Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Raul654 (talk | contribs) at 15:33, 29 June 2005 (→[]: Reject - insuffecient arbitrators to reach 4 accepts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

The last step of 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 Arbitration Committee.

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and arbitrators may summarily remove discussion without comment.

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Precedents

Current requests

Template

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

User:Sumnakay

Involved parties

• User:Sumnakay, possibly contributing also as User:62.94.224.221, User:62.94.91.238 and User:Sándor.
• User:Pavel Vozenilek

Statement by User:Pavel Vozenilek

• Contributor to Roma people article doesn't agree with my edits on Talk page, rewrites them and calls me Nazi and sectarian .

Some quotes: I would recommend to protect the page from Pavel Vozenilek's Nazi-like declarations against Romany scholars. or A sectarian analysis of recent edits, a Nazi-like suggestion how to deal with them.

I prefere not to be insulted and my edits staying intact. Pavel Vozenilek 28 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)

Statement by User:Sumnakay

• Contributor to Roma people Mr. Pavel Vozenilek has refused to give any reasonable answer to the proposed questions, deleting other editors additions and links to Romany websites. He has refused to show his knowledge on Romany culture, but simply insisted in reproducing speculative assertions of other people of doubtful authority on the subject. His requests to "delete whatever he dislikes" is quite un-democratic. He demonstrated to assert anything without having the slightest certainty, as he said that I am the author of the websites which I linked, which is false. He MUST show a proof before saying anything about other people. I didn't qualify him as a person, but his statements - that is, I didn't say he is a Nazi, but his statements are (Nazi-like suggestions). To conclude, he has shown complete lack of respect for Roma people.

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User:Sumnakay has been informed.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

• User:Ariwara had asked for discussions and less heat over the edits . Other people on Talk page of Roma people did the same.

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Anthony DiPierro

Involved party

• User:Anthony DiPierro

Statement by party

Per the previous ruling by the arbitration committee, I am eligible to petition for reinstatement of permission to edit in the Misplaced Pages namespace. I'd like to do this.

I'd also like to point out that the diffs mark is pointing to are to edits which I made before the previous case was even closed. Further, his characterization of them is extreme hyperbole. Mark's statement is almost completely inaccurate, and I would hope the arbitrators would be willing to listen to the evidence before rejecting this case - yes, Mark is a well-respected Wikipedian, but he obviously has some deep-rooted predjudices against me which are causing him to jump to conclusions and/or misrepresent the truth. I've already contacted Snowspinner and asked em to talk to Mark about this incident. I'd suggest that any arbitrators who want to reject this case before even hearing about it would at the very least do the same (that is, talk to Snowspinner about the points that Mark raise).

Statement by Raul654

As a party to that arbitration case, I'd like to comment here. Since that decision, (a) Anthony withdrew from Misplaced Pages, thus he has no good behavior to speak of, or to point to as a reason why we should remove this remedy, and (b) in the few edits he has made since then, he has still managed to cause trouble. In particular, I'm talking about the fact that he redirected his user and talk pages to the email-this-user function. This is obviously an unacceptable change (for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that he is required to be publicly notified of certain things and that an email will not suffice to make it transparent), and then he edit warred to keep them that way . In short, I see no evidence of good behavior. I think all evidence suggests that if lifted, he would resume the same nonsense that got him in trouble several times before, and as such I don't think there's any reason this remedy should be stopped early. →Raul654 01:02, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (1/1/2/0)

• Recuse for obvious reasons. →Raul654 01:02, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse. Ambi 02:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Accept for the very limited purpose of reviewing the ban -- sannse (talk) 28 June 2005 22:50 (UTC)
  • Do you seriously think there are any grounds to review the ban, or are you just doing this for sake of it? Ambi 29 June 2005 02:39 (UTC)
• Reject, per Raul's convincing argument - David Gerard 29 June 2005 05:00 (UTC)

Reopen User:Instantnood

Prior case is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al. (was closed without any action taken).

• User:Instantnood
• User:SchmuckyTheCat
• User:jguk

ArbCom, please re-open the closed case against Instantnood for the following reasons:

1. It was improperly closed. Closing a case requires 4 net votes. At least one member voted to oppose closing it, which means it needed five votes to close.
2. Instantnood took the closure of the case as clear permission to continue the behavior at issue in the case. IE, renaming anything Taiwan to Republic of China (ex: the article is at Education in Taiwan, not Education in the Republic of China, he's linking to a redirect in order to push his naming POV), renaming China to mainland China, (again linking to redirects for his POV), populating dead categories (and the previous diff too), and furthermore, marking most of these controversial edits as minor. He's also politicking to people who agree with him in order to push the exact same issues that spurred the opening of the initial arbcom case.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Making Instantnood aware I've asked to re-open.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by SchmuckyTheCat

The existing case is already overwhelming.

Since the closing of it, Instantnood has made thousands of edits. At least 80% of which are marked as minor edit. I'm guessing of the last 2000 edits, less than 50 have an edit summary. Many of the minor edits include renaming China and Taiwan to his preferred versions - exactly what there was no consensus to do in his massive voting proposals that started the last arbcom case. Marking controversial edits as minor with no editing summary is clearly non-constructive towards building an encyclopedia.

Statement by User:Wally on behalf of User:Instantnood

If I might be indulged, this is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that the ArbCom made a procedural error should not be sufficient reason to put Instantnood under arbitration again barely two weeks after the first issue was concluded. Furthermore, the continued and continuing personal attacks against Instantnood by Schmucky — you can see below for its translation from Cantonese — absolutely pulverize any moral grounding he might have for bringing this case. Obviously he's attempted nothing further in any other area of dispute resolution since this has occured. I implore the ArbCom not to validate the intimidation levied against Instantnood and to let this issue remain concluded or, failing that, at least refer it to mediation before adjudicating it again, so at least a second hearing will have something new to show. Wally 21:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's not just the procedural error, it's that your client hasn't stopped the behavior that started the first one. Procedural (incorrect, even) closure of the previous case isn't carte blanche to go back to the behavior that caused it.
• And give it up about the moral high ground. Say, Wally, just how many of these "continued and continuing personal attacks" are there? If you want to bring an RfC or RfAr against me for my behavior, bring it - it doesn't exist. In the meantime don't squawk and grandstand about "OH NOs, we've been slighted!" It confuses the issue.
• I've given up on counting how many people lash out at your client for his browbeating obstinance. Here is one today: where your client repeatedly ignored being told to go away . I certainly don't blame Calton for saying "bullshit" after he told your client to go away three times previous.
• When multiple editors are lashing out at your client, it doesn't matter how straight faced he remains. It's his behavior that is the problem. SchmuckyTheCat 16:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's not a very good alibi to "legalise" the libellous action, I'd say. In a sense, God forbid, a murderer could say this to the judge: "Sir, just give it up about the moral high ground. Say, just how many of these murders are there?"

Furthermore, Instantnood did not violate any rule of Misplaced Pages, very likely, when eagerly inviting someone to the conference table, no matter how straight-faced or stubborn or annoying he was. For those who replied in an indecent manner, they perhaps deserve a lawsuit due to their unpleasant language. Anyway, I hope there would be no more insulting dingdongs afterward. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by some random outsider

If this is not re-opened, I would like to hear the ArbCom's opinions on what to do on the entire Mainland China matter. I'm asking because Category:Economy of mainland China appeared on WP:CFD today, with Schmucky proposing a rename and Instantnood opposing that. I hope this doesn't mean we're back at square one? Radiant_>|< 23:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not proposing a rename, the correct cat (and article) already exists and is used. The country is called the People's Republic of China. If Instantnood would like to rename it to "mainland China" he might suggest it to Hu Jintao. I somehow think it unlikely. SchmuckyTheCat 23:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tell me what's this: 唔屌到你唔好以為自己好撚型，屌那星! 含家呤 (Don't think you're damn smart if I don't fuck you. Fuck that star. Go to hell your entire family) I found this threatening statment in Instatnood's talk page.

Obviously, someone has made serious insult plus personal attack before the arbitration. In fact, SchmuckyTheCat used to write indecently weird phrases like 猶太陰莖貓 (Jewish Penis Cat) in his (I use "his" because he's got a penis as he claims) user page, and for many times I see he creates some users' pages by adding a full stop. I don't think that's a patent accident at all. Does it violate some rules of wikipedia? I'm new to here, and I know little about Misplaced Pages's policy. But I would feel terribly annoyed if someone attempted to "deflower" my user page -- that's just like rape, to be honest. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 猶太陰莖貓 is the name I use on zh wikipedia. It isn't indecently weird. "Schmuck", of course being yiddish slang for penis.
• Yes, I start other users userpage with a . Calling that rape is nearly a Godwin.
• I sent Instantnood some song lyrics, which he knows very well thats all they are. And if he followed y'all around making comments about all your edits, finding offense where there are none (starting user pages with a dot) you might, eventually, get fed up too. If he wants to make a case out of it, let him. SchmuckyTheCat 21:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That should be adopted from songs of Lazy Mutha Fucka, I suppose. Don't tell me they're singing for the Church. By the way, what do you mean by "nearly a Godwin"? Please elaborate. :-D

PS I see the meaning of Schmuck. It's not weird, it's not indecent--its vulgar. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 21:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It What SchmuckyTheCat wrote is indeed takenpart of lyric the song 含家呤 by Lazy Mutha Fucka. But in this context I will take that as a personal attack. SYSS Mouse 14:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enough of that. The problem, as we are all aware of, is the fact that do you consider Mongolia/Macau/Hong Kong as a part of PRC? Theoretically you have to include some of them when you're talking about education or such, but there are currently differnet laws in regulation for Macau and HK. This article, if it should exist, would be better off in Mainland china. I thought we reached consensus that if it's not political we should use the Mainland china/Taiwan reference? -- Penwhale 28 June 2005 06:40 (UTC)

Pardon? I'm not that sure what you want to say...could you please elaborate? :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 28 June 2005 07:56 (UTC)

Oh, I was mentioning to the point that the RfA was filed because of an argument over the PRC/China debacle and that even though personal attacks have occurred, one should still remember why the RfA was brought up in the first place. Penwhale 28 June 2005 10:23 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for telling. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 28 June 2005 11:13 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0)

• Accept Fred Bauder 21:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept - it should never have been closed, which was why I voted against the original motion. Ambi 12:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Accept -- sannse (talk) 11:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master

Involved parties

Patrick0Moran, the most quite and patient of contributors, advised me that, "A relatively new contributor, Zen-master, has taken an interest in the article on Race_and_intelligence and has decided to attack Rikurzhen, calling him a racist and a Nazi. I've tried to reason with him regarding the main point of contention, but he ignores anything that anybody says to him and comes back with a personal attack. His latest was, essentially, "Only a Nazi would say what you just said." -- Uncle Ed (talk) 04:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

A deep analysis of the issue will indicate it is not as simple nor as one sided as Ed Poor describes it, in my opinion. I labeled patrick and rikurzhen's actions, not them personally. My offer, made in good faith, to withdraw my interpretation of their actions remains on the table if they explain why they used repetition combined with language misuse so frequently. The prime directive of wikipedia is neutrality and they seemingly, to me at least, appear to be trying to maintain a status quo of psychologically misdirecting language. Framing the article Race and intelligence entirely in terms of "race" seems to me to be an attempt at confusing effect with cause. They can certainly choose to ignore my challenge for a logical explanation if they want to. Also note my username is "Zen-master", T is for talk. zen master T 04:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack on me. Any reason not to block immediately, considering that he's been warned repeatedly? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

How is that a personal attack? It is a question, you can choose not to respond to it as I gathered from you removing it from your talk page. zen master T 22:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Zen-master's contention that he "labeled patrick and rikurzhen's actions, not them personally, please read the following exchange, which I have copied directly from the talk page:

