Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

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

This page only involves violations of final Arbitration Committee decisions.

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

Enforcement

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

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

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

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

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

Using this page

Edit this section. Please put new requests above old requests and below the sample template. A sample template is provided, please use copy and paste, do not edit the template. Please do not use subsections (=== this is a subsection ===). They confuse Werdnabot, which archives this page.

Be prepared with:

• Diffs showing the violating behavior
• Point to the final decision in their Arbitration case, a list with summary disposition is at WP:AER
• Clear and brief summary relation of how this behavior is linked to the principles, findings of fact, remedies, and/or enforcement mechanism of the arbitration case.
• Sign and date your report with Wikipedia's special signature format (~~~~). The archival bot uses the time stamp to determine when to archive reports.

Be advised to:

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

Archives

Sections are automatically archived when the oldest time stamp in the section is 7 days old. The current archive is Archive 2.

• Archive 1

---

Edit this section for new requests

User:Terryeo (2)

Terryeo was barred from editing scientology pages in May. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Final decision.

User:Yandman has found strong evidence that Terry has been editing the scientology pages from his IP address. See [1]. Terry has been repeatedly deleting Yandman's inquiries without comment. [2], [3].

Should this issue go here or to a request for checkuser first? Thanks, TheronJ 14:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Evasion of Ban

I recently posted this message on Terryeo's talk page:

Problems regarding your ban

From your Arbitration: "Terryeo banned from Scientology related articles 2) Terryeo is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to Dianetics or Scientology. He may make appropriate comments on talk pages.". However, since this ban, IP address 208.106.20.67 has edited several articles pertaining to Scientology: [[4]]. This editor then signed a message as you: [[5]].

Any comments? Yandman 14:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He removed this text almost immediately afterwards, and redid so twice without explanation after I reverted. This suggests guilt on his part. I understand that using an anonymous IP address in order to evade a ban is prohibited. In this case Terryeo is in serious violation of his probation. Yandman 14:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not unheard of for another user to try and get a banned user in trouble this way. It would be best to ask for a checkuser first. (It would also be nice if Terryeo responded to the situation one way or the other, but if wishes were horses...) Thatcher131 (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Eternal Equinox

Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs) is under Probation for one year. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Final_decision.

EE is disrupting the Cool (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article and its talk page Talk:Cool (song) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Cool (song)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is in violation of remedy #1 of the ArbCom ruling on him: "Should they, editing under any username disrupt any page, they may be banned from that page for a brief period of time, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses."

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Talk:Cool (song), 15:36, 4 September 2006, 16:51, 4 September 2006, 17:01, 4 September 2006

Using sockpuppets and IPs (68.32.205.159 (talk · contribs), What2do (talk · contribs) and a dynamic IP in the 64.231 range) - masquerading as three separate non-EE editors - to skew "consensus" in his favour. EE has previously used sockpuppets during FAC and other discussions for the same reason; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Hollow_Wilerding_and_socks.

• Cool (song), 14:54, 4 September 2006, 16:52 - 18:04, 4 September 2006, 18:40 - 20:44, 4 September 2006

Edit warring aggressively. EE has a history of ownership of articles and obsessive editing of pop music articles, this one in particular; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Locus_of_dispute.

Summation

EE's recent behaviour on this article is part of the reason why an RFAr was filed to begin with, and it's apparent that he's unwilling to change it. He considers the "Cool" article his own "baby", to be treated differently from other articles, under the control of nobody but himself (see [6] and [7]). The above description and diffs only scratch the surface; he's been edit warring on this article for months. I'm involved in this dispute, which is why I haven't temporarily banned him from this article myself.

Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 14:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have banned the account from Cool (song) and its talk page for 48 hours. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Response from user

Ban fully rejected. Extraordinary Machine uses excuses to introduce infactualty, nonsense that some edits are too "rich", and other ideas that my edits do not meet Wikipedia-stylized policies. Claims I have been using sock puppets (I have no idea who the 68 IP range is), and thinks I have been editing disruptively while touting the excuse "things have to be [his] way" and "it's my baby". This is ridiculous. This was actually not removed intentionally; we had an edit conflict and without surprise, Bunchofgrapes assumes (yet again) that I removed it purposely. Oh yawn, these users are beginning to grow so dull. They claim I am hard to work with again; from my view, EM is far too difficult to work with and doesn't agree with any of my views and has been recklessly reverting me as much as I am recklessly reverting him. Bunchofgrapes fails to notice this and pinpoints that only I am the cause of this issue. As a result and because here (bother to read it), I actually tried to compromise our situation and two arguments were resolved. Because I am trying to meet both our standards, and because Bunchofgrapes is stalking me after I told him to leave me alone, this ban is rejected. I sense nothing but bias.

