Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive1

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Enforcement
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive1)
Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
341342343


User:Zeq

edit

Zeq (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee probation: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Findings_of_fact.

  • On Operation Summer Rains, Zeq adds an out of place news piece to the lead, without an edit summary, failing to use the standard referencing conventions. [1]
  • I revert once (restoring encyclopedic lead) [2].
  • Zeq reverts, this time using an edit summary, which reads: "restored wider context of the opreation. Lead should refelect the whole article." [3]
  • I revert a 2nd time, explaining that "this is not wikinews. Stop editing disruptively Zeq. Stick to the articles consensus conventions (ref-wise, too), and the scope of the lead." [4]
  • Instead of responding to these concerns on the talk page, Zeq informs me I violated 3RR and that I should self-revert. I can't see how I did so, but I don't wish to argue over this at AN3 (or at that point, at all), so I self-revert and withdraw, knowing someone else will revert him shortly thereafter, which they do moments later.
  • Result: lead remains the same. Only after going through these (3RR diversionary) lengths is Zeq prepared to respond to my original concenrs (at that point I'm no longer interested).

The point is that if an established editor points out to Zeq that he is editing carelessly, he is the one who should step back, and only after a discussion has taken place, be allowed to revert to his version/s. I want to see Zeq editing more carefuly, and being open to discussion not only after the fact. I'm uncertain whether the probation is proving effective as I keep seeing Zeq banned from various articles, which presumably is due to him causing problems. Is it worthwhile to continue with it? Will Zeq ever be able to tread lightly when it comes to these sort of careless and tendentious and poorly-communicated editing practices? I'm not sure that he can and therefore am open to a re-examination of the case. El_C 00:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is about a current events and as such it is updated with news by many editors.
  • I have made several polite atempts to comunicate with El_C (on her talk page) [5], [6], [7]
  • El-C deleted all of them and refuse to work together to resolve the edit conflict. Instead she just used the reverts (citing my "problematic history").
  • Probation policy specifically sais to avoid "striking out on users under probation".
  • The fact that any user is on probation should not be used as an excuse to avoid resolving disputes.
  • At that point I informed her that she should WP:AGF [8]
  • I should not be required to "Step back" upon demand by other who call themselfs "established editor".
No one owns the article.I am editing according to policy and so should she.
  • In her comments she pointed out her sense of "ownership" to that article(she decalred "I wrote 1/2 of it") and clearly her feeling that she own the article are the problem here. Still I appologized to her about hurting her feeling but to no avail and no coepration with her was achived despite my attempts.
  • As for results, I made total of 2 edits to that article, that was all. (both were reverted in short time so it is not true that these changes remained in the article) I did not continue to edit after these 2 edits, did not wish to get into an edit war on this.
    • If there is one conclusion from this is that Probation is problematic tool since it encourage some users to think they have the right to avoid coopereting and resolving disputes with others who have a what they call "problematic history" .Zeq 03:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I would like also to point out that what El_C doubed "proper encyclopedia lead" is written in a clear bias: While Israel's poistion is lacking the whole facts and described in weasle words "israel claim that...." the Palestinian position is writen by El_c in detail and described as "Palestinians assert that..." . some honesty is required here: El_C has a POV to push and my edit (which added few facts) was in her way. Zeq 03:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Clear admin abuse by El_C. Both this revert: [9] (which is factual not editorel) and the banning. No admin can be botha party to the dipute, the judge and then exceutioner.... This action shows complete lack of good faith and the length of the article ownership felt by El_C. If anyone should be bannedfrom articles for disruption it is El_C herself. Zeq 04:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans and the reasons for them to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans."[10]. 72.60.227.47 04:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected my changes to that page, thanks. El_C 05:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The key word here is "Good cause"... Clearly having an edit dispute is not a "Good cause" to ban me. El C should have not ptreformed admin action on an issue she is involved as an editor, she choose not to resolve the dispute and instead use reverts and bans. Zeq 05:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Zeq has exhausted the community's patience, so I did not let this drag out. I offered him the opportunity to propose these changes on the article's talk page first. Had he done so, I would not have imposed the article ban. El_C 05:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit disginious to talk about "patience" when one refuse to discuss a conflict and instead choose reverts and bans. I did raise the issue of the lack of balance in the intro. As for "the comunity" - I have pointed out many times that "the comunity" should be open to critism and different POV (which seems to be the core problem in this edit dispute). Now that El_C seems to gain her coll head I suggest that she remove the improper ban. Zeq 06:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the Arbitration Committee is the deciding body and it has been informed about this course of action. Also, there are hundreds of other administrators who could over-rule me. El_C 06:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of other admins who could respond to a request for ban you placed here. Instead you choose to be the complainer, the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner - all in one. A clear admin abuse. Zeq 06:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is currently featured on ITN, so I opted not take that route and avoid any interim conflict. El_C 06:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is ITN ?
Template:In the news. Deltabeignet 07:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So this is the excuse for not follwing Dispute resolution, refusing to comunicate and use reverts and banns instead ?


user:Zeq request for an unbiased review of ban by Admin Tony Sidaway

edit

I would ask for an admin to review this decision by Tony Sidaway:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Zeq_.28June_5.29

Tony is known to be, how can I say it, tough admin and he ignored different views on this case by other admins: [11]

Tony also ignored all my explnations as well as the fact that two arbitors who received the same original complaint (from Homey) and refused to take action on it as part of arbitration enforfment.

It should be noted that in some of the bans I was banned by Tony were for a single edit on that article and in another articls I made 3 edits.

I would ask that the bans would be lifted as they are not for "Good cause" . Please make sure to read the section of comments by other admins close to the events. Tnx. . Zeq 07:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See section immediately beneath this one for a discussion of this request. Homey 15:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homey, the fact you have posted here, in a clear combative style (see below) shows that you are unable to let an independent review of this case take place. This is the real issue and not the need to repeat any false accusation you make about me. Zeq 16:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


72 hours

edit

It has been 72 hours since I placed this request. My edit where all with good faith and according to WP:AGF I should not have been banned.

Why admins are so quick to ban but avoid review of non good cause decisions ? Zeq 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support Tony's actions. Ral315 (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked for a review. have you reviwed the material ? have you reveiwed objections by aother admins (such as Slim Virgin, Humeus ) ? what do you base your "support" on ?
  • The real question that should be answered by the review is:

Was I desruptive in these articles ? I think a clear answer was given by the commenting admins who bothered to review the material . also it is not good faith to argue that by one (1) single edit (a minor one) any editor can be "disruptive" - clearly this was the case on west bankk barrier. So excuse if I ask again: on what do you base your "support" ?Zeq 05:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


user:Zeq

edit

I would ask for an admin to review this decision by Tony Sidaway:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Zeq_.28June_5.29

Tony is known to be, how can I say it, tough admin and he ignored different views on this case by other admins: [12]

Tony also ignored all my explnations as well as the fact that two arbitors who received the same original complaint (from Homey) and refused to take action on it as part of arbitration enforfment.

It should be noted that in some of the bans I was banned by Tony were for a single edit on that article and in another articls I made 3 edits.

I would ask that the bans would be lifted as they are not for "Good cause" . Please make sure to read the section of comments by other admins close to the events. Tnx. . Zeq 07:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq is on probation for tendentious editing among other things. He displayed this tendency, despite warnings, in the articles in question. The ban is reasonable and should remain particuarly as Zeq has consistently refused to acknowledge any fault and insists that he is in the right - this does not inspire confidence that Zeq has learned from his mistakes and will change his behaviour. As for Zeq's claim that action was "refused" be arbitrators, this isn't the case. In fact, what occured is that on one occasion I complained to arbitrators directly and one of them posted the incident here. On subsequent occasions I put a notice here myself. Since several of the articles have been under protection since shortly after Zeq's ban the bans haven't had any practical effect as of yet. Homey 18:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is Homey who filed the original complaint this is not the "independent review" I was hoping for. Need an unbiased opinion. Just for the record: Homey had an edit dispute with me, as a "weapon" in his edit war he also blocked me without cause (twice). In article in which he accused me for tendentious editing I made 3 edits at the time he made over a dozen. Zeq 18:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been quite disruptive on those articles, from what I gather. Will (message me!) 18:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I have not. You have not reviwed the record. If You want to prove your argument please do so. Zeq 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Will response is indicative of what is going on here. An impression is created (what Will "gather") but those who examine the issue (see [13] ) provid a different opinion but anyone is refusing to look deep enough in order to get to the bottom of the issue. Zeq 19:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think serious consideration can be given to lifting the ban as long as Zeq rejects its legitimacy much like how parole boards don't grant furloughs to those who refuse to admit their guilt. See [14] for Zeq's attitude to the ban. Homey 19:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that only admins who blocked me are responding here shows that it is not able to get any serious review of this issue. My viwes on how the ban is affecting is irelevent if this ban was not done for good cause and that is the issue. Maybe it is also worth mentioning that largly because of Homey's action the articles I am baned from are protected for over 2 weeks. If I was the disruption . the article could be unblocked after my ban. In fact, the articles had to be locked after I was banned because of Homey's edit wars with other editors. Zeq 19:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the articles were protected on my request. Homey 19:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After you edit war your way to your favorite version. But Who asked for protection is irelevent here as well as who asked for unprotection. the issue is: If I was the disruption these articles could have been unprotected. The proof is that they are still locked for nearly 3 weeks long after I am banned from them. Something there is > completly not related to me. You on the other hand have violated every poosible policy (such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:Not, WP:Point and more in your edit war in these articles. What we need is an independent review of the situation in these articles and why the dispute with you can not be resolved. It is clearly not my issue as you tried to present it to the few admins who baught your story. Zeq 19:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were not the sole cause for the articles being protected but a cause. However, unlike others who edited tendenaciously you were violating your probation by doing so. Homey 20:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Homey, the fact that you have responded to my request here for a review is foritself a problem that shows your vandeta and the length you go to push those who object your political POV pushing.
  • Even Tony Sidaway, the admin who banned me agreed that all I was doing was trying to prevent your POV pushing.
  • I again ask that an independent review of this ban will be done.
  • Your argument about my guilt as part of other does not hold water. I was editing by far less than you and others on thse articles. The ban was not for good cause and that is whay it needs to be reviwed.
  • Today, (nearly 3 weeks after banning me) the articles are locked because your political POV pushing. Zeq 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) Zeq, there is nothing wrong with my responding to your request given that I am an interested party. 2) You are misrepresenting Tony Sidaway's comments 3) Perhaps you should post the diffs for the edits that got you into trouble. That you haven't says much more then your attempts to smear everyone who is trying to hold you to account. Homey 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Homey, I have not misrpersented anything.
  2. I think the right thing for you to do is delete all your comments here and let the review that I asked for take place.
  3. My edits (as well as yours) are not hidden and anyone can see who was disruptive.
  4. All that i was asking is for an admin to take a look at the record.
  5. It seems it is impossible to get that without coming under one more of your edit-war style attacks(incluing now a fresh violation of WP:NPA). Zeq 20:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly think what I've written above violates WP:NPA then raise the matter on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Homey 21:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Homey, the fact you have posted here, in a clear combative style shows that you are unable to let an independent reviwe of this case take place. This is the real issue and not the need to report any false accusation you make about me. Zeq 21:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:213.237.21.242 (June 14)

edit

213.237.21.242 (talk · contribs) appears to be an alternative IP to one of the parties involved in the Arbitration Ruling related to The Bogdanov Affair. They are now being very disruptive on Talk:Mormonism

The following diffs show the offending behavior
  • Talk:Mormonism • diff quotes:
    • Appears to be evading a block: "I had a name, this name seems now to be unavailable, and I dont feel to make it again or take another."
    • PA: "just shut up"
    • PA: "It is in fact evident that you do not have understood one word of what has been sayed, and as you can see, repeating it indefinitely like rot speach, is not going to give you the ability to understand."
    • PA: "Thats a problem with religious believes you see, when injected in the brain from a very young age, they block the developping process of the brain and the ability to emit independant and original thoughts"
  • Talk:Mormonism • diff quotes:
    • PA: "Yes, it is clear that vals contributions, if we can call it such, were not going to advance anything as this insulting idiot..."
    • PA: "...act of couards, when coards act together it doesnt make them more daring but more coards and hypocrites..."
    • PA: "...here little geek."
    • PA: "You are all sick and control freaks!"

Claims sophie@nostromo.dk as an email address here

Summation

See above - if this is not the right place for this please let me know and I will repost on Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard - thx Trödel 18:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:Leyasu (June 13)

edit

Leyasu (talk · contribs) is under revert parole, which currently dictates that he cannot revert a page more than once in 24 hours (a stricter revert parole for him is being voted on at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker/Proposed decision). The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker.

Having already broken revert parole more than five times, Leyasu is now able to be blocked for up to a year. He just officially got back today from being blocked for a month by Johnleemk (talk · contribs), although he had been using anons to evade the block. [15] I notified him that the block had expired [16], and almost as soon as he was making edits from his main account again, he violated revert parole.

The following diffs show the offending behavior
This was the first revert, which reverted edits by Deathrocker (talk · contribs), another party in his current arbitration case. This diff [18] confirms that it is a revert. He also accuses Deathrocker of NPOV violations and stalking in the edit summary. Deathrocker's subsequent revert of that edit [19] claims that Deathrocker's preferred version of the article is allowed to stand merely because Deathrocker has been editing the article longer than Leyasu has.
In this edit, he reverts edits by Maxcap (talk · contribs) and Deathrocker (talk · contribs) back to the previous version which he had saved. [21]
Summation

The second revert took place only about 3 1/2 hours after the first, so this is a clear violation. Leyasu is claiming that he has the support of most of his WikiProject behind him when he is doing the reverts, but only he is doing the reverts. Deathrocker responded to one of the reverts with a personal attack [22], which suggests it may also be good to put Deathrocker on personal attack parole (both of them were blocked for three days before the start of Deathrocker's RfAr for arguing with each other on WP:RFAR). As for Leyasu, he clearly needs to be blocked, as well as any anons he is using. I was a party in Leyasu's original RfAr and have brought some evidence in Deathrocker's, so I prefer that someone else carry out any block(s) resulting from this violation.

Reported by: Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Leyasu for three months; if any administrator disagrees with me, let me know and I'll shorten the block. But Leyasu's blatant circumvention of previous blocks with an anonymous account, combined with his violation of parole just hours after being informed that his block expired, makes me think that the user is not willing to obey the parole in the future. One note: I didn't block the IP, as I never block IPs unless I know for sure that they're static. If someone can confirm that this IP is static, and would not be used by any other user, I'll block that too; otherwise, I don't mind if another administrator does so. Ral315 (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leyasu has been circumventing all blocks and continues to edit war. I've banned him from editing articles related heavy metal--a specific list of articles on which he has edit warred in the past, which can be extended if necessary. --Tony Sidaway 15:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


James Salsman

edit

James Salsman has been editing Depelted Uranium articles in violation of 1.1 of his arbitration ruling, through the use of various IP addresses.

JamesS was prohibited form editing articles having anything to do with depleted uranium following his arbcom ruling. Some examples are: [23], [24], and [25]. Although acheckuser reques could not verify that the above mentioned IP’s were indeed James Salsman, their actions are consistent with his past behavior and James did make a few edits from an IP, 71.141.107.41 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and later signed them; an example. He has also reverted my notification of the checkuser on another users talk page. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:FourthAve

edit

According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve, this user is currently on a one-year ban, ending on May 2, 2007. However, on May 24, he made two edits from the IP 67.1.120.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [26] [27], in violation of WP:BAN. It's obvious that those edits must be him since they not only display behavior typical of him, but they are also signed as "FourthAve". Accordingly, please reset his ban timer to May 24, 2007.

Reported by: 69.117.4.132 14:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:Leyasu (June 9) - possibly editing while blocked

edit

Leyasu (talk · contribs) is under personal attack parole and revert parole. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu. I was a party in that case but have not declared myself as a party in the current case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker, which involved Leyasu, Deathrocker (talk · contribs), and Sceptre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Leyasu is currently blocked for one month; the block expires on June 11 (see below --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)). I have also blocked an anon that he was using for evading that block. [29] Soon after the block, he declared his intentions to evade it. [30] Deathrocker brought several IPs to my attention earlier today; one of them has been editing since June 4 and signs their posts on talk pages as Ley Shade. [31] Other edit summaries they have given show similar editing patterns of Leyasu (e.g. wanting to control which bands are/n't listed as gothic metal; bringing up WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and WP:HMM in edit summaries for reverts; etc.) [32] [33] [34] An edit by another anon brings up Deathrocker's current arbitration case. [35] I have warned the anon who has been making the bulk of the edits since June 4 about impersonating Leyasu or using an IP to evade a block. [36][reply]

Summation

This doesn't tie into the rulings directly; but if Leyasu is using these sockpuppets while blocked, the blocks are not serving any purpose. If the anons are in fact him (they do come from a range of IPs that he has used), then he has evaded the block on two separate occasions. This might have bearing on what we decide about Leyasu in the future, so those of us who watch this page should be aware of it whether we do anything about it now or not.

