Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas

Case Opened on 16:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 17:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

 * 1) (former Zapatancas account)
 * 2) (blocked sockpuppet, Zapatancas according to SqueakBox, SqueakBox according to SquealingPig and Zapatancas though attacked SqueakBox and defended Zapatancas)
 * 3) (blocked sockpuppet of squealingPig)
 * 1) (blocked sockpuppet of squealingPig)

Statement by Zapatancas
I, User:Zapatancas, first posted this request on April 3, (here) and SqueakBox deleted it some hours later (here).

User SqueakBox has harassed me since May 2005. His harassment has consisted in: I have no much time to spend on the Wikipedia so I have concentrated 98% of my efforts on the articles about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (that is, that article and others related to it such as Zapatero's early years (1960-2000), Zapatero's years as an opposition leader, Zapatero and the Local and Regional Elections of 2003, Zapatero and the 2004 General Election, Zapatero's foreign policy and Zapatero's domestic policy). That has allowed SqueakBox to disguise his aggressive behavior towards me like a "normal" dispute between users in relation to a specific article. That is not the case. The case is that this problem has nothing to do with content. A look at Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and at the archived talk shows immediately that SqueakBox’s interest in the articles content is minimum. He rarely refers to the information present in the articles. He reserves the talk page mostly for general statements such as “this article is not neutral”, “this article is very bad”, “this article is a disgrace”, “this article is a piece of cr**p”, “this article needs to be cleaned up”, “the English of the article is very bad”, “Zapatancas vandalized my user page” or “there is a troll here,” referring to me, of course. Furthermore, he has never contributed anything new to the article and has rarely improved its format or its wording, as far as I remember. That this conflict has nothing to do with content is proved by SqueakBox’s recent statement in the mediation process by which he claimed that there were not pending issues (here), but he has insulted me from then (example).
 * Personal attacks and insults against me (example).
 * Throwing false accusations that I had created sockpuppets to vandalize his user page or about my behavior towards other users or towards him. An example can be found here.
 * Vandalizing my user page inserting false accusations (here).
 * Destroying my efforts and making it almost impossible for me to work on the Wikipedia and in deteriorating the quality of articles on which I have worked. (For example, here he has mixed the spelling of the article. It was demonstrated in an RfC that, in the present circumstances, the article had to use American spelling (an explanation given on the time can be found here). SqueakBox accepted the decision here). The article has used American English consistently for year.

To defend himself, SqueakBox will claim that I have vandalized his user page. It is completely false and he has no evidence. I have never been blocked. He will claim that I have said he suffers a mental disease. I have said I believe he suffers from a mental disorder because I think his behavior is only explained with that. I have never intended to offend him, only to explain the unfair abuse I have suffered.


 * Attempts to solve the problem through direct dialog have been constant since May, as can be seen in Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Archive 3, Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Archive 2 and Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero/Archive 1, and the personal pages of SqueakBox and Zapatancas.
 * An RfC was started in October 2005 (here), to decide the spelling of the article José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. The discussions can be found  here.
 * Administrator Katefan0 protected the article in November (here), and tried to start a mediated process to solve the conflict as can be found here and here; but SqueakBox disappeared after having taken part in an edit war until that day (as can be seen in this Katefan0’s comment).
 * A mediation process was tried (Requests for mediation/José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero), recently with no result. (as Zapatancas refused to give it a go)
 * SqueakBox has claimed three times that he wants to forget old problems and start again (here, here in Spanish and here). He has always ended up repeating his attacks against me until now. Zapatancas 16:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SqueakBox
Vandalism on May 26, SqueakBox 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Given User:Zapatancas record of vandalising my talk page here and here and my user page here and here and his false claims opf vandalism against perfectly reasonable edits and given his use of 2 sockpuppets, SquealingPig and SquealingPig AttacksAgain to ahrrass me and make death threats I assumed it was part of the same treatment, ie not a serious request, but I now welcome the chance to have Zapatancas' abundance of attacks on me analysed by the arbcom, SqueakBox 18:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This concerns the behaviour of, who is still amking absurd anf false accusations of vandalism, who vandalised my user page here and here, and my talk page here and here and his or her sockpuppets and. S/he has accused me of being SquealingPig, an idea that began here and here. His or her false characterisation of me as having a mental problem in his or her statement is a clear sign of his or continuous hostility towards me as are the accussations that SquealingPig first made that I am SquealingPig, ie the harrassment of SquealingPig continues in the current behaviour of Zapatancas. S/he made a death threat and repeatedly vandalised my user page and talk page using all 3 accounts, Zapatancas, SquealingPig and SquealingPigAttacksAgain. S/he has accused me of having affairs and of having a psychiatric problem and here etc. S/he refuses to debate the issues on Zapatero. I went to mediation because s/he demanded that I sort mediation (s/he didn't actualy set upm the mediation him or her self, s/he said it wass my responsibility and if I didn't sort s/he would take me staright to arbitrationto. S/he then unilaterally rejected mediation when s/he discovered it wasn't another forum where s/he could humiliate me, ie that I wouldn't be forced to "apologise" to him or her, having earlier stated his or her reluctance to rake over the past S/he is now claiming *this edit is blatant vandalism and was made only to destroy his or her works.

He was then blocked and has now been permanently blocked. If he is not SquealingPig please can he explain these edits here and *here straight after vandalising my talk page here and here. It simply is not credible that this person was not Zapatancas, who already had 2 accounts (Zapatero and Zapatancas, though Zapatancas is not a sock of Zapatero), the language used is the same and he has kept up the virulenmt hatred towards me ever since. It is not credible given the timing and *this that Zapatancas is not SquealingPig. Look at the edit comments. Zapatancas says * "When you are a person who uses Wikipedia to attack other people and hurt their feelings, what is your right to include an absurb medal?", Squealing Pig * says "Please tell me: why are you accessing the personal page of this bad person?" Here s/he accuses me of regularly destroying articles while also claiming I have no interest in the subject. The fact that I have also extensively edited Javier Solana, José María Aznar, Rodrigo Rato and a vast number of Latin American politicians puts the lie to this claim, something SquealinPig and thus Zapatancas realised here. Here is one of his worst personal attacks. Here he accuses me of harrassing him, yet in the edit the only change is legalise to legalize, how is changing legalize to legalise an act of harrassment.
 * Here Zapatancas reverts SqueakBox for the first time at Zapatero's years as an opposition leader as of 09:35, May 5, 2005.
 * Here as of 10:23, May 5, 2005 Zapatancas reverts a huge amount of SqueakBox's work at José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero.
 * Here as of 10:47, May 5, 2005 SquealingPig comes along making a simple statement that betrays his non native English speaking origins.
 * Here as of 10:54, May 5, 2005 squeakBox responds in a civil manner *Here as of 11:00, May 5, 2005 SqueakBox reverts Zapatero's years as an opposition leader back to being a redirect. Instead of debating or reverting.
 * Here as of 12:02, May 5, 2005 SquealingPig vandalises SqueakBox's user page, and then proceeds to do so another 7 times
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * and here.

Zapatancas is now he vandalsied my user page to enforce WP:NPA after just accusing me of using devious arguments. How exactly does one enforce WP:NPA by vandalisng user pages? He vandalised it five days after SP vandalised it, as he did my talk page. Here s/he vandalises my user page]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jos%C3%A9_Luis_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Zapatero/Archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=13509534 Here s/he attacks me on the Za[patero talk page, asking if I need psychiatric assistance and suggesting I only edit wikipedia to destroy it. Here and here he makes the first accusations that SB is SP but that cannot be true as if I had created SP it would have been to attack Zapatancas not myself. This fits in with his or her trying to label me as mad, ie if s/he can convince people I am mad s/he can convince that it was he and not him or her who attacked me. And yet I was able to edit freely less than 2 hours afterv SPAA was blocked and also [edit immediately after SP was blocked whereas ZapatancasThis strategy continues to the present day. This, though, is a typical Zapatancas accusation that I spend all day on wikipedia (see his or her statement above) from SquealingPigAttacksAgain. Herer he justifies his vandalsim of my page while seeding the SquealingPig l;ie that I am SquealingPug and attack myself and defend zapatancas (which doesn't fit in with his statement that I am harrassing him but is instead his harrassing of me by acusing his victim of committing his acts. Here, while repairing Zapatancas vandalism of my user page here [[User:Boothy443]] describes Zapatancas as being engaged in sockpuppetry. To summarise, on May 5th my user page gets vandalised by SqwuelaingPig whose first edit was to the Zapatero talk page very angry at me here, then on May 10 Zapatancas vandalises both my user page and my user talk page. Now he accuses me of being insane and of having concocted the whole episode, a theme begun by SquealingPig here and then unashamedly taken up by Zapatancas.  Here s/he accuses my wife of two-timing me, ie dragging a non-user and their repuatation inoto a public forum solely in order to harrass me. S/he has refused to engage in discussion on the Zapatero talk page. This taking me to arbcom is clearly part of his or her attempt to erase me from wikipedia, as promised. My offence seems to be not allowing Zapatancas to forget his sockpuppet outbursts, or perhaps it was editing in a way s/he didn't like in the first place that caused this hatred of me. Nor am I the only one who thinks this of Zapatancas. See Boothy443's similar comments, and ClockworkSoul's comments. Finally he not only attacks me, Here he accuses DreamGuy of being a Nazi,
 * Here s/he accuses me of being a well known troll, patently false as not one person knows of me as such either than, apparently, him or her. *Here he falsely accuses me of harrassment for my edit. *Here, *here *here and *here he falsely accuses me of attacking the article. More personal attacks *here *here *here *and here he does the same. *Here he falsely accuses me of being a vandal when I have never vandalised a page here in *more than 17,000 edits. *Here s/he claims his or hers is the "real" version. Perharps s/he could explain to the arbcom what s/he means by this. *Here *and here s/he does the same. More clearly false accusations of vandalism *here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * Here in the lower paragraph he makes a vicious attack. *Here s/he uses his user page purely to harass me by launching an uncalled for personal attack and *here again. Here s/he shows an obsessiopn with me which has characterised Zapatancas contributions for more than a year now, optherwise why mention my name in the edit. Here s/he accuses me of being SquealingPig, like yeah I would just go and vandalise my user page rather than his user page if I were angry at him and deviant enough to dop such an immoral action, that is not a reasonable assumption, especially given that Zapatancas him or her self has also vandalised my user page, talking in exactly the same style as SquealingPig and SquealingPigAttacksAgain.

