Revision as of 23:03, 19 September 2009 editChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)43,041 edits →Discussion concerning ChildofMidnight: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:30, 19 September 2009 edit undoChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)43,041 edits →Statement by ChildofMidnight: tweakNext edit → | ||
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 309: | Line 309: | ||
*His last edit at the article was on June 4, just before Arbcom's Obama decision was announced, and he did not edit there again until the first diff above, on September 17. As one can see from the article, the organization was very much in the news because John McCain made allegations of voter fraud (in reality, voter ''registration'' fraud) a major issue in the last several days of the last presidential campaign. Those allegations are part of the current controversy. | *His last edit at the article was on June 4, just before Arbcom's Obama decision was announced, and he did not edit there again until the first diff above, on September 17. As one can see from the article, the organization was very much in the news because John McCain made allegations of voter fraud (in reality, voter ''registration'' fraud) a major issue in the last several days of the last presidential campaign. Those allegations are part of the current controversy. | ||
*It might be useful to check on {{IPuser|71.57.8.103}} to see if they might be a party to the case who has not logged in | *It might be useful to check on {{IPuser|71.57.8.103}} to see if they might be a party to the case who has not logged in | ||
* |
*Here, again, CoM has come to an Obama-related article that I am actively editing, changed my edits, and used a talk page discussion to lob personal accusations against the editors there (which include me). I have recently done some work that may break a long logjam and adds considerably to the encyclopedia's treatment of the issue. However, the tone of the talk page has gotten very bad, and unless something is done it will become untenable for me to continue editing there. Because of the nature of the sanctions, posting a report here is my only recourse other than abandoning articles I am working on when CoM has shown up. | ||
- ] (]) 22:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | - ] (]) 22:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
*Also as before, I'll do my best to ignore and not respond to the inevitable accusations from ChildofMidnight. In the spirit of the no-interaction injunction I have ignored editing issues on pages where I am not already involved and that do not directly affect my editing. I might suggest that this, the 4th or 5th reappearance of ChildofMidnight before ArbCom since the case closed (in addition to as many on AN/I), each finding misbehavior on CoM's part, might be a good occasion to consider widening and/or extending the topic ban. CoM has in each case needed some clarification or modification of the limits, and some accused CoM of repeatedly pushing the limits. It might make some sense to draw a wider fence around this so that we do not continue to have so much trouble on the perimeter, or else to recognize that the editing problems seem to concern all of American politics and not just Barack Obama. ] (]) 23:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
'''Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br> | '''Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br> | ||
*Due to the no-interaction rule I have not informed any other editors of this. Someone should probably post a notice on CoM's page, as well as the others involved in the accusations on the article talk page. Thanks, ] (]) 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)' | *Due to the no-interaction rule I have not informed any other editors of this. Someone should probably post a notice on CoM's page, as well as the others involved in the accusations on the article talk page. Thanks, ] (]) 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)' | ||
*Notified User ChildofMidnight |
*Notified User ChildofMidnight . ] (]) 23:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
===Discussion concerning ChildofMidnight=== | ===Discussion concerning ChildofMidnight=== | ||
====Statement by ChildofMidnight==== | ====Statement by ChildofMidnight==== | ||
I only looked through the first few diffs, but they look like entirely appropriate edits that |
I only looked through the first few diffs, but they look like entirely appropriate edits that don't have anything to do with Obama or Wikidemon. His own statement notes I've been active editing that article for a long time, and yet I've been careful to avoid interacting with him. Why is he allowed to keep trying to enter into these disputes with me? There's nothing to his diffs, he's just coming after me AGAIN. | ||
It's frustrating to see my edits being utterly misrepresented by Wikidemon, whose long term campaign of harassment and stalking were meant to be stopped with the restraining order imposed on him. For example thet first edit reverted the removal of a whole bunch of details from an article, had nothing to do with Wikidemon and doesn't mention Obama at all. It wasn't an addition on my part and Wikidemon is lying and distorting events as per usual. Another edit looks like I replaced commas with semicolons and cleaned up some wording. If someone can figure out what he's disputing please let me know. My understanding was the the restrictions on Wikidemon were meant to stop him from this ongoing harassment and stalking. He seems utterly obsessed. None of these edits have anything to do with him but he keeps stalking me. | |||
⚫ | I think this is an excellent opportunity to lift the editing restrictions I'm under so that POV pushers and censors can't continue to abuse them in attempts to intimidate me. I'm here to edit the encyclopedia and to improve articles. I haven't made any edits to the Obama articles (except one wikilink I think, mea culpa). All of my edits are in good faith, as shown by the ones cited above. | ||
