This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user 19794758563875 (talk | contribs) at 02:48, 23 July 2006 (→Recent attack: giving own header, now subheader of wrong section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

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:SPUI at Category:Limited-access roads

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.

SPUI just lost the 3rd go 'round on Category:Limited-access roads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Never-the-less, s/he just changed the definition to match the failed CfD. And has reverted contrary to the outcome, as clearly indicated on Category talk:Limited-access roads.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Category:Limited-access roads,
  1. changes within minutes of my most recent edit
  2. revert misguided attempt to confuse the purpose of this category

Edit warring

SPUI insists he is right

Probation

Summation

After disputes that arose at CfD, where I was the previous closer, I became aware of the issue(s). I did my best to resolve the conflict as an independent party, and thus became an involved party.

The relisting was recently closed by another independent party, Kbdank71 (talk · contribs), with exactly the same result.

I request a block of at least two (2) months with no possibility of parole, as I see that blocks of days and weeks have happened in the recent past, but been alleviated by his friends among the administrators.

Reported by: William Allen Simpson 20:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The related Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

• WP:POINT creation. --William Allen Simpson 18:51, 21 July 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.

For the past several weeks, s/he has been edit warring over Ontario provincial highways. S/he lost a CfD on renaming its related category, re-listed, and lost again. Ensuing signs of extreme embitterment.

Today, s/he is at 3 reverts, all with the edit summary including "crap".

1. revert crap - READ THE LAW MORE CAREFULLY
2. revert crap
3. revert incorrect crap again

Likewise, at limited-access roads, every requested fact has been annotated, so that the annotated page is full of them, and yet SPUI persists in edit warring, covering the page with "original research" and "disputed" tags, and "citation needed" on adjectives, and nouns, all of which are well-covered in the references, or on the other articles that are linked. Many of the edits deleted the references that respond to the tags.

1. revert inclusion of crap
2. revert inclusion of incorrect crap
3. fine... I'll leave it in and mark it as the steaming turd that it is
4. more tags

These are all edit warring on highway pages, and involve incivility.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Probation

2.1) Should SPUI, JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry disrupt the editing of any article which concerns highways he or she may be banned by any administrator from that article or related articles. All bans are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Log of blocks and bans.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Parties warned for incivility

7) JohnnyBGood and SPUI are warned to remain civil at all times; in particular, JohnnyBGood is reminded not to refer to good faith edits as vandalism. All participants in this dispute are encouraged to maintain a courteous atmosphere.

Summation

After disputes that arose at CfD, where I was the closer, I became aware of the issue(s). I did my best to resolve the conflict as an independent party, and thus became an involved party.

These pages were fully annotated (by me) with legal and historical references. Apparently, SPUI is some kind of wiki-lawyer, without formal legal experience.

I am not a member of the Canadian bar, but I'm reasonably sure that the usual common law and statutory construction still apply there.

I request a block of at least 1 month, as I see that blocks of days and weeks have happened in the recent past.

Reported by: William Allen Simpson 17:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SPUI for a refutation of his charges. --SPUI (T - C) 17:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Already discussed on WP:ANI. No action under either of SPUI's probations is indicated at present, as long as he remains civil and does not resume edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Has continued edit warring, moving citations into the lead section, instead of the body, part and parcel of the same section edits made 3 a dozen times over the past few days.

