Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:17, 4 December 2009

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337

expected standards of behavior?

Radeksz

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Radeksz

User requesting enforcement: Matthead Discuß 02:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Radeksz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#List of editors placed on notice, was notified on 6 July 2009

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: # "Bullshit ... hell ... engaging in a form of outting."

"stop fucking lying" (removes "fucking" with the summary "temper fix")
"You people are insane. Seriously."

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): "Not applicable."

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): "Temper fix" block to stop him from spreading more foul language and accusations. How much leeway does this editor get while others have been blocked for lesser incivility?

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Radek, who was placed under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#List_of_editors_placed_under_editing_restriction, has created the article Schieder commission (which relates to Eastern Europe) and listed it for DYK, with a hook that includes "Nazi" not only once, but twice. Radek apparently then made a mistake while copying content from an email to the Schieder commission article. The diffs have since been deleted by an Oversight, and the issue is discussed at the EEML Arbcom case as "Radeksz is proxying for banned User:Molobo".

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [1]

Discussion concerning Radeksz

Statement by Radeksz

Yup I lost my temper due to continued harassment and a very stressful situation which had just occured. I redacted the post. See also here and here. This is just forum shopping.radek (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, the article submitted for DYK includes the word "Nazi" because it's about ... Nazis.radek (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to go on a self imposed "cool down" as soon as people stop starting threads about me and stalking my edits.radek (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Radeksz

Result concerning Radeksz

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I see no need for any action here, beyond reminding all participants to remain cool when editing, and to assume good faith. Prodego ^talk 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the case clerk, I agree with Prodego's analysis of the situation. KnightLago (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defer to clerk's discretion, but for future reference, I will for one will look unkindly on any attempt to use EEML or any other incomplete case's turns to action an AE thread at all, or misuse the case when its complete. We are not here to re litigate arbitration cases, overturn them, or extend them.

In fact, we're not here to litigate at all, but I think that one is beyond this forum's hopes.---Tznkai (talk)

nableezy

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning nableezy

User requesting enforcement: Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive49#Nableezy

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: Edits by topic banned users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Cook has caused some confusion. A request for clarification was made by another editor here regarding the Judea and Samaria case but Nableezy was involved and it deals with a subject that is also Israel-Palestine related. Nableezy is not prohibited from editing talk pages as of November 29. The AfD has sett off a series of reverts and it looks like he has immediately continued the behavior that got him banned.

[2] Nov 28: Restored material that was removed since it was added by editors who were under a potentially relevant topic ban. Potential violation of previous sanctions.
[3] Nov 29: reverted a revert to the previous restoration
[4] Dec 3: Changed gears and removed content from the page. (It was from a banned user)
[5] Dec 3 reverted (restored) material removed on Nov 29
[6] Dec 3 removed discussion to put it on the talk page (not a bad idea but still another potentially contentious revert)
[7] Dec 3, it was reverted so he reverted
[8] Dec 3, reverted the restoration of the other material

As mentioned in the clarification request above, I was concerned about two reverts to a user's talk page discussing the Arab-Israel conflict that he made during his ban. Multiple reverts are inappropriate especially when there is not a clear line as to where you should or should not be editing. He also broke his topic ban by editing two files. These were actually good edits but since I brought it up at the request for clarification I felt that it is appropriate to bring it up here (it comes across "petty", though).

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): Not applicable. Already sanctioned and is fully aware of the AE process. He mentioned that editors could take the reverts at the AfD to AE a couple times in his edit summaries.

He also said to take it to AE in his rebuttals to my seconding a request for clarification

[12]
[13]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): I don't know. Whatever stops the multiple reverts. Anything ranging from a good talking to all the way through a block. Maybe a 1rr sanction would do the trick since that seems to be the biggest concern.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: It looks like I am out to get Nableezy. That sucks but the same troubling pattern is emerging within a week of of his ban on talk pages being lifted. If he would stop edit warring there wouldn't be a problem.

Sometimes it appears that he believes he is doing the right thing. Unfortunately, it turned an AfD (which has consensus to keep it looks like) into a mess for whatever admin handles it. It also looks like there is some stress on the talk pages (he wasn't the only one to edit war, though).

I'm a little concerned about the potential violation of his topic ban, but that is more of the principle than anything else.Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning nableezy

Statement by Nableezy

I removed an edit by the sockpuppet of a site-banned user. That is not changing gear, that is something that policy calls for. I restored other edits another editor removed asking that user to go to WP:AE if they felt the editors comments were in violation of their topic-bans. In what way exactly have I violated my topic ban? The other users were out of line in removing peoples edits that were on topic, and I regard those reverts as reversions of vandalism. The moving of information completely off-topic discussing the AfD itself belongs on the talk page of the AfD, it should not be on the AfD page. And the "other editor" who requested clarification has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of the site-banned NoCal100, who had used another sockpuppet to both vote in the AfD and remove Nick and Nishi's edits as those of banned users. In fact one of those sockpuppets was involved in the previous enforcement action against me, I wonder if we will get a chance to see another. nableezy - 06:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche, how many places are you going to copy and paste the same thing? The 1 month ban did start on the 29th (see here the ban on editing article talk pages is reduced to one. These times are relative to the initial sanction.) And I said I viewed the AfD as an extension of the talk page, not that it is the talk page. nableezy - 08:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admit what? I have said the same thing every time (extension of the talk page, extension of the talk page. I consistently called it an "extension of the talk page". nableezy - 08:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that AGK's words in the amended decision were I am adjusting my initial sanction of Nableezy, after much consideration. The ban on editing article content is reduced from four months to two; and the ban on editing article talk pages is reduced to one. These times are relative to the initial sanction. which suggests that AGK saw two areas, articles and talk. It is my contention that the AfD falls in "talk", space designated for discussing the article. nableezy - 08:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incredibly odd reading. You are saying in 1 more month I will be free to edit articles but not AfDs? I find that to be beyond belief, but we can just ask AGK (I just did). nableezy - 08:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be clear on why I restored those edits. The only reason I did so is because I felt it was not the place for two involved users to determine what the topic ban includes and how to enforce that topic ban. I repeatedly asked each user to go to WP:AE. At WP:ANI the issue was raised and closed by LessHeard vanU with the comment that This is an WP:AE issue. I told both users that it is not their place to make the determination of whether or not this page is within the topic ban and that WP:AE is the proper venue to make a complaint. They both refused to do so. My removal of User:Mr. Hicks The III's !vote is one that requires no judgment to do, WP:BAN explicitly says that any user may revert the edit of any banned editor. As Hicks was site-banned as the sock of NoCal100, he was clearly banned from that page, that removal is not comparable to the repeated removals of Nick and Nishi's comments. nableezy - 09:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning nableezy

nableezy:

Suggests his ban does not apply to the AfD because after one month it no longer applied to article talk pages. However ...
An AfD is clearly not an "article talk page". Even when one performs a search under "Wikipedia talk", AfD pages do not show up. See also this, where Wiki pages (which include AfDs) and Wiki talk pages are two different search categories. Though AfD discussion (or "talk") pages show up. AfD pages fall squarely within his "all pages" prohibition.
As to timing, his ban was first handed down on October 29. In its original form it was for four months, " all pages within subject areas relating to th[e] arbitration case."
Two portions of the "all pages within the subject area" were then shortened on November 3. Article pages to "2 months from all pages within subject areas relating to this arbitration case, except article talk pages, from which he is banned for 1 month."
He was editing the AfD page by November 28. Even if the 1 month ban started on October 29 ~~(and not on November 3, the day it was handed down)~~, and even had the AfD been an "article talk page" (which it clearly isn't), he was editing on a page on the subject before he should have.
But, most importantly, its clear that AfDs are not "article talk pages". That is the only area he has been allowed to edit during the entire time of the AfD--all of his many edits at the AfD, on his talk page, and on the AfD talk page have been in flagrant violation of his ban.

Nableezy seems by his reply to my above comments to now admit that an AfD is not a talk page. But rather, as he calls it, "an extension of a talk page". Whatever that is. But whatever that is--it is not something he has permission to edit. He only has permission to edit talk pages. And yet he has flagrantly violated that ban, editing, voting, commenting, and removing others' comments on the AfD page. Despite many request that he not do so, in light of his ban. He has also edited in tandem with the other two topic-banned editors who nevertheless edited at the AfD; in toto, the three of them accounted for a significant percentage of the AfD discussion to date, and Nableezy even now insists that his comments and vote must remain at the AfD, and has refused to restore to the AfD page my comments that he moved from that page.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy raises an important point. But leaves out the most important part. In his ban, AGK wrote: "I am banning Nableezy for a period of 4 months from all pages (including both article and article talk pages) within those topic areas which relate to the Palestine-Israel articles case. If he violates this topic ban, his account will be blocked for disruption (for any duration less than the time remaining of the topic ban)." So, the ban related to: a) all pages, including b) article pages, and c) article talk pages. AfDs fall into category a, but not categories b and c. AGK only reduced the times in categories b (to 2 months) and c (to 1 month), but did not decrease his four month ban on pages other than article pages and article talk pages.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drama

More drama. See Tempest in a teapot. If only people would simply follow the discretionary sanctions. Imagine, the article certainly wouldn't have been nominated for deletion in the first place, topic banned users wouldn't have felt compelled to say something while openly acknowledging their topic bans (which ironically may be unsound anyway thanks to the actions of yet another of the endless line of activist sockpuppets), highly involved non-admins removing comments wouldn't have confused themselves with uninvolved admins, other users wouldn't have felt compelled to reverse the removal (and that wasn't just Nableezy), other users wouldn't have escalated the situation by using dramatic terms like 'poisoned', 'I'm appalled', 'gross disregard'. I thought the sanctions were there to help us 'aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict.' rather than a way to produce more drama. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning nableezy

