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

Andranikpasha

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

Request concerning Andranikpasha

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 06:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:

[1] 1st rv
[2] 2nd rv
[3] 3rd rv
[4] 4th rv

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

[5] placed on revert limitation by Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 29 December 2007.
[6] His probation was extended for another 6 months by Haemo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 13 May 2008 for edit warring on Hayasa-Azzi.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Revert limitation, topic ban

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
Andranikpasha was placed on editing restriction for 6 months, which was later extended for another 6 months for edit warring on Hayasa-Azzi. Now he edit wars on the same Hayasa-Azzi, where he made 4 rvs within the last week, and the related article of Urartu, which he reverts for the banned user Ararat arev: [7] His recent edits are mostly reverts. It is also of interest that Andranikpasha is permanently banned from the Russian Wikipedia for edit warring and disruption on Urartu/Hayasa related articles. Grandmaster 06:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[8]

Discussion concerning Andranikpasha

Statement by Andranikpasha

Comments by other editors

Result concerning Andranikpasha

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

Hetoum I

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

Request concerning Hetoum I

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:

[9] Edit warring without logging in
[10] Edit warring without logging in
[11] Edit warring without logging in
[12] Edit warring without logging in
[13] Edit warring without logging in

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

[14] Hetoum I was placed on supervised editing, including revert limitation, by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Indefinite ban

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
Hetoum I was repeatedly blocked for edit warring, as he was reverting the articles under various IPs. See his block log. This time we have an IP 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which goes around and reverts the articles for the blocked users, namely for Kazanciyan (talk · contribs) and Tamamtamamtamam (talk · contribs) (sock of Meowy (talk · contribs)). Previously 216.165.12.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.165.12.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), similar IP addresses from NY University, were blocked as socks of Hetoum I (talk · contribs) for similar edit warring on AA articles: [15] [16], which leaves no doubt that 216.165.33.9 is also Hetoum I. Since Hetoum I is not willing to abide by his editing restriction and continues edit warring under various IPs despite numerous blocks, I think that the admins should consider the indefinite ban for this user. Grandmaster 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this is from the talk of his previous user account: [17] [18] Grandmaster 10:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continued edit warring by removing Azerbaijani spellings and other info from the articles about locations in Armenia. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Grandmaster 06:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another rv by 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with an ethnic attack edit summary in the style of banned user Azad chai (talk · contribs): [25]. They could be the same person. Note that "khojalized" in the edit summary is a reference to a mass killing of Azeris in Khojaly massacre. Grandmaster 06:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's back as 128.122.90.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This IP also points to NY University. It's already been blocked for 1 week, shortened to 31 hours for incivility. But the blocking admin was probably not aware of prehistory. Grandmaster 05:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence available suggests that the banned user Azad chai (talk · contribs) is the same person as Hetoum. Another IP from NY University, 128.122.195.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), was blocked for 1 year for vandalism. Note that the blocking admin wrote:

10:37, May 11, 2009 Khoikhoi (talk|contribs) blocked 128.122.195.18 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 year ‎ (static IP of Hetoum I and/or Azad chai) [26]

So it is the same person or a group of people, who have been disrupting AA articles for years. This edit summary [27] is identical to the one that got 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also blocked for 1 year a few days ago. Note the words "khojalizing" and "babun" in the edit summary, which he uses to refer to Azerbaijani people. Also check the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hetoum I. Almost identical IPs, pointing to the same university, same ethnic slurs, same type vandalism across multiple AA pages leave no doubt that the IPs, Hetoum and Azad chai are the same person. I hope that the admins will investigate this issue, and put an end to this disruption that's been going on for so long. Grandmaster 10:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[28]

Discussion concerning Hetoum I

Statement by Hetoum I

Comments by other editors

Result concerning Hetoum I

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

I've blocked 216.165.33.9 for a year for the "khojalized" edit. I haven't yet had time to look at the other evidence. Sandstein 07:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickhh

Request concerning Nickhh

User requesting enforcement:
Brandon (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria#Nickhh_restricted

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:

[29]
[30]

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):
Not applicable.

Additional comments by Brandon (talk):
Nickhh (talk · contribs) edited logged out as 86.145.55.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (CU Confirmed) on an article which may violate his restriction. Brandon (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[31]

Discussion concerning Nickhh

Statement by Nickhh

Hang on a sec .. I only edited a couple of music related pages yesterday. Until now I didn't even know what my IP address was, but I just looked it up and it's not that one. And, for what it's worth as evidence, I have a real phobia about the spelling of lead as "lede" - you'll simply have to take my word for that, it's just something I'd never do. I accept there have been some grey areas where I have (openly, and, as noted, with a borrowed free pass from WP:AE) been involved in the occasional piece of editing, but not this one. And I've been getting harrassed for that as well. Just because I got scooped up in an ArbCom decision, I'm not sure I need to be continually beaten with the accusation stick every day. --Nickhh (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Does CU confirm that the IP is Nickhh? If so, I would say that is a vio since the material removed plainly relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I have to note that the biography itself is not covered, however, which raises the same issue as was just recently discussed (see here) with another editor under the ban, who seemed to feel that the ban did not cover the removal of inappropriate material from uncovered articles. Notably, that discussion was closed without consensus; following it several editors under the ban arrived at Islam and Antisemitism, to a discussion which I have little doubt would have been considered by ArbCom as falling within the topic area, yet for which no enforcement was sought.

I suggest a warning if the finding is accurate, a discussion of what the topic ban does in fact cover when it comes to articles not directly in the area of conflict, and that it's resolved to move forward consistently from that point onward. As part of this it might also be clarified if there are any standards for running CU relating to this ban, and why CU was run here as it appears the IP only removed two different pieces of material once each, without any repetition. Was there a request for CU? If so, I think it should be clarified whether an unexplained edit by a new user is enough to request CU in this area (generally not something I'd oppose, so long as the lines for requests are openly available). Mackan79 (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Brandon to confirm that it is his determination as a checkuser that Nickhh is that IP. I would also like Nickhh to positively confirm that he denies making these edits. Sandstein 13:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was my determination that Nickhh is that IP. Brandon (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm this finding. --Deskana (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nickhh

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

Blocked for 48 hours. Since the ban evasion is confirmed by checkuser, there's practically no other option here. Sandstein 16:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per a request on my talk page, I am unclosing this section so as to allow another checkuser to confirm Brandon's determination. Sandstein 17:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done so, in the section above. --Deskana (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChildofMidnight

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

Request concerning ChildofMidnight

User requesting enforcement:
Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:

[32] Here, COM among other things adds a White House statement to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now article
[33] "tweaks" an edit I had just made a few hours earlier[34]

There are some other less major, or more indirect violations as well:

[35] - breaks into conversation and argues against position I had advanced, calls the editors on my side of the discussion (implicitly including me) of "wanting to portray the group in the best possible light (even if innaccurate)"
[36] - changes a section of the lede that I initially wrote, and arose from a consensus on my talk page[37]
[38] characterizes the several editors on the page, me included, of "POV efforts...and other disruptive and policy violating pushed for censorship and bias"
[39] refers to editors who he claims falsely connect subjects to Obama as "abusive POV pushers who want to promote bias and censorship on Wikipedia"
[40] refers to the article as having been "scrubbed" and "spin doctoring"

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable - per the third remedy above, I cannot warn ChildofMidnight or communicate with other editors regarding violations by ChildofMidnight, other than in this forum. However, other editors have given such warnings here:

[41]
[42]
[43]
There was also talk about WP:AE at Talk:Barney Frank,[44] which seems to have fallen under renewed edit warring and accusations:

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):

no request; request enforcement or clarification of sanctions at the discretion of the committee

Additional comments by Wikidemon (talk):

As background, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is one of the articles where ChildofMidnight edit warred while the Obama case was pending. He is arguing a content point that he has advanced[45][46] and edit warred on[47][48][49][50] there before, that the organization is not non-partisan because it supports Barack Obama and the Democratic party.[51] During the case he also edit warred there on another subject,[52][53] and used the talk page there to launch tirades against me and some of the other parties to the case.[54]
His last edit at the article was on June 4,[55] just before Arbcom's Obama decision was announced, and he did not edit there again until the first diff above, on September 17. As one can see from the article, the organization was very much in the news because John McCain made allegations of voter fraud (in reality, voter registration fraud) a major issue in the last several days of the last presidential campaign.[56] Those allegations are part of the current controversy.
It might be useful to check on 71.57.8.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to see if they might be a party to the case who has not logged in
Here, again, CoM has come to an Obama-related article that I am actively editing, changed my edits, and used a talk page discussion to lob personal accusations against the editors there (which include me). I have recently done some work that may break a long logjam and adds considerably to the encyclopedia's treatment of the issue. However, the tone of the talk page has gotten very bad, and unless something is done it will become untenable for me to continue editing there. Because of the nature of the sanctions, posting a report here is my only recourse other than abandoning articles I am working on when CoM has shown up.