--William Allen Simpson 19:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

At a brief glance, it looks to me as if the version he favors is basically the same one favored by freakofnurture. If you think they're both wrong, start a RfC on the topic. Don't war with them. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While WAS warring isn't acceptable he also is not the one on probation here. SPUI shouldn't be getting any further "warnings" or "chances". He's breaking the rules of his probation and as such should be blocked. If it were me or Rschen warring I would expect no less. But we're not we've backed off of these disputes and are respecting and abiding by the Arbcom. Now if SPUI doesn't have to do the same, then what's the point of there being an arbcom? JohnnyBGood 20:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can get an administrator to agree with you, go for it. --Tony Sidaway 20:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming this doesn't mean "spam admins' talk pages until you find one who will block"? --SPUI (T - C) 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While that might be effective I'd rather avoid it. I'm just trying to find out if this arbcom ruling we're both party too means a damn which is why I'll ask one of the admins on the Arbcom itself. Because if admins aren't going to enforce the probation (which you can't argue you did violate earlier) then it obviously doesn't mean squat and the parties aren't really subject to it any longer. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also I bring to note the following... At WT:CASH SPUI has begun changing all articles to use his {{Infobox CA Route}} infobox despite the consensus to use the current one {{routeboxca2}}... and he tagged all articles with {{cleanup-infobox}} to enlist the public in his crusade... does that amount to "disruption"? Probably not, but just thought I'd bring it up. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am unsure if this is an approperiate place to bring this up, but all List_of_numbered_highways_in_Ohio were tagged with {{cleanup-articletitle}} although no formal discussion took place and was based on "personal references." Seicer (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, he's done the same thing to articles in Category:Wisconsin state highways. The Wisconsin DOT does use the "State Trunk Highway XX" format officially, but almost nobody else uses it, and even the DOT often uses "WIS XX" in public documents (see ). Furthermore, if it is his opinion that these articles should be renamed to use the "State Trunk Highway" designation, I see no reason why he would modify all links to other Wisconsin highways in the articles to the Highway XX (Wisconsin) format, see and for examples. BryanG 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Also - I am finding a lot of what are IMHO - pointless redirects such as to cities (proper link is City, State being redirected to by links such as City (ST) The same thing is taking place with Interstate and U.S. Highways. Some examples are as follows Tomah (WI), Interstate 94 (Wisconsin), I-94 (WI) and US 45 (WI) Is this appropriate? We have standards set as stated in Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject U.S. Roads (For example) we need to follow them. Just an informational piece.--master_son 00:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox and User:Zapatancas

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas

SqueakBox is placed on personal attack parole with a decision that explicitly states that "This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith". He has posted this message in which he claims falsely that I've "chased away 2 editors" and that I've "decided to single mindedly impose views", when I've really exposed my opinion in the talk page in an open approach to other editors. Hagiographer 08:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This comment is the third or fourth time Zapatancas (talk · contribs) and his sock have brought me to this page, any enforcement should be against him. Here he calls me an outright liar in clear breach of his no attack parole, said edit also demonstrates how unlikely it is that 2 users would have such a murderous hatred towards me who have been an entirely innocent target of the pathological anger of this person for 14 months now as well as demonstrating that the bad faith is indeed his part. We've been through this whole tedious process of Zapatancas and his army of socks for too long now, SqueakBox 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Guy Montag

Guy Montag (talk · contribs) is under Misplaced Pages:Probation for one year, effective per 9 October 2005. The final decision in their case is here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber#Guy_Montag_placed_on_probation.

Unilateral renaming of article and massive rewriting such as to reflect a more positive view for Israel. Vote on moving back showed clear lack of consensus for the move (12-15 (44.4%) with 3 rename to a different name, effectively 50-50 split on keeping it at the new name), including vote staking opposed, opposed, opposed, opposed, opposed, all voted against moving back.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Deir Yassin Massacre, move rewrite

Guy Montag moved the article from his commonly known name to Battle of Deir Yassin, and rewrote it substantially. This rewrite is contested by several knowledgable editors, see for example Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Total_Rewrite, Talk:Battle_of_Deir_Yassin#Battle??? for discussion and poll for more opinions. This shows a clearly inappropriate editing and renaming of the article, which is not based on consensus, and therefore he can be bannned from any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which he disrupts by inappropriate editing.