The sooner you explain how language neutrality is original research the sooner you diminish the plausibility of my theory that you are a nazi. If someone was just a random interested researcher of this subject (even if they dubiously concluded race is a cause) I don't believe they would defend and deflect away from the current misuse of language to the degree you have. zen master T 02:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So now I am being accused of being a Nazi too? Let's be clear about what you are saying. P0M 02:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You two do seem to be working together to misdirect third parties away from doing any sort of mental analysis on the neutrality of language used in the article. So yes, I am accusing you both of being neo-nazis based on your posts on this talk page and based on the way you repeatedly defend or ignore the misuse of language. I will withdraw my accusations after you explain how striving for language neutrality is original research and/or after you explain how needlessly commingling cause and effect is scientific? zen master T 02:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In short, he expressed a "theory" that "you are a nazi." I asked him whether he meant I am a Nazi. He said, "So yes, I am acusing you both of being neo-nazis." The fact that he considers actions of mine to support "the plausibility of my theory" as he puts it, and that he bases his accusations "on your posts on this talk page and based on the way you repeatedly defend or ignore the use of language" does not make his accusation less problematical. People generally have some kind of reason for the accusations they make. The question is whether we tolerate ad hominem attacks, and attacks that are groundless at that. P0M 23:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My plausible theory was and is trying to explain your, rikurzhen's and other's words, it was not simple name calling. I stand by my theory that repetition in support of language propaganda and errant framing of an issue is nazi-esque. Since I was warned 2 days ago to avoid "personal attacks" I've tried to be extra clear that I am analyzing your and the article's words and/or comming up with plausible theories that explain them and your motivations. No one has responded to my challenge to logically explaination why you, the article and subject must utilize repetition to exploit language confusion and/or incorrect/one sided framing of the subject. Conclusions should be based on facts, not tricksy language. zen master T 19:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Does his post above count as "awareness"?

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

I spoke with Zen Master T about this, but he just accused me of "accusing him".

"Adhere or be blocked." -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Distinguished between objecting to article edits and calling someone names.

Ed Poor, is this evidence of "dispute resolution"? Those URLs do not convey the full context, it can be found at Talk:Race and intelligence. zen master T 17:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (2/2/0/0)

• Accept Fred Bauder 13:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) Based on Zen Master T's continuing violation as expressed in his response.
• Accept Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 13:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. This looks somewhat tame to me, and I'm reluctant to become involved just yet. Please make some attempt at seriously working out the dispute between yourselves. If it does get worse, feel free to come back at a later stage, but Zen Master's replies, for the most part, seem quite reasonable. Ambi 16:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Reject for now, Zen Master, if you continue to insult in this way (and it is an insult, however you wish to frame it) then I would change my vote for a future request -- sannse (talk) 11:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:JuliusThyssen

Involved parties

• JuliusThyssen (talk · contribs) aka 195.64.95.116 (talk · contribs) and jult (talk · contribs)
• Rhobite (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Message on User talk: JuliusThyssen:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I have asked this user several times to refrain from using personal attacks. He responded by calling me an asshole. I don't feel that any other dispute resolution would matter to such a rude person. Rhobite 20:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Rhobite

JuliusThyssen, who previously edited from 195.64.95.116, has long been an argumentative and uncivil user on Talk:MP3 and Talk:MPC (audio compression format). He has also gotten into arguments after he advanced POV political theories on September 11, 2001 attacks . People who disagree with his opinions are quickly called "stupid" , "Idiot" , "you people suck" , "smartass" , "edgy stubborn nazi type" . Edit summaries include "deleted sheer nonsense of incapable people" , "ok, that's what you idiots asked for" , "you are a fool" , and "Rhobite is an ASSHOLE, how's that for a personal attack?"

Also userpage vandalism:

Julius removed my comment asking him to refrain from personal attacks:

I think a personal attack parole would be an adequate response to this user's incivility. Rhobite 20:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I note in the 'edgy stubborn nazi type' diff , he also states that "If you'd rather have it this way, then I will make it my life's task to change that line from each and every library and internet-café I can find."-Ashley Pomeroy 10:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

User:JuliusThyssen has been disfiguring the List of disco artists with non-disco additions (which don't fit standard scientific definitions of disco as a form of music), plus deletions of well-known valid disco hit songs like "Take Me Home" by Cher (1979).

This is just plain bullshit. First of all, there IS no scientific definition of disco as a form of music. This nameless idiot just couldn't handle the fact that I was right and he/she was wrong about many of the tracks he/she decided to put in that list. This goes for all cases mentioned here; Pathetic assholes assuming they are right, when they KNOW they're not. I'm not prepared to behave 'politely' towards such idiotic display of stubbornness, and I refuse to take part in this wanna-be court-like nonsense you call arbitration or rulings on wikipedia. It's obvious you want this to be a medium full of incorrect data, so be it, not my funeral. It ends up being just another silly forum of numbed down stupid and robotic crapologists with big mouths and ego's that are way beyond where they should be. That is the reason I have stopped believing this wikipedia will ever be worth something, it's being ruled by idiots and non-experts. It's even worse in the Dutch version, where tolerance levels are further down the line of toes sticking out miles in front of their delusions of grandeur, where they behave like terrorists (they threaten to send abuses to your internet provider just because some nobody who thinks he is an important part of human history since he 'contributes to wikipedia' was corrected by me). I hereby acknowledge to love to further annoy the likes of you by using proxy-servers and terminals in libraries and gas-stations etc. And no, I'm not the one in need of psychological help here, and you all know it. You people have no lives. In fact, if some rightfully placed insult on some stupid wikipedia website (it's terribly slow, by the way) is enough for you to spend so much time on it, you must be completely insane. Good luck trying to fight the forces of chaos, you know you don't stand a chance against them. JuliusThyssen 09:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He further has insulted me with ageist remarks like "you weren't there when it hit the clubs" and claims to know more than I do about music.

Well it's been quite obvious that I do!

He did not make rational responses to my points to him. He also removes users' criticisms of him from User_talk:JuliusThyssen - when he deleted my comment to him he wrote "deleted sheer nonsense of incapable people". One of my pieces of advice to him was: "Please learn how to technically analyze music. This is not an exercise in nostalgic remembrances of what played in your club but in creating a reference work." On May 22, 2005 he actually removed something that was supposed to be removed ('Nightshift' by the Commodores) but when he did so he wrote "you fool" directed to the person who had added that song.

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/2/0/0)

• Accept Fred Bauder 12:30, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept, though I wonder if we really need to go through arbitration - this seems too obvious. Ambi 12:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) Reject, as user has not edited since June 9. If he returns, would just suggest blocking anyway as a clearly bad-faith user. Ambi 16:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 00:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Accept as Ambi. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:27, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
• Accept Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 10:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• reject as user has stopped editing -- sannse (talk) 11:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Reject - Julius seems to have left us -- will reconsider if he returns. →Raul654 June 29, 2005 08:36 (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.

Forgotten and Hidden sockpuppets of Baku Ibne/LIGerasimova etc.

Dear ArbCom,

Following my brief communication with Fred (), I ask you to immediately block and ban two sockpuppet accounts of previously banned anon 84.154.xx.xx. aka Baku Ibne/LIGreasimova/Osmanoglou etc. (Baku Ibne et al. Case). These sockpuppets are Twinkletoes (talk · contribs) and, as I just found out to my surprise, Deli-Eshek (talk · contribs).

I was aware about Twinkletoes being a sockpuppet long ago (e.g. see, my post in , .) Moreover, the similar behavior and edit pattern of this vandal, leaves no question that this "user" is indeed a sock. Pls, review his contrib log for details: everything, from edited pages, to time of edits, and lengths and volume of activity points to the fact that this is indeed a vandal sock, which was overlooked.

The most surprising discovery I just made concerns User:Deli-Eshek's real identity. I was rather surprised that this guy is also actually a sockpuppet of Baku Ibne (I was similarly surprised in the past to learn out from Tony that LIGerasimova, whom I thought to be different person, was actually the same person as 84.154.xx/Baku Ibne/Osmanoglou ).

Here is the proof of Deli-Eshek being a sockpuppet: . You can see that this person is actually the same as 84.154.xx.xx (see, ) aka Baku Ibne/LIGerasimova/Osmanoglou etc etc. Actually, similarly User:Tony Sidaway has found in the past that LIGerasimova was in fact same person as Baku/Ibne/Osmanoglou (, fixed in evidences presented by Tony )).