- Wikidemon (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also as before, I'll do my best to ignore and not respond to the inevitable accusations from ChildofMidnight. In the spirit of the no-interaction injunction I have ignored editing issues on pages where I am not already involved and that do not directly affect my editing. I might suggest that this, the 4th or 5th reappearance of ChildofMidnight before ArbCom since the case closed (in addition to as many on AN/I), each finding misbehavior on CoM's part, might be a good occasion to consider widening and/or extending the topic ban. CoM has in each case needed some clarification or modification of the limits, and some accused CoM of repeatedly pushing the limits. It might make some sense to draw a wider fence around this so that we do not continue to have so much trouble on the perimeter, or else to recognize that the editing problems seem to concern all of American politics and not just Barack Obama. Wikidemon (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Due to the no-interaction rule I have not informed any other editors of this. Someone should probably post a notice on CoM's page, as well as the others involved in the accusations on the article talk page. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
Notified User ChildofMidnight [57]. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notified User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and User:Xenophrenic, the parties (plus myself) most involved in the exchange described. PhGustaf (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning ChildofMidnight

Statement by ChildofMidnight

I only looked through the first few diffs, but they look like entirely appropriate edits that don't have anything to do with Obama or Wikidemon. His own statement notes I've been active editing that article for a long time, and yet I've been careful to avoid interacting with him. Why is he allowed to keep trying to enter into these disputes with me? There's nothing to his diffs, he's just coming after me AGAIN.

It's frustrating to see my edits being utterly misrepresented by Wikidemon, whose long term campaign of harassment and stalking were meant to be stopped with the restraining order imposed on him. For example thet first edit reverted the removal of a whole bunch of details from an article, had nothing to do with Wikidemon and doesn't mention Obama at all. It wasn't an addition on my part and Wikidemon is lying and distorting events as per usual. Another edit looks like I replaced commas with semicolons and cleaned up some wording. If someone can figure out what he's disputing please let me know. My understanding was the the restrictions on Wikidemon were meant to stop him from this ongoing harassment and stalking. He seems utterly obsessed. None of these edits have anything to do with him but he keeps stalking me.

I think this is an excellent opportunity to lift the editing restrictions I'm under so that POV pushers and censors can't continue to abuse them in attempts to intimidate me. I'm here to edit the encyclopedia and to improve articles. I haven't made any edits to the Obama articles (except one wikilink I think, mea culpa) in all these months. All of my edits are in good faith, as shown by the ones cited above. Instead of being rewarded for abiding by sanctions that were grossly misguided, I continue to be harassed by Wikidemon's deranged stalking. I thought this was supposed to stop with restrictions imposed on him? Do I need to be concerned for my personal safety given his obsession with me? I haven't contacted him at all and have no desire to interact with him in any way shape or form. Please direct him once and for all to leave me alone.

In contrast to my continuing to abide by our guidelines and policies as well as the unfair restrictions I'm under, Tarc edit warred 4 times in a 24 hour period on an Obama article and got a one day block. I made 4 edits over two days with discussion inbetween and am under a 6 month restriction that is constantly being used to abuse and harass me with personal attacks by these disruptive characters. Their comments rarely have anything to do with article content or sourcing, they simply troll and try to bait me into trouble. They've turned their article interests into personal fiefdoms and attack anyone who dares stray onto their turf. They consistently violate our core policies and their incivility and abusive behaviors received an endorsement with Arbcom's slap on the wrist abortion of justice that punished those at the receiving end of their abusive behaviors.

It's time finally for Arbcom to take seriously this ganging up and incivility. Stalking, harassment and intimidation simply aren't appropriate. There isn't any violation of my editing restrictions, this is simply another abusive report in a long string of them from Wikidemon. I support his being banned. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Not an admin, but I have observed the CoM/Wikidemon stuff. I'm not certain how Wikidemon did anything wrong here. How else should he deal with clear violations of the restrictions? Reporting it here seems the thing to do, does it not? Unit Anode 03:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not an admin either, but I have followed this train wreck too. Last August Wikidemon filed a Request For Clarification[58] that also mentioned CoM, communicating with him at least en passant. I don't recall anyone in that thread suggesting he had violated a sanction. If a sanction is a two-party entity, and one party breaks it, the other surely needs a pathway to remedy. PhGustaf (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few things.
- In these "User X and User Y cannot interact" decrees, I seriously doubt it was ArbCom's intent to prohibit one party from filing reports against the other if the other violated their wiki-restraining order.
- The topic of ACORN is quite definitively within the scope of "Obama-related articles, broadly construed". The president's past connection was a major political talking point during the elections, and the recent headline-grabbing commentary in mainstream media invariably recalls Obama's connection to the group.
- As ChildofMidnight has been warned and reprimanded several times now for similar behavior...this "oops, did I do that?"" shtick with articles such as Gerald Walpin for example...perhaps it is time to discuss if the topic ban should be expanded to all political articles. This user seems to have no issues with editing food-related articles. Let's keep his focus there and out of the political areana, where CoM's emotions obviously rage far too intensely for him to control. Tarc (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hrm, and now the block has been lifted without ever hearing back from the blocking admin, for a rather ill-informed finding that the ACORN article is not clearly tied to the ArbCom restrictions. One would figure that since we're now on about the 4th-5th time ChildofMidnight has violated his ArbCom-imposed sanctions that a block would stick longer than a few hours. Let the Wheel Wars begin! :| Tarc (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight. Sandstein 07:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ChildofMidnight

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

ChildofMidnight blocked for a month.
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is among the "Obama-related articles ... broadly construed" that ChildofMidnight is topic-banned from, because it mentions connections of the subject to Barack Obama and his presidential campaign. In particular, according to the article, "Obama, with several other attorneys, had served as local counsel for ACORN" and "ACORN was a political issue in the 2008 United States Presidential Election". By editing that article and its talk page multiple times, ChildofMidnight has repeatedly violated his topic ban (for the third time according to the enforcement log).
ChildofMidnight's statement, above, additionally aggravates his conduct because it does not address his own conduct that is the subject of this request. Instead, it violates his restriction on interaction with Wikidemon (as well as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Decorum) by abusing this forum to aim incivil invective and rather wild accusations at that editor ("Wikidemon's deranged stalking" etc.)
In consequence, under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Enforcement by block, I am blocking ChildofMidnight for a month. Any editor (other than those restricted from interacting with Wikidemon) who believe that additional sanctions are required against ChildofMidnight (a matter about which I have no opinion), either under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation or from ArbCom, are free to make a request to that effect in the appropriate forum. Sandstein 02:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the block length does not agree with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Enforcement by block: "Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year." CoM has been blocked only twice before with regard to this case. Therefore the block length should be a week maximum. Evil saltine (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct, I misread this. The block should have been a week long at most. In any event, he has now been unblocked out of process by Law (talk · contribs). Sandstein 05:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More input needed concerning Wikidemon. I invite comment from other admins whether this enforcement request should be considered a violation of Wikidemon's restriction against interaction with ChildofMidnight and result in sanctions against Wikidemon. Sandstein 02:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I seem to recall Wikidemon and a very long AC/N thread. I was not impressed. Nothing more definitive for the time being.--Tznkai (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Amendment_regarding_Obama_articles was the thread. I think Wikidemon and the wiki are best served by a significant change of pace.--Tznkai (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the remedy (i.e. "replying", "reverting") suggests that it is direct interaction that is prohibited. I don't think talking about someone, even if it is to complain about or solicit action against them, constitutes the kind of interaction intended. Skomorokh 03:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get all "gotcha" on them, but I read it more as a "stop talking to, around, or about each other" in intent. Regardless of whether that is the enforcement provision, it certainly seems to be a good idea, although like all good ideas, its best if it is followed for its own sake instead of fear of punishment.--Tznkai (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that writing a report on the user you're told not to interact with kinda goes against the spirit of that rule. I'm sure if CoM's making improper edits they'd be noticed by someone else (I haven't viewed the diffs, just touching on this other matter). Wizardman 07:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be a good idea, but it seems rather unjust to punish where such ambiguity exists. Reporting the "enemy" would strike me as a rather obvious thing for ArbCom to cover in restraining orders. Skomorokh 08:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On first impression, perhaps. Moving forward, what I'm suggesting is this:

So long as sufficient warning is given, ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon are not to report, or reply to reports about the other user. Such actions are considered "replies" as described in the Obama article remedies.

