Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

This is a message board for coordinating and discussing enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions. Administrators are needed to help enforce ArbCom decisions. Any user is welcome to request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision. Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.

Are you sure this is the page you are looking for?

This page only involves violations of final Arbitration Committee decisions.

• Reporting of Three-revert rule violations is done on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (WP:AN/3RR). Even if an editor has an Arbitration ruling about reverts, you will likely get a quicker response there.
• Reporting of other types of incidents (e.g. blocked users evading blocks, etc) that do not involve the Arbitration Committee is done on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:AN/I).
• To request specific assistance from an administrator, see Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention. To request assistance from a specific administrator, see [[User talk:Whomever]].
• If you are blocked, please contact the blocking admin via email (navigate to their userpage and click email this user).
• To request arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

Enforcement

Enforcement requests against users should be based on the principles and decisions in their Arbitration case.

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content. Arbitration Committee decisions are generally about behavior, not content. Very few editors have content dispute prohibitions. Requests for Comments is still the best place to hash out content disputes.

Most editors under ArbCom sanction are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still Assume Good Faith. Arbitration Committee decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized at poking sticks at caged animals. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be paraphrased and, if reinserted, will be deleted.

If an Arbitration case has not been finalized, it is not enforcable. In that case, bad behavior should be reported on WP:AN/I and you should consider adding the behavior to the /Evidence page of the Arbitration case.

Note to administrators: Arbitration Committee decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that certain types of behavior by these users is not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia. If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned. The enforcement mechanisms listed in each individual case should be constructed liberally in order to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with.

Using this page

Edit this section. Please put new requests above old requests and below the sample template. A sample template is provided, please use copy and paste, do not edit the template.

Be prepared with:

• Diffs showing the violating behavior
• Point to the final decision in their Arbitration case, a list with summary disposition is at WP:AER
• Clear and brief summary relation of how this behavior is linked to the principles, findings of fact, remedies, and/or enforcement mechanism of the arbitration case.

Be advised to:

• Notify the user at his or her user talk page.

---

---

User:Instantnood, July 25

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

• [1] (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 [2] show other users trying to work with him but being blocked doing real work because of revert warring.

• [3] [4]

This revert war has been going on for more than a year almost to the day. [5]

• [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

(and probably others I am missing).

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)

User:SeparateIssue/James S.

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. [14]

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Gulf War, [15]

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)

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)

User:TDC

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

• Depleted uranium

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.

• Sandinista National Liberation Front

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)

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)

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)

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)

Looks like blatant edit warring to me, certainly violating the spirit of the revert restriction if not the letter [16] [17]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

[18]

Atavi 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

--Same thing here: [19]

Atavi 15:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

OK --Atavi 15:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

User:SPUI

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

• Minnesota State Highway 33, SPUI objects to a reversion so places this tag, Tag was reverted so SPUI reverts again, SPUI Reverts again to change article title to his desired name after his tag was reverted, SPUI reverts further changes again.

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)

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

User:SPUI at Category:Limited-access roads

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

• Category:Limited-access roads,
  1. changes within minutes of my most recent edit
  2. revert misguided attempt to confuse the purpose of this category

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)

• WP:POINT creation. --William Allen Simpson 18:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI

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)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SPUI for a refutation of his charges. --SPUI (T - C) 17:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If you can get an administrator to agree with you, go for it. --Tony Sidaway 20:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [20]). 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 [21] and [22] for examples. BryanG^(talk) 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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_son^{Lets talk} 00:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

User:SqueakBox and User:Zapatancas

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 [23] 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)

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)

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)

User:Guy Montag

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

• Deir Yassin Massacre, move rewrite

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)

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)

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)

Does this imply that the probation is reset? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Thankfully, I have nothing to do with this, but for the record [24] was the impetus for [25]. I think the former is more heinous than the latter, but that's just my opinion. -- Avi 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Per Briangotts, the ban is rescinded. Ral315 (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

---

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)

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

Copyvio

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)

Evidence of Hagiographer as a Zapatancas sock

[26][27][28][29] and [30] 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. [31][32] [33] [34] [35] etc including multiple vandalism of Squeakbox's page just like Zapatancas. This edit summary [36] compares toi this [37] 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)

User:Beckjord

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 [38], 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:

---

Bigfoot

• 207.200.116.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]
• 64.12.116.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]
• 205.208.227.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): [73] [74] [75] [76]

Talk:Bigfoot

• 205.208.227.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98]
• 207.200.116.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140]

Jon-Erik Beckjord

• 207.200.116.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149]
• 205.208.227.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156]

User:Onefortyone and Elvis Presley

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)

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)