Reported by: Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem Leyasu, has continued to edit more articles while blocked as recent as today, [37] signing comments as "Ley Shade". Blanking sourced information. [38] While stating "WP:CITE" in the edit summary (for some unknown reason, as providing a source falls under cite), seemingly attempting to wind up various users (one of which is myself).
Basically been a nuisance to the Wikipedia community and those attempting to work together on the aforementioned articles as can be seen also in examples provided above by Idont Havaname. - Deathrocker 03:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake; the block expired on June 10. Leyasu is still editing from the IP User:86.132.131.238 User:81.157.90.109 but can now edit from his main account again. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Fixed the IP I gave in my comment above. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
FIrst off to clear something up. Ive been using Anons mainly to work on thigns i was already working on, before Deathrocker decided to start reverting every edit i made to everything.
Second, Deathrocker seems to fail to understand WP:NPOV. The precedence goes to the greater view. That means when a whole Project of people give 10+ sources saying one thing, and Deathrocker gives one source, that doesnt mean everyone else is vandalising by removing Deathrockers attempts at POV Pushing.
Deathrocker also refused to work with other editors, claiming he owns that article (and several others beside). This is something he has done before, as noted in my Arb Com Evidence.
So yeah, once Deathrocker stops stalking me and lets me peacefully get on with what i was doing, maybe then i wont have to keep using Anons. 10:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Ley Shade
I've told Leyasu that if ever he edits again while blocked I'll ask the Arbitration Committee to put him on General Probation, giving any three administrators the power to pass bans on him. The edits of banned editors are reversible on sight. --Tony Sidaway 10:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:SqueakBox

edit

SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was supposed to be banned one month per his arbitration decision, yet the wrong account was blocked (Squeakbox instead of SqueakBox - he uses the latter account). Can someone correctly implement this ban?

Reported by: 69.117.7.248 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong account was blocked by AmiDaniel.
* 02:31, 6 June 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked "SqueakBox (contribs)" with an expiry time of 29 days (Remainder of one month block (SqueakBox and Zapatancas arbitration))
This should do it. --Tony Sidaway 02:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:Zeq (June 5)

edit

Zeq (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction for having removed "well sourced material" and for "tendentious editing". The final decision in their case is here: [[39]]

He has removed well sourced material and/or engaged in tendentious editing as follows:

The following diffs show the offending behavior
removing well sourced material and tendentious editing
This was already discussed with Fred Bauder here: [40]. A reasonable edit. well explained. Homey response was edit war [41] part of this revert [42] and I choose not to participate in his edit war and left editing this article (despite support I got from other editors on talk page). Zeq 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
removing well sourced material and tendentious editing
There is an on going open issue chalanging the sources homey has used for this article (see Talk:Israeli_apartheid_(phrase)#WP:RS_and_mis_quotes. The chalnge to this specific line Homey mentioned above and why it need to deleted was raised in talk page here: [43] prior to the edit itself. In short : This line is not a "well source" according to WP:RS. Homey could have engaged in talk (trying to convince all the editors) but he choose not debate the issue on talk at all .
After waiting for an answer from Homey (which never arrived see the talk page) I preformed the edit (removed one setnce from a quote from a source that should not have been used) and homey response was an edit war (he reverted it while not mentioning it in edit summary. I opted not to participate in his edit war and I hope he will justify this edit on the talk page *still waiting for that). Instead Homey come to you in an effort to ban me. Zeq 19:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I explained several times that the purpose of the source was to show what proponents of the term are saying (there is a section outlining what proponents say and a section outlining opponents opinions). The source does show what proponents say.Homey 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Homey, it is great that you now accepted the offer to discuss this please let's continue on the article talk page. I just noticed that you have another dispute (this time with Jayjg) on the exact article in which he describe your actions as "another abuse of admin powers; in this case, trying to win an edit war by disappearing an article" [44] - why don't you just play by the rules ? Zeq 20:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, the article was merged with racial segregation by Pinchas last February and orphaned. Jay just recreated it today, despite the fact that it has already been merged, for no other reason than to try to destroy the Isreali apartheid article. Homey 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to air-out your diffrences with Jay. You are involved in several mediation efforts with Jay and other users, this is the right way to resolve your diffrences with other editors. Zeq 05:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tendentious editing. There is no evidence the politician in question supports the policies Zeq is attributing to him. This is an extremely POV edit.
I made total of 3 edits only to the article today, All well covered in talk page(participted extesivly in an effort to create consensus). On the other hand, Homey already revrted the article twice and edited the article about dozen times, I can not be accused in "tendentious editing" for such small number of edits - all are well sourced and explained in talk. Homey is edit warring with other editors in this article. He is trying to get an adavantage by banning me. Zeq 19:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The edits you made are completely one sided and POV and attempts to denigrate proponents of the term thus they are tendentious. The one cited here is particularly one sided and outrageous as you attribute a sentiment to a politician with absolutely no evidence that he holds that position (he doesn't) yet and that illusion was not supported by the link you provided.Homey 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is also discussed in the talk page of the article and I accepted part of what you said and hoped you will listen to what I have to say so that we can resolve the content dispute. Zeq 20:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
removing well sourced material and tendentious editing
Homey used of a highly POV source (sabeel - recognized as a one sided propeganda outlet) in an article that have been went through care NPOV with my and other editors participation (long time ago). The edit is well eexplained in edit summary and there is nothing I can add. Read the article and see for yourself that Homey should not have add this since it is already included few sentnces before. (note: Homey choose revert instead of engaging in talk:[45]) Zeq 19:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You removed a wikilink to Hafrada despite the fact that the word is part of the Hebrew word for the barrier. The source was simply to show that the term "Hafrada wall" or "hafrada fence" is also in use in English. Homey 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to debate it here. The article went through carefull NPOV a Palestinian editor (ramallite) as well as myself, we both understand Hebrew and Arabic and worked together on that section to arrive to what it is now )despite great POV disffrences between us we arrived (with jayjg help) to NPOV). You are now trying to undermine the delicate balance we found by pushing in a link to a biased article you just created and I again choose not to edit war with you Zeq 20:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tendentious editing
It is a disambiguation page. You removed all but one of the articles being disambiguated!Homey 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This edit as well as Homey accuastion and attempted bans are covered in talk extebsivly see: Talk:Apartheid_(disambiguation)#Disambiguation.3F. The place to resolve edit dispute is first at the talk page of the article. all is explained thereZeq 19:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy proscribed is "He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. All bans and the reasons for them to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans.

Homey 18:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 3rd time in a week Homey is trying to ban me from articles in which he and I have content disputes. All my edits are maticulsly discussed in talk and I would welcome a discussion why they are not a violation of the probation. Homey has been dishonest about his attempts to push his political POV and been edit warring with many editors in these articles. He have leveled false accuastuions aginst me before so before starting any new ban (previous one was recinded see [46]) I hope to engage in discussion with one one who has an issue with any of my edit. Thank You.

Please encourage Homey to use normal dispute resolution procedure for content disputes. (in the past he blocked me twice while having a content dispute with me, accused me of vandalism (which was also declined by reviwing admin etc..) In short, this issue require carefull examination and dialogue Zeq 19:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's high time you relented, Homey? This harassing of Zeq is transcending all bounds: first, you blocked him twice despite being involved in a dispute with him, and now you're trying to have him banned for the second time. Zeq has given you adequate explanations on all purported cases of tendentious editing. If anyone exhibits a pattern of tendentious editing here, this is certainly you: your usage of sources like Sabeel demonstrates sheer contempt for both WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Try adhering to Wikipedia policies for a change, instead of attempting to have Zeq banned so that you could gain advantage in content disputes. Pecher Talk 20:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Today Zeq attempted to harass me by creating an article complete with personal details. A violation of Wikipedia:Harassment. Homey 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is another attempt by Homey to use WP for political activism. "for good cause" does not include political disgreements or normal content issues. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finally satisfied that this pattern of edits gives strong evidence that Zeq is still editing with the purpose of pushing a political agenda (or rather, fighting someone else's political stance by replacing it with his own) and that he is going so in a combative and unhelpful way that I regard as disruptive. I am banning him from all of the above articles. --Tony Sidaway 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:ZAROVE (June 4)

edit

ZAROVE (talk · contribs) was banned from making edits to Acharya S and related articles and talk pages.: [47].


The following diffs show the offending behavior

Reported by: ^^James^^ 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not satisfied. We're talking about a user who has harassed and violated the privacy of a notable author - using wikipedia to do it. [48] This sort of invasion of privacy is dealt with strongly and decisively when it happens to other wikipedians. I ask for the same treatment here: block ZAROVE indefinately. He seems to have little care for wikipedia besides using it as a vehicle to attack Acharya S.
Please be aware: the author in question is in hiding, because the person who kidnapped her son is still on the loose. So you can imagine how she must have felt in September, when she received a threatening email showing how her full identity was "common knowledge" - thanks to ZAROVE's edit here. Yet it took many months for anybody to do anything about ZAROVE, and here he is posting again! You all seem to be very sympathetic when harassment and privacy invasion happens to one of your own. But perhaps writers who use the word "conspiracy" in the title of their books don't deserve to be treated like human beings. I really don't know. ^^James^^ 21:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:Zeq (31 May)

edit

These edits were made on Apartheid (disambiguation) [49] and [50]

User:Ec5618 made the following comments upon reverting Zeq's edit:

"rv vandalism or wp:point -> scandalous edit: "..is a a focused, targeted propaganda epithet which is at the center of a campaign [..] is attempting to rewrite and redefine the history of Israel..")"[51]

Ec5618 added the following comment on Talk:Apartheid (disambiguation) saying, in part:

Without judging the original text, the change can, in my view, not be seen as a good faith edit, and must be either vandalous, or WP:POINT. Either way, I am reverting. -- Ec5618 22:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC) [52][reply]

User:MCB added the following comment re Zeq's edits:

I concur with Ec5618, and was in the process of performing the same revert when I noticed Ec5618 had already done so. MCB 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[53][reply]

User:Samuel Blanning added, in part:

"No, it's not vandalism. It's blatant POV,"[54]

In my opinion, Zeq has again violated his parole and should be banned from editing Apartheid (disambiguation). As there would be objections to my taking this action due to a perceived conflict of interest, I'm asking you to consider the evidence, judge whether or not Zeq has violated his probation (again), and take any necessary action. Homey 05:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is laghable at best. The creation of these two pages have disrupted wikipedia. Even if they fail the Afd they will eventually have to be renaed, NPOVed and moved as part of some other Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. (see Fred bauder commnet on the AfD)
What is taking place here is that Homey has turned Wikipedia into a tool in a propeganda war against israel. Critism of Israel is off course legitimate but what we have now:
  • Every user who looks in this encyclopedia for the word "aparthide" gets to be directed to articles about "Israeli parthide". This is wrong, this is not what this encyclopdia is about. read WP:Not. You can ban me or not ban me, this is not the issue. The issue is how wikipedia rules are mis-used (abused is abetter tem) . In any case I am not going to edit these articles for now. This whole issue should be moved to ArbCom to decide on these articles. Zeq 05:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS as expcted Sean has recinded the ban listed below:


Zeq 30 May 2006

edit
This was originally put on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq as "Request for opinion from ArbComm"
moved here as it's an enforcement issue and a matter for administrators. --Tony Sidaway 03:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq has engaged in tendentious editing in the article Israeli apartheid (phrase) namely through edits [55], and [56] in which he has removed sourced information and introduced highly subjective language. Since I am a party to a dispute with him on this page there have been objections raised to my attempts to discipline him. I therefore ask ArbComm members to give an opinion on the following: 1) Has Zeq violated his probation by engaging in tendentious editing in [57], and [58]? 2) Should he be banned from the article Israeli apartheid (phrase) and related articles? 3) Should he also be blocked "by brief block, up to a week in the case of repeated violations" as per the guideline in the "enforcement" section above?

ThanksHomey 22:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Black has banned him from that article. --Tony Sidaway 03:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find the ban marginal. Zeq had not edit warred extensively and was making good points on the talk page about fundamental problems with the article (which I agree with as the article seems to he inherently POV with that title). That said, I do not think Sean Black abused his discretion. Zeq should not be blocked unless he violates the ban. Fred Bauder 13:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zeq asked me to review the ban, which I'll do if I have time. Sean black is open to the ban being reversed for good reason, so I may have a chat with him about this if I think it was overdone. --Tony Sidaway 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The accusations leveled aagainst me by HOTR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are so ridiculus that they fall into a pattern of him making false accuastions against other user (JayJg, Humus and more). To mislead this board he claimed that I have removed sourced content in this edit [[59] - but look carefully no sources content at all was removed - it was simply moved when i added few words. (just lookk at the diff carefully that would be the first task of whoever is reviwing this ridiculus ban)
Next HOTR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) argue that I violated my parole by "tendentious editing" while in fact I only edited this article three (3) times. But Homey showed above 4 edits ? How is that poosible ? Of course, he listed one of my edit twice.
Sean - the admin who accepted homey e-mail campaign (several admins contacted me to let me me know that Homey was spaming large number of admins to get me banned) should have looked more carefully at what is going on in this article:
  • Homey started it with outrafous content
  • Homey edited the article 45 times !!!
  • Homey was banned for 3RR (including 5 violations)
  • Homey engaaged in a campaign against me, misusing his admin powers twice to block me with no justaification

There is more policy violations that Homey was engage in (WP:RS, WP:Not, editing (appliying blocks) while he was under a block) , WP:Civility, WP:3RR, WP:Point and more ... so Sean should have been more carefull (to say the least) while he took sides in this dispute. BTW, all other admins that Homey tried to gagng against me have told him flat-out: Zeq was editing in a way that you dispute, that is content dispute, go resolve it according to policy ( [60], [61] - in which Homey first tried to level accuastion of vandalsim against me.

Please review all facts, Homey leveled one false accuastion against me (and others) after another until one sympthetic admin was willing to apply a ban based on the false arguments above. My hope that Sean himself after review will recind the ban. Hopefully he will be the first to review. I trust his honesty. Thank you. Zeq 05:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • as expected, Sean has recinded the ban . Zeq 05:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Sean and I discussed this together. I think your editing on the article was a little tendentious, but within the bounds where I at least content to give you a warning. Please use the talk page more and avoid replacing one lot of extreme stuff with another lot of extreme stuff. --Tony Sidaway 15:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:Lou franklin, 29th May

edit

Lou franklin (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, the corresponding talk page, and from reverting any article more than once a week.

Lou has used a sockpuppet, Hernando Cortez (talk · contribs), in attempt to evade this case. CheckUser confirms as 'likely' and the contributions remove any doubt. Reasoning Result

While using Hernando Cortez, Lou violated his article ban over a dozen times and his revert parole just over half a dozen, as the contributions consisted of edit warring over a {{POV}} tag as Lou had done [62] [63] [64] etc.

Summation

The evasion went on for a fortnight. I recommend that Lou is banned for the maximum two weeks, one week for each violation. I filed the Arbcom case and have reverted Lou and his sockpuppet, and consider myself too 'involved' to make the block myself.

Reported by: Sam Blanning(talk) 10:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally

Hernando also probably violated Lou's personal attack parole, to be defined broadly to stop Lou's continuing accusations that the article is being edited by a gay cabal. See his move summary, where he moved Societal attitudes towards homosexuality to Homosexuals attitudes towards homosexuality, with the summary "Only homosexuals tell their attitudes. Normal people are not allowed. This is about homosexuals attitudes not societys". Also "I GAVE MANY REASONS. YOU DID CHEATING" [65] "Substantial rebuttal my ass... Do not be a crook" [66] "Do not be cheat" [67] etc... though as Lou was feigning a child's prose style to 'disguise his handwriting', I admit these are more amusing than offensive. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Johnleemk | Talk 11:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, he has once again contested his block. I suspect that before the end of this calendar year he will receive a block of one year or longer. 15:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
He's contested it several times and several admins have denied it, he still seems to be frothing at the mouth at making borderline legal threats about being libel and libelous etc. So I've temporarily protected his talk page to prevent the continuous reinsertion of the unblock template. --pgk(talk) 19:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wish there was a better way to handle stuff like this. Frustrating as heck. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he's a sockpuppet, why has he been unblocked? He just made an edit to societal attitudes towards homosexuality today. -Smahoney 20:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked Hernando Cortez indefinitely as a sockpuppet used to evade an article ban. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hurrah! Finally, I can get back to furthering the gay agenda. -Smahoney 22:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did just the same (2 minutes earlier), he should not have been capable of editing as he was already indef blocked a month or so ago as a sockpuppet. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


RK

edit

RK (talk · contribs) is currently under several restrictions for 12 months following Apr 7 2005, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2#Remedies These restrictions include “RK is limited to one revert per twenty-four hour period on material directly or indirectly related to Jews and/or Judaism for a period of twelve months, with violations treated as violations of the three-revert rule and also resetting the twelve-month period. Determing what is directly or indirectly related shall be left to the discretion of the administrators." Another restriction he is under is "RK is placed on standard personal attack parole for twelve months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week, and the twelve month period shall be reset.".

He has violated these restrictions and has had his 12 month period reset on December 23, 2005 see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive58#User_RK


On January 15, 2006 he violated those restrictions again and was blocked for 4 days and had his 12 month period reset. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive66#User_RK

He has now violated his 1 Revert restriction on Judaism related articles in the article of Tzadik.

Revision that he is reverting to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tzadik&oldid=54364282

First Revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tzadik&diff=54823740&oldid=54447135 Second Revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tzadik&diff=54986596&oldid=54876733

Since he has had a total of 3 blocks already for violating his restrictions with the last being for 4 days, please block him for the full week which the arbcom decision allows. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts were almost 24 hours apart, so we're going to take this as a calculated contravention rather than a hot-headed revert war. 72 hour block, reset of 12 month period. Deizio talk 12:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:Terryeo

edit

Terryeo (talk · contribs) is under indefinite personal attack parole, and is under probation such that he may be banned from pages which he disrupts. The final decision in his case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo.

