Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Bakasuprman (talk | contribs)
19,843 edits
MinaretDk (talk | contribs)
236 edits
Line 75: Line 75:
{{User|Hkelkar}} is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Proposed_decision.
{{User|Hkelkar}} is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Proposed_decision.


I have demonstrated that Rumplestiltskin223 is in fact the banned Hkelkar. <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hkelkar</ref>
I have demonstrated that Rumplestiltskin223 is in fact the banned Hkelkar. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hkelkar]]


;The following diffs show the offending behavior:
;The following diffs show the offending behavior:

Revision as of 05:01, 4 February 2007


    Shortcut

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


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

    This page only involves violations of final Arbitration Committee decisions.

    Enforcement

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

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

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

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

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

    Using this page

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

    Be prepared with:

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

    Be advised to:

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

    Archives

    Sections are automatically archived when the oldest time stamp in the section is 7 days old. The current archive is Archive 4.


    Edit this section for new requests

    User:Rumpelstiltskin223

    Hkelkar (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Proposed_decision.

    I have demonstrated that Rumplestiltskin223 is in fact the banned Hkelkar. [[1]]

    The following diffs show the offending behavior
    Edit made by Hkelkar under a sockpuppet.
    "corrections"
    Summation

    Many have suspected this, though today it was found Rumplestiltskin was using an anonymous IP to provide citations to content Hkelkar added some time ago. Understand that many users have been alleging the two were the same person before this. Because the sources were books published in the 50s and 60s, no longer in print, and Rumplestiltskin knew the exact locations of the related content, I argue it's impossible that Rumplestiltskin ,now given other mentioned similarities that,is anyone other than Hkelkar.

    Reported by: [[MinaretDk 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Allegations were brought forth? You mean the *7.xx IP range in england? Home to nocled user Mustafa Bhai (talk · contribs) and probably TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs).Bakaman 03:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NuclearUmpf 2

    NuclearZer0 has a history of tendentious editing on articles involving the War on Terrorism. A prior Arbcom case against him found that he has "engaged in editwarring and other disruptive editing" and has "failed to negotiate in good faith, engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic". Since being placed on probation, he has notheless been blocked repeatedly for violations of policy. Now NuclearZer0 has begun to disrupt the encyclopedia by tendentious edit-warring on Iraq War and related pages. [2][3][4][5][6][7]

    Any assistance in dealing with this behavior would be greatly appreciated.--Alecmconroy 10:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Didn't Arbcom already tell you I wasnt involved in your dispute, get over it. You filed an RfC against Rangeley an Arbcom against me, do you plan to actually discuss with the people who do not agree with you? or do you plan to file other RfC's an Arbcoms against the other 12 left? Arbcom judgements are not weapons. I have discussed on the talk page of Rangeley's RfC, the Iraq War page, etc. So who do you plan to file on next that doesn't agree with you? --NuclearZer0 20:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will say that from my point of view as a previously uninvolved editor that NuclearZer0 has used a very belligerent and confrontational style of editing in respect to the article of question. He has repeatedly inserted the disputed content while all other editors have been discussing the mater under the talk page, justifying his unilateral insertion of the text by the same style of circular logic that saw him censured, he has also been uncivil to many editors and has taken actions that border on personal attacks.Freepsbane 22:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So tell me if everyone is "talking" and I am the only one reverting ... who have I been reverting? Wouldnt the first time I put it back have caused it to be there till today? I mean if everyone is just talking and noone is reverting? Do yo uhave similar words for Timeshifter who has reverted 3x today alone? For some reason I doubt you do, perhaps cause he shares your view? --NuclearZer0 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you have not noticed I have not edited or reverted the sentence in question, furthermore I have only edited its parent article twice within the past month.Freepsbane 02:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What are you talking about, noone said you did. I am asking if you want to see impartial why you are not citing everyone for reverting, acting as if I am the only one who did it, when someone who shares your view did it 3x that day and the other 2x? --NuclearZer0 18:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    5Q5 (talk · contribs) on James Randi Educational Foundation possible violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_poorly_sourced_information