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 :*Nableezy seems by his reply to my above comments to now admit that an AfD is not a talk page.  But rather, as he calls it, "an extension of a talk page".  Whatever that is.  But whatever that is--it is not something he has permission to edit.  He only has permission to edit talk pages.  And yet he has flagrantly violated that ban, editing, voting, commenting, and removing others' comments on the AfD page.  Despite many request that he not do so, in light of his ban.  He has also edited in tandem with the other two topic-banned editors who nevertheless edited at the AfD; in toto, the three of them accounted for a significant percentage of the AfD discussion to date, and Nableezy even now insists that his comments and vote must remain at the AfD, and has refused to restore to the AfD page my comments that he moved from that page.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 08:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 ::*Nableezy raises an important point.  But leaves out the most important part.  In his ban, AGK wrote:  "I am banning Nableezy for a period of 4 months from all pages (including both article and article talk pages) within those topic areas which relate to the Palestine-Israel articles case. If he violates this topic ban, his account will be blocked for disruption (for any duration less than the time remaining of the topic ban)."  So, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive49#Result_concerning_Nableezy ban] related to:  a) all pages, including b) article pages, and c) article talk pages.  AfDs fall into category a, but not categories b and c.  AGK [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AGK&diff=prev&oldid=323748014 only] reduced the times in categories b (to 2 months) and c (to 1 month), but did ''not'' decrease his four month ban on pages other than article pages and article talk pages.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 08:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
-====Gilabrand and others who edit-warred to delete comments by topic-banned users====
-Nableezy is being singled out once again. His edits are in line with policy and guidelines. Those removing the comments of topic-banned users are engaging in vandalism. [[User:Gilabrand]] removed the same set of comments a number of times. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=328409333&oldid=328404900 Here she removes part of them], reverted by [[User:Jeppiz]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=328409333], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=328411325 she removes them again]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=328416424 Jeppiz comments that this is wrong]. Then an IP editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=328423124 removes comments from another topic-banned editor] (probably a sockpuppet of NoCal100 et al.). [[User:Mackan79]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=328423263 undoes the anon's edit], noting that an admin should decide whether or not the ban applies to this AfD. Gilabrand then decides to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=328423802 remove those comments too]. [[User:Jeppiz]] again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=328432943 comments on how it is inappropriate for Gilabrand to persist in doing this]. Gilabrand decides to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=328436961 remove even more commentary]. Jeppiz reverts her with an edit summary reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=328440137  "Gilabrand is just being disruptibe now. Take it to ANI if you want"], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=328441719 comments on how she is being increasingly disruptive]. Jeppiz then partially undoes his edits with a summary reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=328442636 "Undoing myself while waiting for a response from administrators on the proper procedure"].
-With no admin response forthcoming, and acting in the belief that deleting the talk page comments of other editors is generally not allowed, [[User:Nableezy]] restores the comments with an edit summary reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=328449628 "reinsert comments, watch 3rr and take your complaints to WP:AE if you feel they have any merit"]. Then, [[User: Mr. Hicks The III]] (later discovered to be a sockpuppet of [[User:NoCal100]]) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=328454102 removes the comments of the topic banned users]. On November 29th, a little after midnight, Nableezy restores the comments with edit summary reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=328476577 "again, WP:AE is thataway, stop disrupting the afd"].
-Things are quiet for more than four days. Then, [[User:Gilabrand]] again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=329415154&oldid=329386452 removes the comments of topic banned editors]. [[User:Epeefleche]] expresses his concerns regarding the comments of these editors having affected the AfD. Nableezy responds to his comments while also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=329418333 restoring the comments of the topic banned editors].
-Nableezy then decides to move the discussion about whether or not the topic banned editors comments should be included in the AfD or not and what effect they had on it to the talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=329458722] Gilabrand immediately reverts him with an edit summary reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=329465508 "comments were made on this page - don't move them elsewhere on your own. Go to an administrator."] Nableezy reverts her with edit summary reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=329471421 "the afd has a talk page and these comments have nothing to do with the afd, and i will if you keep it up"]. Gilabrand then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=329481210 moves the comments of topic banned editors to the talk page]. Nalbeezy reverts her with edit summary reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=329487503 "again, you are making the threads completely unintelligible by removing half of the thread, take it WP:AE"].
-Then, Epeefleche decides to remove one of the comments of the topic banned editors and his replies to it with edit summary reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=329487756 "Deleting topic banned editors comments and my replies; Topic banned editor should never have commented, and has poisoned this AfD IMHO"] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=329550512 removes more comments, with a similar edit summary]. [[User:SlimVirgin]] restores a keep vote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=329550984 she says was mistakenly deleted by Epeefleche]. Epeefleche continues, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=329568394 deleting another comment by a topic banned user, his vote and Epeefleche's replies to his comment]. SlimVirgin restores some of the comments that were removed with an edit summary noting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=329590796 "this is going too far, as people's comments are now not making sense; please strike rather than removing, or better still, just leave it alone"]. SlimVirgin then restores other comments that were deleted with summary reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=329594009 "responses make no sense otherwise; please leave this for the AfD admin to sort out"].
-Epeefleche restores a comment he has posted and then deleted, calling the AfD [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=329595424 "flawed"]. Nableezy asks what the commets have to do with Cook's notability. Epeefleche continues to complain about topic banned editors participation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=329604151]. Nableezy replies, noting he is not banned from discussing the AfD and that the other two editors did not vote, recommending that Epeefleche [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Cook&diff=next&oldid=329611780 take any concerns to AE]. [[User:Tiamut|<b><font color="#B93B8F">T</font><font color="#800000">i</font><font color="#B93B8F">a</font><font color="#800000">m</font><font color="#B93B8F">u</font><font color="#800000">t</font></b>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Tiamut|talk]]</sup> 10:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 ====Drama====