⚫ | I think this is an excellent opportunity to lift the editing restrictions I'm under so that POV pushers and censors can't continue to abuse them in attempts to intimidate me. I'm here to edit the encyclopedia and to improve articles. I haven't made any edits to the Obama articles (except one wikilink I think, mea culpa) in all these months. All of my edits are in good faith, as shown by the ones cited above. Instead of being rewarded for abiding by sanctions that were grossly misguided, I continue to be harassed by Wikidemon's deranged stalking. I thought this was supposed to stop with restrictions imposed on him? Do I need to be concerned for my personal safety given his obsession with me? I haven't contacted him at all and have no desire to interact with him in any way shape or form. Please direct him once and for all to leave me alone. | ||
⚫ | Tarc edit warred 4 times in a 24 hour period and got a one day block. I made 4 edits over two days with discussion inbetween and am under a 6 month restriction that being used to abuse me by these disruptive characters. They've turned their article interests into personal fiefdoms and attack anyone who dares stray onto their turf. They consistently violate our core policies and their incivility and abusive behaviors received an |
||
⚫ | In contrast to my continuing to abide by our guidelines and policies as well as the unfair restrictions I'm under, Tarc edit warred 4 times in a 24 hour period on an Obama article and got a one day block. I made 4 edits over two days with discussion inbetween and am under a 6 month restriction that is constantly being used to abuse and harass me with personal attacks by these disruptive characters. Their comments rarely have anything to do with article content or sourcing, they simply troll and try to bait me into trouble. They've turned their article interests into personal fiefdoms and attack anyone who dares stray onto their turf. They consistently violate our core policies and their incivility and abusive behaviors received an endorsement with Arbcom's slap on the wrist abortion of justice that punished those at the receiving end of their abusive behaviors. | ||
⚫ | It's time finally for Arbcom to take seriously this ganging up and incivility. Stalking, harassment and intimidation simply aren't appropriate. There isn't any violation of my editing restrictions, this is simply another abusive report in a long string of them from Wikidemon. I support his being banned. Thanks. ] (]) 23:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | It's time finally for Arbcom to take seriously this ganging up and incivility. Stalking, harassment and intimidation simply aren't appropriate. Thanks. ] (]) 23:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
====Comments by other editors==== | ====Comments by other editors==== | ||
Revision as of 23:30, 19 September 2009
Requests for enforcement
Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important informationShortcuts
Please use this page only to:
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}}.
|
Hetoum I
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Hetoum I
User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Hetoum I (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
- Edit warring without logging in
- Edit warring without logging in
- Edit warring without logging in
- Edit warring without logging in
- Edit warring without logging in
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
- Hetoum I was placed on supervised editing, including revert limitation, by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Indefinite ban
Additional comments by Grandmaster:
Hetoum I was repeatedly blocked for edit warring, as he was reverting the articles under various IPs. See his block log. This time we have an IP 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which goes around and reverts the articles for the blocked users, namely for Kazanciyan (talk · contribs) and Tamamtamamtamam (talk · contribs) (sock of Meowy (talk · contribs)). Previously 216.165.12.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.165.12.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), similar IP addresses from NY University, were blocked as socks of Hetoum I (talk · contribs) for similar edit warring on AA articles: , which leaves no doubt that 216.165.33.9 is also Hetoum I. Since Hetoum I is not willing to abide by his editing restriction and continues edit warring under various IPs despite numerous blocks, I think that the admins should consider the indefinite ban for this user. Grandmaster 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
And this is from the talk of his previous user account: Grandmaster 10:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Today 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continued edit warring by removing Azerbaijani spellings and other info from the articles about locations in Armenia. . Grandmaster 06:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Another rv by 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), with an ethnic attack edit summary in the style of banned user Azad chai (talk · contribs): . They could be the same person. Note that "khojalized" in the edit summary is a reference to a mass killing of Azeris in Khojaly massacre. Grandmaster 06:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Discussion concerning Hetoum I
Statement by Hetoum I
Comments by other editors
Result concerning Hetoum I
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- I've blocked 216.165.33.9 for a year for the "khojalized" edit. I haven't yet had time to look at the other evidence. Sandstein 07:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Will Beback
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Request concerning Will Beback
User requesting enforcement:
JN466 20:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Revert limitations
Relevant passage: "if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period."
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
- 03:18, 15 September 2009 Will Beback deletes all citations to a book by Andrea Cagan.
- 17:49, 15 September 2009 Having been reverted, Will Beback repeats the edit 14.5 hours later, once more deleting all cites to Cagan.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
48h block, per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2#Enforcement.
Additional comments by JN466:
Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been fully protected since July, when formal mediation began. Parties to the mediation had undertaken not to make unilateral article edits on any issues currently being discussed in mediation. (The book by Andrea Cagan has long been a divisive issue. A past RfC on it is here. In ongoing discussions, five editors pronounced against using the book in any form; three favored qualified acceptance subject to certain provisos.)
user:RegentsPark reduced the article's status from full to semi-protection 4 hours prior to Will's edits, with edit summary (semi-prot (per will beback)).
Will Beback was admonished for his conduct in the arbcom case and was blocked for 24 hours by Sandstein for violating the above remedy in May.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Discussion concerning Will Beback
Statement by Will Beback
I had forgotten about the special enforcement on this article. My apologies. I have self-reverted. I'm not sure why Jayen is seeking penalties rather than participating in the project/mediation discussion, but that's a separate issue. Will Beback talk 21:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I assure Jayen that I am not lying, should that be necessary to say. I've made many thousands of edits since the Arbcom case of May or or the previous sanction, also sought by Jayen, in June, and amn genuinely forgetful. Frankly, I'm not accustomed to editng under such restrictions. I sincerely and fully apologize for reverting more than once a week. I hope that Jayen doesn't also doubt my sincerity on this. I have about ten thousand articles on my watchlist, and I can't hardly remember every issue with every article. Yes, I am an imperfect editor. I'll suffer any stone thrown at me by a better and more prolific edtor. Will Beback talk 11:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments by other editors
Will is not a casual editor or new arrival to this topic area. He has edited it on an almost daily basis for several years. He has taken part in two arbitrations on it. He has contributed to the editing history which resulted in this remedy. He was blocked for violating the remedy four months ago, contested the block, and filed a request for clarification on it which upheld the block ().
Will is intimately familiar with the remedy.
He is an experienced admin. It stretches credulity to think he should have forgotten it. JN466 11:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Will Beback
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- In view of Will Beback's self-revert, I believe that no enforcement action is required here and will close this request unless another administrator objects. Sandstein 21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Unless there is compelling reason to believe this was not an innocent error or that the self-revert is part of some broader cynical campaign, I am inclined to agree with Sandstein that these diffs alone are not actionable. Skomorokh 05:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing to be done here. Will Beback has reverted himself so there is no positive gain from any enforcement. Seddσn | 14:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Historicist
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Historicist
User requesting enforcement:
User:Nableezy - 20:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Historicist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions; Historicist was topic-banned from editing articles in the topic area. The topic-ban was modified to a 1RR restriction in the topic area.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block
Additional comments by User:Nableezy
The user has also continually been accusing others of acting bad faith, calling an AfD nom a political act and also here accusing others of planning a "political AFD".
- I would add to the repeated bad-faith accusations the one below in Historicist's response. And Historicist is incorrect. The 1RR limit is per page. From the original notification of the change from topic-banned (which was not even respected prior to the change) to 1RR: For clarity's sake, the restriction is that >1 revert (as defined in WP:3RR) in 24 hours would be a violation. The restriction applies to articles and pages touching on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly defined.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
notified
Discussion concerning Historicist
Statement by Historicist
I am allowed to revert edits once. Which is what I have done. In the course, I should add, of making hundreds of edits often on controversial topics over the last few days. Nableezy follows me from page to page objecting to almost everything I do. I have ignored him. But he certainly succeeds in making editing so unpleasant that a sensible editor would quit. I suspect that is his purpose - to drive pro-Israel editors off Misplaced Pages by making their editing lives nasty, brutish and short. Historicist (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments by other editors
- Comment by User:DVD R W
I for one think topic banning Historicist is a bad decision. Historicist is a very productive writer, and should be able to continue his work here, without these kinds of awkward interventions. Thanks, DVD 23:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Historicist
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- As far as I can tell, Historicist did violate his recently imposed 1RR restriction. The first reported edit is a revert (as defined at WP:3RR) of the addition of the words "the accuracy of", and it is no less a revert just because it also makes other changes. Historicist's statement is very unhelpful, too. I have contacted MastCell, the admin imposing the previous sanctions, suggesting that he decide here, but my suggestion would be to reimpose the topic ban, since the revert restriction does not work. Sandstein 21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for notifying me. I agree that this is a violation of the 1RR. As a matter of enforcement, a block might be appropriate. However, I share Sandstein's concern about Historicist's response here, as well as the overall tone of his participation since returning from his block for sockpuppetry. The reduction of the previous topic ban to 1RR was intended to give Historicist the benefit of the doubt; I think at this point I've seen enough to concur with Sandstein that the topic ban should be re-imposed. I will leave this open for input from other uninvolved admins before officially re-imposing it. Note that if the topic ban is reimposed, then a block for 1RR violation would be entirely punitive and, in my view, unnecessary. MastCell 22:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have to state my agreement with both posters above. This is a violation of the 1RR restriction. In lieu of a block, the topic ban is reimposed, and any future editing in the area shall lead to blocks. I will post the restriction on Historicist's talk page shortly, but will leave this open for a (small) period of time for further discussion if needed. ((notification of topic ban on Historicist's page)) SirFozzie (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for notifying me. I agree that this is a violation of the 1RR. As a matter of enforcement, a block might be appropriate. However, I share Sandstein's concern about Historicist's response here, as well as the overall tone of his participation since returning from his block for sockpuppetry. The reduction of the previous topic ban to 1RR was intended to give Historicist the benefit of the doubt; I think at this point I've seen enough to concur with Sandstein that the topic ban should be re-imposed. I will leave this open for input from other uninvolved admins before officially re-imposing it. Note that if the topic ban is reimposed, then a block for 1RR violation would be entirely punitive and, in my view, unnecessary. MastCell 22:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Xx236 follow-up
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Xx236
User requesting enforcement:
Skäpperöd (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Xx236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process."
- Under the authority of WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, Xx236 is topic-banned from the subject (not only the article) of Expulsion of Germans after World War II for six months; that is, he is prohibited from making edits related to that subject on any page in any namespace.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
- Xx236' thread
- Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Poland#Collectivization in the Soviet Union was a population transfer
- is a direct follow-up of Xx236' threads
- Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II#With at least twelve million.5B1.5D.5B2.5D.5B3.5D.5B4.5D Germans directly involved, it was the largest movement of any European people in modern history and
- Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II#the largest transfer of a population in history,
- where he continues to air his theory that the Collectivization in the Soviet Union, allegedly affecting about 24 million people, was a larger population transfer (!) than the expulsion of Germans that affected at least 12 million people. Though not explicitely referring to the expulsion of Germans, the repeated comparison of 24 million to 12 million in both threads makes it clear which twelve million they is talking about. This is a clear circumvention of the topic ban he just received half a day before, and that he has reflected about on the same noticeboard, showing he is aware of the topic ban.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Warning by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
widen topic-ban, mentorship or block
Additional comments by Skäpperöd (talk):
{{{Additional comments}}}
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Discussion concerning Xx236
Statement by Xx236
Comments by other editors
Skapperod i think you are making too much drama out of it. Loosmark (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Xx236
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Xx236's edit at violates the topic ban imposed on him at . In enforcement, I am blocking Xx236 for 48 hours. The other edits do not appear particularly problematic, but I leave this open so that other admins can comment. Sandstein 21:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Nickhh
Request concerning Nickhh
User requesting enforcement:
Brandon (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Nickhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria#Nickhh_restricted
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Not applicable.
