Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro/Old evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This case is accepted solely to investigate use of wikipedia:votes for deletion by Anthony. Other issues will not be heard by the arbitration committee at this time (they may be referred to mediation).

Evidence not relating to use of VfD has been moved to this page.Martin 00:13, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Stuff

[edit]
  • Talk:Nick Griffin Page History: Anthony DiPierro removed the comments of three different users (himself, Jwrosenzweig and Secretlondon) without providing a reason [1]. Thereafter, he and Wik engaged in an "edit war," with Mr DiPierro consistently removing the text and Wik consistently re-inserting it. (Offered as an example of the edit wars between the users.) -- Emsworth 21:02, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

[edit]

Anthony vandalized Anchorage, Alaska multiple times by removing its demographical or geographical information to prove a point. See history at [2]. Jwrosenzweig 22:31, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That was not vandalism, and it wasn't done to prove a point. And it was done once for demographical information, and once for geographical information. Anthony DiPierro 22:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Link to a conversation on this that was blanked from Anthony's user page: [3] - Texture 22:38, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Looking for Edit Wars

[edit]

I substituted these two articles copyvios for stubs and he reverted me. Reason? Because i didnt delete the page and recreated them without the copyvio in the history. This behaviour shows that he is hanging around looking for quarrels. Muriel 20:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As was explained to Muriel by Angela [4], this is a longstanding policy [5]. And it's policy for good reason -- copyright violations in the history are still copyright violations. While it sometimes might be technically difficult to remove certain copyright violations from history, in the case of replacing an infringement with a stub there is a simple solution which was devised. Create the stub as a /Temp page, and when the copyright violation is deleted the /Temp page can be moved to the old location. This deletes the history, and preserves the new history. Anthony DiPierro 20:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This paragraph above is a wonderful example of my point: i asked Angela, Anthony got into the conversation; i post this here, he follows. The matter here is not if Anthony is right - he is in this point and i have no problem of admitting - , its his hunger for fights and arguments and his general lifestyle as a pain in where we know. Muriel 20:59, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Huh? What do you mean he "followed" you here? This entire page is devoted to presenting evidence against him, and this is exactly what you did. Is it not unreasonable for him to post a response to your assertions against him? How is his responding to you more "looking for a fight" than your posting it here in the first place? Sheesh. PenguiN42 15:50, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Muriel, you are the one attacking me. I'm not sure why you've chosen to do this, even calling me "disturbed" on another page, but in any case I have a right to defend myself. Anthony DiPierro 21:20, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

village pump, etc

[edit]

From the Bill Gates incident, which was done very early on before I knew all the rules of Wikipedia.

Jimbo on how "'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use."

From 1729, the NPOV solution which was accepted by myself.

The full edit history of Nick Griffen

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=2380091&oldid=2374024

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=0&oldid=2438362

Also I'd like to formally object to the hearsay evidence at the end of the Snoyes email which inaccurately portrays what I said on IRC.

Anthony DiPierro

Anthony's expressed views at variance with (Cyan's understanding of) Wikipedia behavioral norms

[edit]
  • [6] - Anthony wins, everyone loses
  • [7] - Anthony's views on NPOV
    • Sarcasm. See why hearsay evidence isn't admissible in a real courtroom? Anthony DiPierro 00:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Ah, but this isn't hearsay: the entire context surrounding your comments is available to be examined. I encourage anyone who finds these remarks prima facie troubling to examine the context. I did recognize the sarcastic element of the remark; nevertheless, it still gave me the feeling that you disdain the NPOV policy. (If you feel like it, you could clarify the issue with a simple declaration of your opinions about the NPOV policy. Or not, as you will.) -- Cyan 18:47, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I believe it is hearsay as presented (I'm backing down from my earlier statement that it is certainly hearsay). In any case, I don't disdain the NPOV policy. I think it's the most important policy we have. I think the suggestion by Secretlondon that removal of the POV attacks made by wik was "pointless" is a terribly dangerous suggestion. Removing POV statements from wikipedia is of great importance. Anthony DiPierro 19:02, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • You have set my mind at ease with respect to this comment. (In any case, at least one arbitrator, The Cunctator, has expressed a low opinion of the NPOV policy.) -- Cyan 19:57, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[Note: this "evidence" was withdrawn by Cyan and restored by Wik]. Anthony DiPierro 04:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Edit Wars

[edit]

