Revision as of 00:03, 6 August 2006 editSPUI (talk | contribs)75,418 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:07, 6 August 2006 edit undoRschen7754 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users123,234 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
:::::::::::::If you look closely, I only changed it where it was different from the title of the article. I didn't do the '''State Route 43 (California)''' ones. And then I got lazy halfway through and didn't do some of the '''California State Route 43''' ones. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 00:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | :::::::::::::If you look closely, I only changed it where it was different from the title of the article. I didn't do the '''State Route 43 (California)''' ones. And then I got lazy halfway through and didn't do some of the '''California State Route 43''' ones. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 00:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
::::::::::::::How does that change anything? If the title is wrong, you shouldn't make the bolded name wrong too. --] (] - ]) 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | ::::::::::::::How does that change anything? If the title is wrong, you shouldn't make the bolded name wrong too. --] (] - ]) 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::::::::The title is not "wrong." --'''] (] - ]) ''' 00:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::::So how long do I have to wait before reverting your reverts? --] (] - ]) 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC) | ::::::::So how long do I have to wait before reverting your reverts? --] (] - ]) 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
::::::::::It's your call. But do not blindly revert, please. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC) | ::::::::::It's your call. But do not blindly revert, please. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:07, 6 August 2006
Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 |
358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 |
Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
1155 | 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 |
1165 | 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 |
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 |
481 | 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 |
Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 |
337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 |
Other links | |||||||||
- ]
This is a message board for coordinating and discussing enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions. Administrators are needed to help enforce ArbCom decisions. Any user is welcome to request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision. Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.
Are you sure this is the page you are looking for?
This page only involves violations of final Arbitration Committee decisions.
- Reporting of Three-revert rule violations is done on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (WP:AN/3RR). Even if an editor has an Arbitration ruling about reverts, you will likely get a quicker response there.
- Reporting of other types of incidents (e.g. blocked users evading blocks, etc) that do not involve the Arbitration Committee is done on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:AN/I).
- To request specific assistance from an administrator, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for administrator attention. To request assistance from a specific administrator, see ].
- If you are blocked, please contact the blocking admin via email (navigate to their userpage and click email this user).
- To request arbitration, please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration.
Enforcement
Enforcement requests against users should be based on the principles and decisions in their Arbitration case.
Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content. Arbitration Committee decisions are generally about behavior, not content. Very few editors have content dispute prohibitions. Requests for Comments is still the best place to hash out content disputes.
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. Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized at poking sticks at caged animals. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Misplaced Pages's civility or personal attacks policies will be paraphrased and, if reinserted, will be deleted.
If an Arbitration case has not been finalized, it is not enforcable. In that case, bad behavior should be reported on WP:AN/I and you should consider adding the behavior to the /Evidence page of the Arbitration case.
Note to administrators: Arbitration Committee decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that certain types of behavior by these users is not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia. If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned. The enforcement mechanisms listed in each individual case should be constructed liberally in order to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with.
Using this page
Edit this section. Please put new requests above old requests and below the sample template. A sample template is provided, please use copy and paste, do not edit the template.
Be prepared with:
- Diffs showing the violating behavior
- Point to the final decision in their Arbitration case, a list with summary disposition is at WP:AER
- Clear and brief summary relation of how this behavior is linked to the principles, findings of fact, remedies, and/or enforcement mechanism of the arbitration case.
Be advised to:
- Notify the user at his or her user talk page.
