Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.
Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
I posted this on my user page after SqueakBox vandalized it. I reported the harassment I was suffering at the time in the Administrators' noticeboard. The aim of that message on my user page was to explain the problem from my point of view. I have found that most users believe that the conflict between SqueakBox and me is a typical discussion about content and not a persistent pattern of harassment as his behavior is so erratic, illogical and cruel that it is almost impossible to believe if you do not suffer it. Because of that, I have exposed what I think is the only explanation of his attitude without wishing to offend anybody, including SqueakBox.
I don't know who was really User:SquealingPigAttacksAgain. It is a fact that SqueakBox has used him to justify his harassment. SquealingPigAttacksAgain appeared after SqueakBox's failure to change the spelling of Zapatero in the RfC of November 2005. After SquealingPigAttacksAgain's attack on November 16, 2005, SqueakBox started a campaign of vandalism against that article after posting this message, answering all my protests by accusing me of being User:SquealingPigAttacksAgain (example). On November 21, 2005, SqueakBox posted this strange message by which he rejected my "imputations" that he had used a UK IP address to launch the attack of User:SquealingPigAttacksAgain. Nobody had mentioned that possibility so, taking into account the typically erratic SqueakBox's behavior, I suspect he had betrayed himself. It is also worth noting that SquealingPigAttacksAgain stopped his attacks just after being warned by JIP (here). Curiously enough, SqueakBox rejected the possibility of asking User:David Gerard to check the IP history of SquealingPig here. Zapatancas 14:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
SqueakBox claims I have insulted User:DreamGuy (!?). Here can be found an interesting example of how SqueakBox has behaved with User:DreamGuy in his typical abusive approach. Zapatancas 14:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This is further evidence thatZapatancas is actively harrassing me by vandalising my user page. This is the only edit he has made recemtly. He appears to have no interest in wikipedia and only uses it to harrass me, as indeed this arbcom case is clearly nothing more than harrassment of me by Zapatancas. I nhjopte that no-one does anything to censure him which is blatant encouragement of someone obsessed with removing me from wikipedia. I urge the arbcom not to actively support him in the way it has done up till now. I am reasllyu disgusted at all this and the barbaric treatemnt the arbcom are subjecting me to, SqueakBox 16:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
See Zapatancas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) statement, primary evidence of his aggressice behaviour is to be found there, accusing me of vandalism for making noramal edits is always a behaviour of the worst sort of POV warrior, and when this is combined with his own record of vandalising my user sspace 4 times and unleashing 2 of the most vicious sockpuppets known to wijkipedia against me. My sin, and my only sin, was to correct his work. Everything else must be seen within his campaign to target and harrass me if I dare to edit the article and to edit war revert every edit I make to the article. He makes false assertions such as that I have not contributed to the article which re-inforce the image of a wikipedia troll detrmined by hook or by crook to stop me editing this article so that he can feely insert his POV and as a channel for his hatred. This person has threatened to have me erased from wikipedia if I continue to edit. S/he hopes top engage tyour support. I would also say I have good relations with 100's of other editors, Zapatancas only has a relationship to me and it is based entirely on hatred and vicious persoanl attacks incl;uding childish accusations of vandalism towards a user who has not vandalised a single article in over 17,000 edits. I urge Zapatancas to be on attack probation. This where he reverts several edits of mine including his bad translation of the Es term Profesor as Professor when it is in fact teacher. I believe this case and his evidence is no more than a systematic attempt to ensure I do not edit the Zapatero article, and this I object to in the strongest terms. I do also suggest that someone who sets vicious sockpuppets to defend themselves and then accuses his victim of being responsible for those sockpuppets is clearly trolling, and IMO this attempt to bring me before arbcom is nothing more than his or systematic attempt to get rid of me, SqueakBox 14:36, 17 April 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 Zapatancas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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 SquealingPig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and SquealingPigAttacksAgain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 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 *[4] "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 *[5] 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.
Zapatancas is now [6] 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]. 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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jos%C3%A9_Luis_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Zapatero/Archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=13549874 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 [7] 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,
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)
Zapatancas continues to make his false vandalism claims [8] [9] even at this late stage. Zapatancas in his statement claims IU attacked his patriotism as a Spaniard. Yet I only know he is from Spain when he revealed this to me as SquealingPig [10]. He also claoims I have no interest in Spanish politicians. He is lying as proven here, which is also the only case of Zapatancas attacking and vandalising the main space. His claim that I makde a legal threat against him is also false. I pointed out that he had actually committed criminal acts (eg the death threat) which is a million miles away from saying making a legal threat. Were my partner to sue him here in Honduras for his libel that would have nothing to do with me as I am not responsible for her actions but givenm Zapatancas OTT attacks towards a Honduran woman he has never met and given that those attacks would certainly contravene Honduran law means that he has to take responsibility fo his actions, and were someone else to take legal action that, as I say, would have nothing to do with me. I have no intention and have never had any intention of taking or threatening any legal action against zapatancas but the bar on wikipedia legal threats is not an excuse to pretend that criminal acts such as death threats are not criminal acts and I can of course point out that his death threats to me were illegal without that being a legal threat, SqueakBox 15:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Zapatancas evidence contains falsehood.
Here] SqueakBox rudely requests User:Howcheng to unprotect some articles he had vandalized. Here is User:Howcheng's protest.
Yet I was not vandalsiing any articles and for him to claim I was is part of his systematic harrassment given I have never vandalised any articles. Given this I am not going to attempt to defend myself from charges of vandalism that Zapatancas is unable to prove and that should be taken as a personal attack on me by him, SqueakBox 00:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Zapatancas is now claiming I insulted DreamGuy, false again, and a case Slim Virgin described as one of the worst she has seen. Curious that Zapatancas justifies his behaviouir bas3ed on his interpretations of my behaviour rather than on wikipedia policy. IMO he is muck raking over my 17,500 edits and would be better off actuaqlly contributing a bit more to the encyclopedia himself instead of merely using wikipedia to pursue his personal grudge, SqueakBox 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Zapatancas claims I am trolling when I try to rid the articles of inaccuracies. I pointed out that Zapatero was never a Professor, unquestionably true. He responds like this and reverts. Here he half admits I am right. There is no question I am right, Priofesor is teacher in Spanish and Zapatancas amde a simple mistake but has turn the whole episode into an attack on me while re-inserting what is obviously untrue information into the main space article about a living person, SqueakBox 15:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This evidence stems from my nomination of several images uploaded by Squeakbox for Ifd on the basis that they were unencyclopedic. I did this in the mistaken belief that 'unencyclopedic' applied to images on userpages, and that none of the images were used in articles. However, rather than simply explain this to me, Squeakbox engaged in the conduct detailed below.
Squeakbox made the following personal attacks against me:
In furtherance of his personal attacks detailed above, Squeakbox misrepresented my actions on the Administrators' noticeboard
Forgot to sign this. Cynical 22:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)