I don't know whether further evidence is needed, but what I saw today here is evidence I think you need--Anthony and Wik revert each other 19 times today (March 12). I don't know if you are still taking evidence, but thought it prudent to provide it. Jwrosenzweig 19:48, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Another edit war today. Anthony is removing demographic information [13] and the comment is (removing vanity about geography). Multiple users are trying to keep geographic information and Anthony is performing a constant edit war to keep it out. He is trying to add a non-famous (in the majority's opinion) and removing geographic info seems to be his way of responding in kind. - Texture 23:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A constant edit war? This isn't even an edit war. This page is getting ridiculous. By the way, the majority of people believe that the person is famous. Just more lies from texture. Anthony DiPierro 02:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Before you start throwing labels at me you should pay attention to my position. I don't know who that person is and did not report my own opinion. After reading, and replying to, a request to protect the page in response to your reverts or attempts to delete demographics and insert this individual I investigated the page history and found that you did try to buck the majority (or plurality if you wish) and impose your will by repeated removals of valid demographics and inserting this one individual. You comments called this valid demographics "vanity". What truth do you dispute? - Texture 16:35, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I dispute that I was "performing a constant edit war to keep [geographic information] out." I also dispute that the majority opinion is that Larry Sanger is non-famous. And finally, I dispute that "removing geographic info seems to be [my] way of responding in kind."
Here is what formed my opinion of your edit war: [14] [15] and your efforts to include an individual without support from the talk page: [16] [17] [18] [19]. I make no claims that he is or is not famous. Merely that you reverted four people who disagreed with you without coming to an agreement on the talk page. Had it been just you versus one person who disagreed with you there would be no claim of a majority opinion. However, you fail to gain any majority or even plurality in your claim. - Texture 17:03, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The majority opinion, if any, was over whether or not Larry Sanger should be linked from Anchorage, Alaska. But considering that the majority of voters on VfD support keeping the Larry Sanger page, it is unclear whether this miniscule sampling can be considered relevant. In any case, judging from VfD, I'd say the majority of people believe that Larry Sanger is famous, which would make your statement that the majority of people think he is non-famous incorrect. As for the so called edit war, if anything there was an edit war over the inclusion of a link to Larry Sanger. There was no edit war over the inclusion of the useless geographic information. Anthony DiPierro 18:23, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Referring to your continuance of lies, I did not repeatedly remove valid demographics. I removed demographics once. Anthony DiPierro 16:47, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My statement may not have been phrased to your satisfaction, but you did remove factual information (not just demographics) in more than one edit and this is what I refer to. Since there is factual record of you removing the demographics and geographics ( [20] [21] ) doesn't that make an accusation of "liar" an attack rather than a truth? I don't appreciate being labelled falsely so I would not casually use the term as you did against me. - Texture 17:03, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I removed factual information (actually, it wasn't even phrased factually, but that's a different argument) twice (geographic information once, demographic information once). Calling that "performing a constant edit war to keep [geographic information] out" is a lie. Anthony DiPierro 18:23, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One last bit of info. I repsonded to a request for page protection saying that your reversions had ceased and the edit war seemed to be over. Had I supported the lies you claim I would have either protected the page or supported protection by another admin. - Texture 17:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That you didn't even support the lies you claimed just lends credence to the point that you inserted those lies onto this page intentionally, and not accidentally. Anthony DiPierro 18:23, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not going to go in circles with you. I reported what I found and you disagree. I explained and you disagreed. The thing I still don't get it why you would remove, as you put it, "factual information" instead of correcting it if you think it is not "phrased factually". I am relieved to see that you have not continued to remove them today but instead you are updating them to match your view of proper phrasing. Deleting factual information is out of character for your views as represented in VfD and talk pages. - Texture 18:34, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Let me explain it to you once again, then. (It's also on the talk page). The "factual information" is stupid. It has no place in an encyclopedia article on Anchorage, Alaska. Encyclopedia articles are more than just lists of facts. If you want to add the facts to a separate page, like "Demographics of Anchorage, Alaska]] or Geography of Anchorage, Alaska, then that's acceptable. But in its current form it's long and boring. By views on VfD are with respect to whether or not articles themselves should be kept. It's a completely different question. As for not continuing to remove them, I do intend to do so at some point if there is no response on the talk page explaining why this nonsense needs to be included. Anthony DiPierro 18:40, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Let's further look at this statement you made: "Multiple users are trying to keep geographic information and Anthony is performing a constant edit war to keep it out." Who are these multiple users? What I see is myself removing useless demographic information, and Jwrosenzweig reverting me. Then I removed useless geographic information, and Jwrosenzweig reverted me again. Both reverts, by the way, were completely unexplained on the talk page. Anthony DiPierro 18:28, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Michael Snow, Moink, Jwrosenzweig, RickK all reverted your edits. If the edit war was not solely centered on geographic or demographic information then I admit to condensing my description of what was an edit war from 19:08, 18 Mar 2004 to 18:26, 19 Mar 2004 with 13 reverts back and forth (not counting other content). - Texture 18:34, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Maybe you did so accidentally, and if so I apologize for characterizing your misstatements as lies. But the statement that "Multiple users are trying to keep geographic information and Anthony is performing a constant edit war to keep it out." is completely untrue, as I have explained. Anthony DiPierro 18:42, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A selected list of articles which have been listed on User:Anthony DiPierro under the title "Pages I have (or haven't yet) created"

[edit]

Of these - 9 are redirects, 1 is a disambiguation page and 1 is on VfD [where it received a consensus of votes to keep].

His actual original articles include:

I have done this to ask whether this user is worth the effort. Secretlondon 23:12, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC) (with modifications for accuracy by Anthony DiPierro)

Protection

[edit]

The following articles were (between February 9, 2004 and 23 Mar 2004) protected. Listed also are the names of users involved in two or more reversions prior to the protection.

Comments by Anthony in italics
  1. Paradox
    Protected 21:13, 11 Feb 2004 by Jwrosenzweig
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
    Protected 16:44, 17 Mar 2004 by Kingturtle
    16 hours after Wik was temp-banned for reverting it which was the last change, just minutes before listing it as evidence here -AD
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
  2. Jimmy Wales
    Protected 00:34, 16 Mar 2004 by MyRedDice
    who himself participated in a reversion -AD
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Angela
  3. Jimbo Wales
    Protected 00:50, 16 Mar 2004 by Hephaestos
    Two or more reversions: Anthony, Wik and Maximus Rex
    unprotected just over an hour later -AD
    after which Anthony continued the "edit war" hours later
    so called "war" was resolved within minutes, and further page protection was unnecessary -AD
  4. Earth in the Balance
    Protected 23:46, 10 Mar 2004 by Kingturtle
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and ChrisDJackson
  5. Al Gore
    Protected 00:17, Feb 22, 2004 by Angela
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and ChrisDJackson
    Protected 03:13, 10 Mar 2004 by Texture
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and ChrisDJackson
    Protected 03:10, 13 Mar 2004 by Kingturtle
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and ChrisDJackson
    Protected 01:18, 18 Mar 2004 by Muriel Gottrop
    after Chris D Jackson repeatedly added plagiarized material -AD
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and ChrisDJackson
  6. Hardy-Ramanujan number
    Protected 19:40, 12 Mar 2004 by Jwrosenzweig
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
  7. Interesting number paradox
    Protected 19:20, 6 Mar 2004 by Kingturtle
    after only 3 reverts in the span of 24 hours, 2 of which were by Wik. there were subsequently 2 reverts, while the page was protected, by Charles Matthews and Timwi -AD
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
    No: Two or more reversions: Wik
  8. Interesting and uninteresting numbers
    Protected 19:21, 6 Mar 2004 by Kingturtle
    Another example of Kingturtle protecting a page which had very little activity over the previous 12 hours. -AD
    Two or more reversions: Anthony, Wik, and Angela
    Protected 18:29, 9 Mar 2004 by Ed Poor
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
  9. Atlantium
    Protected 04:18, 9 Feb 2004 by Fuzheado
    Two or more reversions: Delirium, Anthony and Wik
    Protected 19:09, 16 Feb 2004 by Viajero
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
    No: Two or more reversions: Wik and 62.169.220.232
    Protected 18:12, 4 Mar 2004 by Jwrosenzweig
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
  10. What would Jesus do? (was WWJD
    Protected 19:31, 11 Feb 2004 by Adam Bishop
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik<
    No: Two or more reversions: Wik
    Protected 19:40, 16 Feb 2004 by RickK
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
    (more than once, most recently by RickK, who himself participated in the edit war -AD)
  11. Talk:Nick Griffin
    Protected 03:27, 19 Feb 2004 by RickK
    Two or more reversions: Anthony, RickK and Wik
    (protected by RickK, who had banned Wik for making those reversions, reverted the page himself, and then protected it -AD)
  12. 1729 (number) (history mixed with 1729 (anecdote))
    Protected 17:35, 5 Mar 2004 by Hephaestos
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
    No: Two or more reversions: Wik
    (protected by Charles Matthews, apparently acting with Kingturtle, who moved the page from 1729 (number) and then protected the page after wik attempted to change it into a redirect back to 1729 (number), the only participants after the move and before the protection were Dysprosia, Charles Matthews, Arvindn, and Wik -AD)
  13. Antinomy
    Protected 21:07, 11 Feb 2004 by Viajero
    Protected 21:17, 11 Feb 2004 by Andre Engels
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
  14. McFly
    Protected 16:00, 4 Mar 2004 by Muriel Gottrop
    Protected 16:57, 4 Mar 2004 by Muriel Gottrop
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
    (this was protected three times by Eloquence due to actions by Wik, previously by that it was protected by Muriel Gottrop -AD)
  15. Schnorrer
    Was listed on Protected pages but was never actually protected.
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
    (there is no evidence that this page has ever been protected -AD)
  16. William Kelly
    Protected 22:27, 7 Feb 2004 by Maximus Rex
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
    Protected 18:34, 8 Feb 2004 by Hephaestos
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
    Protected 05:52, 18 Feb 2004 by Kosebamse
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
    Protected 18:32, 3 Mar 2004 by Hephaestos
    Two or more reversions: none
    (more than once, most recently by Hephaestos after a single edit which wasn't even a revert -AD)
  17. John Edwards
    Protected 18:25, Mar 16, 2004 by Raul654
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Raul654
  18. Dan Quayle
    Protected 00:12, 1 Mar 2004 by RickK
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and ChrisDJackson
    Protected 01:35, 17 Mar 2004 by Hephaestos
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and ChrisDJackson
  19. Jerusalem
    Protected 21:43, 16 Mar 2004 by Adam Bishop
    Two or more reversions: Anthony, Uriber and Wik


Compiled by: Kingturtle 03:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) & Hephaestos|§ 05:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) & Anthony DiPierro

Note that some of these were protected by Kingturtle and others by Hephaestos. Anthony DiPierro
Further note that Wik was involved in the vast majority of them, he has refused to participate on the talk pages, and as they get listed here he seems to be going back to them. Anthony DiPierro 12:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Wik stated the following:

Anthony now uses a sockpuppet User:Yarko Brachini to fight his edit wars. Can a developer check the server logs to see if it's Anthony's IP? --Wik 02:18, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

User:Yarko Brachini continually removed that statement. In any case, it is not true. I have no idea who User:Yarko Brachini is. Anthony DiPierro 02:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The alleged evidence below is incorrect and misleading. I suggest it be ignored. I have added a brief note in some places where the information was grossly incorrect, however doing so in other places could be deemed as inturrupting the flow of this supposed evidence, so the fact that I have not marked my dispute should not be considered acceptance of the truth of the claim. - Anthony

Reposting my evidence ** Anthony, do not edit my evidence

[edit]

On March 15, I ( Kingturtle ) posted to this page evidence regarding the matter of evidence. Since that time, Anthony has edited my posts over 30 times. The meaning and arguments of my original postings and edits have been altered. Therefore, I am re-posting my evidence cleanly. Anthony, do not edit my evidence. If you want to comment on my evidence, do so in the next section entitled "Anthony's response to Kingturtle's Evidence."

The following twenty articles were protected between 9 Feb 2004 and 23 Mar 2004 (one article was placed on Wikipedia:Protected page but never actually protected.) In each of these cases, Anthony was involved in the disagreement at hand. Listed also are the names of any user involved in two or more reversions during the incident.

Please also take note: eighteen different admins have participated in these protections.

Anthony will try to justify each of these actions. The bottomline is that Anthony wastes the time of our community, needles members of our community, and creates an enviroment of stress and hostility in our community. Anthony should be placed into a similar probation agreement as that assigned to Wik. Kingturtle 10:56, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  1. Paradox
    Protected 21:13, 11 Feb 2004 by Jwrosenzweig
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
    Protected 16:44, 17 Mar 2004 by Kingturtle
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
  2. Jimmy Wales
    Protected 00:34, 16 Mar 2004 by MyRedDice
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Angela
  3. Jimbo Wales
    Protected 00:50, 16 Mar 2004 by Hephaestos
    Two or more reversions: Anthony, Wik and Maximus Rex
  4. Earth in the Balance
    Protected 23:46, 10 Mar 2004 by Kingturtle
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and ChrisDJackson
  5. Al Gore
    Protected 00:17, Feb 22, 2004 by Angela
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and ChrisDJackson
    Protected 03:13, 10 Mar 2004 by Texture
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and ChrisDJackson
    Protected 03:10, 13 Mar 2004 by Kingturtle
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and ChrisDJackson
    Protected 01:18, 18 Mar 2004 by Muriel Gottrop
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and ChrisDJackson
  6. Hardy-Ramanujan number
    Protected 19:40, 12 Mar 2004 by Jwrosenzweig
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
  7. Interesting number paradox
    Protected 19:20, 6 Mar 2004 by Kingturtle
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik [this is incorrect [24] -AD]
    Just as one example, here is the page history that AD cited above -- I can't see how is Kingturtle is "incorrect"? This seems to be true with all the ones that AD has so labeled:
    Interesting number paradox
    Revision history
    View (previous 100) (next 100) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).
    Legend: (cur) = difference with current version, (last) = difference with preceding version, M = minor edit
    • (cur) (last) . . m 23:34, Mar 14, 2004 . . Timwi (fix double-redirect)
    • (cur) (last) . . m 06:23, Mar 8, 2004 . . Charles Matthews
    • (cur) (last) . . 12:59, Mar 6, 2004 . . Wik (rv)
    • (cur) (last) . . 22:51, Mar 5, 2004 . . Anthony DiPierro
    • (cur) (last) . . 13:38, Mar 5, 2004 . . Wik (rv)
    • (cur) (last) . . 13:37, Mar 5, 2004 . . Anthony DiPierro
    • (cur) (last) . . 12:42, Mar 5, 2004 . . Wik (not worth a separate article)
    • (cur) (last) . . 12:40, Mar 5, 2004 . . Arvindn (moved text from 1729 (number))
    View (previous 100) (next 100) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).
    BCorr¤Брайен 14:43, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
    The first edit I made was not a revert nor was it anything even remotely close to one. Anthony DiPierro 21:39, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Interesting and uninteresting numbers
    Protected 19:21, 6 Mar 2004 by Kingturtle
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
    Protected 18:29, 9 Mar 2004 by Ed Poor
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
  9. Atlantium
    Protected 04:18, 9 Feb 2004 by Fuzheado
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
    Protected 19:09, 16 Feb 2004 by Viajero
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik [incorrect [25] -AD]
    Protected 18:12, 4 Mar 2004 by Jwrosenzweig
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
  10. What would Jesus do? (was WWJD)
    Protected 19:31, 11 Feb 2004 by Adam Bishop
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik [incorrect [26] -AD]
    Protected 19:40, 16 Feb 2004 by RickK
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
  11. Talk:Nick Griffin
    Protected 03:27, 19 Feb 2004 by RickK
    Two or more reversions: Anthony, RickK and Wik
  12. 1729 (number) (history mixed with 1729 (anecdote))
    Protected 17:35, 5 Mar 2004 by Hephaestos
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
  13. Antinomy
    Protected 21:07, 11 Feb 2004 by Viajero
    Protected 21:17, 11 Feb 2004 by Andre Engels
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
  14. McFly
    Protected 16:00, 4 Mar 2004 by Muriel Gottrop
    Protected 16:57, 4 Mar 2004 by Muriel Gottrop
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
  15. Schnorrer
    Was listed on Protected pages but was never actually protected.
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
  16. William Kelly
    Protected 22:27, 7 Feb 2004 by Maximus Rex
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
    Protected 18:34, 8 Feb 2004 by Hephaestos
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
    Protected 05:52, 18 Feb 2004 by Kosebamse
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Wik
    Protected 18:32, 3 Mar 2004 by Hephaestos
    Two or more reversions: none
  17. John Edwards
    Protected 18:25, Mar 16, 2004 by Raul654
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and Raul654
  18. Dan Quayle
    Protected 00:12, 1 Mar 2004 by RickK
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and ChrisDJackson
    Protected 01:35, 17 Mar 2004 by Hephaestos
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and ChrisDJackson
  19. Jerusalem
    Protected 21:43, 16 Mar 2004 by Adam Bishop
    Two or more reversions: Anthony, Uriber and Wik
  20. Anchorage, Alaska
    Protected 18:54, Mar 20, 2004 by Dori
    Two or more reversions: Anthony, Jwrosenzweig, Michael Snow and Wik
  21. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
    Protected 04:20, 23 Mar 2004 by Seth Ilys
    Two or more reversions: Anthony and GrazingshipIV [also wik and ugen64 -AD]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anthony_DiPierro/Old_evidence&oldid=1138653082"