Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:40, 9 June 2006

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1136	1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145
1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Shortcut

[[:|WP:AE]]

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.

Edit this section for new requests

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

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. I have also blocked an anon that he was using for evading that block. [1] Soon after the block, he declared his intentions to evade it. [2] 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. [3] 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.) [4] [5] [6] An edit by another anon brings up Deathrocker's current arbitration case. [7] 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. [8]

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]

User:SqueakBox

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)

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: [[9]]

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

The following diffs show the offending behavior

Hafrada

removing well sourced material and tendentious editing

This was already discussed with Fred Bauder here: [10]. A reasonable edit. well explained. Homey response was edit war [11] part of this revert [12] 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]

Israeli apartheid (phrase)

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: [13] 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" [14] - 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]

Israeli apartheid (phrase)

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]

Israeli West bank barrier

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:[15]) 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]

Apartheid (disambiguation) (June 2)

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 [16]) 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)

ZAROVE (talk · contribs) was banned from making edits to Acharya S and related articles and talk pages.: [17].

The following diffs show the offending behavior

making an edit to Talk:Acharya_S

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

Blocked for 48 hours. If he keeps it up, the next block should be for longer. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 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. [18] 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)

These edits were made on Apartheid (disambiguation) [19] and [20]

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..")"[21]

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) [22][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)[23][reply]

User:Samuel Blanning added, in part:

"No, it's not vandalism. It's blatant POV,"[24]

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

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 [25], and [26] 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 [27], and [28]? 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 Homeontherange (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 [[29] - 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 Homeontherange (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 ( [30], [31] - 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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin

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 [32] [33] [34] 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" [35] "Substantial rebuttal my ass... Do not be a crook" [36] "Do not be cheat" [37] 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]

RK

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

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

User talk:Antaeus Feldspar, [38]

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.

User talk:Antaeus Feldspar, [39], [40]

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.

User talk:Antaeus Feldspar, [41]

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, [42] 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. - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 19:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lou franklin, 18th May

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin

Lou franklin (talk · contribs) is under personal attack parole, to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted accusations of bad faith. [43]

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?" [44]

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?"[45]

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. [46] --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week. --Tony Sidaway 11:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Lou's added an {{unblock}} as per usual and asked "What personal attacks?" --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's also been blanking his talk page, so I've protected it, with the intention that it should of course be unprotected when the block expires. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Instantnood May 16

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

Template:China-university-stub, Category:Universities in Macau Category:Universities in Hong Kong Category:Chinese universities. See histories. Instandnood has been trying to claim these are not "Chinese" for over a year.

Relate this diff to a finding of fact, principle, enforcement, or remedy listed in the Final Decision

List of countries by GDP (nominal), List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, [47] reverting users (not me) who remove the term mainland China, and placing confusing parentheses around other entries. (Same edit war, different articles)
List of football stadiums by capacity, [48] Same edit war, different article. re-organizing articles to place Hong Kong as not a subset of China.
East Asian Games, seven reverts in three or four days over whether Macau is spelled with an o or a u. This content issue was raised during his arbcom.
Kinmen National Park, category placement. Refuses to acknowledge consensus on Naming Conventions (Chinese) that "Taiwan" is used synonymously with Republic of China and that this is usually ok. He insists that Taiwan is only the island.
Hong Kong, China at the 2004 Summer Olympics, same edit war, different article, he was banned for this before. Keeps replacing the SVG flag (preferred by WP guidelines for images) with a PNG one. Despite repeated queries on half a dozen talk pages, Image talk:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png for one, he cannot identify why the SVG flag is a problem.

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 ([49] 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 [50].

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 [51] [52], disregarding how Hong Kong first appeared like [53].

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 [54] [55].

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. — Insta ntnood 20:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lou franklin and homophobic epithet

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)

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

Children of Bodom, [56]

First revert

Children of Bodom, [57]

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: [58] 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

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. [59]

See for example [60] [61] [62]. 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 [63]. 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)

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

Nakba Day, [64]

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 [65]. 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

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

WP:DRVU, [66]

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

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)

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: [71]

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

Singapore, [72], [73], [74], [75]

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.