Additional comments by Brandon (talk):
Nickhh (talk · contribs) edited logged out as 86.145.55.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (CU Confirmed) on an article which may violate his restriction. Brandon (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Discussion concerning Nickhh
Statement by Nickhh
Hang on a sec .. I only edited a couple of music related pages yesterday. Until now I didn't even know what my IP address was, but I just looked it up and it's not that one. And, for what it's worth as evidence, I have a real phobia about the spelling of lead as "lede" - you'll simply have to take my word for that, it's just something I'd never do. I accept there have been some grey areas where I have (openly, and, as noted, with a borrowed free pass from WP:AE) been involved in the occasional piece of editing, but not this one. And I've been getting harrassed for that as well. Just because I got scooped up in an ArbCom decision, I'm not sure I need to be continually beaten with the accusation stick every day. --Nickhh (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments by other editors
Does CU confirm that the IP is Nickhh? If so, I would say that is a vio since the material removed plainly relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I have to note that the biography itself is not covered, however, which raises the same issue as was just recently discussed (see here) with another editor under the ban, who seemed to feel that the ban did not cover the removal of inappropriate material from uncovered articles. Notably, that discussion was closed without consensus; following it several editors under the ban arrived at Islam and Antisemitism, to a discussion which I have little doubt would have been considered by ArbCom as falling within the topic area, yet for which no enforcement was sought.
I suggest a warning if the finding is accurate, a discussion of what the topic ban does in fact cover when it comes to articles not directly in the area of conflict, and that it's resolved to move forward consistently from that point onward. As part of this it might also be clarified if there are any standards for running CU relating to this ban, and why CU was run here as it appears the IP only removed two different pieces of material once each, without any repetition. Was there a request for CU? If so, I think it should be clarified whether an unexplained edit by a new user is enough to request CU in this area (generally not something I'd oppose, so long as the lines for requests are openly available). Mackan79 (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have asked Brandon to confirm that it is his determination as a checkuser that Nickhh is that IP. I would also like Nickhh to positively confirm that he denies making these edits. Sandstein 13:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it was my determination that Nickhh is that IP. Brandon (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I confirm this finding. --Deskana (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Nickhh
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Blocked for 48 hours. Since the ban evasion is confirmed by checkuser, there's practically no other option here. Sandstein 16:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Per a request on my talk page, I am unclosing this section so as to allow another checkuser to confirm Brandon's determination. Sandstein 17:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have done so, in the section above. --Deskana (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning ChildofMidnight
User requesting enforcement:
Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#ChildofMidnight topic banned
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon restricted
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
- Here, COM among other things adds a White House statement to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now article
- "tweaks" an edit I had just made a few hours earlier
There are some other less major, or more indirect violations as well:
- - breaks into conversation and argues against position I had advanced, calls the editors on my side of the discussion (implicitly including me) of "wanting to portray the group in the best possible light (even if innaccurate)"
- - changes a section of the lede that I initially wrote, and arose from a consensus on my talk page
- characterizes the several editors on the page, me included, of "POV efforts...and other disruptive and policy violating pushed for censorship and bias"
- refers to editors who he claims falsely connect subjects to Obama as "abusive POV pushers who want to promote bias and censorship on Misplaced Pages"
- refers to the article as having been "scrubbed" and "spin doctoring"
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable - per the third remedy above, I cannot warn ChildofMidnight or communicate with other editors regarding violations by ChildofMidnight, other than in this forum. However, other editors have given such warnings here:
- There was also talk about WP:AE at Talk:Barney Frank, which seems to have fallen under renewed edit warring and accusations:
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
- no request; request enforcement or clarification of sanctions at the discretion of the committee
Additional comments by Wikidemon (talk):
- As background, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is one of the articles where ChildofMidnight edit warred while the Obama case was pending. He is arguing a content point that he has advanced and edit warred on there before, that the organization is not non-partisan because it supports Barack Obama and the Democratic party. During the case he also edit warred there on another subject, and used the talk page there to launch tirades against me and some of the other parties to the case.
- His last edit at the article was on June 4, just before Arbcom's Obama decision was announced, and he did not edit there again until the first diff above, on September 17. As one can see from the article, the organization was very much in the news because John McCain made allegations of voter fraud (in reality, voter registration fraud) a major issue in the last several days of the last presidential campaign. Those allegations are part of the current controversy.
