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)

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)

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)

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)

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. — Instantnood 20:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Combating those disruptive edits is hardly disruptive. — Instantnood 20:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

EE is disrupting the Cool (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article and its talk page Talk:Cool (song) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Cool (song)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is in violation of remedy #1 of the ArbCom ruling on him: "Should they, editing under any username disrupt any page, they may be banned from that page for a brief period of time, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses."

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

User:Hagiographer

User:Hagiographer has created a new sockpuppet in defiance of his personal attack ban. [29]. Note the attack opn SqueakBox, the reference to Roberto weiss, whose article Hagiographer has already vandfdalised and his disgusting and deeply rascist reference to squeakBox's user page which Hagiographer has shown an unhealthy obsession with. I trust this depply offensive rasciost user will now be blocked. Relator 18:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The attack sock has been blocked indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway 21:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I have a checkuser request pending to see whether Hagiographer really is behind it. If he is, I'd like to see a block on him per the personal attack parole imposed on Zapatancas and extended to Hagiographer. Thatcher131 21:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Note, Hagiographer has been found to be a sockpuppet of MJGR (talk · contribs). The remedies in the arbitration case that were extended to Hagiographer should now be extended to MJGR. Thatcher131 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

• Case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dyslexic_agnostic
• Checkuser request: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/T-man,_the_Wise_Scarecrow2

The block to implement the 6 month ban occured at 05:20, 31 July 2006 UTC, so its not been 6 months yet, and they are still banned. To enforce the arbitration committee's ban on the user, the accounts identified by checkuser should be blocked as an attempt at evading the ban:

• Shredder-man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Judge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kevin_b_er 03:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Accounts blocked, T-man's ban reset by other admin(s). Ral315 (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Terryeo (2)

Terryeo was barred from editing scientology pages in May. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Final decision.

User:Yandman has found strong evidence that Terry has been editing the scientology pages from his IP address. See [30]. Terry has been repeatedly deleting Yandman's inquiries without comment. [31], [32].

Should this issue go here or to a request for checkuser first? Thanks, TheronJ 14:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Evasion of Ban

I recently posted this message on Terryeo's talk page:

Problems regarding your ban

From your Arbitration: "Terryeo banned from Scientology related articles 2) Terryeo is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to Dianetics or Scientology. He may make appropriate comments on talk pages.". However, since this ban, IP address 208.106.20.67 has edited several articles pertaining to Scientology: [[33]]. This editor then signed a message as you: [[34]].

Any comments? Yandman 14:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He removed this text almost immediately afterwards, and redid so twice without explanation after I reverted. This suggests guilt on his part. I understand that using an anonymous IP address in order to evade a ban is prohibited. In this case Terryeo is in serious violation of his probation. Yandman 14:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not unheard of for another user to try and get a banned user in trouble this way. It would be best to ask for a checkuser first. (It would also be nice if Terryeo responded to the situation one way or the other, but if wishes were horses...) Thatcher131 (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Thatcher131 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He's now denied it on his talk page, though I have to say that I don't find his explanation at all convincing. I agree that a checkuser is needed. I'll request one. -- ChrisO 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the better diff to show that on August 28, Terryeo claimed this IP address. It is technically possible that the IP was assigned to someone else prior to August 28, although I am also not convinced. Since the edits are up to a month old, think a 24 hour block as formal recognition of the violation would be appropriate if he admits it; a somewhat longer block if he continues to deny and checkuser confirms. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That does seem convincing. A checkuser would still be useful - I've submitted a request which you can find at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Terryeo. -- ChrisO 18:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo has admitted on his talk page to making the edits [35]. As I suggested, I would encourage a short block since he admitted it, the edits were minor and generally non-controversial, and they are somewhat stale. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it deserves a bit more than a short block, since (a) this wasn't a one-off but a series of stealth edits made over a period of three and a half weeks; (b) he tried to cover it up and then lied about it before finally admitting it; and (c) there's no sign of contrition for any of this, nor any promise that he won't try it again. At the very least I think there needs to be some commitment not to repeat this. -- ChrisO 21:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an admin so I can't wheel war you on this. :) The arbcom decision allows for up to 5 days, and he hasn't yet reached the 5 block limit that would trigger a longer ban, so I guess its up to you. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:53, 8

I have to side with Chris on this. This wasn't a case of succumbing to temptation in a moment of weakness, but rather 3.5 weeks where seven days was the longest Terryeo went in between violations of his ban, and the median was closer to four. And contrary to Terryeo's rationalizations on his talk page, these edits were awfully close to the very behavior that led the ArbCom to ban him from editing the Scientology articles to begin with. Here is his claim on the talk page about the edits he made:

"I had raised the issues in talk pages, other editors had agreed about the issues, (with the exception that certain editors refused to discuss the issue, or raised other issues instead of discussing the issue) yet the articles didn't reflect what discussing editors had agreed to in principle."

If one took this as an accurate description one would think that Terryeo acted in situations where there was a general consensus of "other editors" who had "agreed about the issues", with just a few "certain editors" being the "exception". But here's the first edit he made as 208.106.20.67, to Altered texts in Scientology doctrine: [36] . Is there sign of "other editors" supporting that edit at Altered texts in Scientology doctrine, or are there only signs of Terryeo continuing the same "tendentious editing" that was specifically mentioned in the Final Decision of the ArbCom case against him? Here's one of his 208.106.20.67 edits, to Downtown Medical: [37], and here is Talk:Downtown Medical. Where are the "other editors" who agreed about the issues? Like ChrisO, I see no sign of contrition from Terryeo; the closest he comes is acknowledging "My ban says I shouldn't have" -- as if he's trying to argue that the ban exists, but its prohibitions must be weighed against the 'fact' that he is representing all those "other editors" who agree with him (whether they have shown signs of existing, or not.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all I didn't do as ChrisO states, I didn't lie about it on my discussion page as ChrisO states I did. Several of you have hacked at me, following me around, I post almost anything almost anywhere and along comes ChrisO or one of you telling everyone about how terryeo is a "banned user" or using other phrases which always seem to include "banned". ChrisO frequently twists my statements, saying "what Terryeo means is ....". And of course there was the statement I made about Raymond's mistake, which he examined and corrected, which was posted here earlier. In 100 edits on discussion pages, some of which are helpful such as my supplying a link which ChrisO used in history of man, any slightest hint of incivility is brashly attacked while several of you use disgusting language at me, about me and in evaluation of me while not responding to me. Yet I always say, "let's just follow wikipedia policy, let's just use good quality cites, let's cite this and not leave it hanging there". Jon Atack's OT III statement, "opposed both inside and outside the Church", Xenu.net's personal opinion about the cost of services. Those are simply not in accordence with Wikipedia policy. I invite outside opionion and outside opinion agrees, but several of you refuse to budge and revert uncited information back into the articles. Or in the Xenu.net case, personal opinion cites. How long has it been since any of you addressed me in a polite manner? huh ? Terryeo 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is Terryeo's claim: "Well, first of all I didn't do as ChrisO states, I didn't lie about it on my discussion page as ChrisO states I did." Here is Terryeo, on his talk page at 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC): "I have no idea. I use a common internet connection and don't know how those things works and edit with this screen name."[38] (emphasis added) Here is Terryeo at 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC): "I see 13 edits at [39] (contibutions by that IP address. I did those edits. My ban says I shouldn't have. I had raised the issues in talk pages, other editors had agreed about the issues, (with the exception that certain editors refused to discuss the issue, or raised other issues instead of discussing the issue) yet the articles didn't reflect what discussing editors had agreed to in principle. I then made those edits while not signed in."[40] (emphasis added) This is not a case where Terryeo edited where he was allowed to edit and simply forgot to make sure he was logged in. This is a case where Terryeo edited articles that he knew quite well he was banned from editing. This is a case where Terryeo made sure he was signed out before editing those articles, so that he would not be caught in the act of violating his ban. This is a case where Terryeo, when he was caught violating his ban, tried to bluff it out and asserted, in reference to edits he knew well he had made, "I have no idea." This is a case where Terryeo, after admitting that he did indeed make those edits, claims that it was somehow not a lie to claim he had "no idea" who was editing from that IP address. This is a case where Terryeo, instead of showing the slightest bit of contrition, or even of comprehension that he did wrong, goes on the offensive and attacks other editors -- attacks them for not obeying his commands to "just follow wikipedia policy", as if violating a very clearly spelled-out ban was somehow in line with said policy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're beating a dead horse here. ChrisO has already indicated he views this as a significant issue. When he is next online I expect he will take some sort of action. Thatcher131 (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

