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]

User:LossIsNotMore-ur

LossIsNotMore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for a week for disrupting Talk:Uranium trioxide and is editing using LossIsNotMore-ur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to evade his ban. Dr Zak 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hagiographer

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas. Puts this troll bait notice here to try and force SqueakBox to break his block. It is also a personal attack on SqueakBox, which Hagiographer is banned from doing, as well as being a blatant disruption of wikipedia. I suspect I am not alone in being outraged at this attack on a fine academic by an individualo who spends all hhis time on wikipedia pursuing a vendetta, and spoiling the encyclopedia in the process, and I am editing this encyclopedia because of the bemirsching of this article. Relator 23:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response I agree that the prod notice contained unacceptable personal attacks and baiting. There are less inflammatory ways Hagiographer could have done that. However, I am highly suspicious of the brand new accounts Relator (talk · contribs) and Mister Shower (talk · contribs) and I suspect Squeakbox is going to find his sockpuppeting ban reset. In the future, he may want to use the {{unblock}} template to get attention from an admin who could deal with the situation. I am going to post this at the administrator's noticeboard for a wider view. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 block log). However, he edited the Wikipedia on September 2 (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. Hagiographer 06:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not that case that, even though not permitted to edit (mainly articles), blocked persons are permitted to edit their talk pages (only). Iolakana•T 18:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Terryeo

Terryeo (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Final decision.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, [26]

Personal attack by Terryeo on User:Raymond Hill, accusing him of linking to his own website to boost traffic. See also the edit summary: "one additional point about Raymond Hill's use of Wikipedia to increase his personal website traffic".

Summation

Terryeo is under an injunction not to engage in personal attacks, for which he was banned from the Scientology-related articles. Unfortunately he has continued to post innuendo about other users, using Wikipedia policy pages in an ongoing campaign. I have invited him to withdraw his attack on Raymond Hill but he has, regrettably, refused. I recommend a block, as he doesn't seem to have got the message that this is not an appropriate way to interact with other Wikipedians, and his continued misconduct is poisoning the atmosphere on a number of talk pages. (Disclaimer: I brought the original arbitration against Terryeo.) -- ChrisO 13:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with ChrisO's statement. In fact, this is not an isolated instance of personal attack from Terryeo after being put on attack probation.--Fahrenheit451 14:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope everyone examines my statement there. ChrisO suggest that I have commented on an editor's motivation. I have not commented on an editor's motivation. I have provides specific edit differences which show that User:Raymond Hill cites in an article, as a secondary source, an archived message which he placed on his own personal website. To suggest that my presentation comments on Raymond Hill's motivation is a false and misleading statement. I state the situation. I comment that such a use of a secondary source of information will raise Raymond Hill's personal website traffic. All additional inferences are made by ChrisO and he states them. I do not state implication, I state the situation as simply as possible. To state the actual situation is not a personal attack. (some trouble signing) Terryeo 15:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can not withdraw Raymond Hill's edit differences. His editing references a google group as a secondary source, a newsgroup which reliability is denied per WP:V. To state the situation is not a personal attack and I don't make a personal attack. Nor is the situation as User:Fahrenheit451 suggests. I have been quite careful while being accused by User:Fahrenheit451's specualtive messages of 'bad faith' and 'Is this a terryeo personal attack' and similar nonesense. Terryeo 15:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terryeo is making false accusations and is advised to cease.--Fahrenheit451 00:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This does not look like a personal attack but a comment on the origins of a disputed source. ("Raymond Hill is a serial fabricator" would be a personal attack.) Thatcher131 (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Thatcher131. If the message came from Google Groups, as Terryeo claims, then its copyright is highly questionable. If it was written by Raymond Hill, then it's pretty close to our ban on original research. While I think Terryeo may have expressed this in a better way, I see nothing here that qualifies as a personal attack. Any uninvolved admin can, of course, disagree with me and impose a block. Ral315 (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, people :) Terryeo 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terryeo states: "ChrisO suggest that I have commented on an editor's motivation. I have not commented on an editor's motivation." Well, Terryeo did not just imply that my motivation was to increase traffic, but stated it (in the edit summary: Raymond Hill's use of Wikipedia to increase his personal website traffic.) Given his summary edit, it would seem Terryeo's concern about the origin of the cite was secondary.
Just to avoid any confusion: the content reproduced from the newsgroups was actually a transcription of an article from a reknown canadian magazine, Maclean's. I had good reasons to trust that the newsgroups post in question is a proper transcript, because most of its content is actually supported by other reliable sources. The use of this article as a cite in a related wikipedia topic came down to have someone actually see the original article. I'm still looking for it. In the event I can confirm the cite, I understand I won't still be able to link to it because of copyright concerns, and because I am not a reliable source. This is where I erred. Raymond Hill 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The primary goal is to be able to say that the source is McLeans, volume X, page XX, date mm/dd/yyyy. Since no one has yet seen the citation itself, you are relying on an unreliable 3rd party source describing what the article says. When you or someone has seen the article and verified the transcript, you can put in the citation. You don't have to link to the text. Having seen the article first hand, you are allowed to list it, and the burden the falls on Terryeo to prove that the article doesn't say what you claim it says. (Interlibrary loan is not all that difficult if you live in a decent sized city.) There have been previous discussions about using external links to media that are copyvios; these are not wikipedia copyvios because wikipedia is not hosting the material. If there is a concern that you should not provide a link to a site you control then don't; but I would not then entertain the suggestion of removing the source entirely. There are millions if not billions of books and articles that are not on line and there is no reason to hold scientology articles to a higher standard of only allowing sources which are reliable and free and on line. In other words, after you have seen the original article, he can't turn around and say its not a reliable source because its too hard for other readers to verify it; and if you provide a transcript he can't then say it's disallowed because it comes from a site you control; and if you link to a third party site he can't argue it's disallowed because the 3rd party site is violating copyright. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes the situation considerably more clear to me, ty. I still wonder about linking to one's own site, however as it will tend to spawn special interest personal websites archiving information who's main use is to link to Wikipedia. Terryeo 02:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with that? The more online convenience links with copies of reputable sources, the better it is for the reader and hence for Wikipedia. Andries 18:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not when those "online convenience links" are used to promote controversial, partison and biased websites, like the one Andries was a former webmaster for and is currently the "Main Representative, Contact and Supervisor" for. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSS108, what is your method for distinguishing between a link being "used to promote controversial, partison [sic] and biased websites" and a link being used because that's where the information is available? Do you make a distinction between the two or do you feel that the link itself is all you need in order to accuse an editor of an ulterior motive for adding a link? -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying, SSS108. There are many examples of personal websites whose point of view doesn't even make a small town newspaper's page. Such publication as a personal website costs very little. WP:V doesn't yet confront the issue, but some talk of it goes on at WP:RS. Terryeo 13:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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". -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dbiv

(For the record). See the long thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dbiv and Peter Tatchell for a discussion of what to do about User:Dbiv, who has ignored the recent ArbCom ruling against him. Batmanand | Talk 21:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eternal Equinox

Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs) is under Probation for one year. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Final_decision.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

Talk:Cool (song), 15:36, 4 September 2006, 16:51, 4 September 2006, 17:01, 4 September 2006

Using sockpuppets and IPs (68.32.205.159 (talk · contribs), What2do (talk · contribs) and a dynamic IP in the 64.231 range) - masquerading as three separate non-EE editors - to skew "consensus" in his favour. EE has previously used sockpuppets during FAC and other discussions for the same reason; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Hollow_Wilerding_and_socks.

Cool (song), 14:54, 4 September 2006, 16:52 - 18:04, 4 September 2006, 18:40 - 20:44, 4 September 2006

Edit warring aggressively. EE has a history of ownership of articles and obsessive editing of pop music articles, this one in particular; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Locus_of_dispute.