- It might be useful to check on 71.57.8.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to see if they might be a party to the case who has not logged in
- Here, again, CoM has come to an Obama-related article that I am actively editing, changed my edits, and used a talk page discussion to lob personal accusations against the editors there (which include me). I have recently done some work that may break a long logjam and adds considerably to the encyclopedia's treatment of the issue. However, the tone of the talk page has gotten very bad, and unless something is done it will become untenable for me to continue editing there. Because of the nature of the sanctions, posting a report here is my only recourse other than abandoning articles I am working on when CoM has shown up.
- Wikidemon (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also as before, I'll do my best to ignore and not respond to the inevitable accusations from ChildofMidnight. In the spirit of the no-interaction injunction I have ignored editing issues on pages where I am not already involved and that do not directly affect my editing. I might suggest that this, the 4th or 5th reappearance of ChildofMidnight before ArbCom since the case closed (in addition to as many on AN/I), each finding misbehavior on CoM's part, might be a good occasion to consider widening and/or extending the topic ban. CoM has in each case needed some clarification or modification of the limits, and some accused CoM of repeatedly pushing the limits. It might make some sense to draw a wider fence around this so that we do not continue to have so much trouble on the perimeter, or else to recognize that the editing problems seem to concern all of American politics and not just Barack Obama. Wikidemon (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
- Due to the no-interaction rule I have not informed any other editors of this. Someone should probably post a notice on CoM's page, as well as the others involved in the accusations on the article talk page. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)'
- Notified User ChildofMidnight . Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ChildofMidnight
Statement by ChildofMidnight
I only looked through the first few diffs, but they look like entirely appropriate edits that don't have anything to do with Obama or Wikidemon. His own statement notes I've been active editing that article for a long time, and yet I've been careful to avoid interacting with him. Why is he allowed to keep trying to enter into these disputes with me? There's nothing to his diffs, he's just coming after me AGAIN.
It's frustrating to see my edits being utterly misrepresented by Wikidemon, whose long term campaign of harassment and stalking were meant to be stopped with the restraining order imposed on him. For example thet first edit reverted the removal of a whole bunch of details from an article, had nothing to do with Wikidemon and doesn't mention Obama at all. It wasn't an addition on my part and Wikidemon is lying and distorting events as per usual. Another edit looks like I replaced commas with semicolons and cleaned up some wording. If someone can figure out what he's disputing please let me know. My understanding was the the restrictions on Wikidemon were meant to stop him from this ongoing harassment and stalking. He seems utterly obsessed. None of these edits have anything to do with him but he keeps stalking me.
I think this is an excellent opportunity to lift the editing restrictions I'm under so that POV pushers and censors can't continue to abuse them in attempts to intimidate me. I'm here to edit the encyclopedia and to improve articles. I haven't made any edits to the Obama articles (except one wikilink I think, mea culpa) in all these months. All of my edits are in good faith, as shown by the ones cited above. Instead of being rewarded for abiding by sanctions that were grossly misguided, I continue to be harassed by Wikidemon's deranged stalking. I thought this was supposed to stop with restrictions imposed on him? Do I need to be concerned for my personal safety given his obsession with me? I haven't contacted him at all and have no desire to interact with him in any way shape or form. Please direct him once and for all to leave me alone.
In contrast to my continuing to abide by our guidelines and policies as well as the unfair restrictions I'm under, Tarc edit warred 4 times in a 24 hour period on an Obama article and got a one day block. I made 4 edits over two days with discussion inbetween and am under a 6 month restriction that is constantly being used to abuse and harass me with personal attacks by these disruptive characters. Their comments rarely have anything to do with article content or sourcing, they simply troll and try to bait me into trouble. They've turned their article interests into personal fiefdoms and attack anyone who dares stray onto their turf. They consistently violate our core policies and their incivility and abusive behaviors received an endorsement with Arbcom's slap on the wrist abortion of justice that punished those at the receiving end of their abusive behaviors.
It's time finally for Arbcom to take seriously this ganging up and incivility. Stalking, harassment and intimidation simply aren't appropriate. There isn't any violation of my editing restrictions, this is simply another abusive report in a long string of them from Wikidemon. I support his being banned. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments by other editors
Result concerning ChildofMidnight
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.