When I was involved in the ArbCom case I thought it was manifestly obvious from the evidence presented that Terryeo had numerous times acted in bad faith. After the conclusion of the case Terryeo took to threatening everyone who even suggested that he might not be acting in good faith, accusing them of violating WP:AGF. If beating the horse into individual atoms is what it takes to make sure the horse is dead, then that's what it takes. Since Terryeo is apparently unclear on the concept that, yes, it is lying to make particular edits yourself and then say "I have no idea" when asked about those edits, this horse may not have gotten all the beating that it requires. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia policy and guideline were being followed I wouldn't have made the anon edits. In every instance it is a small handful of editors who oppose my edits toward a Wikipedia which follows established policy, perfectly good policy, and guidelines, perfectly good guidelines. Terryeo 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's much impressed with your after-the-fact, or perhaps after-getting-caught, rationalizations. "If Wikipedia policy and guideline were being followed I wouldn't have made the anon edits." Yes, that's correct, if you had been following Wikipedia policy and guideline you would not have been editing Scientology-related articles, either under your username or under your IP address. Were you under the impression that the ArbCom ruled to put you under such a ban 6 to 0 because you were such a upstanding upholder of policy and guideline? Maybe it had more to do with the fact that you seemed equally comfortable with exhorting other people to follow your interpretations of policy and blatantly violating the exact same policies yourself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Exhorting other editors" by pointing to policy application? Who was exhorted? But when you make an edit [41] and I politely point out that a reference for your edit would be appropriate, you think "exhortion?" Is that why it took a week of discussion and many editors to cite this ? Because you fear exhortion? I can't believe editors are that nieve, Feldspar. Terryeo 00:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "exhorting", whether the policy in question is real or your own imagined policy such as "Term. Topic, Context in that order and no other order."[42] You exhort your own very dubious interpretations of policy but strangely enough, you show little ability to abide by very easy-to-understand policies such as "do not edit articles that you have been banned from editing." -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we must not miss the important point here. "Monica Lewinsky" is the name that springs to mind. The outstanding problem is not, in my opinion, Terryeo's stealth edits to articles which he had been banned from. This merits nothing more than a ban of a few days or weeks. The serious issue is the fact that Terryeo then tried to cover up the whole thing, by twice removing my question to him from his talk page [[43]], before stating that he was innocent: "I have no idea. I use a common internet connection and don't know how those things works and edit with this screen name.Terryeo 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)". These attempts to stifle the allegations I made against him are, again in my opinion, much more serious than simply evading a block. Yandman 16:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Working with User:Yandman is difficult because a good deal of his editing time is spent in uncivil, personal comment. making you slightly less credible [44]. for not removing it (someone springs to mind...) [45]. Terryeo, as I have stated before, your inability to write anything ... [46]. No, Terryeo, you don't "see". The use of meaningless non sequiturs... [47]. In addition he has cleverly placed my name under a linked word in his article discussion page disparagement. Terryeo 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My edits to discussion pages include this one and other requested information. Terryeo 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just as Terryeo is very selective in deciding who should obey policy and who should be exempt from it, he is also selective in his quotation. Here, he excerpts one of Yandman's statements as "your inability to write anything" when what Yandman actually wrote was "your inability to write anything that does not blatantly defy the conventions of logic". While there is obvious hyperbole there, I would note that just between that page and this one, we have substantiation for it: On that page, Terryeo states, as a fact, that a particular Scientology technique would improve the prognosis for a man with an injured foot from "2 or 3 days" before he can use it again to "a few minutes". Yet in the same paragraph Terryeo insists that this claim to be able to drastically improve the prognosis of a medical condition is not a medical claim. On this page, we have seen that Terryeo at first claimed he had "no idea" about the edits made under his IP address, and then admitted that yes, he had made those edits (I hope it is not a disputable proposition that everyone who makes an edit has some "idea" about that edit.) And yet Terryeo's response to this black-and-white proof that he lied is to claim "I didn't lie about it on my discussion page as ChrisO states I did" and then launch into an assault on ChrisO, as if accusations against ChrisO -- even if they came from a credible party -- would justify Terryeo's deliberately evading the crystal-clear terms of his ban and then not only lying about it, but lying about lying about it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope the adminstrators will look at this offense in the larger context of Terryeo's behavior since the time of the arbitration committee's decision, not simply as an isolated incident. Here, he has unambigously engaged in deceit and flagrant disregard of policy. While he did finally acknowledge that he made edits against the terms of his ban, he shows no contrition at all--instead, he attacks other editors. On his own user page, he asserts that "expelled and declared suppressive persons control the articles"--in other words, he is charging that the Wikipedia editors active on the Scientology-related articles are sworn enemies of Scientology and of the best interests of humankind, belonging to an antisocial sliver of the population that, according to Hubbard, includes the likes of Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan. "Expelled and declared" implies that these editors have been kicked out of the Church of Scientology and officially labeled as antisocial "suppressive" persons. Terryeo has continued to provoke tussles and disruptions on the Scientology article talk pages on almost a daily basis. He has been the subject of blocks and earlier enforcement claims here, and there have been countless "near misses" with regard to administrative actions against him, where administrators and other users have warned Terryeo that his behavior was inappropriate or concluded that he was lying or otherwise operating in bad faith. He has also become active in discussions on Wikipedia policy and guideline pages, particulalry WP:NPOV and WP:RS; my assessment is that his actions there have been aimed at influencing Wikipedia policies in order to gain advantage in arguments that serve his pro-Scientology agenda in the Scientology articles. (I encourage the administrators to investigate whether other editors who are familiar with Terryeo's history share my view.) In short, Terryeo has clearly been operating in bad faith. He has not responded to censure in a manner consistent with becomeing a productive member of the Wikipedia community. I urge the administrators to extend his indefinite ban to include the Scientology article talk pages as well as the main pages. If you find that my view of his actions on the policy and guideline pages is bourne out by your investigations, extending the ban to those pages may be appropriate as well. BTfromLA 20:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again Terryeo, could please explain this: [[48]]? How on earth did you imagine that this would get past anyone? Twice! Did you really think that after having reverted your vandalism once, I was suddenly going to unwatch your talk page? Yandman 21:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a misapprehension here. Thatcher131 suggests that I'll be the one doing the enforcing - however, as I'm the person who brought the original arbitration proceedings against Terryeo, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to use my admin privileges in this case. I've posted a request for intervention on WP:AN/I to get things moving again - I don't want this to stay in limbo because people are waiting on me! -- ChrisO 21:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry about that. Thatcher131 (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo has still not answered my question about his reversion of my warning on his talk page (above). Moreover, he now states that I never warned him on his talk page: [[49]] Yandman 08:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Yandman's actions should have included what is stated on this page: [Editor who post's] Be advised to: Notify the user at his or her user talk page. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Using_this_page. Yandman did not and has never done so. Yandman made earlier personal attacks and because he / she hid my userpage under a link, implying "I'm one of a group of editors and terryeo is an opponent" [50], and because Yandman has never said a civil word to me even though I have politely tried several times, I at first removed Yandman's message which invited my "comments?" [51]. His / her personal attacks at Template_talk:ScientologySeries include Moreover, when one reads your (many) "edits", all of which blatantly defy the conventions of grammar, logic and even rhetoric . . . and We all know your reasons, and these discussions only succeed in making you slightly less credible than you already were. [52]. These are the reasons I at first removed Yardman's request that I "comment?" on my user page, deleted his / her message and then responsed when User:Thatcher131 spelled out there was a situation. Terryeo 01:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Another meaningless edit there, Terryeo. You can quote me as much as you want, it won't change the fact that you tried to hide your transgressions by deleting my message. Twice. And you do have a problem with logic: You categorically state that I never warned you, then a few lines later you admit that you deleted my message from your talk page. Yandman 06:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"In the 1970s, Hubbard continued to codify the policy of "attacking the attacker" and assigned a term to it that is used frequently within Scientology: "dead agenting." Used as a verb, "dead agenting" is described by Hubbard as a technique for countering negative or false accusations against Scientology by diverting the critical statements and making counter-accusations against the accuser (in other words, "attack the attacker")." Yandman 06:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Both of Yandman's statements exemplify the situation I have stated above and he has not yet notified me on my user page, as this page states he should do. Additionally, he not only has not yet typed a civil word to me, but has attacked me in various ways to include his implication above that somehow, in some way that he is pivy to, I somehow represent some faction of some organization which he seems to oppose. I have stated many times that I am an individual, that I edit as any individual does, that I edit without anyone's permission or even any organization's knowledge. Terryeo 11:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Adminstrators, please note: On his talk page [53], I pointed out to Terryeo that Yandman did not start this new complaint and was not responsible for any failure to notify him. TheronJ joined in and admitted that he was the one who started this complaint, and he accepted responsibility for not leaving a special notice on Terryeo's user page, having assumed (correctly, I might add) that Terryeo was following these discussions closely and would know about this immediately in any case. Still, Terryeo continues to attack Yandman on the grounds that he failed to notify him when starting this listing, despite the fact that he knows unambigously that Yandman did no such thing. Please note that Terryeo is engaging it this bit of overt lying while he is being scrutinized for making deceptive edits against the terms set down by the arbitration committee, and then dissembling when the clear violation of his ban was discovered. In other words, this is Terryeo on his best behavior (!), after months of experience, censure, etc. at Wikipedia. BTfromLA 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if I had created this new complaint, which I didn't (as BTfromLA has just pointed out), I did warn Terryeo [[54]]. He did remove the warning [[55]]. I did repost the warning [[56]]. He did remove it again [[57]]. Then, and only then, did I contact other users. Terryeo obviously knows this, as he was the one who removed my warnings. Anyway, does anyone know when a decision will be taken? Thankyou. Yandman 16:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If Yandman had made a decision to start an entirely new entry on this page about Terry's behavior at a time when Terry had no reason to be watching this page, and did not notify Terry -- Terry might have a cause for complaint. Even if Terry had already been watching one section of this page, and Yandman had made a decision to start an entirely new entry about Terry's behavior on this page and did not notify Terry -- that might conceivably be cause for complaint. But neither of these things happened! What happened is that Yandman asked Terry on his talk page for an explanation of the suspicious edits,[58] Terry removed the message without any answer,[59] Yandman asked the same question,[60] and Terryeo ignored Yandman's attempts to communicate again.[61] Only after Terry had twice refused to provide any sort of reasonable explanation to a direct and private inquiry did Yandman post a notice here -- here, in a section that Terry already should have been watching.[62]

What, exactly, is Terryeo claiming that he has grounds to complain about? Does he feel that receiving two chances to provide some sort of explanation for evidence of a very serious (and as we've seen, justified) suspicion, two chances which Terry made the choice to waste by ignoring them completely, is insufficient? How many times does Terryeo think he should have been given the opportunity to explain? Or perhaps Terry's belief that he is somehow the injured party here stems from a belief that even though he was already watching the section of this noticeboard that dealt with enforcing the conditions of the ArbCom decree, he should have been been given an extra notification that the very serious evidence he was already presented with and given two chances to explain would be quite obviously elevated to the next level when he refused to respond? I must say I find the level of white-glove handling Terry seems to think is his due to be ludicrous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Terryeo removed some warnings is hardly important enough for all this verbiage. Obviously Terryeo got the message; equally obviously the situation was posted here and finally resolved with an admission. Although I understand the importance of leaving warnings on a talk page so other users can see them, I don't agree with the zeal with which some editors edit-war over talk page warnings. If Yandman suspected Terryeo of editing while logged out, that accusation could be posted to the talk pages of the article in question where there would be no possible excuse for removing it.

Being new to this situation, I am quite disappointed with Yandman's reference to dead agenting. The term "personal attack" is rather inflammatory and I choose not to use it here but it was definitely an ad hominem argument. You shouldn't be trying to score points in a dispute by bringing up the character and motives of your opponent. The fact that Terryeo was taken to arbitration over similar issues does not make it right for others to do it. I would rather not hear about dead agenting or suppressive people, just whether their edits fit in with the purpose of this encyclopedia. Terryeo blanked a warning from a user he doesn't like; that is a fact and it is enough to say that.

