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

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

Edit this section for new requests

Bmedley Sutler/FAAFA

It appears that Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is editing on behalf of banned FAAFA, based upon this edit summary and this admission that they are in contact. This editing in proxy for a user banned by arbitration ruling is a violation of said ruling. - Crockspot 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic#Proxy users. - Crockspot 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a completely different case, actually...maybe place it above the NuclearUmpf one with a seperate heading?--MONGO 18:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved up. - Crockspot 18:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh... couldn't "for fa" also mean that they were trying to get the article up to Featured Article status? Raymond Arritt 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was majorly edited by FAAFA, and is sparsely edited by anyone else (see edit history of Chacala), and Bmedley admits they are in contact. Their pattern of behavior and disruption is also very similar, and Bmedley passed along a message from FAAFA on my talk page this morning. It doesn't specify it is from FAAFA, but if you compare the message to most of FAAFA's edit summary taunts, it is a match. He further admits on his talk page that he is in contact with FAAFA, and an editor named fnord (FAAFA's "favorite word") on WR has also disclosed that he is in contact with Bmedley. This one is not hard to figure out. - Crockspot 19:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result Blocked 24 hr for proxy editing and 24 hr for taunting. This will be his only warning. Thatcher131 19:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:NuclearUmpf

The following discussion 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.

This is no longer productive. There is no consensus to act based on the prior arbitration case. Thatcher131 19:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has resurfaced as User:SevenOfDiamonds...I have posted evidence that this banned editor is editing in violation of his ban at User:MONGO/Ban evasion. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults is the arbcom original case...Zer0faults started using the username NuclearUmpf after that arbcom case was settled.--MONGO 22:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There can be little doubt that this is the same individual.Proabivouac 22:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I use X as a delineator? and I also spell noone as no one, which is a pretty common misspelling. I am also not located in Park Slope, I live in Bayridge, while also in Brooklyn, it is about 3 miles away. Is there a point where this harassment will stop. I notice MONGO will not file a RFCU, because the last users he accuses me of being all failed. So far 3 RFCU's later. I also notice I do not share many articles in common with any of those editors, being my interest is in Latin American studies, which he links to Nuclear because he once in over 1000 edits readded a section on a government I do not edit articles on. Do you know why? If you look at the countries I edit, they have something in common, dictatorships or corrupt governments. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of MONGO's past attacks from him and his friends: accused of being Lovelight accused of being Rootology and Fairness And Accuracy For All accused of being Bmedley Sutler & Giovanni33. I ask these games to stop, this harassment to cease and MONGO to be called to pay for this harassment. Note he will not even goto Checkuser anymore because he knows it will fail. Your chart also shows Nuclear not having a drop in editing, which even if the data is legit I do not know, shows a drop in my editing. You actually cite them both as having a drop which is not true. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zer0Faults, consider yourself officially caught. I've just started combing through all this evidence, and it's clear as day. You may as well make your grand statement now.Proabivouac 23:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O the neutral person who has also cited I was Lovelight and who else? --SevenOfDiamonds 23:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you were Lovelight. I don't even know you (or Lovelight) anyhow, but only reviewed the evidence.Proabivouac 23:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser would come back as

Stale, since we don't keep track of user IP's that long. For that reason, no point in requesting checkuser here. Anyway, the evidence is very very convincing. We have a match. --Aude (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please spare the cheerleading. You have been attacking me the whole time as well, everytime MONGO is told to stop attacking me you jump in the bandwagon. I see MONGO cannot explain why he will not do a RFCU, why there is a drop in my editing around 7, but not Nuclears, why Nuclear or zero do not edit Latin American orientated articles. Instead his proof is "he says Thank you", "has drops in editing at the same time most of NYC is on trains", "live in Parkslope," of which is wrong, I could not possibly afford to live in Park Slope. You do realize everyone that lives in NYC lives in one of 3 boroughs? with Brooklyn being the most populated after Manhattan? Such ignorance. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five boroughs, actually... and Brooklyn has a larger population than Manhattan, in fact. *Dan T.* 16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left out primarily. I was thinking of Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan. I am actually surprised to know Brooklyn has the larger population. It is higher then I had cited, 2.4 million. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the other person claiming, was the person who filed a RFCU stating I was Rootology and Freedom and accuracy for all. Nice. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only involved myself in the ANI thread after confirming your identity, to which all of my posts directly related. Other than that, and in the thread immediately below, I do not recall having interacted with you.Proabivouac 23:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In looking through the contributions I noticed stylistic quirks in common that went beyond those MONGO had already listed. It's not quite an open-and-shut case, absent further digging, but it's very close to that. Raymond Arritt 00:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to add Nuclear does wikilink policy pages [1] [2] I guess when you pick the ones you want to pick, you can make comparisons in everything. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, he/you did do some wikilinking, but so infrequently it is a nonissue. The preponderance of evidence is that you are Nuclear. I wouldn't expect you to admit to it, but since you have changed usernames so easily in the past, maybe you should just save us the trouble and do it again now...I already know if you're blocked you'll just sockpuppet anyway.--MONGO 03:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sure you do actually wikilink, but since that does not mesh with my accusation I will ignore it." There is a surprise to captivate a nation. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,I looked at the proofs, and a writing from Nuclear on another site when talking about when he left the RW group, and I don't feel they are the same person. Is it Okay to post that writing here to compare? It talks about some of the people arguing against SOD too. I think its still here in Wikipedia somewhere too. Where are the charges that I am someone else? Who made them? Why do people keep erasing this link? Link Administrator Harrison did it last! I am being discriminated! ΞBmedleySutlerΞ 04:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can post your links here. --Tbeatty 04:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he wants to link to WR...all we need is what is done on this website..the diffs I have already are enough, however, notice further comments on the talkpage of my evidence page, and I also see another interesting issue that both Diamonds and Nuclear seem to like to double hyphen a lot. Preponderance of evidence is pretty clear..it was well known when he first showed up he was a sock, since he knew wiki markup so well and he was identified then by a number of folks as a sock.--MONGO 04:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are rejecting any evidence that might vindicate SOD? Oh thats very fair. Viridae ^Talk 05:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you post to WR yourself? What I think Bmedley is talking about is a posting made there by banned editor FAAFA which was a posting made by NuclerUmpf here...all it was was copy and pasted from this website to that one...it was one of Nuclear's last edits here...right around the same time he told everyone he was going to create two socks, one for good edits and one for harassment edits. I could be mistaken about what Bmedley is, well, trying to talk about. To track socks, we do so using editing history here...not sure we can prove someone using the same username on another website is the same person using that username here, can we.--MONGO 05:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viridae, suppose I grant you, just for the sake of discussion, that MONGO is terminally uncivil. Suppose I grant you that SevenOfDiamonds is a class act who has been blindingly right on every point of disputed content. And I do grant you that's he's been incorrect accused of being several others. Guess what? SOD is still Zer0Faults/NuclearUmph. This fact is entirely independent of whatever else you're pursuing, which I encourage you to continue (if you insist) after this is acknowledged. Instead, we've picked up and resumed the argument as if there are no facts which can ever be discerned, as if didn't even matter what was being discussed. I've got nothing against this fellow, zero. I don't know enough about the ban to support it or oppose it. It just happens that the id is correct.Proabivouac 06:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it. (Does this sound like SOD? I say no. Not even a little. "I am gonig to horribly violate WP:AGF but in the hope of explaining to you what happened. I was part of a clique that included Morton, Tbeatty, Mongo, Tom etc. we used to communicate off wiki for deletions, using the noticeboard basically." Link What do you think of my new signature? Pretty cool, yes? ΞBmedleySutlerΞ 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant comments removedProabivouac 06:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bmedley, please quit using distraction fallacies. Thanks! Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant comments removedProabivouac 06:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on? Why are you censoring me? ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 06:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the removed comments had nothing to do with the topic of this thread.Proabivouac 07:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the word 'fallacy'! I had to look it up. I thought he was talking about my distracting signature. (the old one) Please don't censor me. I have had about 5 posts removed unfairly today. None of them were NPA. They were all proofs of mis-steps by favorite editors here, so they got erased. Poof! This all is so unfair! Please stop. Thank you kindly. ΞBMEDLEY ΔSUTLERΞ 07:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that I am not Nuclear, I enjoy creating articles here and it seems some persons vendetta will instead not allow me to continue. So far the large group of evidence has been that we both live in Brooklyn ... by that alone some things follow, we may have similar dialogue, we would most likely edit during the same times, and we both have an itnerest in 9/11 articles. I have not noticed any similarity other then the 9/11 articles however. The conspiracy of 9/11 is still alive in NYC, many people here do not believe it was a bunch of ingenious arab fundamentalists. MONGO however while making his graph ignores that most people editing on the EST will probably drop in editing when they goto work, on lunch, and when they go home. I did however notice that MONGO falsely attributes a drop in Nuclear's edits that mine do not have at around 7AM, if the chart is suppose to prove we are the same, why do I always have a drop, and he never did?

I have created 10 articles here or so and am in the midst of creating another and rewriting another. I find the fact that MONGO will not take this to RFCU quite damning proof, considering he already has accused me personally of being 2 other people in a RFCU and 1 other without taking it to RFCU, his friends have accused me collectively, including Aude here of being 3 other people, all through RFCU's linked above. Other interesting proof "Thank you," "mispells no one," "mispells separate," These are the types of trivial issues that prove I am some one else? I spell commonly misspelled words? The only real attempt to link me to Nuclear MONGO makes is that he once removed a section from an article that involved a Latin American country. All of my articles revolve around Latin American countries, corrupt government and dictatorships, this is the kind of by a string linking attempting to be done. MONGO also falsely asserts that I live in Park Slope, of which is 3 miles away from me, a neighborhood that is 20,000$ more then I make in a year.

For some backstory this began when MONGO lost an AfD, he began attacking me and following me around, leaving threats on my talk page, a page later vandalized. He most recently had a candidate fail at RfA, another instance of where I was vocal due to some comments they made off Wikipedia, he then of course brings his "evidence" involving lies. The first one being where I live, the second being that neither myself or Nuclear wikilink policy, of which I proved wrong, though I do not like tracking through someone else's edits to vindicate myself. MONGO also asserts that the two editors share an editing pattern yet does not account for the sharp drop around 7AM, which is when omething in common, dictatorships or corrupt governments. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are some of MONGO's past attacks from him and his friends: accused of being Lovelight accused of being Rootology and Fairness And Accuracy For All accused of being Bmedley Sutler & Giovanni33. I ask these games to stop, this harassment to cease and MONGO to be called to pay for this harassment. Note he will not even goto Checkuser anymore because he knows it will fail. Your chart also shows Nuclear not having a drop in editing, which even if the data is legit I do not know, shows a drop in my editing. You actually cite I typically leave for work, a drop Nuclear does not have. MONGO notes himself that Nuclear had setup a new account in February, yet my IP was not editing then, nor was this account created then.

I see MONGO has now removed the Park Slope issue, apparently he is just removing now all the issues he was caught on earlier. As for if I followed MONGO to some pages, I did. After MONGO began appearing on my talk page after losing the AfD, how could I not? I later noticed him wikistalking Giovanni to the Hiroshima bomb page so I followed him there to see what it was about. I actually found many pages only because of following MONGO, apparently him and Nuclear share more in common articles wise, then myself and Nuclear. So if Nuclear had an account in February like MONGO states, then I am obviously not him. I ask again for a RFCU, however I am sure MONGO does not want another failed one and will argue against it. I await the decision, I am not going to go back and forth with MONGO's friends advocating how damning the evidence is, and how a RFCU should be skipped due to it. I just want to also note Nuclear seemed to have a habit of writing long edit summaries, something I do not do either. Apparently another issue where MONGO was lying on his evidence page. He states both me and Nuclear have a history of removing Tom harissons comments from our talk pages, yet only shows me removing his comments, if you look at both comments you can see why. In both comments MONGO is threatening me or engaging in a personal attack with an accusation. I also would like to note MONGO has a link where Nuclear states he will continue to harass people, but I have not done so. If anything people have warned MONGO to stop harassing me. If I was here to be destructive and harass people, I would have blocks in my log, I have 1 for 3RR on SixOfDiamonds, and people would instead be telling me to stop, not telling MONGO to stop --SevenOfDiamonds 10:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries have been remarkably similar, actually. That's one of the things that hit me right away, and I invite anyone else who might doubt this to look at the last 1k contribs of both accounts.Proabivouac 11:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again we drill down till we are only looking at what we want to see? I noticed in Nuclear's last 1000 he has a tendency to post long edit summaries, something I rarely do unless I am making someone aware that they in particular were responded to. --SevenOfDiamonds 11:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO's pursuit of SevenOfDiamonds looks like a witch-hunt to me. *Dan T.* 12:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Witch hunts are inherently foolish because, by most accounts, witches - at least those of the sort witch hunts were meant to check - don't and didn't exist.Proabivouac 12:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response to enforcement request It does not look like it is possible to enforce anything here. NuclearUmpf was indef blocked by JzG, which equates to a community ban since no other admin has opposed it. Any uninvolved admin who accepted the identification of Seven as Nuclear could apply the same ban, but it looks like that would be opposed by admin Viridae. I think you'll need to run this through arbitration again. Thatcher131 12:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They edit similar articles, though the newer account has moved into new areas. SevenOfDiamonds shares NuclearUmpf's obsession with me, Tbeatty, Morton Devonshire, and Mongo. The times line up; the style, spelling errors, and distinctive phrases like 'go play somewhere' are similar. I think SevenOfDiamonds is NuclearUmpf. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had no serious contact with either user, and have not looked at the contents of the edits at all. I would warn against putting too much weight onto the geographical proximity and the editing time pattern in this case. They are certainly not independent, and editors with similar day jobs in the same time zone are quite likely to have similar edit patterns. --Stephan Schulz 12:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the phrase once, after referring to MONGO as a child. I have no obsession with you nor TBeatty. I do not believe me and Tbeatty edit any of the same articles. Other then the "allegations" article, I do not edit any articles with you either. Further I have only run into Morton in a brief comment he left on the "allegations" page. I am not seeing this "obsession" you talk about. I am kind of annoyed because I have actually come to your defense and appreciated your input on that article, highlighting you as the one editor who wanted the article deleted, that actually works to contribute content, yet you appear here stating I have a vendetta? Should I dig through your talk page and present the times I have said thank you to you, asked questions from you, or provided you with information that may have helped sections you were creating? I understand MONGO is your friend, but more lies do not help the situation. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For added irony, Wikipedia highlites both words as commonly misspelled Noone Separate --SevenOfDiamonds 12:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is for Tom since I am a bit hurt by his accusations:

[3] Asking Tom for assistance when MONGO vandalized my talk page.
[4] Complimenting Tom even though he refused to take action against MONGO for the vandalism.
[5] [6] Discussing a n edit Tom made and how to improve it.
[7] Discussing another edit Tom made and an alternate meaning to a passage he cited.
[8] Explaining to Tom how Amazon.com book reading works. I pointed him the correct location of a citation.

This is the "obsession" I have with Tom. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than dealing with TBeatty when she comes to the aid of MONGO, I have no other dealing with her. Actually very little even on the "allegations" page. I do not remember any interaction with Morton, other than posting on his talk page once, where another accusation was being made about me, I believe I was being called a sockpuppet of Giovanni. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am 99% convinced but want to clear a few points up. Maybe then we can get agreement among admins

If two people live in the same city they ar likely to edit at similar times of the day aren't they?
The spelling errors all look like common ones to me. I've seen lots of people spell no one as noone. Are they any spelling errors that are common to both accounts but are not common in the general population?
the edit summary evidence is completely unconvincing.
How common is using X,Y,Z or XYZ? I don't think it is common at all.
The "go play somewhere" edit summary. looks convincing. How does SOD explain it?
How does SOD explain knowledge or jargon?
How does SOD explain obvious incidents of wikistalking?
Is there any more evidence that hasn't been added yet? If so please add it ASAP. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were you not the one who said I was Lovelight? Yes you were [9] you redacted right after however, I thank you for that. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. Can you answer my questions please? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? I stated already that since MONGO appeared on my talk page I did follow his edits, however that is not wikistalking since nothing malicious was ever done. This can be further supported by my lack of a block log, if I was wikistalking, or being disruptive, it would show. As for the "go play somewhere" I would like to point to the irony of you having all said it to a user before [10] I was referring to MONGO being childish on my talk page. Are we the same account? --SevenOfDiamonds 13:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Go play somewhere else" is common. "Go play somewhere" is not. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this serious, are you honestly stating that the lack of else makes something unique? A google search alone says 1/3 of "go play somewhere" remarks on the internet, do not end in "else." Now this is beginning to border on a witch hunt. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. SOD How do you explain early knowledge of wikipedia jargon? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot be a serious question. Spending two minutes on Wikipedia and all you see are WP:(insert policy). I did not come here ignorant, I edited Wikipedia from an IP before I registered an account. The idea I edited a template is foolish since its based on that IP being the first IP I edited from. I have attempted to contribute to articles before, mainly spelling corrections etc. I eventually registered an account and continued to edit. I also did not always have the same ISP. I moved last year from Queens to Brooklyn with my daughter when my wife and I split up. We then switched from Verizon to RoadRunner. As for the mysterious wiki markup, anyone with experience in VBB or HTML would not see this cryptic language as very cryptic. Many tags used are actually taken from VBB such as "image" and many are noted below the editing pane. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the wikimarkup that bothers me so much. It's the knowing what SPA means :-( Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize it is wikilinked in the tagging right? The title is "Single Purpose Account" --SevenOfDiamonds 13:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<Theresa smiles at her own idiocy> No I didn't! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am not on a witch hunt. I actually have no problem with ban evaders resuming editing, so long as they don't resume the same tactics which led to their bans. I had the bulk of this assembled off wiki and saved on word a month ago and to be fair, tried to walk away from Diamonds and get an article I want to see become featured up to speed which is where I spent a lot of time until last week, so this stuff is a real distraction for me. Nuclear said he was going to be harassing, well, he was an ardent supporter and a signatory to an Rfc on me (which was deleted) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3 which was deleted: 11:41, July 6, 2007 Ro omething in common, dictatorships or corrupt governments. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)\

