedCompany also deleted HistoryBuffEr reply which explained that the only edits made were objections to blocking, see and contribs.

Please consider this request for arbitration at your earliest convenience.

By: HistoryBuffEr 22:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I second this. CheeseDreams 22:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Further, I consider it an abomination to prevent the right of the accused to question the justice in their accusation. Habeas Corpus etc. Therefore I request punitive action be made against those who removed this RfAr. CheeseDreams 22:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with this. While he is blocked for 24 hours, HistoryBuffEr is not allowed to edit pages. The editors were merely rolling back changes made by a blocked editor. This is standard procedure. Whether the block was justified, I'm still checking this out. But the fact remains that HistoryBuffEr could have waited 24 hours before bringing this to ArbCom. He should not be trying to get around blocks. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He was blocked by the person he is bringing this RfAr against, and by the person's associates. Therefore, it is an allegation of abuse of adminship. If Quadrell was found guilty, HistoryBuffEr would have been unjustly blocked, therefore would have the right to make this request. As such, Habeas Corpus demand he be able to make that right Now, on the assumption of his innocence ("innocent until proven guilty"). Likewise the general block must stay because Quadell is also innocent until proven guilty. CheeseDreams 00:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd also like to say this: I have today blocked IPs used by HistoryBuffEr, and I have extended HistoryBuffEr's block to 24 hours after his last edit as an anonymous user. I believe, as UninvitedCompany, Ta bu shi da yu, and others believe, that it is appropriate to enforce 3RR blocks in this way. However, I have come to find out that this is disputed by some in good faith. Therefore I won't be extending the block on HistoryBuffEr or blocking the IPs he uses for getting around the 24-hour block. I still think such an action is warranted, but I accept that consensus is not clear on this point. – Quadell ] 01:42, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Update: Note re dispute resolution:

Please note that this matter has not been brought straight to arbitration and can be fairly considered to have exausted other reasonable dispute resolution means:

• Quadell's similar previous violation was already discussed under an RfC. He admitted the error, but failed to accept full responsibility and provide assurances that such behavior would not be repeated.
• Sure enough, Quadell did essentially the same thing just one day after the previous dispute resolution.
• Quadell does not appear to have any second thoughts about his actions. Despite advice by several sysops that his block was unjustified, he prevented even bringing of a timely dispute of his action. Far from being conciliatory, Quadell appears emboldened and is actively lobbying for support among sysops.

It appears that other steps are unlikely to be helpful in this case and would be a waste of everyone's time. This is a fairly simple case which requires no extensive evidence or discussions. And if this RFAr is rejected for bureaucratic reasons, it is all but certain to come back shortly, having only wasted everyone's time on refiling and revoting.

By: HistoryBuffEr 05:04, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Votes and Comments by Arbitrators (0/5/0/0)

• Reject, please follow the dispute resolution procedure rather than trying to taking this straight to arbitration. Fred Bauder 22:14, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Reject - agree with Fred. Jwrosenzweig 23:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Reject ] 01:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Reject. James F. (talk) 18:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Just to pile on the bandwagon - reject. →Raul654 19:30, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams vs. a-cabal-of-"fundamentalists"

Main article - Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams

User:CheeseDreams frequently employs abusive language, violates the 3RR rule, and fuels edit wars, and other dispute resolution methods have failed. This opinion is held by at least 10 persons (Who did not bring this request)

Main article - Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Cabal of Fundamentalists

Even though they have internal factions, a group of "fundamentalists" act as a cabal in keeping articles at their POV, engaging in revert wars to enforce this. Further they harass and try to intimidate anyone who seriously stands up to them, and frequently violate civility policy, often calling for bans. (Accused by CheeseDreams)

• To be clear, CheeseDreams requested this arbitration. CheeseDreams accuses a number of people ("fundamentalists" including, apparently, Eequor) of stalking, harassment, conspiracy to ban, ect. The supposed cabal appears to be a majority of the people that signed the opposition summary on CheeseDream's RfC. The ten names listed as part of the cabal were picked at CheeseDreams discretion, not their own. The cabal has not been through RfC, but CheeseDreams started RfCs against at least Eequor and Jwrosenzweig individually. Eequor's RfC was not certified within 48 hours and Jwrosenzweig's is uncertified as of now. Cool Hand Luke 03:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • To be clearer, Mr Luke, I do not regard Jwrosenzweig as part of the cabal (I have stated this elsewhere I believe). The fact that the cabal are the majority of the people signing the opposition merely goes to prove my point. I knew who they were beforehand. CheeseDreams 11:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I ask that Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig be reviewed, in addition to the links I previously placed here (and which now appear to have been deleted... his attempted mediation, RFC and edit history) ] 12:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Votes and Comments by Arbitrators (1/4/1/0)

• Recuse -- honestly, CheeseDreams, there wasn't any reason to name me above. It suggests to me that you think I would have tried to remain on this case to oppose you in some way, which I wouldn't have considered for a moment. Please give those who disagree with you a little more credit than that. Jwrosenzweig 20:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 22:52, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC). My acceptance is based on the need to examine CheeseDream's behavior, there is no obvious case against those he complains of in this request. Fred Bauder 13:36, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Reject, at least until the request is re-worded so that I can tell who's accusing whom of what, and I am assured that the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process have failed. ] 05:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain for the time being; unclear as to exactly who is accusing who of what. James F. (talk) 21:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) Switch now to reject, along the lines of Epopt and Delirium. James F. (talk) 03:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Reject. I agree with Epopt. →Raul654 18:55, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Reject. I also agree with Epopt. The case would be a mess and we'd have to basically make something up ourselves. If a clear complaint is resubmitted I'd be more inclined to consider it. --Delirium 23:20, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Arminius and Darrien

It is bad enough that Misplaced Pages 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)

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 (1/3/0/0)

• 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)
• Accept. Arminius's behavior not acceptable (it seems), grounds for arbitration committee action. The Cunctator 00:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/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.
• /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.
• /Snowspinner vs. Lir - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes on November 28, 2004. Evidence to /Snowspinner vs. Lir/Evidence, please.
• /168.209.97.34 - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes on December 2, 2004. Evidence to /168.209.97.34/Evidence, please.
• /Alberuni - Accepted for Arbitration with five votes on December 6, 2004. Evidence to /Alberuni/Evidence, please.
• /Chuck F - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes on December 7, 2004. Evidence to /Chuck F/Evidence, please.
• /CheeseDreams - Accepted for Arbitration with four votes and one recusal on December 10, 2004. Evidence to /CheeseDreams/Evidence, please.

Rejected requests

• 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Hephaestos.
• Wheeler vs 172 - Rejected - please try mediation first. Discussion moved to user talk:WHEELER
• Cheng v. Anonymous and others - Rejected - refer to wikipedia:username for name change policy. For content dispute, try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Nathan w cheng.
• WikiUser vs. unspecified others - Rejected due to lack of a specific request.
• Simonides vs. "everyone" - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
• Sam Spade vs. Danny - Withdrawn
• Sam Spade vs. AndyL - Withdrawn
• Raul654 vs Anthony DiPierro - Withdrawn after agreement of both parties (see standing order).
• 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Completed requests

• /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 Misplaced Pages.
• /K1 - Closed on 28 Sep 2004 with an open verdict; no ruling necessary, as K1 has ceased contributing to Misplaced Pages.
• /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 Misplaced Pages. Subject to reactivation should he return.
• /RK - Decided October 14, 2004. RK is banned from Misplaced Pages 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.
• /Reithy Closed without action taken on 3 December, 2004, temporary injunction expires that date.

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution