Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Terryeo (talk | contribs) at 22:23, 6 August 2006 (→[[User:Terryeo]]: Discussion page, I posted to the article's discussion page.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355
    356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159
    1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478
    479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332
    333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342
    Other links
    Shortcut

    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.

    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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Wikipedia 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:Terryeo

    Terryeo (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction with regard to Scientology-related articles. He is banned from editing those articles, and on probation with regard to disruptive behavior on talk pages, where he remains an active contributor. The final decision in their case is here: [1]. I was one of numerous editors who provided testimony to the ArbCom.

    I have had some positive exchanges with Terryeo recently, so am reluctant to point this out, but this recent bit of talk page disruption is so egregious that I believe he should, at least, receive a reminder from an adminstrator that what he is doing is not acceptible. On Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg (his is the very first post on the page), Terryeo blatantly misrepresents a copyrightholder's release so as promote his contention that Wikipedia is biased against Scientology.

    The image author, Andreas Heldel-Lund, who runs the "Xenu.net" website, writes on his site: "Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia which is NPOV, are free to use images and text on this site that are made by me if proper credits are given."

    Terryeo wrote on Image_talk:Superpowerbldg.jpg: "Isn't that interesting ? Andreas Heldal-Lund apparently owned the photo and so, got to make a statement. He said: Critics of the Church of Scientology (CoS), including Wikipedia .. are free to use images and text on this site (xenu.net site). Isn't that interesting. Andreas Heldal-Lund gives Wikipedia permission to use the photo because Wikipedia is a critic of the Church of Scientology, according to Andreas Heldal-Lund. Terryeo 09:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)"

    I don't think draconian measures are required, but I do think that such hijinks should not be permitted to pass without notice.

    Reported by: [[BTfromLA 20:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

    Oh good. BTfromLA posted to my user page but didn't spell out what he was talking about. Now I see what he is talking about. Yes, I certainly made that posting to that article's discussion page. I idiotmatically reproduced the text under the image from the article, selecting the portions of the text which make my point and leaving out some information between commas, qualifiers, etc. to produce exactly what Heldal-Lund said about Wikipedia. Which is, "Wikipedia is a critic of the Church of scientology" (according to Heldal-Lund). That is exactly what he states there. And I find that to be quite interesting. Which attitude also explains why he has a link on the front page of his personal website to Wikipedia. Quite interesting. Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 22:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I'm referring to the bold text, using the wrong name for the route. --SPUI (T - C) 23:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The title is not "wrong." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So how long do I have to wait before reverting your reverts? --SPUI (T - C) 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's your call. But do not blindly revert, please. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately Johnny or another on your side will get me blocked again. --SPUI (T - C) 23:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is a good reason to wait and see how the poll turns out. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The poll relates to article names. We already have guidelines on what is bolded. --SPUI (T - C) 00:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Both SPUI and Rschen7754 need to stop. SPUI got 31 hours for edit-warring, which was quite nice to SPUI, if I do say so myself. While the infractions are not the same (SPUI edit-warred, while you did site-wide changes), but I find both just as disruptive. You're nitpicking over the issue. Since you can't move the articles, you're changing the terminology in links and within the article. For everyone's sake, stop it. I'm blocking Rschen7754 for 31 hours as per the precedent above, though I think both of you deserved 2-3 day blocks. SPUI, if you revert during Rschen7754's block, I will block you without warning, and it'll certainly be for longer than 31 hours. Rschen7754, if you continue these edits after your block, I will do the same. Ral315 (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SPUI

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

    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)[reply]

    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.

    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 talk 02:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He did that to Nevada too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    Those copyright violations on Wikipedia were not mine. --SPUI (T - C) 23:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's funny. Based on your contributions, you were the one who condoned the lifting of my materials that I had done original research on. Without citations I might add. Had you been a faithful editor, you would have added approperiate references to my site, but it took my venting (which caught the eye of a Wikipedia editor who issued an apology for your actions) to correct the problem. Even worse, you admit that copying other people's research is fine and acceptable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Please refer to user talk:OwenX. — Instantnood 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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 at venus 02:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence of Hagiographer as a Zapatancas sock

    [2][3][4][5] and [6] 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. [7][8] [9] [10] [11] etc including multiple vandalism of Squeakbox's page just like Zapatancas. This edit summary [12] compares toi this [13] 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)[reply]

    User:Beckjord

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord states that Beckjord is banned from Wikipedia 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 [14], 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

    Talk:Bigfoot

    Jon-Erik Beckjord

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=68079322"