This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thatcher (talk | contribs) at 12:49, 23 January 2007 (→[]: I'll look into it). 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 as 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 enforceable. 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.
• Sign and date your report with Misplaced Pages's special signature format (~~~~). The archival bot uses the time stamp to determine when to archive reports.

Be advised to:

• Notify the user at his or her user talk page.

Archives

Sections are automatically archived when the oldest time stamp in the section is 7 days old. The current archive is Archive 4.

• Archive 1 (May 2006 to August 2006)
• Archive 2 (August 2006 to November 2006)
• Archive 3 (Nov 2006 to Dec 2006)

Edit this section for new requests

User:195.82.106.244

I have a strong suspicion this banned editor is making a comeback to the Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_Organisation article. I have posted an analysis of the situation here . Certainly there is now a regular, sustained pattern of disruptive editing taking place to the article by single-edit IPs.

The article and user suspected of this activity is currently banned and the article under probation .

A request for semi-protection of the page has been recently rejected however the IP attacks are more frequent now.

Regards Bksimonb 09:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• 222.5.192.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Some people (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 220.147.161.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 58.70.65.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 221.188.248.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 219.111.123.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'll investigate later. List other accounts here using the {{userlinks|name or number}} template, please. Thatcher131 12:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of personal attack parole extended to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith. The final decision in their case is here.

This editor has begun a campaign against editors attempting to improve the article Brown people. In numerous places on the article talk page, the editor mischaracterizes the article and contributions of other editors (including an administrator) as "racist", "OR", "POV", "trolling", etc. with no evidence provided and no discussion of improvement other than to destroy the article.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

• Talk:Brown people,

Claims User:Uncle G and I are persuing OR with no evidence.

• Talk:Brown people,

Tells User:Uncle G: "what you think we'll take your word on that"

• Talk:Brown people,

Claims that American editors are attempting to force racist views upon the world through Misplaced Pages

• Brown people,

Edit summary says (rm blanking of ref without expalantion merely to fit your rascists conceptiosns)

Summation

This is only a sample of the general incivility and veiled personal insults towards other editors of the article by this user. This also includes bad faith assumptions on the article's recent AfD page where I was called a troll, ignorant, and arrogant. I have been a participant in the AfD, article, and talk page, but have decided not to improve this article for now in light of the abuse I have been taking there.

Addendum:

I notified the user of my report on his talk page and it was deleted with an edit summary of "rm troll". ju66l3r 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reported by: ju66l3r 22:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what this is doing here as my arbcom is related to Zapatero, nor why this user has chosen to harrass me. What he fails to point out tis that a number of editoprs feel the same way as me and are unhapy at Ju's aggressive approach, of which this is clearly a part. He claims that because I criticise the article I am criticising him wherreas the only critixcisms of him have concernecd his personal behavious. He says here he is reporting me becasue he has lost his temper and then claims he is making a better wikipedia and I am not. He also has a

• Admin comment. These are indeed personal attacks: in the edit summary in the final diff quoted above Squeakbox calls fellow editors racist. I will deliberate and impose a block. Bucketsofg 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your personal attack parole applies throughout Misplaced Pages. Thatcher131 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well what do you suggest then? I was not attacking users I was attacking the article and maybe Americans in general but clearly not editors either in general or specifically, I also understood that case was entirely involving Zapatero, SqueakBox 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for one week. I've reported it at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/SqueakBox_and_Zapatancas#SqueakBox_and_Zapatancas_placed_on_personal_attack_parole. Bucketsofg 23:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Arthur Ellis yet again

Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs) is banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing Warren Kinsella and is limited to a single acount. The final decision in their case is here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Arthur_Ellis.

He is breaking both of these with an obvious sock-puppet FredFinch (talk · contribs)

• Warren Kinsella, diff here

The account is five days old (to get around the semi-protection that this article is now under), knows the details of my history with Ellis, and seems interested primarily in Warren Kinsella.

Summation

Clearly a sock. No need for a check-user in this case, I think. I'd block him but am in a conflict-of-interest.

Reported by: Bucketsofg 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. *plonk* Thatcher131 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:rootology

Currently banned indef -> Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Has returned as BobDjurdjevick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), soley to harass. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

BobD has been blocked by N. H. Nick. Thatcher131 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Arthur Ellis

Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs) who is under an ArbComm sanction banning him from one month (reset several times), seems to be sockpuppeting at Rachel Marsdendiff and Sid Abel diff as User:LotusLander2006. If this is confirmed then a community ban should be considered for persistently evading previous editing bans. Lanthrop 16:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. User:LotusLander2006 may or may not be Ellis, but User:Buffalo Bob Rae and User:209.217.96.177 need to be looked at, too. A checkuser is probably needed here, which I've now filed. Bucketsofg 16:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed per Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis and analysis of contributions. Blocked, ban reset. Thatcher131 17:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Lightbringer

The banned user Lightbringer seems to have used another address, 24.68.229.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), to evade the block. - Mike Rosoft 11:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Also acount Gifts of knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). - Mike Rosoft 12:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• And Jaques Lafraische (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Martin.ebon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). - Mike Rosoft 12:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. ArbComm case is here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Lightbringer#Lightbringer_banned. See also Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Lightbringer. Bucketsofg 17:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

see also Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lightbringer. I am not familiar with Lightbringer, but if others are convinced, I will reset the ban. The accounts listed are already blocked. Thatcher131 12:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administration