Within the past 24 hours Terryeo has edited my user talk page in a disruptive and harassing manner.

The following diffs show the offending behavior
Terryeo responds to someone nominating me for adminship with "Congradualtions, Feldspar. I guess this means people will start keeping tabs on you. heh. [URL to Daniel Brandt's notorious 'Wikipedia Hivemind' page]" To tell someone that "people will start keeping tabs on you" is already very threatening. To link to the infamous Hivemind page only confirms that the intent is to harass and disrupt. As Pjacobi (talk · contribs) points out, the URL itself should have been caught by the blacklist.
Terryeo tries to initiate discussion of a quote found on my personal website. I have never mentioned or alluded to this quote on Wikipedia; I have never mentioned or alluded to my personal website on Wikipedia. In conjunction with Terryeo's assertion that "people will start keeping tabs on you", it is clear that his purpose in bringing up this quote is to show that he is willing to research my off-wiki activities and bring them up in order to harass and disrupt.
Terryeo disrupts a discussion with another editor, asserting that he has "tried to explain [a certain idea] before", when a) he is not the one the question was asked of, and b) his "answer" does not answer the question actually asked. By itself, this would be annoying but not proof of an intent to be disruptive. In conjunction with the evidence already shown, it is clearly an attempt to use my user talk page to disrupt and harass.
  • User talk:Terryeo, [72] Update: Terryeo is continuing to link to the Hivemind site, and using it to slander editors. "BTW, InShaneee, here are some of the people you are working with. [four URLs, including two to Hivemind and one to wikipedia review, snipped.]"
Summation

I was an involved party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo. It was alleged by many editors in that action that Terryeo was engaged in a practice set out by his religious organization called "Dev-T", or "Developed Unnecessary Traffic" -- simply translated, "wasting people's time and energy". It is considered a thing to eliminate in your own organization -- and to increase in the organizations of "enemies". Even after being banned indefinitely from all Scientology and Dianetics-related articles for editing, Terryeo continues to disrupt on article talk pages and user talk pages, whether it is by harassing individual editors or by insisting that Scientology, though supposedly a religion, does not have "beliefs", and persisting in pointless discussion of this impossible premise despite citations from the Church of Scientology itself referring to "the beliefs of Scientology".

Reported by: Antaeus Feldspar 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm blocking this chap for one week, the maximum under personal attack parole, but the nature of these attacks is in my opinion somewhat off the scale of normal personal attacks and incivility. I'm taking this further. --Tony Sidaway 13:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely disgraceful and seriously threatening behavior that actually sends shivers down my spine. In my opinion he should be permanently banned after such intentionally intimidating and threatening harrassment. Terryeo is now searching for all information he can find off wikipedia in an attempt to scare wiki contribtutors off scientology articles. Though very typical for the cult, such behavor should never be tolerated on wikipedia. Please consider me a party on whatever action is necessary to get this guy off this site. - Glen TC (Stollery) 19:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:Lou franklin, 18th May

edit

Lou franklin (talk · contribs) is under personal attack parole, to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted accusations of bad faith. [73]

Having returned from a one-week block for violating personal attack parole and an article ban, Lou is continuing to use his talk page to rail against what he sees as a 'gay cabal'. He is attempting to avoid sanction by saying the opposite of what he's saying, while being completely transparent about what he actually means.

  • "Of course I would never think of this user as an extremist breaking the rules to further his own agenda, but how can I explain to others that this user's actions were an act of good faith and not blatant POV pushing?" [74]

and so on in similar vein in a discussion with Jimpartame, until we reach:

  • "I don't think that this user is using Wikipedia as a PR vehicle to push a radical homosexual agenda at all, but what do you think?"[75]

I believe these are quite transparent accusations of bad-faith, despite the sarcastic language used. Apart from that, the accusations are identical to those Lou made explicitly and frequently before ArbCom closed - see this section of the ArbCom evidence page, so there should be no doubt about what Lou actually means.

Reported by: Sam Blanning(talk) 22:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further: while removing various negative comments from his talk page, Lou called an editor "stupid" in Latin in an edit summary. [76] --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:Instantnood May 16

edit

Instantnood (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction including Probation, General Probation, and restriction with respect to discussions on certain naming conventions. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3

Instantnood is carrying on the same revert behavior, and reviving old revert wars from months ago.

The following diffs show the offending behavior
Relate this diff to a finding of fact, principle, enforcement, or remedy listed in the Final Decision
These are the same edit wars he has been banned for before. He just moves to different articles. The university ones have been going on for over a year now. He comes along once a month ([79] is within three hours of the one month anniversary of the last revival, I think he keeps a schedule to revive these things) to restart these wars.
Summation

In many of these cases, I am the most recent person to revert him. I am far from being alone. Winhunter, AlanMak, Van Helsing, etc, have all been before or after him on these reverts.

Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 22:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than extend the ban to a few more articles and watch him move to others, I'm going to petition for a temporary site ban under the General Probation. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my proposal here. --Tony Sidaway 01:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Banned for two weeks, implemented by block. --Tony Sidaway 19:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


User:SchmuckyTheCat's claims are problematic (as detailed below), and it's pretty apparent he does not care about whether he's presenting the entirety of the fact, which is essential for administrators' decision.
  • I have explained in details for many times why Hong Kong and Macao categories should not be subcategory of mainland China-specific categories, but he's kept the false assertion that I'm arguing that're not part of China. Nobody has ever said they're currently not part of the PRC.
  • I've explained why the word "mainland" was necessary to the list of countries by GDP, just that user:SchmuckyTheCat doesn't agree. It was not me who added the word to the list [80].
  • As for round brackets, user:SchmuckyTheCat has never justified why all similar cases should be treated in the same manner.
  • For the list of stadiums, it was user:Alanmak who first reorganised the list [81] [82], disregarding how Hong Kong first appeared like [83].
  • The designation "Macao, China" is at most time spelt with an -o. But user:SchmuckyTheCat does not agree.
  • I've explained why Taiwan ≠ Republic of China, when it comes with names of categories [84] [85].
  • The problem with the flag images was identified. User:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Winhunter has refused to accept the fact that the replacement drive applies only when the .svg is an identical replacement (or satisfies official/legal specifications of the flag).
    • With these problems I would like to request for reconsideration of the previous decision. — Instantnood 20:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Lou franklin and homophobic epithet

    edit

    Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) used the word "homos" to describe other editors of Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. Use of homophobic epithets is against official policy. This user is currently on personal attack parole. Cleduc 02:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for a week. Johnleemk | Talk 17:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Leyasu (May 9)

    edit

    Leyasu (talk · contribs) is under revert parole, as was decided in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu.

    He has violated revert parole at least six times in the past and is now able to be blocked for up to a year. The sixth violation saw him temporarily banned from editing Black metal, although Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) reversed the ban after Leyasu apologized. Leyasu has once again violated revert parole at Children of Bodom by revert warring (only two reverts from him this time) with anonymous editors who have been changing the genre description of Children of Bodom and who have been removing the sources that Leyasu placed there to back up his classification of the band into that genre. Leyasu told me that the other members of WP:HMM would take care of the reverting, but he is still taking it upon himself to revert the anons.

    Here are the diffs that show the revert parole violation
    First revert
    Second revert 21 hours after the first one

    I also recommend possibly blocking the 220.*.*.* anons who have been provoking Leyasu, as evidenced by the edit summary here, if they continue this sort of behavior: [88] I have already warned the anon from that particular diff for incivility.

    Reported by: Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The diff cited as an example of incivility from the anon does not appear incivil to me. I will enforce the remedy, however. Johnleemk | Talk 17:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Lou franklin and personal attack parole

    edit

    Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to hop around user talk pages telling everyone that there is a gay cabal editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, despite the Arbcom ruling that I hoped would curb his continuous assumptions of bad faith:

    Lou franklin is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he may be temporarily banned for a short time of up to one week. This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith. [89]

    See for example [90] [91] [92]. It may seem mild to outside editors but it's continuous and wearisome, like an audio loop of nails down a blackboard, and it's exactly what we went to ArbCom to try and get stopped. And I don't know what this is but I doubt it's the countdown to his birthday. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just violated his article ban on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and its talk page dif. Furthermore, he uses terminology as "extremists" to describe the other editors of the Societal attitudes towards homosexuality page [93]. I request enforcement of the arbcom decision. Kim van der Linde at venus 05:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked him for 48 hours. Johnleemk | Talk 06:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zeq (May 8)

    edit

    Zeq (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction and may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. The final decision in the case is here: Zeq: Enforcement by block.

    The following diffs show the offending behavior

    Relevant finding of fact: Zeq cautioned regarding removal of well sourced information

    Summation

    Many reliable sources (such as those removed in the diff shown above, including Israeli and Palestinian government sources) demonstrate that Nakba Day is commemorated officially on 15 May and Israeli Independence Day is celebrated on 14 May in the Gregorian calendar. Zeq insists these events are on the same day because some Nakba protests are held on the same day as Independence Day and he continually removes any reference to the dates on which they are officially (and actually) held. He also removes any reference to the description of Nakba Day as a commemoration of Palestinian dispossession and most other information that contradicts his assertions about the purpose and timing of this event. I hope you agree that this version of the article by Zeq is not an encyclopedic improvement on this version. Many appeals to Zeq on his talk page and the article talk page have been to no avail and I would like to request that he be banned from this article for tendentious editing and removal of well sourced information.

    Reported by: --Ian Pitchford 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cautions from the arbitration committee don't normally carry any enforcement, they're just intended as strong hints for future behavior.
    However, Zeq is on probation, and may be banned from articles that he disrupts with tendentious editing [95]. I'm banning him from Nakba Day. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I request that another admin will look at this issue. Ian has caused the edit war (with other users). I have participted in talk page in order to resolve the situation. Please review this edit by a person that does not agree with my edits but understand better the nature of the dispute in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#User:Zeq
    I ask that user ian Pitchford will be instructed to obey ArbCom rulling and avoid edit wars and use proper dispute resolution. So far he has refused my request to mediation and in the last two weeks have been reverting and changing almost any edit I did on Wikipedia inan effort to (mis)use my probation against me. Zeq 06:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    PS - Nither the historical facts, not the the facts about the dispute in that Ian listed above are not correct but I will not engage in content dispute with him on this ANI board. He refused to deal with the issues on the talk page and instead went here to affect the content of the article. Zeq 06:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have requested review of this ban here. --Tony Sidaway 06:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank You. Zeq 06:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I'm still trying hard to get other people experienced in the subject matter to review the ban.
    Meanwhile I am rescinding it because Zeq and others have raised several legitimate points that cast doubt on my original decision. I've removed the ban notice and hereby place this update on all other relevant notices. If he really needs to be banned from this article then some other administrator will be just as capable of imposing it. In the meantime I apologise to Zeq. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Dschor

    edit

    Dschor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war.

    This user has made a very questionable edit to WP:DRVU that most likely violates his probation on being disruptive. The diff below shows where he has reinstated a sockpuppet's votes but under his own name to try to make them legit. See the history of WP:DRVU for more; there is some possible socking going on with ?!? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the anon IP as well.

    The following diffs show the offending behavior
    A direct violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#Dschor

    Reported by: Cyde Weys 06:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think he's being deliberately provocative. I'll ask him not to do that again. --Tony Sidaway 13:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:203.213.77.138

    edit

    User:203.213.77.138 is one of the enjoined parties precluded from editing Jonathan Sarfati and related articles like Answers in Genesis per the arbcomm ruling at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel/Proposed_decision#Agapetos_angel_et_al._banned User:203.213.77.138 was specifically identified here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel/Workshop#Sockpuppetry_.26_Meatpuppetry

    User:203.213.77.138 has started tendentiously editing Sarfati-related articles again:

    User:203.213.77.138 has now been warned of the ruling on his talk page.

    Reported by: FeloniousMonk 05:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Instantnood (May 1)

    edit

    Instantnood (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction for revert warring consisting of spelling and POV-reorganizations. The final decision in their case is here: [101]

    Instantnood has continued his revert wars on a daily basis. Beyond just staring new edit wars, he continues to resurrect old ones from previous months - exactly the behavior the Arbcom sanctioned him for.

    The following diffs show the offending behavior
    Instantnood won't abide by concensus that Singapore is a city and consistently returns to the page to remove it from the infobox. He can't find a single editor to agree with him that Singapore is not a city, because he is using an excessively legalese definition of city. Other editors have entertained his discussion on the talk page until he got obnoxious. At least four other editors have reverted his definition on the article itself.
    There are actually four simultaneous revert wars going on here, each of which is with a different editor! This made it extremely disruptive for other editors to work on the article and around this warring. Many of these reverts are marked minor, and/or have no edit summary (a point which ArbCom determined was disruptive in his first ArbCom case). The wars focused on the infobox, his reverts will either individually or simultaneously revert one of these items:
    1. [106] That Victoria City is the capital city of Hong Kong, over a year ago, even the Hong Kong government ended the first revert war over this fact. They said that Hong Kong has no capital city, period and that Victoria City no longer exists. An overwhelming majority of other editors agree with this statement.
    2. [107] Whether to use an svg or png version of the HK flag. Honestly, I don't know the basis either way for it, but he's sitting on a revert war about it without discussing it - and that is the problem. The position he's taking seems to be a violation of editing guidelines for images (the opposite one is preferred). I'm not aware that he is trying to discuss this with anyone.
    3. [108] Whether March of the Volunteers is the national anthem of Hong Kong (which it is, as part of the PRC.). He's not discussing this with anyone.
    4. [109] Whether the term for standard Chinese in the infobox should be "Mandarin" (the common name) or "Putonghau" a transliteration from Cantonese used locally. I have seen him discuss this, and overwhelmingly other editors have expressed preference for "Mandarin", for global recognition.
    A new article which seems to lack a point for its existance. Instantnood has found this another place to revert war. Two facts at war here:
    1. Instantnood is insisting on removing ", People's Republic of China" from after the section heading for Hong Kong (every other city on the list has it's country after it). To the point that he put a dubious template on it [110]. I have no idea what his justification for this kind of removal is. There is absolutely no question that Hong Kong is part of the PRC. This edit defies reality.
    2. [111] and another 10 times or so. Instantnood keeps insisting (on several articles) that the ENTIRE OFFICIAL NAME "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" must be used, and cannot be broken up by wikilinks to "Special Administrative Region" and "People's Republic of China". So in order to provide such links (which are fairly important to put that wordy official name into context) he insists on duplicitious phrases like the first sentence in that diff, "The Hong Kong SAR of the PRC is an SAR of the PRC"
    Extremely POV re-org of an article, which is what ArbCom said is justification for page banning. Instantnood is removing this article from the category for administrative divisions of the PRC. Said category contains all administrative divisions of the PRC, including the subcategory of the same name as the article. [112]
    [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] Same edits he was banned from List of bridges for, talk page is blank. 'nuff said.
    Summation
    I'd like to request that he be page banned, per the Arbcom sanction, from these articles/categories.


    Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 00:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Existing bans extended, more added, and blocked for 48 hours [119]. --Tony Sidaway 12:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to request for the reasonings and rationales leading to the block, and each of the page bans, respectively. Thank you. — Instantnood 20:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (response to user:SchmuckyTheCat posting at 00:29, May 2) I'm afraid I've to say it's not easy to assume user:SchmuckyTheCat is acting in good faith. He is not always presenting true facts, not to mention the entirety of the facts.

    The matter regarding Singapore is discussed at talk:Singapore [120]. The participants, including myself, have generally agreed that Singapore is an urban area (i.e. a city from the geographical perspective, cf. London#Defining London " The entire London urban area may be.. "), and (combined with the fact it's a sovereign state) a city-state. User:SchmuckyTheCat himself and the anonymous contributor are not participants of the discussion, and they are the only persons to have reverted my edit without any explanation [121] [122] [123] [124]. For the scope of an encycloædia, city status is hardly merely legalese. We have details regarding, for instance, the city status of Rochester and George Town.

    User:SchmuckyTheCat boldly claimed above I'm not discussing about the image format of the flag and how the anthem should be presented with anybody. The real side of the fact is that it's discussed [125] [126] (and I've also invited other wikipedians previously involved to join [127]). As for Mandarin vs. Putonghua, none of the participants talks about global recognition. They actually said Putonghua is not English (or not an English name), or asserted Mandarin is the natively used English name in Hong Kong.

    User:SchmuckyTheCat has failed to demonstrate any evidence to justify his claim that the City of Victoria no longer exists. The arguments presented in the E-Mails he's cited some time ago [128] [129] are, as explained [130] [131], invalid. He has not, until this moment, responded to my request for the E-Mail address he wrote to [132] [133], effectively making other people difficult to follow up.

    For the Pacific Rim capitals article, as explained [134], I'm not deleting the words " People's Republic of China ", nor am I denying the fact that Hong Kong is constitutionally " an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China ". I just meant to restore it according to how it was before the edits by the parties involved in the dispute, and let other people to decide how it should be presented. I've rephrased to better present its official full name and its status [135], but it has been disregarded by user:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Alanmak in their subsequent reverts [136] [137]. As for special administrative region (People's Republic of China), user:SchmuckyTheCat has yet to provide any evidence at the talk page that special administrative region is indeed administrative division. For the list of tunnels, user:SchmuckyTheCat has disregarded the fact that user:Alanmak's edit [138] touched a debated issue. It's always a good thing to restore according to what these articles were like before the disputed edits, and therefore I'm restoring the article according to that, and according to how the material first appeared [139].