Hong Kong,

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:

[76] 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.
[77] 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.
[78] 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.
[79] 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.

Pacific Rim Capitals

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:

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 [80]. 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.
[81] 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"

Special administrative region (People's Republic of China)

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. [82]

List of tunnels

[83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] 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 [89]. --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. — Insta ntnood 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 [90]. 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 [91] [92] [93] [94]. For the scope of an encycloædia, city status is hardly merely legalese. We have details regarding, for instance, the city status of Roche ster 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 [95] [96] (and I've also invited other wikipedians previously involved to join [97]). 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 [98] [99] are, as explained [100] [101], invalid. He has not, until this moment, responded to my request for the E-Mail address he wrote to [102] [103], effectively making other people difficult to follow up.

For the Pacific Rim capitals article, as explained [104], 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 [105], but it has been disregarded by user:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Alanmak in their subsequent reverts [106] [107]. 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 [108] 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 [109].

Even worse was that user:SchmuckyTheCat himself had been reverting everything in my edits, including materials he doesn't disagree with, e.g. [110] [111] [112] [113]. He also accompanies something else in his edits, e.g. [114].

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. — Insta ntnood 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)

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[115].. for atleast 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), /wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu 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. [116]"

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. [117]

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)

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:

[118] - He removes ALL citations of the source from this article, asserting his own interpretation of policy. -- infinity0 17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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: [119] 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)

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" [120]
16:59, 20 April 2006: "Revert. Clear vandalism. Use of anon to violate admin warning" [121] (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 [122]. 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)

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) [123], [124] 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: [125], [126], 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 [127] 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 [128] after already explaining elsehwere the conditions of my violation, [129]. I also requested for an extension to my block from the admin that served my 48 hour block [130] 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 [131] [132]. 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

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: [133]

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

Category:Chinese universities, [134], [135], [136]
These should be seen as the same edits: Category:Universities in Hong Kong, [137] and Category:Universities in Macau, [138]

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 - [139], July 2005 - [140], March 2005 - [141]. 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.

List of China administrative divisions by population, [142]

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. — Insta ntnood 21:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article editing bans on Instantnood

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.

List of bridges two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
Macao, China two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
Hong Kong national football team two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
District Council of Hong Kong two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
Guangzhou two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
Community of Portuguese Language Countries two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
East Asian Tigers two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
I'm lovin' it two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006

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:

Las Vegas Sands two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
Share taxi two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
Estádio Campo Desportivo two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
Douhua two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006

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

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 [143], 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:

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:

Why hasn't Beckjord's ban timer been reset?
Given that Beckjord has openly opposed any "authority" on Wikipedia other than himself, doesn't this warrant a hard ban (per Irate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))?

--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

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:

18:47, 2 April 2006
- See Talk:Democratic peace theory#1 for a discussion of the issue here; this is also editing against consensus.
22:55, 3 April 2006 **shorter than the others, but in the process he attached the footnotes to the wrong sentences.
04:17, 4 April 2006

collective diff 5-7 April
edit of 03:59 8 April
- He has been defending this mutilation by claiming that he is removing ancient papers; these are from 1995,1999, and 2003
Collective diff of further edits: as of 04:23
- These do not contain the promised restoration, and insofar as they are drastic moves, are contrary to the repeated requests of Salix alba 2 April 19:36 and myself 18:03 April 3 Septentrionalis 14:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - False, these and many other arguments for the theory added.Ultramarine 15:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.[268] Or this, where he completely deletes the painstakingly made table regarding world-wide democracy from Freedom House.[269]