Summation

Guy Montag should be banned from the Deir Yassin Massacre article, and the unilateral move should be undone due to lack of consensus for that move and votestaking. As I started the vote to get an idea if the unilateral move was supporeted by the community, I feel another admin should review the case and close the vote. Reported by: -- Kim van der Linde 02:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have notified him of this report . -- Kim van der Linde 02:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved on the move and re-write; that's a content issue of which I really can't judge. However, his behavior in rallying votes on the issue, and the "broken record barnstar" he posted on the Talk page were clearly disruptive. I'm banning him from Battle of Deir Yassin/Deir Yassin Massacre. I can't ban him from posting on the talk page, but I encourage him to remain civil, and warn that continued incivility will lead to a block. As with all my blocks, if any admins disagree, they can repeal this ban. Ral315 (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this imply that the probation is reset? -- Kim van der Linde 17:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The move was clearly in line with WP:NPOV. The barnstar was a bit of humor which may have caused offense but was made in response to a highly distasteful comment that "Zionists always cover up their crimes" or some such. This ban was, in my opinion, improper and I request that it be repealed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully, I have nothing to do with this, but for the record was the impetus for . I think the former is more heinous than the latter, but that's just my opinion. -- Avi 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If anything, Guy's response was far more measured and good-humored than the comment deserved. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Per Briangotts, the ban is rescinded. Ral315 (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's outrageous that an editor who has written this article to its current exceptionally well-researched and NPOV condition can be banned from it. Pecher 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag has been banned from Deir Yassin massacre for the period of one year for inserting copyvio information (see Talk:Deir Yassin massacre) and tendentious use of the talk page. I have notified him here. Diffs where he inserts the copyvio information here. As I mentioned on his talk page, he doesn't necessarily need to be banned the whole year (in my opinion) but he should certainly take a break. - FrancisTyers · 23:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Unbanned as apparently I am involved. - FrancisTyers · 12:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent attack

SqueakBox has made this edit posting the insult "vandal troll" against me. Hagiographer 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You just vandalised my user page so I was ttelling the truth. Stop harrassing me, Zapatancas. I haver a right to have you not vandalsiing my userr pager and spewing your hatered of me. just stop trying top create a reaction! SqueakBox 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here Hagiographer not only vandalises my user page just like Zapatancas but leaves edit comments identical to those of Zapatancas. SqueakBox 13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Suspecion of sock puppettry

I believe that User:Skanking is a sock puppet of SqueakBox. It was created in April, when the case against SqueakBox had already been posted. His user page is very similar to that of SqueakBox and so are his edits, related to subject like Honduras or La Ceiba or Zapatero . He probably created it to avoid the one month ban imposed on him by the arbitration committee. The message below (Ras Bily is the sign of User:Skanking), posted in the arbitration enforcemente although it does not belong here as I'm not affected by any arbcom decision adds aditional evidence. Why is he so coordinated with SqueakBox? Hagiographer 16:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hagiographer has vandalised SqueakBox thrice and keeps altering another users comments on the Zapatero page. Can someone get him to stop? Ras Billy I 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolute paranoia by this strange user. I am not SqueakBox, he got on my watchlist today because he left me a message ages back and I spotted that Hagiographer was persistently vandalising Squeak's user page. because I revetrted him he calls me Squeak's sockpuppet. How daft. And his insinuation that only Squeak would want to edit Honduras articles is frankly insulting to a Central American like myself, as if only gringos would want to or have the right to edit pages on Central America and Honduras, a country I know well being from Belize and working on the boats when I were a young man, thus knowing Ceiba where I had a girlfriend and many sweet memories. This guy Hagiographer really seems to have a problem, makes me for one not want to have anything to do with wikipedia again. Its only a bit of fun but this guy seems seriously enloquecido and I dont want to be dealing with a peligroso, siendo ya viejo. If Hagiographer doesnt want his behaviour commented on he should not have edited here in the first place. Any fool can he see he is a zapatancas sockpuppet only created to harrass squeakbox. yuck! Ras Billy I 18:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Fuinally I would add that were I the sockpuppet of squeakbox I would not have revealed myself to repair squeak's page, he could have done that himself. It would make no sense if I were his sockpuppet to reveal myself. But it seems that logic isnt Zapatancas strongpoint, suele ser con los hablantes de ese idioma. Ras Billy I 18:32, 13 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):