    Even worse was that user:SchmuckyTheCat himself had been reverting everything in my edits, including materials he doesn't disagree with, e.g. [140] [141] [142] [143]. He also accompanies something else in his edits, e.g. [144].

    Since the previous decision to impose the block and the page bans based only upon user:SchmuckyTheCat submission, I would like to request to reconsider the block and the page ban.

    — Instantnood 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Instantnood has requested that the bans be lifted. While I'm not prepared to do this, I've made this request for a review of the bans. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Leyasu (April 29)

    edit

    This is probably of interest, it seems this user has yet again been violating parole...

    I posted this; "Blocked User:Leyasu returning under anon 86.132.128.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to revert articles again[145].. for at least the second time during their current week ban.

    This includes reverts on the "Gothic Metal" article, which the user was put on ArbCon parole for causing trouble on before (a parole which has been violated 5 times in the past), [146] and the "Children of Bodom" article... which the user is infamous for vandalising.... was found guilty of using sock puppets while blocked, with IP's similar to this. [147]"

    On the Incidents board... to try and get the situation looked at, after Leyasu's ban ended, he returned, salaciously attacking me personally on the incidents board, creating defamatory lies.. which had absolutely no relevance to the situation at hand. [148]

    Hope this goes someway to help the situation one way or another, glad to help. - Deathrocker 16:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that's really Leyasu. Edits like this one are not characteristic of Leyasu's edits. Notice that, in that edit, the anon also added "dick" to one of the titles, which is vandalism; I've never seen Leyasu do anything like that. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Leyasu denies using socks and, for now at least, I'm taking his word for it. See my recent comments elsewhere on this page. --Tony Sidaway 20:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RJII (April 26)

    edit

    Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug#Remedies

    RJII (talk · contribs) is being insanely disruptive and is trying to remove all citations of An Anarchist FAQ from wikipedia, as he has personal problems with the FAQ. Wikipedia policy allows the use of online resources as primary sources; RJII has been trying to block the usage of that source.

    There are more cases, but this edit is the latest:

    infinity0 does not understand the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Reliable_sources According to the policy, the FAQ cannot be used as a secondary source. And, he doesn't understand the difference between a secondary and primary sources. Saying it can't be used as a secondary source means it cannot be used in articles as a credible source about the views of anarchists. It can only be used as a primary source --that is, it can be quoted to show that the FAQ says in an article about the faq (the An Anarchist FAQ) article. Administrators and others have agreed with me (See the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources talk page for the Reliable Sources article under "FAQs"). The Wikipedia policy says: "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing. WP:V says: "Self-published sources... may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic." According to administrator SlimVirgin, the section on "Personal websites" applies --the FAQ originates from a Geocities.com website, and whoever runs that website can put whatever he wants in the FAQ --it's not published and the authors are a mixture of unknown people are people with no academic qualifications. Administrator SlimVirgin announced a warning on an article where the FAQ was being cited: [150] Also, the section on Partisan Websites appears to apply: "Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political, religious and other websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, the Aryan Nations website or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source." Fortunately, this policy helps protect against what has been happening: Someone has been putting original research into Wikipedia articles, then when a source is requested, he goes and puts the original research in the FAQ then comes back and cites it. It's fraudulent. The FAQ cannot be used a credible source for Wikipedia articles. I'm trying my best to keep Wikipedia information verifiable by credible sources. (This is just the latest episode of a long chain of unjustified attacks on me by infinity0 to try to drive me off Wikipedia). RJII 17:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The FAQ is not a personal website. It is not being used as a secondary source. The FAQ represents anarchist opinion, and so "anarchists think <cite FAQ>" is primary. Stop deliberately distorting policy to suit yourself. -- infinity0 18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not the website of any official organization. It's someone's website on Geocities. He edits that FAQ as he sees fit and it gets circulated around. Wikipedia strives to be a serious encyclopedia. We can't have shoddy sources like that. Fortunately, the policy protects us from that. RJII 18:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't lie about what the FAQ actually is. -- infinity0 19:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Leyasu (April 20)

    edit

    Leyasu (talk · contribs) is on revert parole, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu. Leyasu has been blocked for violating this ruling four times already, and Leyasu may have violated it through anons earlier this week (see the section below this one for more information on that); there is a CheckUser request currently listed to see if the anons were in fact Leyasu.

    Leyasu violated revert parole again with the following reverts:

    • 10:12, 20 April 2006: "Rv" [151]
    • 16:59, 20 April 2006: "Revert. Clear vandalism. Use of anon to violate admin warning" [152] (not only violating the ArbCom ruling, but also assuming bad faith)

    In keeping with this user's prior edit summaries for reverting edits by other users to Children of Bodom, Leyasu is continuing to tag the edits which they are reverting as "vandalism" or "clear vandalism", when the edits in question are not vandalism as defined by WP:-(. As a fellow party in the arbcom case where this ruling was given, I will not block Leyasu myself due to any possible conflicts of interest; but I strongly recommend blocking Leyasu for doing these reverts, particularly if the CheckUser case turns out confirmed, so that the ruling in the case will be upheld. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Leyasu is skating on very thin ice despite having had the meaning of "simple vandalism" clearly explained to him by arbitrators quite recently [153]. I'm blocking for the current maximum of one week, and the next offence may attract a much longer block as it will be the sixth infraction and the maximum block length has gone up to one year. --Tony Sidaway 12:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Within hours of returning from this seven day block, Leyasu violated his revert parole on Black metal. I also strongly suspect that he may have used non-logged-in edits, for instance by 86.132.128.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), to evade his block (see recent edits on Children of Bodom).

    I have banned him from editing black metal. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban rescinded after a positive and civil response. --Tony Sidaway 20:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Leyasu (April 17)

    edit

    Leyasu (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanctions of revert parole, personal attack parole and probabtion. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu

    Leyasu (aka Ley Shade) is currently serving a 48 hour block for a breach (not the first) of revert parole. I have recently been engaging with Leyasu in an effort to get them to work with others at Wikiproject metal and on other metal pages. However, such efforts have not been going too well recently and User:Ryouga has just brought this to my attention:

    "I am unsure to whom I should tell this to, but in case you didn't know IP address 86.143.126.71 has been vandalistically reverting all pages I have made any edits to, and I am convinced this is Ley Shade. S/he has reverted and vandalised all the pages I have made any edits to, and dirtied up the page again from previous cleanups. This was obviously done as an attack against me. Please do whatever you can...I am sure we can expect to see more anonymous users appear and spring these attacks against my contributions. Thank you --Ryouga 23:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

    After notifying Ryouga that I would bring this up here I then received the following message, apparently from Leyasu:

    "This IP is me, the other i do not know, nor do i make a habit of getting in revert wars using IP Adresses. However, i have a message for Ryouga, to which they should stop attacking and changing the articles, until i am unblocked and in a position to discuss the reasoning for the reverts with them properly. 86.132.129.203 00:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

    The contributions of the anon in question (26 reverts made in 67 minutes during Leyasu's current block) includes reverts to Children of Bodom and descendant articles (which Leyasu is currently blocked for reverting) [154], [155] plus insulting edit summaries accompanying reverts to various metal articles which state "remove garbage" and in four cases "rmv more garbage by ryoga" - 2 examples: [156], [157], none of which make great reading.

    I have never been personally involved in a revert war with Leyasu, indeed a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal will show how hard I have tried to work with them. This is also a report (not an accusation by me) on behalf of a newer user who has been severely bitten. As I write Ryouga has just this minute informed me on my talk page of more reverts to his edits with the same familiar hallmarks, this time by User:86.132.129.203. This resulting diff [158] from WP:AIV is also interesting.

    Reported by: Deizio 00:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue has been dealt with already, and i have sorted the problem with Ryouga myself [159] after already explaining elsehwere the conditions of my violation, [160]. I also requested for an extension to my block from the admin that served my 48 hour block [161] as is required by my violation. I also pointed out before that this is a one off to stem an all out flame war before it began, and that i already forsaw my extended ban and am willing to endure it to keep flame wars from even happening on Wikipedia. As such i ask this notice be stricken on the basis of the reasoning for violation. 86.132.133.113 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was a little uncertain on what to do when this began, so I did report the user. Currently we are amidst working this out so I just want to report that currently the issue is no longer serious. Thank you for understanding. --Ryouga 01:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Either way, the block that Ryan Delaney set was still evaded by the IP address. Not only that, the IP address violated the 1RR set in Leyasu's arbcom case [162] [163]. So if the current block is being evaded, it should still be extended and applied to both Leyasu and the IP address, perhaps after we have done a CheckUser to confirm that it's Leyasu posting from that IP address (it's not fair to Leyasu if it's an impostor, for example). But since I was a party in the arbcom case, I think someone else should set the block, if it's necessary to set one (which, it would be, if Leyasu and 86.132.133.113 are the same user). I don't know if Ryouga has necessarily been baiting Leyasu to violate the ruling; if he has, then he should probably also be blocked. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Instantnood

    edit

    Instantnood (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction for revert warring consisting of spelling and POV-reorganizations. The final decision in their case is here: [164]

    Instantnood has continued his revert wars on a daily basis. Beyond just staring new edit wars, he continues to resurrect old ones from previous months - exactly the behavior the Arbcom sanctioned him for.

    The following diffs show the offending behavior
    This is a POV re-organization of the categories This is his fourth attempt to re-organize this (Chinese universities) category against consensus: January 2006 - [170], July 2005 - [171], March 2005 - [172]. The other two categories have similar histories of his aborted attempts to re-organize them.
    Final decision: "those placed on Probation in this matter be banned from an article where they are engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article or any other activity which the user considers disruptive" This is directly edit warring, disruptive, and a POV re-organization.
    Reversion of three other editors so far. Not quite a "war", but particularly troublesome in the POV pushing aspect of it by his insistence that Hong Kong isn't part of China.
    Final decision: "those placed on Probation in this matter be banned from an article where they are engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article or any other activity which the user considers disruptive" This is directly disruptive, and a POV re-organization.
    • Estádio Campo Desportivo, 90% of all article edits are reverts by or against Instantnood over the inclusion of "China" after Macau.
    This is directly related to the findings of fact in the case "Instantnood has continued to edit war regarding naming issues."
    Summation
    I'd like to request that he be page banned, per the Arbcom sanction, from these articles/categories.
    This weekend has actually been particularly troublesome in Instantnood's edit wars. I chose these as an assortment, not a laundry list. If an admin went through his last two days worth of edits they would see a troublesome reflection of disruption to Wikipedia.

    Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 20:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits made to the universities category was instead to restore undicussed POV reorganisation by user:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Huaiwei. Nobody insists that Hong Kong and Macao are not part of the People's Republic of China. Quite the opposite, I explicitly acknowledge the fact that they're, according to Article 1 in their basic laws, " inalienable part[s] of the People's Republic of China ". The disputed matter was that whether they're administrative divisions. User:SchmuckyTheCat should have made all these clear upon filing this request, and should not provide inaccurate or even false information, which might affect administrators' decisions.

    As for the edits to the article on the stadium (Estádio Campo Desportivo), cf. user:Jiang's comment at #1, #2, #3. It's also related to Macao's status, i.e. whether or not it's an administrative division and/or an ordinary subnational entity.

    — Instantnood 21:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Article editing bans on Instantnood

    edit

    Because of Instantnood's recent disruptive editing, I'm implementing the following article bans under remedy 3 "Instantnood placed on Probation" and enforcement measure 1 ("Procedure for banning in Probation") of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. As is my usual practice with arbitration bans, I am making limited term bans rather than the full probation term bans that are permitted under the arbitration ruling.

    The message is that Instantnood is still far too aggressive in his edits and he needs to revert less, discuss more and respect other people's opinions. --Tony Sidaway 14:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I expanded this ban and blocked for 48h for violating it; see User talk:Instantnood. Other admin opinions are wanted. Ashibaka tock 03:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference, Ashibaka's bans dealt on 24 Apr 2006:

    SchmuckyTheCat 01:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Beckjord

    edit

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord states that Beckjord is banned from Wikipedia for one year, and is also prohibited from editing Bigfoot and related articles. However, when the case closed. Beckjord clearly stated that he does not intend to abide by the decision [174], and has continued to edit in violation of his ban.

    Since being banned, Beckjord has made dozens of edits from various anonymous IPs in violation of his ban, including, but not limited to, the following:



    Talk:Jon-Erik Beckjord

    Now, some of these edits contain edit summaries stating that he will never cease and that no one on Wikipedia, not even Jimbo Wales, has the right to oppose him, just because of his claimed "expertise" in Bigfoot. This is contrary to many policies, including WP:OWN, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NPA, among others. I have two points to make here:

    Comment The IP address 205.208.227.46 is a proxy run by safepages.com and is in the same range as 205.208.227.49, another safepages.com proxy that appeared to be Beckjord's main IP address as described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Evidence#Using sockpuppet accounts for dubious reasons. I agree that these edits are highly characteristic of Beckjord. (The other IPs are AOL. I did not consider them because the safepages evidence is good enough. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord#Sockpuppets, I concur that this is a Beckjord sockpuppet. However this is pretty stale. The last edit in the evidence given is April 10. Is this an ongoing problem? Thatcher131 (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind I see that this was posted and answered in April. Apparently when Werdnabot began archiving the page, it only took off the bottom subsection with the timestamp in it, and not any of the other sections. This is stale, so I'm going to archive it now. Thatcher131 (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    --69.117.7.63 03:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The timer has now been reset. The ArbCom ruling is being enforced by a number of administrators insofar as the edits in question being reverted. He uses AOL for some of his edits; if you feel AOL will give you the time of day if you contact them, you could try arguing that he might be violating AOL's terms of service by continuing to edit at a site where he has been formally asked not to do so... "unauthorized use of a computer network", perhaps? But frankly that would be unlikely to get any result. -- Curps 08:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ultramarine

    edit
    Transferred from WP:ANI, removals of sourced material still continuing.

    I request enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine, which applies only to Democratic peace theory and one other article. This single editor has been consistently removing sourced statements, despite protests. Some of the material in question has been defended by multiple editors.(See Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 5#1. This practice was expressly deprecated by ArbCom; which required that we edit by consensus, without establishing private versions.

    That these edits also suppress the majority of the work done in support of DPT in favor of three scholars who uphold an extreme position, and also criticism of that position, is, I suppose, merely a coincidence.

    Previous removals:

    Septentrionalis seems to think he owes the article and that he decides the content. His version is selectively including mostly very old studies as a straw man for the theory. While excluding recent supporting research, see User:Ultramarine/sandbox5. It was Septentrionalis who started doing edits again after Salix Alba asked for a slow-down, and yesterday he did a massive revert of many carefully explained changes. The article needs to be trimmed from excessive details from irrelevant studies done in the 70s and 80s, which also Salix Alba agrees on. However, since Septentrionalis resists this, I have now only added the recent research. As this recent research is the by far the best documented advantage of democracy, documenting the role of democracy in preventing wars, mass murder, and human rights violations, it is important that Wikipedia represents the current status correctly.

