Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:09, 31 August 2007

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

Edit this section for new requests

User:Atabek

The user is under civility parole under Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case. He repeatedly accused me of being immoral in Khojaly Massacre talkpage --VartanM 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, this user has been ratcheting up the rhetoric left and right, trying to get a rise out of ethnic tensions by implying that some of the users are intolerant or racist in their editing and opening up a new front on nationalist grounds on Wikipedia.--Marshal Bagramyan 23:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's actually in violation of number of Principles

1 Negotiation
4 Consensus
5 Wikipedia is not a battleground
7 Courtesy
8 Assume good faith
10 Diplomacy
14 Provocation
17 Users national background and neutrality

He's also in violation of Remedies

1 fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.

2 shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility.

Its very hard for me to Assume good faith while the user keeps attacking me. VartanM 23:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Matthead and User:Poeticbent.

I submit the following diffs from the late controversy at Talk:Free City of Kraków. They are about equally from the two users at the head of this page; other users grew heated at the discussion, but largely through provocation by one of these two; and one of the others has recognized that he should not have, on my talkpage. This entire exchange would seem to be contrary to the requests for 'reasonable and calm behaviour" at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus; and I have not quoted everything. I intentionally list one German and one Pole; we should preserve the balance between the factions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were inserted by Matthead in order to confuse the issues.....These are the real proportions Matthead tries so hard to misrepresent.
Do underzealous Poles that are native English speakers promote Kraków then?
Do you want your town to be listed among the countless absure places with funny names instead?
P.S.: I refuse to respond to all other claims made by Matthead like the one made above, quote: “English speakers kept Cracow and Warsaw "verbally alive" then, and reinstated Poland after WW1, and this should be respected for decades to come.” — Please read History of Poland to learn more about how Poland was “reinstated” after WW1 by “English speakers” (wink, wink) with blood, sweat and tears, no doubt.
And why exactly are you advocating peace, PMAnderson, while driving a stick in an ant colony?
- This must refer to Calm down, everybody! Please remember there is an Arbcom decision on Eastern Europe, advising reasonable and calm behavior out of everybody; and I do mean everybody. - my only previous edit.
I'm sick of all the talk promoting "Krakuf", which is the way our Polish friends pronounce their "Kraków". Anyone ever heard that spoken, maybe in a BBC radio broadcast of 1978 "... and the new pope is ... the Archbishop of Krakuf"?
Obviously, the only reason you're here is to pick a fight.
the Austrian Grand Duchy of Cracow existed from 1846 to 1918. If the English name Cracow gets rejected in favour of a native name, I conclude that this also applies to the name of the 1846-1918 period, Krakau.
meaning that you also promote the Polish Oświęcim concentration camp for English Wikipedia?
edit summary: smear campaign removing comments by other people, on his arguments.
lengthy claim that the Polish editors who have written country-specific articles have a right to name them.
- Agreement by Appleseed that the preceeding is a WP:OWN violation
“godlier than though” attitude,
Move of Grand Duchy of Cracow, as threatened above

--The above unsigned comment was added by User:Pmanderson as of 20:40, 30 August 2007.

User:Pmanderson who requested Arbitration enforcement against me has been actively involved in content dispute regarding article mentioned above and in spite of my repeated pleas, continued to make derogatory comments about me all the way through till the end of his failed request to RM the article.[1]

I submit the following comments against me, made by User:Pmanderson for your consideration.

"Please leave us to our sloth and heathen folly, and allow us to follow our policies and write in English."\
- Not addressed to Poeticbent, as the context should make clear. The words are a quotation from Kipling, of course. 22:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
"I said nothing about who else was least constructive in this discussion."
"not the only contestant for the least constructive editor award, which is not awarded here."
"this is not the place for awarding least constructive editor awards."
- Ingenious, but these are scarcely attacks on Poeticbent; I went out of my way to name no-one. Does Poeticbent wish to argue that his conduct was so much worse than anyone else's that I must have meant him alone? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If PoeticBent indeed knows our customs, he should, as a matter of civility, abide by them."
- And he should, shouldn't he? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that a number of examples cited above by User:Pmanderson are several months old, hardly acceptable in the face of the recent Eastern European amnesty decision by the ArbCom. Thanks for your consideration. --Poeticbent talk 21:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The first four are. They are equally divided between Poeticbent and Matthead; neither of them retracted anything. Let them stand as context. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response Obviously someone who is involved in a dispute can make a report here, it is the job of admins reading this page to attempt to decide if the complaint is legitimate or not. Unfortunately there are no enforceable remedies in that case, so even if one or more users have ignored the advice to play nice, there is nothing that can be done from this board. General blocks for incivility or just being a dick can be requested at WP:ANI. or you can ask ArbCom to review the case and apply new remedies. Thatcher131 02:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hajji Piruz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I concur with GRBerry in this instance Thatcher131 01:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hajji Piruz (formerly User:Azerbaijani) has been restricted by the 1RR/week parole per ArbCom decision. He has recently violated his parole at Azerbaijan.