Edit this section for new requests
User:Rschen7754
Rschen7754 has been doing exactly the same thing as I was blocked for below on many more articles. See his edits with summary "fix". --SPUI (T - C) 08:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, while the summaries are a bit vague, I can cite many more from many authors, including yourself, who have used vague and even very much inapproperiate edit tags. His "fix" was removing your supposed "fix" that was more like widespread catastrophe. Since you introduced your own "cleanup" tags and proposals for "renamings" without initiating a discussion with anyone involved in the project or its pages, it is only fair that the tags be removed. As with one such incident, I labeled my edit summary: Removing SPUI tag. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yup my edit summaries are somewhat dumb... sorry. I was criticized for it at my RFA. Sometimes I do "fix", "update", sometimes just "us" or "canada" or "ca" or something really retarded. But pretty much Seicer has it right above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- "fix", "here goes", "fixes", "fix 2", "hmm", "oops", usually nothing on talk pages... you get the idea. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's not your edit summaries - it's the fact that you are doing the same thing I was blocked for below on a larger scale. Or would you have no problems with me reverting your "fixes"? --SPUI (T - C) 23:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Specifically, you were adding those tags that are POV and against the spirit of the ArbCom ruling. You were enlisting the public on your side of the "edit war". --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- My block below was for changing Nevada State Route 28 to State Route 28. You are doing the same thing, in the other direction, in California. --SPUI (T - C) 23:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- And for specifically revert warring over it. And I thought you'd misinterpret my edits as an ArbCom violation so I stopped halfway through. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you're referring to the links it's not a big deal. Whatever the convention becomes, I can use a bot to fix the redirects. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the bold text, using the wrong name for the route. --SPUI (T - C) 23:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you look closely, I only changed it where it was different from the title of the article. I didn't do the State Route 43 (California) ones. And then I got lazy halfway through and didn't do some of the California State Route 43 ones. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- How does that change anything? If the title is wrong, you shouldn't make the bolded name wrong too. --SPUI (T - C) 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- The title is not "wrong." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- How does that change anything? If the title is wrong, you shouldn't make the bolded name wrong too. --SPUI (T - C) 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you look closely, I only changed it where it was different from the title of the article. I didn't do the State Route 43 (California) ones. And then I got lazy halfway through and didn't do some of the California State Route 43 ones. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the bold text, using the wrong name for the route. --SPUI (T - C) 23:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you're referring to the links it's not a big deal. Whatever the convention becomes, I can use a bot to fix the redirects. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- So how long do I have to wait before reverting your reverts? --SPUI (T - C) 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's your call. But do not blindly revert, please. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Johnny or another on your side will get me blocked again. --SPUI (T - C) 23:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Which is a good reason to wait and see how the poll turns out. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- The poll relates to article names. We already have guidelines on what is bolded. --SPUI (T - C) 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Which is a good reason to wait and see how the poll turns out. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Johnny or another on your side will get me blocked again. --SPUI (T - C) 23:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's your call. But do not blindly revert, please. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- And for specifically revert warring over it. And I thought you'd misinterpret my edits as an ArbCom violation so I stopped halfway through. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- My block below was for changing Nevada State Route 28 to State Route 28. You are doing the same thing, in the other direction, in California. --SPUI (T - C) 23:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Specifically, you were adding those tags that are POV and against the spirit of the ArbCom ruling. You were enlisting the public on your side of the "edit war". --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yup my edit summaries are somewhat dumb... sorry. I was criticized for it at my RFA. Sometimes I do "fix", "update", sometimes just "us" or "canada" or "ca" or something really retarded. But pretty much Seicer has it right above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
User:SPUI
SPUI (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways.
Minnesota State Highway 33 has 41 edits. 25% are reverts, including page moves. We have editors being chased off from WikiProjects. And we have good editors vandalizing pages. I suspect this page has been disrupted. Editors should not feel they have to say any of this or do any of this. SPUI was involved in this and biting the newcomers as well.
I was involved in the ArbCom case but not in this specific dispute. But we have perfectly good editors being chased away from highways. This is simply not the Wiki way.
Reported by: Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also we have edits like this. It appears that SPUI is following the letter of the law as opposed to the intent of the law. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
User:SPUI did tone down his actions after the closure of the ArbCom case. However, in recent weeks, he has exhibited behavior eerily similar to (and in some cases IMHO worse than) his behavior prior to the case. Over the past two days, as part of WP:NJSCR, I have been creating pages in my user-subpage sandboxes in an effort to elimate redlinks and close the browsing loop in our project. Upon the moving of my pages from user space into article space, I then edited the infoboxes/succession boxes/etc. to include all articles and redirects -- for example this edit which includes routes S5 and 6A in the browse order.
- SPUI disagrees with my browse order and makes an alternative proposal.
- I attempt to defend my proposal, and point out my issues with his proposal.
- My argument "makes no sense", and SPUI starts implementing his plan despite my objection (thus no consensus).
This is identical behavior to what SPUI has done in past disputes -- especially the routebox dispute at WP:CASH -- in which he would pretend to "seek consensus", and then in the face of objection, would implement his original plan anyway.
Also of grave concern is this edit to List of numbered highways in Ohio. This is identical to this edit to List of Washington State Routes in March; unilaterally changing a list of state routes to his preferred naming convention despite no attempt to seek consensus for that naming convention. The edit to the Washington list resulted in a nasty revert war that lasted nearly a month, followed by page protection for a month and a half.
