Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive2: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Subst: {{unsigned}} (& regularise templates) |
m Fixed Lint errors on this page (html5 obsolete "font" tags replaced for "span style") |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 87:
==[[User:SqueakBox]]==
Arbitration case: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas#SqueakBox and Zapatancas ]]. SqueakBox is blocked until September 22 in ''all the Wikipedia'' as he did not respect the ban imposed upon him by the mentioned arbitration case (see his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:SqueakBox block log]). However, he edited the Wikipedia on September 2 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SqueakBox&diff=prev&oldid=73414179 here]). Probably, because when Tony Sidaway blocked him the last time he didn't chose the "correct type of block". SqueakBox's ban has to be restarted as a consequence ensuring this time that he's banned from all the Wikipedia. [[User:Hagiographer|Hagiographer]] 06:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:Is it not that case that, even though not permitted to edit (mainly articles), blocked persons are permitted to edit their talk pages (only).
'''Response''' Blocked users are permitted to edit their own talk pages. In reviewing the situation, I find the charge by Squeakbox that you altered his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJosé_Luis_Rodríguez_Zapatero&diff=70380742&oldid=70337486 signature] to that of a user you suspected of being his sockpuppet. Regardless of your suspicions, this was dishonest bordering on vandalism, and if I had seen it at the time I would have blocked you for it. As it was more than 2 weeks ago, and blocks are ''supposed'' to be preventative, not punative, consider this a stern warning. The fact that Squeakbox is blocked does not give you the right to abuse the situation, and your suspicions that he has dishonestly used sockpuppets does not give you the right to be dishonest in return. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131 (talk)]] 00:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Line 294:
==Arthur Ellis==
A recent Arb Comm decision [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella]] found that [[User:Arthur Ellis]] (aka [[User:Mark Bourrie]], [[User:Ceraurus]], etc., and many Ottawa IPs) used socks for tendentious editing and disruption. He was indefinitely banned from articles on Canadian politics, including [[Warren Kinsella]] and any article that mentions it. Today, two IPs {{IPvandal|142.78.190.137}} and {{IPvandal|64.230.111.172}}, both of which are consistent with Ellis' venues and manner (see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Evidence#First_Assertion:_rampant_sock.2Fmeat-puppetry|here]]), defaced the Arb Comm page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=76793494] and edited both [[Warren Kinsella]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Kinsella&diff=prev&oldid=76791480] and [[Mark Bourrie]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Bourrie&diff=prev&oldid=76792201] (which is covered by the ban). I reverted and protected the ArbComm decision, but given that I am involved in a new Arb Comm case involving the same editor would prefer to leave the matter to the judgement of another admin. [[User:Bucketsofg|<
*See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Requests_for_clarification]]. There were some opinions during the voting that make me want to ask for clarification before acting. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Line 302:
The article on [[Kosovo]] is experiencing ongoing sockpuppetry and repeated violations of an Arbitration Committee injunction. A number of ultranationalist editors are trying to change the intro to a version which asserts their (decidedly non-mainstream) POV and wipes out many other innocuous changes, such as a gallery and interwiki links. The article is currently under an [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Proposed decision#Topical Probation for parties|ArbCom injunction]], but {{userlinks|Vezaso}} has repeatedly violated it with sockpuppet edits, so far using {{userlinks|Dardanv}}, {{userlinks|Palmucha}} and {{userlinks|Semarforikuq}}. {{userlinks|Kushtrimxh}} has also broken the injunction today. Vezaso sockpuppets are the main thing to look out for - if you see it being reverted to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&oldid=76475721 this version] by a newly created user, that's almost certainly Vezaso again. [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo#Log of blocks and bans]] lists the scorecard so far. I would encourage people to add [[Kosovo]] to their watchlists to keep an eye on the situation. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 23:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
<span id="63284641347" ></span>
==Deathrocker==
In the {{la|Encyclopaedia Metallum}}, the user [[User:Deathrocker|Deathrocker]] keeps on reverting the page. He's under parole, was blocked for one day, and already reverted the page a few times after his bloc expired. Pretty much anything other users do to change his edits he calls vandalism, so all his reverts are legit, because he's fixing vandalism! The discussions with him are very long and fruitless, and I've tried all ways to reach a consensus with him (See the discussion page, last topic "A new start"), I've tried to edit the page including a mix of his edits and mine, but he always chooses to "fix vandalism" and revert the page. Thanks. [[User:Evenfiel|Evenfiel]] 13:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Line 318:
:::*10:59 30th [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclopaedia_Metallum&diff=next&oldid=78631830]
:::Deathrocker is limited to 2 reverts per week, so that's it for the next six days. He should probably think about negotiation to reduce the number of his own sources in kind, ask for [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] or [[WP:3O|third opinion]], or just accept the inclusion of extra sources. Reverting is not endorsed as a method of editing. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 03:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
<span id="63284739613" ></span>
==[[User:Hipi Zhdripi]] et al==
{{User|Hipi Zhdripi}} is under an Arbitration Committee injunction not to make disruptive edits in [[Kosovo]] or related pages. The notice of injunction is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hipi_Zhdripi&diff=75917811&oldid=75659872 here].
Line 328:
:Hipi Zhdripi blocked for 24 hours as it is clear the edits were his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHipi_Zhdripi&diff=79001487&oldid=78956831]. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 06:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
<span id="63284673553" ></span>
==[[User:Intangible]]==
{{User|Intangible}} - case: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Intangible]].
Line 486:
*{{IPvandal|209.217.84.167}}, an IP consistent with Ellis' past usage, edited the Bourrie entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Bourrie&diff=prev&oldid=78117294 here], removing reference to the Kinsella lawsuit.
*That the IP 209.217.84.167 is in fact Arthur Ellis is shown by this diff, where Ellis [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden/Workshop&diff=next&oldid=78015637 signs the IP's edits as his own]. [[User:Bucketsofg|<
::IP blocked 24 hours, {{userlinks|Arthur Ellis}} blocked for 12 hours, since he is involved in another open arbitration. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Line 499:
The Arbitration Committee has found [[User:Tonycdp]] conducting personal attacks against [[User:Asterion]] in Spanish (can be seen at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Workshop#Personal_attack_by_Tonycdp]]). He is being found disruptive by the ArbCom ([[User:Dmcdevit]], [[User:Fred_Bauder]], [[User:The_Epopt]], [[User:Jayjg]] and [[User:Jdforrester]]) at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Proposed_decision#Tonycdp_is_disruptive]]. I will now quote the decision of the ArbCom that was approved by the ArbCom on 14 September 2006: ''For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned by an uninvolved administrator from Kosovo or related pages for disruptive edits.'' [[User:Tonycdp|Tonycdp]] is a party in the Arbitration over the [[Kosovo]] article (see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo#Involved_parties]]). He has made articles called [[Southern North Kosovo]] and [[West Kosovo]] and according to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=78317820 this diff] disrupted the Wikipedia violating [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point]]. I will now quote [[User:Consumed_Crustacean]] from [[User_talk:Tonycdp#WP:POINT]]: ''..you may be placed on a ban from Kosovo and related articles while the arbitration case is underway. Consider that ban now active, thanks to these edits of yours. It will be lifted once the case is over, and whatever decision they make will take its place. If you create or edit any articles related to Kosovo, you will be blocked (by myself or another administrator) from editing the Wikipedia for some period of time. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)'' He was thus banned from Kosovo-related articles on 29 September 2006 and the Arbitration on [[Kosovo]] still lasts. However, he violated the ban, editing [[Kosovo]] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=79216848&oldid=79215123 09:44, 3 October 2006]. Then he edited [[Dardania (Europe)]] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dardania_%28Europe%29&diff=79219995&oldid=78663322 10:17, 3 October 2006] (which is a part of the [[History of Kosovo]] series). And then he edited [[Priština]] (capital city of Kosovo) in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pri%C5%A1tina&diff=79220263&oldid=79214173 10:20, 3 October 2006]. I do not know if this can be applied to talk pages, but he has edited [[Talk:Kosovo]] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=79217416 09:51, 3 October 2006], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=79218949 10:06, 3 October 2006], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=79220938 10:26, 3 October 2006] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=79262599 15:40, 3 October 2006]. According to the instructions of the administrator who banned him ([[User:Consumed_Crustacean]]) - he is to be blocked if he violates the ban, which he did. --[[User:PaxEquilibrium|PaxEquilibrium]] 19:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
:admin [[User|Consumed Crustacean|]] blocked {{userlinks|Tonycdp}} for 48 hours for violating his article ban. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 11:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
<span id="63285676205" ></span>
== [[User:Infinity0]] ==
Line 509:
::In this case I agree that the reversion of the tags was a "content" reversion within the spirit of the decision. It is certainly commenting on and deprecating the content, so I count it as a content edit (as opposed to reversion of simple vandalism). Reverting the tag without discussion was defintely a violation of the parole. Infinity is required to discuss his reverts; he made no contributions to the article talk page yesterday. If the issue was under discussion by other editors, they could have replaced the tag if they felt it was needed. However the damage was minimal so consider this a warning. If Infinity want's to challenge my interpretation of "content", he can take it up with Arbcom in the Requests for clarification section of [[WP:RFAR]]. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 02:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
<span id="63285766950" ></span>
==[[User:SPUI]]==
Per [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways]], SPUI is on probation, and he can be blocked for disrupting a page. It is obvious that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shunpiking&diff=prev&oldid=80995914 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shunpiking&diff=prev&oldid=81146856 this], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shunpiking&diff=prev&oldid=81153025 this] is disruption of a page. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]]) ''' 02:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
*Blocked for 15 minutes... that should be enough to calm him down I hope. He knows better. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 03:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
<span id="63286024443" ></span>
==[[User:Irishpunktom]]==
{{User|Irishpunktom}} is under Arbitration Committee sanction; he is not allowed to revert more than one article per week, per this decision: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom#Irishpunktom_placed_on_revert_parole]]
In fact, Irishpunktom has been regularly reverting editors, though tending to keep it to one revert per article per day or two. As most people are not aware of the severity of his restrictions, he has been getting away with it. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<small
;The following diffs show examples of the offending behavior:
Line 535:
:::It looks like he is limited to one revert ''per article'' per week, not one revert throughout article space per week. Am I misreading that? Are there cases of more than one revert per article? [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 17:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
::::No, he's not allowed to revert '''more than one article per week'''. This week so far he's reverted 4 articles. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<small
:::::I'm sorry, that's not how I read it. "'' Irishpunktom shall for one year be limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.''" Maybe another editor is watching this page and can give a third opinion. I see that [[Muhammad]], for example, seems plagued with brand new single purpose accounts, but I don't see that Irishpunktom has violated the parole at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom#Irishpunktom_placed_on_revert_parole]], unless the parole was subsequently modified and not logged. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 21:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::O.K., I see how you could read it that way as well. I've added two more reversions regarding the Muhammad article to the top of this report. Tom makes tiny reversions, far apart, sometimes against different editors or in different places, in the hopes no-one will notice. He also fails to discuss many of his reversions. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<small
::::Just for the third opinion, yes it does seem to be one per article, per week, and yes he has contravened that. Article 1 of the "enforcement" section of the ruling clearly states a short block is in order, which [[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] appears to have handled. <b>[[User:Deiz|<
:I would have started with 24 hours myself but I have no objections to the 48 hour block imposed by Humus. Not only were there three reverts of the image in a week, there was no discussion by IPT on the talk page as required, and these particular reversions were part of a larger revert war over this image. (I would have done it on the new diffs but I was out for a while tonight.) [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 03:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
<span id="63286697708" ></span>
==[[User:Messhermit]]==
{{User|Messhermit}} is under Arbitration Committee sanction; he is banned from editing the [[Alberto Fujimori]] entry. Moreover, he has continued personally attacking me
Line 552:
I would like to request that we put this on hold for a day. I have filed an extensive complaint accusing Messhermit of being behind seven IP addresses at [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Messhermit]]. Every single one of these IP addresses has edited [[Alberto Fujimori]]. If it turns out that these IP addresses are indeed run by Messhermit, it would be a grave breach of his ban from editing [[Alberto Fujimori]], and we would have to move foward on that. Let's wait until a decision is made on those IPs, though. --[[User:Descendall|Descendall]] 09:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:Just a heads up: it has been referred to [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Messhermit]]. --[[User:Descendall|Descendall]] 22:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
<span id="63286793862" ></span>
==[[User:PHenry]]==
Line 560:
::Thank you. —[[User:PHenry|phh]] (<sup>[[User talk:PHenry|t]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/PHenry|c]]</sub>) 00:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
<span id="63286883483" ></span>
==[[User:Messhermit]]==
I'm starting a new subject header because this is totally independent of [[User:Bdean1963|Bdean1963]]'s complaint that [[User:Messhermit|Messhermit]] is uncivil.
Line 576:
:'''Blocked''' Five days as provided in the arbitration case. One accidental edit under his own name is worth a warning; checkuser shows this was deliberate and repeated. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 01:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
<span id="63287189328" ></span>
==[[User:Nobs01]]==
Line 597:
*Well, none of the IPs you cite is any more recent that Sept 10. Since these are IPs the only thing that could be done is to reset Nobs' one-year ban, and I'm not comfortable doing that just on this basis. There is an old checkuser in which Fred Bauder comments about Nobs' geographic ___location. I'll ask and see if he still remembers. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
::Based on Fred's comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThatcher131&diff=84617578&oldid=84611403] it doesn't seem like a clear enough case to reset the ban timer. Obviously you should keep an eye on this, though. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 14:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
<span id="63287277424" ></span>
==[[User:TDC]]==
{{User|TDC}} is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#TDC_placed_on_revert_parole]].
Line 625:
:::::Thatcher131, I'm sorry if I'm making myself clear. I'm not asking anyone to take action over what TDC wrote on the talk page. My main objection is his re-insertion of a passage that was removed eight months ago from the Turn Left page. So far as I understand, an edit can be a revert without someone actually flipping to an earlier version of the document: "A partial revert is accomplished either by an ordinary edit of the current version" ([[Help:Reverting#How_to_revert]]). This is what TDC did, eight months on. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
<span id="63287570790" ></span>
== [[Kosovo]] ==
A new edit war has started over the introducion of the {{article|Kosovo}} article (which is under article probation: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo#Kosovo related articles on Article probation]]). It involves quite a number of editors, some of which have reverted each other multiple times (below are only the editors which reverted more than once):
Line 648:
:::I think the article is generally calm at this point as there hs only been this one revert and there seems to be discussion on the talk page. Bans are meant to be preventative and educative, and the first temporary ban seems to have had the desired effect (so far). [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 00:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
<span id="63287745022" ></span>
==[[User:Gzornenplatz|Gzornenplatz]]==
{{User|Gzornenplatz}} is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz] + multiple accounts permanently blocked by Jimbo.
Line 681:
:::Something is not working. The latest block on Ericsaindon2's block log is one from 10 October. Do you need to unblock before reblocking? [[User:Jesse Viviano|Jesse Viviano]] 08:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Yes, I'll take care of that. His transgressions have been so frequent that it hasn't been worth restting the software block every time. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 08:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
<span id="63288311598" ></span>
==[[User:Butterfly123456]]==
{{User|Butterfly123456}} is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/St_Christopher#Enforcement_by_block|here]].
Line 725:
::Your reasoning seems sound per [[Wikipedia:Banning policy]]. If you want an answer from the arbitrators you'll have to post at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification]]. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 20:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
<span id="63289194342" ></span>
==[[User:Intangible]]==
{{User|Intangible}} is under Arbitration Committee sanction for "disrupts by tendentious editing." The final decision in their case is here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Intangible Ruling].
Line 803:
After some clarification on this issue at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Confusion_on_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FourthAve]], it can be safe to say that the above edits constitute evasion of the one-year ban and thus requires a reset. Since I do not know of any further edits from FA, I hereby ask that someone unblock and reblock FA to September 23, 2007.
Reported by: [[User:Scobell302|Scob]]
:I'm going to let the discussion sit on the main RFAR page for a couple more days to see if any of the other arbitrators want to comment. When I move it to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve]], I'll also note and reset the ban. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
| |||