Version reverted to: 11:14, 22 August 2007, note the controversial point: "The name Azerbaijan was chosen as the name for what later became the Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 by the Musavats for political reasons", which Hajji Piruz was trying to reinsert in reverts below.

First Revert: 00:48, 23 August 2007 - inserting the quote again.

Second Partial Revert: 05:55, 27 August 2007 - removing another source, citation of the author, and partially resinserting the same quote again: "The name Azerbaijan was chosen as the name for what later became the Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 by the Musavats"

Interestingly, the user has been inactive for few days, and his first edit after coming back is yet another revert. Atabek 07:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not once make a report without it being completely incorrect? Also, please assume good faith. You not assuming good faith is a complete setback to the issues of the arbcom. Read the terms of the parole, reverting anonymous vandalism is an exception to the rule, and as the first revert clearly shows, the anonymous user simply came to remove sourced information which is vandalism.Hajji Piruz 22:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you removing the sourced text here [2]? Please, assume good faith. I don't see how reporting disruptive editing would be an assumption of bad faith. Atabek 03:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromising and gaining consensus often requires using part of text A and part of text B when two texts are proposed for a section. The "Second Partial Revert" is at least as well described as an attempt at compromise as it is as a "revert"; I choose to disregard it completely on that basis. Seek compromise and consensus always. GRBerry 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Skinny McGee

As a result of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate, Skinny_McGee is barred from editing any articles related to Midnight Syndicate or Nox Arcana.

Skinny McGee has broken his ban on 3 occasions and exhibits a strong (or at the very least suspicious) bias toward any editor who mentions the name of the former band member, Joseph Vargo, for whom Skinny McGee holds a strong aversion, as indicated in his past when calling the person a "dispicable human being." [3] It was this contempt for his former band member and efforts at self-promotion for his band Midnight Syndicate that resulted in an edit war, and resulted in the ban in the first place. This could be Wikistalking in its infancy steps.

Skinny McGee adding a promotional link [4] to Midnight Syndicate. Skinny McGee was suspected to be a member of that band, which was part of the reason the ban was placed.

Removal of content (twice) from the Nox Arcana's Darklore Manor album[5] and[6]. Skinny McGee was previously found to be biased against Joseph Vargo, who is the frontman for Nox Arcana, and former producer of Midnight Syndicate. Again, this is the reason for the ban above.

Lobbying to Prevent further investigation into references that relate to Midnight Syndicate album credentials [7]

Wrongful allegations by Skinny McGee against User:Ebonyskye about what was posted. Ebonyskye never posted what Skinny McGee accused (he accused Ebonyskye of saying that Midnight Syndicate "copied" someone). Ebonyskye only defined an album that "inspired" Midnight Syndicate.[8]. The part about the band's being "similar" was already in the article posted by another user.[9]

Skinny McGee also complains of an item referring to his band's former producer [10] however, the post is cited and validated. Skinny McGee also complained that this post qualified as reason to block Ebonyskye. The post was not biased in any way, it was also supported and even lengthened by another user later[11] and remains.

Due to the complaints inaccurately reported to admins by Skinny McGee as something they were not, Ebonyskye was indeed blocked for 48 hours. According to User:Thatcher131 who blocked Ebonyskye, "I am reasonably convinced that Skinny McGee is, or is associated with, Edward Douglas."[12] (Edward Douglas being a member of Midnight Syndicate).

Skinny McGee did NOT notify Ebonyskye of his displeasure of the edits that Ebonyskye made and did not report to Ebonyskye's page anything in regard to the request for block, giving Ebonyskye no opportunity to reply.

Thatcher131 has refused to block Skinny McGee and cites a VERY unstable reason for not unblocking Ebonyskye... that being that an IP is "similar" or in the "vicinity" of another older user. That in addition to Skinny McGee's slanted report against Ebonyskye, conspired to cause an uneccessary block of Ebonyskye.

Ebonyskye requested a review of the block, and it was summarily done (within 09 seconds of the request)[13] which means that no "review" was actually done at all. Thatcher131 exhibited some bias in his refusal to consider this mistake.