I would greatly appreciate some response from admins or the ArbCom on this issue. -- NORTH 02:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- He did that to Nevada too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is a BLATANT disregard for the Arbcom ruling last month. If this isn't going to be enforced then I'm going to start working by the assumption (rightly so) that Arbcom rulings are meaningless. And I will act accordingly. SPUIs actions are disruptive and are in direct conflict with the arbcom. Anyone can see this with half a brain and one eye. He's been so disruptive he's driven one user mad and another off the project. This is UNACCEPTABLE! JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to add a few comments about SPUI and the whole situation, and his lack of respect for authority or other people in general:
- *Copyright Infringement 2003
- *More Copyright Infringement 2005 - Here is where I discovered SPUI had literally lifted a lot of material and research for Misplaced Pages from my former web-site Ohio Valley Transit.
- *Copyright Infringement (from AARoads)
- *Photo Lifting with prior examples by Douglas Kerr
- *Has gone in and added various cleanup tags to pages without initating a discussion or even mentioning it other than the fact that "he feels like it,"
- *Has requested major page renames, such as what he did on Ohio State Highway 7. As what he stated on User_talk:Youngamerican, he did zero research (other than a "general Google search") to which I refuted with research that I have conducted,
- *Renamed pages or attempted to, preferring his own naming convention despite no attempt being made to discuss it or come to a conclusion on what should be done. Basically, taking matters into his own hands. Seicer (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Those copyright violations on Misplaced Pages were not mine. --SPUI (T - C) 23:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
User:SPUI blocked for 31 hrs for editwarring on Nevada_State_Route_28 in violation of probation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Instantnood, July 29
Enjoined from editing Hepatitis B in China for a period of one year, ending 29 July 2007, as a result of renewed edit wars. Owen× ☎ 20:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please refer to user talk:OwenX. — Instantnood 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Instantnood, July 25
Instantnood (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction including Probation, General Probation, and restriction with respect to discussions on certain naming conventions. The final decision in their case is here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3
Instantnood is reviving old revert wars from months ago, repeatedly doing POV re-organizations of articles, recreating deleted material, and engaging in move wars against community consensus.
- The following diffs show the offending behavior
- Total violation of community consensus. It was decided at AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Current_events_in_Hong_Kong_and_Macau that the page would drop referring to Macau. Instantnood disagreed, and has since move warred it back to the other title with the wiki-lawyering declaration that "Move not within jurisdiction of WP:AFD. A separate move request should be filed following the WP:RM mechanism."
- The page history itself (and a discussion on the talk page show other users trying to work with him but being blocked doing real work because of revert warring.
- recreation of deleted material. The category Instantnood is reverting to was deleted - twice. The category existed in a limbo state because CfD didn't delete it a year or so ago but it did not have a proper purpose co-existing with Companies of the PRC. I noticed it's been empty for a while (two months based on what 'nood reverted to) so put an orphan tag on it. 'nood objected to the orphan delete, then re-created it after deletion, then it was nominated again, and deleted again by a different admin. So instead of recreating the category (which still had no articles), he restored the articles to the redlink category (presumably hoping someone else would click it and hit save?).
- Summation
-
- These are the same edit wars he has been banned for before. Just different articles. As I've claimed before, I think some of the long term ones are on a schedule.
- I was not involved in the move war. I reverted the Newspaper categories. I also reverted the company articles (because he put the articles in the category, but didn't recreate the category a third time). I did not remove these articles from his preferred category in the first instance (but I'm sure I have done some similar companies in the past).
Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 20:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- AfD is not the place to determine title issues. It deals only with whether articles should stay or should be removed. The current RM does facilitate better and much more thorough discussion.
I did not attempt to recreate the companies category. But rather, I was putting on the {{hangon}} tag, following the procedures stated on the template. The previous CfD clear demonstrates there was no consensus, and it's agreed on Misplaced Pages mainland China ≠ People's Republic of China (present effective extent of the People's Republic of China = mainland China + Hong Kong + Macao). There has never been any renomination to CfD. The category was simply depopulated, and was subsequently nominated to speedy deletion by someone who know well about what has been going on, presumably abusing the speedy tag to push forward his point of view.
As for the newspapers categories, I've elaborated my position in details, and I have nothing to add. It was user:SchmuckyTheCat who demonstrated he was no longer interested to discuss, that he insists in his point of view. — Instantnood 18:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- AfD is not the place to determine title issues. It deals only with whether articles should stay or should be removed. The current RM does facilitate better and much more thorough discussion. To quote Ideogram's response in ], Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. Insisting on strict adherence to procedure in the face of obvious consensus is a waste of time. See WP:SNOW. The current results and on-going discussions in the survey underscores this point exactly, as predicted.
- I did not attempt to recreate the companies category. But rather, I was putting on the hangon tag, following the procedures stated on the template. The above diffs provided show no such behavior. We await to see your evidence.