    edit by 5Q5 made on 19:26, 26 January 2007 linking to the website of the Indian Skeptic containing possibly poorly sourced critical information about Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 21:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What negative information about Sathya Sai Baba was being added to the article? There is none that I can see. I think Andries is advancing a ludicrous interpretation here, and I'd like to demonstrate that with a hypothetical example. Suppose a British MP were, in the course of a speech in the House of Commons, to make some remark attacking Sathya Sai Baba. That would be transcribed and reported in Hansard and then appear on the Parliament website. According to Andries' interpretation, all links to the Parliament website would then have to be removed from all articles. Sam Blacketer 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Linking to the website of the Indian Skeptic www.indian-skeptic.org/html/index.htm Do not complain to me because I do not make the decisions here. But you are right abou the House of Commons that made critical comments about Sathya Sai Baba on their website which is archived. I will give make a warning there too, because it may be a violation of the arbcom decision. Same for the European Parliament. Andries 22:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So your position is that no Wikipedia article anywhere may link to http://www.parliament.uk? Sam Blacketer 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds to me exaggerated, but I will file a violation here to get more clarity from the people who make the rules and the decisions here. Andries 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From 5Q5 14:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC): I included the link on the JREF article because of the prize money and I thought I was being helpful. This "Sathya Sai Baba" person is of no interest to me. I live in the U.S. Wiki user "Andries" left the following message in my Wiki account suggesting I might be banned for my edit. I took it as a threat that I should not be involved with anything negative about this "Sathya Sai Baba" person ever again directly or indirectly. This is a ridiculous complaint and a waste of Wikipedia's disk space. "Hi 5Q5, I filed a complaint about your editing behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#5Q5_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_on_James_Randi_Educational_Foundation_possible_violation_of_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FSathya_Sai_Baba.23Removal_of_poorly_sourced_information for your possible violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_poorly_sourced_information Here is the possibly problematic edit that you made edit by 5Q5 made on 19:26, 26 January 2007 that links to the website of the Indian Skeptic containing possibly poorly sourced critical information about Sathya Sai Baba. I do not think that you will be banned for a long time, because you are new to Wikipedia, but I do not make a decision and cannot predict what others will decide. Andries 21:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)" (end of quoted material)[reply]
    5Q5, You can say anything negative about Sathya Sai Baba as long as it is well sourced. Andries 18:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See the opinion of the arbcom clerk user:Thatcher131 regarding linking the website of James Randi (containing possibly poorly sourced negative informaiton about Sathya Sai Baba) to the article James Randi. The website of the Indian Skeptic ( www.indian-skeptic.org/html/index.htm ) contains a higher fraction of criticism of Sathya Sai Baba than the website of James Randi. Andries 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From 5Q5 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC). I did not submit an external link on the article of James Randi or Sathya Sai Baba. I submitted an external link, one of several, on the article for the James Randi Educational Foundation to various skeptics around the world who are offering prize money for proof of the paranormal. That's all I did. I did not see any mention on the article that it is subject to censorship and no external link even remotely associated with this Sathya Sai Baba person is not allowed. I could care less if you undid all my small amount of editing on the article. If Andries's goal is censorship of Wikipedia, then, you have won in my case, as I will never attempt an edit of the JREF article ever again! Filing this complaint againt me (if that's what this is) is an abuse of Wikipedia because it wastes the Administrators' valuable time. This is ridiculous![reply]

    Skollur (talk · contribs) on Indian CSICOP possible violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal_of_poorly_sourced_information

    According to my interpretation of the opinion of Thatcher131 and SSS108 as voiced on talk:Robert Priddy user:Skollur has according to Thatcher131 and SS108, violated the ruling of the first arbitration case regarding Sathya Sai Baba by linking to the webpage of the Indian Skeptic. I do not agree with Thathcher131 and SS108 about this matter, but I would like to have a principle formulated that is applied consistently and fairly without contradicting generally accepted Wikipedia practices on some articles. 9 Jan. 2006 edit by Skollur adding link to Indian Skeptic with criticism of Sathya Sai Baba Andries 11:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if the edit was relevant to Sathya Sai Baba (which, because the article does not even mention Sathya Sai Baba, it wasn't), then I fail to see how an edit made on 9 January 2006 could be worthy of any action in relation to an arbitration finding made on 5 September 2006. Sam Blacketer 18:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, you are correct about the date. My mistake. Andries 18:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:TDC

    TDC (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction for parole violation. The final decision in their case is here.

    TDC is not allowed more than one content revert in a 24-hour period, however he deleted reports of legitimate accuracy disputes from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Accuracy disputes twice today, just a little more than an hour apart.

    The following diffs show the offending behavior
    Summation

    TDC is also required to discuss his reverts, which he did not do even after I invited him to do so on the talk page. This must be at least his seventh such offense, against me alone.

    Reported by: James S. 01:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Admin notes.
    • The revert parole is also at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#TDC_placed_on_revert_parole Bucketsofg 05:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:RFAR/Depleted_Uranium also contained sanctions against James S., who brought this complaint. He was banned from Depleted_Uranium and associated articles, placed on probation (may be banned for tendentious editing), and placed on general probation. Bucketsofg 05:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edit summaries in the diffs supplied above [8] [9] suggest that there is some dispute as to whether James' probation allowed him to include links to an article that he is banned from. Bucketsofg 05:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me that a warning is in order for both User:TDC and James S.. TDC should not have made the second revert. However, James is banned from Depleted Uranium and associated articles, and by making a link to that article, it could be argued that he was creating an association between the page that he was editing and the depleted uranium page, thereby accidentally violating his own parole. Bucketsofg 06:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    James S. is not prohibited from editing the talk pages of DU-related articles. I would say that listing the articles as "accuracy disputes" is within the range of permitted activities, since it would allow him to call attention to his complaints on the talk page. I think TDC was wrong to revert James at all, much less twice, but it is an understandable difference in interpretation of the ruling. Thatcher131 16:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your clarification, Thatcher. I have cautioned both users. Bucketsofg 17:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NuclearUmpf

    It has been brought to my attention that NuclearZer0 is on probation for tendentious editing and revert waring. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Zer0faults placed on Probation

    The following examples of such on {{911ct}} may indicate a problem. May I suggest the ban apply to all 9/11 articles and related XfDs, if a ban is chosen.

    (A few dozen edits to the template on January 18, eventually leading to a version similar to bov's
    11:14, January 22, 2007 (rv to bov, this is good it shows another trend. where is tom?)
    20:17, January 22, 2007 (rv to bov, and per concensus on talk page.)
    • Any concensus is in his own mind.
    11:16, January 23, 2007 (alternate theory / jersey girls is a group supporting alternate claims. hence they are under the title of supporting alternate claims.)
    • More or less the same revert.
    23:17, January 25, 2007 (rv. seems Arthur Rubin is misunderstanding. Noone is sating CT doesnt stand for Conspiracy Theory, just that templates covers a dif topic better)
    • He's found another damaged version to revert to.
    23:26, January 25, 2007 (rv seems you arent paying attention. This was just addressed in my comment. the templates contents cover the new name better then the old one ... Please read before reverting)
    • same version, and still no justification

    And a few related edits removing the template from articles it belongs on and adding the template to articles it doesn't belong on. [10]

    Also note that, on {{911tm}},

    11:25, January 18, 2007 (rm, theory is not accepted by movement members.)
    removing an entry, immediately followed by
    17:34, January 18, 2007 (add note + change, there is nothing to be a member of, its a movement, not a club house.)
    changing the word "members" to something wrong, namely "researchers".
    followed by a note on one of the XfD's, contradicting my comment that he had said that the 9/11 Truth Movement doesn't have members.

    And this is just related to the articles on my watch list. Who knows how many times he's been edit warring on other articles.

    — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This shows the concensus[11], note the edits were made before Arthur Rubin stepped in to say he will not participate in any discussion of renaming. Since he decided he will not even attempt to discuss his position, it was noted and we moved on. Arthur can you explain how all those reverts were against you? Are you honestly attempting to revert war then come here to have some penalty enacted? Sounds like trying to game the system since your next revert would have been a 3RR violation. Arbcom enforcement isnt for revenge, or for going around 3RR. I would like to point out the only people supporting Arthur Rubin is Tom Harrison, which as an admin has been edit warring on the page as well. Myself, Lovelight, Bov and Fiddle Faddle all support a change to alternate theories. Arthur Rubin and Tom Harrison keep revert warring to change it, oddly enough Arthur Rubin has voted to have the template deleted, so I am afraid of the intent of his edits as well, but I have continued to AGF and not accuse him of anything. Just to point out if its wondered why I have so many mentions here, they are all from members of the former GabrielF Noticeboard which I contributed to having moved, which they arent happy about. Tom Harrison, Mongo, TBeatty, Morton Devonshire, Arthur Rubin, Derex, rogerd, etc. So do not be surprised if MONGO interjects to give an "outside opinion" or Tom for that matter. --NuclearZer0 11:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also this is a content dispute, note him pushing his content based points, of if they should be called "researchers, since they research, or members etc. This is not the place for content based issues Arthur Rubin. I told you Thatcher131, the Arbcom enforcement page is a way for people who do not agree to just push their weight instead of discuss, notice Arthur did not attempt to discuss this with me on the talk page, just reverted constantly then ran here. --NuclearZer0 11:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the members arguement, let me explain. The 9/11 Truth Movement is a group of people. Much like the Civil Rights Movement was a group of people. For a person to say "Civil Rights Movement preached the complete destruction of anyone that cannot trace their heritage back to Africa in 2 generations" would be a lie, even if you could find 1 person that had some involvement that did say it. The problem is that the majority of people involved in this movement, I call them members, much like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. are members of the civil rights movement. No they are not members in the sense that they signed a piece of paper granting them super secret access and secret decoder rings. They are members because they are frequently mentioned in step with the movement. Some people want to argue that there are no prominent "members" since noone signed a charter, or keeps a list of who is "in" and who is "out". In seeing that arguement I changed membership to researchers, its a neutral terms and their appearance on the template basically showed their common thinking. So Arthur if you would ask me, instead of reverting, you could have had an answer. --NuclearZer0 14:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "This is why people use talk pages." Yes, why don't you do so before deleting information from templates, either by reversion, or by a direct edit. This is not a content dispute, although I disagree with Nuclear about the content. This is a dispute on his editing without using the talk page, or using the talk page to make a WP:POINT rather than to discuss the issues.
    Also, I fail to see where your link indicates that I'm refusing to discuss the issues; a clear reading would indicate that I believe YOU are unwilling to discuss the issues. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is how you know Arthur doesnt read the talk page nor do more then revert. The reason half the content is on the template is because I added it, more then 75% of the items I believe. What have you contributed? You say I am not willing to discuss but then we have this quote from you " I consider it effectively vandalism of the articles the template is included in, whether or not that was the intent. Perhaps the templates should be deleted if we can't reach agreement as to what should be the subject of the template."[12] And when told it would be better to work toward an agreement you responded by stating "It would be nice. So would peace in the Middle East. I'm not sure which is more probable"[13] So my apologies, you did use the talk page, to announce you would not work with your fellow editors that is. --NuclearZer0 20:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As should be obvious, my comment was intended to imply that your position was so set that it was unlikely you would agree to anything sensible. (This was before I found the information on your probation.) You seemed to be willing to change the templates to anything at all plausible which was not consistent with the original intent of the creator of the template, while I see nothing wrong with that intent, and was attempting to preserve it. As for consensus on Template:911ct, it's clear there was none. A pure count of editors with respect to their actions suggests a weak consensus for the original intent, but that's not very conclusive. I didn't agree with any of the arguments against keeping the Template:911ct as a full conspiracy theory template, and Template:911tm as fully encompassing the 9/11 Truth Movement, and commented to that effect the first time an argument was presented on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF - "my comment was intended to imply that your position was so set that it was unlikely you would agree to anything sensible."
    Original intent of the creator? WP:OWN
    A clear count of editors in line with the talk page, not your friends reverting, shows a concensus. I am sure the talk page has little discussion since they wouldn't have much more to say other then per Arthur. I hope you can review some of these Wiki pages and see that numerous items you said above are just incorrect and not how Wikipedia works. --NuclearZer0 14:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a generalization, but there are many places in the policies and guidelines which state that unless an concensus for change is obtained, the original status of the article is to be maintained. I see no reason why this shouldn't be followed. This is not a WP:OWN violation.
    Until the non-straw-poll was added yesterday, the number of editors who expressed opposition to the "Conspiracy theory" version of the template was 3. And the editors reverting those changes (who are not my friends) number at least 4, not including me. There is clearly no concencus for "alternative".
    As for WP:AGF, your RfAr found that questionable. Isn't "tendentious" editing, by definition, a violation of "good faith". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is good you admit you have never assumed good faith in any of this, unfortunatly I have and it is perhaps why I kept discussing while you kept reverting, very sad. Perhaps you should read up on Arbcom hearings, they arent meant to be used as weapons against people you do not agree with, seeing as you never assumed good faith, which is probably why you reverted without discussion says alot. --NuclearZer0 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:195.82.106.244

    I have a strong suspicion this banned editor is making a comeback to the Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_Organisation article. I have posted an analysis of the situation here [14]. Certainly there is now a regular, sustained pattern of disruptive editing taking place to the article by single-edit IPs.

    The article and user suspected of this activity is currently banned and the article under probation [15].

    A request for semi-protection of the page has been recently rejected [16] however the IP attacks are more frequent now.

    Regards Bksimonb 09:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll investigate later. List other accounts here using the {{userlinks|name or number}} template, please. Thatcher131 12:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris
    The IPs look like him, I'm not sure about the user. If it is a continued problem, you may need to ask for a checkuser first. The 195 editor was in England and these IPs are all Japan, so it could be open proxies or he has recruited someone; either way, the edits are banned. Since I can't block every Japanese ISP from Wikipedia, I've semi-protected the article. Thatcher131 08:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User Some people (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back in full force now the 24 hour block has expired. Bksimonb 11:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reblocked indefinitely after further editing convinced me he was either a sock or meat puppet of the 195 editor. Thatcher131 07:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SqueakBox

    SqueakBox (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of personal attack parole extended to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith. The final decision in their case is here.

    This editor has begun a campaign against editors attempting to improve the article Brown people. In numerous places on the article talk page, the editor mischaracterizes the article and contributions of other editors (including an administrator) as "racist", "OR", "POV", "trolling", etc. with no evidence provided and no discussion of improvement other than to destroy the article.

    The following diffs show the offending behavior
    Claims User:Uncle G and I are persuing OR with no evidence.
    Tells User:Uncle G: "what you think we'll take your word on that"
    Claims that American editors are attempting to force racist views upon the world through Wikipedia
    Edit summary says (rm blanking of ref without expalantion merely to fit your rascists conceptiosns)
    Summation

    This is only a sample of the general incivility and veiled personal insults towards other editors of the article by this user. This also includes bad faith assumptions on the article's recent AfD page where I was called a troll, ignorant, and arrogant. I have been a participant in the AfD, article, and talk page, but have decided not to improve this article for now in light of the abuse I have been taking there.

    Addendum:
    I notified the user of my report on his talk page and it was deleted with an edit summary of "rm troll". ju66l3r 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reported by: ju66l3r 22:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure what this is doing here as my arbcom is related to Zapatero, nor why this user has chosen to harrass me. What he fails to point out tis that a number of editoprs feel the same way as me and are unhapy at Ju's aggressive approach, of which this is clearly a part. He claims that because I criticise the article I am criticising him wherreas the only critixcisms of him have concernecd his personal behavious. He says here he is reporting me becasue he has lost his temper and then claims he is making a better wikipedia and I am not. He also has a [patronising attitude that is simply not wikipedia. I really dont know what hios problem is but if he wants mediation I am happy to go for it. I dont believe there is a case to answer here, SqueakBox 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Admin comment. These are indeed personal attacks: in the edit summary in the final diff quoted above Squeakbox calls fellow editors racist. I will deliberate and impose a block. Bucketsofg 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your personal attack parole applies throughout Wikipedia. Thatcher131 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well what do you suggest then? I was not attacking users I was attacking the article and maybe Americans in general but clearly not editors either in general or specifically, I also understood that case was entirely involving Zapatero, SqueakBox 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well my apologies if I offended anyone, SqueakBox 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Messhermit

    Messhermit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on probation, and "may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by any administrator." He has also been banned for one year "from editing articles which relate to the conflict between Peru and Ecuador." (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit). Messhermit has moved on from disrupting pages related to the conflict between the war in Peru and Ecuador to disrupting pages related to the war between Peru and Chile. (See [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]. I do not know if it would be appropriate to ban Messhermit from editing pages related to the war between Peru and Chile, but someone might want to look into it. --Descendall 17:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note that a bunch of these edits are blatant violations of 3RR. --Descendall 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is outrageous! In the first place, I'm being accused by a person that has clearly making this a personal issue against my person. Besides the fact that User:Descendall is a left-leaning Wikipedian that simply loves to insult anyone that doesn't support his political views [45] [46], Descendall is ALWAYS behind every single edition that I do and ALWAYS ignoring the other persons in this disputes, selecting information that only suit his political point of views. Messhermit 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently, HE IGNORES THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER LEFT-LEANING Wikipedist, User:Bdean1963. User:Descendall and User:Bdean1963 share the same political views and in more than one opportunity they have team up together to attack my person and integrity here in Wikipedia. The other side of the coin that User:Descendall avoids to mention is the fact that this revert war an all the following editions ((See [47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70].) clearly involves his dear friend Bdean1963, and that it was my person the one that requested protection to this article [71]. Also, User:Descendall avoids mention that while I was keep asking (and eventually trying to force Bdean to discuss the issue in the talk page), Bdean WAS NOT willing to talk, insulting me [72], [73]. Off course all this is purposely ovbiated by User:Descendall. Messhermit 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, Bdean1963 has not made a single attempt to discuss the issue. On the other hand I have already exposed my arguments against his editions and I'm still waiting and answer that doesn't involve Bdean's "feelings" that it should be included [74]. As of today, two days after this dispute was solve with the protection of the articles, there is no response. What should I expect from someone that behaves in that way? But of course, User:Bdean1963 is innocent because User:Descendall didn't include him in this accusation. Messhermit 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is nothing more than a political persecution against my person created by two left-leaning Anti-Fujimoristas and anti-democratic Wikipedians. Thus, I must define the present accusation against me as being only motivated by political hate that this two user have against me. This has reached a point where it seems that both Wikipedians are obsessed with the idea of forcing me to leave Wikipedia. Messhermit 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, I wonder how an innactive Wikipedian is so concerned about my editions here in Wikipedia? Is it because of the nature of my editions or because he is always looking for an excuse to get me into troubles? Messhermit 19:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to get involved in these conspiracy theories. The only other run-in I've ever had with Messhermit is when he was violating the terms of his arbitration and was blocked for five days, but that was months and months ago. The bottom line is that 1) Messhermit has violated the terms of his arbitration multiple times 2) Messhermit is currently on probation 3) Messhermit is creating a problem on a bunch of articles that are similar to ones he is banned from editing. Again, I do not know if it would be appropriate to ban Messhermit from editing pages related to the war between Peru and Chile, but someone might want to look into it. --Descendall 20:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Conspiracy Theories? So now your editions are not credible? Do I have to remind you about the times that you decided what should go in the articles of Sendero Luminoso (not even in Wikipedia Spanish hear your claim), Alberto Fujimori, Martha Chavez, People's War and many others? If you are going to be neutral then STOP selecting information and day things the way they are: Bdean1963 refused to compromise, he does not want to discuss and that you are stalking me. Messhermit 20:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I literally have no idea what you're even talking about. People's War? I don't think I've even edited that. Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? Anyway, I'm not even involved in the dispute that I've listed. I'm also not on probation, nor the subject of arbitration. Nor am I violating 3RR. Nor am I making wholly illogical edits, such as refusing to allow a link to the text of a treaty in an article. You are. That's why I brought this up here. --Descendall 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not confusing you. If you claim that you are not involved, then why did you listed me and not him? Because you are both comrades? Because you both believe that I'm a agent of the bourgeois and imperialist Peruvian right? Messhermit 20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. I just don't know what to say. I've read conspiracy thorists on wikipedia before, but this one takes the cake. Sorry for dumping this problem on you, admins. --Descendall 20:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if your nearly illogical defense to naming Sendero Luminoso as the "Communist Party of Peru" (even thouh nobody in Wikipedia ES heared your arguments as an IP user and inmediately removed that) is also a "Conspiracy theory". Messhermit 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I still have absoutely no idea what you're talking about. I'm not even on Spanish wikipedia. I don't even speak Spanish. --Descendall 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And about the illogical editions, I'm not the one insulting people just because I don't like their POV. And its not about a "link to a text of a treaty" but rather to a whole section (READ BEFORE LAUNCHING SUCH A SERIOUS CLAIM) that has nothing to do with the War of the Pacific. Messhermit 20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, once again: you are retired. What a coincidence that your editions are against my person. Your only motive is that I don't agree with your political views. Messhermit 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bdean1963 has refused to answer any call to discuss the dispute in the "Talk Page" in both articles. I believe that after exposing my case in BOTH "Talk Pages" and not hearing anything from the other party involved, I have already done more than enough to solve this dispute. Once the protection is lifted, I believe I have the right to revert it to its original estate based on the FACTS that:

    • The other Wikipedia doesn't have the will to discuss.
    • The Maritime dispute between Peru and Chile can only be traced back to the early 1950's and NOT to the War of the Pacific

    I would appreciate any sort of advice that this committee might have, and to certify that my editions are based on logical and plausible conclusions, not based in neither emotional nor ideological differences. Messhermit 14:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I can not involve myself in this case as an administrator because I know both of these editors. However, as an editor and member of the Peru Wikiproject I will say that I am disappointed by the amount of edit warring that has gone on in articles related to the War of the Pacific. With regards to the actual content, I actually agree somewhat with Messhermit in that the recent events should not be as highlighted as they are in these articles but his edit warring is causing more harm then good and it has caused that page and the Tacana page to be protected. And both of those page's talk pages have long drawn out disputes between this user and User:Bdean1963 which contain vast amounts of personal attacks from both sides.--Jersey Devil 04:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=105504756"