I request a punitive temporary block of User:Skinny McGee for 1) breaking his ban as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate and 2) causing undo strife and confusion in regard to making false reports. Thanks. Ebonyskye 04:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to interested admins: Be sure to read User_talk:Ebonyskye/Archive1. Thatcher131 04:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the link given by Thatcher131 to point to my archived talk page, as it includes a contents directory to make finding my points easier. Ebonyskye 20:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out about this, a past Check User report about many alias' of Skinny McGee. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Skinny_McGee. I'm not sure what it all means but it seems rather suspicious that he would try to lay blame on me for only one edit when he has all this other stuff going on. Ebonyskye 06:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That report appears to be from before the arbitration case started. Newyorkbrad 02:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dacy69

User:Dacy69, who is on a 1 revert per article per week parole, has violated his parole on Brenda Shaffer:

First revert (August 16, 2007): [14] which was a revert (he inserted teh two reviews) of this edit: [15]

Second revert (August 20, 2007): [16] once again he reinserted the same material in a partial revert which was a revert of this [17].

I just realized this as this is the first time I have logged into Wikipedia in days. This is a clear violation of the parole.Hajji Piruz 01:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After few days of constructive editing in absense of User:Hajji Piruz, he is back to false reporting and Wikistalking. Most notably at Mirzaagha Aliyev, article which I just started couple of days ago, and no one besides me edited yet, User:Hajji Piruz appears today with another disruption removing the reference to Azerbaijan [18]. With all assumptions of good faith, I don't see how User:Hajji Piruz could be watching this completely new article about an Azerbaijani actor, unless he was clearly Wikistalking me. His another disruption along national lines, appears at another page [19] today, again removing the word Azerbaijan. Atabek 02:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dacy69 has been blocked for 24 hours by Alex Bakharev. Sean William @ 02:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ebonyskye

As a result of the Midnight Syndicate arbitration, User:GuardianZ is barred from editing any articles related to Midnight Syndicate or Nox Arcana. ArbCom decided that GuardianZ edits were biased towards Joseph Vargo (an individual who was previously associated with Midnight Syndicate and is now a member of Nox Arcana). I believe that GuardianZ has created a new user name, User:Ebonyskye, to thwart ArbCom's decision.

GuardianZ largely stopped editing after the arbitration decision. Her last edits were on March 12, 2007.
Ebonyskye's account was created on March 2, 2007. She is clearly an experienced user (her 3rd edit was to Wikipedia:Cleanup), but she claims in this edit that "all this wiki stuff" is new to her.

Edits that point to Ebonyskye being GuardianZ's new identity:

Both use as a reference and defend a defamatory website (which clearly does not satisfy WP:Verifiability) created by Joseph Vargo and his girlfriend Christine Filipak solely to discredit Midnight Syndicate and its founder –

GuardianZ (editing as User:Oroboros 1, proven sockpuppet of GuardianZ) – [20] and [21]
Ebonyskye – [22] and [23]

Both accuse Midnight Syndicate of copying Nox Arcana album concepts –

GuardianZ (as Oroboros 1) – [24]
GuardianZ – [25]
Ebonyskye – [26]

Both assert that Joseph Vargo initiated the contact with Wizards of the Coast that led to the Dungeons & Dragons album –

GuardianZ (as Oroboros 1) – [27]
Ebonyskye – [28]

Edits in violation of ArbCom decision (assuming I'm correct):

Ebonyskye's first edit to Nox Arcana on April 2.
Ebonyskye's first edit to Midnight Syndicate on May 13th to reinsert reference to Nox Arcana.
Other edits to the Midnight Syndicate article - [29] and [30]
Edits to a Midnight Syndicate related article Dungeons & Dragons (album) -[31] and [32].
Other edits to the Nox Arcana article –[33], [34],[35] and [36].
Edits to Nox Arcana related article Darklore Manor – [37], [38],[39], and [40].

Please let me know if you need anything else or if I should have presented this differently. Thank you, Skinny McGee 04:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. A topic ban will be enforced. Thatcher131 00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[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 60: / Line 60: @@
 ::Also, please note that a number of examples cited above by [[User:Pmanderson]] are several months old, hardly acceptable in the face of the recent Eastern European amnesty decision by the ArbCom. Thanks for your consideration. --[[User:Poeticbent|<font face="Papyrus" color="darkblue"><b>Poeticbent</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Poeticbent|<small><font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk</font></small>]] 21:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 ::**The first four are. They are equally divided between Poeticbent and Matthead; neither of them retracted anything. Let them stand as context. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 22:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Admin response''' Obviously someone who is involved in a dispute can make a report here, it is the job of admins reading this page to attempt to decide if the complaint is legitimate or not.  Unfortunately there are no enforceable remedies in that case, so even if one or more users have ignored the advice to play nice, there is nothing that can be done from this board.  General blocks for incivility or just being a dick can be requested at WP:ANI. or you can ask ArbCom to review the case and apply new remedies. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 02:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 ==[[User:Hajji Piruz]]==
 {{discussion top|I concur with GRBerry in this instance [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 01:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)}}