This "user" has in the past actually "supported" me in Talk:Safavids. He pretended to be an "ethnic Turk" who "agrees" with me on my argument that Safavids were a Turkic-speaking dynasty of Iran, but he was kind of dark horse whose actions did not correspond to his deeds. Thus for example, I couldn't understand his actions, when he attacked various Azeri users (e.g. (in which he allegedly "supports" me) (or this post, which provoked me to carefully approach him and ask him not to wage personal discussions. Then I thought that this guy is realy an ordinary good-faith editor, and all I cared is to advise him not to play into hands of my opponents in Talk:Safavids by waging unnecessary personal discussions).

Besides these two sockpuppets, there are some more e.g. Luba-Gerasimova (talk · contribs) (which as seen from the name, is same as LIGerasimova (pretending to be a Russian female Luba Ivanovna Gerasimova). The other socks are Kiramtu_Kunettabib (talk · contribs) and StuffedTurkey (talk · contribs). I dont have solid evidences against the last two, but I am sure you can easily clarify the issue with those "mock users" as well.--Tabib 14:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Votes and comments by arbitrators

• Accept Fred Bauder 21:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a request for clarification, not a new case - there's nothing to accept. Ambi 16:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This evidence seems acceptable to me - as far as I'm concerned, they can be banned as sockpuppets and the ban reset. Ambi 16:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I concur with Ambi. →Raul654 16:14, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet farce: new socks by Rovoam and LIGerasimova/Baku Ibne etc.

Dear ArbCom,

I am sorry for appealing to you once again, but, apparently, you are the only authority, which can effectively stop this sockpuppet farce.

As you perhaps remember, massive attacks against me by various sockpuppets took place before. Thus, for example in March 2005 only in one talkpage (Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh), there emerged at least seven "mock users" (Osmanoglou; Baku Ibne; LIGerasimova; Twinkletoes; StuffedTurkey; Kiramtu Kunettabib; Wikirili – which eventually turned out to be one person) all of which advanced various spurious comments and attacks against me.

Now, same old story is indeed repeating itself: various banned vandals create sockpuppets and wage malicious and spurious attacks against me.

These sockpuppets are: Twinckletoes (talk · contribs) (definitely same as Twinkletoes/LIGerasimova/Baku Ibne etc); LastExitToBrooklin (talk · contribs) (definitely sock, but not sure if Rovoam's or LIGerasimova's; see spurious post and personal attack against me ) ;

Popgoestheweasle (talk · contribs), Dudummesstückscheisse (talk · contribs) (scheisse – curse in German; recall previous sock, Dubistdas LetzteArschloch ?.. aka Baku Ibne/LIGerasimova) and Benito Juares (talk · contribs). From behavior pattern, I'm almost certain, all of them are same as LIGerasimova/Baku Ibne etc.; see fox ex. "Benito Juares'" spurious and implicitly abusive post, identical spurious attacks in Talk:Moses Kalankaytuk () and in Talk:Caucasus ().

Now, the most important and most spurious sockpuppet is Rovoam's new sock WikiAdm (talk · contribs). When I see such behavior, I really become convinced that this person is full of hatred and lies and indeed has absolutely no morale and ethical boundaries…

This "user", which was created in Feb 28 but stayed inactive till June 24, until suddenly re-emerged in Talk:Moses Kalankaytuk and claimed that he was "the original author" of the article and "If Tabib requests that I cannot participate in this discussion, I will claim my copyrights for this material". (). Then, following User:Francs2000's unconsidered question (see same link), he quickly saw a window of opportunity for himself, and claimed that allegedly User: 64.136.2.254 (Rovoam) who created the entry is different from him and he just happened to coincidentally share his IP.

Pls, read Talk:Moses_Kalankaytuk#Copyright_Warning, where Rovoam literally fools other users, and Talk:Moses_Kalankaytuk#.22Copyright_Warning.22_-_Farce_by_Rovoam where I tried to expose his lies and cheatings (followed by spurious posts by Rovoam/WikiAdm and another sock Twinckletoes…)

Btw, pls, see following diff links for additional details: Rovoam (anon 72.25.94.43, future "WikiAdm") posted this message then I deleted this spurious post (explaining the reasons ) and placed notification on RFC , then Rovoam restored this spurious post again, this time signed as "WikiAdm" .