As it currently stands, I have nothing more to edit for the day, which reprieves me somewhat. I will edit if I need to in the next "48 hours" though. 64.231.154.3 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As you've been told before, it isn't optional whether you choose to accept the ban. Just two days ago you claimed you weren't EE; having your bluff called, you've now gone back to reverting edits that I've justified and explained to death on the talk page. We're not discussing content of the article here (though the edits in those diffs hardly constitute "excuses" and "nonsense", as anyone viewing them will see) because that should be done on its talk page; we're discussing your behaviour in relation to the recent ArbCom ruling on you. If I appear to be "recklessly reverting" you, that's only because I'm trying to stop you from asserting ownership over the article and having the final say on which edits stay and which go. Bear in mind that I could have banned you from editing this article, but I felt I was too close to the dispute and posted here to get the opinion of an outside admin. Your notion that admins are under an obligation to leave any disruptive user "alone" upon request - particularly when said user continues their disruptive behaviour - is ridiculous. Extraordinary Machine 15:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And as you've been told before, you are editing as "disruptively" as I am by introducing your edits as "proper". Bunchofgrapes never looked at our conversation on Talk:Cool (song) — he figured it would be best to assume that it was me who was being disruptive. If I should say, it's your edits that are disruptive, because some are quite misleading; Bunchofgrapes obviously does not know this, and again, he found it best to believe it was me who was incorrect. Because Cool (song) is currently locked as a result of your pitiful revert-warring, we will discuss all matters on the talk page. 64.231.131.175 23:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Hagiographer

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas. Puts this troll bait notice here to try and force SqueakBox to break his block. It is also a personal attack on SqueakBox, which Hagiographer is banned from doing, as well as being a blatant disruption of wikipedia. I suspect I am not alone in being outraged at this attack on a fine academic by an individualo who spends all hhis time on wikipedia pursuing a vendetta, and spoiling the encyclopedia in the process, and I am editing this encyclopedia because of the bemirsching of this article. Relator 23:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Response I agree that the prod notice contained unacceptable personal attacks and baiting. There are less inflammatory ways Hagiographer could have done that. However, I am highly suspicious of the brand new accounts Relator (talk · contribs) and Mister Shower (talk · contribs) and I suspect Squeakbox is going to find his sockpuppeting ban reset. In the future, he may want to use the {{unblock}} template to get attention from an admin who could deal with the situation. I am going to post this at the administrator's noticeboard for a wider view. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox

Arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas#SqueakBox and Zapatancas . SqueakBox is blocked until September 22 in all the Wikipedia as he did not respect the ban imposed upon him by the mentioned arbitration case (see his block log). However, he edited the Wikipedia on September 2 (here). Probably, because when Tony Sidaway blocked him the last time he didn't chose the "correct type of block". SqueakBox's ban has to be restarted as a consequence ensuring this time that he's banned from all the Wikipedia. Hagiographer 06:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it not that case that, even though not permitted to edit (mainly articles), blocked persons are permitted to edit their talk pages (only). Iolakana•T 18:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Response Blocked users are permitted to edit their own talk pages. In reviewing the situation, I find the charge by Squeakbox that you altered his signature to that of a user you suspected of being his sockpuppet. Regardless of your suspicions, this was dishonest bordering on vandalism, and if I had seen it at the time I would have blocked you for it. As it was more than 2 weeks ago, and blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punative, consider this a stern warning. The fact that Squeakbox is blocked does not give you the right to abuse the situation, and your suspicions that he has dishonestly used sockpuppets does not give you the right to be dishonest in return. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Terryeo

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

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, [8]

Personal attack by Terryeo on User:Raymond Hill, accusing him of linking to his own website to boost traffic. See also the edit summary: "one additional point about Raymond Hill's use of Wikipedia to increase his personal website traffic".