    • I have never claimed ownership of anything. Removal of sourced statements of fact without consensus is deprecated, and is a violation of the ArbCom decision in this case. Ultramarine's additions are (while it will take some time to look at them), welcome. Septentrionalis 15:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ultramarine has, as in the example above, been removing sources from the 1990's. The common element is not their age, but that they disagree with the three authors he chooses to support. Ultramarine claims below to be increasing the diversity of the sources by these removals; this is bizarre. Septentrionalis 15:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My general point is that views of most researchers and their studies and arguments are not farily represented. It should also be noted that Septentrionalis has on several other articles constantly tried to exclude well-sourced advantages of democracy and related research. See for example this, where he deletes every sourced advantage of liberal democracy while keeping many claimed unsourced disadvantages.[299] Or this, where he completely deletes the painstakingly made table regarding world-wide democracy from Freedom House.[300]

    Regarding Septentrionalis only supporter, Robert A West, he is real-world friend or relative of Septentrionalis. See their extensive collaborative editing of numerous Baron West and Earl De La Warr. They have extremely deep knowledge about this particular aristocratic family. Ultramarine 15:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Septentrionalis absolutely does not want the readers to see and judge for themselves the pro-DPT arguments regarding possible wars.[301] He always deletes even links in the main text to the article about the book Never at War so that readers should not be able to see the pro-DPT arguments.[302] See also User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies. Ultramarine 17:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ultramarine insists on giving undue weight to the peculiar arguments of three extremists, out of dozens of supporters of the democratic peace. But I do not ask the settlement of a content dispute; I ask the enforcement of a proceedural ArbCom decision.Septentrionalis 12:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For my part I got driven away from editing the DPT article by the actions of both Ultramarine and Septrionalis. The arbritration failed in that it should have banned the two of them from touching the article again. Robdurbar 22:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize.
    That settlement would have been, if not desirable, acceptable. If I could count on Ultramarine not pushing his PoV on the article, I would be willing to leave it tomorrow; I only meant to spend an afternoon on the thing. I think if I had a few uninterrupted weeks to edit it first, I could make it a good article, now that I've done this much reading on the subject. Septentrionalis 22:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This [303] is the version that Septentrionalis created after editing the article for several months almost uninterrupted by other editors. The recent research after around 2000, see User:Ultramarine/sandbox5, is ignored. His version almost exclusively mentions old supporting studies, many of them from the 70s and 80s, as a straw man and critical arguments without mentioning the counter-arguments. As this recent research on the democratic peace is the by far the best documented advantage of democracy, documenting the role of democracy in preventing wars, mass murder, and human rights violations, it is important that Wikipedia represents the current status correctly.Ultramarine 22:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be honest: I don't have the foggiest idea of whether or not someone's in the wrong here. The subject matter is way too confusing to me. If I was the only admin, I'd probably block you both again for sterile revert warring. A week for each revert is the maximum permitted, that could add up rather quickly. I strongly recommend you both stop editing the article, and if you don't quit it then I will ask the ArbCom to make an additional motion banning you from the article. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me know if you do; if it is not indefinite, I would support such a ban. I would like to know what third parties make of the article. Septentrionalis 22:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added much new information from recent peer-reviewed studies in this very active field. I do not see how this can be sterile edit waring. Ultramarine 00:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The finding of fact in the arbcom decision was the maintaining of two separate and parallel versions. This is not the the case now. I think that the recent edits have created a much more correct article without having two different version. So I think that the arbcom decision has been very successful. Recent developments in this field still need to be added. Ultramarine 01:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This ungrammatical paragraph is, unfortunately, a fair sample of Ultramarine's prose.
      • When he does not write in this manner, he is cutting and pasting from published material.
    • His contribution has been described by a third party as a "spam of studies"[304], a mere list, without secondary writing. It still is. He is also at least careless, and frequently inaccurate, in describing his sources; he often does not appear to have read the articles he cites, but relies on second-hand descriptions and abstracts.
    • His edits for the last couple days (during which I have abstained) have been massive rearrangements, and significant deletions. [305] - Septentrionalis 03:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Septentrionalis obviously does not like that others correct the strange anti-democratic text he had created and guarded during several months. I will not again participate in having two separate and parallel versions. This was a mistake and the arbcom decision successfully prevents this. All my edits have been carefully explained. Many of the quoted studies can be read online, if anyone doubts what I have written. See User:Ultramarine/sandbox5. I have and will continue to correct errors and add recent peer-reviewed research, something not forbidden. Ultramarine 04:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a personal attack, on two grounds.
    • The history will show that I have not guarded the text. Ultramarine has always been welcome to edit it; there was a time, and 400K of archives, when he preferred to complain rather than do so. He is not free to remove sourced statements from it.
    • The suggestion that I oppose democracy is libelous; in fact, I have been convinced that the democratic peace exists. Septentrionalis 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I happened onto this tonight and I'm having a hard time reconciling the remedies as stated at Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine:
    Ultramarine, Pmanderson, and Robert A. are directed to work together to produce a consensus version. If any of them persist in sterile revert warring, admins may block them for a short period (up to a week) for each revert.
    with the editing that's been going on at Democratic peace theory which is a fairly unilateral series of edits carried out by Ultramarine. Is this acceptable to editors that are more involved in this than I am? It seems to be contrary to the decision. Rx StrangeLove 06:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The finding of fact in the arbcom decision was the maintaining of two separate and parallel versions which was reverted between. This is not the the case now. I will not again participate in having two separate and parallel versions. This was a mistake and the arbcom decision successfully prevents this. I think that the recent edits have created a much more correct article without having two different version. So I think that the arbcom decision has been very successful.
    I think that if you examine the edits since I started edited the article again, there has not been sterile edit wars. Instead numerous findings from recent studies has been added, adding the view of the majority of the researchers in this field. Something Pmanderson almost completely ignored in the text he had created during several months of unilateral editing and which selectively described the view of the critics. So there has not been sterile wars, but instead a constructive improvement, adding the view of the other side. Again, the maintaining of two separate and parallel versions was a mistake, which I regret. However, this is not the case now and I think that if the recent edits are examined it will be found that the article has been improved by also adding the view of the other side. Ultramarine 13:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:RJII

    edit

    (Moved from AN/I as RJII is banned from editing that page for three months. Essjay Talk • Contact 02:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    I request enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug

    • RJII has been trying to repeatedly force through the same point and content into An Anarchist FAQ. He continues making aggressive and tendentious edits such as [306] and [307]. Various users have explained why his view and edits are POV. However, he refuses to acknowledge their input, instead repeatedly making the same arguments which have already been responded to. For example, his comments at Talk:An Anarchist FAQ#Anarchist writers and Talk:An Anarchist FAQ#Editors say exactly the same thing.
      • [308] - User:Aryah tells RJII the FAQ is open.
      • [309] - User:Libertatia tells RJII the FAQ is not social anarchist doctrine.
      • [310] - I explain to RJII why his edits are POV and inappropriate. RJII calls this explanation incoherent.
        • [311] - RJII refuses to respond to my argument, instead calling it nonsense.
        • [312] - RJII refuses to explain why he thinks my response and criticism of his edits are incoherent.
        • [313] - RJII refuses to explain why he disagrees with my deconstruction of his edit.
        • [314] - Without responding to any of my points whatsoever, RJII goes and inserts his wording back into the article. (This diff also includes a false quote at the top of the page - "small collective" and "social anarchists" are from two opposite ends of the FAQ.)

    -- infinity0 18:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This kid has been trying desperately to get me banned from Wikipedia, just because he doesn't like my edits. He's been harrassing me, and even stalking me to articles he doesn't even edit to delete my edits simply because they are mine (he even admitted it [315]), so I can't even avoid him if I try. He knows I'm on probation (which in my opinion, I should not be on --the arbitrators are apparently over-worked and didn't take the time to verify the charges against me), and so as a result he has been trying to take advantage of that probation (especially the vague "tendentious editing" probation). He's making claims of "tendentious editing" and POV hoping that administrators will see that I'm on probation, assume I'm the bad guy and give him the benefit of the doubt. Please do not fall for it. I am, and have always been, dedicated to providing sourceable information and writing in an NPOV manner; I'm even more careful about it now that I'm on probation. He's posted to the Administrator's Noticboard/Incidents several times to try to get me banned. This is just an extension of edit warring on his part. Instead of dealing with the sourced information I bring to the table that conflicts with his POV, he resorts to trying to take advantage of my probation, and the prejudice it tends to create in a person's mind about me when they see that I'm on probation, to try to get me banned. He's extremely unethical. Thanks for taking the time to understand. RJII 02:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, here are the sources for those edits he referred to above. "It is produced by a small collective of people who work on the FAQ when we can (mostly in our free time, after work). This means that any e-mail sent may take a while to be replied to." [316] And, that the writers are "social anarchists" (not merely "the main writers" but THE writers: "Lastly, to put our cards on the table, the writers of this FAQ place themselves firmly in the "social" strand of anarchism." [317] Please let me know if you need any more sources for any other edits. Thanks. RJII 02:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, note that I am banned from editing the Administrator's noticeboard for 3 months. This is a result of me defending myself against similar charges from infinity0. It's inexplicable why I was banned from there by Essjay. All I can think of is he saw I was on probation and, from that, assumed I was the bad guy and should not be allowed to respond to the harrassment from infinity0. Or maybe he thinks I got a little too heated in my defense. Go figure. But, I am tired of being harrassed by infinity0. RJII 02:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I banned you from ANI after consulting with quite a few other admins; you were disruptively commenting all over the noticeboard. You then proceeded to make personal attacks against myself and several others, and a two week general ban was applied. I moved this report here in good faith, under the assumption that you'd learned your lesson and would follow the rules; instead, I'm rewarded with further attacks on my character. I'm beginning to think another Arbitration case should be considered sooner rather than later. Essjay Talk • Contact 11:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's true. As far as I know, I didn't make a personal attack against anyone. I'm certain that I didn't make one against you. I would really like to see quotes of this. I'm wondering even if you have me confused with someone else. RJII 23:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    RJII, you think you are without fault. You are on probation for a reason. I report you for many reasons. I have made this request based on things you have done, not things you have not done. You have repeatedly turned around my criticisms onto me. Stop acting like you are the victim. You have been very aggressive on many articles you edit, and it is impossible to build consensus with you. You ignore other editors' comments, not just mine, and you carry along editing the article as you see fit without taking into account even remotely the possibility that your edits are bad. You need to correct this attitude. -- infinity0 10:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for the record, I must say that I agree with most of RJII edits on the “An Anarchist FAQ”. Also, it seems to me that infinity0 is really trying to make it easier for himself to push through his point of view in this and other articles by banning his main ideological opponent. -- Vision Thing -- 13:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I tend to agree with Vision Thing for the most part, but I'm blocking him for 24 hours for being markedly discourteous. This has nothing to do with the article content, only user interactions. Stifle (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record. I disagree that there was anything "discourteous." I think you're really making a stretch with that. You should really be checking out infinity0's behavior --I'm considering filing an arbitration case against him for all his antics. RJII 04:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not make threats. If you with to open an arbitration case, then do so, that's your choise - but please don't threaten to do so publically. Thanks! Ian13/talk 18:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Vision Thing, saying I have POV is a fallacy, since you give no explanation. Most of the other editors agree with my points - check the talk page. RJII, if you have problems with my "behaviour", that is only because I am responding to the way you behave. -- infinity0 18:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Cantus

    edit

    (copied from original entry placed, unwittingly, at WP:AN)

    Earlier, the above noted user – (contributions) – was sanctioned and restricted by the ArbCom. However, Cantus persists in:

    As an editor of some of these articles, and not necessarily a policeman of them, I find Cantus' behaviour wholly frustrating and counterproductive. And, despite prior sanction and warnings, it doesn't seem that Cantus is either willing or able to modify his behaviour. I request that this editor's behaviour be reviewed and, as prescribed in the ArbCom ruling, that some corrective actions be taken; in the very least, the article recently moved (point 4) should be returned to its prior locale.(NOTE: I believe this has been dealt with for now.) Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    April 22, 2006, Heah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Jacoplane (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Cantus for editing Developed country while banned. A difference over the block duration was resolved, and the block stood at 24 hours. --Tony Sidaway 13:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In my personal opinion this editor's behavior probably merit closer study with a view to further corrective action. --Tony Sidaway 13:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Sockpuppetry

    edit

    During this block, the following anon IPs have reverted articles (and selectively, I might add) to versions supported solely by the above user and without discussion nor consensus (but with summaries):

    I believe these are sockpuppets of this user ... for which C. was also sanctioned by the ArbCom regarding (remedy 4). This is untenable. I'm unsure how to proceed; however, this behaviour – which I'm led to believe is all from same user and not just coincidence – requires further investigation and that added corrective measures be contemplated if necessary. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    UPDATE: A recent sockpuppet request has confirmed the above anon IPs were used by Cantus to edit while blocked. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Under remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3, Cantus is banned from editing developed country. Template:Europe and Terri Schiavo. Under enforcement clause 1.1 of that ruling he can be banned for a month if he uses socks to edit an article from which he is banned. I'm blocking Cantus for one month under these clauses for using a verified sock to edit developed country. --Tony Sidaway 16:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]



    Reddi/Rotating magnetic field

    edit

    Can I request a checkuser on this? It was referred over here. --ScienceApologist 09:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Reddi was banned by an arbcom decision from contentious editting on certain pages. User:Rotating magnetic field looks like a sockpuppet created to evade this. ScienceApologist 21:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2. Thatcher131 21:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requests related to Arbitration decisions are best directed to the Arbitration Committee, which has an ample supply of available checkusers and a better understanding of the subject matter. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    RK 2

    edit

    RK (talk · contribs) is currently under several restrictions for 12 months following Apr 7 2005, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2#Remedies These restrictions include “RK is limited to one revert per twenty-four hour period on material directly or indirectly related to Jews and/or Judaism for a period of twelve months, with violations treated as violations of the three-revert rule and also resetting the twelve-month period. Determing what is directly or indirectly related shall be left to the discretion of the administrators." Another restriction he is under is "RK is placed on standard personal attack parole for twelve months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week, and the twelve month period shall be reset.".

    He has violated these restrictions and has had his 12 month period reset on December 23, 2005 see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive58#User_RK


    On January 15, 2006 he violated those restrictions again and was blocked for 4 days and had his 12 month period reset. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive66#User_RK

    On May 25, 2006 he violated these restrictions again and was blocked for 3 days and his 12 month ban reset. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#RK

    He has now violated the no personal attacks section with this edit by saying that about a new editor who was probably not aware of any wikipedia policies "There is more than a small chance that he may (literally) be suffering from psychosis...clinical sign of mental disturbace...mental disturbance" and although he edited it in the next edit to just say "emotional disorder" that still constitutes as a personal attack.

    This is his 5th violaton, I am therefore blocking him for one week and reseting the 12 month period. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Constantine Conspiracy...Doc/Ril

    edit

    I seem to have entered theAuthentic Matthew mess! I used http://pedia.nodeworks.com/A/AU/AUT/Authentic_Matthew/ (a big mistake)! I am not able to defend myself against DocUser:-Ril- ! Would an admin please look into this very bad situation --MeBee 02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you explain the situation a little more clearly, please? It's really very unclear what your issue is. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Leyasu

    edit

    case

    User:Leyasu is on revert patrol via ArbCom decision.

    I have good reason to belive User:86.132.134.97 is Leyasu, that he is edit warring with Deathrocker, compare edits of Deathrocker and IP

    For this, and the fact that the IP is reverting Deathrocker in numerous places, with lots of "reverting banned user" and citing tons of WP:XXX templates while doing so, this IP is most likely leyasu violating revert patrol and his 3 month block (3RR too, but I'm reporting that on the 3RR board) Kevin_b_er 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify, Circeus has indefinitely blocked Leyasu's main account; and this is also being discussed on WP:AN/I. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SqueakBox and User:Zapatancas

    edit

    SqueakBox (talk · contribs) is placed on personal attack parole. The final decision in their case is here: here. He has recently posted this insulting message by which he says that User:Hagiographer must be a sock puppet of mine as his English messages are written in poor Spanish just like those by me. As I explained in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas/Evidence, SqueakBox has frequently criticized unpleasently my English as I am a native speaker of Spanish. Zapatancas 15:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As is Zapatancas (talk · contribs). Are you also Hagiographer (talk · contribs)? i believe you are and urge the arbcom to investigate and do a check user test as if he is Hagiographer he clearly is breaking the arbcom final decision. Calling my post insulting is breaking his no attack parole. i am certainly not attacking either zapatancas or Hagiographer but by describing my question and conclusions as insulting he is again engaged in attacking me. He has insulted my English and Spanish in the past, I have no issues with him having poor English, i merely pointed it out in my response as to why I believe Zapatancas is Hagiographer. I certainly dont claim or even believe my written Spanish is any better than his written English, and indeed for a Spaniard living in Madrid Zapatancasd shows a good command of English but he doesnt have a native command of the language, SqueakBox 18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As of Monday morning Zapatancas has made massive changes to all the Zapatero articles, reverting them back to his version, using his socklpuppet Hagiographer, SqueakBox 12:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser is unable to confirm or refute the claim of sock puppetry. I'm continuing to investigate. --Tony Sidaway 11:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SqueakBox and User:Zapatancas

    edit

    SqueakBox (talk · contribs) is placed on personal attack parole. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas. He has recently posted this insulting message by which he says that I am behind User:SquealingPig and User:SquealingPigAttacksAgain (to whom he refers as SP and SPAA). As I explained in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas/Evidence, SqueakBox has for more than a year repeat that false accusation that was ignored by the ArbCom as can be found in the "Findings of fact". Zapatancas 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not insulting to say that Zapatancas is SquealingPig nor have I been censored for saying so, for Zapatancas to claim that the accusation is false is not credible. i was blocked for making attacks against Zapatancas for not stating that he was SquealingPig and his refusall to acknowledge tyhe truth doesnt mean I am attacking him which I am not. By claiming that I am making a false accusation i could equally claim tyhat Zapatancas has broken his no attack parole by claiming that I am making a false claim when I am not but as it is Zapatancas is the one harrassing me and not me him, ie see his two further complaints below. All I want is for him and his friend Hagiographer to leave me alone, SqueakBox 18:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:SqueakBox

    edit

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas

    SqueakBox is placed on personal attack parole with a decision that explicitly states that "This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith". However in the past few days he has not stopped insulting me and accusing me of being a sock puppet of User:Zapatancas, although I registered my identity far before that user was blocked by the same case that SqueakBox. This day he has posted this message [318] in which he shows a complete lack of respect towards me and claims that an edit of mine is a "crying shame". Moreover, he claims he's going to take me to an RfC or to the ArbCom, what is a disrespectful sample of assuming bad faith. Hagiographer 14:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit summary in this edit is almost identical tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zapatancas&diff=prev&oldid=19312435][319][320] it isnt credible that this user is other than Zapatancas, SqueakBox 16:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent attack

    edit

    SqueakBox has made this edit [321] posting the insult "vandal troll" against me. Hagiographer 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You just vandalised my user page so I was ttelling the truth. Stop harrassing me, Zapatancas. I haver a right to have you not vandalsiing my userr pager and spewing your hatered of me. just stop trying top create a reaction! SqueakBox 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Here Hagiographer not only vandalises my user page just like Zapatancas but leaves edit comments identical to those of Zapatancas. SqueakBox 13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspecion of sock puppettry

    edit

    I believe that User:Skanking is a sock puppet of SqueakBox. It was created in April, when the case against SqueakBox had already been posted. His user page is very similar to that of SqueakBox and so are his edits, related to subject like Honduras [322] or La Ceiba [323] or Zapatero [324]. He probably created it to avoid the one month ban imposed on him by the arbitration committee. The message below (Ras Bily is the sign of User:Skanking), posted in the arbitration enforcemente although it does not belong here as I'm not affected by any arbcom decision adds aditional evidence. Why is he so coordinated with SqueakBox? Hagiographer 16:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hagiographer has vandalised SqueakBox thrice [325] [326] [327] and keeps altering another users comments on the Zapatero page. Can someone get him to stop? Ras Billy I 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolute paranoia by this strange user. I am not SqueakBox, he got on my watchlist today because he left me a message ages back and I spotted that Hagiographer was persistently vandalising Squeak's user page. because I revetrted him he calls me Squeak's sockpuppet. How daft. And his insinuation that only Squeak would want to edit Honduras articles is frankly insulting to a Central American like myself, as if only gringos would want to or have the right to edit pages on Central America and Honduras, a country I know well being from Belize and working on the boats when I were a young man, thus knowing Ceiba where I had a girlfriend and many sweet memories. This guy Hagiographer really seems to have a problem, makes me for one not want to have anything to do with wikipedia again. Its only a bit of fun but this guy seems seriously enloquecido and I dont want to be dealing with a peligroso, siendo ya viejo. If Hagiographer doesnt want his behaviour commented on he should not have edited here in the first place. Any fool can he see he is a zapatancas sockpuppet only created to harrass squeakbox. yuck! Ras Billy I 18:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fuinally I would add that were I the sockpuppet of squeakbox I would not have revealed myself to repair squeak's page, he could have done that himself. It would make no sense if I were his sockpuppet to reveal myself. But it seems that logic isnt Zapatancas strongpoint, suele ser con los hablantes de ese idioma. Ras Billy I 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Italic text[reply]

    User:SPUI at Category:Limited-access roads

    edit

    SPUI (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways.