Here are some of MONGO's past attacks from him and his friends: accused of being Lovelight accused of being Rootology and Fairness And Accuracy For All accused of being Bmedley Sutler & Giovanni33. I ask these games to stop, this harassment to cease and MONGO to be called to pay for this harassment. Note he will not even goto Checkuser anymore because he knows it will fail. Your chart also shows Nuclear not having a drop in editing, which even if the data is legit I do not know, shows a drop in my editing. You actually cite gerd (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3" (speedy (CSD R1).) only two weeks after Nuclear showed up as SixOfDiamonds and after he had made zero effort to resolve any conflict with me. The evidence sections, individually, add up to nothing, but when combined together, it is pretty clear that indeed Diamonds is Nuclear.--MONGO 13:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to note it was after you vandalized my talk page. Accused me repeatedly of being a sockpuppet. Threatened me on my talk page. Deleted my comment off of yours after I invited you back to my talk page if you would discuss issues in a civil manner? I am sure you left those out by accident. Attempting to make it seem like I appeared out of thin air, is further proof, along with the lies noted above that you do not defend, that you have an axe to grind because of the failed AfD and the failed RfA. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen was reffering to you when she mentioned sockpuppet at the beginning of this thread...[11] which was in response to the Rfc you signed onto.--MONGO 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked that rfc. He doesn't appear in the contributors list. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited originally from home via IP then signed my comments as myself. I however did not start it, showing another lie by MONGO and an incorrect statement by Bishonen if they were referring to me as MONGO claims. Can someone undelete the RfC so I may illustrate via a dif? --SevenOfDiamonds 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not address any of the points. Not really unexpected. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah... that infamous thread where you and your buddies behaved like schoolyard bullies, ridiculing anybody who dared to criticize you. *Dan T.* 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting offtopic. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was the Rfc 3 that was deleted later, but I know Bishonen was referring to Diamonds when she stated he was a sock...I'll see if I can dig up her comments. Besides, this isn't some delusion on my part...I have not once filed checkuser on Diamonds, yet three others have. I always knew the only way to track him was via editing style sinc ethe checkuser stats would be stale. I highly doubt an admin as respected as Aude would bother with requesting checkuser unless she was convinced this guy is a ban evader...Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SevenOfDiamonds--MONGO 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this throw everything and see what sticks. If you believe Aude, then you are effectively stating you are wrong. Odd that you do not note that Aude was acting on your accusation on the Giovanni page however which was posted earlier. Why do you ignore that? You make the accusation Then 24 hours later Aude makes the request, exactly as you stated it. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of your edits messed up some of the above comments. [12] --SevenOfDiamonds 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or is it that everyday SevenOfDiamonds is accused of being someone else's sock? El_C 14:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he is just... well, himself. I mean, it is possible. For ex., here we have a thread where *Dan T.* actually sides with "the cabal"! ;) El_C 14:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which thread was that? (Not that it surprises me that there are some of those... I try to take positions based on what I think is logical, not on who I happen to be supporting or opposing; I don't make many friends that way, but it's the only way I think is honest. This means that I've probably sided both for and against a large number of active editors and admins at some time or other.) *Dan T.* 14:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke (based on my impression of you often taking a stand against administrators, as a collective), don't worry about it. El_C 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far I am: Lovelight, Rootology, Fairness And Accuracy For All, Bmedley Sutler & Giovanni33, now also zero and Nuclear. Note Aude accused me of being Rootology and Fairness and state the evidence was inconclusive and did not require a RFCU. TBeatty then accused me of being Lovelight, stating much the same. It was on the Giovanni page where MONGO accused me of being Rootology and Fairness and then Aude filed the RFCU the next day. Theresa while being neutral now, even stated the evidence I was Lovelight was enough. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SoD was clearly not a match for Lovelight, thus it was quickly dismissed and closed. The RFCU wasn't necessary. But from the beginning, SixOfDiamonds coming to the AFD immediately and his editing behavior made it clear he was not a new user. Obvious sock. --Aude (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is because you are incorrectly assuming that was my first edit, however MONGO disagrees and shows an earlier edit, and I have already stated that I edited even before then, and read about Wikipedia, primarily in the news. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but look at MONGO's evidence page. Even with SOD explaining some of it away, it still looks pretty damnning. Same location, similar interests, similar spelling errors (common errors but there are multiple words) Similar phrase in edit summary ("go play somewhere"is not common AFAIK), Similar use of X,Y,Z, and XYZ for variable. Again not that uncommon but not widespread eaither. Each piece of evidence alone is not proof, but taken as a whole they look pretty convincing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Theresa. The comments here are beginning to split along partisan political dividing lines, but objectively all the little clues are adding up. (In the interest full disclosure, to the extent that my own political views can be characterized at all, they would be considered "eclectic.") Raymond Arritt 14:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that certainly was... an eclectic comment. In a seemingly eclectic phishing expedtion. El_C 14:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get to the bottom of this, but broadly waving the case away as a "phishing expedition" isn't helping. Would you care to address any of the specific items brought as evidence? Raymond Arritt 15:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked above the 3 RFCU's, accusing me of being 5 other users. MONGO accusing me of being 2 other users, and now accusing me of being Nuclear and zero and apparently eluding to me being another user named rex, of which is not even an in use account apparently User:Rex, nor is it blocked. I am sure there will be more accusations until there are no fish in the sea. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can google search and find 3 pages of people saying it, including yourself. After searching XYZ I have found it on another admin Jossi. Apparently I am them as well. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As explained earlier the phrase commonly used is "£go play somewhere else" So this argument holds no water. Likewise using XYZ. Yes other people do it. But it's not that common. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add other then 9/11 related articles, which I would think would be popular around New York users, myself and Nuclear share nothing in common. In fact if it was not for following MONGO, I would not have found the allegations page in the first place. The article however, if you look at where I edit, not where I argue, are Latin America related, which is not in common with Nuclear. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I am getting a bit tired of reviewing SoD sockpuppet allegations. How many times are we expected to go through with this? El_C 14:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the evidence is not conclusive? I made it clear, I have no problem with ban evaders evading their bans if they don't resume their old tactics which led to their banning....Diamonds has not. I would have preferred to let it go, but Diamonds won't...he has been hounding me for somme time now, and the only way to escape it is to retreat away from articles he hangs around. I'm not going to be driven away from those areas by a ban dodger. I remember for a long time that RyanFriesling was convinced that Nuclear was ban evader Rex...that went on for a long time. Just as Diamonds is doing now, Nuclear repeatedly denied it, but I know Ryan and she is a smart cookie...I highly doubt she would be slinging mud at Nuclear if she didn't see him for being Rex. This guy isn't political...he is here to be quarrelsome.--MONGO 14:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the quarrel is. I do not even edit articles you edit, other then "allegations" one. I would not even consider that an article you edit, since you just revert it. I am not Nuclear, your constant hounding, accusations, fishing, RFCU, attacks on my personal page, threats, etc. are the only thing causing you stress. I do not edit articles you edit, we have common article, of which I have provided citations for after participating in the AfD, something I am sure MONGO does not like since it makes it harder for him to delete the article. You are the one, as noted even now on AN/I that is hounding and threatening me. I ask again for you to cease your harassment. I enjoy creating articles here, but this constant infatuation you have with me is becoming disturbing. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think a new arbitration case is required. Even after seeing MONGO's evidence, Theresa and Tom H. would seemingly support a ban but El_C and Viridae seemingly would not. Thatcher131 14:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes since we cannot agree it needs to go to the Arbcom. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not comfortable with all phishing, sorry. El_C 14:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, with all due respect...didn't you defend Nuclear for some time even though he was ultimately banned? I'm not taking this to arbcom...what for? The proof is in the pudding and we already have a case on Nuclear, so this is just another sock.--MONGO 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO If admins can't agree then it needs to go to Arbitration. Simple as that. And we can't agree. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not expressing an opinion on Seven. I'm noting that since respected and experienced users and admins can not agree on whether Seven is Nuclear, that arbitration is required to determine whether Seven's behavior is a bannable offense. If it would help, I would block Seven right now for generally being disruptive and for maybe evading a ban as Nuclear, but then El_C or Viridae would unblock, so we'd be right back at square one. My interactions with Nuclear are all mostly in the archives of this page for you to see for yourself. Thatcher131 14:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see now why this came here. MONGO felt he would not have to go through RFCU, or could get away with his harassment, if he cited me as a banned user that had an Arbitration hearing before. Which is why the other accusations went through RFCU and this one did not. He had already been proven wrong and proven of making false accusations before. This sheds light on the politics at play. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never once filed checkuser on you. I knew the only way to track the fact that you are ban evader Nuclear was via editing style. I'm not taking this to arbcom...I've already wasted enough time on this guy, so I withdraw...let someone else deal with him.--MONGO 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that, in the tangled thread above, one of the things this user is accused of is knowing WP's arcane policies and acronyms too well, which "proves" he's a sockpuppet, and justifies a fishing expedition of repeatedly accusing him of being a sock of this, that, and the other banned user in the hopes that one of them eventually sticks... or that even if none of them is ever proven, the admins can eventually say "Well, he's got to be guilty of something... so we'd better ban him." There's a catch-22 there... whenever a newbie comes along who happens to disagree with some powerful editors, if he's ignorant of WP's weird internal language and strange rules, he's likely to get summarily blocked for running afoul of one or another of them (despite WP:BITE), and have a hard time trying to defend himself due to lack of knowledge of all this arcane stuff (his inept efforts to defend himself will probably be considered "incivility" and result in extended bans). On the other hand, if he has sufficient knowledge to hold his own in the ensuing policy enforcement actions, that is used against him too. You can't win. *Dan T.* 14:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan if what you say were true, and knowledge of advanced wikimarkup wee proof of being a sock then I would have blocked him immediately and so would other admins. The fact that we haven't prooves you are talking out of your arse in this repsect. Picking on one piece of evidence gets us nowhere. It is the accumilation of evidence taken as a whole that is important. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is referring to somebody as "talking out of your arse" a case of incivility or personal attack? It probably would be if done by somebody you're trying to "get". *Dan T.* 15:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended as either. It's a bit colourful though. If I offended you I apologise for it. I've no idea what you mean by your second sentence. I'm not trying to get you. I don't even know you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been lost above, but Nuclear was banned long enough ago that the IP records should not have been kept, so a RFCU is pointless. Can't we just block User:SevenOfDiamonds as a disruptive sock of the blocked User:SixOfDiamonds, and get on with editing? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six wasn't blocked except for 3RR once...eh claimed he lost his password and changed to Seven.--MONGO 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; I thought I hit preview. However, can't we just block SixOfDiamonds/SevenOfDiamonds for disruption (and add a pre-emptive block of Eight, Nine, and Ten), and get back to editing? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "We can't prove he did anything wrong, but some of our clique find him annoying, so can't we just ban him and be done with it?" *Dan T.* 15:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, why don't'cha block all 52 cards in the deck, plus the jokers and the card with information on the company that manufactured the deck, while you're at it... :-) *Dan T.* 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO attacking me is not proof of me being disruptive. If I was disruptive, would I not have more then one 3RR block? The fact that Arthur would cite me as a sock of SixOfDiamonds, shows how little he has done to look at the situation. I am more then happy to see this go to arbitration. I think people taking a look at MONGO's accusations, name calling, insults, allegations, etc. would be the best route to go. Especially since all parties involved in Arbitration are looked at equally. I have done nothing but defend myself, have I pushed an envelope in some of my responses, sure, but only when attacked myself, or made a victim through accusations. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to send this one to arbcom. For my own part none of the individual pieces of evidence are convincing, but when two people follow the same schedules and edit overlapping political articles and edit overlapping non-political articles and have a certain stylistic quirk in common and have another stylistic quirk in common, etc etc... the probability of so many coincidences becomes vanishingly small. Raymond Arritt 15:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only articles we edit in common are the "allegations" article, and I believe a 9/11 article. Which I do not edit, in the sense of frequent participation, just in the sense that I have touched the article before. As noted, editing in the morning and stopping at night, is a trait I am sure much of New York shares. If a user was from Africa, and they both happened to be South African, and edited during the same time of day, would you cite that as evidence? Obviously living in the same timezone would coincide my edits with much of the east coast. Would them both being of African decent be further proof? How about both being above a certain height? Stating issues that are most likely going to relate to a large pool, over 2 million people in my borough, is grasping at straws to make connections. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Preponderance of evidence is what matters. I looked through, like 2,500 diffs and I was amazed at the striking similaritites...I can't imagine what more I need to do to document this.--MONGO 15:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven is a duplicate account of Six, rather than a sock. Sorry. I don't recall seeing evidence that Seven was created while Six was blocked. But they are the same person, and should be treated as such if any block is performed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdenting) MONGO, you have good evidence, but no, I've been looking at stuff like tone, style, English, and I do retain a nagging doubt. I won't block. I'm not sure. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The only way to be 100% sure is for him to admit it...which he won't do of course. The preponderance of evidence is convincing, and I knew he was a sock immediately...and checked him against more than 5 other editors making simliar edits to similar articles.--MONGO 18:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit other people filed those RFCU's for you. Yet above, you make it seem as you are isolated from them since "you" did not file them specifically. Once this one fails I see you prepared to calling me another user, one not even active or banned. Thank you for finally admitting to the fishing expedition. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bishonen. Whether SevenOfDiamonds is in fact a sock or not, I don't know. The evidence provided raises suspicion, but I don't see anything in the diffs that would support a block at this time. It seems many believe this needs to go through arbcom if any action is to be taken, and I have to agree. There simply isn't enough to act on at this point. - auburnpilot talk 18:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to make a statement about the RFCUs. I was the one who filed RFCU, regarding FAAFA and Rootology, based on suspicions MONGO and others had. Jumped the gun on that, and it was a mistake. Apologies to everyone.

The requests were stale, so RFCU was pointless anyway.
When I looked at the editing pattern, time of day, for FAAFA and Rootology, they were totally different. clearly not a match. Time of day isn't 100% proof that SevenOfDiamonds is a match for Nuclear, but it eliminates other possibilities. With that, one can then look at the editing behavior and style in detail and see many other characteristics that match and make a more convincing case here.
Also, the way that SevenOfDiamonds has had an issue with me [13] [14], from the outset, is something that never happened with Rootology, FAAFA, (or Giovanni and Bmedley), since I'm not involved on the state terrorism page. But, Nuclear did, such as this exchange [15] on a page I had been watching for 1+ years and Nuclear just came on days prior, and asks me to "stop following his edits" and "Try not to poke and prod." Characteristics I've seen in Nuclear's edits match the tone and style I've seen with SevenOfDiamonds.

As for Lovelight, I knew immediately it was not a match. I think the RFCU requester should have known better. First of all, Lovelight's edits are stale by now. Also, the editing styles totally do not match, as well I know the geographic location and IPs used by Lovelight (not at all a match). That's why I asked for that request to quickly be closed.

It's taken a while to pour over the evidence, but this is by far strong evidence when it's all considered collectively. Any one individual bit of evidence wouldn't convince me, but all the pieces together. Unlikely coincidence that this is a new editor and someone other than Nuclear. This is not about politics or anything, but simply that he became quarrelsome and disruptive, as has SevenOfDiamonds. This mess has been a distraction for MONGO and others, to keep having sockpuppets come back and arbcom decisions and bans not enforced. If SevenOfDiamonds simply came back and edited more quietly, I'd have no problems with that. But, that's not the situation here, and the drama and disruption needs to stop. I suggest looking past the numbers RFCUs here (many were mistakes or naive), but look at the collective evidence. Regards. --Aude (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You ask we look past all the prior accusations because this one, not the others, were sincere? I see MONGO is already preparing his next accusation, Fairness was wrong, Rootology was wrong, Nuclear is wrong, and now he is starting to equate me with another user that is not even banned named rex. When does this game end? How many "opps" and "Ignore the past ones" do people get? I am sure once this goes to Arbitration and they look at the way MONGO has harassed me, he will then start on his next accusation, calling me rex and preparing another graph, one that actually shows, while being on the same coast as Nuclear, a big area where we are not editing at the same time. Looking at the graph I would assume Nuclear does not work, or works the night shift, since he is never "going to work" his editing climbs until lunch then climbs and falls. You claimed before the evidence Rootology and Fairness was so strong, I am not even sure if they are the same person, but I consider that two accusations, and now again your judgment is suppose to be the key? Perhaps you would look more neutral if you were not filing RFCU's against me on MONGO's behalf. You also did not state why I had a problem with you. MONGO posted that you had judged me and were taking his side, this is without you coming to be to even ask or inquire about anything [16] I posted that on your talk page to find out if it was true, and apologize if MONGO lied. If you did in fact judge me just off MONGO's statements, without asking for my side, my thoughts on the matter, then that is clearly bias. The follow up failed RFCU's are painting a picture of someone who just works off what MONGO says. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems MONGO has admitted here to having the RFCU's placed through other people. Here is MONGO stating he had me checkuser'd [17] --SevenOfDiamonds 19:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He said he checked you not checkusered you. Don't put words into other people's mouths. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to look at coincidence, you can see his statement, then the reality of me being accused of being 5 users in RFCU's. Giovanni, Bmedley, Rootology, Fairness & Lovelight. It is amusing for this to be dismissed but for people to take seriously "he says thank you" as proof of me being someone else. Aude the RFCU they filed was due to MONGO's evidence, which they say now they doubted ... and TBeatty filing a RFCU when I had no interaction with them is beyond odd, however they do appear whenever MONGO is on AN/I. I will retract my statement as far as saying its not a fact, however it is an odd coincidence. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what...if you think I'm a sock of a banned editor...then report it to checkuser. Good luck. I guess all these people who reported you are suffering from the same mass delusion? I posted only three examples of you wikistalking me as I didn't see them as necessary to establish that you are a banned editor editing in evasion of their ban. If you want to pursue this further...I'll post plenty of other evidences then. But I concur with the findings of this board...there is insufficient evidence that you are NuclearUmpf...I deeply apologize for my delusional state of mind...what was I thinking? Odd, just above you sound exactly as NuclearUmpf did when he accused me of leading some behind the scenes effort to suppress 9/11 conspiracy theories...that accusation was one of his last edits...right about when he stated he was going to create an account to harass people...how strange the coincidences are--MONGO 19:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you ranting about? Who called you a sock? You are the only one here making accusations. I stated they placed RFCU's on your behalf. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:49, 17 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:Alienus

Looking at his contributions and behavior, I think User:ThAtSo is Alienus editing in violation of his ban. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Tom and him are in a content dispute. I don't think this user is Alienus. Their writing style, word choice, and grammar, are quite different--and its things like that which are more unique, and hard to hide.Giovanni33 00:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked a little through the contribution histories of both usernames, I am fairly confident that this is the same individual. Whether there is disruption, I'm not certain. According to the ArbCom decision, User:Alienus was known for edit-warring, personal attacks and obstinacy. Thus, it makes loads of sense for User:ThAtSo to avoid edit-warring, personal attacks and, I suppose, also obstinacy, lest he appear even more like User:Alienus then he already does. Has any of this behavior recurred? If so, the Committee will be obliged to take action.Proabivouac 00:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Giovanni33, per your comment, it strikes me as supremely unlikely that Tom Harrison would level such an accusation in order to gain an upper hand in a content dispute.Proabivouac 02:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the first step should be a checkuser request. That being said, looking through the contributions, the similarities in tone and content are uncanny. Nandesuka 01:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CU is superfluous; it's the same individual whether there is a CU match or not.

It does look like there has been some edit-warring and obstinacy on Christianity lately. That's really unfortunate.Proabivouac 02:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"CU is superfluous" is paramount to "I do not need proof, my say so is enough" If he is a sockpuppet the CU will say so and administrators will take action. I have been accused of being 3-4 other people since I have been here from 2 users and an admin that I was in a content dispute with, so I would not be surprised if it in fact was a common tactic. Users editing the same articles is not proof of a sockpuppet, its proof of like interests. If editing the same articles is enough let me know, I can prove Tom is actually MONGO, they not only revert the same users, but participate on the same articles, but that is silly, which is why we rely on CU for proof. --SevenOfDiamonds 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser does not presume to say who is who, but where is where (a little more than that, but same idea.)Proabivouac 04:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems quite likely that it is the same user. Same edits, some subjects, same insistence on Objectivism and Satanism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong stylistic and other similarities lead me to concur. Raymond Arritt 04:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interests are not only similar but uncannily exactly similar on point after point. Examples of stylistic similarity are everywhere; it would only be a matter of finding the labor to prove what is immediately obvious.

A shared argument: 17:32, 18 May 2006 04:28, 12 August 2007

A shared edit summary: 20:25, 12 August 2007 , 02:46, 29 June 2006 , etc., etc.

There are occasionally tough calls, but this one's a no-brainer.Proabivouac 04:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether thatso is a suck puppet or not but these guys are a christian well-lubricated wikilawyering bias producing machine! I'm sure I'll soon be accused of suck pupeteering too oh well atleast its a skill who ever is going to decide on this case should take a good look at the work done by the folk accusing this guy I've never seen such a group of wiki folk I just cant understand how this harrison guy has become an administrator he should be closely watched by some higher ups... good bye account its been fun ;) Esmehwp 08:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately disagreements on the Christianity talk page seem to fly to "sockpuppet" accusations on a regular basis - sometimes with absolutely no foundation (my husband in Sussex UK was accused of being Italian Giovani33's sockpuppet). It does seem to becoming the standard way of dealing with those who get so hacked off at the cozy status quo on that page that they start sticking to their point. Just read the article - it's an advert for Christianity that plays up their own persecution to the extent that you would never guess they have been in charge of most of the western world for the best part of the last 2000 years. The violence suppression and murder done in the name of this religion are glossed over - no mention of the crusades at all (better in the History of Christianity article - no mention needed here). I have had the same frustrations and rarely edit there now - if a "Christian" does bad things in the name of "Christ" he's just a bad man - not an example of the wrongs of Christianity. But if a bad man is persecuted for gross abuses (see The French Revolution) and happens to ba a Christian then it's persecution of Christians. According to the article there is Persection of Christians but only Historical persecution by Christians???? What no persecution by those currently in charge in most of the Western world??? You can see why frustration flares.

Alienus was banned for a year and that then turned into a perm ban with no discussion by an admin who's judgement I would question. Anyone who worked with Al for a few months knows he was banned because his pissed off the pro-circumcision crowd. He crossed swords with Jayjg who is a checkuser and has already shown that he keeps a quiet eye on open-proxies (the only way I guess he could edit at all without being immediately tracked to the Alienus account) with or without a CU request. I think it's safe to say that if he could have nailed an Alienus sock he would have done it by now. As for the evidence above - I've used similar arguments myself and see them often from others. Referring to wikipedia rules is common for a lot of editors. If you review the "evidence" against Al in the arbcom case it looks weak in the light of what has been swept under the carpet recently (diffs available on request). Sophia 08:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia, please don't force me or anyone else to spend days compiling the evidence per User:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying. It's the most obvious thing in the world, as you surely know. The ArbCom case is another matter upon which I can offer no opinion besides that it seems unduly harsh. The doubletalk in your post - ArbCom remedy against Alienus too harsh; perhaps this is not Alienus (in which case why would that matter) makes it clear that you suspect this identification to be correct. To state otherwise is not only to defend Alienus, but to unjustifiably question our competence. If you wish to defend Alienus, please do so directly - e.g., the ban should be lifted - rather than by telling others that we are hallucinating this very plain equation. One I find intriguing; the other insults my intelligence.Proabivouac 09:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another…and this took me roughly five seconds to find:

20:17, 29 June 2006

07:52, 10 August 2007

And that's just from summaries of the most recent fifty edits. It's a turkey shoot, Sophia.Proabivouac 09:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My last post explained the situation on the Christianity page at present and why it seems to produce such stroppy editors. I then separately dealt with my thoughts on whether this was Alienus with some background for those who missed this case of over a year ago. How you can interpret that as me meaning it's a done deal and I'm pleading on Al's behalf I do not know. My english must be much poorer than I thought.

Your "success" with one editor should not give you an overarching view of your own competence to judge these things. Looking at the latest examples I do dispute that it is Alienus - "stuff" is not an Al word he is usually much more precise as in the genuine Alienus example you give - "text". Anyway I can't see why he would bother with a username again after the raw deal he was given last time. I will resist all attempts to turn this personal despite provocation but I do not insult your intelligence - I question your judgment. Your eagerness to dispense with the bother of substantial evidence when you are calling for the perm ban of a user you are in dispute with is very questionable. Your failure to address any of the substantial points I made above - mass accusations of sockpuppetry from the Christianity article - the lack of action by Jayjg on possible open proxies - also concerns me. I do not think this is Al - if it was he would have hit the Circumcision related articles by now as this was where he really dug his heels in. If you counter that he is too smart to hit all his know territories with one account then I would also say his smart enough to use the open proxies with different accounts for different areas of interest so as to avoid any suspicion of this kind. Sophia 10:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Alienus uses "stuff" quite often in edit summaries. Here are two examples in which "stuff" appears in conjunction with cite/citation, as in the above:04:48, 22 December 2005 04:21, 13 December 2005.Proabivouac 03:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just spent the last hour going through all of Al's 5000+ contributions and the examples given are the only uses of "stuff" in edit summaries that I found. Maybe I missed one or two as your eyes do blur after a while but in no way can the use of the word "stuff be considered a signature mark of an Al edit summary or used as evidence of a link. Please also note that the examples are nearly 2 years old, done in the first month of his editing and then never reoccur. What is scariest is that you are being taken seriously and your cherry picking and "ignoring of negative evidence" [18] is swaying others. Sophia 13:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, your eyes aren't blurry, it's just a pain to use the wiki interface. You're better off downloading the lists into a spreadsheet. I wouldn't call it any kind of signature, but Alienus used "stuff" in summaries on at least a dozen occasions. The only reason it came up is because you claimed, that doesn't sound like Alienus because Alienus wouldn't use that word…which isn't true. "Negative evidence" is not the same concept as exculpatory evidence. For example, if I say, a whale cannot be a mammal because it has no fur, that is a fallacious appeal to "negative evidence." Similarly, "Alienus never said 'stuff' (though he did)" and "ThAtSo has not visited Circumcision." That's not exculpatory.Proabivouac 18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia, I am hardly involved in any of these disputes of which you speak. If I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that these are the same individual, will you recuse yourself from all further sockpuppet investigations? Because this incompetence - not misconduct, but incompetence - is a serious problem in the community. We need people evaluating these reports who can discern whether one user is the same as another.Proabivouac 11:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I do you a disservice but I read the above as saying I am incompetent to ask that a subjective assessment be properly investigated before a user is perm banned? Sophia 11:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assert that anyone who views contributions of User:Alienus and User:ThAtSo and concludes the matter as indeterminate is ipso facto incompetent to judge any sockpuppet report, for this is among the most obvious I have ever seen.Proabivouac 12:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that makes me incompetent as well, since I'm looking at the evidence and I do not jump to the conclusion that these two accounts must be the same person. Edit summaries are not only different, but the ideas being the same with some same words (common words) make sense given that edit summaries often describe the same idieas and issues (unexplained removal, etc); even I used such terms. Everyone does. In order to be convicncing you have to look at larger bodies of writing to find peticular vernacular that is unique to one but shared by the other. So far I've not seen it. I'm not sure its so good for you to be so convinced, so sure of yourself. Nor is it good to judge everyone else ipso facto incompetent simply because they don't see eye to eye with what you see. In anycase, I feel there is reasonable doubt so I'm opposed on principle taking any harsh actions without very good proof. I think that was one of Sophia's main points.Giovanni33 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That told me then didn't it. I apologise for thinking that perm banning a user required a proper case to be brought. Better tell the Arbcom they are out of a job. Sophia 12:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So every sock must be brought before ArbCom afresh and anew? Indeed, why not abolish ArbCom, for there is no credible remedy at all, except against usernamesProabivouac 13:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the contributions that Probivouac highlights, I'm convinced. This is the same guy, and he's trying to avoid his arbcom remedy (which, ironically, was only put into place because he didn't respect the community enough to actually participate in the arbitration process). The remedy should be enforced. Nandesuka 13:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to checkuser as appropriate. People spent more time arguing over each others judgment, then it would have taken to compile a RFCU. Sorry I do not believe in people guiding by their "judgment," especially when they are calling others not so competent for not seeing eye to eye with them. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be aware that CU data gets stale fairly quickly. If as you hold, CU is the only legitimate way to determine sockpuppetry, then as a practical matter, no block or ban can last longer than the shelf life of the data.Proabivouac 23:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Yep, it's him. --Tbeatty 19:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shared articles include: Objectivism, Objectivist movement, Template:Objectivism, Objectivism (Ayn Rand), Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality, Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand Institute, Atlas Shrugged, The Atlas Society, Nathaniel Branden, Humanism, Atheism, Christianity, Abortion, Abortion debate, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, C.S. Lewis, Steven Pinker, Cartesian theater, Unitarian Universalism/Unitarian Universalist Association.Proabivouac 23:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another comparison of summaries:
- Alienus: "Please take it to Talk to build a consensus before attempting this sort of thing again."17:26, 21 May 2006
- ThAtSo: "get a consensus in Talk before trying this sort of thing again."19:38, 12 August 2007