Summation

EE's recent behaviour on this article is part of the reason why an RFAr was filed to begin with, and it's apparent that he's unwilling to change it. He considers the "Cool" article his own "baby", to be treated differently from other articles, under the control of nobody but himself (see [27] and [28]). The above description and diffs only scratch the surface; he's been edit warring on this article for months. I'm involved in this dispute, which is why I haven't temporarily banned him from this article myself.

Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 14:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have banned the account from Cool (song) and its talk page for 48 hours. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from user

Ban fully rejected. Extraordinary Machine uses excuses to introduce infactualty, nonsense that some edits are too "rich", and other ideas that my edits do not meet Wikipedia-stylized policies. Claims I have been using sock puppets (I have no idea who the 68 IP range is), and thinks I have been editing disruptively while touting the excuse "things have to be [his] way" and "it's my baby". This is ridiculous. This was actually not removed intentionally; we had an edit conflict and without surprise, Bunchofgrapes assumes (yet again) that I removed it purposely. Oh yawn, these users are beginning to grow so dull. They claim I am hard to work with again; from my view, EM is far too difficult to work with and doesn't agree with any of my views and has been recklessly reverting me as much as I am recklessly reverting him. Bunchofgrapes fails to notice this and pinpoints that only I am the cause of this issue. As a result and because here (bother to read it), I actually tried to compromise our situation and two arguments were resolved. Because I am trying to meet both our standards, and because Bunchofgrapes is stalking me after I told him to leave me alone, this ban is rejected. I sense nothing but bias.

As it currently stands, I have nothing more to edit for the day, which reprieves me somewhat. I will edit if I need to in the next "48 hours" though. 64.231.154.3 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been told before, it isn't optional whether you choose to accept the ban. Just two days ago you claimed you weren't EE; having your bluff called, you've now gone back to reverting edits that I've justified and explained to death on the talk page. We're not discussing content of the article here (though the edits in those diffs hardly constitute "excuses" and "nonsense", as anyone viewing them will see) because that should be done on its talk page; we're discussing your behaviour in relation to the recent ArbCom ruling on you. If I appear to be "recklessly reverting" you, that's only because I'm trying to stop you from asserting ownership over the article and having the final say on which edits stay and which go. Bear in mind that I could have banned you from editing this article, but I felt I was too close to the dispute and posted here to get the opinion of an outside admin. Your notion that admins are under an obligation to leave any disruptive user "alone" upon request - particularly when said user continues their disruptive behaviour - is ridiculous. Extraordinary Machine 15:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as you've been told before, you are editing as "disruptively" as I am by introducing your edits as "proper". Bunchofgrapes never looked at our conversation on Talk:Cool (song) — he figured it would be best to assume that it was me who was being disruptive. If I should say, it's your edits that are disruptive, because some are quite misleading; Bunchofgrapes obviously does not know this, and again, he found it best to believe it was me who was incorrect. Because Cool (song) is currently locked as a result of your pitiful revert-warring, we will discuss all matters on the talk page. 64.231.131.175 23:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that Bunchofgrapes didn't bother to read any of the discussions or look at the relevant edit histories before placing the ban is suppositional at best, as well as being incredibly insulting to a highly-experienced admin who I've never known to show unsound judgement. Your "pitiful revert-warring" remark is confusing, particularly because revert wars involve more than one user. Extraordinary Machine 21:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see these discussions

User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Need_Help andUser_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Biographies_of_living_people Andries 00:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony's advice looks about right. This seems like a content dispute, not a behavior problem. Can you work it out on the article talk pages? If not youo might try mediation or third opinion before coming to enforcement. I would add, though, that in my opinion, nothing on a personally created web site qualifies as a reliable source. If it's a copy of an article that is reliable, the citation should specify the original citation. If there is a dispute about linking, then it might be better not to. Any citation before about 1995 isn't going to be on line anyway. The point of citations is to provide a link should someone want to verify--it doesn't have to contain the text itself. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a request for clarification Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba Sorry for causing clerks and others extra work Andries 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]