Zeq ( talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee probation: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Findings_of_fact.
The point is that if an established editor points out to Zeq that he is editing carelessly, he is the one who should step back, and only after a discussion has taken place, be allowed to revert to his version/s. I want to see Zeq editing more carefuly, and being open to discussion not only after the fact. I'm uncertain whether the probation is proving effective as I keep seeing Zeq banned from various articles, which presumably is due to him causing problems. Is it worthwhile to continue with it? Will Zeq ever be able to tread lightly when it comes to these sort of careless and tendentious and poorly-communicated editing practices? I'm not sure that he can and therefore am open to a re-examination of the case. El_C 00:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
PS I would like also to point out that what El_C doubed "proper encyclopedia lead" is written in a clear bias: While Israel's poistion is lacking the whole facts and described in weasle words "israel claim that...." the Palestinian position is writen by El_c in detail and described as "Palestinians assert that..." . some honesty is required here: El_C has a POV to push and my edit (which added few facts) was in her way. Zeq 03:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I would ask for an admin to review this decision by Tony Sidaway:
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Zeq_.28June_5.29
Tony is known to be, how can I say it, tough admin and he ignored different views on this case by other admins: [11]
Tony also ignored all my explnations as well as the fact that two arbitors who received the same original complaint (from Homey) and refused to take action on it as part of arbitration enforfment.
It should be noted that in some of the bans I was banned by Tony were for a single edit on that article and in another articls I made 3 edits.
I would ask that the bans would be lifted as they are not for "Good cause" . Please make sure to read the section of comments by other admins close to the events. Tnx. . Zeq 07:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
See section immediately beneath this one for a discussion of this request. Homey 15:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Homey, the fact you have posted here, in a clear combative style (see below) shows that you are unable to let an independent review of this case take place. This is the real issue and not the need to repeat any false accusation you make about me. Zeq 16:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It has been 72 hours since I placed this request. My edit where all with good faith and according to WP:AGF I should not have been banned.
Why admins are so quick to ban but avoid review of non good cause decisions ? Zeq 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Was I desruptive in these articles ? I think a clear answer was given by the commenting admins who bothered to review the material . also it is not good faith to argue that by one (1) single edit (a minor one) any editor can be "disruptive" - clearly this was the case on west bankk barrier. So excuse if I ask again: on what do you base your "support" ? Zeq 05:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I would ask for an admin to review this decision by Tony Sidaway:
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Zeq_.28June_5.29
Tony is known to be, how can I say it, tough admin and he ignored different views on this case by other admins: [12]
Tony also ignored all my explnations as well as the fact that two arbitors who received the same original complaint (from Homey) and refused to take action on it as part of arbitration enforfment.
It should be noted that in some of the bans I was banned by Tony were for a single edit on that article and in another articls I made 3 edits.
I would ask that the bans would be lifted as they are not for "Good cause" . Please make sure to read the section of comments by other admins close to the events. Tnx. . Zeq 07:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think serious consideration can be given to lifting the ban as long as Zeq rejects its legitimacy much like how parole boards don't grant furloughs to those who refuse to admit their guilt. See [14] for Zeq's attitude to the ban. Homey 19:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You were not the sole cause for the articles being protected but a cause. However, unlike others who edited tendenaciously you were violating your probation by doing so. Homey 20:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
If you honestly think what I've written above violates WP:NPA then raise the matter on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Homey 21:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
213.237.21.242 ( talk · contribs) appears to be an alternative IP to one of the parties involved in the Arbitration Ruling related to The Bogdanov Affair. They are now being very disruptive on Talk:Mormonism
Claims sophie@nostromo.dk as an email address here
See above - if this is not the right place for this please let me know and I will repost on Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard - thx Trödel 18:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Leyasu ( talk · contribs) is under revert parole, which currently dictates that he cannot revert a page more than once in 24 hours (a stricter revert parole for him is being voted on at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker/Proposed decision). The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker.
Having already broken revert parole more than five times, Leyasu is now able to be blocked for up to a year. He just officially got back today from being blocked for a month by Johnleemk ( talk · contribs), although he had been using anons to evade the block. [15] I notified him that the block had expired [16], and almost as soon as he was making edits from his main account again, he violated revert parole.
The second revert took place only about 3 1/2 hours after the first, so this is a clear violation. Leyasu is claiming that he has the support of most of his WikiProject behind him when he is doing the reverts, but only he is doing the reverts. Deathrocker responded to one of the reverts with a personal attack [22], which suggests it may also be good to put Deathrocker on personal attack parole (both of them were blocked for three days before the start of Deathrocker's RfAr for arguing with each other on WP:RFAR). As for Leyasu, he clearly needs to be blocked, as well as any anons he is using. I was a party in Leyasu's original RfAr and have brought some evidence in Deathrocker's, so I prefer that someone else carry out any block(s) resulting from this violation.
Reported by: Idont Havaname ( Talk) 05:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
James Salsman has been editing Depelted Uranium articles in violation of 1.1 of his arbitration ruling, through the use of various IP addresses.
JamesS was prohibited form editing articles having anything to do with depleted uranium following his arbcom ruling. Some examples are:
[23],
[24], and
[25]. Although acheckuser reques could not verify that the above mentioned IP’s were indeed
James Salsman, their actions are consistent with his past behavior and James did make a few edits from an IP, and later signed them;
an example. He has also reverted
my notification of the checkuser on another users talk page.
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve, this user is currently on a one-year ban, ending on May 2, 2007. However, on May 24, he made two edits from the IP 67.1.120.58 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [26] [27], in violation of WP:BAN. It's obvious that those edits must be him since they not only display behavior typical of him, but they are also signed as "FourthAve". Accordingly, please reset his ban timer to May 24, 2007.
Reported by: 69.117.4.132 14:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
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 (see below --
Idont Havaname (
Talk) 03:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)). I have also blocked an anon that he was using for evading that block.
[29] Soon after the block, he declared his intentions to evade it.
[30] 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.
[31] 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.)
[32]
[33]
[34] An edit by another anon brings up Deathrocker's current arbitration case.
[35] 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.
[36]
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)
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)
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: [ [39]]
He has removed well sourced material and/or engaged in tendentious editing as follows:
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)
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 [46]) 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)
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)
ZAROVE ( talk · contribs) was banned from making edits to Acharya S and related articles and talk pages.: [47].
Reported by: ^^James^^ 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
These edits were made on Apartheid (disambiguation) [49] and [50]
User:Ec5618 made the following comments upon reverting Zeq's edit:
Ec5618 added the following comment on Talk:Apartheid (disambiguation) saying, in part:
User:MCB added the following comment re Zeq's edits:
User:Samuel Blanning added, in part:
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)
PS as expcted Sean has recinded the ban listed below:
Zeq has engaged in tendentious editing in the article Israeli apartheid (phrase) namely through edits [55], and [56] 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 [57], and [58]? 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?
Thanks Homey 22:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
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 ( [60], [61] - 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)
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 [62] [63] [64] etc.
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)
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" [65] "Substantial rebuttal my ass... Do not be a crook" [66] "Do not be cheat" [67] 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)
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/?title=Tzadik&oldid=54364282
First Revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tzadik&diff=54823740&oldid=54447135 Second Revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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.
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)
Lou franklin ( talk · contribs) is under personal attack parole, to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted accusations of bad faith. [73]
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.
and so on in similar vein in a discussion with Jimpartame, until we reach:
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)
Further: while removing various negative comments from his talk page, Lou called an editor "stupid" in Latin in an edit summary. [76] -- Sam Blanning (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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: [88] I have already warned the anon from that particular diff for incivility.
Reported by: Idont Havaname ( Talk) 21:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
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. [89]
See for example [90] [91] [92]. 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)
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.
Relevant finding of fact: Zeq cautioned regarding removal of well sourced information
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)
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)
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.
Reported by: Cyde Weys 06:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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: [101]
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.
Reported by:
SchmuckyTheCat 00:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The matter regarding Singapore is discussed at talk:Singapore [120]. 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 [121] [122] [123] [124]. 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 [125] [126] (and I've also invited other wikipedians previously involved to join [127]). 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 [128] [129] are, as explained [130] [131], invalid. He has not, until this moment, responded to my request for the E-Mail address he wrote to [132] [133], effectively making other people difficult to follow up.
For the Pacific Rim capitals article, as explained [134], 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 [135], but it has been disregarded by user:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Alanmak in their subsequent reverts [136] [137]. 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 [138] 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 [139].
Even worse was that user:SchmuckyTheCat himself had been reverting everything in my edits, including materials he doesn't disagree with, e.g. [140] [141] [142] [143]. He also accompanies something else in his edits, e.g. [144].
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)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)
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 [145].. for at least 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), [146] 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. [147]"
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. [148]
Hope this goes someway to help the situation one way or another, glad to help. - Deathrocker 16:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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:
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. -- infinity 0 18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't lie about what the FAQ actually is. -- infinity 0 19:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)"
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)"
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) [154], [155] 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: [156], [157], 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 [158] from WP:AIV is also interesting.
Reported by: Deizio 00:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
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: [164]
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.
Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 20:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
For reference, Ashibaka's bans dealt on 24 Apr 2006:
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 [174], 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:
--
69.117.7.63 03:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
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:
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.
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. [299] Or this, where he completely deletes the painstakingly made table regarding world-wide democracy from Freedom House. [300]
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)
Septentrionalis absolutely does not want the readers to see and judge for themselves the pro-DPT arguments regarding possible wars. [301] 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. [302] See also User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies. Ultramarine 17:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
(Moved from AN/I as RJII is banned from editing that page for three months. Essjay Talk • Contact 02:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC))
I request enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug
-- infinity 0 18:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
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. -- infinity 0 10:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
(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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can I request a checkuser on this? It was referred over here. -- ScienceApologist 09:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Reddi was banned by an arbcom decision from contentious editting on certain pages.
User:Rotating magnetic field looks like a sockpuppet created to evade this.
ScienceApologist 21:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2. Thatcher131 21:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Requests related to Arbitration decisions are best directed to the Arbitration Committee, which has an ample supply of available checkusers and a better understanding of the subject matter. Essjay ( Talk • Connect) 09:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
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
On May 25, 2006 he violated these restrictions again and was blocked for 3 days and his 12 month ban reset. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#RK
He has now violated the no personal attacks section with this edit by saying that about a new editor who was probably not aware of any wikipedia policies "There is more than a small chance that he may (literally) be suffering from psychosis...clinical sign of mental disturbace...mental disturbance" and although he edited it in the next edit to just say "emotional disorder" that still constitutes as a personal attack.
This is his 5th violaton, I am therefore blocking him for one week and reseting the 12 month period. -- PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I seem to have entered the Authentic Matthew mess! I used http://pedia.nodeworks.com/A/AU/AUT/Authentic_Matthew/ (a big mistake)! I am not able to defend myself against Doc User:-Ril- ! Would an admin please look into this very bad situation -- MeBee 02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Leyasu is on revert patrol via ArbCom decision.
I have good reason to belive User:86.132.134.97 is Leyasu, that he is edit warring with Deathrocker, compare edits of Deathrocker and IP
For this, and the fact that the IP is reverting Deathrocker in numerous places, with lots of "reverting banned user" and citing tons of WP:XXX templates while doing so, this IP is most likely leyasu violating revert patrol and his 3 month block (3RR too, but I'm reporting that on the 3RR board) Kevin_b_er 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
SqueakBox ( talk · contribs) is placed on personal attack parole. The final decision in their case is here: here. He has recently posted this insulting message by which he says that User:Hagiographer must be a sock puppet of mine as his English messages are written in poor Spanish just like those by me. As I explained in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas/Evidence, SqueakBox has frequently criticized unpleasently my English as I am a native speaker of Spanish. Zapatancas 15:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
As is Zapatancas ( talk · contribs). Are you also Hagiographer ( talk · contribs)? i believe you are and urge the arbcom to investigate and do a check user test as if he is Hagiographer he clearly is breaking the arbcom final decision. Calling my post insulting is breaking his no attack parole. i am certainly not attacking either zapatancas or Hagiographer but by describing my question and conclusions as insulting he is again engaged in attacking me. He has insulted my English and Spanish in the past, I have no issues with him having poor English, i merely pointed it out in my response as to why I believe Zapatancas is Hagiographer. I certainly dont claim or even believe my written Spanish is any better than his written English, and indeed for a Spaniard living in Madrid Zapatancasd shows a good command of English but he doesnt have a native command of the language, SqueakBox 18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
As of Monday morning Zapatancas has made massive changes to all the Zapatero articles, reverting them back to his version, using his socklpuppet Hagiographer, SqueakBox 12:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
SqueakBox ( talk · contribs) is placed on personal attack parole. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas. He has recently posted this insulting message by which he says that I am behind User:SquealingPig and User:SquealingPigAttacksAgain (to whom he refers as SP and SPAA). As I explained in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas/Evidence, SqueakBox has for more than a year repeat that false accusation that was ignored by the ArbCom as can be found in the "Findings of fact". Zapatancas 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not insulting to say that Zapatancas is SquealingPig nor have I been censored for saying so, for Zapatancas to claim that the accusation is false is not credible. i was blocked for making attacks against Zapatancas for not stating that he was SquealingPig and his refusall to acknowledge tyhe truth doesnt mean I am attacking him which I am not. By claiming that I am making a false accusation i could equally claim tyhat Zapatancas has broken his no attack parole by claiming that I am making a false claim when I am not but as it is Zapatancas is the one harrassing me and not me him, ie see his two further complaints below. All I want is for him and his friend Hagiographer to leave me alone, SqueakBox 18:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas
SqueakBox is placed on personal attack parole with a decision that explicitly states that "This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith". However in the past few days he has not stopped insulting me and accusing me of being a sock puppet of User:Zapatancas, although I registered my identity far before that user was blocked by the same case that SqueakBox. This day he has posted this message [318] in which he shows a complete lack of respect towards me and claims that an edit of mine is a "crying shame". Moreover, he claims he's going to take me to an RfC or to the ArbCom, what is a disrespectful sample of assuming bad faith. Hagiographer 14:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The edit summary in this edit is almost identical tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Zapatancas&diff=prev&oldid=19312435] [319] [320] it isnt credible that this user is other than Zapatancas, SqueakBox 16:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
SqueakBox has made this edit [321] posting the insult "vandal troll" against me. Hagiographer 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You just vandalised my user page so I was ttelling the truth. Stop harrassing me, Zapatancas. I haver a right to have you not vandalsiing my userr pager and spewing your hatered of me. just stop trying top create a reaction! SqueakBox 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Here Hagiographer not only vandalises my user page just like Zapatancas but leaves edit comments identical to those of Zapatancas. SqueakBox 13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that User:Skanking is a sock puppet of SqueakBox. It was created in April, when the case against SqueakBox had already been posted. His user page is very similar to that of SqueakBox and so are his edits, related to subject like Honduras [322] or La Ceiba [323] or Zapatero [324]. He probably created it to avoid the one month ban imposed on him by the arbitration committee. The message below (Ras Bily is the sign of User:Skanking), posted in the arbitration enforcemente although it does not belong here as I'm not affected by any arbcom decision adds aditional evidence. Why is he so coordinated with SqueakBox? Hagiographer 16:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hagiographer has vandalised SqueakBox thrice [325] [326] [327] and keeps altering another users comments on the Zapatero page. Can someone get him to stop? Ras Billy I 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Absolute paranoia by this strange user. I am not SqueakBox, he got on my watchlist today because he left me a message ages back and I spotted that Hagiographer was persistently vandalising Squeak's user page. because I revetrted him he calls me Squeak's sockpuppet. How daft. And his insinuation that only Squeak would want to edit Honduras articles is frankly insulting to a Central American like myself, as if only gringos would want to or have the right to edit pages on Central America and Honduras, a country I know well being from Belize and working on the boats when I were a young man, thus knowing Ceiba where I had a girlfriend and many sweet memories. This guy Hagiographer really seems to have a problem, makes me for one not want to have anything to do with wikipedia again. Its only a bit of fun but this guy seems seriously enloquecido and I dont want to be dealing with a peligroso, siendo ya viejo. If Hagiographer doesnt want his behaviour commented on he should not have edited here in the first place. Any fool can he see he is a zapatancas sockpuppet only created to harrass squeakbox. yuck! Ras Billy I 18:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Fuinally I would add that were I the sockpuppet of squeakbox I would not have revealed myself to repair squeak's page, he could have done that himself. It would make no sense if I were his sockpuppet to reveal myself. But it seems that logic isnt Zapatancas strongpoint, suele ser con los hablantes de ese idioma. Ras Billy I 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Italic text
SPUI ( talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways.
SPUI just lost the 3rd go 'round on Category:Limited-access roads ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Never-the-less, s/he just changed the definition to match the failed CfD. And has reverted contrary to the outcome, as clearly indicated on Category talk:Limited-access roads.
After disputes that arose at CfD, where I was the previous closer, I became aware of the issue(s). I did my best to resolve the conflict as an independent party, and thus became an involved party.
The relisting was recently closed by another independent party, Kbdank71 ( talk · contribs), with exactly the same result.
I request a block of at least two (2) months with no possibility of parole, as I see that blocks of days and weeks have happened in the recent past, but been alleviated by his friends among the administrators.
Reported by: William Allen Simpson 20:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. -- Kbdank71 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Guy Montag ( talk · contribs) is under Wikipedia:Probation for one year, effective per 9 October 2005. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy_Montag_placed_on_probation.
Unilateral renaming of article and massive rewriting such as to reflect a more positive view for Israel. Vote on moving back showed clear lack of consensus for the move ( 12-15 (44.4%) with 3 rename to a different name, effectively 50-50 split on keeping it at the new name), including vote staking opposed, opposed, opposed, opposed, opposed, all voted against moving back.
Guy Montag should be banned from the Deir Yassin Massacre article, and the unilateral move should be undone due to lack of consensus for that move and votestaking. As I started the vote to get an idea if the unilateral move was supporeted by the community, I feel another admin should review the case and close the vote. Reported by: -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thankfully, I have nothing to do with this, but for the record [328] was the impetus for [329]. I think the former is more heinous than the latter, but that's just my opinion. -- Avi 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Guy Montag has been banned from Deir Yassin massacre for the period of one year for inserting copyvio information (see Talk:Deir Yassin massacre) and tendentious use of the talk page. I have notified him here. Diffs where he inserts the copyvio information here. As I mentioned on his talk page, he doesn't necessarily need to be banned the whole year (in my opinion) but he should certainly take a break. - FrancisTyers · 23:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas
SqueakBox is placed on personal attack parole with a decision that explicitly states that "This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith". He has posted this message [330] in which he claims falsely that I've "chased away 2 editors" and that I've "decided to single mindedly impose [my] views", when I've really exposed my opinion in the talk page in an open approach to other editors. Hagiographer 08:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This comment is the third or fourth time Zapatancas ( talk · contribs) and his sock have brought me to this page, any enforcement should be against him. Here he calls me an outright liar in clear breach of his no attack parole, said edit also demonstrates how unlikely it is that 2 users would have such a murderous hatred towards me who have been an entirely innocent target of the pathological anger of this person for 14 months now as well as demonstrating that the bad faith is indeed his part. We've been through this whole tedious process of Zapatancas and his army of socks for too long now, SqueakBox 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
SPUI ( talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways.
For the past several weeks, s/he has been edit warring over Ontario provincial highways. S/he lost a CfD on renaming its related category, re-listed, and lost again. Ensuing signs of extreme embitterment.
Today, s/he is at 3 reverts, all with the edit summary including "crap".
Likewise, at limited-access roads, every requested fact has been annotated, so that the annotated page is full of them, and yet SPUI persists in edit warring, covering the page with "original research" and "disputed" tags, and "citation needed" on adjectives, and nouns, all of which are well-covered in the references, or on the other articles that are linked. Many of the edits deleted the references that respond to the tags.
These are all edit warring on highway pages, and involve incivility.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Probation
2.1) Should SPUI, JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry disrupt the editing of any article which concerns highways he or she may be banned by any administrator from that article or related articles. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Log of blocks and bans.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Parties warned for incivility
7) JohnnyBGood and SPUI are warned to remain civil at all times; in particular, JohnnyBGood is reminded not to refer to good faith edits as vandalism. All participants in this dispute are encouraged to maintain a courteous atmosphere.
After disputes that arose at CfD, where I was the closer, I became aware of the issue(s). I did my best to resolve the conflict as an independent party, and thus became an involved party.
These pages were fully annotated (by me) with legal and historical references. Apparently, SPUI is some kind of wiki-lawyer, without formal legal experience.
I am not a member of the Canadian bar, but I'm reasonably sure that the usual common law and statutory construction still apply there.
I request a block of at least 1 month, as I see that blocks of days and weeks have happened in the recent past.
Reported by: William Allen Simpson 17:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
User:SeparateIssue/ James S. is under Arbitration Committee sanction and is banned from editing Depleted Uranium]] and associated articles. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium
James S. was banned indefinitely from editing Depleted Uranium and associated articles. I believe the edits that he has made under his sockpuppet account, User:SeparateIssue, on the Gulf War article is a violation of his ban. A Checkuser request is not necessary to establish this, as User:SeparateIssue has admitted that he is James S. [334]
Reported by:
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
SPUI ( talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways.
User:SPUI has again engaged in edit warring on state highway articles. The most recent instance being at Minnesota State Highway 33.
This is his third disruptive highway warring in the last week per the two cases below. He has already been warned to follow his probation on at least one previous occasion and has obviously not taken it to heart. I too am subject to the same probation and if he isn't required to follow the arbcom's decision then what is the point of Arbcom at all?
Reported by: JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Durin reported this to me, but I think I am not an ideal person to go wading in. Can someone check if Onefortyone's recent edits to Elvis' page constitute a violation of his arbitration probation? See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone for more. Stifle ( talk) 23:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
TDC ( talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee revert parole. The final decision in his case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium#TDC placed on revert parole was:
On 24 July 2006, TDC reverted Depleted uranium twice within nine hours. He has not discussed either revert on Talk:Depleted uranium. Moreover, during about the same time period he reverted Sandinista National Liberation Front three times.
These are at least the third and fourth violations of TDC's revert parole. Who knows how many other violations exist in TDC's contributions since his revert parole went into effect?
Reported by: SeparateIssue 10:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
>>> Sub-heading: TDC is a Vandal; I propose (a) Ban and (b) Probation for TDC; see Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency), Barry Seal, Theodore Shackley, Plame affair, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, etc. Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. . TDC is engaged in Blanking Vandalism on both these pages, deleting entire sections and archival documents without cause, seemingly because they challenge his political views. He has not responded in any meaningful way on the Talk pages. See discussion and discussion pages. Please note that on 6 May 2006 TDC was placed on revert parole, and "limited to 1 content revert per article per day and must discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page for one year. He may be briefly blocked for up to a week for violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block time increases to a year." (The vote was 6-0). On the Felix Rodriguez and Barry Seal pages he has already violated these conditions. Therefore, I suggest that TDC be (a) banned indefinitely from Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency) and Barry Seal, and (b) be placed on Probation and -- as adjudicated in Depleted uranium -- he be banned from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Note that TDC has been repeatedly banned from editing many other articles, e.g.: Winter Soldier, Conrad Burns, Depleted Uranium, Douglas Feith, etc. He has engaged in Wikistalking. He does not make use of the Discussion page to resolve disputes and move articles forward. In short, he regularly violates the spirit of Wikipedia. I suggest keeping an eye on TDC with a possible eye toward general probation. 141.161.48.111 06:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
<<<
Instantnood ( talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction including Probation, General Probation, and restriction with respect to discussions on certain naming conventions. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3
Instantnood is reviving old revert wars from months ago, repeatedly doing POV re-organizations of articles, recreating deleted material, and engaging in move wars against community consensus.
Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 20:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I did not attempt to recreate the companies category. But rather, I was putting on the {{hangon}} tag, following the procedures stated on the template. The previous CfD clear demonstrates there was no consensus, and it's agreed on Wikipedia mainland China ≠ People's Republic of China (present effective extent of the People's Republic of China = mainland China + Hong Kong + Macao). There has never been any renomination to CfD. The category was simply depopulated, and was subsequently nominated to speedy deletion by someone who know well about what has been going on, presumably abusing the speedy tag to push forward his point of view.
As for the newspapers categories, I've elabo rated my position in details, and I have nothing to add. It was user:SchmuckyTheCat who demonstrated he was no longer interested to discuss, that he insists in his point of view.
— Insta ntnood 18:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Enjoined from editing Hepatitis B in China for a period of one year, ending 29 July 2007, as a result of renewed edit wars. Owen× ☎ 20:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is literally loaded with copyvio's, for time constraint, I only will show the evidence for the first three section, and that can be found here: http://www.kimvdlinde.com/wikipedia/Deir_Yassin_Copyright_violation.doc The remaining two sections are done in part, and could be good or bad with regard to the number of copyvio's. What is clear is that the copyvio's are from various websites, and in part from pre Guy Montag (inserted by others), although all new insertions that I found originate from him. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[372] [373] [374] [375] and [376] are all reverting Zapatero to the Zapatancas version which Zapatancas cannot do as her is banned. This user is also obsessed with harrassing SqueakBox, only Zapatancas hates SqueakBox and his hatred is enormous. [377] [378] [379] [380] [381] etc including multiple vandalism of Squeakbox's page just like Zapatancas. This edit summary [382] compares toi this [383] both want the world to know the truth about SqueakBox, Zapatancas here here here here here, Hagiographer here SqueakBox 13:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Zeq is banned from articles he has disrupted and has been placed on probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Zeq has also been cautioned to avoid removing information backed by reliable scholarly sources.
In response to my polite request that Zeq revert this inappropriate edit [385] he issued what I regard as an inappropriate "warning" on my talk page [386]. I'm inclined to request that Zeq be cautioned in this case, although he has been editing Wikipedia long enough to know better and is particularly keen on instructing other editors on policy. -- Ian Pitchford 07:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Rschen7754 has been doing exactly the same thing as I was blocked for below on many more articles. See his edits with summary "fix". -- SPUI ( T - C) 08:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Both SPUI and Rschen7754 need to stop. SPUI got 31 hours for edit-warring, which was quite nice to SPUI, if I do say so myself. While the infractions are not the same (SPUI edit-warred, while you did site-wide changes), but I find both just as disruptive. You're nitpicking over the issue. Since you can't move the articles, you're changing the terminology in links and within the article. For everyone's sake, stop it. I'm blocking Rschen7754 for 31 hours as per the precedent above, though I think both of you deserved 2-3 day blocks. SPUI, if you revert during Rschen7754's block, I will block you without warning, and it'll certainly be for longer than 31 hours. Rschen7754, if you continue these edits after your block, I will do the same. Ral315 ( talk) 03:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
SPUI ( talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways.
Minnesota State Highway 33 has 41 edits. 25% are reverts, including page moves. We have editors being chased off from WikiProjects. And we have good editors vandalizing pages. I suspect this page has been disrupted. Editors should not feel they have to say any of this or do any of this. SPUI was involved in this and biting the newcomers as well.
I was involved in the ArbCom case but not in this specific dispute. But we have perfectly good editors being chased away from highways. This is simply not the Wiki way.
Reported by: Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
User:SPUI did tone down his actions after the closure of the ArbCom case. However, in recent weeks, he has exhibited behavior eerily similar to (and in some cases IMHO worse than) his behavior prior to the case. Over the past two days, as part of WP:NJSCR, I have been creating pages in my user-subpage sandboxes in an effort to elimate redlinks and close the browsing loop in our project. Upon the moving of my pages from user space into article space, I then edited the infoboxes/succession boxes/etc. to include all articles and redirects -- for example this edit which includes routes S5 and 6A in the browse order.
This is identical behavior to what SPUI has done in past disputes -- especially the routebox dispute at WP:CASH -- in which he would pretend to "seek consensus", and then in the face of objection, would implement his original plan anyway.
Also of grave concern is this edit to List of numbered highways in Ohio. This is identical to this edit to List of Washington State Routes in March; unilaterally changing a list of state routes to his preferred naming convention despite no attempt to seek consensus for that naming convention. The edit to the Washington list resulted in a nasty revert war that lasted nearly a month, followed by page protection for a month and a half.
I would greatly appreciate some response from admins or the ArbCom on this issue. -- NORTH talk 02:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
User:SPUI blocked for 31 hrs for editwarring on Nevada_State_Route_28 in violation of probation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite concerned with how SPUI handled his reverts of the List of Ohio State Highways page. I moved the page from List of numbered highways in Ohio for two reasons:
I'm aiming for uniformity here.
Instead of discussing the matter first, SPUI reverts a days worth of work on three pages, a template, and a main article page. I find this very unfair and unbecoming of a user who is still fighting his revert charges.
Along with that, SPUI wishes to delete the Template:OH Highways page, which I had to painstakingly assemble (and was not even complete). His reasoning was not very clear at all. My reasonings for doing this was:
I'm trying for some uniformity here, much as what SPUI is asking for the route/highway designations. Instead of seeing this, he reverted it, undid all of my work and other user contributions, and is taking all of this one big step back for the sake of having "his way" once again. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 05:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
For some reason I do not doubt that this is happening. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 18:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It would seem that permanently banned user Leyasu ( talk · contribs) [400] has returned once more under a sockpuppet. This time as VandalismCorrecter ( talk · contribs). The edits have all the hallmarks [401] of a Leyasu sockpuppet, spercifically targeting Gothic metal related articles, since their sign-up on 11 August 2006. [402]
The user also uses Wikipedia terminology in the edit summaries [403]Rather suspicous for a user who has just signed up today, couple that with the fact the reverts the user is making (all Gothic metal related articles) isn't of vandalism, as the handle might suggest. [404] Infact the first edit the user made was reverting an article to a version by a previously banned sockpuppet of Leyasu [405].
They also removed a suspected sock tag, which was placed on their page, and marked it down as "vandalism". [406] - Deathrocker 22:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
No "vandalism" or "blanking" has occured on my part.
I removed this edit [407] by the suspected sockpuppet of the blocked user, based on all of their other Gothic metal related contributions and the fact that it was reverted to the last version by Leyasu. [408]
And then placed the suspected sock tag on their userpage. [409]. This was done, 36 minutes before the user had ever reverted me on Gothic metal [410], or at all under their current handle. - Deathrocker 23:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Diffs have been provided to back me up, Leyasu. Your person attacks (branding somebody a "liar") cannot be and is not.
I am also not the only one who has come to the conclusion that VandalismCorrecter is another in a long line of Leyasu's sockpuppets [411], though research of contributions on Gothic metal related articles, admin Idont Havamane also stated in a message on my talkpage that he agreed with me that "Vandalism Correcter=Leyasu" [412] and suggested that if Leyasu/VC continued that I should report it here.
Here is a list of edit examples, made my " VandalismCorrecter ( talk · contribs)" that mirror behaviour of permanently banned user Leyasu ( talk · contribs), particually the labelling of good faith edits by users as "vandalism/blanking" on Gothic metal related articles.
1. Here VC reverts an edit made by Amaya215 ( talk · contribs) on the Poisonblack article. [413] In the edit summary VC states "Reverted blanking by anon." when infact there is no blanking to be seen in the other users edit, the only difference is the inclusion of the word "Gothic-Doom" instead of just Gothic metal. [414]
2. Here VC reverts an edit made by YurikBot ( talk · contribs) on the To/Die/For article. [415] Once again with the edit summary of "Reverted blanking by anon." and once again the only difference between the edits are one says "Gothic-Doom" as the genre, the other just says "Gothic metal". [416]
3. Here VC reverts an edit made by LuciferMorgan ( talk · contribs) on the For My Pain... article. [417] once again "Reverted blanking by anon" in the edit summary and the only change between the too is "Gothic-Doom" inplace of "Gothic metal" as the genre. [418]
4. Here VC reverts an edit made by YurikBot ( talk · contribs) on the Always... article. [419], same "Reverted blanking by anon" edit summary as the others and the only difference is a change of genre from Doom/Death to Gothic metal [420]
5. Here VC reverts an edit made by Tokus ( talk · contribs) on the Autumn (band) article. [421]. Same edit summary, same Gothic metal related genre changes. [422]
6. Here VC reverts an edit made by TedE ( talk · contribs) on the Xandria article. [423] Acusation of blanking? check. Gothic metal/Doom related genre the only change? check.
I could go on and on but I think I've proven the blatanly obvious substantially. - Deathrocker 02:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)- Deathrocker 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
1. I reverted blankings by an anon, that happened before the user. This was stated before, as the anon had blanked a large number of articles, similar to what Deathrocker had done before starting this sherade. I have had no connection to the user Deathrocker is claiming i reverted.
2. Once again, i was reverting a blanking by an anon that came before the other users edit. As there had been multiple edits since that point, i was forced to do it in pieces. Deathrocker has chosen to manipulate links to show what he wants, which is easily disproven by looking at the articles history page.
3.4.5.6. Once again, the user has manipulated links. If the articles edit historys are checked, i made several edits on all the articles in pieces, against an ip adress that had blanked sections before.
I do not understand why this user Deathrocker is attacking me for reverting them after they blanked an article, or why they feel they must manipulate links and lie to get me into some form of amendment for actions i have not even performed. Despite this, checking our contributions and the mentioned articles history pages reveals a very different story to what this user is saying.
I find it also notable that from looking at this users contributions, that they seem to not work well with their peers. The Aiden article has seen large amounts of reverts of any edit, minor and large, by Deathrocker, whenever somebody made an edit that deleted or reestablised sections that this user added or removed.
I still do not wish to be part of whatever argument this user has against working with others, and i once again ask this user to just leave me in piece and to stop harrasing me and other users for reverting them when they maliciously blank sections of an article. VandalismCorrecter.
The edits i reverted where from a string i followed. I found an ip adress that had blanked the gothic metal article some time ago. I followed their user contributions and checked up on several articles history. I found in many of the articles that partial reverts had been done. Because of this, and valuable edits made after the lost information, i slavaged the lost information and replaced it in its former place.
Would you also be so kind as to explain how i may post my own links, as i am not overly educated in the use of html code. Thank you. VandalismCorrecter.
Terryeo ( talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction with regard to Scientology-related articles. He is banned from editing those articles, and on probation with regard to disruptive behavior on talk pages, where he remains an active contributor. The final decision in their case is here: [424]. I was one of numerous editors who provided testimony to the ArbCom.
I have had some positive exchanges with Terryeo recently, so am reluctant to point this out, but this recent bit of talk page disruption is so egregious that I believe he should, at least, receive a reminder from an adminstrator that what he is doing is not acceptible. On Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg (his is the very first post on the page), Terryeo blatantly misrepresents a copyrightholder's release so as promote his contention that Wikipedia is biased against Scientology.
The image author, Andreas Heldal-Lund, who runs the "Xenu.net" website, writes on his site: "Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia which is NPOV, are free to use images and text on this site that are made by me if proper credits are given."
Terryeo wrote on Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg: "Isn't that interesting ? Andreas Heldal-Lund apparently owned the photo and so, got to make a statement. He said: Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia .. are free to use images and text on this site (xenu.net site). Isn't that interesting. Andreas Heldal-Lund gives Wikipedia permission to use the photo because Wikipedia is a critic of the Church of Scientology, according to Andreas Heldal-Lund. Terryeo 09:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)"
I don't think draconian measures are required, but I do think that such hijinks should not be permitted to pass without notice.
Reported by: BTfromLA 20:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)]]
PS: As is spelled out in detail on Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg: 1. Heldal-Lund is not a native English speaker, thus some awkward sentence construction is hardly unexpected. 2. AndroidCat has stated that he emailed Heldal-Lund, asking him to add the line specifically granting Wikipedians access to his content, despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a "critics" site. Undaunted by these facts, Terryeo continues to amplify his claims about the bad faith of Wikipedia with regards to Scientology, and to generally engage in disruptive behavior. -- BTfromLA 16:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if this is a personal attack: Talk:David_Miscavige#.22Chinese_School.22 "It surely must appear to everyone, as it does to me, that User:Fahrenheit451 is attempting to present into this Miscavige artile, every bit of controversy possible in every area possible, as a sort of erudite attack against Miscavige. Of course, we understand that motivation, but nonetheless, there are many examples of articles about noteable peope who are alive today. Let us work toward a presentation as good as any other noteable person, still alive. Terryeo 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)" -- Fahrenheit451 05:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see a better use contract has appeard on the image's page. The earlier requirement which insisted the image could not be used unless a mindset was held by the viewer was plain silly. Terryeo 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
stalker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Murtha
This isn't for dealing with stalkier, it's for handling incidents arising from arbitration cases. Try WP:ANI. -- Tony Sidaway 20:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This morning we came to a concensus in the talk page Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict To use the word kidnapped instead of captured. and so we made changes to the article. But three times, this user 206.255.1.73 here's his identification User Identification He keeps changing the words and leaving comments. He has done it three times, and im very sick of it. Please do something quickly. -- Zonerocks 20:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
excuse me, he is doing it on the regular article page. -- Zonerocks 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
As can be seen in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas#SqueakBox and Zapatancas banned for one month, SqueakBox was banned from editing the Wikipedia for a month. It has been proved that User:Skanking was a sock puppet of him as can be seen in his user page and his block log ([ [426]]). He used it to edit during his ban starting at the beginning of June ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas#Log of blocks and bans) as can be seen in Skanking's history ( [427]). So, SqueakBox has to be blocked as he has not respected his ban. Hagiographer 08:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I am clearly not Pura Paja who is on the other side of the Atlantic. Hagiographer, on the other hand, has forged my signature here. Can someone please persuade him to desist his unacceptable behaviour and harrassment of me, SqueakBox 03:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Deeceevoice is on probation. The final decision in their case is here: [ [428]]
Incivility: I don't give a flying f***. ... And who's on an ego trip here?....LMBAO ("laughing my black ass off")....U betta check yaself [429]
Reported by: Justforasecond 00:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is asking someone for help a "provocation"? DCV is also on probation [430] for racially-related incivility "And I'm a blackwoman. We made you. Ya day-um sure cain't Mau-Mau me. I don't play that s***. :p I'm not some naive, little white girl you can send crying to her room. What? U dun loss ur damn mine? Actin' a fool in public -- and we both in enemy territory? Like I said b4, check yasself." [431] CoYep 14:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Deeceevoice is not rascist, I would testify to that without hesistation in a court of law based solely on her behaviour at wikipedia, and I think those who claim she is are the more likely to be suffering from that sickness themselves, SqueakBox 04:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
See also Zaphnathpaaneah's statement "DeeCeeVoice again and Myself" @ Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks [432] CoYep 12:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Zeq ( talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee probation: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Findings_of_fact.
The point is that if an established editor points out to Zeq that he is editing carelessly, he is the one who should step back, and only after a discussion has taken place, be allowed to revert to his version/s. I want to see Zeq editing more carefuly, and being open to discussion not only after the fact. I'm uncertain whether the probation is proving effective as I keep seeing Zeq banned from various articles, which presumably is due to him causing problems. Is it worthwhile to continue with it? Will Zeq ever be able to tread lightly when it comes to these sort of careless and tendentious and poorly-communicated editing practices? I'm not sure that he can and therefore am open to a re-examination of the case. El_C 00:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
PS I would like also to point out that what El_C doubed "proper encyclopedia lead" is written in a clear bias: While Israel's poistion is lacking the whole facts and described in weasle words "israel claim that...." the Palestinian position is writen by El_c in detail and described as "Palestinians assert that..." . some honesty is required here: El_C has a POV to push and my edit (which added few facts) was in her way. Zeq 03:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I would ask for an admin to review this decision by Tony Sidaway:
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Zeq_.28June_5.29
Tony is known to be, how can I say it, tough admin and he ignored different views on this case by other admins: [11]
Tony also ignored all my explnations as well as the fact that two arbitors who received the same original complaint (from Homey) and refused to take action on it as part of arbitration enforfment.
It should be noted that in some of the bans I was banned by Tony were for a single edit on that article and in another articls I made 3 edits.
I would ask that the bans would be lifted as they are not for "Good cause" . Please make sure to read the section of comments by other admins close to the events. Tnx. . Zeq 07:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
See section immediately beneath this one for a discussion of this request. Homey 15:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Homey, the fact you have posted here, in a clear combative style (see below) shows that you are unable to let an independent review of this case take place. This is the real issue and not the need to repeat any false accusation you make about me. Zeq 16:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It has been 72 hours since I placed this request. My edit where all with good faith and according to WP:AGF I should not have been banned.
Why admins are so quick to ban but avoid review of non good cause decisions ? Zeq 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Was I desruptive in these articles ? I think a clear answer was given by the commenting admins who bothered to review the material . also it is not good faith to argue that by one (1) single edit (a minor one) any editor can be "disruptive" - clearly this was the case on west bankk barrier. So excuse if I ask again: on what do you base your "support" ? Zeq 05:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I would ask for an admin to review this decision by Tony Sidaway:
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Zeq_.28June_5.29
Tony is known to be, how can I say it, tough admin and he ignored different views on this case by other admins: [12]
Tony also ignored all my explnations as well as the fact that two arbitors who received the same original complaint (from Homey) and refused to take action on it as part of arbitration enforfment.
It should be noted that in some of the bans I was banned by Tony were for a single edit on that article and in another articls I made 3 edits.
I would ask that the bans would be lifted as they are not for "Good cause" . Please make sure to read the section of comments by other admins close to the events. Tnx. . Zeq 07:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think serious consideration can be given to lifting the ban as long as Zeq rejects its legitimacy much like how parole boards don't grant furloughs to those who refuse to admit their guilt. See [14] for Zeq's attitude to the ban. Homey 19:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You were not the sole cause for the articles being protected but a cause. However, unlike others who edited tendenaciously you were violating your probation by doing so. Homey 20:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
If you honestly think what I've written above violates WP:NPA then raise the matter on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Homey 21:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
213.237.21.242 ( talk · contribs) appears to be an alternative IP to one of the parties involved in the Arbitration Ruling related to The Bogdanov Affair. They are now being very disruptive on Talk:Mormonism
Claims sophie@nostromo.dk as an email address here
See above - if this is not the right place for this please let me know and I will repost on Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard - thx Trödel 18:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Leyasu ( talk · contribs) is under revert parole, which currently dictates that he cannot revert a page more than once in 24 hours (a stricter revert parole for him is being voted on at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker/Proposed decision). The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker.
Having already broken revert parole more than five times, Leyasu is now able to be blocked for up to a year. He just officially got back today from being blocked for a month by Johnleemk ( talk · contribs), although he had been using anons to evade the block. [15] I notified him that the block had expired [16], and almost as soon as he was making edits from his main account again, he violated revert parole.
The second revert took place only about 3 1/2 hours after the first, so this is a clear violation. Leyasu is claiming that he has the support of most of his WikiProject behind him when he is doing the reverts, but only he is doing the reverts. Deathrocker responded to one of the reverts with a personal attack [22], which suggests it may also be good to put Deathrocker on personal attack parole (both of them were blocked for three days before the start of Deathrocker's RfAr for arguing with each other on WP:RFAR). As for Leyasu, he clearly needs to be blocked, as well as any anons he is using. I was a party in Leyasu's original RfAr and have brought some evidence in Deathrocker's, so I prefer that someone else carry out any block(s) resulting from this violation.
Reported by: Idont Havaname ( Talk) 05:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
James Salsman has been editing Depelted Uranium articles in violation of 1.1 of his arbitration ruling, through the use of various IP addresses.
JamesS was prohibited form editing articles having anything to do with depleted uranium following his arbcom ruling. Some examples are:
[23],
[24], and
[25]. Although acheckuser reques could not verify that the above mentioned IP’s were indeed
James Salsman, their actions are consistent with his past behavior and James did make a few edits from an IP, and later signed them;
an example. He has also reverted
my notification of the checkuser on another users talk page.
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve, this user is currently on a one-year ban, ending on May 2, 2007. However, on May 24, he made two edits from the IP 67.1.120.58 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) [26] [27], in violation of WP:BAN. It's obvious that those edits must be him since they not only display behavior typical of him, but they are also signed as "FourthAve". Accordingly, please reset his ban timer to May 24, 2007.
Reported by: 69.117.4.132 14:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
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 (see below --
Idont Havaname (
Talk) 03:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)). I have also blocked an anon that he was using for evading that block.
[29] Soon after the block, he declared his intentions to evade it.
[30] 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.
[31] 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.)
[32]
[33]
[34] An edit by another anon brings up Deathrocker's current arbitration case.
[35] 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.
[36]
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)
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)
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: [ [39]]
He has removed well sourced material and/or engaged in tendentious editing as follows:
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)
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 [46]) 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)
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)
ZAROVE ( talk · contribs) was banned from making edits to Acharya S and related articles and talk pages.: [47].
Reported by: ^^James^^ 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
These edits were made on Apartheid (disambiguation) [49] and [50]
User:Ec5618 made the following comments upon reverting Zeq's edit:
Ec5618 added the following comment on Talk:Apartheid (disambiguation) saying, in part:
User:MCB added the following comment re Zeq's edits:
User:Samuel Blanning added, in part:
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)
PS as expcted Sean has recinded the ban listed below:
Zeq has engaged in tendentious editing in the article Israeli apartheid (phrase) namely through edits [55], and [56] 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 [57], and [58]? 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?
Thanks Homey 22:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
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 ( [60], [61] - 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)
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 [62] [63] [64] etc.
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)
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" [65] "Substantial rebuttal my ass... Do not be a crook" [66] "Do not be cheat" [67] 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)
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/?title=Tzadik&oldid=54364282
First Revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tzadik&diff=54823740&oldid=54447135 Second Revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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.
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)
Lou franklin ( talk · contribs) is under personal attack parole, to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted accusations of bad faith. [73]
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.
and so on in similar vein in a discussion with Jimpartame, until we reach:
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)
Further: while removing various negative comments from his talk page, Lou called an editor "stupid" in Latin in an edit summary. [76] -- Sam Blanning (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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: [88] I have already warned the anon from that particular diff for incivility.
Reported by: Idont Havaname ( Talk) 21:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
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. [89]
See for example [90] [91] [92]. 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)
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.
Relevant finding of fact: Zeq cautioned regarding removal of well sourced information
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)
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)
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.
Reported by: Cyde Weys 06:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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: [101]
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.
Reported by:
SchmuckyTheCat 00:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The matter regarding Singapore is discussed at talk:Singapore [120]. 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 [121] [122] [123] [124]. 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 [125] [126] (and I've also invited other wikipedians previously involved to join [127]). 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 [128] [129] are, as explained [130] [131], invalid. He has not, until this moment, responded to my request for the E-Mail address he wrote to [132] [133], effectively making other people difficult to follow up.
For the Pacific Rim capitals article, as explained [134], 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 [135], but it has been disregarded by user:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Alanmak in their subsequent reverts [136] [137]. 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 [138] 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 [139].
Even worse was that user:SchmuckyTheCat himself had been reverting everything in my edits, including materials he doesn't disagree with, e.g. [140] [141] [142] [143]. He also accompanies something else in his edits, e.g. [144].
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)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)
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 [145].. for at least 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), [146] 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. [147]"
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. [148]
Hope this goes someway to help the situation one way or another, glad to help. - Deathrocker 16:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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:
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. -- infinity 0 18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't lie about what the FAQ actually is. -- infinity 0 19:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)"
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)"
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) [154], [155] 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: [156], [157], 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 [158] from WP:AIV is also interesting.
Reported by: Deizio 00:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
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: [164]
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.
Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 20:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
For reference, Ashibaka's bans dealt on 24 Apr 2006:
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 [174], 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:
--
69.117.7.63 03:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
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:
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.
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. [299] Or this, where he completely deletes the painstakingly made table regarding world-wide democracy from Freedom House. [300]
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)
Septentrionalis absolutely does not want the readers to see and judge for themselves the pro-DPT arguments regarding possible wars. [301] 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. [302] See also User:Salix alba/History of conflict between democracies. Ultramarine 17:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
(Moved from AN/I as RJII is banned from editing that page for three months. Essjay Talk • Contact 02:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC))
I request enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug
-- infinity 0 18:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
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. -- infinity 0 10:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
(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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can I request a checkuser on this? It was referred over here. -- ScienceApologist 09:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Reddi was banned by an arbcom decision from contentious editting on certain pages.
User:Rotating magnetic field looks like a sockpuppet created to evade this.
ScienceApologist 21:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2. Thatcher131 21:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Requests related to Arbitration decisions are best directed to the Arbitration Committee, which has an ample supply of available checkusers and a better understanding of the subject matter. Essjay ( Talk • Connect) 09:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
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
On May 25, 2006 he violated these restrictions again and was blocked for 3 days and his 12 month ban reset. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#RK
He has now violated the no personal attacks section with this edit by saying that about a new editor who was probably not aware of any wikipedia policies "There is more than a small chance that he may (literally) be suffering from psychosis...clinical sign of mental disturbace...mental disturbance" and although he edited it in the next edit to just say "emotional disorder" that still constitutes as a personal attack.
This is his 5th violaton, I am therefore blocking him for one week and reseting the 12 month period. -- PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I seem to have entered the Authentic Matthew mess! I used http://pedia.nodeworks.com/A/AU/AUT/Authentic_Matthew/ (a big mistake)! I am not able to defend myself against Doc User:-Ril- ! Would an admin please look into this very bad situation -- MeBee 02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Leyasu is on revert patrol via ArbCom decision.
I have good reason to belive User:86.132.134.97 is Leyasu, that he is edit warring with Deathrocker, compare edits of Deathrocker and IP
For this, and the fact that the IP is reverting Deathrocker in numerous places, with lots of "reverting banned user" and citing tons of WP:XXX templates while doing so, this IP is most likely leyasu violating revert patrol and his 3 month block (3RR too, but I'm reporting that on the 3RR board) Kevin_b_er 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
SqueakBox ( talk · contribs) is placed on personal attack parole. The final decision in their case is here: here. He has recently posted this insulting message by which he says that User:Hagiographer must be a sock puppet of mine as his English messages are written in poor Spanish just like those by me. As I explained in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas/Evidence, SqueakBox has frequently criticized unpleasently my English as I am a native speaker of Spanish. Zapatancas 15:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
As is Zapatancas ( talk · contribs). Are you also Hagiographer ( talk · contribs)? i believe you are and urge the arbcom to investigate and do a check user test as if he is Hagiographer he clearly is breaking the arbcom final decision. Calling my post insulting is breaking his no attack parole. i am certainly not attacking either zapatancas or Hagiographer but by describing my question and conclusions as insulting he is again engaged in attacking me. He has insulted my English and Spanish in the past, I have no issues with him having poor English, i merely pointed it out in my response as to why I believe Zapatancas is Hagiographer. I certainly dont claim or even believe my written Spanish is any better than his written English, and indeed for a Spaniard living in Madrid Zapatancasd shows a good command of English but he doesnt have a native command of the language, SqueakBox 18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
As of Monday morning Zapatancas has made massive changes to all the Zapatero articles, reverting them back to his version, using his socklpuppet Hagiographer, SqueakBox 12:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
SqueakBox ( talk · contribs) is placed on personal attack parole. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas. He has recently posted this insulting message by which he says that I am behind User:SquealingPig and User:SquealingPigAttacksAgain (to whom he refers as SP and SPAA). As I explained in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas/Evidence, SqueakBox has for more than a year repeat that false accusation that was ignored by the ArbCom as can be found in the "Findings of fact". Zapatancas 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not insulting to say that Zapatancas is SquealingPig nor have I been censored for saying so, for Zapatancas to claim that the accusation is false is not credible. i was blocked for making attacks against Zapatancas for not stating that he was SquealingPig and his refusall to acknowledge tyhe truth doesnt mean I am attacking him which I am not. By claiming that I am making a false accusation i could equally claim tyhat Zapatancas has broken his no attack parole by claiming that I am making a false claim when I am not but as it is Zapatancas is the one harrassing me and not me him, ie see his two further complaints below. All I want is for him and his friend Hagiographer to leave me alone, SqueakBox 18:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas
SqueakBox is placed on personal attack parole with a decision that explicitly states that "This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith". However in the past few days he has not stopped insulting me and accusing me of being a sock puppet of User:Zapatancas, although I registered my identity far before that user was blocked by the same case that SqueakBox. This day he has posted this message [318] in which he shows a complete lack of respect towards me and claims that an edit of mine is a "crying shame". Moreover, he claims he's going to take me to an RfC or to the ArbCom, what is a disrespectful sample of assuming bad faith. Hagiographer 14:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The edit summary in this edit is almost identical tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Zapatancas&diff=prev&oldid=19312435] [319] [320] it isnt credible that this user is other than Zapatancas, SqueakBox 16:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
SqueakBox has made this edit [321] posting the insult "vandal troll" against me. Hagiographer 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You just vandalised my user page so I was ttelling the truth. Stop harrassing me, Zapatancas. I haver a right to have you not vandalsiing my userr pager and spewing your hatered of me. just stop trying top create a reaction! SqueakBox 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Here Hagiographer not only vandalises my user page just like Zapatancas but leaves edit comments identical to those of Zapatancas. SqueakBox 13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that User:Skanking is a sock puppet of SqueakBox. It was created in April, when the case against SqueakBox had already been posted. His user page is very similar to that of SqueakBox and so are his edits, related to subject like Honduras [322] or La Ceiba [323] or Zapatero [324]. He probably created it to avoid the one month ban imposed on him by the arbitration committee. The message below (Ras Bily is the sign of User:Skanking), posted in the arbitration enforcemente although it does not belong here as I'm not affected by any arbcom decision adds aditional evidence. Why is he so coordinated with SqueakBox? Hagiographer 16:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hagiographer has vandalised SqueakBox thrice [325] [326] [327] and keeps altering another users comments on the Zapatero page. Can someone get him to stop? Ras Billy I 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Absolute paranoia by this strange user. I am not SqueakBox, he got on my watchlist today because he left me a message ages back and I spotted that Hagiographer was persistently vandalising Squeak's user page. because I revetrted him he calls me Squeak's sockpuppet. How daft. And his insinuation that only Squeak would want to edit Honduras articles is frankly insulting to a Central American like myself, as if only gringos would want to or have the right to edit pages on Central America and Honduras, a country I know well being from Belize and working on the boats when I were a young man, thus knowing Ceiba where I had a girlfriend and many sweet memories. This guy Hagiographer really seems to have a problem, makes me for one not want to have anything to do with wikipedia again. Its only a bit of fun but this guy seems seriously enloquecido and I dont want to be dealing with a peligroso, siendo ya viejo. If Hagiographer doesnt want his behaviour commented on he should not have edited here in the first place. Any fool can he see he is a zapatancas sockpuppet only created to harrass squeakbox. yuck! Ras Billy I 18:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Fuinally I would add that were I the sockpuppet of squeakbox I would not have revealed myself to repair squeak's page, he could have done that himself. It would make no sense if I were his sockpuppet to reveal myself. But it seems that logic isnt Zapatancas strongpoint, suele ser con los hablantes de ese idioma. Ras Billy I 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Italic text
SPUI ( talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways.
SPUI just lost the 3rd go 'round on Category:Limited-access roads ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Never-the-less, s/he just changed the definition to match the failed CfD. And has reverted contrary to the outcome, as clearly indicated on Category talk:Limited-access roads.
After disputes that arose at CfD, where I was the previous closer, I became aware of the issue(s). I did my best to resolve the conflict as an independent party, and thus became an involved party.
The relisting was recently closed by another independent party, Kbdank71 ( talk · contribs), with exactly the same result.
I request a block of at least two (2) months with no possibility of parole, as I see that blocks of days and weeks have happened in the recent past, but been alleviated by his friends among the administrators.
Reported by: William Allen Simpson 20:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. -- Kbdank71 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Guy Montag ( talk · contribs) is under Wikipedia:Probation for one year, effective per 9 October 2005. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy_Montag_placed_on_probation.
Unilateral renaming of article and massive rewriting such as to reflect a more positive view for Israel. Vote on moving back showed clear lack of consensus for the move ( 12-15 (44.4%) with 3 rename to a different name, effectively 50-50 split on keeping it at the new name), including vote staking opposed, opposed, opposed, opposed, opposed, all voted against moving back.
Guy Montag should be banned from the Deir Yassin Massacre article, and the unilateral move should be undone due to lack of consensus for that move and votestaking. As I started the vote to get an idea if the unilateral move was supporeted by the community, I feel another admin should review the case and close the vote. Reported by: -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thankfully, I have nothing to do with this, but for the record [328] was the impetus for [329]. I think the former is more heinous than the latter, but that's just my opinion. -- Avi 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Guy Montag has been banned from Deir Yassin massacre for the period of one year for inserting copyvio information (see Talk:Deir Yassin massacre) and tendentious use of the talk page. I have notified him here. Diffs where he inserts the copyvio information here. As I mentioned on his talk page, he doesn't necessarily need to be banned the whole year (in my opinion) but he should certainly take a break. - FrancisTyers · 23:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas
SqueakBox is placed on personal attack parole with a decision that explicitly states that "This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith". He has posted this message [330] in which he claims falsely that I've "chased away 2 editors" and that I've "decided to single mindedly impose [my] views", when I've really exposed my opinion in the talk page in an open approach to other editors. Hagiographer 08:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This comment is the third or fourth time Zapatancas ( talk · contribs) and his sock have brought me to this page, any enforcement should be against him. Here he calls me an outright liar in clear breach of his no attack parole, said edit also demonstrates how unlikely it is that 2 users would have such a murderous hatred towards me who have been an entirely innocent target of the pathological anger of this person for 14 months now as well as demonstrating that the bad faith is indeed his part. We've been through this whole tedious process of Zapatancas and his army of socks for too long now, SqueakBox 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
SPUI ( talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways.
For the past several weeks, s/he has been edit warring over Ontario provincial highways. S/he lost a CfD on renaming its related category, re-listed, and lost again. Ensuing signs of extreme embitterment.
Today, s/he is at 3 reverts, all with the edit summary including "crap".
Likewise, at limited-access roads, every requested fact has been annotated, so that the annotated page is full of them, and yet SPUI persists in edit warring, covering the page with "original research" and "disputed" tags, and "citation needed" on adjectives, and nouns, all of which are well-covered in the references, or on the other articles that are linked. Many of the edits deleted the references that respond to the tags.
These are all edit warring on highway pages, and involve incivility.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Probation
2.1) Should SPUI, JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry disrupt the editing of any article which concerns highways he or she may be banned by any administrator from that article or related articles. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Log of blocks and bans.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Parties warned for incivility
7) JohnnyBGood and SPUI are warned to remain civil at all times; in particular, JohnnyBGood is reminded not to refer to good faith edits as vandalism. All participants in this dispute are encouraged to maintain a courteous atmosphere.
After disputes that arose at CfD, where I was the closer, I became aware of the issue(s). I did my best to resolve the conflict as an independent party, and thus became an involved party.
These pages were fully annotated (by me) with legal and historical references. Apparently, SPUI is some kind of wiki-lawyer, without formal legal experience.
I am not a member of the Canadian bar, but I'm reasonably sure that the usual common law and statutory construction still apply there.
I request a block of at least 1 month, as I see that blocks of days and weeks have happened in the recent past.
Reported by: William Allen Simpson 17:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
User:SeparateIssue/ James S. is under Arbitration Committee sanction and is banned from editing Depleted Uranium]] and associated articles. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium
James S. was banned indefinitely from editing Depleted Uranium and associated articles. I believe the edits that he has made under his sockpuppet account, User:SeparateIssue, on the Gulf War article is a violation of his ban. A Checkuser request is not necessary to establish this, as User:SeparateIssue has admitted that he is James S. [334]
Reported by:
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
SPUI ( talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways.
User:SPUI has again engaged in edit warring on state highway articles. The most recent instance being at Minnesota State Highway 33.
This is his third disruptive highway warring in the last week per the two cases below. He has already been warned to follow his probation on at least one previous occasion and has obviously not taken it to heart. I too am subject to the same probation and if he isn't required to follow the arbcom's decision then what is the point of Arbcom at all?
Reported by: JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Durin reported this to me, but I think I am not an ideal person to go wading in. Can someone check if Onefortyone's recent edits to Elvis' page constitute a violation of his arbitration probation? See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone for more. Stifle ( talk) 23:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
TDC ( talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee revert parole. The final decision in his case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium#TDC placed on revert parole was:
On 24 July 2006, TDC reverted Depleted uranium twice within nine hours. He has not discussed either revert on Talk:Depleted uranium. Moreover, during about the same time period he reverted Sandinista National Liberation Front three times.
These are at least the third and fourth violations of TDC's revert parole. Who knows how many other violations exist in TDC's contributions since his revert parole went into effect?
Reported by: SeparateIssue 10:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
>>> Sub-heading: TDC is a Vandal; I propose (a) Ban and (b) Probation for TDC; see Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency), Barry Seal, Theodore Shackley, Plame affair, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, etc. Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. . TDC is engaged in Blanking Vandalism on both these pages, deleting entire sections and archival documents without cause, seemingly because they challenge his political views. He has not responded in any meaningful way on the Talk pages. See discussion and discussion pages. Please note that on 6 May 2006 TDC was placed on revert parole, and "limited to 1 content revert per article per day and must discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page for one year. He may be briefly blocked for up to a week for violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block time increases to a year." (The vote was 6-0). On the Felix Rodriguez and Barry Seal pages he has already violated these conditions. Therefore, I suggest that TDC be (a) banned indefinitely from Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency) and Barry Seal, and (b) be placed on Probation and -- as adjudicated in Depleted uranium -- he be banned from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Note that TDC has been repeatedly banned from editing many other articles, e.g.: Winter Soldier, Conrad Burns, Depleted Uranium, Douglas Feith, etc. He has engaged in Wikistalking. He does not make use of the Discussion page to resolve disputes and move articles forward. In short, he regularly violates the spirit of Wikipedia. I suggest keeping an eye on TDC with a possible eye toward general probation. 141.161.48.111 06:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
<<<
Instantnood ( talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction including Probation, General Probation, and restriction with respect to discussions on certain naming conventions. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3
Instantnood is reviving old revert wars from months ago, repeatedly doing POV re-organizations of articles, recreating deleted material, and engaging in move wars against community consensus.
Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 20:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I did not attempt to recreate the companies category. But rather, I was putting on the {{hangon}} tag, following the procedures stated on the template. The previous CfD clear demonstrates there was no consensus, and it's agreed on Wikipedia mainland China ≠ People's Republic of China (present effective extent of the People's Republic of China = mainland China + Hong Kong + Macao). There has never been any renomination to CfD. The category was simply depopulated, and was subsequently nominated to speedy deletion by someone who know well about what has been going on, presumably abusing the speedy tag to push forward his point of view.
As for the newspapers categories, I've elabo rated my position in details, and I have nothing to add. It was user:SchmuckyTheCat who demonstrated he was no longer interested to discuss, that he insists in his point of view.
— Insta ntnood 18:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Enjoined from editing Hepatitis B in China for a period of one year, ending 29 July 2007, as a result of renewed edit wars. Owen× ☎ 20:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is literally loaded with copyvio's, for time constraint, I only will show the evidence for the first three section, and that can be found here: http://www.kimvdlinde.com/wikipedia/Deir_Yassin_Copyright_violation.doc The remaining two sections are done in part, and could be good or bad with regard to the number of copyvio's. What is clear is that the copyvio's are from various websites, and in part from pre Guy Montag (inserted by others), although all new insertions that I found originate from him. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[372] [373] [374] [375] and [376] are all reverting Zapatero to the Zapatancas version which Zapatancas cannot do as her is banned. This user is also obsessed with harrassing SqueakBox, only Zapatancas hates SqueakBox and his hatred is enormous. [377] [378] [379] [380] [381] etc including multiple vandalism of Squeakbox's page just like Zapatancas. This edit summary [382] compares toi this [383] both want the world to know the truth about SqueakBox, Zapatancas here here here here here, Hagiographer here SqueakBox 13:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Zeq is banned from articles he has disrupted and has been placed on probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Zeq has also been cautioned to avoid removing information backed by reliable scholarly sources.
In response to my polite request that Zeq revert this inappropriate edit [385] he issued what I regard as an inappropriate "warning" on my talk page [386]. I'm inclined to request that Zeq be cautioned in this case, although he has been editing Wikipedia long enough to know better and is particularly keen on instructing other editors on policy. -- Ian Pitchford 07:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Rschen7754 has been doing exactly the same thing as I was blocked for below on many more articles. See his edits with summary "fix". -- SPUI ( T - C) 08:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Both SPUI and Rschen7754 need to stop. SPUI got 31 hours for edit-warring, which was quite nice to SPUI, if I do say so myself. While the infractions are not the same (SPUI edit-warred, while you did site-wide changes), but I find both just as disruptive. You're nitpicking over the issue. Since you can't move the articles, you're changing the terminology in links and within the article. For everyone's sake, stop it. I'm blocking Rschen7754 for 31 hours as per the precedent above, though I think both of you deserved 2-3 day blocks. SPUI, if you revert during Rschen7754's block, I will block you without warning, and it'll certainly be for longer than 31 hours. Rschen7754, if you continue these edits after your block, I will do the same. Ral315 ( talk) 03:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
SPUI ( talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways.
Minnesota State Highway 33 has 41 edits. 25% are reverts, including page moves. We have editors being chased off from WikiProjects. And we have good editors vandalizing pages. I suspect this page has been disrupted. Editors should not feel they have to say any of this or do any of this. SPUI was involved in this and biting the newcomers as well.
I was involved in the ArbCom case but not in this specific dispute. But we have perfectly good editors being chased away from highways. This is simply not the Wiki way.
Reported by: Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
User:SPUI did tone down his actions after the closure of the ArbCom case. However, in recent weeks, he has exhibited behavior eerily similar to (and in some cases IMHO worse than) his behavior prior to the case. Over the past two days, as part of WP:NJSCR, I have been creating pages in my user-subpage sandboxes in an effort to elimate redlinks and close the browsing loop in our project. Upon the moving of my pages from user space into article space, I then edited the infoboxes/succession boxes/etc. to include all articles and redirects -- for example this edit which includes routes S5 and 6A in the browse order.
This is identical behavior to what SPUI has done in past disputes -- especially the routebox dispute at WP:CASH -- in which he would pretend to "seek consensus", and then in the face of objection, would implement his original plan anyway.
Also of grave concern is this edit to List of numbered highways in Ohio. This is identical to this edit to List of Washington State Routes in March; unilaterally changing a list of state routes to his preferred naming convention despite no attempt to seek consensus for that naming convention. The edit to the Washington list resulted in a nasty revert war that lasted nearly a month, followed by page protection for a month and a half.
I would greatly appreciate some response from admins or the ArbCom on this issue. -- NORTH talk 02:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
User:SPUI blocked for 31 hrs for editwarring on Nevada_State_Route_28 in violation of probation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite concerned with how SPUI handled his reverts of the List of Ohio State Highways page. I moved the page from List of numbered highways in Ohio for two reasons:
I'm aiming for uniformity here.
Instead of discussing the matter first, SPUI reverts a days worth of work on three pages, a template, and a main article page. I find this very unfair and unbecoming of a user who is still fighting his revert charges.
Along with that, SPUI wishes to delete the Template:OH Highways page, which I had to painstakingly assemble (and was not even complete). His reasoning was not very clear at all. My reasonings for doing this was:
I'm trying for some uniformity here, much as what SPUI is asking for the route/highway designations. Instead of seeing this, he reverted it, undid all of my work and other user contributions, and is taking all of this one big step back for the sake of having "his way" once again. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 05:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
For some reason I do not doubt that this is happening. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 18:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It would seem that permanently banned user Leyasu ( talk · contribs) [400] has returned once more under a sockpuppet. This time as VandalismCorrecter ( talk · contribs). The edits have all the hallmarks [401] of a Leyasu sockpuppet, spercifically targeting Gothic metal related articles, since their sign-up on 11 August 2006. [402]
The user also uses Wikipedia terminology in the edit summaries [403]Rather suspicous for a user who has just signed up today, couple that with the fact the reverts the user is making (all Gothic metal related articles) isn't of vandalism, as the handle might suggest. [404] Infact the first edit the user made was reverting an article to a version by a previously banned sockpuppet of Leyasu [405].
They also removed a suspected sock tag, which was placed on their page, and marked it down as "vandalism". [406] - Deathrocker 22:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
No "vandalism" or "blanking" has occured on my part.
I removed this edit [407] by the suspected sockpuppet of the blocked user, based on all of their other Gothic metal related contributions and the fact that it was reverted to the last version by Leyasu. [408]
And then placed the suspected sock tag on their userpage. [409]. This was done, 36 minutes before the user had ever reverted me on Gothic metal [410], or at all under their current handle. - Deathrocker 23:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Diffs have been provided to back me up, Leyasu. Your person attacks (branding somebody a "liar") cannot be and is not.
I am also not the only one who has come to the conclusion that VandalismCorrecter is another in a long line of Leyasu's sockpuppets [411], though research of contributions on Gothic metal related articles, admin Idont Havamane also stated in a message on my talkpage that he agreed with me that "Vandalism Correcter=Leyasu" [412] and suggested that if Leyasu/VC continued that I should report it here.
Here is a list of edit examples, made my " VandalismCorrecter ( talk · contribs)" that mirror behaviour of permanently banned user Leyasu ( talk · contribs), particually the labelling of good faith edits by users as "vandalism/blanking" on Gothic metal related articles.
1. Here VC reverts an edit made by Amaya215 ( talk · contribs) on the Poisonblack article. [413] In the edit summary VC states "Reverted blanking by anon." when infact there is no blanking to be seen in the other users edit, the only difference is the inclusion of the word "Gothic-Doom" instead of just Gothic metal. [414]
2. Here VC reverts an edit made by YurikBot ( talk · contribs) on the To/Die/For article. [415] Once again with the edit summary of "Reverted blanking by anon." and once again the only difference between the edits are one says "Gothic-Doom" as the genre, the other just says "Gothic metal". [416]
3. Here VC reverts an edit made by LuciferMorgan ( talk · contribs) on the For My Pain... article. [417] once again "Reverted blanking by anon" in the edit summary and the only change between the too is "Gothic-Doom" inplace of "Gothic metal" as the genre. [418]
4. Here VC reverts an edit made by YurikBot ( talk · contribs) on the Always... article. [419], same "Reverted blanking by anon" edit summary as the others and the only difference is a change of genre from Doom/Death to Gothic metal [420]
5. Here VC reverts an edit made by Tokus ( talk · contribs) on the Autumn (band) article. [421]. Same edit summary, same Gothic metal related genre changes. [422]
6. Here VC reverts an edit made by TedE ( talk · contribs) on the Xandria article. [423] Acusation of blanking? check. Gothic metal/Doom related genre the only change? check.
I could go on and on but I think I've proven the blatanly obvious substantially. - Deathrocker 02:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)- Deathrocker 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
1. I reverted blankings by an anon, that happened before the user. This was stated before, as the anon had blanked a large number of articles, similar to what Deathrocker had done before starting this sherade. I have had no connection to the user Deathrocker is claiming i reverted.
2. Once again, i was reverting a blanking by an anon that came before the other users edit. As there had been multiple edits since that point, i was forced to do it in pieces. Deathrocker has chosen to manipulate links to show what he wants, which is easily disproven by looking at the articles history page.
3.4.5.6. Once again, the user has manipulated links. If the articles edit historys are checked, i made several edits on all the articles in pieces, against an ip adress that had blanked sections before.
I do not understand why this user Deathrocker is attacking me for reverting them after they blanked an article, or why they feel they must manipulate links and lie to get me into some form of amendment for actions i have not even performed. Despite this, checking our contributions and the mentioned articles history pages reveals a very different story to what this user is saying.
I find it also notable that from looking at this users contributions, that they seem to not work well with their peers. The Aiden article has seen large amounts of reverts of any edit, minor and large, by Deathrocker, whenever somebody made an edit that deleted or reestablised sections that this user added or removed.
I still do not wish to be part of whatever argument this user has against working with others, and i once again ask this user to just leave me in piece and to stop harrasing me and other users for reverting them when they maliciously blank sections of an article. VandalismCorrecter.
The edits i reverted where from a string i followed. I found an ip adress that had blanked the gothic metal article some time ago. I followed their user contributions and checked up on several articles history. I found in many of the articles that partial reverts had been done. Because of this, and valuable edits made after the lost information, i slavaged the lost information and replaced it in its former place.
Would you also be so kind as to explain how i may post my own links, as i am not overly educated in the use of html code. Thank you. VandalismCorrecter.
Terryeo ( talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction with regard to Scientology-related articles. He is banned from editing those articles, and on probation with regard to disruptive behavior on talk pages, where he remains an active contributor. The final decision in their case is here: [424]. I was one of numerous editors who provided testimony to the ArbCom.
I have had some positive exchanges with Terryeo recently, so am reluctant to point this out, but this recent bit of talk page disruption is so egregious that I believe he should, at least, receive a reminder from an adminstrator that what he is doing is not acceptible. On Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg (his is the very first post on the page), Terryeo blatantly misrepresents a copyrightholder's release so as promote his contention that Wikipedia is biased against Scientology.
The image author, Andreas Heldal-Lund, who runs the "Xenu.net" website, writes on his site: "Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia which is NPOV, are free to use images and text on this site that are made by me if proper credits are given."
Terryeo wrote on Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg: "Isn't that interesting ? Andreas Heldal-Lund apparently owned the photo and so, got to make a statement. He said: Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia .. are free to use images and text on this site (xenu.net site). Isn't that interesting. Andreas Heldal-Lund gives Wikipedia permission to use the photo because Wikipedia is a critic of the Church of Scientology, according to Andreas Heldal-Lund. Terryeo 09:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)"
I don't think draconian measures are required, but I do think that such hijinks should not be permitted to pass without notice.
Reported by: BTfromLA 20:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)]]
PS: As is spelled out in detail on Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg: 1. Heldal-Lund is not a native English speaker, thus some awkward sentence construction is hardly unexpected. 2. AndroidCat has stated that he emailed Heldal-Lund, asking him to add the line specifically granting Wikipedians access to his content, despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a "critics" site. Undaunted by these facts, Terryeo continues to amplify his claims about the bad faith of Wikipedia with regards to Scientology, and to generally engage in disruptive behavior. -- BTfromLA 16:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if this is a personal attack: Talk:David_Miscavige#.22Chinese_School.22 "It surely must appear to everyone, as it does to me, that User:Fahrenheit451 is attempting to present into this Miscavige artile, every bit of controversy possible in every area possible, as a sort of erudite attack against Miscavige. Of course, we understand that motivation, but nonetheless, there are many examples of articles about noteable peope who are alive today. Let us work toward a presentation as good as any other noteable person, still alive. Terryeo 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)" -- Fahrenheit451 05:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see a better use contract has appeard on the image's page. The earlier requirement which insisted the image could not be used unless a mindset was held by the viewer was plain silly. Terryeo 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
stalker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Murtha
This isn't for dealing with stalkier, it's for handling incidents arising from arbitration cases. Try WP:ANI. -- Tony Sidaway 20:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This morning we came to a concensus in the talk page Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict To use the word kidnapped instead of captured. and so we made changes to the article. But three times, this user 206.255.1.73 here's his identification User Identification He keeps changing the words and leaving comments. He has done it three times, and im very sick of it. Please do something quickly. -- Zonerocks 20:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
excuse me, he is doing it on the regular article page. -- Zonerocks 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
As can be seen in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas#SqueakBox and Zapatancas banned for one month, SqueakBox was banned from editing the Wikipedia for a month. It has been proved that User:Skanking was a sock puppet of him as can be seen in his user page and his block log ([ [426]]). He used it to edit during his ban starting at the beginning of June ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas#Log of blocks and bans) as can be seen in Skanking's history ( [427]). So, SqueakBox has to be blocked as he has not respected his ban. Hagiographer 08:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I am clearly not Pura Paja who is on the other side of the Atlantic. Hagiographer, on the other hand, has forged my signature here. Can someone please persuade him to desist his unacceptable behaviour and harrassment of me, SqueakBox 03:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Deeceevoice is on probation. The final decision in their case is here: [ [428]]
Incivility: I don't give a flying f***. ... And who's on an ego trip here?....LMBAO ("laughing my black ass off")....U betta check yaself [429]
Reported by: Justforasecond 00:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is asking someone for help a "provocation"? DCV is also on probation [430] for racially-related incivility "And I'm a blackwoman. We made you. Ya day-um sure cain't Mau-Mau me. I don't play that s***. :p I'm not some naive, little white girl you can send crying to her room. What? U dun loss ur damn mine? Actin' a fool in public -- and we both in enemy territory? Like I said b4, check yasself." [431] CoYep 14:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Deeceevoice is not rascist, I would testify to that without hesistation in a court of law based solely on her behaviour at wikipedia, and I think those who claim she is are the more likely to be suffering from that sickness themselves, SqueakBox 04:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
See also Zaphnathpaaneah's statement "DeeCeeVoice again and Myself" @ Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks [432] CoYep 12:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)