I'm going to call in a favor and see if I can't get Terryeo blocked for the 4 days agreed upon at ANI, and then let's declare this discussion closed. When Terryeo gets back, he can resume editing the talk pages of Scientology articles and you all can discuss the merits of the article without making ad hominem arguments against one another. Thatcher131 17:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"The fact that Terryeo removed some warnings is hardly important enough for all this verbiage." No. But the fact that, while under a parole from the Arbitration Committee to stop making personal attacks, Terryeo not only removed warnings but then falsely alleged that other editors had neglected to give him the proper warnings, is. The fact that Terryeo lied and said that he "had no idea" about the edits, then denied that he had lied and falsely alleged that another editor had lied about him doing so, is.

Thatcher, why is it that you only seem to be capable of seeing behavior as wrong when it's not Terryeo's behavior? When the evidence first comes up, the first thing you suggest is that maybe it's another user, trying to get Terryeo in trouble [63] -- you even characterize the unknown hypothetical framer as doing his job "rather clumsily".[64] (In light of subsequent confirmation that there was no framer, that all the evidence which pointed to Terryeo violating his ban was indeed left by Terryeo violating his ban, calling it a "rather clumsy" frame-up is not unlike awarding Charlie Chaplin third place in a Charlie Chaplin look-alike contest.) When Terryeo lies to you, telling you he has "no idea" about those edits, and you have the evidence that shows him to be lying, you tell him to reconsider his answer, not because he shouldn't have lied in the first place, but to put him in the best position to angle for a "short symbolic block" (emphasis added)[65] and then when he follows your advice you advocate that he should only get a "short block" because "he admitted it".[66] As if admitting it wasn't an action he took only after lying failed. As if he didn't then go on to use this board as a forum for more lying, alleging that Yandman failed to warn him properly, alleging (incredibly enough) that ChrisO lied about the fact of Terryeo falsely claiming he had "no idea" ... all of which got no response from you.

I guess what I'm trying to ask, Thatcher, is this: this board is called "Arbitration enforcement" for a reason. Why do you seem to be trying to ensure that Terryeo's arbitration is enforced as little as possible? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I suggested that someone could be trying to set Terryeo up because I've seen it before. Signing a false name as an IP is trivially easy, and there was no prior information in the arbitration case or the checkuser files that could be used to determine whether the geographical location of that IP was compatible with Terryeo's geographical location (and I did check). Once I found the better diff, where Terryeo while logged in signs a contribution by the IP, I struck my comments.
• I asked Terryeo to "reconsider" because being polite takes no more time than being angry. Oddly enough, it worked.
• When ChrisO countered by suggesting a longer block, I agreed. I just contacted an admin friend of mine to try and get the block applied.
• I've been intentionally not responding to this page because I don't want to be anyone's babysitter. I frankly can't fathom why someone would deny receiving a warning when this is a wiki and the warning and removal are obvious in the page history. But I equally don't see the point in someone constantly reverting the warnings and then complaining about it. Does it make the original offense worse? Debatable. Can it extend the punishment? No, by Arbcom ruling this block has a 5 day max.
• If I wanted Terryeo to be punished as little as possible I would continue to ignore this page. Obviously at this point it is clear that no one else is watching, and no one took up the request when it was posted to ANI. I certainly wouldn't have specifically contacted someone to apply the block.
• I don't know why no uninvolved admins haven't applied the block that was suggested here and agreed to by consensus at WP:ANI. Maybe no one reads this page because its a thankless task and there is never a solution that makes all parties happy. Thatcher131 20:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is "Arbitration enforcement". We are not here to "make all parties happy". We are here to discuss how much Terryeo should be "made unhappy". Yandman 07:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's probably because, as usual, Terryeo has posted a snowstorm of verbiage to confuse the issue. It's a tactic we're very familiar with on the talk pages to which he contributes, and as Voice of All's comments on his own talk page indicate, unfortunately it works. The fact of the violation was clear, unambiguous and admitted. There was simply no need for probably 90% of the long-winded discussion above. -- ChrisO 21:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, your assumption of good faith as regards Terryeo is laudable. However, I don't understand why you "don't see the point in someone constantly reverting the warnings and then complaining about it". Should I have just given up instead? Do Terryeo's deletions of the warning and statements of innocence make the original offense worse? No. Do they constitute a new offence? Of course they do. Resisting arrest is an offence, as is perjury. Yandman 07:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It just seems to me that making the report here, and linking to the diff showing the warning, would be sufficient to prove the point. All the accusations and argument above could be replaced with, "It's a wiki. Your actions are transparent and your defensiveness only makes you less credible" and then ignoring the rest. Thatcher131 14:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Terryeo's 24 block the ultimate judgement about this, or is it a short-term response while waitng for a final decision? If that's all, it strikes me as a very mild censure for such a chronically troublesome user. BTfromLA 17:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"there is never a solution that makes all parties happy." Well, offering a proven wrongdoer a "short", "symbolic" punishment will certainly not bring happiness to those who had thought his premeditated violation merited a deterrent punishment. You know, to discourage him from doing it again. When those who abide by Wikipedia policy wind up envious of the pampering and sympathy and bare-minimum so-called 'penalties' received by those who defy it (I mean, 24 hours? That's not a punishment, that's simply a Wikibreak whose timing you don't choose) it's safe to say that it's not effective enforcement. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked for 4 days. In any event, one of two things will happen. Either Terryeo will begin conforming to his arbitration ruling and will never again have a cause for enforcement, in which case no one will remember that the last block was too short; or he will not, in which case enforcement will continue to be applied. Thatcher131 19:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So, does that mean this issue is closed, and the 24 hour block is the full administrative response? BTfromLA 19:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You are free to contact Voice of All or any other admin you want, or post another request on the noticeboard (maybe try WP:AN, which is usually calmer and more deliberative than ANI). I would guess, though, that this is probably it for this round. Thatcher131 19:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a week Terryeo was blocked for a week by Glen S (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for creating an enemies list at User:Terryeo/subpage1. At this point I'm going to call this report closed. If there are further issues after the block expires, list it as a new report. Thatcher131 01:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I believe this brings the number of blocks to five - the next one triggers a year-long ban from all editing. -- ChrisO 01:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Messhermit edit warring at Alberto Fujimori

Hi, Messhermit has been edit waring at the Alberto Fujimori article, while on probation: Messhermit placed on Probation for one year. Accordingly, could I request that he is no longer allowed to edit this article? Thanks, Addhoc 11:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

He's banned from editing that article now. See the notice on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 20:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Addhoc 22:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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 142.78.190.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 64.230.111.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), both of which are consistent with Ellis' venues and manner (see here), defaced the Arb Comm page[67] and edited both Warren Kinsella[68] and Mark Bourrie[69] (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. Bucketsofg✐ 18:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• 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. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.118.25 (talk)

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 ArbCom injunction, but Vezaso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly violated it with sockpuppet edits, so far using Dardanv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Palmucha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Semarforikuq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Kushtrimxh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also broken the injunction today. Vezaso sockpuppets are the main thing to look out for - if you see it being reverted to 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. -- ChrisO 23:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker

In the Encyclopaedia Metallum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the user 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. Evenfiel 13:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I warned him on his talk page [70] that this is not simple vandalism, but a content dispute over how much the article should focus on the exclusion of one particular band. As a content dispute, he is expected to negotiate in good faith, and seek outside help such as a third opinion or request for comment if necessary, but not to simply revert others' edits. If he reverts again, I will block him. Thatcher131 14:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll also RFC. Thanks. Evenfiel 14:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's always a good idea to get a wider consensus for edits that may be controversial. Good luck. Thatcher131 14:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, check out the last few reverts by Deathrocker. According to him "we're trying to keep the zeppelin information short in order to avoid dispute.", meaning that he can have seven sources in the Led Zeppelin discussion, while the other side can only have two. Evenfiel 16:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you settled on your compromise wording regarding Led Zepplin, Deathrocker has reverted twice to a version with only two sources instead of 4.

• 19:16 29th [71]
• 10:59 30th [72]

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 request for comment or third opinion, or just accept the inclusion of extra sources. Reverting is not endorsed as a method of editing. Thatcher131 03:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Hipi Zhdripi et al

Hipi Zhdripi (talk · contribs) is under an Arbitration Committee injunction not to make disruptive edits in Kosovo or related pages. The notice of injunction is here.

Since the injunction came into force, it has repeatedly been violated by Hipi Zhdripi using anonymous IP addresses starting 172.* (dynamic IPs at his ISP) - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence#Editors involved after start of Arbitration. His violations of the injunction are becoming increasingly frequent (at least daily now), and in addition a number of other mostly anonymous users (nationalists on both sides) have disrupted and vandalised the article repeatedly. Assistance would be appreciated in monitoring the article during the ongoing arbitration.

Reported by: ChrisO 23:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hipi Zhdripi blocked for 24 hours as it is clear the edits were his [73]. Thatcher131 06:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Intangible

Intangible (talk · contribs) - case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Intangible.

Could someone have a look at the recent edits at Vlaams Belang and Bloed-Bodem-Eer en Trouw, especially the latter. I feel I'm being drawn into an edit war with Intangible again. In the latter article, he keeps removing a paragraph linking the neo nazi organisation with the Vlaams Belang, very loosely based indeed on WP:V. Thanks. Please have a word with him.

[74], [75] and [76]. (You'll find my two reverts inbetween those three.) --LucVerhelst 18:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Verhelst, what is your problem? Here you accuse me of sockpuppetry [77], here you accuse me of tendentious edits [78][79]. This is ridiculous. My edits were not tendentious, I provided an edit rational in all cases (and some on the talk page). You have no consensus for your rv [80]. It's a shame you should be blaming me for tendentious editing. Intangible 18:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't acuse you of being or using a sockpuppet, I was discussing the possibility that you would return to Wikipedia after the arbcom decision as a sockpuppet, and how the arbcom decision could be inforced in that case.
• You might have added the diff where I provided an explanation for calling your edits tendentious : [81].

--LucVerhelst 21:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please have a friendly word with him ? Please ? [82], [83], [84], here he seems to have realised he couldn't go on on the first track, deciding to try something new : [85], [86] --LucVerhelst 21:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

From WP:PROB "Striking out at users on probation is strongly discouraged." It seems you now already have struck out on me on more than three occassions, the latest being [87]. This is really uncalled for Mr. Verhelst, and I hope an administrator will have a word with you, because this is tiresome. Intangible 08:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

People that disagree with you on the subject of an article are not necessarily striking at you personally, you know. Or do you mean the reference to your ArbCom case ? I think I am fully entitled to point out to you in what way you are -in my opinion- violating the ArbCom decision/your probation. --LucVerhelst 09:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

One more : [88] --LucVerhelst 10:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And these maybe on the BBET article[89], [90] and on the Neo-Nazism article[91] --LucVerhelst 10:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but these edits were necessary to make sure no false authority is given to the view of this journalist. There is enough conspiracist thinking going around at Wikipedia. Cas Mudde, a well-known political science professor at the University of Antwerpen, who studies neo-nazi groups in West Europe, had never heard of BBET before, but somehow this journalist knows all! Intangible 16:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This article of 3 March 2006 already mentioned BBET. And This article from 14 April 2006. And this article of 17 May 2006. I wonder where you got the information that Cas Mudde never heard of BBET. --LucVerhelst 22:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[92]. Intangible 11:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Intangible is again engaging in disruptive behavior concerning the BBET (and the relevant article & apparently also in Neo-Nazism). Before the arrests following the terrorist plans of BBET, the group was well known by ALL far right specialists, although most thought it was nothing more than a review and a group of neo-nazi teenagers. The police searches found military grade weapons, bombs and assassination plots, which make of it more than a simple "teenagers cult". He is deleting information, and changing content, claiming — against all of the Belgian press — that Manuel Abramowicz is not a "specialist of the far right". Please see fr:Manuel Abramowicz for credentials, as well as fr:ResistanceS for information on the website (which uses lots of scholars, see the list — even if you don't speak French you will see the links to the Universities in question). Intangible claims to know better than the Belgian press about the relevancy of various factors. This is a breach of Wikipedia:No Original Research and he is arguing just for the sake of arguing. Enough! Tazmaniacs 14:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect:

• The link I provided above (in Dutch) is to one of these "far right specialists" Cas Mudde. You can check Google Scholar [93] and see his many peer reviewed publications and citations to his work. Mudde had never heard of BBET before. He also says: "I cannot directly see how any terrorist campagne can be executed by any of such groups." I have nothing more to add to your averse writing Mr. Tazmaniacs. Intangible 18:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your link dates from 8 September 2006. I provided three articles mentioning BBET in March, April and May. They're articles from one of the Belgian quality papers. I really don't understand how professor Mudde could have overlooked them, being focused on the far right that much.

Actually, I must admit that I never heard of professor Mudde before you mentioned him. That's a bit strange, since I'm quite interested in politics, and he's a professor at the university in my home town.--LucVerhelst 19:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

FIY, Intangible also seems to be involved in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neo-Fascism. --LucVerhelst 08:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Will314159 is the reason why mediation is being sought. Please do not make suggestive comments on things you clearly have no idea about. Intangible 12:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that the people the information was meant for are wise enough to evaluate this. I was a bit reluctant to mention the mediation case, but thought it was best to mention it here anyway, making the work lighter for the administrators.--LucVerhelst 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

I feel I have been personally attacked by Intangible at [94] and [95]. I left a {{npa2}} template on his talk page. --LucVerhelst 20:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

And here. --LucVerhelst 20:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

And here. --LucVerhelst 14:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[96] --LucVerhelst 15:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Today I left the {{npa3}} template on his talk page, now I see he archived his entire talk page. Is this appropriate ? --LucVerhelst 22:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are two schools of thought on that. There are people who read the user page guidelines and say what you do with your talk page is no big deal, and there are poeple who read the vandalism policies that say that removing valid warnnings from one's own talk page is vandalism. (There was even an edit war recently over what the policy should be, if you can believe that.) I tend to think that it's not necessary to treat warnings like {npa} as some kind of scarlet letter. He obviously saw it if he archived it, and if it ever becomes an issue its right there in the page history so he can never say he wasn't warned.