This interpretation is done under administrative discretion (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Motion_to_clarify_the_interpretative_role_of_administrators) pending formal clarification by the Arbitration committee, such a request for clarification will be posted when I am more rested.--Tznkai (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold: this issue has gone and spiraled out of control nicely, and neither Wikidemon or ChildofMidnight are particularly at fault for that. I am requesting that Wikidemon and ChildofMidnight stay far away from each other and politics articles in the meantime. Our article on pickles is sadly lacking among other issues.--Tznkai (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cs32en

Request concerning Cs32en

User requesting enforcement:
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Cs32en (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
WP:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

[62]

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue The user is a near SPA who tendentiously argues on behalf of 9/11 conspiracy theories in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:RS.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Indefinite top ban

Additional comments by A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User: Cs32en has been deleting criticism out of the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. See here: [63], [64], [65]. A 2008 arbitration case gave administrators the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. User: Cs32en was directly warned on his talk page here. The resulting discussion can be found here. I don't know if this counts as a warning but it also came up here and here, so this user was well aware. User:Cs32en has been editing disruptively for months now. This is just the latest example. Can we get an indefinite topic ban on this user from an uninvolved admin? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cs32en

User:A Quest For Knowledge has added/restored content that is not supported by reliable secondary sources. [66] [67] [68] It is obvious that, without the need for such secondary sources, articles such as 9/11 conspiracy theories would quickly be flooded by quotes from various books, websites, and other primary sources. I hope that User:A Quest For Knowledge, a near single-purpose account himself [69], will reconsider his own actions and/or will pursue appropriate ways of dispute resolution.

As for the various links that User:A Quest For Knowledge provided, in one case the AE request was formally withdrawn by the editor who had filed it, [70] while in the other case the requesting editor apparently lost interest in the issue. [71] In both cases, the requests did not lead to any actions by uninvolved administrators. Cs32en 19:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional remarks:

User:Hipocrite is making a false statement in the first sentence of his comment (see below). Cs32en 20:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jehochman is trying again to make it appear as if he had withdrawn his AE request as a result of "assuming good faith", while the actual reason simply appears to be that he did not receive the support from uninvolved editors that he had wished for. He actually tried (unsuccessfully) to change AE policy towards assuming bad faith right before filing the AE request against me.[72] As for his other accusations, one of the articles that I have edited extensively and which is actually quite stable, is Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I do not think that this article is poorly sourced. For an example of sources-based editing and discussion, see Talk:9/11_Truth_movement#Is_.229.2F11_Truth_movement.22_a_neologism.3F (User:A Quest For Knowledge considered deleting the article assuming its title would be a neologism.) Another contribution to Wikipedia, not related to 9/11 issues, is Template:Nihongo core. Cs32en 16:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the claims Jehochman has made in his second edit, a good example of the overall atmosphere of the current editing environment in the September 11 attacks area can be found here. (I've never seen editors characterizing topics that have been covered in the headline news of CNN, USA Today, NYT etc. as fringe in any other place on Wikipedia.) Cs32en 13:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5's analysis of my edits is basically correct [73]. I'd like to add that most of my user space edits are related to the collection of reliable sources [74]. Cs32en 17:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

This came to the attention of the Fringe Theories noticeboard. And a couple of us looked over Cs32en (talk · contribs)'s edits. Of the two of us one does not believe 911 conspiracy theories at all and I set the likelihood that there is any truth to them at about 5% (in other words I have not entirely discounted the possibility but think it extremely unlikely). Neither of us, both people highly skeptical of 911 conspiracy claims, found anything particularly objectionable about his edits. I recommend against sanctions. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to Uninvolved Admin How about a 1RR revert restriction on A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) and Cs32en (talk · contribs)? Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hipocrite