Zapatancas idea of mediation can be found here)

Zapatancas rejected mediation unilaterally without giving it a go.

I was chased away by Zapatancas' continued harrassment.

By attacks he means reminding him of his sockpuppet accounts and his behaviour while using them, that is not a persobnnal attack,   SqueakBox 04:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept to consider personal attacks ➥the Epopt 14:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Dmcdevit·t 17:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Charles Matthews 22:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. 09:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdforrester (talk • contribs).

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

No personal attacks
1) Personal attacks by editors on other editors are prohibited. See No personal attacks.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring is harmful
2) Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Harassment
3) Engaging in a pattern of disruptive and unproductive talk page comments, reverts, misuse of userspace for attacks, and other such abuses for the intent of harassing other editors is unacceptable.


 * ''Passed x to x at 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Optional styles
4) When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox makes personal attacks
1) SqueakBox has engaged in many severe personal attacks against other editors, particularly against Zapatancas.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Zapatancas makes personal attacks
2) Zapatancas has made frequent personal attacks, particularly against SqueakBox.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox and Zapatancas edit war
3) SqueakBox and Zapatancas have engaged in a sustained edit war for many months on many articles related to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. See article histories of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Zapatero's foreign policy Zapatero's years as an opposition leader , etc. They have also engaged in petty edit warring over style and spelling (eg  and ).


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Campaigns of mutual harassment
4) SqueakBox's and Zapatanca's consistently uncivil behavior towards each other and assumptions of bad faith for a sustained period of time, as well as personally-motivated edit warring and even userpage vandalism (Zapatancas vandalizes SqueakBox  ; SqueakBox vandalizes Zapatancas  ) demonstrate campaigns of mutual harassment.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

SqueakBox and Zapatancas banned for one month
1) For personal attacks, edit warring, and harassment, SqueakBox and Zapatancas are each banned from editing Wikipedia for one month.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox and Zapatancas banned from José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero-related articles
2) SqueakBox and Zapatancas are banned from editing José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and related articles for one year. If either violates this ban, then he may be temporarily banned for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox and Zapatancas placed on personal attack parole
3) SqueakBox and Zapatancas are placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If either makes any edit which is judged by an administrator to be a personal attack, then he may be temporarily banned for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year. This remedy is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement by block
1) Bans under this decision may be enforced by brief blocks, for up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas.


 * Passed 5 to 0 at 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


 * I've carried out remedy one and blocked both for one month. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 19:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Squeakbox (blocked above) was an alternative account used by SqueakBox.
 * 02:31, 6 June 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked "SqueakBox (contribs)" with an expiry time of 29 days (Remainder of one month block (SqueakBox and Zapatancas arbitration))
 * As a matter of enforcement, it was agreed to adopt a commonsense approach to identifying parties to this arbitration case .  It can be applied to Hagiographer and Pura Paja, and anyone else who engages in warring, tendentious edits, personal attacks and harassment related to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and related articles. --Tony Sidaway 10:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * SqueakBox:
 * 13:32, 19 July 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked SqueakBox with an expiry time of 1 week (Personal attack parole, Hagiographer, "dangerous criminal" on User page)
 * 19:43, August 1, 2006; Kilo-Lima blocked SqueakBox with an expiry time of 5 days (After reading your arbitration case more closely, it states that if any user, either you or Zapatancas, edit José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero-related articles, either using their own account or a sockpuppet, users may be blocked. You have violated this agreement by using User:Skanking as a sockpuppet account. Repeat violations may result in another block, if not longer.)
 * 13:34, 21 August 2006 Tony Sidaway (Talk | contribs | block) blocked SqueakBox with an expiry time of 1 week (Personal attack parole )
 * This was extended by one month on 22 August, 2006, to reset SqueakBox's arbitration ban, which he had evaded using the sock . --Tony Sidaway 10:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * blocked SqueakBox for 1 week for "violation of personal attack parole"   Buck  ets  ofg  23:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg determined through Checkuser that Hagiographer is a sockpuppet of. Therefore, the enforcement remedies applied to Hagiographer above are extended to MJGR. Thatcher131 13:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hagiographer and MJGR