Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive2

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 ([1]): "[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. Hagiographer 12:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SqueakBox blocked for one week under his personal attack parole. Beware of vandalizing User:SqueakBox's edits and other provocation, even if you strongly suspect that he has socked as User:Pura Paja. --Tony Sidaway 13:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Instantnood

Instantnood (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: [2].

This line should be a clear and brief summary. Three or four sentences at most.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

July 2006 in Hong Kong and Macao, [3]

Move/Redirect war, this has to stop. I propose page bans on the current article and any article in the archive. SchmuckyTheCat 20:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summation

This move/redirect war has been going on for months. It needs to end. Instantnood is supporting himself by endless bickering across a dozen talk pages but it's him against the world.

Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 20:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The project has been split (starting from August 1) as user:HongQiGong proposed. User:HongQiGong has no valid reason to enforce what he proposed retroactively. The proposal has no retroactive effect on the archives. Nobody other than user:HongQiGong insists on keeping the cut-and-paste fork. Such edits as keeping cut-and-paste fork are simple vandalism, and should be reverted, no matter who do it. User:SchmuckyTheCat is now like abusing this page to challenge all my edits that he disagrees, regardless of whether these edits are related to the ArbCom case or not. He simply reports here everything he disagrees, although his requests have been ignored several times. — Insta ntnood 20:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship to your arbcom cases is pure disruption. You are being disruptive. I don't report here every dispute, I'm barely involved in this one. I report you when you are egregiously disruptive. SchmuckyTheCat 20:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combating those disruptive edits is hardly disruptive. — Insta ntnood 20:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody other than user:HongQiGong insists on keeping the cut-and-paste fork. I am sorry, but nobody? Was he truly alone, or are you taking others as non-existant? User:Ideogram said it best: "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Insisting on strict adherence to procedure in the face of obvious consensus is a waste of time. See WP:SNOW" [4]. If HongQiGong was indeed alone, why would anyone make such a statement?--Huaiwei 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't seat it instanthood, I don't think anyone admins monitor this page. Justforasecond 00:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combating HongQiGong "disruptive" edits probably isnt disruptive. The problem is only you consider his edits disruptive.--Huaiwei 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do. But joking aside Schmucky you might get a better response over at ANI. JoshuaZ 00:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deathrocker

I am reporting a series of repearted incidents regarding the user called Deathrocker. This user was recently banned for removing sourced information from articles, and for making personal attacks at people who do not have accounts. This user is also on revert parole from an arbirrition case that led to him being banned for three months. This user is using a serious of ip adresses to revert any user, anmynous or registered, including admins, that change anything on articles he deems as 'his' claiming it as vandalism or restricted user changes [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. He also just used an ip to delete someones post from an anymonous users talk page and instead leave a personal attack [12].

The point in referring this is that these ips should be checked against his account. It may also be neccesary to inforce a prolonged ban with this user from these articles, as he has grown into a habit of calling admin abuse when he is banned (see arbirittion case evidence and findings of fact), and removing large sections of text written by others on article discussion pages, claiming they are banned users. He has even done this to an admin, claiming admin abuse when the admin reverted him. This is on top of the persistant violations of his parole regarding personal attacks and using sockpuppets to perform massive reverts, which he openly admits to being his by signing them as himself [13].

This user is becoming a series tire to many users in the community, with many times admins refusing to deal with the user due to his claims of admin abuse when incidents are reported. This user also openly refuses to follow policy or respect that he does not own Wikipedia, and that articles are not just his, they are to reflect the opinions and points of all people, claiming in multiple instances that he can refuse to let others edit articles because he said so.

Here is his user contributions to give example of his estronous violations or revert parole across a series of articles [14]. He also states here on his userpage he is a sockcatcher, even though he was banned for making this account and posting this personal attack against another user. [15].

Of note also, is is that he has twice used two ips to blank a users comment from someones talk page for praising the work done by that user, leaving a personal attack, signing it as himself [16], [17].

Wether this users parole needs to revised, or more closely inforced is a matter for AE to decide. Im just reporting this user and his sock farm, as he is seriously damaging the community. Serial thrillers 17:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above message is from a sockpuppet of Leyasu, who registered that account because I kept blocking the IPs that he was using to leave me similar messages. I have blocked User:Serial thrillers as a sockpuppet. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on this edit [18] it appears that the complainant Serial thrillers has also been posting as 81.157.94.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 86.143.124.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which are British Telecom IPs compatible with the last checkuser case against banned user Leyasu. The reverting against Anon IP's that Leyasu is complaining about are all against her. Deathrocker is on revert parole and is limited to one revert per article per day. Although reverting vandalism does not count, I'm not sure reverting suspected edits of a banned user fall under the same exception. There may be technical violation of the revert parole here but I would be hesitant to enforce it, since Leyasu seems determined to continue to disrupt these articles. I will look deeper into it tonight. I would certainly be best all around if Deathrocker would leave the reversions to another editor, even if it is Leyasu. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand it, reverting a banned user is not a violation of revert parole. WP:3RR#Reverting edits from banned or blocked users says that reverting edits by banned users does not count towards violating 3RR, so I would say that it doesn't violate revert parole either. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, reverting users who are not myself, not banned (until now without just cause), registered or anymonous, is not allowed in his revert parole. He was recently banned by an admin for abuse on a bands article page with another user, completely devoid of me. Also, nor is he allowed to hold a sock farm which is again, a violation of WP:SOCK AND his parole.

Also, in many instances, a lot of Deathrockers repeated reverts, and sock ips have been making his trademark 'Restricted User Changes' to articles that have been worked on by long time registered users, including admins that he has been warned by. Something that came up a lot in his Arbirrition case before.

So far, myself, i have only been making reasonable edits - most of which have as of late been to articles surrounding the Music Genome Project. Ive only stopped by these when ive noticed, suprise suprise, a whole bunch of ip socks calling themselfs me, or Deathrocker, have been reverting the heavy metal articles left right and center.

Regardless of my actions, and the majority of my edits that run right under your scope of vision, that is not basis for Deathrocker to be allowed to violate his parole. If im going to indefinatly banned for doing something, it is only fitting that Deathrockers I can do whatever i want coz i got through an ArbCom case attitude is remanded for the same actions. Otherwise that is favouritism, especially when the majority of the incidents dont even involve myself. Leyasu/Serial Thrillers

Reasonable edits or not, this user (Leyasu) is banned and should not be editing. Banned users should not be editing Wikipedia at all; being banned is a formal revocation of editing privileges. Indefinitely banned users may appeal their bans to the arbitration committee one year after they are banned. The banning policy states that even valid edits made by banned users should be reverted; this includes complaints about other editors. I have blocked the IP that left the above message. If any other users (i.e. not Leyasu or his sockpuppets) have any problems with Deathrocker, they are welcome to report them, and any admin who checks this page can examine the evidence and decide what to do about enforcing any violations. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that Leyasu was not banned by Arbcom, but by an admin after repeated instances of using sockpuppets to violate his parole. As such, he can appeal to either WP:ANI or Arbcom at any time. However, given his continued edits to death metal and related articles as admitted here, an appeal is unlikely to succeed. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And like i said. Reverting me is fine. Reverting other registered users and anons isnt. And i am still well within my right to complain. And it also doesnt matter wether a banned user reports him or not either, his parole is still supposed to be enforced. Many of the new users simply dont know how to report him, and many of the older ones are unscrupuosly banned as being myself before they can complain. So now you know what he is doing, you have to enforce his parole otherwise there is absoloutly no point in him having it.

Feel free to check any accounts or IP's against this one. I don't need to create or use sockpuppets to remove your messages from Wikipedia, read WP:3RR it states spercifically in the exceptions section; "Editors who have been banned from editing particular pages, or banned or blocked from Wikipedia in general, and who continue to edit anyway, either directly or through a sock-puppet, may be reverted without the reverts counting towards the limit established by this policy.".[19]... you know what that means Leyasu?.. it means even if you edit one article a hundred times, I can remove your message one hundred times without it counting against any limits because you are an indefinetly banned user. Take a hint and stop editing, you were permanetly banned for a reason and continue to use multiple socks attempting to get around it, this is vandalism.

As Idont Havaname said, you are a banned user, and your edits are to be removed on site. By all rights acording to the blocking policy I could remove the very edits you made on this page. Many users have been removing your sockpuppet attempts to edit Wikipedia while indef-blocked, including User:VoABot II [20], User:KnowledgeOfSelf [21]User:Danteferno [22]User:Angelbo [23]User:HawkerTyphoon [24], etc.. that is merely scratching the surface of editors who have removed your messages today, not even including myself, Idont Havaname, or a wide range of different IPs which have removing your policy defying sock edits.

Also, the diffs which you are attempting to attribute to me in the first post, are not me they are a various aray of IP's and other users account. As I said, I have no need or reason to create a sock puppet account to remove your edits or to edit Wikipedia at all, as explained above. I suggest whoever is reviewing this actually check out the diffs the permanently banned vandal provided, thanks. - Deathrocker 20:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line here is there is no evidence to support taking any action. The IPs provided by Leyasu are mostly from New Brunswick, Canada. I can't find any verified information on Deathrocker's location, but this checkuser case, which was returned inconclusive, compared him with a kid who uses a U.S. e-mail address and an Australian ISP. It's hard to see how that request could be inconclusive if Deathrocker was a New Brunswicker, so I have to conclude that either he has found some open proxies or there is a Death metal fan in N.B. who knows about the arbitration case. (Similarly, while Leyasu is known to edit from British Telecom, the IP addresses that has provided at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Leyasu as being improperly reverted are from completely different parts of the world, suggesting that Leyasu has also found some open proxies or has some imitators.) There just isn't enough evidence to support taking action against Deathrocker at this time. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The kid you mentioned, which Leyasu accused me of been a long time ago is User:Mike5193.. we don't not even have the same interests... he has a picture up and is a fan of Death Metal... I'm a fan of Deathrock. (Hense the same, they aren't the same thing)

Leyasu has attempted to pull this stunt before with various other users from all over the world, including User:Danteferno (It says on his profile that he is from Belize). Perhaps a range block from the range which Leyasu edits would remmedy his block evasion? An admin has tried it before [25]. - Deathrocker 00:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to justify blocking British Telecom; that would be like blocking all of Southwest Bell in the U.S. Semiprotecting the articles might be a better choice. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]