You all know that Rovoam's real name is Andrey Kirsanov (btw, he also signed his address to ArbCom by this name ). I also informed you before that Rovoam owns a Russian web-site http://www.vehi.net (btw, this was earlier than this "WikiAdm" appeared and claimed ownership to this web-site, so, I couldn't predict this). By claiming ownership to this web-site and moreover putting spurious "copyright violation" notice in his web-site () Rovoam exposed himself once again. Btw, if you pay attention to this "user's" contrib. log, you would see, that he actively contributed to other entries such as Icon, thus trying to create an impression that he is in fact just an 'ordinary innocent and good-faith user'… Another spurious trick of this unprecedented vandal…

And here is another solid evidence which proves my argument that Rovoam, aka Andrey Kirsanov, is also the owner of www.vehi.net, hence WikiAdm is his sockpuppet. Pls, see, Rovoam's post on Feb 5 in Russian Misplaced Pages.

Rovoam wrote (Russian)

"До недавнего времени я, являясь тогда еще незарегистрированным участником, помещал здесь статьи, касающиеся русской религиозной философии (Соловьев, Бердяев, Булгаков и т.д. со ссылками на оригинальные полные тексты сочинений этих писателей, опубликованными мною в моей электронной библиотеке "Вехи". См.: Библиотека «Вехи» (http://www.vehi.net) … С уважением, Rovoam (в миру Андрей Кирсанов)".

Translation:

"Until recently I being an unregistered user placed articles related to Russian religious philosophy (Soloviyev, Berdyayev, Bulgakov, etc with links to original full texts of the works of these writers, published by me in my electronic library "Vehi" Look "Vehi Library ( http://www.vehi.net)... Best regards, Rovoam, (in real life Andrey Kirsanov)"

Considering the fact that this person is banned from Misplaced Pages by the WP community () for his systematic and unprecedented vandalisms and dishonest and spurious actions, I ask you to immediately block this person, as well as other sockpuppets of LIGerasimova/Baku Ibne, I have pointed out above. Alternatively, if you think that not ArbCom but admins should block this sock (since Rovoam is banned not by ArbCom but by the WP community ), then I ask you to affirm the real identity of this sockpuppet, so that he wouldn't so easily deceive other users, and so that I would turn to admins to proceed my request regarding blocking of this person.

Furthermore, considering the fact that Rovoam himself by his own will placed the content of Moses Kalankaytuk to Misplaced Pages, I also ask you to recognize that there indeed was no "copyright violation" contrary to spurious claims by Rovoam. Rovoam when submitting this material, should have known (and knew) that by submitting the material he agrees to release it under GNU Free Documentation License. Therefore, I believe, the content should be restored, and after some important editions and corrections, which would neutralize the propaganda contained in the text, Misplaced Pages can acquire a good entry about Moses Kalankaytuk.

Please, treat this unprecedented sockpuppets' abuse with utmost seriousness and urgency. I hope for your support.

p.s. I also ask you to watch over disclaimer on Rovoam in his userpage. This sockpuppet "Deli Eshek" is vandalizing the disclaimer and advancing spurious attacks against me there.--Tabib June 28, 2005 05:22 (UTC)

First of all, I don't know who are users Rovoam, Deli Eshek, Twinckletoe, LIGerasimova, Baku Ibne, LastExitToBrooklin et al. Second, I don't know who posted my article without my permission. If this was User:Tabib, he has obviously violated my copyrights. Finally, if Tabib does not like my article so much, he is welcomed to write his own. So far he wrote no articles, except for numerous complains and petition to the arbitration. He has spent a lot of time, envolving other editors into distructive conflicts and fruitless discussions, so they too have stopped contributing to WP as they now have to spend all their valuable time reviewing numerous Tabib's complains.--WikiAdm 29 June 2005 08:12 (UTC)

Archive

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution