text:
Californian (schooner)

Californian is a 1984 replica of the United States Revenue Marine cutter USRC Lawrence (1848), which operated off the coast of California in the 1850s. On July 23, 2003, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Bill No. 965, making her the "official state tall ship" of California.

Originally commissioned by the Nautical Heritage Society, she has flown the flag of California up and down the coast and in ports ranging from Hawaii, Mexico, and the East Coast. Originally built and operated as a sailing school vessel based in Newport Beach. She also represented the state at the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The model for her figurehead was actress Catherine Bach, who was chosen as she was descended from one of the state's early families.

The Maritime Museum of San Diego acquired Californian from the Nautical Heritage Society in June 2002 through a grant from the Sheila Potiker Family Foundation of San Diego. The California Coastal Conservancy provided the Maritime Museum of San Diego with a US$300,000 grant to complete restoration of the Californian in February 2003. After the overhaul was completed in August 2003 Californian returned to providing sail training and sea educational programs up and down the California coast.

title: Californian (schooner)


text:
Talk:Peaches (musician)

Charts
"Lose You" spent 6 weeks on the ultratop dance chart and peaked at #11. "Shake yer dix" peaked at 27 on the ultratop dance chart. "I Feel Cream" album peaked at 33 on the ultratop alternative albums chart, the www.ultratop.be website can be used to verify these. Her album "I Feel Cream" peaked at 152 on the UK albums chart. Fatherfucker peaked at 93 on the UK albums chart. "Shake yer dix" peaked at 97 on the UK singles chart. www.zobbel.de can be cited to varify the UK chart positions.

Does anyone know if she has charted in Germany?

Mermaid Cafe and the Shit
Her two bands during the 90s should be mentioned and if possible, in an "early life/before fame section" http://www.thecanadianmusicforum.com/blog/?cat=27 talks about Mermaid Cafe and its releases (Is it verifiable?) Allmusic mentions both bands in their bio of peaches, so it might be worth mentioning. Also, the band Mermaid cafe took their name ffrom the song of the same name by Joni Mitchell http://www.enotes.com/contemporary-musicians/peaches-biography.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Peaches (musician)


text:
Adverbial clause

An adverbial clause is a dependent clause that functions as an adverb. That is, the entire clause modifies a separate element within a sentence or the sentence itself. As with all clauses, it contains a subject and predicate, though the subject as well as the (predicate) verb are omitted and implied if the clause is reduced to an adverbial phrase as discussed below.

Adverbial clauses
An adverbial clause begins with a subordinating conjunction—sometimes called a trigger word. In the examples below, the adverbial clause is italicized and the subordinating conjunction is bolded:
 * Mary, the aspiring actress, became upset as soon as she saw the casting list.
 * (subject: she; predicate: saw the casting list; the clause modifies the verb became)
 * Peter, the drama teacher, met with Mary after she calmed down.
 * (explicit subject: she; predicate: calmed down; predicate (verb): calmed; the clause modifies the verb met)
 * We left before the speeches ended.
 * (adverbial clause; contains subject and predicate)

According to Sidney Greenbaum and Randolph Quirk (Greenbaum and Quirk, 1990), adverbial clauses function mainly as adverbial adjuncts or disjuncts but differ in syntax from adverbial phrases and adverbial prepositional phrases, as indicated below.

Adverbial phrases
Unlike adverbial clauses, adverbial phrases contain neither an explicit subject nor a predicate. In the examples below, the adverbial phrase is italicized and the adposition is bolded:
 * Mary, the aspiring actress, became upset as one of the casting list rejects.
 * Peter, the drama teacher, met with Mary after seeing her disappointment.
 * We left before the speeches.

Types
Adverbial clauses are divided into several groups according to the actions or senses of their conjunctions:

title: Adverbial clause


text:
User talk:Honza~enwiki

Isuzu Gemini
Hi Honza: please feel free to use the image of the 1985 Isuzu Gemini that I uploaded. It's a PR photograph and can be used here. Stombs 09:08, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Honza. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Honza~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Honza~enwiki


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adverbial Clause

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep, but move to the proper capitalization Adverbial clause. (And create a redirect at Adverb clause as well.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adverbial Clause
Dictdef, move to wiktionary and delete. --W(t) 09:08, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

 * Keep This isn't a dictdef.... It can have a full article like noun, however, it should be moved to Adverbial clause or maybe Adverb clause? Not sure of the proper name, but it surely can have a full article. (the evolution of clauses in language, etc.) But, for now it is not a very good article. gren 09:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As per Grenavitar, Rename to Adverbial clause. Uncle G 15:17, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as suggested. It's very badly written, but even so it's more than a dicdef. Important grammatical constructs rate their own articles, even in a paper encyclopedia. Isaac R 19:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep, important concept in linguistics. Kappa 20:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to Adverbial clause and cleanup. Create redirect from Adverb clause. --Tabor 20:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename per Tabor. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 22:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as per Grenavitar. Notable grammatical concept. Capitalistroadster 23:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Move per Tabor. --Angr/undefined 06:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep ··gracefool |☺ 23:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahem. How does a Move differ from a 'Rename'?Fabartus 05:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Talk:Depakote

The redirect page for Depakote may be incorrect. From what I know, Depakene is valproic acid, while Depakote is divalproex sodium.

title: Talk:Depakote


text:
User:Natbat

natalie@natbat.co.uk

title: User:Natbat


text:
Sydir Kovpak

Sydir Artemovych Kovpak (Си́дір Арте́мович Ковпа́к; Си́дор Арте́мьевич Ковпа́к, Sidor Artemyevich Kovpak), (June 7, 1887 – December 11, 1967) was a leader of the Soviet partisans in Ukraine during World War II.

Biography
Kovpak was born to a poor Ukrainian peasant family in Kotelva village in Kharkov Governorate, Russian Empire (in present-day Ukraine). For his military service in World War I, he was awarded two Crosses of St. George personally by the Emperor Nicholas II of Russia (an award for exceptional military heroism). After the Russian Revolution he joined the All-Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and fought for the Red Army partisan units against the German forces, as well as against Denikin's White Army in a Vasily Chapayev's cavalry division. In the interwar period he was a head of the local government in the town of Putyvl, Sumy Oblast (province).

World War II
At the time of the German invasion of Soviet Ukraine partisan units led by Sydir Kovpak waged guerrilla warfare against Axis forces originally in partisan strongholds in Sumy and Bryansk regions but later its operation spread deep into German-occupied territory including Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Rivne, Homyel, Volyn and other regions. These partisan units also fought against the nationalist Ukrainian Insurgent Army. In 1944 partisans under Kovpak's leadership raided enemy forces throughout western Ukraine and Belarus and even reached Romanian border regions during the Carpathian raid inflicting heavy casualties on the Germans.

Kovpak mastered guerrilla tactics and was awarded Hero of the Soviet Union title twice (1942; 1944 ). In the summer of 1943 Germans managed to hunt down and kill Kovpak's second in command Semyon Rudnev who was replaced by a new right-hand man Petro Vershigora who would later become a writer and dedicate his books to Kovpak's underground resistance.

Sydir Kovpak was promoted to the rank of Major General in 1943. According to the memoirs of his lieutenant Vershigora, his promotion and General's stars were airdropped to his partisan unit's position deep behind the front lines. After the end of the Second World War Sydir Kovpak held key positions in the leadership of Soviet Ukraine, including Vice Chairman of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in 1947 and Supreme Soviet of Ukraine in 1967. He also was a member of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union for the 2nd through 7th convocations.

Books

 * От Путивля до Карпат (From Putivl to the Carpathian Mountains), 1945, Voenizdat, 136 pages. Recorded by Evgenii Nikolaevich Gerasimov (1903-1986). English translation Vid Putivla do Karpat published by Politvydav Ukrainy, Kyiv, first print in 1973.
 * Из дневника партизанских походов (From the diary of partisan marches), 1964, DOSAAF, Russian language, 220 pages.
 * Воспоминания, очерки, статьи (Memoirs, essays, articles), 1987, Politvydav Ukrainy, Kyiv, Russian language, 388 pages.

Movies
Kovpak was portrayed (by Konstantin Stepankov) in Soviet film trilogy Duma o Kovpake (Дума о Ковпаке, Poem of Kovpak):
 * Duma o Kovpake: Nabat (Дума о Ковпаке: Набат, Poem of Kovpak: Alarm), 1973 – how initially small partisan unit of twelve people grew into large force under Kovpak and Rudnev.
 * Duma o Kovpake: Buran (Дума о Ковпаке: Буран, Poem of Kovpak: Storm), 1975 – about actions in enemy rear in 1941–1942.
 * Duma o Kovpake: Karpaty, Karpaty... (Дума о Ковпаке: Карпаты, Карпаты..., Poem of Kovpak: Carpathians, Carpathians...), 1976 – about the 1943 raid into the Carpathians.

A TV documentary Его звали ДЕД (He was called GRANDPA) (Ukrainian language, produced by TRK Era, director Oleksiy Barbaruk-Trypilsky, 36 min, screened in 2011) documents Kovpak's life during the war.

title: Sydir Kovpak


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mlorrey

Case Opened on June 5, 2005

Case Closed on 22:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

 * Mlorrey
 * Meelar
 * Firebug

Statement by Meelar
User:Mlorrey has refused to follow the NPOV guidelines, specifically on articles relating to gun control (see, e.g. Chris Dodd, where he wrote that "His votes and public statements in support of gun control legislation demonstrate he carries on the legacy of his father in supporting the imposition of fascim on America." . This is only one example; he has made numerous anti-gun-control edits to plenty of others (see below). In addition, he holds numerous other views which could be described as very uncommon, even fringe, yet insists that these views receive front-and-center prominence in articles, and be accepted as fact, rather than opinion (see e.g. the history of neo-luddism.

These edits seem to show a basic misunderstanding of the NPOV policy. In essence, Mlorrey holds a very strong and very uncommon set of opinions (e.g., that all gun control is fascist) and treats this as a fact, not an opinion. There is nothing wrong with including significant points of view on appropriate pages (for example, Gun politics in the United States has a pretty good description of the controversy over gun control), but including very uncommon opinions--and giving them undue weight in articles, let alone treating them as facts--is not neutral. Especially, these statements should not be made in unrelated articles such as Chris Dodd.

I've attempted to discuss these issues with Mlorrey on article talk pages, but I'm uniformly met with hostility and derision, rather than an honest attempt to consider my points. He sees talk pages as a place to debate these issues, rather than a place to discuss how to make the article better. In addition, he is unfailingly dismissive towards anyone who he feels doesn't share his point of view (for example, he writes that "The claim that the collective view was the 'de facto' position is false revisionist history promoted by the Bradyistas" ).

When I tried to follow the dispute resolution process, Mlorrey was uniformly hostile. He accused me of editing with a political motive, which I am not; he also said that my user page "clearly demonstrates that s/he is a Democratic Party operative in Washington, D.C." Although my user page does say that I'm in D.C., it has nothing to say about my political affiliation--intentionally so. Essentially, he has treated the whole dispute resolution process as a way to "prove" that I'm wrong and that he's right about gun control and other contentious political issues.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for advocacy. Mlorrey is violating this policy, and should be made to follow it.

Meelar (talk) 13:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Firebug
I think that the following statement by Mlorrey epitomizes the problem:

Ruby Ridge and Waco are prima facea evidence that gun control laws are fascist. Thus gun control laws, by their nature and implementation, are fascist. This is not opinion, this is fact, and will be a fact so long as the definition of 'fascist' is at it is and gun control does what it does.

Mlorrey has a very strong and deeply felt belief that gun control is fascist. That, in and of itself, isn't my concern. (If it matters, I think gun control is questionable policy and bad politics, but calling it "fascist" goes way too far and is an insult to the victims of the Nazis.) The real problem is that Mlorrey can't seem to recognize that this is indeed personal POV, and not objective fact, as indicated by the quote above and the edits cited by Meelar. He has difficulties working within the boundaries of Wikipedia policy - see this edit, in which he claims that I was "aggressing against" his edits. Needless to say, statements like this misunderstand the collaborative spirit that should characterize Wikipedia. I have been willing to engage in reasoned compromise on these issues; see Mlorrey's original attempt to insert POV into the Gun Control Act of 1968 article ; after a few back-and-forth reverts over this insertion, I removed the "Nazi Origins" section and replaced it with a more neutral and broad "Controversy" section, which mentions the JPFO claim, but does not endorse a POV; this edit appears to have been accepted, as it is still in place.

Some of Mlorrey's behavior has, to be frank, been downright bizarre. See this edit. I could barely make sense of it, but it seems to border on violating No legal threats.

I feel it would be better if Mlorrey concentrated on articles where he has more of substance to contribute and is less likely to inject POV.

Statement by Mlorrey
Please limit your statement to 500 words

I have actually provided a significant number of sources, including quotes of the individuals involved (including historically documented quotes by Yamomoto, Reagan, among others, which Meelar denies the validity of but which are documented in multiple locations on the internet.

Meelar's accusation that I present opinion as fact is also false, I present facts as facts. For example, the definition of the word "fascist" is a political agenda that includes the use of the police forces of the state to control what property private citizens can own and how they are permitted to use that property, to the point of imprisoning or killing citizens who dispute that control. This definition is the very point of gun control laws: they control what sort of guns private citizens can own (and which sorts of citizens can own them, see the history of gun control in Jim Crow legislation as well as the German National Weapons Law of the 1930's)and under what circumstances private citizens are allowed to own and use them. People who dispute this control are imprisoned, shot, and killed every day in the US and elsewhere. Ruby Ridge and Waco are prima facea evidence that gun control laws are fascist (both were instigated by government agents collecting a $5.00 firearms tax). Thus gun control laws, by their nature and implementation, are fascist. This is not opinion, this is fact, and will be a fact so long as the definition of 'fascist' is at it is and gun control does what it does. Others may have an opinion of the validity of this fact, but that does not change the existence of the fact. Presenting this position as a fact is thus NPOV. Disputing it is non-NPOV. What Meelar's real objection is that s/he is anti-gun and therefore dislikes the idea that s/he may support fascist laws.

Meelar continues his or her typical behavior of revisionism in reverting and deleting my quote of Admiral Yamomoto when he advised Tojo not to invade the mainland US, saying "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass" as an example of an instance when the very existence of the citizens right to keep and bear arms dissuaded a foreign nation from even attempting to invade another. Meelar accuses me of "cherry picking" in presenting this quote, which is a ludicrous accusation, since there have been almost no wars that the US has been involved in from which to research, in which the enemy contemplated invading the US, and demonstrated both a willingness and ability to do so (Pearl Harbor and the invasion of Attu and Sittu), going back to the War of 1812. "Cherry picking" is actually an error of statistical analysis, in which a researcher cherry picks statistical samples that support his or her argument rather than looking at the whole body of data. Presenting the one or two isolated quotes that exist because there is a dearth of documented quotes on a subject is not cherry picking, thus Meelar's complaint is non-NPOV until proven otherwise.

Nor is my comparison of Sen. Chris Dodd, or his father, Thomas Dodd, as fascists unique on wikipedia, as there is similarly extensive documentation of the fascist ties of the Bush family during the 1930's presented as fact here. If I erred at all, it was in not clearly stating whether the Dodd's are nazis, followers of italian fascism, spanish fascism, stalinists or trotskyists in particular, but I am still researching this point, cannot make a definitive labelling yet, and will present more detailed articles on this soon. Should wikipedians be dissuaded from developing articles on subjects by political supression witchhunts like the one Meelar has instigated? I don't think so, doing so would be non-NPOV.

My quotes of Ronald Reagan, in speeches before the NRA as well as in presidential interviews and debates (particularly one in which he joked he was only in favor of private citizens owning "small" atom bombs) clearly demonstrates that Reagan's policy was that gun ownership was an individual right. The claim that Ashcroft's policy declaration as being some "major shift" that was "unique", that the 'community rights' interpretation had been the accepted policy of the executive branch back to the 1930's is a claim that has ONLY been made by biased and non-NPOV gun control groups in their attempts to alienate Ashcroft's position and paint his policy as an extremist one that even other Republican Presidents did not agree with, thus Meelar's opinion, that my quotes of Reagan are false and that Ashcroft's policy was unique, represent a non-NPOV, not my position. Wikipedia should not take the word of biased gun control groups on this and should examine this issue neutrally. That is all I ask, and it is what Meelar is fighting against.

I have, on several occasions, asked Meelar, when s/he complained that something was written non-NPOV, that s/he provide an example of presenting the facts in a NPOV, which s/he has failed to respond to. Meelar has been hostile and agressive in instituting reversions without discussion and seems to hold the opinion that non-NPOV is anything that s/he disagrees with. When I have pointed out non-NPOV edits of Meelar's, I have been met by silence. If anybody should have an RFC page on them, it is Meelar, not myself. Meelar, in fact, has blown through the gun control pages on wikipedia like a buzz saw, excising vast amounts of information which s/he disagrees with. Furthermore, an examination of Meelar's user page clearly demonstrates that s/he is a Democratic Party operative in Washington, D.C. Like many Democrats, s/he is convinced of their own neutrality and middle-of-the-road status, when in reality s/he is engaged in a campaign of editing reality consensus on fora like Wikipedia to shift the political middle. Mlorrey 01:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

OBJECTION: The removal of my previous objections and restraining order by Firebug, and his ludicrous and idiotic assertion that the statements are some sort of 'threat' are clear evidence supporting my side. He doesn't know what he is talking about, while I have significant experience in legal services, interjurisdiction service of process, etc. I hope the arbitrators are noticing the complainants treatment of my statements.Mlorrey 05:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also refused to accept arbitration. Wikipedia rules clearly require attempts at mediation be made, which Meelar and Firebug have blatantly avoided, and are trying to railroad me through arbitration. I currently refuse to accept the jurisdiction of any arbitrator until mediation has been attempted and a mediator reports an inability to reach resolution (and who is responsible for said impasse). They are attempting to arrange a kangaroo court. This behavior is totally in keeping with their other behavior against me in stalking me and my edits around wikipedia and deleting my valid work, attempting to instigate page deletion campaigns against my work, etc. I hereby request and require mediation be attempted. My chosen mediator is Bcorr, who has been recommended to me by someone I trust. I do not otherwise know this person. Mlorrey 05:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

 * Accept Fred Bauder 22:12, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept to investigate consensus issues. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:58, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
 * Accept - I'm really not seeing much alternative here. Ambi 02:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Ambi. →Raul654 02:06, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Advocacy
1) Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy of a political cause, see What Wikipedia is not.
 * Passed 4-0

Legal dispute
2) Any user involved in a legal dispute with Wikipedia or another Wikipedia user may be banned until the dispute is resolved or settled.

 * Passed 4-0

Advocacy by Mlorrey
1) strongly advocates the Right to bear arms, to the extent of equating support of gun control with Nazism and fascism  and Requests_for_comment/Mlorrey

 * Passed 4-0

Meelar
2.1) has worked on articles such as Gun politics in the United States and corrected 's POV edits , see Talk:Gun politics in the United States.

 * Passed 4-0

Wikilawyering by Mlorrey
3) Based on the Hague Service Convention, has issued a restraining order against Meelor and Firebug, see Requests_for_comment/Mlorrey.

 * Passed 4-0

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.

Partial editing ban
1) is banned from articles and talk pages which relate to gun control for one year.

 * Passed 4-0

Editing ban
1) is banned from Wikipedia pending resolution of his legal dispute with users Meelar and Firebug.

 * Passed 4-0

User:Mlorrey
This user has emailed me and requested that his block be lifted, claiming that there are no legal proceedings between himself and either Meelar or Firebug. The AC decision appears to conclude that there is at least the appearance of a legal threat. Therefore, I have asked Mlorrey to affirm on his talk page that no legal action is underway, and to clarify the meaning of the purported "injunction" on the RFC page, as preconditions for removing the block. I invite AC members and the Wikipedia community in general to review this action and comment or amend as they see fit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly stated that I never initiated any legal proceedings in any court against Meelar or Firebug, despite their clear abuse of accepted standards of arbitration process. I initiated my injunction just as they were making things up and railroading me through a process without seeking to negotiate or discuss anything, all the while making me look like the bad guy. This episode is a clear example of how NPOV ISN'T, when people act in bad faith and learn to write with NPOV language while pursuing a biased agenda in attempting to suppress facts they dislike. I do not plan on initiating proceedings against anybody provided my own rights begin to be respected, which they have not. The wiki arbitration process violates so many commonly accepted principles of arbitration and jurisprudence I don't know even where to start, but I can start with this ban you put on me: your groups action in banning me for exercising my human rights to legal process is itself a violation of my rights under international legal conventions. Your flawed process allows a small cadre of insiders to suppress individuals they disagree with or whose statements they do not like, and THAT is most definitely, not NPOV, and violates the spirit of wikipedia.Mlorrey 21:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above does not make me confident that this user can be civil and will not continue legal threats if unblocked so I must say that I am against the unblocking of this user due to the fact that his attitude does not seem to have changed at all. Jtkiefer  T - 22:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * From above: I do not plan on initiating proceedings against anybody provided my own rights begin to be respected, which they have not. My reading of this is that it is a renewed threat of legal action, albeit one with a rather hollow ring to it.  The difficulty with legal threats on Wikipedia is that they poison the working environment even when they are baseless, and cartooney, and even when there is a transparent lack of willingness and/or ability to follow through with actual litigation.  In light of this, I conclude that Mlorrey is continuing the behavior for which he was banned, and I therefore decline to lift the block at this time.  As always, I welcome comments from others.  In particular, I think I'll leave a note for Meelar and Firebug to see if they believe that any legal action is now resolved.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

As the legal dispute has been resolved, by the terms of Requests_for_arbitration/Mlorrey the ban ought to be lifted. In retrospect perhaps it was just a misunderstanding caused by an unhappy choice of language. In response to Jtkiefer, problems may remain, but the hope is that the experience has been productive in terms of encouraging Mlorrey to do better. Fred Bauder 14:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought, perhaps this legal dispute: "The wiki arbitration process violates so many commonly accepted principles of arbitration and jurisprudence I don't know even where to start, but I can start with this ban you put on me: your groups action in banning me for exercising my human rights to legal process is itself a violation of my rights under international legal conventions." ought to be resolved first before the ban is lifted. Fred Bauder 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree with Fred; we'd want that to be looked at that first.
 * James F. (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I have gotten several emails from this user requesting an unblocking and my replies have been the same as what pretty much everyone else is saying which is that he has shown that he will continue to threaten and make personal attacks against other users if unblocked and even his recent comments on his talk page. At this point I would be extremely uncomfortable with him being unblocked.  Jtkiefer  T - 20:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mlorrey/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

 * What happened.
 * What happened.

April 27, 2005

 * 16:07, Apr 28, 2005
 * I undertake a huge rewrite of gun politics in the United States. Before I encountered it, it was a huge, POV mess (here's an example); it was highly biased, and was also probably the result of merging two other pages, seeing as how it covered many topics twice, neither time well.

 * 16:33, Apr 28, 2005
 * I finish up my massive reorganization of the article (diff). It is much less biased, and also much more coherent.

April 28-9, 2005

 * 20:40, Apr 28, 2005 - 19:15, Apr 29, 2005
 * User:Wodan and I engage in a productive back-and-forth over a few minor issues of wording (see history, as well as this version of the talk page, which documents the consensus we reached).

 * 19:15, Apr 29, 2005
 * I remove the tag; the first time this article hasn't needed cleanup since March 15.

May 6, 2005

 * 00:11 - 00:20, May 6, 2005
 * Mlorrey makes a series of POV edits to gun politics in the United States. I have documented the most POV of the changes below. The original context is presented; Mlorrey's additions are in italics.
 * Gun control advocates answer that it is unrealistic to suppose that private citizens could oppose a government which controls the full power of the US Armed Forces, were it to become tyrannical, ignoring the question of whether it is already tyrannical simply by being too large for the citizenry to bring under control if need be.
 * Some gun control advocates also claim that the people's power to replace elected officials by voting is sufficient to keep the government in check, while these same advocates tend to believe that their votes were ignored in the 2000 and/or 2004 presidential elections.
 * Invasion by hostile outside forces is another reason gun rights advocates oppose registration. This view is supported by a quotation of WWII Japanese Admiral Yamomoto to Togo, in advising against an invasion of the US mainland, "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass," in referring to the popular and common ownership of firearms in the US.
 * Registration aside, gun rights advocates claim that an armed citizenry is a strong deterrent against a foreign invasion. However, this claim is highly disputed, despite historical anecdotes such as the above as well as citations of other totalitarians who were deterred by armed populaces in Switzerland, Finland, etc.
 * All of these come from this edit.

May 12, 2005

 * 18:42, May 12, 2005
 * I revert Mlorrey's edits, with the edit summary "rv POV changes. You stop watching for one minute...". In retrospect, this is disrespectful and inappropriate; I wish to apologize for a momentary lapse of judgement.

May 15, 2005

 * 07:18, May 15, 2005
 * Mlorrey re-inserts his edits; he uses no edit summary.

 * 07:37, May 15, 2005
 * Mlorrey goes to the talk page. He makes several POV comments, using Wikipedia as a discussion forum, which it is not (reproduced below).
 * "Fine, have them point out valid, peer reviewed and reproduced studies proving their claims. They can't. Gun owners can and do, to which gun controllers stick their fingers in their ears and call out "neener neener, I'm not listening" or try to smear the authors with vile attacks which do not impugn the science in any way."
 * " The claim that the collective view was the 'de facto' position is false revisionist history promoted by the Bradyistas"
 * He also challenges on substantive grounds one of the facts in the article. The article originally said
 * The de facto position of the Executive Branch from 1934 until 2002 was that the Second Amendment protects a collective right, based on an interpretation of US v. Miller. In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Solicitor General Theodore Olson announced their interpretation that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, including a different interpretation of US v Miller to support their arguments.

 * On the talk page, Mlorrey disputed this; he claimed that "Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush were both lifetime NRA members and stated on numerous occasions that they believed it was an individual right, as has frmr AG Ed Meese. The claim that the collective view was the 'de facto' position is false revisionist history promoted by the Bradyistas".

 * 08:24, May 15, 2005
 * On the talk page, I cite a source, namely a New York Times article. The article is only available from Lexis-Nexis or another paid database, but the lead says ":Reversing decades of official government policy on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court for the first time late Monday that the Constitution "broadly protects the rights of individuals" to own firearms", essentially supporting my point. See the talk page for the details of the article if you wish to verify this yourselves.

 * 08:16, May 15, 2005
 * I start a discussion on talk. I politely state why I consider Mlorrey's version to be non-neutral, and point out the relevant policies.
 * Over the course of the next few days, Mlorrey and I discuss on the talk page, but are unable to come to a consensus. Mlorrey is uniformly hostile and provocative; I've reproduced some quotes below. I attempt to discuss with him and reach a consensus, but it is impossible, as he merely treats me as an enemy for not immediately agreeing with his biased version of the article.
 * "I hope you would reconsider this in light of the May 10th passage of the REAL ID Act. I don't think it is possible for anyone to objectively and neutrally claim the US isn't slipping into fascist tyranny rather quickly. The fact is that the other side IS ignoring this question entirely."
 * "Pointing out the flaws in the anti-gun argument, when other writers are only pointing out flaws in the pro-gun argument is, in aggregate, neutral. It is the neutrality of the consensus that matters, not the individual contributions of individual contributors"
 * All quotes come from this edit. Read the whole exchange at the talk page.

May 18, 2005

 * 23:24, May 18, 2005
 * Mlorrey issues a veiled personal attack, writing that "I will refrain from stating my opinion of anybody who looks to the New York Times as a paragon of fairness, truth, or accuracy in reporting. The fact is that Reagan and Bush I were both lifetime NRA members and believed gun ownership was an individual right." Note that the membership of Reagan and Bush I is not even at issue here; this is a clever attempt to change the subject of the dispute. He also reproduces several quotes from various Presidents purporting to show support for his position; however, on examination, none of them actually address the specific fact being disputed.

May 26, 2005

 * 01:59, May 26, 2005
 * After I reply, disputing Mlorrey's characterization of the facts, he says only "This is rich. The presidents opinion isn't policy?" (diff)

 * 17:37, May 26, 2005
 * Mlorrey inserts POV language into the article on Thomas J. Dodd, claiming that Dodd was "notorious for having the Legislative Research Service translate his personal copy of the Nazi-era National Weapons Law, obtained when he was a Nuremburg prosecutor in Germany, into what is now known as the Gun Control Act of 1968, the most tyrannical gun control law passed in the United States to that date. This action is well documented by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership."
 * This is, as far as I can tell, a very obscure theory--a google search for "Gun Control Act of 1968" +Nazi returns only 534 hits. This very obscurity has made it hard to refute--essentially, no gun-control groups even bother to refute this claim.

 * There is a series of reversions of the article over the next week; see history.

 * 17:47, May 26, 2005
 * Mlorrey inserts POV language into the article on Christopher Dodd as well (the son of Thomas J. Dodd); he writes that "His votes and public statements in support of gun control legislation demonstrate he carries on the legacy of his father in supporting the imposition of fascim on America."

 * 17:49, May 26, 2005
 * I revert, with the edit summary "revert. Please follow NPOV".

 * 17:53, May 26, 2005
 * Mlorrey reverts; his edit summary is "Voting for expanding law originating in Nazi Germany is objectively and NPOV fascism. Having a NPOV does not mean you cannot call a spade a spade." I revert again, warning him of the 3RR, and the matter has been quiet (on this front) since then.

 * 18:03, May 26, 2005
 * I explain on talk why Mlorrey's version of Christopher Dodd is not neutral, writing that "It is only your opinion that gun control is fascism--it is not a fact. Therefore, it should not be included in the article." I also provide a warning of the 3RR rule.

 * 18:20, May 26, 2005
 * Mlorrey responds with a series of personal attacks; he claims that I am editing from what he calls a "moral relativist POV" and asks a series of rhetorical questions, including "Is grass green?", "Do tyrannical governments always impose gun control?", and "Is there a difference between having an open mind and having one so open that one's brains fall out?".

 * 18:39, May 26, 2005
 * I start and certify Requests for comment/Mlorrey. I politely lay out again why I dispute his behavior, and how I feel his behavior should change.

May 30, 2005

 * 01:20, May 31, 2005
 * Mlorrey responds to the Rfc. In this response, he makes a number of statements that are inaccurate, misleading, or simply false (see below):
 * " have actually provided a significant number of sources, including quotes of the individuals involved (including historically documented quotes by Yamomoto, Reagan, among others, which Meelar denies the validity of but which are documented in multiple locations on the internet"
 * I haven't disputed the validity of the quotes; I merely dispute (correctly, I should say) that they are relevant to the specific factual question.
 * "For example, the definition of the word "fascist" is a political agenda that includes the use of the police forces of the state to control what property private citizens can own and how they are permitted to use that property, to the point of imprisoning or killing citizens who dispute that control. This definition is the very point of gun control laws: they control what sort of guns private citizens can own (and which sorts of citizens can own them, see the history of gun control in Jim Crow legislation as well as the German National Weapons Law of the 1930's)and under what circumstances private citizens are allowed to own and use them. Ruby Ridge and Waco are prima facea evidence that gun control laws are fascist. Thus gun control laws, by their nature and implementation, are fascist. This is not opinion, this is fact, and will be a fact so long as the definition of 'fascist' is at it is and gun control does what it does. Others may have an opinion of the validity of this fact, but that does not change the existence of the fact. Presenting this position as a fact is thus NPOV. Disputing it is non-NPOV. What Meelar's real objection is that s/he is anti-gun and therefore dislikes the idea that s/he may support fascist laws."
 * Apologize for the long quote, but it sums up the problem with Mlorrey's editing. The idea that all gun control is fascist is clearly opinion, not fact, under any reasonable usage of those terms. Mlorrey also ascribes a political position to me, which I have never claimed.
 * "If I erred at all, it was in not clearly stating whether the Dodd's are nazis, followers of italian fascism, spanish fascism, stalinists or trotskyists in particular, but I am still researching this point, cannot make a definitive labelling yet, and will present more detailed articles on this soon."
 * Original research, and opinion presented as fact to boot.
 * "My quotes of Ronald Reagan, in speeches before the NRA as well as in presidential interviews and debates (particularly one in which he joked he was only in favor of private citizens owning "small" atom bombs) clearly demonstrates that Reagan's policy was that gun ownership was an individual right."
 * Misleading. I have provided sources for my contention; all Mlorrey has presented is his own interpretation of a quote which, again, isn't relevant to the dispute at hand.
 * "an examination of Meelar's user page clearly demonstrates that s/he is a Democratic Party operative in Washington, D.C. Like many Democrats, s/he is convinced of their own neutrality and middle-of-the-road status, when in reality s/he is engaged in a campaign of editing reality consensus on fora like Wikipedia to shift the political middle"
 * Although I am living in Washington D.C. (except during summers), I am not a Democratic Party operative.

June 3, 2005

 * 04:08, Jun 3, 2005
 * Mlorrey accuses Firebug of being my sockpuppet. Incidentally, this is a false claim, and both Firebug and I have agreed to submit to IP checks if required.

 * 04:11, Jun 3, 2005
 * Mlorrey announces that he'll seek mediation with Firebug and I. He seems not to understand the purpose, claiming that his request for mediation was a "notification of intent to litigate".

 * 04:28, Jun 3, 2005
 * Mlorrey issues a vague and rather incomprehensible legal threat under a treaty called the Hague Service Convention. I am mystified.

Evidence and comments presented by Mlorrey
Mlorrey added replies to many of my comments; I've moved them here so as not to confuse the presentation.

In response to

 * 17:37, May 26, 2005
 * Mlorrey inserts POV language into the article on Thomas J. Dodd, claiming that Dodd was "notorious for having the Legislative Research Service translate his personal copy of the Nazi-era National Weapons Law, obtained when he was a Nuremburg prosecutor in Germany, into what is now known as the Gun Control Act of 1968, the most tyrannical gun control law passed in the United States to that date. This action is well documented by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership."
 * This is, as far as I can tell, a very obscure theory--a google search for "Gun Control Act of 1968" +Nazi returns only 534 hits. This very obscurity has made it hard to refute--essentially, no gun-control groups even bother to refute this claim.

Mlorrey wrote:

 * "ONLY" 534 hits? Since when is that obscure? The fact that gun control groups don't try to refute it is because they cannot refute it, it is all documented from public records that are in the National Archives, and they don't want to bring public attention to the fact they are stained with the history of fascism. Under scientific principles, an unrefuted theory is considered to be established fact until proven otherwise. Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In response to
 * 17:47, May 26, 2005
 * Mlorrey inserts POV language into the article on Christopher Dodd as well (the son of Thomas J. Dodd); he writes that "His votes and public statements in support of gun control legislation demonstrate he carries on the legacy of his father in supporting the imposition of fascim on America."

Mlorrey wrote

 * The only way you could refute this objective and factual NPOV statement would be if you could demonstrate ONE time when Chris Dodd voted against a gun control law. He hasn't, so the statement stands as fact. Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He also wrote that

 * This whole episode is proof that Meelar has this idea that his or her own opinion is neutral and anything he/she disagrees with is therefore non-NPOV. This is a common misconception among Democrats who feel that they are 'moderate' when in fact they are ragingly left wing.Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and

 * And I explain that Meelar's opinion of gun control is not a fact, it is an opinion. Dictionary definitions of fascism describe gun control laws to a T, therefore they are fascist laws. This isn't an opinion, this is a logically arrived at fact.Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and

 * I was trying to ascertain exactly how Meelar decided what was NPOV and what was not. So far it only appears that NPOV is whatever Meelar agrees with.Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He writes that
 * And I've laid out how Meelar's behavior should change, but that has fallen on self-righteously deaf ears.Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OBJECTION: It is ENTIRELY inappropriate for the complainant to direct the defendants case, arguments, or pleadings. This is a GROSS violation of my civil rights and the rules of procedure. I hereby demand that this entire process be dismissed. Mlorrey 17:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More comments moved from my evidence section.

 * The only way you could refute this objective and factual NPOV statement would be if you could demonstrate ONE time when Chris Dodd voted against a gun control law. He hasn't, so the statement stands as fact. Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I was trying to ascertain exactly how Meelar decided what was NPOV and what was not. So far it only appears that NPOV is whatever Meelar agrees with.Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * And I've laid out how Meelar's behavior should change, but that has fallen on self-righteously deaf ears.Mlorrey 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * without providing any evidentiary reason WHY the quote is not relevant, only his or her personal opinion, i.e. Meelar's stance is POV.Mlorrey 16:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Perusing Meelar's edits around wikipedia, and other websites he/she is involved in, clearly illustrate that he/she has a distinctly left-liberal POV, and statements made clearly demonstrate Meelar is involved in party politics. Furthermore, Meelar cannot provide any sources that dispute the definition of 'fascism' that I provide, or that gun control laws do not operate as fascism is intended. Meelar is entirely POV in this.Mlorrey 16:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * BS. Researching sources on the web or in the literature, histories, etc. is not "original research". Original research is fieldwork. Meelar is attempting to suppress historical reality here. Mlorrey 16:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * More lies. I presented Reagan's quote verbatim. You do nothing, you prove nothing about Reagan era policy on gun rights.Mlorrey 17:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Unlike Meelar, I do not hide my identity. Anyone can easily find out who and what I stand for. Until Meelar provides similar transparency, his or her claim here is without merit or credibility.Mlorrey 17:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I was told by another that it appeared Firebug is Meelars sockpuppet. Whether or not Firebug was created by the persona behind Meelar or not, Meelar clearly sicced Firebug on me AFTER this dispute started so that Meelar could reach the two complainant threshold. Firebug had never edited anything of mine prior to that. Legally, Firebug has no standing, any more than a person who throws themselves in front of a bus.Mlorrey 17:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * By definition, ANY means of dispute resolution is litigation. That this is done privately on Wikipedia does not make it not litigation. Your lack of legal training is evident here.Mlorrey 17:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)\

 * I have extensive experience working under this treaty in the field of legal services. As Wikipedia is an international website and I have no way of knowing the actual originating IPs of the other disputants, and the US is a signatory nation to the Hague Service Convention (i.e. therefore its laws regarding service of process are bound by the treaty), I was requesting and requiring that proper service of process be effected, which Firebug was not doing and therefore he/she should be dismissed as a litigant (in addition to his or her status as a late-complainant. This treaty applies to all dispute resolution processes occuring within signatory nation jurisdiction, including Wikipedia's. That Meelar and Firebug are ignorant of this goes to their credibility and ability to judge legal definitions upon which this dispute is based. Mlorrey 17:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Mantis122

Episodes of Salute Your Shorts
In the section Michael Comes to Camp:Quotes, is it "all the way from Norway" or is it really "all the way from Norwege"? -- Eleassar777 my talk 09:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mantis122


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mlorrey/Proposed decision

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, 2 Arbitrators are recused (2 auto-recusals by Jayjg and Fennec) and 3 are inactive (Mav, Theresa, Nohat), so 4 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on the discussion page.

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.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Advocacy
1) Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy of a political cause, see What Wikipedia is not.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 16:35 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 19:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Legal dispute
2) Any user involved in a legal dispute with Wikipedia or another Wikipedia user may be banned until the dispute is resolved or settled.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 20:05 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 19:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Advocacy by Mlorrey
1) strongly advocates the Right to bear arms, to the extent of equating support of gun control with Nazism and fascism  and Requests_for_comment/Mlorrey

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 16:24 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 19:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Meelar
2.1) has worked on articles such as Gun politics in the United States and corrected 's POV edits , see Talk:Gun politics in the United States.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 19:34 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 19:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Firebug
2.2)

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 20:01 (UTC)

 * Oppose:
 * →Raul654 19:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC) - this FOF doesn't actually state anything

 * Abstain:
 * I'd like to see this point explained a little better before I vote ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)
 * Me too. James F. (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikilawyering by Mlorrey
3) Based on the Hague Service Convention, has issued a restraining order against Meelor and Firebug, see Requests_for_comment/Mlorrey.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 20:01 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 19:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Partial editing ban
1) is banned from articles and talk pages which relate to gun control for one year.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 20:09 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 19:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Editing ban
1) is banned from Wikipedia pending resolution of his legal dispute with users Meelar and Firebug.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 20:09 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 9 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 19:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Short bans
1) If edits articles or talk pages which relate to gun control during his partial editing ban, he may be banned for a brief period by an administrator, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 20:19 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 19:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

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.

 * Everything's passed. →Raul654 21:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Close Fred Bauder 21:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Close. James F. (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Close ➥the Epopt 22:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:139.80.123.4

Proposed deletion of Syangja

The article Syangja has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Fifteen(!) year old page, stub duplicate of Syangja District. Cut and dried."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Joel.Miles925  (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:139.80.123.4


text:
Salmo trutta fario

Salmo trutta fario, sometimes called the river trout, is a river-dwelling freshwater predatory fish from the genus Salmo of the family Salmonidae. It is one of the three main subspecies of the brown trout (Salmo trutta), besides sea trout (Salmo trutta trutta) and the lacustrine trout (Salmo trutta lacustris).

Description
Depending on the supply of food, river trout measure 20 to 80 cm (0.7–2.6 ft) in length; exceptionally, they may be up to 1 m (3.3 ft) long and weigh up to over 13 kg (29 lb), although they usually attain an average weight of up to 2 kg (4.4 lb). Their back is olive-dark brown and silvery blue, red spots with light edges occur towards the belly, and the belly is whitish yellow. They can live for up to 18 years.

Habitat
Like other salmonids, river trout live in cool, fast-flowing, oxygen-rich, clear waters with gravel or sandy riverbeds. Their native ranges occur across almost all of Europe, from Portugal on the Iberian Peninsula to the Volga in Russia, and are found as far north as Lapland. They can be found in most northern Mediterranean and western Black Sea tributaries but not in Greece, Central Anatolia and the Caucasus regions or on Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily islands.

River trout are faithful to their habitat, leaving the home range stream for smaller upstream headwaters to reproduce. Even after being disturbed, they return to their traditional sites. The adult river trout requires its territory. During the day, it is hidden in the shadows of the river bank, facing upstream.

Depending on size and habitat, they feed mainly on insects and larvae, small baitfish (such as European bullhead), small crustaceans, snails and other water animals. Cannibalism has also been frequently observed among river trout. They are fast-swimming pursuit predators, but in faster-flowing rivers and streams, they are usually opportunistic and will take prey that is floating past by the current.

Reproduction
River trout spawn between October and January in the northern hemisphere, and introduced populations in the southern hemisphere spawn between May and June. The fish uses rapid fanning of the tail and caudal fin on a rock riverbed to make several shallow pits, into which about 1,000 to 1,500 reddish eggs 4 - 5 mm in size are laid. The fish larvae emerge after two to four months.

Ecology
The river trout has special significance as a host fish for the glochidia of the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera).

Other forms
Because trout live in habitats with fixed boundaries, in addition to the river trout, Salmo trutta fario, there are various other subspecies of Salmo trutta. See Species of Trout.

Hybrids
The tiger trout (Salmo trutta fario × Salvelinus fontinalis) is a genetic cross between a river trout and a brook trout. It gets its name from its characteristic golden-yellow markings. Tiger trout are sterile, although male and female trout may be distinguished by their external markings. The female tiger trout does not develop any gonads. By contrast, male tiger trout develop testicles as well as secondary sex features such as kypes, humps, darker and thicker skin and lighter fillet colouring during the spawning season.

Fishing
In the past, European waterbodies were heavily and artificially stocked with rainbow trout, a native of America that grows more quickly and is less demanding of water quality. It is disputed whether this threatens the river trout. Today, it is bred in fishponds with almost the same success rate as the rainbow trout for food and restocking rivers. To protect native species of fish, the stocking of rivers, with non-native species has been restricted for several years.

River trout makes an excellent fish dish.

Angling
River trout is very popular with anglers. It is frequently fished using artificial lures. Angling with natural lures (worms, maggots, grasshoppers) is discouraged in most rivers because it is difficult to throw back trout that are below the minimum landing size uninjured when they have ingested this food so quickly and deeply.

Fly rods are used to catch river trout. Medium-sized, wet and dry flies are thrown into streams with a rod of AFTMA Class 4-6, intended to mimic an emerging or egg-laying insect. A spinning rod can also be used in some waters. For this purpose, a light spinning rod and various artificial lures, such as spoon lures and spinners, are used. Fish care should be taken when using wobblers and rubber because they are banned on some waterbodies or may only be used with restrictions.

Research use
The fish has been used as a bio-indicator species in freshwater systems due to their sensitive nature. They are a well-established ‘model organism’ in aquatic toxicology research, especially for heavy metal bioaccumulation.

Literature

 * Fritz Terofal: Süsswasserfische in europäischen Gewässern. Mit 200 farbigen Darstellungen von Fritz Wendler. Mosaik Verlag u. a., München u. a. 1984, ISBN 3-570-01274-3.
 * Alexander Kölbing, Kurt Seifert: So macht Angeln Spass. Mehr wissen – mehr fangen. 5., durchgesehene Auflage. BLV, München u. a. 1995, ISBN 3-405-13746-2.
 * Roland Gerstmeier, Thomas Romig: Die Süßwasserfische Europas. Für Naturfreunde und Angler. Kosmos, Stuttgart 1998, ISBN 3-440-07068-9.

title: Salmo trutta fario


text:
User:El Suizo

'''

Areas of Interest
'''

 * Useless knowledge

I'm always looking for knowledge areas that one might call "useless".

 * General Knowledge

General knowledge not only should extend in broadness, but also in depth. Wikipedia is an ideal resource for my researches.

 * Curiosities

In this specific area as well I couldn't live without Wikipedia any more.

'''

My other Wikis
''

 * My Latin Wikipage
 * My Allemanic Wikipage
 * My Italian Wikipage
 * My German Wikipage
 * My French Wikipage

title: User:El Suizo


text:
User talk:Longhair/Archive1

Zig and Zag
Thanks LH for defending me ... :-)

Now what were the Z&Z words:

You, and me Can we be partners, You and me, Can we be friends; We'll be a great association, One that never ends ...

Pleasin' you's the job I'm given, Pleasin' you makes life worth living ...

Oh I forget ... but it all ended with

NO TROUBLE !!!

Hinch
Many thanks from this new Wikipedian for your kind words in my Talk about the expansion of your Derryn Hinch Wiki entry. Needs a *lot* of work still, but would not exist at all if you hadn't started it.

Airshow stub
Longhair, will you be going to the Australian International Airshow at Avalon this week/weekend???
 * No, but I have some great images I'm sorting through of the event from a friend who attended. -- Longhair | Talk 10:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Prison categories
Hey... I love your work on Australian prisons. Just a question about the categorisation. A better way to organise it would be to place each prison or detention centre in the state category (e.g. Category:south australian prisons, and then place that category into category:australian prisons, creating a heirachy of categories. What do you think? - Borofkin 00:28, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. I didn't have my head around categories that day :) Longhair 12:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * when creating categories just reminding you of the naming conventions of using lowercase for non-proper nouns, see categorization. clarkk 10:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * i see you are creating infoboxes which are almost identical in format for the prison. you might consider using parameterised templates, see for example: Template:Infobox Countries, would save a lot of duplication of style content, and easy to switch styles etc? clarkk 22:05, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Longhair, nice work on Australian prisons. I've been updating a few of the WA prison details and decided to do a proper infobox template. It can be found at Template: Infobox Prisons, the only thing that's been changed is the country name from the top has been removed, to make it a generic prison info box. I'm starting to go through and update all the Australian prisons with it, if you have any complaints please let me know. Meesham 14:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

VfD mishap
Hi, just to let you know I fixed your VfD submission of Protex blue. Parts of your text went into a wrong VfD subpage. There is now a patchwork of strike-throughs and explanatory comment there. See my contribs for details. jni 12:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IRC
Yeah, I am - well, for another four or five days, until I move to Canberra.

Sorry I missed you - I'd gone to bed not long before. I do hope you'll come on again soon - I'd like to talk to you. Ambi 23:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Big Brother (Australian TV series)
Hi Longhair, It's me Chris. Sorry for breaking that page. If In future I edit a page I'll preview first. :-)ChrisW 00:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for adding ChrisW to the vandalism list and letting me know what was happening on my talk page. We probably should have reported him when he first vandalised Chuq's page. The funny thing is I don't even like reality TV, I've never watched Big Brother. Meesham 11:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * My TV gets turned on for all of 10 hours a year. I hear ya :) -- Longhair | Talk 11:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Howdy
Just wanted to say HOWDY. --AStanhope 02:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Finding you wasn't quite random... I think you added a Pakistan stub to an article I had either written or Watched.  Regardless, the HOWDY still stands.  --AStanhope 17:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism of your user page
No problem. Something weird's going on though, when I go to your page I'm still getting the autofelatio picture (I've learnt a new word today). Might be my browser cache or something, because when I edit the page the correct image name is there, and if I do a version comparison the correct image comes up. Meesham 13:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Scotland stub
Scotland stub??? Saga City 09:34, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Why not? If we're building an encyclopedia, shouldnt the geography of Scotland exist within its pages? I merely created a template that hasn't been created yet. -- Longhair | Talk 06:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD FYI
I have put two articles that you initially created, Damian Eyre and Steven Tynan, up for a vote for deletion. If you do not agree with this action please feel free to place your comments on the discussion page. In addition, if there is additional information that would help establish notability for one or both of these officers, feel free to add it to the appropriate article. --Allen3 16:09, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Fremantle Prison
Hey dude I see you beat me to doing this! I've been on the tour not long ago so I added a few bits on there. Given your interest in the Oz prison system, I was hoping you could check out the article and give me some feedback. Cheers. SeanMack 18:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say thanks for the feedback, and the encouragment, I appreciate the time/effort. All the best! SeanMack 17:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did you know template
Please read the rules about the requirements. Yours does not qualify: (a) stub (b) less than 1000 chars. Mikkalai 03:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 Did you know has been updated and a fact from the article remand, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

Hawker
Hi Longhair. Do you have specific issues with the Hawker page? I thought it conformed to the guidelines in Disambiguation, but I'm happy to learn. --ScottDavis 13:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Longhair. I've done something similar to the other one I created, Cummins (disambiguation) --ScottDavis 23:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stoned
Intoc}xication is itsdelf a redirection to drunkenness. You just put stoned back into a double redirect, don't as this messes the encyclopedia up. If uyou want to create an intoxication article, by all means do and then redirect it, but don't set up a double redirect that I killed, --SqueakBox 00:20, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Pet Professor
Hi Longhair.

I see you added Pet Professor to the VfD list, but it is redlinked, and a Pet Professor article doesn't exist. Could you look into this? Sjakkalle 11:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Radio mast articles
I am contacting you because you have contributed to the VfD discussion on radio mast articles. I just wanted to let you know that a proposal has been put forth at Deletion policy/Masts to address these articles en masse. Your comments are welcome. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

please only include categories in their most specific categories
for example, category:Geelong belongs in category:Cities in Victoria but should not be included in category:Victoria because category:Cities in Victoria is already a subcat of category:Geography of Victoria which is in turn a subcategory of category:Victoria. from categorization:

 * In the "vertical" dimension, you should probably be more frugal. A good general rule is that articles should be placed in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in. For example, Queen Elizabeth should not be listed directly under People, but Queens of England might be a good place for her.

this also applied as much to categories as it does to articles. thanks. clarkk 09:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your User Page
Nice Pink Floyd reference. I prefer "Meddle" these days though... --One Salient Oversight 11:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Falcarius utahensis
Could I ask why you want to delete information about this breaking story -- issued in this week's issue of Nature magazine? Don't like dinosaurs? WBardwin 04:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 * So now you vote keep. Awfully quick on the trigger, Bud.  Trust me next time, for at least a few minutes, please.  WBardwin 04:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Komnenos
Thanks for fixing the redirect. Can you tell me how I got it wrong?

Pages needing translation into English
I'd love to know how you picked up the Indonesian dictionary definition so quickly... Another impersonation? Physchim62 15:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

203.26.206.130 and Martin Bryant
just FYI, this user has now removed the vfd tag from Rob Edwards twice, i think a few warnings and possibly a block are in order. clarkk 15:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

(1) I created the Rob Edwards page and am the only one to have legitimately added to it. (2) Midway through an update, I received the message "warning: someone else has edited this page since the last update" (3) Since it wouldn't let me save my work, I did the only sensible thing, and copied it all, then wrote over whatever had been changed by someone else. (4) I had no idea that a vfd tag had been included. (5) I did this 3 times. (6) It has not been explained to me why, when the author of the page agreed to the page being deleted, on the basis that it may potentially be a breach of confidentiality (as not all details of the Rob Edwards part of the Port Arthur Massacre have been released to the media yet), why then the page could not be deleted immediately. (7) Per your own definitions of vandalism, it is longhair here who is a serial vandal. I have not committed even one example of vandalism, per your own definitions. Perhaps you should look to follow your own rules for a change.
 * That is incorrect on a number of counts:

P.S. Every time I reboot my computer, it seems to assign me a new IP. Sorry about that. I had to install an update for my virus scanner. It is Internode that I use, a Broadband ADSL company. Its only the last number that changes. I think that they have about 7,000 users, and you seem to have about 50 of them that regularly contribute to this site.

203.26.206.129 14:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Not nice
I wish I had the opportunity to actually finish my article, but since you jumped all over it, I am not going to even bother wasting my time. And fantasy wrestling is not the same thing as fantasy football, just so you're aware. jrgnyr

Bill Lichtenstein
Hi Longhair!

When you see a large bundle of unwikified text like Bill Lichtenstein it is probably a copyvio. I ran a google check on that one, and I think that article needs the -tag, rather than the  -tag. Sjakkalle 11:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for improving my page, by giving it the right type of stub. Also, thanks for making me aware of the Wikipedia Doctor Who project. I very much apreciate your job as a Wikipedian janitor. When i first used the site, I wondered why there wasn't much vanadalism - I know now, it is because of good willed people like you.

International Holy Order of the Pancake
It has been recreated 13 times as nonsense, the vandal won't stop creating it, so I recreated it blank. RickK 19:46, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hello
You may quite possibly be the stupidest person in existence. Congratulations. And well done on editing personal messages to you which you think might be offensive, whilst pushing lies on to others. 203.26.206.130 07:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Lists of California county school districts
Please don't put a on these without checking. The Mariposa one is complete--there is only one school district in Mariposa County. The other districts are also intended to be complete so it would be misleading to tag them with. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:AWMB VfD edit query
Hi I just had a relatively trivial query as to why when you added w class cabs to the Australian VFD list you added the words "Family Caught" as well. You also duplicated Julian Barendse - happy to fix that but I thought there might be some reason for the Family Caught reference which you might want to fix. Regards--AYArktos 23:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

VfD:Systm
Um, noticed that your Vfd for Systm is not appearing on the master log for May 22 (although all the comments/votes are there.) Unsure how to fix this. Soundguy99 13:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

thanks!
Thanks for the advice Sdr 12:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC) <-- *hopes this works*

Lisa Donahue
If you had even looked at the history, I removed the tag FIFTEEN DAYS after it was nominated, as it was evident there was either a consensus to keep or no consensus at all. The thing I'm probably most guilty of is not realizing, at that time, how to properly close a VFD. Mike H 16:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * It was on VFD before. That's how it got the votes. Mike H 03:11, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Campbellstgaol.jpg
Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 09:47, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening
The request for arbitration you made has officially been accepted. Please bring formal evidence to Requests for arbitration/Internodeuser/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Victorian City Template
You Victorian city template is a good idea however Traralgon is a part of La Trobe City making a separate entry redundant. Warrnambool, Horsham, Ararat, Benalla, Swan Hill and Wangaratta are also cities. Andypasto 12:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!
So much fun, All your base are belong to us 09:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

clean up notices
Hey heres a really radical idea for ya......instead of slapping "Clean Up" notices left right and centre, hows about cleaning an article up if it needs it!

Corby Jokes?
What was wrong with the corby jokes I posted? I didn't consider them "junk" any more than the ones that are already there?

title: User talk:Longhair/Archive1


text:
File:War Machines.jpg

A war machine from the Doctor Who serial The War Machines.

title: File:War Machines.jpg


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Argyrosargyrou/Proposed decision

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, 4 Arbitrators are recused (James, Jayjg, and Fennec automatically, Nohat explictly) and 2 (Theresa, Mav) are inactive, so 4 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on the discussion page.

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.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Advocacy
1) Wikipedia is not a forum for issue advocacy, see What Wikipedia is not.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 13:50 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Sockpuppets
2) While a Wikipedia user may edit under more than one account, misuse of Sockpuppets is not allowed.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 13:50 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Disruptive users
1) Disruptive users may be banned for a limited period from Wikipedia.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 13:50 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Background
1) Conflict between the Greek and Turkish people dates back to the Turkish conquest of the Byzantine Empire, but has in modern times resulted from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following its defeat in the First World War and the territorial and demographic adjustments which followed it. Recently the Cyprus dispute has been in the forefront.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 13:20 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:
 * if we have jurisdiction over the Turko-Greek conflict, I vote to ban them both for a year ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Atrocities
1.1) It is uncontested that both peoples, in their struggles with one another, have from time to time committed atrocities against each other, factual information which finds a proper place in a general reference work such as Wikipedia.

Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 13:20 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:
 * sannse (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC) I have no opinion on this content issue
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC) - I have no idea what this is supposed to mean
 * Content issue. Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Argyrosargyrou
2) has since May 7, 2005 focused his attention on articles which involve the Cyprus dispute, see early edits:, . As he speaks of restoring a section, it is likely he edited the article previously as an anonymous editor.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC) Although I disagree with the interpretation of "restore" - this does not mean that he is restoring his own content - can we remove this?
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Argyrosargyrou's perspective
3) takes a Greek nationalist point of view, expressing the effect of his editing as removing Turkish bias, see  and its comment, "E.A stop trying to sabotage this page and turn it into a Turkish propaganda site"

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

E.A
3.1) has been opposed by, a Turkish Cypriot, see  comment "Again re-instated neutral" and.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

ChrisO
3.2) contested Argyrosargyrou's edits to Cyprus reunification referendum, 2004: Argyrosargyrou's first edit. Later edit warring:, , , ,  and using anon ip.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Snchduer
3.3 has played peacemaking role at times, attempting to advance compromise versions, see Talk:Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict. Personal attack on Snchduer by Argyrosargyrou

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 18:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Scimitar
3.4)
 * Support:

 * Fred Bauder 18:32, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:
 * I'd like to see more explanation of this one ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh? Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Parallel articles (POV forks)
4) has created several articles which are parallel to existing articles such as "Cyprus Issue" (deleted copyright violation, must be administrator to view). This article was deleted as a copyright violation, being a copy of this release of the Greek Cypriot government's Press and Information Office, see original post of copyright violation, viewable only by Wikipedia administrators. Another article which was created in this way Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, created while Cyprus dispute was protected survived Votes for deletion. See also Cyprus problem and recreation of deleted article "Hellenic Genocide" (viewable only by Wikipedia administrators), see Votes_for_deletion/Hellenic_Genocide

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Sockpuppets
5) has created a number of sockpuppets to advocate his positions. They are likely to include, , , , , ,  and.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 12:40 (UTC)
 * some technical evidence would probably help this point ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC) technical evidence is inconclusive - I've added "are likely to" above - the style and edits are enough for that imo
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Community reaction
6) Wikipedia editors are aware that sometimes adds factual information and links to important resources, but his positive contributions are far outweighed by persistent aggressive point of view advocacy, see Votes for deletion/The pogroms in Istanbul. The net result is that due to "s activities viewed as a whole, whatever positive contributions he makes are of little significance or worth as compared to the disruption and prejudice which result from his activities.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 13:06 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Argyrosargyrou banned
1) and any sockpuppet he may create is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 13:24 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC) - 2nd choice
 * Oppose:
 * a year seems harsh ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Abstain:

1.1) and any sockpuppet he may create is banned from Wikipedia for six months.

 * Support:
 * sannse (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC) - 1st choice
 * Fred Bauder 17:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Argyrosargyrou sockpuppets banned
2) shall edit under the username "Argyrosargyrou" and shall not create any others.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 13:24 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Article ban
3) and any sockpuppet he may create is banned from all articles relating to Cyprus for six months.  To start after the successful completion of any other ban.

 * Support:
 * sannse (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 17:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}

 * Support:

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Outlawed
1) Any edit made during the period of his ban by or any user or anonymous editor reasonably believed to be Argyrosargyrou may be reverted by any editor of Wikipedia without limit.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 13:41 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

Editing during ban
2) Should attempt to edit Wikipedia anonymously or with any new user account during his ban, the account he uses may be blocked indefinitely (if practical) by any administrator including those who have previously been in conflict with him. Each such block shall reset the ban.

 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder June 28, 2005 13:41 (UTC)
 * (deleted the "one year" specification to make it applicable to any ban) ➥the Epopt 21:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * sannse (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 04:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose:

 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

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.

Move to close.
 * ➥the Epopt 17:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 18:20, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * →Raul654 19:30, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 04:35, August 21, 2005 (UTC)