    SPUI just lost the 3rd go 'round on Category:Limited-access roads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Never-the-less, s/he just changed the definition to match the failed CfD. And has reverted contrary to the outcome, as clearly indicated on Category talk:Limited-access roads.

    The following diffs show the offending behavior
    Edit warring
    SPUI insists he is right
    Probation
    Summation

    After disputes that arose at CfD, where I was the previous closer, I became aware of the issue(s). I did my best to resolve the conflict as an independent party, and thus became an involved party.

    The relisting was recently closed by another independent party, Kbdank71 (talk · contribs), with exactly the same result.

    I request a block of at least two (2) months with no possibility of parole, as I see that blocks of days and weeks have happened in the recent past, but been alleviated by his friends among the administrators.

    Reported by: William Allen Simpson 20:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Guy Montag

    edit

    Guy Montag (talk · contribs) is under Wikipedia:Probation for one year, effective per 9 October 2005. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy_Montag_placed_on_probation.

    Unilateral renaming of article and massive rewriting such as to reflect a more positive view for Israel. Vote on moving back showed clear lack of consensus for the move (12-15 (44.4%) with 3 rename to a different name, effectively 50-50 split on keeping it at the new name), including vote staking opposed, opposed, opposed, opposed, opposed, all voted against moving back.

    The following diffs show the offending behavior
    Guy Montag moved the article from his commonly known name to Battle of Deir Yassin, and rewrote it substantially. This rewrite is contested by several knowledgable editors, see for example Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Total_Rewrite, Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Battle??? for discussion and poll for more opinions. This shows a clearly inappropriate editing and renaming of the article, which is not based on consensus, and therefore he can be bannned from any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which he disrupts by inappropriate editing.
    Summation

    Guy Montag should be banned from the Deir Yassin Massacre article, and the unilateral move should be undone due to lack of consensus for that move and votestaking. As I started the vote to get an idea if the unilateral move was supporeted by the community, I feel another admin should review the case and close the vote. Reported by: -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified him of this report [User_talk:Guy_Montag#Reported_for_pobation_violation]. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not getting involved on the move and re-write; that's a content issue of which I really can't judge. However, his behavior in rallying votes on the issue, and the "broken record barnstar" he posted on the Talk page were clearly disruptive. I'm banning him from Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre. I can't ban him from posting on the talk page, but I encourage him to remain civil, and warn that continued incivility will lead to a block. As with all my blocks, if any admins disagree, they can repeal this ban. Ral315 (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this imply that the probation is reset? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The move was clearly in line with WP:NPOV. The barnstar was a bit of humor which may have caused offense but was made in response to a highly distasteful comment that "Zionists always cover up their crimes" or some such. This ban was, in my opinion, improper and I request that it be repealed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thankfully, I have nothing to do with this, but for the record [328] was the impetus for [329]. I think the former is more heinous than the latter, but that's just my opinion. -- Avi 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If anything, Guy's response was far more measured and good-humored than the comment deserved. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Briangotts, the ban is rescinded. Ral315 (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's outrageous that an editor who has written this article to its current exceptionally well-researched and NPOV condition can be banned from it. Pecher Talk 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy Montag has been banned from Deir Yassin massacre for the period of one year for inserting copyvio information (see Talk:Deir Yassin massacre) and tendentious use of the talk page. I have notified him here. Diffs where he inserts the copyvio information here. As I mentioned on his talk page, he doesn't necessarily need to be banned the whole year (in my opinion) but he should certainly take a break. - FrancisTyers · 23:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unbanned as apparently I am involved. - FrancisTyers · 12:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SqueakBox and User:Zapatancas

    edit

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas

    SqueakBox is placed on personal attack parole with a decision that explicitly states that "This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith". He has posted this message [330] in which he claims falsely that I've "chased away 2 editors" and that I've "decided to single mindedly impose [my] views", when I've really exposed my opinion in the talk page in an open approach to other editors. Hagiographer 08:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This comment is the third or fourth time Zapatancas (talk · contribs) and his sock have brought me to this page, any enforcement should be against him. Here he calls me an outright liar in clear breach of his no attack parole, said edit also demonstrates how unlikely it is that 2 users would have such a murderous hatred towards me who have been an entirely innocent target of the pathological anger of this person for 14 months now as well as demonstrating that the bad faith is indeed his part. We've been through this whole tedious process of Zapatancas and his army of socks for too long now, SqueakBox 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that there is a suspected sock puppet enquiery into SqueakBox that he is the master of abusive sockpuppets. There appears to be large amounts of evidence against him. Sockpuppet case is here. Iolakana|T 11:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SPUI

    edit

    SPUI (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways.

    For the past several weeks, s/he has been edit warring over Ontario provincial highways. S/he lost a CfD on renaming its related category, re-listed, and lost again. Ensuing signs of extreme embitterment.

    Today, s/he is at 3 reverts, all with the edit summary including "crap".

    1. revert crap - READ THE LAW MORE CAREFULLY
    2. revert crap
    3. revert incorrect crap again

    Likewise, at limited-access roads, every requested fact has been annotated, so that the annotated page is full of them, and yet SPUI persists in edit warring, covering the page with "original research" and "disputed" tags, and "citation needed" on adjectives, and nouns, all of which are well-covered in the references, or on the other articles that are linked. Many of the edits deleted the references that respond to the tags.

    1. revert inclusion of crap
    2. revert inclusion of incorrect crap
    3. fine... I'll leave it in and mark it as the steaming turd that it is
    4. more tags

    These are all edit warring on highway pages, and involve incivility.

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Probation

    2.1) Should SPUI, JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry disrupt the editing of any article which concerns highways he or she may be banned by any administrator from that article or related articles. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Log of blocks and bans.

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Parties warned for incivility

    7) JohnnyBGood and SPUI are warned to remain civil at all times; in particular, JohnnyBGood is reminded not to refer to good faith edits as vandalism. All participants in this dispute are encouraged to maintain a courteous atmosphere.

    Summation

    After disputes that arose at CfD, where I was the closer, I became aware of the issue(s). I did my best to resolve the conflict as an independent party, and thus became an involved party.

    These pages were fully annotated (by me) with legal and historical references. Apparently, SPUI is some kind of wiki-lawyer, without formal legal experience.

    I am not a member of the Canadian bar, but I'm reasonably sure that the usual common law and statutory construction still apply there.

    I request a block of at least 1 month, as I see that blocks of days and weeks have happened in the recent past.

    Reported by: William Allen Simpson 17:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SPUI for a refutation of his charges. --SPUI (T - C) 17:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Already discussed on WP:ANI. No action under either of SPUI's probations is indicated at present, as long as he remains civil and does not resume edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Has continued edit warring, moving citations into the lead section, instead of the body, part and parcel of the same section edits made 3 a dozen times over the past few days.
    --William Allen Simpson 19:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At a brief glance, it looks to me as if the version he favors is basically the same one favored by freakofnurture. If you think they're both wrong, start a RfC on the topic. Don't war with them. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While WAS warring isn't acceptable he also is not the one on probation here. SPUI shouldn't be getting any further "warnings" or "chances". He's breaking the rules of his probation and as such should be blocked. If it were me or Rschen warring I would expect no less. But we're not we've backed off of these disputes and are respecting and abiding by the Arbcom. Now if SPUI doesn't have to do the same, then what's the point of there being an arbcom? JohnnyBGood 20:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can get an administrator to agree with you, go for it. --Tony Sidaway 20:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do that. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I correct in assuming this doesn't mean "spam admins' talk pages until you find one who will block"? --SPUI (T - C) 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While that might be effective I'd rather avoid it. I'm just trying to find out if this arbcom ruling we're both party too means a damn which is why I'll ask one of the admins on the Arbcom itself. Because if admins aren't going to enforce the probation (which you can't argue you did violate earlier) then it obviously doesn't mean squat and the parties aren't really subject to it any longer. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Also I bring to note the following... At WT:CASH SPUI has begun changing all articles to use his {{Infobox CA Route}} infobox despite the consensus to use the current one {{routeboxca2}}... and he tagged all articles with {{cleanup-infobox}} to enlist the public in his crusade... does that amount to "disruption"? Probably not, but just thought I'd bring it up. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unsure if this is an approperiate place to bring this up, but all List_of_numbered_highways_in_Ohio were tagged with {{cleanup-articletitle}} although no formal discussion took place and was based on "personal references." Seicer (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, he's done the same thing to articles in Category:Wisconsin state highways. The Wisconsin DOT does use the "State Trunk Highway XX" format officially, but almost nobody else uses it, and even the DOT often uses "WIS XX" in public documents (see [331]). Furthermore, if it is his opinion that these articles should be renamed to use the "State Trunk Highway" designation, I see no reason why he would modify all links to other Wisconsin highways in the articles to the Highway XX (Wisconsin) format, see [332] and [333] for examples. BryanG(talk) 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also - I am finding a lot of what are IMHO - pointless redirects such as to cities (proper link is City, State being redirected to by links such as City (ST) The same thing is taking place with Interstate and U.S. Highways. Some examples are as follows Tomah (WI), Interstate 94 (Wisconsin), I-94 (WI) and US 45 (WI) Is this appropriate? We have standards set as stated in Wikipedia:Wikiproject U.S. Roads (For example) we need to follow them. Just an informational piece.--master_sonLets talk 00:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the real status of the state highway dispute? Has the RfA gone final and SPUI just ignored it, or is it still in dispute? I'm not going to create any more Tennessee state articles until this is settled. SPUI is very knowledgable about transportation issues and in many ways a valuable resource to Wikipedia, but this has really gotten to be beyond ridiculous IMO, not because that anyone who disagrees with me is ridiculous or even necessarily wrong, but just because of all of the productive man-hours that could have been used doing good things that have been devoted to this issue instead. Rlquall 01:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the RfA. It's been closed. The question is, does the final decision apply to all highway articles, or just California and Washington ones. --Bobblehead 01:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SeparateIssue/James S.

    edit

    User:SeparateIssue/James S. is under Arbitration Committee sanction and is banned from editing Depleted Uranium]] and associated articles. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium

    James S. was banned indefinitely from editing Depleted Uranium and associated articles. I believe the edits that he has made under his sockpuppet account, User:SeparateIssue, on the Gulf War article is a violation of his ban. A Checkuser request is not necessary to establish this, as User:SeparateIssue has admitted that he is James S. [334]

    The following diffs show the offending behavior
    Here James has attempted to reintroduce material rejected from the main article on Depleted Uranium as well as skirt his ban from editing the article.


    Reported by: Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned him of my intention to block him and ban him from that and other articles he may edit if he continues to edit sections containing information about depleted uranium. --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:SPUI

    edit

    SPUI (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways.

    User:SPUI has again engaged in edit warring on state highway articles. The most recent instance being at Minnesota State Highway 33.

    The following diffs show the offending behavior
    All of this is an ongoing edit war in violation of Section 2.1 of his probation forbiding disruptive edits to highway articles. Edit warring is disruptive.
    Summation

    This is his third disruptive highway warring in the last week per the two cases below. He has already been warned to follow his probation on at least one previous occasion and has obviously not taken it to heart. I too am subject to the same probation and if he isn't required to follow the arbcom's decision then what is the point of Arbcom at all?

    Reported by: JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We're being ignored again. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Onefortyone and Elvis Presley

    edit

    User:Durin reported this to me, but I think I am not an ideal person to go wading in. Can someone check if Onefortyone's recent edits to Elvis' page constitute a violation of his arbitration probation? See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone for more. Stifle (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned for two months from Elvis Presley. This enforcement has been listed at Onefortyone's RfAr, and Onefortyone has been notified as well. Jkelly 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TDC

    edit

    TDC (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee revert parole. The final decision in his case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium#TDC placed on revert parole was:

    "TDC is hereby limited to 1 content revert per article per day and must discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page for one year. He may be briefly blocked for up to a week for violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block time increases to a year."

    On 24 July 2006, TDC reverted Depleted uranium twice within nine hours. He has not discussed either revert on Talk:Depleted uranium. Moreover, during about the same time period he reverted Sandinista National Liberation Front three times.

    The following diffs show the offending behavior
    1. 15:29, 24 July 2006 TDC, reverting the six prior edits by 216.173.207.10 from 12:30 to 14:17;
    2. 23:41, 24 July 2006 TDC, reverting the previous edit 21:52, 24 July 2006 Fieldlab.
    1. 21:47, 24 July 2006 TDC reverting the previous edit 21:41, 24 July 2006 SmokeyTheFatCat;
    2. 22:10, 24 July 2006 TDC reverting the previous edit 22:06, 24 July 2006 SmokeyTheFatCat;
    3. 02:06, 25 July 2006 TDC reverting the previous edit 23:27, 24 July 2006 Deadflagblues.
    Summation

    These are at least the third and fourth violations of TDC's revert parole. Who knows how many other violations exist in TDC's contributions since his revert parole went into effect?

    Reported by: SeparateIssue 10:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for you comments, James. I see one revert on the FSLN article here which was discussed in talk as per the Arbcom decision. The depleted Depleted uranium was an enforcement of James' or should I say SeparateIssue's prohibition of editing the article. I was not alone in this belief, as editor and admin Physchim62 also agreed with me and blocked the IP address after his lengthy dealings with James, or should I say SeparateIssue. Physchim62 was involved in a lengthy mediation with James , and knows his tricks very well. James’ conduct on these article drove a very knowledgeable user (material science engineer/metallurgist with 30 years in the industry), DV8 2XL, to leave Wikipedia.
    Reverting James, or SeparateIssue, or Fieldlab or whatever sock puppet he feels like using is the equivalent reverting a vandal. Physchim62 knows this situation well, and knows of the arbitration decision on James, if he did not feel this was an issue worth blocking me over, than neither should you (although I do not mean to speak for Physchim62). Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know much about the background of your disagreement (and really don't want to know), but I feel I should say, that the edits of User: TDC on Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front were not 'like reverting vandalism', but rather they were: deleting information, that should be there, and inserting dubious information.Atavi 14:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There was one revert on the FSLN article, and it was discussed. I also never claimed that any of the edits on the FSLN article were vandalism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like blatant edit warring to me, certainly violating the spirit of the revert restriction if not the letter [336] [337]. TDC, rather than a block under your revert parole I'm putting you on notice. Please place objections to edits by other editors on the talk page and avoid multiple removals of new material such as the two I cite here. The next credible report of edit warring by you will probably lead to a one week block. --Tony Sidaway 14:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your statement on ths FSLN article, but the Depleted Uranium article is most certainly a case of a sock puppet avoiding his Arbcom ruling. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to comment on that. You are not authorised to take enforcement action in this case. Further edit warring with any editor, on any pretext other than simple vandalism, must be avoided. Do bring such cases to the attention of other editors and administrators. --Tony Sidaway 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the FSLN article, I apologize if I misunderstood; I didn't realize that James, or SeparateIssue, or Fieldlab had not edited the article in question.
    What about the Carlos Fonseca article? To give you a summary, I deleted from the introduction claims of Fonseca being a KGB agent, retaining them in another section ("Early Years"). This was reverted by Torturous Devastating Cudgel saying noone notable is disputing it. In my view, allegations such as this need notable backing and not notable disputing. And as far as I know the only backing is from a book by Mitrokhin. If there are other references that he was a KGB agent, they should be introduced in the article (and I will of course accept them)
    [338]
    Atavi 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    --Same thing here: [339]
    Atavi 15:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't really space or time here to get into content and verifiability, but "nobody notable is disputing it" sounds very weak to me for such a claim. Such tendentious editing, while it may be a problem if TDC keeps it up, is not a breach of his current restrictions. Use normal dispute resolution to resolve this. --Tony Sidaway 15:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK --Atavi 15:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, and I have changed the Fonseca article as well as opened a discussion thread on the FSLN article to resolve this. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Following the discussion with Torturous Devastating Cudgel, I must say that although I still disagree with some of his edits, they were in good faith, and the source in question (Mitrokhin) is actually quite reliable.
    I apologize for being overly suspicious.
    ---Atavi 16:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    TDC has a long history of this (backed up by his Admin pal, Mongo). He seems not to have moderated his behavior, despite many warnings. It's time to consider a total ban on TDC (and his sockpuppets). There are many examples of complaints about his unWikilike behavior, e.g. [[340] and [[341]] and [[342]] (to take just three). 141.161.54.60 16:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the text from the first example:

    >>> Sub-heading: TDC is a Vandal; I propose (a) Ban and (b) Probation for TDC; see Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency), Barry Seal, Theodore Shackley, Plame affair, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, etc. Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. . TDC is engaged in Blanking Vandalism on both these pages, deleting entire sections and archival documents without cause, seemingly because they challenge his political views. He has not responded in any meaningful way on the Talk pages. See discussion and discussion pages. Please note that on 6 May 2006 TDC was placed on revert parole, and "limited to 1 content revert per article per day and must discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page for one year. He may be briefly blocked for up to a week for violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block time increases to a year." (The vote was 6-0). On the Felix Rodriguez and Barry Seal pages he has already violated these conditions. Therefore, I suggest that TDC be (a) banned indefinitely from Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency) and Barry Seal, and (b) be placed on Probation and -- as adjudicated in Depleted uranium -- he be banned from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Note that TDC has been repeatedly banned from editing many other articles, e.g.: Winter Soldier, Conrad Burns, Depleted Uranium, Douglas Feith, etc. He has engaged in Wikistalking. He does not make use of the Discussion page to resolve disputes and move articles forward. In short, he regularly violates the spirit of Wikipedia. I suggest keeping an eye on TDC with a possible eye toward general probation. 141.161.48.111 06:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note similar recent Blanking Vandalism by TDC on Porter Goss page. [343]
    Tell it to someone who cares. Toodles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Other Admins, please also notice biased behavior by Admin MONGO, three times now jumping in on TDC's behalf when he starts reverts wars with an overt POV bias.
    Note similar comlaints about TDC in (a) discussion of Theodore Shackley, (b) in Plame affair (where he used the pseudonym "Ten Dead Chickens"), in (c) Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda (where in Archives 4-5+ TDC is commonly referred to as a "troll"), etc. See also complaints about Admin Mongo, who consistently backs up TDC. Please add additional examples of TDC's behavior here. Thank you.

    <<<

    User:Instantnood, July 25

    edit

    Instantnood (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction including Probation, General Probation, and restriction with respect to discussions on certain naming conventions. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3

    Instantnood is reviving old revert wars from months ago, repeatedly doing POV re-organizations of articles, recreating deleted material, and engaging in move wars against community consensus.

    The following diffs show the offending behavior
    • [344] (and some deleted edits at alternative names that I can't see).
    Total violation of community consensus. It was decided at AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Current_events_in_Hong_Kong_and_Macau that the page would drop referring to Macau. Instantnood disagreed, and has since move warred it back to the other title with the wiki-lawyering declaration that "Move not within jurisdiction of WP:AFD. A separate move request should be filed following the WP:RM mechanism."
    The page history itself (and a discussion on the talk page [345] show other users trying to work with him but being blocked doing real work because of revert warring.
    This revert war has been going on for more than a year almost to the day. [348]
    recreation of deleted material. The category Instantnood is reverting to was deleted - twice. The category existed in a limbo state because CfD didn't delete it a year or so ago but it did not have a proper purpose co-existing with Companies of the PRC. I noticed it's been empty for a while (two months based on what 'nood reverted to) so put an orphan tag on it. 'nood objected to the orphan delete, then re-created it after deletion, then it was nominated again, and deleted again by a different admin. So instead of recreating the category (which still had no articles), he restored the articles to the redlink category (presumably hoping someone else would click it and hit save?).
    Summation
    These are the same edit wars he has been banned for before. Just different articles. As I've claimed before, I think some of the long term ones are on a schedule.
    I was not involved in the move war. I reverted the Newspaper categories. I also reverted the company articles (because he put the articles in the category, but didn't recreate the category a third time). I did not remove these articles from his preferred category in the first instance (but I'm sure I have done some similar companies in the past).

    Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 20:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD is not the place to determine title issues. It deals only with whether articles should stay or should be removed. The current RM does facilitate better and much more thorough discussion.

    I did not attempt to recreate the companies category. But rather, I was putting on the {{hangon}} tag, following the procedures stated on the template. The previous CfD clear demonstrates there was no consensus, and it's agreed on Wikipedia mainland China ≠ People's Republic of China (present effective extent of the People's Republic of China = mainland China + Hong Kong + Macao). There has never been any renomination to CfD. The category was simply depopulated, and was subsequently nominated to speedy deletion by someone who know well about what has been going on, presumably abusing the speedy tag to push forward his point of view.

    As for the newspapers categories, I've elaborated my position in details, and I have nothing to add. It was user:SchmuckyTheCat who demonstrated he was no longer interested to discuss, that he insists in his point of view.

    — Instantnood 18:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD is not the place to determine title issues. It deals only with whether articles should stay or should be removed. The current RM does facilitate better and much more thorough discussion. To quote Ideogram's response in [[357]], Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Insisting on strict adherence to procedure in the face of obvious consensus is a waste of time. See WP:SNOW. The current results and on-going discussions in the survey underscores this point exactly, as predicted.
    I did not attempt to recreate the companies category. But rather, I was putting on the hangon tag, following the procedures stated on the template. The above diffs provided show no such behavior. We await to see your evidence.
    The previous CfD clear demonstrates there was no consensus, and it's agreed on Wikipedia mainland China ≠ People's Republic of China (present effective extent of the People's Republic of China = mainland China + Hong Kong + Macao). There has never been any renomination to CfD. The gist of the issue was never over the definition of Mainland China, but over the use of the term Mainland China on the internatonal arena alongside that of other countries in the world. So how does an "agreement" on its definition signal any advancement in talks, or lend support to the re-creation of those disputed categories from out of the blue?
    The category was simply depopulated, and was subsequently nominated to speedy deletion by someone who know well about what has been going on, presumably abusing the speedy tag to push forward his point of view. Without having to check the edit histories, I would not be too surprised if that category was created and populated by Instantnood, all actions of which were subsequently reverted. So if reverting your edits were considered "pushing a POV", I would like to know how the your original edits were not "pushing a POV"?
    As for the newspapers categories, I've elaborated my position in details, and I have nothing to add. It was user:SchmuckyTheCat who demonstrated he was no longer interested to discuss, that he insists in his point of view. Point blank accusations do not work without supporting evidence, all the more so when up to this point, most of them were actually working against your favour. If you are willing to discuss, and do not insist on your point of view, then you wont see your name appearing on this list, would you?--Huaiwei 21:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    re: hangon tag. From my memory, I put on db-empty, it was deleted, 'Nood responded by recreating and putting on the hangon tag (fair enough, actually, speedy deletes should be reviewable, even post fact of deletion). But didn't remove the hangon tag when he was done (as it states you should). So he was able to put forth an argument against a speedy delete, and it was deleted again. His argument was heard and presumably considered. (and if he wants it reviewed again WP:DRV.)
    What is subterfuge and acting against policies, was then re-populating the category in the articles, but not actually re-creating the category. That is just some sort of lateral move of the lost argument to a new battleground. That is what makes this worth enforcement. SchmuckyTheCat 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    " didn't recreate the category a third time " - I edited the category only once to put on the {{hangon}} tag, and the category was deleted only twice [358]. What " recreate .. a third time "? — Instantnood 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (response to user:Huaiwei's remarks at 21:09, July 27) " but over the use of the term Mainland China on the internatonal arena alongside that of other countries in the world. " - No one advocates to use the term mainland China alongside with other countries. The term is used to refer to the part of the PRC except Hong Kong and Macao.   " Without having to check the edit histories, I would not be too surprised if that category was created and populated by Instantnood " - Please do some homework, and see how many of these entries ([359] [360] [361] [362] [363] [364]; [365] [366] [367] [368] [369] [370]) are categorised to category:companies of mainland China by me.   " The above diffs provided show no such behavior. We await to see your evidence. " - The pages are deleted, and therefore only administrators who has access to deleted materials can be able to retrieve the edit history.   " Point blank accusations do not work without supporting evidence, all the more so when up to this point, most of them were actually working against your favour. If you are willing to discuss, " - See [371].   " and do not insist on your point of view, then you wont see your name appearing on this list, would you? " - Who keeps putting my user name here on this page, and why only he? — Instantnood 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Instantnood, July 29

    edit

    Enjoined from editing Hepatitis B in China for a period of one year, ending 29 July 2007, as a result of renewed edit wars. Owen× ☎ 20:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please refer to user talk:OwenX. — Instantnood 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyvio

    edit

    The article is literally loaded with copyvio's, for time constraint, I only will show the evidence for the first three section, and that can be found here: http://www.kimvdlinde.com/wikipedia/Deir_Yassin_Copyright_violation.doc The remaining two sections are done in part, and could be good or bad with regard to the number of copyvio's. What is clear is that the copyvio's are from various websites, and in part from pre Guy Montag (inserted by others), although all new insertions that I found originate from him. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Evidence of Hagiographer as a Zapatancas sock

    edit

    [372][373][374][375] and [376] are all reverting Zapatero to the Zapatancas version which Zapatancas cannot do as her is banned. This user is also obsessed with harrassing SqueakBox, only Zapatancas hates SqueakBox and his hatred is enormous. [377][378] [379] [380] [381] etc including multiple vandalism of Squeakbox's page just like Zapatancas. This edit summary [382] compares toi this [383] both want the world to know the truth about SqueakBox, Zapatancas here here here here here, Hagiographer here SqueakBox 13:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zeq

    edit

    Zeq is banned from articles he has disrupted and has been placed on probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Zeq has also been cautioned to avoid removing information backed by reliable scholarly sources.

    The following diffs show the offending behavior
    • Six-Day War- Diffs - [384] - Deletion of material from the UN archives, a book by a noted authority and The Times.

    In response to my polite request that Zeq revert this inappropriate edit [385] he issued what I regard as an inappropriate "warning" on my talk page [386]. I'm inclined to request that Zeq be cautioned in this case, although he has been editing Wikipedia long enough to know better and is particularly keen on instructing other editors on policy. --Ian Pitchford 07:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please encourage Ian to use talk page [387]. He inserted the material (while changing the consensus edit that existed for long time) in the wrong section and many users have reverted him (not just me) . He has been edit-warring on this exact issue with about 5 diffrenet users and he refuse any request to discuss the issue. I will shortly post all the record of his long edit war on this subject. Zeq 10:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    [388]
    [389]
    [390]
    [391]
    [392]
    [393]
    [394]
    maybe instead of edit-warring against the consensus Ian will use talk and try to explain why he want to re-write history ?
    [395]
    [396]
    [397]
    [398]
    [399]
    This edit war by Ian is after he was cautioned by ArbCom not to edit war and use dispute resolution to resolve disputes. This ban request is not in good faith - it is an attempt to remove me instead of accepting my request to discuss the request on talk page (where every dispute resolution should start) Zeq 10:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this appeal to the enforcement of Arbitration by Ian Pitchford to be a bad faith attempt to gain an unfair advantage in a content dispute, over an editor who has been sanctioned in the past. As Zeq notes, multiple editors have resisted Ian's attempt to change a long-standing consensus. Tellingly, he has not used Talk nor initiated proceedings against anyone but Zeq. Isarig 13:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rschen7754

    edit

    Rschen7754 has been doing exactly the same thing as I was blocked for below on many more articles. See his edits with summary "fix". --SPUI (T - C) 08:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, while the summaries are a bit vague, I can cite many more from many authors, including yourself, who have used vague and even very much inapproperiate edit tags. His "fix" was removing your supposed "fix" that was more like widespread catastrophe. Since you introduced your own "cleanup" tags and proposals for "renamings" without initiating a discussion with anyone involved in the project or its pages, it is only fair that the tags be removed. As with one such incident, I labeled my edit summary: Removing SPUI tag. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup my edit summaries are somewhat dumb... sorry. I was criticized for it at my RFA. Sometimes I do "fix", "update", sometimes just "us" or "canada" or "ca" or something really retarded. But pretty much Seicer has it right above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "fix", "here goes", "fixes", "fix 2", "hmm", "oops", usually nothing on talk pages... you get the idea. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not your edit summaries - it's the fact that you are doing the same thing I was blocked for below on a larger scale. Or would you have no problems with me reverting your "fixes"? --SPUI (T - C) 23:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically, you were adding those tags that are POV and against the spirit of the ArbCom ruling. You were enlisting the public on your side of the "edit war". --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My block below was for changing Nevada State Route 28 to State Route 28. You are doing the same thing, in the other direction, in California. --SPUI (T - C) 23:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And for specifically revert warring over it. And I thought you'd misinterpret my edits as an ArbCom violation so I stopped halfway through. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're referring to the links it's not a big deal. Whatever the convention becomes, I can use a bot to fix the redirects. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to the bold text, using the wrong name for the route. --SPUI (T - C) 23:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look closely, I only changed it where it was different from the title of the article. I didn't do the State Route 43 (California) ones. And then I got lazy halfway through and didn't do some of the California State Route 43 ones. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How does that change anything? If the title is wrong, you shouldn't make the bolded name wrong too. --SPUI (T - C) 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The title is not "wrong." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So how long do I have to wait before reverting your reverts? --SPUI (T - C) 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's your call. But do not blindly revert, please. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately Johnny or another on your side will get me blocked again. --SPUI (T - C) 23:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is a good reason to wait and see how the poll turns out. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The poll relates to article names. We already have guidelines on what is bolded. --SPUI (T - C) 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Both SPUI and Rschen7754 need to stop. SPUI got 31 hours for edit-warring, which was quite nice to SPUI, if I do say so myself. While the infractions are not the same (SPUI edit-warred, while you did site-wide changes), but I find both just as disruptive. You're nitpicking over the issue. Since you can't move the articles, you're changing the terminology in links and within the article. For everyone's sake, stop it. I'm blocking Rschen7754 for 31 hours as per the precedent above, though I think both of you deserved 2-3 day blocks. SPUI, if you revert during Rschen7754's block, I will block you without warning, and it'll certainly be for longer than 31 hours. Rschen7754, if you continue these edits after your block, I will do the same. Ral315 (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See SPUI. It's not just me "picking" on you. This crap has got to stop. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 16:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SPUI

    edit

    SPUI (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways.

    Minnesota State Highway 33 has 41 edits. 25% are reverts, including page moves. We have editors being chased off from WikiProjects. And we have good editors vandalizing pages. I suspect this page has been disrupted. Editors should not feel they have to say any of this or do any of this. SPUI was involved in this and biting the newcomers as well.

    I was involved in the ArbCom case but not in this specific dispute. But we have perfectly good editors being chased away from highways. This is simply not the Wiki way.

    Reported by: Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also we have edits like this. It appears that SPUI is following the letter of the law as opposed to the intent of the law. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SPUI did tone down his actions after the closure of the ArbCom case. However, in recent weeks, he has exhibited behavior eerily similar to (and in some cases IMHO worse than) his behavior prior to the case. Over the past two days, as part of WP:NJSCR, I have been creating pages in my user-subpage sandboxes in an effort to elimate redlinks and close the browsing loop in our project. Upon the moving of my pages from user space into article space, I then edited the infoboxes/succession boxes/etc. to include all articles and redirects -- for example this edit which includes routes S5 and 6A in the browse order.

    This is identical behavior to what SPUI has done in past disputes -- especially the routebox dispute at WP:CASH -- in which he would pretend to "seek consensus", and then in the face of objection, would implement his original plan anyway.

    Also of grave concern is this edit to List of numbered highways in Ohio. This is identical to this edit to List of Washington State Routes in March; unilaterally changing a list of state routes to his preferred naming convention despite no attempt to seek consensus for that naming convention. The edit to the Washington list resulted in a nasty revert war that lasted nearly a month, followed by page protection for a month and a half.

    I would greatly appreciate some response from admins or the ArbCom on this issue. -- NORTH talk 02:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He did that to Nevada too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a BLATANT disregard for the Arbcom ruling last month. If this isn't going to be enforced then I'm going to start working by the assumption (rightly so) that Arbcom rulings are meaningless. And I will act accordingly. SPUIs actions are disruptive and are in direct conflict with the arbcom. Anyone can see this with half a brain and one eye. He's been so disruptive he's driven one user mad and another off the project. This is UNACCEPTABLE! JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add a few comments about SPUI and the whole situation, and his lack of respect for authority or other people in general:
    *Copyright Infringement 2003
    *More Copyright Infringement 2005 - Here is where I discovered SPUI had literally lifted a lot of material and research for Wikipedia from my former web-site Ohio Valley Transit.
    *Copyright Infringement (from AARoads)
    *Photo Lifting with prior examples by Douglas Kerr
    *Has gone in and added various cleanup tags to pages without initating a discussion or even mentioning it other than the fact that "he feels like it,"
    *Has requested major page renames, such as what he did on Ohio State Highway 7. As what he stated on User_talk:Youngamerican, he did zero research (other than a "general Google search") to which I refuted with research that I have conducted,
    *Renamed pages or attempted to, preferring his own naming convention despite no attempt being made to discuss it or come to a conclusion on what should be done. Basically, taking matters into his own hands. Seicer (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Those copyright violations on Wikipedia were not mine. --SPUI (T - C) 23:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's funny. Based on your contributions, you were the one who condoned the lifting of my materials that I had done original research on. Without citations I might add. Had you been a faithful editor, you would have added approperiate references to my site, but it took my venting (which caught the eye of a Wikipedia editor who issued an apology for your actions) to correct the problem. Even worse, you admit that copying other people's research is fine and acceptable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Without other knowledge of the situation, Seicer: copying the results of research is not a copyright violation nor a violation of any other law, so long as the results are not subject to non-disclosure or other kind of contractual obligation. If someone copied your wording, that might be a violation; but copying your data is not. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SPUI blocked for 31 hrs for editwarring on Nevada_State_Route_28 in violation of probation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Multiple reverts User:SPUI

    edit

    I'm quite concerned with how SPUI handled his reverts of the List of Ohio State Highways page. I moved the page from List of numbered highways in Ohio for two reasons:

    • The majority of state highway pages are in the List of {state} State Highway naming convention.
    • List of numbered highways in Ohio seems to be quite lengthy for something that should be short and to the point.

    I'm aiming for uniformity here.

    Instead of discussing the matter first, SPUI reverts a days worth of work on three pages, a template, and a main article page. I find this very unfair and unbecoming of a user who is still fighting his revert charges.

    Along with that, SPUI wishes to delete the Template:OH Highways page, which I had to painstakingly assemble (and was not even complete). His reasoning was not very clear at all. My reasonings for doing this was:

    I'm trying for some uniformity here, much as what SPUI is asking for the route/highway designations. Instead of seeing this, he reverted it, undid all of my work and other user contributions, and is taking all of this one big step back for the sake of having "his way" once again. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree this appears to be another case of disruption on SPUI's part. Admin review would be appreciated ASAP. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    SPUI has struck again with the vandalism at List of Routes in Vermont. I categorized the page into Interstates, U.S. Routes, and State Routes, with a sub for Decommissioned and Named Routes. This cleaned up the page considerably, since the old format was cluttered, unreadable, and very... spartan. It was a dated design and non-user friendly, and this puts the page in compliance with other state highway projects. See my original comment just above.
    His lack of an adequate reason is just another way of "getting his way." I find this quite absurd that it is allowed to continue. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is degrading into an edit war. SPUI reverted the page once again, claiming that VT F5 did not exist. Instead of doing a simple edit to the table to add the route, he reverted the page. Mind you, VT F5 did exist in the table in the new version, so SPUI is pushing around some excuse to revert the page. Note that I will not engage in an edit war, as my rule of thumb is take it to discussion (which is here, linked from the talk page of the List of Routes in Vermont) after two reverts. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverted Talk:List_of_numbered_highways_in_Ohio - it seems as if he is getting quite heated. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It takes two to edit war. I will not revert Vermont again for now. --SPUI (T - C) 06:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So will you stop vandalising Talk:List_of_numbered_highways_in_Ohio? Discussions to the survey are put below in the Discussions box, as made quite clear and evident in WP:RM. Your latest "tag summary" is quite humorous at best. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For some reason I do not doubt that this is happening. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Leyasu

    edit

    It would seem that permanently banned user Leyasu (talk · contribs)[400] has returned once more under a sockpuppet. This time as VandalismCorrecter (talk · contribs). The edits have all the hallmarks[401] of a Leyasu sockpuppet, spercifically targeting Gothic metal related articles, since their sign-up on 11 August 2006.[402]

    The user also uses Wikipedia terminology in the edit summaries[403]Rather suspicous for a user who has just signed up today, couple that with the fact the reverts the user is making (all Gothic metal related articles) isn't of vandalism, as the handle might suggest.[404] Infact the first edit the user made was reverting an article to a version by a previously banned sockpuppet of Leyasu[405].

    They also removed a suspected sock tag, which was placed on their page, and marked it down as "vandalism". [406] - Deathrocker 22:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have followed the this users contributions to this page. I have added refrences to several articles, have been working on articles that have add a pov banner on them, and have worked on articles that have had nothing to do with gothic metal.
    This users problems with me seemed to have arose after i reverted a vandalistic blanking of a page which they performed. I don't know the argument between this user, or the user he/she is referring to, nor do i wish to be part of their argument.
    I ask the user kindly to not vandalise articles by blanking, or vandalise my user page, an action which this user has redone.
    I am under the impression this user seems to dislike working with others, or having others views represented. The article in which i changed was for poor grammer and wording, and vague comments. I reworded them to make them easier to understand, an action i have performed on many articles in the past.
    I have been using Wikipedia long enough to know what Vandalism is, mostly from reading what a user posted on my discussion page. From what i understand, maliciously deleting segments of an article is Vandalism, an action which this user, Deathrocker, performed.
    I am only here to make my side of things clear. I hope this is taken into consideration in light of this user's very one sided view to his/her peers. VandalismCorrector.

    No "vandalism" or "blanking" has occured on my part.

    I removed this edit[407] by the suspected sockpuppet of the blocked user, based on all of their other Gothic metal related contributions and the fact that it was reverted to the last version by Leyasu.[408]

    And then placed the suspected sock tag on their userpage. [409]. This was done, 36 minutes before the user had ever reverted me on Gothic metal[410], or at all under their current handle. - Deathrocker 23:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If our user contributions and the article history for gothic metal is checked, this user will be shown quite promptly as a liar. VandalsimCorrector.

    Diffs have been provided to back me up, Leyasu. Your person attacks (branding somebody a "liar") cannot be and is not.

    I am also not the only one who has come to the conclusion that VandalismCorrecter is another in a long line of Leyasu's sockpuppets[411], though research of contributions on Gothic metal related articles, admin Idont Havamane also stated in a message on my talkpage that he agreed with me that "Vandalism Correcter=Leyasu" [412] and suggested that if Leyasu/VC continued that I should report it here.

    Here is a list of edit examples, made my "VandalismCorrecter (talk · contribs)" that mirror behaviour of permanently banned user Leyasu (talk · contribs), particually the labelling of good faith edits by users as "vandalism/blanking" on Gothic metal related articles.

    1. Here VC reverts an edit made by Amaya215 (talk · contribs) on the Poisonblack article.[413] In the edit summary VC states "Reverted blanking by anon." when infact there is no blanking to be seen in the other users edit, the only difference is the inclusion of the word "Gothic-Doom" instead of just Gothic metal.[414]

    2. Here VC reverts an edit made by YurikBot (talk · contribs) on the To/Die/For article.[415] Once again with the edit summary of "Reverted blanking by anon." and once again the only difference between the edits are one says "Gothic-Doom" as the genre, the other just says "Gothic metal".[416]

    3. Here VC reverts an edit made by LuciferMorgan (talk · contribs) on the For My Pain... article.[417] once again "Reverted blanking by anon" in the edit summary and the only change between the too is "Gothic-Doom" inplace of "Gothic metal" as the genre.[418]

    4. Here VC reverts an edit made by YurikBot (talk · contribs) on the Always... article. [419], same "Reverted blanking by anon" edit summary as the others and the only difference is a change of genre from Doom/Death to Gothic metal[420]

    5. Here VC reverts an edit made by Tokus (talk · contribs) on the Autumn (band) article.[421]. Same edit summary, same Gothic metal related genre changes.[422]

    6. Here VC reverts an edit made by TedE (talk · contribs) on the Xandria article.[423] Acusation of blanking? check. Gothic metal/Doom related genre the only change? check.

    I could go on and on but I think I've proven the blatanly obvious substantially. - Deathrocker 02:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)- Deathrocker 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    1. I reverted blankings by an anon, that happened before the user. This was stated before, as the anon had blanked a large number of articles, similar to what Deathrocker had done before starting this sherade. I have had no connection to the user Deathrocker is claiming i reverted.

    2. Once again, i was reverting a blanking by an anon that came before the other users edit. As there had been multiple edits since that point, i was forced to do it in pieces. Deathrocker has chosen to manipulate links to show what he wants, which is easily disproven by looking at the articles history page.

    3.4.5.6. Once again, the user has manipulated links. If the articles edit historys are checked, i made several edits on all the articles in pieces, against an ip adress that had blanked sections before.

    I do not understand why this user Deathrocker is attacking me for reverting them after they blanked an article, or why they feel they must manipulate links and lie to get me into some form of amendment for actions i have not even performed. Despite this, checking our contributions and the mentioned articles history pages reveals a very different story to what this user is saying.

    I find it also notable that from looking at this users contributions, that they seem to not work well with their peers. The Aiden article has seen large amounts of reverts of any edit, minor and large, by Deathrocker, whenever somebody made an edit that deleted or reestablised sections that this user added or removed.

    I still do not wish to be part of whatever argument this user has against working with others, and i once again ask this user to just leave me in piece and to stop harrasing me and other users for reverting them when they maliciously blank sections of an article. VandalismCorrecter.

    VandalismCorrecter, if you feel that other users are "manipulating links" to make a case against you, you might find it beneficial to your case if you provided some links of your own. Unfortunately, you cannot, because I have checked the histories of the articles in question, and there is not a single blanking edit that I can find that you have reverted. -- NORTH talk 21:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits i reverted where from a string i followed. I found an ip adress that had blanked the gothic metal article some time ago. I followed their user contributions and checked up on several articles history. I found in many of the articles that partial reverts had been done. Because of this, and valuable edits made after the lost information, i slavaged the lost information and replaced it in its former place.

    Would you also be so kind as to explain how i may post my own links, as i am not overly educated in the use of html code. Thank you. VandalismCorrecter.


    User:Terryeo

    edit

    Terryeo (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction with regard to Scientology-related articles. He is banned from editing those articles, and on probation with regard to disruptive behavior on talk pages, where he remains an active contributor. The final decision in their case is here: [424]. I was one of numerous editors who provided testimony to the ArbCom.

    I have had some positive exchanges with Terryeo recently, so am reluctant to point this out, but this recent bit of talk page disruption is so egregious that I believe he should, at least, receive a reminder from an adminstrator that what he is doing is not acceptible. On Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg (his is the very first post on the page), Terryeo blatantly misrepresents a copyrightholder's release so as promote his contention that Wikipedia is biased against Scientology.

    The image author, Andreas Heldal-Lund, who runs the "Xenu.net" website, writes on his site: "Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia which is NPOV, are free to use images and text on this site that are made by me if proper credits are given."

    Terryeo wrote on Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg: "Isn't that interesting ? Andreas Heldal-Lund apparently owned the photo and so, got to make a statement. He said: Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia .. are free to use images and text on this site (xenu.net site). Isn't that interesting. Andreas Heldal-Lund gives Wikipedia permission to use the photo because Wikipedia is a critic of the Church of Scientology, according to Andreas Heldal-Lund. Terryeo 09:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)"

    I don't think draconian measures are required, but I do think that such hijinks should not be permitted to pass without notice.

    Reported by: BTfromLA 20:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

    PS: As is spelled out in detail on Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg: 1. Heldal-Lund is not a native English speaker, thus some awkward sentence construction is hardly unexpected. 2. AndroidCat has stated that he emailed Heldal-Lund, asking him to add the line specifically granting Wikipedians access to his content, despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a "critics" site. Undaunted by these facts, Terryeo continues to amplify his claims about the bad faith of Wikipedia with regards to Scientology, and to generally engage in disruptive behavior. -- BTfromLA 16:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    BTfromLA's lately added paragraph which states information is untrue in that at no point have I stated nor implied anything about Wikipedia with regards to Scientology except to express confidence that Wikipedia's policies will always result, in the end, in a good presentation of information. BTfromLA's statement that I have claimed bad faith of Wikipedia is a personal attack and untrue. I have made statements on the page he specifies, those statements address Heldal-Lund's statement which appears there. If BTfromLA is unable to read the printed word to understand what it says, and present it as stated, he certainly should engage in more user discussion rather than misrepresent the stated word here. Terryeo 18:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh good. BTfromLA posted to my user page but didn't spell out what he was talking about. Now I see what he is talking about. Yes, I certainly made that posting to that article's discussion page. I idiomatically reproduced the text under the image from the article, selecting the portions of the text which make my point and leaving out some information between commas, qualifiers, etc. to produce exactly what Heldal-Lund said about Wikipedia. Which is, "Wikipedia is a critic of the Church of scientology" (according to Heldal-Lund). That is exactly what he states there. And I find that to be quite interesting. Which attitude also explains why he has a link on the front page of his personal website to Wikipedia. Quite interesting. Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 22:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again you post one of your own interpretations of it, surround it with quotation marks and falsely attribute it to Andreas Heldal-Lund. The actual text is "Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia which is NPOV, are free to use images and text on this site that are made by me if proper credits are given."[425] AndroidCat 23:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure your input is requested on this page, User:AndroidCat, even though you were the person who emailed that message to the xenu.net owner, which he included as his permission to use his image here on Wikipedia, which, according to his statment (which you apparently put into his mouth) that Wikipedia is a critic of the Church of Scientology (though NPOV). Terryeo 03:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if this is a personal attack: Talk:David_Miscavige#.22Chinese_School.22 "It surely must appear to everyone, as it does to me, that User:Fahrenheit451 is attempting to present into this Miscavige artile, every bit of controversy possible in every area possible, as a sort of erudite attack against Miscavige. Of course, we understand that motivation, but nonetheless, there are many examples of articles about noteable peope who are alive today. Let us work toward a presentation as good as any other noteable person, still alive. Terryeo 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)" --Fahrenheit451 05:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it is not a personal attack, notice how my appeal toward a quality Wikipedic presentation is designed to cool elevated tempretures? Terryeo 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm glad to see a better use contract has appeard on the image's page. The earlier requirement which insisted the image could not be used unless a mindset was held by the viewer was plain silly. Terryeo 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    While Terryeo is correct that the controversy about the photo has cooled, this does not alter the fact that Terryeo was engaging in gratuitously disruptive behavior when opening the discussion as he did, omitting the key phrase in the license when he quoted it, and pursuing his position that Heldal-Lund believed Wikipedia to be "a critic" of Scientology against all evidence. He also issued a flurry of charges that various editors, myself included, had been personally attacking him. In my case, at least, this was untrue, as I believe the administrators will conclude. As to his assertions about the "bad faith of Wikipedia"--a characterization with which he takes issue--Terryeo's comments can be understood in terms of his repeated, longstanding claims (currently posted on his user pages: User:Terryeo and User:Terryeo/subpage1 ) that many if not most of the Wikipedia editors who work on Scientology articles are people whom the Church of Scientology has "expelled and declared to be suppressive (to freedom of religion)" who "wear black hats" and "do not wish to have the subject presented in a neutral sort of way." He claims that "this activity is the result of Wikipedia's editing policy. It is not likely to change. Its form suggests the situation might grow more extreme over time, instead of the articles growing more factual over time." BTfromLA 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:71.154.208.74

    edit

    stalker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Murtha

    Not a stalker, but one simply using the location (from IP) of an “anonymous” editor who is systematically giving articles a pro-Democrat or anti-Republican spin, and who is editing the discussion remarks of one or more other users. —71.154.208.74 20:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, that location (“Chico”) is simply a useful common identifier since the editor is using multiple IPs. —71.154.208.74 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't for dealing with stalkier, it's for handling incidents arising from arbitration cases. Try WP:ANI. --Tony Sidaway 20:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    206.255.1.73

    edit

    This morning we came to a concensus in the talk page Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict To use the word kidnapped instead of captured. and so we made changes to the article. But three times, this user 206.255.1.73 here's his identification User Identification He keeps changing the words and leaving comments. He has done it three times, and im very sick of it. Please do something quickly. --Zonerocks 20:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This page isn't for dealing with edit wars and disputes, it's for handling incidents arising from arbitration cases. Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and handle it accordingly. --Tony Sidaway 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    excuse me, he is doing it on the regular article page. --Zonerocks 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SqueakBox

    edit

    As can be seen in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas#SqueakBox and Zapatancas banned for one month, SqueakBox was banned from editing the Wikipedia for a month. It has been proved that User:Skanking was a sock puppet of him as can be seen in his user page and his block log ([[426]]). He used it to edit during his ban starting at the beginning of June (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas#Log of blocks and bans) as can be seen in Skanking's history ([427]). So, SqueakBox has to be blocked as he has not respected his ban. Hagiographer 08:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am clearly not Pura Paja who is on the other side of the Atlantic. Hagiographer, on the other hand, has forged my signature here. Can someone please persuade him to desist his unacceptable behaviour and harrassment of me, SqueakBox 03:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Deeceevoice

    edit

    User:Deeceevoice is on probation. The final decision in their case is here: [[428]]

    Incivility: I don't give a flying f***. ... And who's on an ego trip here?....LMBAO ("laughing my black ass off")....U betta check yaself[429]

    Reported by: Justforasecond 00:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that this is horribly incivil, but the provocation from Zaphnathpaaneah is unacceptable as well. If Deeceevoice is blocked (I'm not doing it now as it appears it's mainly over, but I don't oppose such a block), I suggest that Zaphnathpaaneah get a similar punishment. Ral315 (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Deeceevoice is on probation. Zaph is not. Justforasecond 05:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is asking someone for help a "provocation"? DCV is also on probation [430] for racially-related incivility "And I'm a blackwoman. We made you. Ya day-um sure cain't Mau-Mau me. I don't play that s***. :p I'm not some naive, little white girl you can send crying to her room. What? U dun loss ur damn mine? Actin' a fool in public -- and we both in enemy territory? Like I said b4, check yasself." [431]CoYep 14:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Deeceevoice is not rascist, I would testify to that without hesistation in a court of law based solely on her behaviour at wikipedia, and I think those who claim she is are the more likely to be suffering from that sickness themselves, SqueakBox 04:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether or not deeceevoice has behaved unreasonably was settled by her arbcom case (ruling: she has). This is the enforcement page. Justforasecond 22:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Zaphnathpaaneah's statement "DeeCeeVoice again and Myself" @ Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks [432] CoYep 12:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive1&oldid=1109996170"