Freedom House, like several of Ultramarine's other edits, is a collection of cut-and-pastes. Most of the paragraphs are taken directly from various pages on FH's website. This is plagiarism, even where it is not copyvio. Septentrionalis 15:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Only supporter is a falsehood; almost all the editors who has looked at the article have remarked on Ultramarine's PoV. Scaife objects to it more than I do (See Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 5#35.
- He has not supported you for a long time now.Ultramarine 15:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Scaife has taken a break from the article for reasons stated in his talk page. Several editors have ceased attempting to edit after finding the experience of Ultramarine's POV-pushing frustrating. That is not good for the project.Robert A.West (Talk) 16:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultramarine has made this portentous statemtent before. Does this have a point? What offense is he suggesting? (A question he has never bothered to answer.) Btw, the "extremely deep knowledge" consists of comparing the standard sources. Septentrionalis 15:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ultramarine is repeatedly speculating about the real names and relationships of two demonstrably distinct editors. So far as I know, collaboration is not forbidden, it is encouraged. I saw no pledge to avoid working with friends (or relatives for that matter) when I joined. Could someone please clarify whether Ultramarine's conduct is consistent with both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:Harassment? Robert A.West (Talk) 16:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of sourced material: 23:05 8 April. Septentrionalis 16:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Study from 2004 hidden in footnote while mentioning irrelevant studies from 1976 and 1983 in main text. Typical tactic by Septentrionalis, selectively citing obsolete studies while ignoring recent research. Ultramarine 17:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - An inaccurate description. Does Ultramarine bother to look at my edits before he vandalizes them? Septentrionalis 12:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis absolutely does not want the readers to see and judge for themselves the pro-DPT arguments regarding possible wars.[270] 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.[271] 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 [272] 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"[273], 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. [274] - 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

(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 [275] and [276]. 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.
- [277] - User:Aryah tells RJII the FAQ is open.
- [278] - User:Libertatia tells RJII the FAQ is not social anarchist doctrine.
- [279] - I explain to RJII why his edits are POV and inappropriate. RJII calls this explanation incoherent.
  - [280] - RJII refuses to respond to my argument, instead calling it nonsense.
  - [281] - RJII refuses to explain why he thinks my response and criticism of his edits are incoherent.
  - [282] - RJII refuses to explain why he disagrees with my deconstruction of his edit.
  - [283] - 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 [284]), 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." [285] 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." [286] 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

(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:

editing articles (recently) from which C. is banned: e.g., developed country;
editing articles or insinuating changes into them without discussion or edit summaries, or labelling corrections as rvv: e.g., List of countries by GDP (PPP), List of countries by population;
over the course of weeks, reverting to prior article versions that adhere to some ineffable personal standard and without justification: e.g. List of countries by GDP (PPP), List of countries by total area
moving articles to prior locales – viz. List of countries and outlying territories by area/List of countries by total area – being warned about carte blanche changes, and (recently, in response) rehashing my warning and taunting me with an arguable personal attack (e.g., I'm not sanctioned and have not been, as C. has noted)

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

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]

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here - copy and paste it BELOW this line!!-->
 ----
+===[[User:Leyasu]] (June 9) - possibly editing while blocked===
+{{User|Leyasu}} 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, {{user|Deathrocker}}, and {{admin|Sceptre}}.
+Leyasu is currently blocked for one month; the block expires on June 11.  I have also blocked an anon that he was using for evading that block. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:81.157.83.176&diff=prev&oldid=52871689]  Soon after the block, he declared his intentions to evade it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leyasu&diff=prev&oldid=52639196]  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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moi_dix_Mois&diff=prev&oldid=56809847]  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.) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paradise_Lost_%28band%29&diff=prev&oldid=56920249] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vampiris&diff=prev&oldid=56924089] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_heavy_metal_genres&diff=prev&oldid=57630183]  An edit by another anon brings up Deathrocker's current arbitration case. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_heavy_metal_genres&diff=prev&oldid=57700550]  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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.132.131.238&diff=prev&oldid=57760350]
+;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: [[User:Idont Havaname|Idont Havaname]] ([[User talk:Idont Havaname|Talk]]) 20:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 ===[[User:SqueakBox]]===

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards