Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dominic (talk | contribs) at 06:20, 9 December 2006 (→[[User:Intangible]] / [[User:Intangible2.0]]: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Shortcut

    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.

    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 as 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 enforceable. 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.
    • Sign and date your report with Wikipedia's special signature format (~~~~). The archival bot uses the time stamp to determine when to archive reports.

    Be advised to:

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

    Archives

    Sections are automatically archived when the oldest time stamp in the section is 7 days old. The current archive is Archive 3.

    Edit this section for new requests

    User:Intangible / User:Intangible2.0

    Intangible (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort.

    He is performing a slow edit war at Talk:New-Flemish Alliance, not accepting a differing point of view, refusing to engage in a discussion.

    The following diffs show the offending behavior

    [1], [2], [3], [4] [5], [6], [7]

    83.182.207.220 23:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you provide us with what ArbCom case you are referring to. I or any other admin cannot take action until a case under which the sanction was given is provided. Thanks —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Intangible. However, evidence that User:Intangible2.0 is the same editor as User:Intangible is needed. Intangible (the first one) recently listed his userpage on MfD and indicated he was leaving the project. It's possible that Intangible2.0 is an imposter account intended to poison any possibility of Intangible's returning later. Newyorkbrad 00:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Before much more talk goes on here we are going to have to have a checkuser investigate. So, could a checkuser investigate into this matter? Thanks. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, the outstanding question is: Is User:Intangible2.0, the same user as User:Intangible? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Intangible, Intangible2.0, Pinkos, and Pinko1.25 are all the same person. Dmcdevit·t 06:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Instantnood POV-pushing at Single-party state

    Three arbitration cases have been filed against Instantnood, regarding his POV-pushing and edit-warring on China-related articles.

    1. The first arbitration case closed prematurely.
    2. The second arbitration case resulted in him (and Huaiwei, who tried to stop Instantnood) being placed on probation and restrictions imposed on him.
    3. The third arbitration case resulted in him (and Huaiwei) being placed on indefinite general probation.

    His actions have resulted in him being banned from many articles, including Singapore. After being banned from an article, he will move on to another article, and get banned from that article, and move on to another, and so on.

    Recently, he has been POV-pushing and edit-warring on single-party state, insisting that Singapore be included in the list of single-party states. As a Singaporean, I know that we are a dominant-party system, not a single-party state, as we have elections and the opposition has 2 seats and 33% of the votes, despite facing discrimination imposed by the ruling party.

    Instantnood made 3 reverts in slightly over 2 hours, although he did not violate 3RR.[8][9][10] He also made disruptive and deceptive edits on the talk page.[11][12]

    His only supporter in the dispute is Regebro. Besides Huaiwei (who has also had sanctions imposed against him) and Vsion, Terence Ong and I agree that Singapore is not a single-party state.

    I request that an administrator enforce the arbitration restrictions (such as probation) imposed on Instantnood, and if neccesary, impose further sanctions or start another arbitration case. In addition, as consensus is against him, and Singapore was not on the list of single-party states before the edit war started, I request that it be removed from the list.

    --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I see the potential for a probation violation there but he last edited the article on November 5; I'd like to see some indication that he is returning to the issue before I ban him from it. I'm not going to take a position on the content dispute; you could ask for a third opinion or try to find a reliable source that supports your view that you can cite in the article. Thatcher131 16:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As the Arbcom is less interested in factual correctness, but in the appriopriateness of behavior by wikipedians, lets concentrate on the later rather then the former. In this case, may I point out that I have often noticed instantnood's tendency in engaging in disruptive behavior pertaining to Singapore-related articles, in what I strongly suspect to be a tit-for-tat move from my edits pertaining to Hong Kong-related articles. Since the entire dispute boils down to a disagreement over the political status of HK on the international arena, it dosent come as too much of a surprise when Instantnood therefore partakes in enforcing an "undemocratic" label on Singapore, a stance which has noticibly gained in aggresiveness almost in tendem with what happens to HK-related articles. For this to happen over an extended period of about 2 years or more, I doubt it would boil down to mere coincidence. Instantnood clearly could not seperate personal emotions and ego from accurate representation of fact, and the upholding of wikipedia's NPOV policy.--Huaiwei 16:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Hildanknight, do you actually know what the original section title of that thread of discussion at talk:single-party state was [13]? Did you notice user:Nightstallion also made an revert to single-party state [14] [15]? (and those who want Singapore removed from the list are all Singaporeans, as according to their talk pages?) Could you please be reminded to provide the entirety of the facts? Thanks. — Instantnood 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain the relevance of "the original section title" and allegations on your disruptive behavior in that particular talkpage? May I also point out that it has been noticed that User:Nightstallion has repeatedly shown symphathy towards your political viewpoints by frequently reverting edits made by your "opponents" without any explaination. Why arent you providing full facts on this also?--Huaiwei 12:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please elaborate on how user:Nightstallion has shown sympathy, and tell what my politicial viewpoints are? (And meanwhile, what does explaination mean? Guess it isn't Singaporean English, yet I found no such word in dictionaries.) For the first question, who has insisted to change the section title in that particular talk page? — Instantnood 07:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Use of rollback in a content dispute is ,at best, frowned upon, and at worst, admin abuse. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Instantnood Redux

    It was brought to my attention that another war between User:Instantnood and User:Huaiwei was brewing on Talk:Single-party_state. In the course of looking into the dispute, I browsed through Instantnood's recent contributions; its pretty disturbing. Once again, Instantnood has gone on a spree of reverting Huaiwei, SchmuckyTheCat and other editors. Some of the edits he reverted had been stable since November 18th [16], [17], [18]. More than a third of his edits today have been reverts of the same type that lead to his probation. The last week long block doesn't seem to have resolved the problem entirely. I would support blocking for a longer period of time - any other opinions or ideas at better options? Shell babelfish 16:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Under his general probation he may be banned from the site on the judgement of 3 admins. I haven't looked over your new allegations yet, but if true I would support a site ban. His last site ban was two weeks, given 6 months ago, so I'm not sure we can conclude that it no effect; I would suggest another two monthsweeks. I'll look over his contribs tonight, plus we need a third admin. Thatcher131 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to be the third admin to subscribe to a ban, but would incline to 1 month rather than 2. Bucketsofg 21:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant 2 more weeks, since his pervious 2-week ban was 6 months ago, there is not obviously a case that 2 weeks is too short to modify his behavior. A month would not be out of line. Let me finish reviewing his edits. Thatcher131 21:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your planning to take necessary actions. As you may have already noticed, it's the edits by user:Huaiwei, user:Alanmak and user:SchmuckyTheCat that keeps the reverts persist. Read their arguments in talk pages and edit summaries, and anybody with some basic knowledge and analytical skills can be able to tell. I sincerely hope there are people, no matter mediators, administrators or members of the arbitration committee, to help bring the trouble to an end through real discussions. Block and ban is never helpful to anybody, nor to any article, to get out of such dispute. Thank you. — Instantnood 21:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing you seem to keep misunderstanding is that your reverting is incredibly disruptive. You've been the subject of multiple arbitration cases and eventually banned from a number of articles because you continue to revert and edit war instead of using the dispute resolution processes. You need to find another way of dealing with your concerns or avoid the articles that cause you this problem. Continuing to revert, especially when no one else saw fit to revert the changes in 3 weeks, just isn't at all productive and does nothing to resolve the situation. If you're having the same issues with multiple editors over the same disputes, you need to consider that you position may not be the majority and you need to develop consensus for your changes through rational discussion. Shell babelfish 22:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been calling for third parties to take part in discussion, yet very few people are willing to help. Administrators or members of the arbitration committee simply ask everyone to stop, without doing anything constructive to get the matter out of the trouble. There are many of these articles (and categories and templates) which the majority of editors are simply confortable in both ways I, and user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat prefer. They don't care what has happened with the articles and they edit based on whatever version latest by then. — Instantnood 22:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My general view is that remedies should escalate. If the changes inspired by two weeks was only temporary, something more than two weeks is in order. Bucketsofg 22:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless something helpful and constructive is done, the problem would still be there even if all parties are blocked for weeks or months or longer. It's not like I don't discuss. Quite the contrary I want genuine discussion (please read the way they response). — Instantnood 22:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Instantnood is the problem. Huaiwei and others got into edit wars because he started them. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    0RR for Instantnood?

    There are a number of edits Instantnood makes that are genuinely useful and I'd hate to lose that because of his strong political beliefs. I don't think any time based ban on Instantnood is going to change the situation - it has not worked in the past. He returns to the same behavior and warring on the same articles. What has worked has been the page bans. An extrapolation on that would be a 0RR for Instantnood; once reverted (or changed) he cannot make the same edit again to the same article. He would be free of course, to make rational discussion for his edit on the talk page for someone else to do it. SchmuckyTheCat 04:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If you ban him from an article, he can continue his antics on another article. I support a sanction that applies to all articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Under 0RR, he could only move the antics once per article, that is managable. SchmuckyTheCat 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since 0RR is a sanction that applies to all articles, I support this proposed remedy. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please detail what you think my strong political beliefs are? In the past there was serious backbite towards using Republic of China to refer Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, etc., collectively, nevertheless the official name has since been adopted by other official guideline. If that's political beliefs, it's rather like misunderstandings towards, and reluctance to accept, some comparatively lesser-known realities. — Instantnood 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    lesser known realities, yes, exactly. SchmuckyTheCat 07:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You may perhaps be interested to take at look at Wikipedia talk:categorisation. — Instantnood 19:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fourth arbitration case?

    The mediation on the talk page will probably fail. We should consider escalating this to a fourth arbitration case against Instantnood, letting the arbitrators decide what further sanctions should be imposed on him. Besides the content dispute, there is sufficient misconduct by those involved to warrant a fourth arbitration case:

    • POV-pushing by Instantnood despite being placed on probation after his third arbitration case.
    • Personal attacks by Regebro: [19]
    • Personal attacks by Huaiwei: [20]
    • Possible administrator abuse by Nightstallion (using rollback in a content dispute): [21]

    I'm not saying that we should take this to arbitration, just that we consider it. I know that arbitration is a last resort, and hope we can resolve this without resorting to arbitration.

    --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If that's a content dispute (as you've concluded [22]) then why would the edits to the article and the remarks at the talk page be POV-pushing? — Instantnood 07:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When other contributors try to combat POV-pushing attempts, a content dispute may result. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand User:Instantnood is on a probation, and that there is a long history of conflicts between him, Vsion and Huaiwei and perhaps others. This is unfortunate. However, I would like to point out that lthough there has been a heated debate, I at least have not noticed any personal attacks or other bad behaviour from Instantnood (although there have been a little from some other users). The dispute, which has had a request for mediation done earlier this week, is about Singapore status, basically if it is a democracy or not. User:Hildanknights claim that Instantnood is POV-pushing is simply false. There has been some editwarring regarding the title of a section in the talk page, but that was Huaiwei who started and continued that by changing a section-title that Instantnood started, where in my opinion Instantnoods title is much more appropriate. I don't know if it's normaly acceptable behaviour, but it can not be blamed on Instantnood, and it is honestly rather silly to start disputing what the section title used in the dispute should be. ;)
    I don't follow Instantnoods behaviour in general, but there have been no bad behaviour from him regarding Single-party state. Therefore it is rather difficult to see why this should in anyway be escalated into an RfC against him (or anyone else). To me this feels like you are trying to use threats of RfCs to indimidate him to fold in the debate. And when you start mentioning making an RfC against me as well, that only increases that feeling.
    Yes, I agree. The mediation will probably fail. But that will not be because of lack of effort from my side, and it will not be because Instantnood has done anything wrong in this dispute. --Regebro 18:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned user violation

    User:Arthur_Ellis is banned for one month under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden for sock-puppetry, block evasion, and edit warring. He has recently vandalized the arbitration page [23] [24], evading his block and violating a ruling in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren Kinsella that he restrict himself to editing with one account. Bucketsofg 01:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for a week. Thatcher131 01:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Problems with User:Iantresman and Wolf Effect

    Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience says that Ian is on probation for science articles. Reliable sources are important for many of the articles we edit. Yet I'll note this edit to Wolf Effect had Ian including sources from a variety of unreliable sources, none of whom were basic researchers in the field. This included a science writer (not a scientist): Jeff Kanipe, a self-employed crystal technician C. F. Gallo, and employees of Xerox Corp. How are these reliable sources for basic research into quasar redshifts? They don't study the material. Ian knows this, but he continues his tactics anyway, in violation of his probation. I ask that he be banned from editting Wolf Effect. --ScienceApologist 13:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm. My instinctive reaction was to block him to forestall further problems while htis is considered, but I have to say I'd be a lot happier if this were other than a bilateral dispute, given both of your past histories. Please make an effort to reach some kind of accommodation on Talk, or at least to encourage other editors to venture an opinion. I have told Ian to stop it, let's see if a shot across the bows has any effect. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I don't think anyone else has Wolf Effect on their watchlists. Will try talking. --ScienceApologist 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur Ellis socks again

    User:Arthur_Ellis is violating the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren Kinsella, under which he is forbidden from editing his own page, Mark Bourrie. He is violating both of these with 209.217.123.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Keeperdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). 209.226.201.243 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Could a checkuser confirm this please? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur_Ellis is to old to check directly, but looking at the evidence in the RFAR, the technical evidence supports the conclusion that Keeperdog and 209.226.201.243 are Arthur_Ellis. Essjay (Talk) 06:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Both socks are now blocked indefinably, by me. [25], [26]. Main account (User:Arthur_Ellis) appears to already be blocked indefinably as well, by User:Yanksox. The block of the main account occurred back in 02:18, October 23, 2006. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 07:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have unblocked 209.217.123.163 due to the fact that I misread the Check User response above. I have left a message for Essjay for clarification on which IP is at fault. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 18:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeperdog should only be blocked for one month. Arthur Ellis was blocked at his own request. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren Kinsella would allow a brief block for editing his own page, he was also blocked generally for one month under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel Marsden so the one month block should be reset for block evasion. There's no point in blocking the IP longer than 24 hours because it is dynamic and he can change them as often as he wants to. Thatcher131 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, those probably got transposed. 209.217.123.163 is at fault. Thatcher is correct that it's a dynamic IP so blocking it is a somewhat futile exercise. Mackensen (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you can pretty much assume that any Bell Canada IP that jumps to Mark Bourrie or Warren Kinsella is part of the Bourrie brigade; likewise any Magma IP (such as 209.226.201.243 who posted this) is part of the Kinsella crew. Unfortunately these two middle-aged Canadian bloggers have decided to bring their rather childish personal dispute to Wikipedia. Thatcher131 18:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did reset the block on User:Keeperdog to 1 month as proposed by Thatcher. Details can be found here. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Moby Dick

    I have blocked this user for one week for continuing to stalk Cool Cat, in direct violation of his Arbcom ruling. The diffs in question are [27], [28] and [29]. Bastiq▼e demandez 20:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's a done deal you don't have to report it here, but it should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Log of blocks and bans. Thatcher131 01:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=93102253"