Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive2: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Automated archival of 1 sections from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement |
m Fixed Lint errors on this page (html5 obsolete "font" tags replaced for "span style") |
||
| (26 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}
==[[User:SqueakBox]]==
SqueakBox is under Personal Attacks parole according to [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas#SqueakBox and Zapatancas ]]. He has posted the following in his user page ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASqueakBox&diff=70752101&oldid=70702747]): "[My main successes has been ...] restoring José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the POV of another user who claims to write about saints but who is determined to slur him." One of the meanings of "Hagiographer" is that, a person who writes about saints, so that paragraph is clearly an attack against me, as it's pure libel. In fact, my only activity in regard to the Zapatero article has been to revert vandalism. [[User:Hagiographer|Hagiographer]] 12:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Line 85 ⟶ 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 120 ⟶ 122:
::You seem to be drifting off-topic, Terryeo; you're clearly discussing something different from the rest of us. We are talking about situations where a reputable source that we would trust for reportage and analysis, such as an article from the ''New York Times'', is reproduced by a website which we would not necessarily trust for reportage and analysis. Any honest analysis of this situation shows that the point of view held by the website ''doesn't come into it''. The only issue is whether the reproduction is an ''accurate'' reproduction and though you've been challenged to find one case of a reproduction that looks accurate and isn't, you've failed to meet that challenge. Why are you ''still'' trying to ''change the subject'' so that you can talk about whether the "point of view" of the website would "make a small town newspaper's page"? Of course, it's not hard to tell why you're changing the subject ''away from'' the fact that you personally attacked another editor by alleging that he was using Wikipedia "to increase his personal website traffic". -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 13:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
== [[User:Dbiv]] ==
''(For the record)''. See the long thread at [
Line 292 ⟶ 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)
Bucketsofg and Thatcher's admin careers are nearing an end. See [[Request for Arbitration: Rachel Marsden]]. Don't get involved, folks. These guys are'' gone''.
==[[Kosovo]]==
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 316 ⟶ 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 326 ⟶ 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 422 ⟶ 424:
:''The following discussion is an archived report. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' <!-- from Template:Debate top-->
==
Admitted, according to the clerk [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NuclearUmpf|Requests for checkuser here]] of being a sockpuppet for [[User:Zer0faults]]. Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NuclearUmpf]] for details of the Arbcom, etc. [[User:Travb|Travb]] ([[User talk:Travb|talk]]) 17:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Line 484 ⟶ 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 497 ⟶ 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 507 ⟶ 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 style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</small>]]</sup> 17:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
;The following diffs show examples of the offending behavior:
*[[Muhammad]], http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=next&oldid=79441975
::Deletes a link just inserted by previous editor.
*[[Muhammad]], http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=79717541
::Reverts an editor who has added an image to the article; this image's inclusion has been a matter of considerable debate and edit-warring on that article.
*[[The Quran and science]], http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Quran_and_science&diff=next&oldid=80779081
::Reverts an editor who has just removed a sentence from the article.
*[[Islamophobia]], http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamophobia&diff=80791451&oldid=80787656
::Reverts an editor who has just added a disputed tag to the page.
*[[Muhammad]], http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=next&oldid=80888804
::Reverts an editor who is adding an image to the article; this image's inclusion has been a matter of considerable debate and edit-warring on that article.
*[[Jizya]], http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jizya&diff=81813899&oldid=81782220
::Reverts an editor who has removed [[WP:NOR|original research]] from the lead.
:::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 style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</small>]]</sup> 21:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::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 style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</small>]]</sup> 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
::::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|<span style="color: #000000; font-family: verdana;">Dei</span><span style="color: #FF3300">zio</span>]]</b> <small>[[User talk:Deiz|talk]]</small> 23:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
: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
[[User:Bdean1963|Bdean1963]] 23 October 2006 <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:66.45.129.106|66.45.129.106]] ([[User talk:66.45.129.106|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/66.45.129.106|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:I don't understand why this user is making this statement using an IP account. Besides one failed attempt by my part to moderate a dispute on that part, I totally reject Bdean's accusations. [[User:Messhermit|Messhermit]] 00:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:*[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit]]
:*The IP account is a non-issue. He may have been accidentally logged out. I see one edit to [[Alberto Fujimori]] and an earlier complaint on this page that was withdrawn when Messhermit apparently apologized. Can you provide diffs for the personal attacks? Thanks. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 02:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
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]]==
In July, I was placed on probation as part of the decision in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways|this RfA]]. I do not believe this decision was just, and I have chosen not to participate as an editor at Wikipedia rather than continue editing while subject to an unjust probation. In the nearly four months since that decision, I believe, subsequent events have demonstrated rather starkly that arbitrator Fred Bauder's initial assessment of the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision#Locus of dispute|cause of the dispute]] was correct, and that [[User:JohnnyBGood|JohnnyBGood]], [[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]], and I should never have been placed on probation in relation to this matter. In addition, the underlying dispute has been [[WP:SRNC|harmoniously resolved]], which suggests that the need for probation, assuming such need ever existed in the first place, has now ended. Accordingly, I request that this probation be formally lifted. Thank you. —[[User:PHenry|phh]] (<sup>[[User talk:PHenry|t]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/PHenry|c]]</sub>) 00:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:You need to list your request on the main [[WP:RFAR]] page (maybe as '''Appeal to reopen the Highways case''') or contact a couple of the arbitrators individually and ask them to reopen the case. No one watching ''this'' page has the authority to modify a case. Good luck. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 00:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::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.
Messhermit was placed on probation and banned from editing articles about the conflict between Peru and Ecuador (See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit]]). However, he continued to edit [[Paquisha War]], a war between Peru and Ecuador, as [[User:147.70.124.109]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paquisha_War&diff=prev&oldid=52131366].
As part of his probation, Messhermit was banned from editing [[Alberto Fujimori]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlberto_Fujimori&diff=76107737&oldid=75515956]. However, he edited that article fifteen times after he was informed of the ban: once as [[User:147.70.153.139]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Fujimori&diff=prev&oldid=79054987], once as [[User:74.225.187.18]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Fujimori&diff=prev&oldid=83078132], once as [[User:147.70.153.117]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Fujimori&diff=prev&oldid=82433181],
twice as [[User:65.2.103.216]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Fujimori&diff=prev&oldid=82835599][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Fujimori&diff=prev&oldid=82814146], three times as [[User:147.70.124.59]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Fujimori&diff=prev&oldid=82210188][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Fujimori&diff=prev&oldid=82467036][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Fujimori&diff=prev&oldid=82624397], three times as [[User:74.225.227.204]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Fujimori&diff=prev&oldid=82501252][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Fujimori&diff=prev&oldid=82550679][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Fujimori&diff=prev&oldid=82562557], three times as [[User:68.215.109.135]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Fujimori&diff=prev&oldid=81847995][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Fujimori&diff=prev&oldid=81848248][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Fujimori&diff=prev&oldid=81896740], and once under his own name [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alberto_Fujimori&diff=82638849&oldid=82632814].
Please note that all of these IPs addresses have been confirmed as his at [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Messhermit]].
Even if he wasn't banned from editing these articles, he would still be edit warring.
Because these edits constiture such blatant and persistant violations of his arbitration and probation, I think something ought to be done. --[[User:Descendall|Descendall]] 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:'''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]]==
A user that has had more than one account, one being [[User:Nobs01]], one being [[User:Nobs]], and perhaps some others with the letters "Nobs" in them was banned by ArbCom - [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others]]. He is not supposed to edit until December. However, I have noticed IPs which are editing the same area of interest Nobs was always interested in, in the same slant Nobs always edited in, namely the idea that every other liberal in the US from the 1930s to the 1950s in the US was a Soviet spy.
All of the Nobs-like edits have been coming from the IP range 4.240.x.x, some from 4.240.123.x, some from 4.240.186.x. I've also seen a few from other 4.240.x.x ranges that look like him
Probable Nobs ones I've seen so far -
IP's:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=4.240.123.175]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=4.240.123.85]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=4.240.123.39]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=4.240.186.79]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=4.240.186.75]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=4.240.186.202]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=4.240.186.201]
If you compare Nobs01's edits to the edits from users from the IP range they use the same type of language and have the same odd obsessions (COINTELPRO proves everyone was a spy, citing Haynes and Klehr all the time etc.) Having dealt with Nobs so much, I know this is him, but for those not as familiar, you will probably have to do some comparing. I am also fairly confident that there are 4.240.x.x IPs I have missed that he is using. [[User:Ruy Lopez|Ruy Lopez]] 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
*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]].
"TDC is hereby 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 following diffs show the offending behavior:
*[[Turn_Left]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turn_Left&oldid=84704565 2006-10-30T16:54:43] clearly a revert of something TDC had tried to insert months ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turn_Left&oldid=40723579 2006-02-22T11:02:25] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turn_Left&oldid=40723777 2006-02-22T11:04:12]
::TDC did not notify other editors the presence of the eight-month grudge as mandated by ArbCom, and proceeded on [[Talk:Turn_Left|name-calling]] and refuses to acknowledge his clearly uncivil behavior.
*[[Torture]], a random perusal of TDC's contribs page shows [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture&oldid=84417230 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture&oldid=84417947 2], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture&oldid=84418073 3] without ANY corresponding note on the [[Talk:Torture|talk page]].
;Summation:
I believe this user has willfully engaged in disruptive and antagonistic behavior, the kind explicitly advised against by the new [[WP:DE#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors]] guideline. He has done so more than once and been warned since he was put on parole; see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive1#User:TDC|more violations]]. I didn't realize the seriousness of the matter until I read his talk page, where I also see a lot of fishing for votes. I see five violations after a casual read...what will it take to stop a determined vandal?
Reported by: [[[[User:Xiner|Xiner]] 03:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)|Xiner]]
:First of all, none of those edits is a reversion. TDC is allowed to edit articles. A revert would be, for example, if he re-added the paragraph about the Cornell student after you removed it. Second of all, copy-pasting stories and candidate press releases from the World Socialist Web site into an article violates at least three policies I can think off ([[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:COPYVIO]]) and removing them wouldn't count against his revert parole even if he had reverted the edits twice in the same day, which he didn't. There's no violation here. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 06:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::Please look at the Turn Left edits again. TDC inserted something eight months ago that was promptly removed. Now he put it back. Given his history and the argument he put forth on the talk page, it's hard to assume good faith and not see it as a sneaky revert attempt. You don't have to actually revert an article to a previous version for an edit to be considered a revert. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] 13:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::: Are you serious? First the sentence was a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turn_Left&diff=44910711&oldid=44640068 stealth delete from an anonymous user]. Secondly, I already told you on the talk page that I was going to leave inclusion of the material to your discretion, and if you did not think it was notable, then I would trust your judgment on its exclusion. Methinks you protest too much all because I mocked the magazine and its editors on the talk page. [[User:TDC|Torturous Devastating Cudgel]] 14:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry. I didn't know mockery doesn't constitute unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia. [[User:Xiner|Xiner]] 14:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Not a reversion under the meaning of the probation. TDC is not under personal attack parole or general probation, only revert parole, and I don't believe that comment was actionable. (If I can deal with two people accusing each other of libel while I try to clean up an autobiography they have been edit warring over, you can deal with a pointed comment about idealogues who don't walk the walk.) [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 14:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::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):
Removing introduction text multiple times:
*{{user|MK013}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=85205584&oldid=85148956][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=85433399&oldid=85432733]
*{{User|Wizardry Dragon}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=85299906&oldid=85299578][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=85300727&oldid=85300256]
Adding introduction text multiple times:
*{{user|Fairview360}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=85299578&oldid=85264452][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=85300256&oldid=85299906][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=85482561&oldid=85441069]
Perhaps an administrator can have a look at this and take appropriate action, the arbitration case dealt specifically with revert warring on the introduction of that article, although none of these editors was involved at that time. These three editors have been informed of this report on their talk pages.
--[[User:Reinoutr|Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)]] 16:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
*I have banned [[User:Mlv123]], [[User:MK013]], [[User:Fairview360]] and [[User:Wizardry Dragon]] from editing {{la|Kosovo}} for 72 hours. This is not meant as a punishment, but rather to prevent disruptive editing from becoming part of the "culture" of the article again. Future bans, if neccessary, are likely to be longer. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 17:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:One of the other editors involved continued the story [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=85654740]:
:*{{user|Sanmint}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=85323719][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&diff=prev&oldid=85654922]
:--[[User:Reinoutr|Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)]] 14:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
::I didn't realise that there was an edit war going on in this article. I was trying to make a positive contribution by mentioning what most reliable sources do. I answered the '''crystal ball''' argument in the talk page by saying that there are many articles that in one way or another predict the future if that future is regarded my many as more or less certain. As such I regarded the removal of the paragraph as a form of depletion of the article which could otherwise be more informative.[[User:Sanmint|Sanmint]] 15:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
:::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.
;The following diffs show the offending behavior:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Harvardy Editing Wikipedia] using an obvious sock account ([[User:Harvardy|Harvardy]]) in contravention to several indefinite blocks imposed by the Arbcom followed by an permanent indefinite block imposed by Jimbo.
;Summation:
Edits by Harvardy to [[micronation]] and [[Empire of Atlantium]] are identical to previous trolling and vandalism of these articles over many years by [[User:Wik|Wik]] and [[User:Gzornenplatz|Gzornenplatz]]. The owner of these accounts is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia and is openly circumventing that block.
Reported by: [[User:125.253.33.65|125.253.33.65]] 05:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Blocked''' by {{admin|Lucky 6.9}}. Seems like a good call here. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
==[[User:Ericsaindon2]]==
{{User|Ericsaindon2}} is banned for one year by the Arbitration Committee. The final decision in their case is here: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2]].
This user was caught by CheckUser using the sockpuppet {{vandal|Architect King}} [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ericsaindon2|in this CheckUser request]].
;The following diffs show the offending behavior:
*[[Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California]], http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anaheim_Hills%2C_Anaheim%2C_California&diff=prev&oldid=86171606
::This violates Remedy 2: Ericsaindon2 banned, which bans him for a year. This is his last edit before CheckUser caught him.
*[[Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California]], http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anaheim_Hills%2C_Anaheim%2C_California&diff=prev&oldid=86171498
::This is another Remedy 2 violation.
;Summation:
Please lengthen the ban on {{vandal|Ericsaindon2}} to 23:51, 6 November 2007 UTC per the [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banning policy]] and the timestamp on the first diff I cited above.
Reported by: [[User:Jesse Viviano|Jesse Viviano]] 05:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
::I've logged this in at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2#Log of blocks and bans]].
:::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]].
{{User|Butterfly123456}} is a [[WP:SPA|single purpose account]] that has only made edits on the [[Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine|talk page]] of [[St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine]].
;The following diffs show the offending behavior:
*[[Talk:St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine&diff=87180087&oldid=82302845] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine&diff=87180450&oldid=87180087] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine&diff=87181294&oldid=87180450] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine&diff=87181735&oldid=87181294] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine&diff=87182119&oldid=87181735] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine&diff=87183880&oldid=87182119]
::Per the ArbCom's list of Remedies, "Any of the single-purpose accounts mentioned above, or any other accounts or IPs an administrator deems to be an account used solely for the editing of St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages, may be banned from that article or related pages for disruptive edits."
;Summation:
I believe that {{User|Butterfly123456}} is a [[WP:SPA|single purpose account]] who only has edited to push his/her POV on the article's talk page (since the main page is protected). Per the ArbCom, this user can be blocked from editing the article and its related pages (which includes the talk page). The editor has been made aware of the notice at his/her talk page, and I was an involved party in the arbitration request.
Reported by: [[User:Leuko|Leuko]] 19:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:The edits are not disruptive under the normal usage of the term, although there is a reasonable argument to be made that the account should be banned as sockpuppet of a banned user. Butterfly has not edited since being identified so there doesn't seem much point in taking further action unless he edits again. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 14:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
==[[User:Ruy Lopez]]==
{{User|Ruy Lopez}} is under Arbitration Committee probation for edit warring (amongst other things). The final decision in their case is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Appeal_of_VeryVerily#Ruy_Lopez_placed_on_Probation here].
Ruy Lopez is current edit warring on [[History of Soviet espionage in the United States]]. Accroding to the ArbCom decision: “Any administrator may ban Ruy Lopez from an article where he is engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article or any other activity which that administrator considers disruptive.” Lopez has been removing large amounts of material, much of it sourced, some of it not sourced, claiming it was added by another banned user. When I asked him to put {{fact}} tags up, so I could find the relevant citation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Soviet_espionage_in_the_United_States&diff=87770274&oldid=87178706], he refused and continued to delete most of the article.
;The following diffs show the offending behavior:
*{{la|History of Soviet espionage in the United States}}, place diff here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Soviet_espionage_in_the_United_States&diff=86411081&oldid=84612588], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Soviet_espionage_in_the_United_States&diff=86879278&oldid=86510893], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Soviet_espionage_in_the_United_States&diff=87974114&oldid=87769936]
:Summation: Please remedy this, and warn [[user:Abe.Froman]] who has decided to take up Lopez’s torch in this matter.
Reported by: [[User:TDC|Torturous Devastating Cudgel]] 16:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:I banned Ruy Lopez from the article for 5 days. It's meant to be a nudge in the right direction. I'm frankly unhappy with all of you. You all seem to have a strong command of the source material so you should be able to work together and straighten this out. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 01:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
==Heads up on [[User:Messhermit]]==
:[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit]]
Messhermit was banned a while ago from editing [[Alberto Fujimori]]. After that, a whole flock of BellSouth IP addresses based in Miami, Florida started editing Alberto Fujimori. Every one of them was confirmed by checkuser to be Messhermit, see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Messhermit]]. Messhermit was blocked for five days. Once again, we have Miami-based BellSouth IPs editing Alberto Fujimori, such as [[User:65.8.62.65]]. Looks like this issue might become a problem once again. --[[User:Descendall|Descendall]] 22:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:I blocked the most recent IP. Unfortunately Messhermit has not edited himself in 16 days, so blocking the account will be a pro forma remedy. As long as it's only one or two edits a day you will have to deal with it in the usual way. He seems to have such a wide range of IPs that a rangeblock would do far too much collateral damage. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 23:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
==Confusion on [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve#Log of blocks and bans|Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve]]==
*On 11 June 2006 [[User:Tony Sidaway]] extended the block of {{vandal|FourthAve}} for evasion of his ban.
*On 11 July 2006 [[User:Dbachmann]] undid the extension, citing some clause of the arbitration case. I believe that this was mistaken, so I have restored Tony Sidaway's block. Please correct me if I am wrong. (I won't change the duration of the block any more.) - [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 20:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
*[[User:Scobell302]]'s message on my talk page:
**FA's last known edit is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=77320317] from the IP {{IPvandal|67.1.121.5}} on September 23, 2006. If that counts as evasion, his ban timer should now be set to September 23, 2007.
:[[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::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].
After a brief period of appropriate editing, [[User:Intangible]] has resumed "disrupts by tendentious editing." This primarily takes the form of idiosyncratic POV pushing reagrading the status and terminolgy used to describe various groups considered right wing by a majority of scholars.
;The following diffs show the offending behavior:
*[[Far right]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far_right&diff=83442274&oldid=83440184 Diff.]
::Total deletion of a list of "Parties Considered to be on the Far Right."
*[[Far right]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far_right&diff=next&oldid=83442274 Diff.]
::Deletion of political tendency noted by many scholars to be far right or similar term.
;Summation:
I have been struggling with [[User:Intangible]] for days on several articles where this pattern of disruptive editing has re-appeared. If needed, I can provide other diffs that show the offending behavior. I thought that by starting with one incident, the sanction could be mild and instructive, rather than punitive. Note that the case was "Closed on 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)." Note the dates of the diffs cited by Intangible below. I have been attempting to get this user to abide by the arbitration decision. --[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 02:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Note further deletion by Intangible: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far_right&diff=prev&oldid=87568427 Diff.]--[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 02:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Reported by: [[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 16:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:This is a bad faith attempt by [[User:Cberlet]]. I already [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Far_right&diff=59357396&oldid=49334098][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Far_right&diff=60423093&oldid=59357396] went to the talk page earlier to discuss this issue, but nobody (and certainly not ''you'') replied there. If anyone is being tendentious it is you. Really, I should make a list of all the times you mention my so-called "idiosyncracy" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fascism_and_ideology&diff=87556302&oldid=87544879] or "POV pushing" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collectivism&diff=87010753&oldid=86998726] (while [[User:Nikodemos]] seemed to agree with me, expanding the section some more [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collectivism&diff=87469622&oldid=87199690]) or "acting like a jerk" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collectivism&diff=87015039&oldid=87013612] or "apologist for neofascism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fascism_and_ideology&diff=56672794&oldid=56671882]. This is only a small sampling, but I believe that all these comments by [[User:Cberlet]] taken together constitute a serious personal attack on my person. Where should I look for community input into this matter? [[User:Intangible|Intangible]] 17:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Just for the sake of completeness, on November 12, [[User:Flying Hamster]] said "This article is suitable in its POV/accuracy however". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Far_right&diff=87272518&oldid=87271843] This was before [[User:Cberlet]] entered the POV list to this article on November 13. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far_right&diff=87557018&oldid=87502857] [[User:Intangible|Intangible]] 10:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Just for the sake of even more completeness, somehow my removal of a list of "far left" organizations from the [[Far left]] article did not cause an upset with [[User:Cberlet]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Far_left&diff=59357536&oldid=54680106][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Far_left&diff=59512493&oldid=59357536][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Far_left&diff=60423209&oldid=59512493][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far_left&diff=60423171&oldid=60284337] . [[User:Intangible|Intangible]] 17:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::Regarding Intangible, no action on the diffs cited. Neither of those lists had any citations. (Can you imaging, for example, '''List of celebrity lesbians''' without reliable sources?) In the case of '''Parties Considered to be on the Far Right''', note that ''considered to be'' is weasel terminology, and many of those parties are ''not'' identified as "Far right" in their own main articles, so compilation of the list looks like someone's opinion. I suggest rebuilding the list including only parties that are labeled far right in their main articles, assuming such labeling is backed up by reliable sources. (In some cases the label is applied perjoratively by critics and disputed by the party itself; it will likely be unproductive to go over the labeling issue in two articles, which I why I suggest basing inclusion in a list on the terminology used in the main article, with leeway allowed for disputes—perhaps ''Parties labeled as "Far right;" see main article for more information''.) Likewise for the inclusion of paleocons—find some pundits to source the statement to.
::Regarding Cberlet, you can try [[WP:MEDCAB|Mediation]] or a user conduct [[WP:RFC|Request for comment]]. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 07:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:::The list included [[British National Party]], [[National Front (France)]] and [[Austrian Freedom Party]], to name a few. These three parties are considered as far right by political commentators, newspapers, etc. I don't see why they should ''not'' be included. Sources are given in the relevant articles (no need to move the "edit battle" with tendencious editors such as Intangible to all Wikipedia: let's keep to the relevant far right parties articles). [[User:LucVerhelst]] has just taken a long wikibreak, tired of edit-warring with Intangible on
:::*[[Vlaams Belang]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlaams_Belang&diff=84232262&oldid=84209913 diff], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlaams_Belang&diff=84125727&oldid=84122344 diff], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlaams_Belang&diff=84118737&oldid=84117565 diff], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlaams_Belang&diff=81490612&oldid=81489947 diff] — note that these diffs include edit-warring between Intangible, occasional users, and [[User:WGee]]; LucVerhelst had already got tired: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlaams_Belang&diff=80496889&oldid=79872316 diff], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlaams_Belang&diff=76404072&oldid=76241004 diff]),
:::*[[BBET]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloed%2C_Bodem%2C_Eer_en_Trouw&diff=84452688&oldid=84447251 diff], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloed%2C_Bodem%2C_Eer_en_Trouw&diff=80507631&oldid=80496594 diff], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloed%2C_Bodem%2C_Eer_en_Trouw&diff=77589108&oldid=77583254 diff], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloed%2C_Bodem%2C_Eer_en_Trouw&diff=77573181&oldid=77359984 diff], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloed%2C_Bodem%2C_Eer_en_Trouw&diff=76440129&oldid=76439336 diff] — Intangible thinks he is a more reliable source than newspapers... [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloed%2C_Bodem%2C_Eer_en_Trouw&diff=76437602&oldid=76427655 diff] , etc.)
:::*[[Belgian stay-behind network]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belgian_stay-behind_network&diff=prev&oldid=86753605 diff])
:::*[[National Front (France)]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Front_%28France%29&diff=79473059&oldid=79372267 diff], etc, etc.
::: Intangible has kept the same attitude that he always had. [[User:Tazmaniacs|Tazmaniacs]] 13:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::::The list also included [[Freedom Front Plus]] and [[National Front (Belgium)]] which are not described in those terms. Intangible may be banned from articles he edits disruptively. In this case I do not see disruptive editing. He removed the list in June after a 6 day waiting period on the talk page. Cberlet added it back without discussing it at all, and Intangible has not even removed it again. If (for example) someone were to update the list using the criteria I suggested (or some other criteria based on reliable sources rather than one person's opinion), and explain the reasoning on the talk page, and Intangible were to continue to remove it, that might actually constute disruption. The thing is, Intangible being under arbitration does not relieve other editors of the obligation to provide sources or work with him. Let me give two counter-examples. Editor A removes several sourced sections from an article alleging the US engages in state-sponsored terrorism. The sources proved that bad things happened, but not that the US was alleged to be behind them. While editor B went to AN/I to complain, editor C found and added sources making the allegations of a US government connection; editor A agreed the sources were acceptable and the article was ultimately improved by the addition of reliable sources through the wiki process. One the other hand, editor X frequently disputes classification of bands in different music sub-genres, edit warring with other music fans. In every case I have looked into, there are no reliable sources offered on either side, and the classification of a band is based on web forums or statements like "every fan knows this", "this band is generally considered to be" and so on. If Intangible disputes editors' characterizations of far right groups, make sure you are quoting reliable sources rather than your own opinions. If he removes them then, it may constitute disruption. If he adds sources with differing views, then you report the views of all reliable sources per NPOV policy. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 13:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Intangible games the system by finding one cite that is then claimed to refute all other cites. Then there is a staged debate over deleting all the cited published material that claims a group or person is part of the political right. Certainly we all need to provide sources, but the reason I picked [[Far right]] is that it was part of the summer editing blitz by Intangible involving hundreds of pages, in which editors could not even keep up with his massive deletions. That's why the artitration was opened in the first place. Intangible posted the comments on [[Far right]] before the arbitration was opened. Then months later deleted the material. There are scores of pages where Intangible can do this. It violates the spirit and intent of the probation. Please go back and read the arbitration. It is not about sourcing, it is about Intangible disrupting "articles which relate to nationalist or right wing European political parties. It is alleged that Intangible engages in tendentious editing which minimizes the neo-fascist tendencies of such parties." Intangible does not constructively participate in writing entries that explore a variety of views, Intangible engages in promoting an idiosyncratic POV that sanitizes from entries published claims regarding right-wing affiliation.--[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:I am aware of the arbitration record and I believe I have been reasonably diligent in pursuing an understanding of the complaints against Intangible (see [[User talk:Dmcdevit/Archive 14#I'm taking you up on your offer of free advice|here]], [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Intangible#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible (encore)|here]] and [[User talk:Mackensen/Archive12#Could I trouble you...|here]]). Intangible may be banned from articles for disruptive editing. "Disruptive" is always going to be a matter of judgement, of course, but I don't think any uninvolved admin would find changing an article once in June and once in October to be "disruptive." I was very concerned about BBET when it was [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive2#User:Intangible|brought here]], but as both Intangible and LucVerhelst were guilty of edit warring, I was wary of appying a one-sided sanction, and Dmcdevit [[User talk:Dmcdevit/Archive 14#I'm taking you up on your offer of free advice|shared]] the same concern. I was also prepared to ban Intangible from [[Paul Belien]] over his peculiar interpretation of the reliable source policy, but it seemed that Intangible and Luc were engaged in productive discussion on the talk page, which is a) not disruption and b) generally what we want people to do. Arbcom could have outright banned Intangible from editing articles about right wing politics and they declined to do so. As Mackensen said when I [[User talk:Mackensen/Archive12#Could I trouble you...|asked]] him about BBET, "''Intangible represents a useful counterpoint to the other editors and hasn't passed the threshold at which his contributions cease being worthwhile.''" Maybe there are other articles or better examples of disruptive editing, but you haven't made the case regarding Far right and BBET. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 16:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
::For me the issue is not the one example I gave, but the continued pattern of tendentious and idiosyncratic claims made on discussion pages as a prelude for deleting text with which Intangible disagrees. Perhaps Intangible has now made my point far clearer. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFar_right&diff=87934565&oldid=87915308 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far_right&diff=87934642&oldid=87914784 here] for [[Far Right]]; and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AProgress_Party_%28Norway%29&diff=87935474&oldid=87402508 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Progress_Party_%28Norway%29&diff=87935138&oldid=87914179 here]for [[Progress Party (Norway)]] Endlessly contesting properly cited scholarly material with which Intangible disagrees is precesely why Intangible was put on probation in the first place.--[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 14:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
::And now this message to me from Intangible: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACberlet&diff=87983276&oldid=87473765 here]--[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 14:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I am becoming more concerned about [[Far right]] and have left a comment on the talk page regarding an apparent misunderstanding about [[WP:NPOV]]. I'll deal with the talk page as well. Sorry but I agree with Intangible on [[Progress Party (Norway)]], at least for now. The criticism section is woefully under-sourced and has had <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags sitting on it for at least a month. [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/055516.html This e-mail] by Jimbo should be of some interest. I don't believe that pushing to have unsourced criticism backed up by a citation constitutes disruption in this example. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 02:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::::In the [[Progress Party (Norway)]] article Intangible is campaigning for more than just the removal of unsourced criticism; he desires to delete several scholarly citations which describe the Progress Party as "radical right". He and another editor, [[User:Heptor]], demand that the party be labelled according to its own skewed perceptions of itself. Moreover, Intangible claims that news reports from mainstream, reputable media organzations such as the BBC and CNN are inadequate. Yet, even when I insert the opinions of the scholarly sources he's always clamouring about, he claims that they are outdated and therefore irrelevant or that their opinions are invalid because they don't all use the same definition of "radical right"; so it is impossible to satisfy his demands. He has used these same specious arguments in articles about other far-right parties; they are what caused him to be banned in the first place, as you know. -- [[User:WGee|WGee]] 03:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Cberlet's diffs did not show that. Can you provide some, please? [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 03:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::You should read the last two threads on the talk page whenever you have the opportunity, but in the meantime here are a couple of comments on the talk page that exemplify Intangible's disruptive nit-picking:
:::::::''What about the sentence ''"I use the label '''‘populist right’ as opposed to the ‘new radical right’''' (Kitschelt and McGann 1995), since I wish to underline that these parties’ 1990s manifestations are generally not radically neo-liberal on the economic issue dimension, and being so is a defining feature of Kitschelt and McGann’s ‘new radical right’ category"'' don't you understand? [[User:Intangible|Intangible]] 12:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)''
::::::::''You don't understand. There is a debate over terminology among scholars. Each author tries to define a specific subset of right-wing politics. Our job is not to point out the terminological variation, but to highlight the central themes of the nmajority of scholars of the political right. [[User:Intangible|Intangible]], you continue to use these terminological debates, which are well-known in the field, as an excuse to sanitize from many articles any claim from a reputable published source that a particular group is right-wing, or far right, or extreme right. This is the core of the problem with your disruptive, endless, contrary, nit-picking discussions on this and other pages. You have a POV, and you engage in territorially priapic, structurally omphaloskeptic, faux intellectual word games to mask your POV war against majority scholarship. And yes, I do understand, since I co-wrote a book on the subject . . . . --[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 13:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)''
::::::-- [[User:WGee|WGee]] 03:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not sure what your point is WGee. Re the Progress Party, I have already given examples that show the party is just labeled as "right-wing" or populist or whatelse, and I don't see what it would add to the article to say that "some label the party as right-wing, some label the party as radical right."
:::::::Hell, the only nitpicking is by you people, because you are never really concerned with doing actually more with the article, explaining the parties' platforms or whatever not. Hell, readers would easily discern from a political party's platform whatever the political party is about. They do not learn that from empty labels that serve no purpose but to prevent any honest discussion of the matter at hand. [[User:Intangible|Intangible]] 11:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
<-------------The above statement by Intangible clearly demonstrates an unwillingness to abide by the guidelines regarding reputable sources established on Wikipedia. Intangible is a deletionist continuing a POV campaign to eradicate any scholarly terminology with which Intangible has any disagreement. Here is another clear example of Intangible scoffing at the terms of probation: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AProgress_Party_%28Norway%29&diff=88212272&oldid=88206717 Diff.]. The position being articulated once again by Intangible is precisely the "disrupts by tendentious editing," that primarily take the form of idiosyncratic POV pushing regarding the terminolgy used to describe various groups considered "right wing" by a majority of scholars. Certainly there are matters here where more citation is required, but that is not the issue around which I am asking for enforcement of the probation through an appropriate administrative action.--[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 15:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Intangible continues to appear to not comprehend the issues involved in the arbitration nor the parameters of the probation: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACberlet&diff=88233186&oldid=88126627 Diff.] I am going to take a break for a few days and see if others can seek to enforce the appropriate sanctions in this matter.--[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 19:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:I know I will not be popular in certain quarters, and I encourage you to find somone else to review the situation. In the current context, I don't find Intangible's edits to be disruptive enough to warrant page banning. I think both sides have misunderstood [[WP:NPOV]]. Intangible seems to want to neuter the article of any point of view, while Cberlet has been arguing that if a majority of academics state something, then it must be so. NPOV contemplates reporting all significant points of view. I would suggest that that introduction should have reasonably neutral intorduction, and a discussion in the body can report how different sources classify the party. However, classification of political parties as left, right, etc. is part of the way things are, and if Intangible continues to try and remove all attempts to report party labels that havbe been applied by others then I will consider an article ban. More on the article talk page. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 12:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:: I believe that you are (probably accidentally) mischaracterizing Cberlet's position. He is not stating that "if a majority of academics state something, then it must be so". He is stating that if a majority of academics state something, that is the view that Wikipedia should report as the mainstream view on the matter. That is pretty much exactly [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] in a nutshell. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 19:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
===Request for another Admin to review this situation===
::Intangible continues the campaign: on [[Far right]], and now with another AFD filing after failing to impose a minority POV on the page [[Economics of fascism]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Economics_of_fascism_%282nd_nomination%29 here]. Could another Admin review this situation please?--[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 15:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::This was the only way to get wider community interest into the debate. The Wikipedia community might as well agree to keep the article, instead of moving its contents to the other fascism articles. [[User:Intangible|Intangible]] 16:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
:::And I'm not sure why you would vote even before I could get the afd process completed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Economics_of_fascism_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=89024102]. That's just out of line. [[User:Intangible|Intangible]] 16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
==[[User:FourthAve]]==
This user is under a one-year ArbCom ban per [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve]]. This ban has been reset once.
On September 23, however, he evaded his ban under the IP {{IPvandal|67.1.121.5}}:
*[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom&diff=prev&oldid=77319617]
*[[User talk:Tony Sidaway]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=77320180] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=77320317]
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]][[User:Scobell302/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User talk:Scobell302|ll302]] 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
: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)
==[[User:Copperchair]]==
{{User|Copperchair}} is under Arbitration Committee sanction for tendentious editing on [[Star Wars]] and [[War on Terrorism]]. The editor is also currently on a 1 year and 1 day editing block (ending [[2007-03-13]]) for violating the conditions of their probation. The final decision in their case is here: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair]].
Is it possible to increase Copperchair's block to indefinite and block IP range 190.10.0.XX as well? Since the 1 year and 1 day block, Copperchair has continuously violated the block and the probation via sockpuppets most originating from the indicated IP range:
# [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Copperchair]]
# [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair]]
# [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (2nd)]]
# [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (3rd)]]
# [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (4th)]]
# [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (5th)]]
# [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (6th)]]
Reported by: [[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] 04:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
*Well, for starters I will reset Copperchair's one year ban to one year from now. If he keeps it up it will amount to an indef block anyway. The IPs can't be blocked longterm because it might affect other users. When you see edits from that range the IP can be blocked briefly and the edits reverted, or the range blocked for a couple of days, but not longer. I'm afraid the only practical long term solution is to keep reverting his edits and hope he gets bored and finds something else to do. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 20:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
*:Well, better than nothing. Thanks! --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] 21:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
| |||