I'm going to look into the further particulars of your situation tonight, but right now I have to be offline for about 4 hours. Thatcher131 22:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Thatcher131. A warning need not stay on a talk page after it is read. Admins need to look at the history when giving warning and blocking anyway. --FloNight 13:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Trolling

I'm starting to get the feeling that Intangible is now showing behaviour that could constitute trolling. Especially when looking at Talk:Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw, or this edit. Could someone look into this aspect, and confirm or deny my feeling ? Thank you. --LucVerhelst 20:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Another example.--LucVerhelst 08:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Response

I don't see anything worth taking action for yet. Intangible's calling some of your comments "nonsense" is personal, and a mild personal attack. But the two remedies available are to block him (per the usual blocking policy), or to ban him from the articles in question (per the arbitration decision). These comments wouldn't deserve a block from another user and I'm not convinced they should in this case. Also, repeatedly tagging experienced users with {npa} templates is often viewed as not a very nice thing to do, and you certainly don't need to edit war over their removal. A few nice words is often enough, and if not, then at least you've got nothing negative on your account. Otherwise, the article talk page comments look like two people with a content dispute who have stopped listening to each other. I don't yet see any trolling.

An article ban is a blunt instrument and I'm also not sure at this time that it is warranted. Let me explain why. Although arbitration decisions deal with user behavior, I have looked into the content dispute underlying this situation. There seems to be an effort to link the Belgian political party BBET with an American professor from a fringe white supremacist movement. This is based on a French language report that in turn is drawn from sources including the professor's remarks published in an obscure 24 page 3-times a year white supremacist newsletter. The newsletter is not online but the article is copied on a blog and on BBET's web site. Technically, WP:RS policy stands behind the newspaper. The allegations that the newspaper mistranslated the professor's remarks are poorly supported since the blog and BBET site they are cached on could have been altered. No one has produced a scan of a paper copy of the newsletter that could definitively impeach the newspaper. If such a copy were produced, it would not mean the newsletter was an RS, but it would cast strong doubt on the La Libre story.

However, I question the propriety of including the claim at all, even if it is sourced per policy. This is a classic example of attempting to prove guilt by association. I'm not sure why it is necessary to try and associate a Belgian political party with a fringe American to discredit it; would we include in an article on the US Democratic Party the fact that some party officials may have been visited by a fringe French or Belgian politician who was so obscure that the visit wasn't written about for two years? Surely there are sufficient Belgian sources to write an encyclopedia article about the activities of a Belgian political party in Belgium without having to rely on guilt by association through a single questioned newspaper article. I would strongly advice you to knock off the guilt-by-association unless you have more evidence of significant contacts between BBET and American white supremacists.

Regarding Abromowitz, I wonder about a "journalist" founding an advocacy web site. American journalists aren't generally allowed to be members of advocacy groups, much less be founders. You need to be very careful in selecting sources that are reporting, not advocacy (for example, newspaper articles, but not editorials) and a reporter who is also an advocate presents a real problem.

Intangible has been sanctioned for engaging "in tendentious editing which minimizes the neo-fascist tendencies of [nationalist or right wing European political] parties." But this case is a poor example of this and does not yet (in my opinion) rise to the level of a ban. Develop better sources, and avoid guilt by association. Things BBET said or did are vastly more powerful than who they have associated with. I didn't really want to analyze the content dispute but I did; hopefully this will prove helpful to any other admin who reviews the situation. Thatcher131 04:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note on the side : BBET isn't a political party, it's a small neo nazi grouping.
• Aside from that, I largely agree with your response. --LucVerhelst 12:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue is indeed not about BBET being a neo nazi group, it is about alleged ties of BBET to a mainstream political party (VB), which do not exist. Intangible 14:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification from both of you. It seems to me like the currently available evidence for a connection has some problems. In any case, edit warring over it is not the solution. If you can't find stronger evidence, you can try a request for comment, third opinion, or mediation. If there is a strong consensus one way or the other after some additional dispute resolution processes, and the article is still disrupted, there would be a stronger case for intervention. Thatcher131 14:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Intangible. The issue is not about alleged ties with the VB, the issue is about the way Intangible thinks he can edit. He simply refuses to discuss the content of the matter. --LucVerhelst 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you both have discussed the content issue so much that you are no longer paying attention to each other and are just repeating old arguments. You think the LaLibre story is a reliable source and his argument about mistranslation is original research. He thinks the English language version of Griffin's comments proves the newspaper story is based on a mistranslation. My thoughts on the matter aren't important, as arbitration is about user conduct, not content. I do not at this time see this as one-sided disruption, but two people being equally stubborn. Please engage in one of the dispute resolution mechanisms I described above. Thatcher131 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want to note that about everybody who has had to deal in the past with Intangible has stopped listening to him. This is why Cberlet has made a Rfa against him, and why he is on "parole". This explains why Luc Verhelst, whose used to dealing diplomaticall with people he disagree with, is having troubles communicating with Intangible. Intangible has decredibilized him in the eyes of 99% of the people here. I don't know if it's possible to have a fresh start (I'd like it too: I don't like the idea of banning someone forever because of some mistakes), but he certainly needs one if he wants to be able to edit in a confortable environment. Now, concerning the issue of the debate itself, BBET is not a party, but a fringe neofascist group. In this sense, it is not an attempt to smear by association to quote La Libre Belgique on its connections with the US revisionist professor, but a demonstration of the international links of neofascism. Any scholar who studies neo-fascism knows that, as fringe far-left group (trotskyists, etc), they can survive only by maintaining international connections. Thus, it is an important thing to point out. Second, alleged links between BBET & Vlaams Belang (as between French skinheads and the Front National) can be found in many newspaper articles and scholars' studies. For the simple reason that skinheads are used as "order service" during demonstrations of far-right, more "respectable" organizations. Last, Thatcher31's remarks concerning journalism & activism is perfectly valid... in the US, as he has pointed out. In Europe, advocacy journalism is very common, and it is actually only under the influence of Anglo-Saxon press that some have started advocating "neutral journalism" (such as Le Monde). But, to the contrary of the States, this is certainly not the norm in Europe. If you take French newspapers, apart of Le Monde which has positionned itself as an "objective, non-partisan" newspaper (which of course has been questionned; e.g. it supported Edouard Balladur during the 1995 presidential elections), Libération conceived itself as a left-wing newspaper, Le Figaro as an openly conservative newspaper (very good on international matters, but very partisan on national matters), and, of course, L'Humanité which used to be the Communist party's newspaper. Take Italy: all newspapers were organs of political parties. Etc. Tazmaniacs 20:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask yourself why User:Jvb and User:1652186 have stopped editing the Vlaams Belang article. Intangible 22:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

User:1652186 has stopped editing on Wikipedia altogether. User:Jvb took quite a long wikibreak.

