This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Werdnabot(talk | contribs) at 09:26, 9 October 2006(Automated archival of 2 sections to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 09:26, 9 October 2006 by Werdnabot(talk | contribs)(Automated archival of 2 sections to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive2)
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.
To request specific assistance from an administrator, see Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention. To request assistance from a specific administrator, see [[User talk:Whomever]].
If you are blocked, please contact the blocking admin via email (navigate to their userpage and click email this user).
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 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 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 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.
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 Wikipedia'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 2.
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. --NuclearUmpf17:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 [1][2] 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 [3] 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. --NuclearUmpf17:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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·t20:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 [4] 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 [5] I am now asking an admin or Arbcom member to allow me to have a hidden username that only Arbcom knows of.
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. Thatcher13103:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.) Thatcher13103:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. --NuclearUmpf10:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(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. Thatcher13111:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Thatcher13123:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Ellis02:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