Cs32en is a single purpose account pushing the theory that planes didn't crash into the World Trade Center. This is exactly the kind of editor that Wikipedia needs to retain in order to provide balanced knowledge to our readers. Additionally, I am shocked that my theory that sword wielding skeletons were instrumental in the Peloponnesian War isn't prominently mentioned in that article. PS - it will take at least 3 days for any uninvolved adminstrator to deal with this ongoing nightmare, and whichever adminstrator does will quickly be burnt out. Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm on your own time please, but point taken.--Tznkai (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hipocrite (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I've tried assuming good faith and suggested Cs32en to diversify their participation as a means to avoid sanctions. The 9/11 articles are highly troubled, as I've learned from trying to edit them. Many are in appallingly bad shape with all sorts of dubious information and undue weight given to fringe views. For the good of Wikipedia, Cs32en should be topic banned. Administrators, please act on this request. Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quit improving 9/11 articles because it is just too damn frustrating to engage in endless, circular discussions with single purpose accounts such as Cs32en who will keep going until they wear down and drive away any editors who disagree. I think 9/11 should be subject to a general restriction that all single purpose accounts are topic banned from that area (excepting new accounts who have not had a chance to diversify yet). Under that sensible criteria, Cs323en should be topic banned. If that does not happen here, I may go back to ArbCom and put the proverbial flaming bag of dog poo on their doorstep. Jehochman ^Talk 01:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hut 8.5

Cs32en is a single purpose account dedicated to writing about (and promoting) conspiracy theories concerning the September 11 attacks. He has been very industrious about this, and has amassed 4766 edits since registering in April this year, about 1400 of them to articles. To demonstrate that Cs32en is a single purpose account I have gone through his article contributions to date and pulled out all those that don't obviously relate to September 11. I found 73 (about 5%). (If anybody wants to contest this analysis I can produce diffs of these edits.)

I have found several recent cases of Cs32en edit warring with A Quest For Knowledge:

Both editors in question are aware of Wikipedia policies regarding edit warring: [88] [89]. Even if not a topic ban then at least some sort of revert restriction may be in order. I agree with Jehochman's comments above regarding the state of the articles in question. --Hut 8.5 16:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved administrators

Right now I'm leaning towards a revert restriction on both Quest for Knowledge and Cs32en, the article history is a mess and its difficult for me to get a clear picture of what is going on, but I have seen Cs32en make some reasonable arguments, and some really bone headed ones. For what its worth, an article filled with meta references (references supporting the notability of a reference) is unworkable. Such a thing is reasonable to ask for on the talk page if there is genuine confusion or controversy. I agree with Jehochman that the articles are a mess, but I have not seen evidence that removing Cs32en alone will solve it. I am open to further comments and discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Cs32en

I'm electing to do something a little odd, so pay attention:

For the next 6 months: Quest for Knowledge and Cs32en are restricted from reverting each other's edits on any article in the 9/11 topic area. (0RR)
For the next two weeks: Cs32en is restricted to editing one article and corresponding talk page in the 9/11 topic area, of his or her own choosing. At the end of two weeks, the idea of a wider topic ban question will be revisited based on the results.
These restrictions are on the users not the accounts
Clock on the restrictions starts on 9/27/09 00:01 UTC

Questions?--Tznkai (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a grammar error one articles. Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Tznkai (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll choose the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth article, as I've been the main editor there so far. I am not sure whether I will do many edits there in the next two weeks, as (a) not that much new information might appear in reliable sources (b) I may be a bit busy during this time.

I have an account, Cs32, on the German Wikipedia, which I have not used on the English Wikipedia (besides two or three edits, when I forgot to change the account), and I understand that the restriction is on both accounts.

I would like to encourage the community and/or ArbCom to have a look at how core Wikipedia policies, such as WP:V and WP:N should be applied in the September 11 attacks area, to avoid double standards, i.e. policy interpretation and implementation that is dependent on the content of a particular piece of information rather than the verifiability and notability the information. Cs32en 15:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I was referring to the use of multiple accounts on this Wikipedia. My proverbial authority stops at the proverbial shores' edge. I encourage you to engage on the article you've chosen, I'm interested in seeing how well you can, or cannot, work with others on a difficult topic area.--Tznkai (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd like to mention that for months, I (and many other editors) attempted to reach consensus on the talk pages before making any substantial changes. This went on for months but ultimately failed due to Cs32en's endless Wikilawering. Even changing a single word may require weeks of endless arguing with Cs32en. Cs32en was reported to ArbCom Requests for Enforcement, but no real action was taken so the problems continued. At other times, it was raised to the WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN and WP:FTN, but again, no real action was taken. Eventually, I got tired of the mess and decided to be bold and tried to fix the article myself. If I've edit-warred, it was only because no one else was willing to fix the problem. Also, I'd like to point out that unlike Cs32en, my edits were at least good faith attempts to follow WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.

Anyway, I'm not sure if these restrictions are enough to solve the problem. Other editors (besides myself) have tried fixing the WP:NPOV of these articles and Cs32en is the main reason why they're still in such a mess. Allowing Cs32en to continue to edit theses articles (even with the minor revert restriction) may not be enough. I think a permanent topic ban is in order. If it helps, I'll happily consent to a permanent topic ban on myself if it means that Cs32en is also topic banned. Unlike Cs32en, I'm not an SPA and promoting fringe theories isn't my life. I can contribute to Wikipedia in other areas. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks for at least doing something. I don't understand why these types of problems are allowed to occur for so long. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are very difficult to solve.--Tznkai (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to note any sanctions on the original arbitration case. Hut 8.5 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I'm making sure there aren't any pressing questions or brilliant suggestions.--Tznkai (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I believe it should be an indefinite top ban. I have also warned him multiple times about discussing this issue or using Wikipedia as a medium of his opinion. Take a long hard look at Talk:September 11 attacks. Despite what has been thrown at him by Arbitration, he continues to push the issue without even considering what many people have told him. I think a permanent topic ban is the best bet, and it would obviously be on the user. –túrian^patois 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with Turian I think that the discipline handed down was fair and reasonable. Simonm223 (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that? He has repeatedly proven himself unable to withhold his POV pushing. –túrian^patois 21:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my reasoning under my original statement. Simonm223 (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as a person who maintains a NPOV, I found his edits ridiculous. They were beyond fringe pushing. And he has done it multiple times. He is still doing it today! –túrian^patois 21:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to nitpick, but the topic block was placed on both articles AND talk pages, correct? I'm not sure if I misunderstood, or if Cs32en did, but he has since edited two other topic related talk pages. --Tarage (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tarage is right. A block should be forthcoming. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gazifikator

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

Request concerning Gazifikator

User requesting enforcement:
Brand[t] 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:

[90] 1st revert
[91] 2nd revert
[92] 3rd revert
[93] 4th revert with an edit summary contrary to exisitng decision 3 vs. 4 in favour of merge

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):

[94] Warning by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block

Additional comments by Brand[t]:

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[95]

Discussion concerning Gazifikator

Statement by Gazifikator

After the article was created, it was disliked by a group of users (f.e. one of the voters was noticed for inflammatory language at the talk [96]). Several times the content was deleted per their own decision on merge. The users like Brand and grandmaster are engaged on this merge process despite they were obviously parts of merge proposal and for sure they support article's merge with another (irrelevant, as all the uninvolved voters and me believe [97]) article. This goes against the rule that says:

To provide clarity that the merger discussion is over and that a consensus has been reached, it may be important to close and then archive the proposal discussion. To close a merger proposal discussion, indicate the outcome at the top. If the merger is particularly controversial, one may take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. See Help:Merge

I'd like also to mention, that the text of article was already 'corrected' by the same users and included to second article's text with very controversial wording, which differs from current version of deleted article. Gazifikator (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

This is a clear and repeated deliberate violation of the editing restriction by Gazifikator. He was blocked for violating the editing restriction on the same article on 14 September: [98] Back from the block, he resumed edit warring on the same article, and made another 2 rvs in defiance of his parole. It should be noted that the article was merged neither by me or Brand, unlike what Gazifikator claims. It was merged by a completely uninvolved editor: [99] whom Gazifikator reverted without ever trying to get the problem resolved via the prescribed procedure. Grandmaster 07:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This 'uninvolved' user, who calls himself a deletionist [100], even didn't try to leave few words for justification of the deletion at the talk. He just decided that there is a consensus, while if you look at the talk [101], you will be sure there isn't! Grandmaster, read Help:Merge: "If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, or believe it might be controversial, or your merger ends up reverted, you can propose it on either or both of the affected pages.". Gazifikator (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gazifikator

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]