I don't know why User:Jvb left on wikibreak, I always assumed he just changed user names.

The (real) reason User:1652186 left to me becomes clear with this diff: "this pretty much summarizes everything I've tried to show about Belgium in the past few months". I believe User:1652186 was trying to use Wikipedia as a forum for his beliefs, and got frustrated when he discovered that not everyone agreed with his viewpoints. --LucVerhelst 11:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Belien

Please check out this diff, with this comment : "removed per http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/515, anything cochez writes about Belien is pretty much bull". He removes content, that is based on articles from one of the country's quality newspapers, and refers for his removal to a web log. How am I supposed to react to this ? --LucVerhelst 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, he removed three sources citing a weblog, it seems. I can't read dutch. Ask him to explain on the talk page why each of those sources fails WP:V, since he has cited it himself in the BBET talk page. Thatcher131 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I did it, and he replied: "I did not remove these sources based on WP:V.". --LucVerhelst 15:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit the article for you. You need to engage him in a good faith discussion on the talk page. If he doesn't have good reason to remove the comments, put them back. If he acts disruptively and won't explain his edits, report it here again or to the administrators noticeboard. On BBET you both had good points and you both stopped listening to each other. Don't get into that pattern again. Thatcher131 16:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Note

• See WP:RFAR#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible (encore). Intangible 15:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Btw, if people are going to accuse me of "removing sourced material" than what about this edit: [97]? Intangible 13:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We talked about this on the talk page Talk:Vlaams Belang#Pro Flandria. I believe WP:NPOV#Undue weight was appropriate here (and I even proved it with a newspaper reference).--LucVerhelst 14:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't prove anything. The organization had its views published in the main newspapers of Belgium, De Tijd and De Standaard (they were not as you simply called them "letters to the editor"), and I can easily provide 10+ other news articles of these two papers in which the organization is mentioned. Intangible 15:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• I want it also to be known that User:LucVerhelst is direct political opponent of the Vlaams Belang, competing against them in the 2006 Belgian municipal elections. So it is hard for me to WP:AGF on his part. Intangible 13:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We talked about this in your ArbCom case, where you repeatedly suggested to get me involved. My quote : "I already revealed my personal political stance on 17 Dec 2005 : [98]. If there is doubt about the neutrality of my edits, I would welcome very much any example." The arbitrators decided not to look into my case, and you did not provide any example. Furthermore, I am making it clear to anyone what my affiliation is : see my userpage. --LucVerhelst 14:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggested to get you involved?! Intangible 15:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

NuclearUmpf (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Admitted, according to the clerk 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. Travb (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Um no I didnt, I admitted to using zer0faults previously adn not violating anything in WP:SOCK nor my Arbcom enforcement as the Arbcom clerk pointed out to you. Stop misrepresenting me. Further do not say that you wont file a complaint then go ahead and file on hopnig I wont find out to defend myself, its quite dishonest. --NuclearUmpf 17:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So what Arbcom decision did I break? --NuclearUmpf 17:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We will let the admins decide the issues, it is now out of our hands. I will let you have the last word on this User:Zer0faults. Sincerely, Travb (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You are asking for an enforcement of nothing? You have to say what needs to be enforced. I come here to edit adn your wikistalknig me is getting out of hand, I created a new name to get away from yuo constantly attempting to ally people against me [99] [100] and you still follow me around. You vote on AfD's that I start under this name, the only AfD vote you had in like 20+ days [101] oddly enough and then wonder why I started a new name. I have not broken any Arbcom ruling not Wiki policy and I get this continued harrassment. You can look under my userpage to see my contributions, I don't need this aggravation cause he is bitter that a movie article he made is getting deleted when DrV finishes. As Thatcher said "arbitration is also not supposed to be a club to beat you over the head with indefinitely" so if you are not here stating I broke anything in my Arbcom decision then stop harrassing me. --NuclearUmpf 17:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Having an undeclared sockpuppet while under probation is wrong. It means you have an account that isn't subject to the decision, because no one associates the account with the probation. If that wasn't your intention, you should have revealed it, otherwise it was evasion. Dmcdevit·t 20:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that it is revealed do you think further sanctions are warranted for the evasion? Thatcher131 20:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It says directly on the zer0faults page that any Admin or Arbcom member can ask for the ID and it will be provided:

I have left this username to edit under a new one. I am keeping an eye on my Arbcom ruling and while I do not agree with the decision I will however abide by it. I will not turn over this username to anyone but an admin with reasonable cause supported by a request by Arbcom, and then I expect them not to make it public. I will not vote twice and have no plans to edit any of my previous controversial articles. Peave love and Wikiness. I really liked this page and you all will be missed.

What I wanted to prevent by doing it this way was people like Travb following me around again, which he did in fact do, and then went on to message people off Wikipedia that I had disputes with. So there isnt any evasion when all someone had to do was ask from the start.

Here is another great example [102] as to why I left the name behind and only asked admins or arbcom to ask for it. I think its getting to the point where I will need to have my new name hidden if it comes to more trolling on my talk page. The sad part is that this user is basically asking a dumb question cause zer0 already went under the RFCU thumb voluntarily and proved he was not rex (I / he).

And another example [103] I am now asking an admin or Arbcom member to allow me to have a hidden username that only Arbcom knows of.

And another [104]. --NuclearUmpf 03:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to NuclearUmpf There is no general provision for hiding a new identity except from certain arbitrators or admins. There are only 14 arbitrators, and of 1000 or so admins probably only a dozen or so have particular interest in you or your types of articles (some admins can recognize Lightbringer socks on sight, for example, but not me). The only way to hold you to your probation is for you to continue to use the original account or for you to publically disclose your name change. Dmcdevit is right in that creating this new account was in reality an attempt to evade your probation even if such was not your intent. No action is needed at this time, but you need to pick one account and stick with it. Thatcher131 03:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Travb Your recent comments on NuclearUmpf's user talk page could be seen as an attempt to provoke a reaction (in other words, trolling, although that word is overused). I would like you to read the top of this page, particularly where it says "Most editors under ArbCom sanction are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still Assume Good Faith. Arbitration Committee decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive." I'd like you to confine your comments to the talk pages of any articles you both edit and to discuss the substance of each others' edits, not the personalities behind them. (This, of course, applies to everyone on Wikipedia all the time.) If NuclearUmpf edits in a way that appears to violate his probation, you can make a new complaint here. (I am aware that he must have edited in a similar enough way to be detected, however, he is still allowed to edit, and he is allowed to oppose other users so long as he does it in accordance with commonly accepted standards of civility, consensus, and so on.) Thatcher131 03:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your comments Thatcher131. Can I correct you on one small issue, if you don't mind? I have never commented on NuclearUmpf's talk page. I haven't commented on NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults talk page since around the time he started deleting my comments.Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette

I'd like you to confine your comments to the talk pages of any articles you both edit and to discuss the substance of each others' edits, not the personalities behind them.

That is a great idea. The only page we have in common is the Alleged terrorism page. Unfortunatly, I will have to continue to defend myself if user Zer0faults reports me on ANI again, and here of course. I have never edited any of this articles that he has been involved in, I made sure not too. I have voted in administrative votes/discussions and in AfD's he has been involved in. We both have followed each other around. The stark and only difference is I have never put an article up for AfD that Zer0faults wrote. I hope we can put this all behind us. I want too, but the subject continues to come up. Unfortunatly, it is in my best interst to watch Zer0faults edits. I don't want to be ambushed by another ANI etc. by Zer0faults. Again, I agree with you. I have been guilty of explaining "personalities behind articles", but since I was temporarily booted, then unbooted less than an hour later, for an unrelated incident, I have been incredibly civil. Anyway, sorry to drag you into this.

I have to agree with Dmcdevit and Thatcher131. Although your name changed User:NuclearUmpf, your behavior didn't. Why do so many people write so many mean things to you on your user pages? Why did you have 6 admins sanction you? It is because of your behavior. You can blame me for revealing your sockpuppet, to arguably "evade your probation", but I am not reponsible for the strongly negative feelings that quite a lot of wikiusers have against you.

As I wrote before:

I have learned in life that the problems I have with other people follow me throughout my life. I can move, but my personality flaws move with me. If I have a problem with person x, I will have the same problem with person y.

I have also have found that when I have problems with a person, and dislike a person for some reason, usually most everyone else feels the same way.

Zerofaults, you can shoot the messengers, or you can change your behavior. At this point, shooting the messenger will eventually get you booted indefinently. So that leaves truly only one option, doesn't it? Based on my past experience with you, you will opt for the shoot the messenger option, sigh.

Sorry to break your rule "both edit and to discuss the substance of each others' edits, not the personalities behind them", User talk:Thatcher131. I have no excuse. Sorry. I figured this would be a good farwell speech. Hopefully it is in fact a farewell speech.

I will let Zer0faults have the last word (again), and unless he provokes this yet again, move on.Travb (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

All because the people at WP:OR said you were wrong ... Oddly you said you never edited something I edited, yet you commented on the AfD I started right after I asked the people at WP:OR to take a look at the allegations page, did we forget that? I have given dif's of this user stalking my edits and attempting to ralley people to harass and bother me. You know what keep sending them my way because I will start reporting them and you from now on. I will continue to edit Wikipedia and laugh at the fact that the article will never be renamed and WP:OR will prevail. I am done playing this childish game.

I want to clear something up, I put Travb's article up for deletion he then followed me around and stalked my contrib list for the next week, voted against an AfD I started without giving any explanation, and began contacting anyone I disagreed with off wiki such as GeoSwan, the difs are above to prove this. My final message to Travb is that all his wikidrama will not change the fact that WP:OR is a policy and I will continue to ask you to follow it, yes dont shoot the messenger indeed.

PS. Reverse psychology may work on three year olds but not on adults, try tell a judge that in a court of law and enjoy the laughter that follows. --NuclearUmpf 10:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

(Travb, I may have gotten you mixed up with RyanF, who was posting to my talk page last night. Sorry about that.)

It sounds like you both should let the community speak for you. If the consensus of uninvolved editors at a neutral forum (such as AFD or WT:OR) is with you, that is sufficient rebuke; if consensus is against you, it doesn't really matter who started the conversation.

You know what? It's a beautiful clear dawn where I am right now. Every day is a new day, so I'm going to slap a closed sign on this discussion and ask everyone to move on. Good luck. Thatcher131 11:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Arthur Ellis

• The remedies for the ArbComm decision concerning Warren Kinsella were that Arthur Ellis was banned from the Warren Kinsella and related pages, with the exception of the talk page for Mark Bourrie. He is also to limit himself to one account.

• 209.217.84.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), an IP consistent with Ellis' past usage, edited the Bourrie entry 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 signs the IP's edits as his own. Bucketsofg✐ 18:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

IP blocked 24 hours, Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 12 hours, since he is involved in another open arbitration. Thatcher131 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was blocked for 24 hoursArthur Ellis 23:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I set the block on your username for 12 hours, partly because there have been so many IP addresses associated with you edits in the past. If you were blocked for the full 24 hours, it must have been due to the IP block. I'll update the block log at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella to reflect what actually occurred. Even though my attempt to take it easy on you in view of the other open case failed, 24 hours was appropriate to the violation. Thatcher131 23:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I only use one IP, so a 24-hour IP block is a 24-hour user name block. Are you trying to entice me to use more than one IP? That just wouldn't be right! Arthur Ellis 02:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Tonycdp

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. 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 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 09:44, 3 October 2006. Then he edited Dardania (Europe) in 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 10:20, 3 October 2006. I do not know if this can be applied to talk pages, but he has edited Talk:Kosovo in 09:51, 3 October 2006, 10:06, 3 October 2006, 10:26, 3 October 2006 and 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. --PaxEquilibrium 19:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

admin Consumed Crustacean| blocked Tonycdp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for violating his article ban. Thatcher131 11:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Infinity0

Infinity0 (talk · contribs) is on a revert parole, however he again started to engage in edit warring on Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [105], [106], [107]. -- Vision Thing -- 22:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I was replacing weasel tags which you removed without discussion, whilst there was a discussion going on on the talk page. Whilst editing with other editors, it is extremely impolite to remove tags they have put there without addressing their concerns. -- infinity0 22:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes. One more thing, as we chinese say. My revert parole is for content reverts only, not tag reverts. -- infinity0 22:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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. Thatcher131 02:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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 this, this, and this is disruption of a page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for 15 minutes... that should be enough to calm him down I hope. He knows better. ++Lar: t/c 03:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Irishpunktom

Irishpunktom (talk · contribs) 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 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 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? 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 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. 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 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 Humus sapiens appears to have handled. Deizio talk 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.) Thatcher131 03:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Messhermit

Messhermit (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction; he is banned from editing the Alberto Fujimori entry. Moreover, he has continued personally attacking me Bdean1963 23 October 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.129.106 (talk)

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. 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. 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. --Descendall 09:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads up: it has been referred to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Messhermit. --Descendall 22:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:PHenry

In July, I was placed on probation as part of the decision in 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 cause of the dispute was correct, and that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and I should never have been placed on probation in relation to this matter. In addition, the underlying dispute has been 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. —phh (^t/_c) 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. Thatcher131 00:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. —phh (^t/_c) 00:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Messhermit

I'm starting a new subject header because this is totally independent of Bdean1963's complaint that 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 [108].

As part of his probation, Messhermit was banned from editing Alberto Fujimori [109]. However, he edited that article fifteen times after he was informed of the ban: once as User:147.70.153.139 [110], once as User:74.225.187.18 [111], once as User:147.70.153.117 [112], twice as User:65.2.103.216 [113][114], three times as User:147.70.124.59 [115][116][117], three times as User:74.225.227.204 [118][119][120], three times as User:68.215.109.135 [121][122][123], and once under his own name [124].

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. --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. Thatcher131 01:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)