Summation

Terryeo is under an injunction not to engage in personal attacks, for which he was banned from the Scientology-related articles. Unfortunately he has continued to post innuendo about other users, using Wikipedia policy pages in an ongoing campaign. I have invited him to withdraw his attack on Raymond Hill but he has, regrettably, refused. I recommend a block, as he doesn't seem to have got the message that this is not an appropriate way to interact with other Wikipedians, and his continued misconduct is poisoning the atmosphere on a number of talk pages. (Disclaimer: I brought the original arbitration against Terryeo.) -- ChrisO 13:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with ChrisO's statement. In fact, this is not an isolated instance of personal attack from Terryeo after being put on attack probation.--Fahrenheit451 14:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I do hope everyone examines my statement there. ChrisO suggest that I have commented on an editor's motivation. I have not commented on an editor's motivation. I have provides specific edit differences which show that User:Raymond Hill cites in an article, as a secondary source, an archived message which he placed on his own personal website. To suggest that my presentation comments on Raymond Hill's motivation is a false and misleading statement. I state the situation. I comment that such a use of a secondary source of information will raise Raymond Hill's personal website traffic. All additional inferences are made by ChrisO and he states them. I do not state implication, I state the situation as simply as possible. To state the actual situation is not a personal attack. (some trouble signing) Terryeo 15:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I can not withdraw Raymond Hill's edit differences. His editing references a google group as a secondary source, a newsgroup which reliability is denied per WP:V. To state the situation is not a personal attack and I don't make a personal attack. Nor is the situation as User:Fahrenheit451 suggests. I have been quite careful while being accused by User:Fahrenheit451's specualtive messages of 'bad faith' and 'Is this a terryeo personal attack' and similar nonesense. Terryeo 15:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo is making false accusations and is advised to cease.--Fahrenheit451 00:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment This does not look like a personal attack but a comment on the origins of a disputed source. ("Raymond Hill is a serial fabricator" would be a personal attack.) Thatcher131 (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Thatcher131. If the message came from Google Groups, as Terryeo claims, then its copyright is highly questionable. If it was written by Raymond Hill, then it's pretty close to our ban on original research. While I think Terryeo may have expressed this in a better way, I see nothing here that qualifies as a personal attack. Any uninvolved admin can, of course, disagree with me and impose a block. Ral315 (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, people :) Terryeo 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo states: "ChrisO suggest that I have commented on an editor's motivation. I have not commented on an editor's motivation." Well, Terryeo did not just imply that my motivation was to increase traffic, but stated it (in the edit summary: Raymond Hill's use of Wikipedia to increase his personal website traffic.) Given his summary edit, it would seem Terryeo's concern about the origin of the cite was secondary.
Just to avoid any confusion: the content reproduced from the newsgroups was actually a transcription of an article from a reknown canadian magazine, Maclean's. I had good reasons to trust that the newsgroups post in question is a proper transcript, because most of its content is actually supported by other reliable sources. The use of this article as a cite in a related wikipedia topic came down to have someone actually see the original article. I'm still looking for it. In the event I can confirm the cite, I understand I won't still be able to link to it because of copyright concerns, and because I am not a reliable source. This is where I erred. Raymond Hill 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The primary goal is to be able to say that the source is McLeans, volume X, page XX, date mm/dd/yyyy. Since no one has yet seen the citation itself, you are relying on an unreliable 3rd party source describing what the article says. When you or someone has seen the article and verified the transcript, you can put in the citation. You don't have to link to the text. Having seen the article first hand, you are allowed to list it, and the burden the falls on Terryeo to prove that the article doesn't say what you claim it says. (Interlibrary loan is not all that difficult if you live in a decent sized city.) There have been previous discussions about using external links to media that are copyvios; these are not wikipedia copyvios because wikipedia is not hosting the material. If there is a concern that you should not provide a link to a site you control then don't; but I would not then entertain the suggestion of removing the source entirely. There are millions if not billions of books and articles that are not on line and there is no reason to hold scientology articles to a higher standard of only allowing sources which are reliable and free and on line. In other words, after you have seen the original article, he can't turn around and say its not a reliable source because its too hard for other readers to verify it; and if you provide a transcript he can't then say it's disallowed because it comes from a site you control; and if you link to a third party site he can't argue it's disallowed because the 3rd party site is violating copyright. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User:LossIsNotMore-ur

LossIsNotMore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for a week for disrupting Talk:Uranium trioxide and is editing using LossIsNotMore-ur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to evade his ban. Dr Zak 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)