- The previous CfD clear demonstrates there was no consensus, and it's agreed on Misplaced Pages mainland China ≠ People's Republic of China (present effective extent of the People's Republic of China = mainland China + Hong Kong + Macao). There has never been any renomination to CfD. The gist of the issue was never over the definition of Mainland China, but over the use of the term Mainland China on the internatonal arena alongside that of other countries in the world. So how does an "agreement" on its definition signal any advancement in talks, or lend support to the re-creation of those disputed categories from out of the blue?
- The category was simply depopulated, and was subsequently nominated to speedy deletion by someone who know well about what has been going on, presumably abusing the speedy tag to push forward his point of view. Without having to check the edit histories, I would not be too surprised if that category was created and populated by Instantnood, all actions of which were subsequently reverted. So if reverting your edits were considered "pushing a POV", I would like to know how the your original edits were not "pushing a POV"?
- As for the newspapers categories, I've elaborated my position in details, and I have nothing to add. It was user:SchmuckyTheCat who demonstrated he was no longer interested to discuss, that he insists in his point of view. Point blank accusations do not work without supporting evidence, all the more so when up to this point, most of them were actually working against your favour. If you are willing to discuss, and do not insist on your point of view, then you wont see your name appearing on this list, would you?--Huaiwei 21:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- re: hangon tag. From my memory, I put on db-empty, it was deleted, 'Nood responded by recreating and putting on the hangon tag (fair enough, actually, speedy deletes should be reviewable, even post fact of deletion). But didn't remove the hangon tag when he was done (as it states you should). So he was able to put forth an argument against a speedy delete, and it was deleted again. His argument was heard and presumably considered. (and if he wants it reviewed again WP:DRV.)
- What is subterfuge and acting against policies, was then re-populating the category in the articles, but not actually re-creating the category. That is just some sort of lateral move of the lost argument to a new battleground. That is what makes this worth enforcement. SchmuckyTheCat 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- " didn't recreate the category a third time " - I edited the category only once to put on the {{hangon}} tag, and the category was deleted only twice . What " recreate .. a third time "? — Instantnood 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- (response to user:Huaiwei's remarks at 21:09, July 27) " but over the use of the term Mainland China on the internatonal arena alongside that of other countries in the world. " - No one advocates to use the term mainland China alongside with other countries. The term is used to refer to the part of the PRC except Hong Kong and Macao. " Without having to check the edit histories, I would not be too surprised if that category was created and populated by Instantnood " - Please do some homework, and see how many of these entries ( ; ) are categorised to category:companies of mainland China by me. " The above diffs provided show no such behavior. We await to see your evidence. " - The pages are deleted, and therefore only administrators who has access to deleted materials can be able to retrieve the edit history. " Point blank accusations do not work without supporting evidence, all the more so when up to this point, most of them were actually working against your favour. If you are willing to discuss, " - See . " and do not insist on your point of view, then you wont see your name appearing on this list, would you? " - Who keeps putting my user name here on this page, and why only he? — Instantnood 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio
The article is literally loaded with copyvio's, for time constraint, I only will show the evidence for the first three section, and that can be found here: http://www.kimvdlinde.com/wikipedia/Deir_Yassin_Copyright_violation.doc The remaining two sections are done in part, and could be good or bad with regard to the number of copyvio's. What is clear is that the copyvio's are from various websites, and in part from pre Guy Montag (inserted by others), although all new insertions that I found originate from him. -- Kim van der Linde 02:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Evidence of Hagiographer as a Zapatancas sock
and are all reverting Zapatero to the Zapatancas version which Zapatancas cannot do as her is banned. This user is also obsessed with harrassing SqueakBox, only Zapatancas hates SqueakBox and his hatred is enormous. etc including multiple vandalism of Squeakbox's page just like Zapatancas. This edit summary compares toi this both want the world to know the truth about SqueakBox, Zapatancas here here here here here, Hagiographer here SqueakBox 13:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Beckjord
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord states that Beckjord is banned from Misplaced Pages for one year, and is also prohibited from editing Bigfoot and related articles. However, when the case closed. Beckjord clearly stated that he does not intend to abide by the decision , and has continued to edit in violation of his ban.
Since being banned, Beckjord has made dozens of edits from various anonymous IPs in violation of his ban, including, but not limited to, the following:
Bigfoot
- 207.200.116.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log):
- 64.12.116.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log):
- 205.208.227.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log):
Talk:Bigfoot
- 205.208.227.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log):
- 207.200.116.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log):
Jon-Erik Beckjord
- 207.200.116.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log):
- 205.208.227.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log):