For the enumeration format, compare: 18:08, 29 May 2006

Proabivouac 23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comparison of summaries: "Uh, no […] (esp. point about abortion)"
- ThAtSo: 04:23, 25 July 2007 04:24, 25 July 2007 02:35, 6 August 2007
- Alienus: 18:59, 10 February 2006 23:03, 25 February 2006 15:53, 26 March 2006 15:33, 9 April 2006

RfCU

Per this conversation, I have initiated a CU request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alienus. Also on the queue are User:Lancombz, User:FraisierB and User:FreddyTris, who are confirmed socks of one another; see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lancombz, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Buridan.Proabivouac 01:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/WP:APARTHEID Centralized discussion

As part of this arbitration it was ruled discussion should happen in WP:APARTHEID (see here). To make navigation of the series easier, a navbox was created {{Allegations of apartheid}}. This navbox was subject to an AfD, which was no consensus[19] and further consensus after the AfD developed to edit the box to a version that includes a link to the centralized discussion. A number of anonymous editors have removed this link in the last few days, alleging it violates WP:ASR, and commented on the talk page [20]. However, one of the anon editors commented in an entirely different fashion, which leads one to believe that this is more a disruptive editor than a good faith attempt to defend WP:ASR[(see here). Furthermore, only anon editors have been involved, it is only rarely one sees anonymous editors defending policy, specially one as ignored and obscure as WP:ASR (I do agree with it, but facts are facts).

(The similarity of arguments leads one to believe this might be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet case, but I am raising this where appropriate.)

I just want clarification if linking to the "centralized discussion" (ruled by ArbCom) is in fact a violation of WP:ASR, and if it is, if it is reasonable to WP:IAR in order to publicize the centralized discussion as part of the dispute resolution process. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom merely ruled that WP:APARTHEID should be the central location for discussions; you make it sound as if they ruled that the template (which did not exist back then) had to somehow incorporate a link to it. I (yes, for the record, I use both of the IP addresses) did go thru and add a link to this centralized discussion page on the top of all the relevant talk pages (~~well, except the template talk page -- that only just occurred to me, I'll fix it~~ done!). That's the proper way to handle this, not crossing namespaces, per WP:ASR. -- 146.115.58.152 04:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am asking ArbCom to rule if strict adherence to WP:ASR is more important than giving publicity to a centralized discussion ruled by them. I clearly invoked WP:IAR. Please read what I wrote again. Thanks!--Cerejota 19:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects seems clear cut -- "our articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves" -- as is WP:ASR#In the Template and Category namespaces: "Limited use of self-references are sometimes found in the Template namespace and the Category namespace, such as with disambiguation and stub notices. Expanding this to other areas is not encouraged due to the need of third party users to either delete those templates or modify them to remove the Wikipedia references." I don't see a compelling rationale for ignoring the guideline. -- 146.115.58.152 20:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you misunderstand WP:IAR, because I argue we have a compelling reason to self-reference: the need for a wider community attention to the ArbCom ruled centralized discussion. You are putting the needs of a dispute resolution procedure beneath the needs of WP:FORK. The question is: What is more important? To resolve a conflict or to guarantee a smooth WP:FORK?

However, I must state this again WP:ASR doesn't forbid anything, it even allows for self-reference in certain circumstances: it discourages, which we all agree is not forbidding or requiring. I think your argument that WP:ASR applies is weak, and furthermore, that the needs of the community are to be considered before the needs of the WP:FORKing. ArbCom should clarify which perspective is correct. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The need for wider attention of WP:APARTHEID is already addressed by linking to it at the top of the various involved talk pages (1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 and 8) as well as including Template:Wider attention on the WP:APARTHEID page itself. You may suggest the WP:ASR guideline is merely window dressing for a bothersome existance of WP:FORKs just as easily as I can suggest it's a core underlying part of WP:ENC, a principle which in my perspective is undermined by cross-linking to wikipedia space from article space at a whim. But I would also appreciate ArbCom's clarification. -- 146.115.58.152 22:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have resolved the WP:ASR allegation by including the "offending" text and links under {{selfref}} as WP:ASR. I find it ironic that the anonymous editor so keen on defending WP:ASR overlooked this solution. I'll admit I overlooke dit because I am sure there is no WP:ASR violation, however, that is moot. A self-reference included within {{selfref}} is allowed as the only reason to avoid self-references is to allow WP:FORK. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does solve the problem on mirrors, which was my main concern. However, WP:FORK is only a secondary rationale behind WP:ASR: "The first is that self-references are often considered disruptive in an encyclopedia because they distract from the topic at hand." So I'm still not sure if it is in the spirit of WP:ASR, but I'll leave it until ArbCom makes a decision here. -- 146.115.58.152 22:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is pointing in the direction of an ArbCom-ruled centralized discussion disruptive? Thanks!--Cerejota 06:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may be something to be said for not going out of our way to draw ordinary reader's attention to all that ugly and endless bickering. Please ignore the man behind the curtain, to coin a phrase. A lot of the original ArbCom issues were resolved long ago by the consensus to merge all the different "type X apartheid" articles into Allegations of Apartheid, getting rid of Apartheid (disambiguation), making Apartheid redirect to the historical South African Apartheid with dab links up top, and moving Israeli apartheid to Allegations of Israeli apartheid (though people have been complaining about that ever since, even people who supported the move in the first place). So for the most part, WP:APARTHEID has already accomplished what the original ArbCom intended it to accomplish. If they aren't going to take up another case and give that page new direction, it won't be anything more than a central place for people to vent. -- 67.98.206.2 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think the controversy is over, and hence the centralized discussion has outlived its usefulness? If so, please raise an RfC in the centralized discussion itself, or present the question to ArbCom. But first saying you want something out for techno-bureaucratic reasons and then switching to a clear content dispute is suspiciously close to try to overcome consensus by bureaucratic means. Likewise, I offer by the level of activity this has recently seen, that your impression that the centralized discussion has "already accomplished what the original ArbCom intended it to accomplish" is wrong. The controversy (And even the cast of characters) remains essentially the same. However, this is the ArbCom board, so what better place to ask!

ArbCom: Is 67.98.206.2 correct and the centralized discussion "already accomplished what the original ArbCom intended it to accomplish" or is it still a valid place for this discussion? Please provide guidance and clarification. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response Just for reference, Arbitrators rarely if ever post here. This board is for requesting enforcement of enforceable remedies, like revert parole, probation etc. This does not seem to be an enforcement matter, although allegations of bad behavior surrounding the template could be added to the current arbitration case. Purely as a matter of opinion, a template used in main space should not link to a discussion in project space; putting a notice of the centralized discussion on the talk pages would be much more appropriate. You do not, for example, see advertisements for Wikiprojects on article pages but on talk pages. Thatcher131 14:26, 13 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]