Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:12, 29 June 2014

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 WP:AE WP:ARE 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, or is no longer an administrator; 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Plot Spoiler

Sepsis II

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Sepsis II

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

AmirSurfLera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

1. 21:47 Revert 1
2. 22:04 Revert 2
3. 22:33 Revert 3

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Hypocrisy? User clearly broke 1RR in an Arab-Israeli conflict article and he knows very well what is this because he reported me several times for much less.

Sean.hoyland: First of all, sockpuppetry is a serious accusation and if you don't have proofs to make this claim against me, I suggest you to retract yourself. Second, for much less than this I was blocked (I was "reverting" an edit from three months ago and I even reverted myself almost immediately). I already paid my punishment for violating 1RR. Now it's time for Sepsis II to pay the price for violating Misplaced Pages's policy over and over again with complete impunity. Third, you should stop defending a clear POV user who constantly deletes sourced information who doesn't like, replacing it with POV content supported by sources failing WP:RS, and always responds with personal attacks against other editors on edit summaries and talk pages. Do you need examples? I think you know exactly what I'm talking about. Unfortunately your statement only shows your blatant bias. Good day.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland: Funny that you mention that I broke 1RR in 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens, because so far I haven't reverted any edit there. Can you show me a link to prove me wrong? Of course you can't! I'm getting tired of your false accusations and lies. If you knew the difference between right and wrong, you should have reported users like Sepsis II long time ago instead of trying to censor me for causeless ideological reasons.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Sepsis II

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Sepsis II

I can't comment unless Sandstein recuse himself from WP:ARE, I would explain why, but if I did that here he would ironically blocked me. Sepsis II (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Because you place enforcing the letter of wikipedia policy before the interests of wikipedia. Have you ever applied WP:IAR or WP:DUCK? Sepsis II (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Because you act like you can't understand the complaint when it's extremely obvious, because you didn't close the complaint as a clear misunderstanding of 1RR policy, because you block good users for being honest thus crushing honest discussion here. Sepsis II (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Awe what a precious moment a wonderful new user has return to bless wikipedia with his wonderful edit, . If anyone here was interested in improving wikipedia they would immediately ban that account, related IPs, and unblock Sean.hoyland. 05:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

The first 2 diffs are reverts of IPs, "Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." Actually Brewcrewer should probably be blocked for that terrible edit, one of the worst I've seen for a while I have to say. AmirSurfLera, as a sockpuppet, you are violating the rules to be here are you not and yet you expect others to follow the rules. How can that kind of behavior possibly be justified ? How can ARBPIA function when there are 2 classes of editors, those who have to follow the rules and those who don't ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

But it should be you who reports yourself. That is what you should do. It should be you who does the right thing. It should be you who explores ways to legitimately return as an editor. It should not be me and others wasting our time trying to stop you. You should be trying to stop you. My statement shows that, like most editors, I know the difference between right and wrong and that I tell the truth. Every editor in ARBPIA looks like a POV editor to me. I'm defending common decency not Sepsis. Why ? Not out of some sense of moral outrage or part of some pointless battle over microgeography, but because ARBPIA simply can't function when there are 2 classes of editors, one that has to follow the rules and the other that doesn't. It just doesn't work. Sepsis hasn't violated 1RR in the example you provide. On the other hand, you probably violated 1RR at the same article, 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens, in your 6 edits between 2014-06-20T02:10:03‎ and 2014-06-20T19:00:00. ‎Many people have been violating 1RR, strictly speaking, at that article as it's developed but it seems you are motivated by revenge and so have filed this case. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't. I said probably because it's hard not to violate 1RR when an article is being developed. I haven't looked at your edits. I am not going to do it here because I am not going to trying to get you blocked for a 1RR violation if there is one. You were not edit warring or editing in a different way than other editors at that article at that time. I raised it as a potential issue because I see double standards in your behavior and attitude. I would like you blocked for sockpuppetry but without a clear set of requirements that you need to meet in order to return as a legitimate editor and without an agreement from you that you will abide by it there is little point. What you need to do to see whether you violated 1RR at that article or anywhere is read a recent case at ANI that clarified what a revert is and examine your edits in light of that (see here). A revert probably isn't what you think it is. It wasn't what I thought it was. That discussion has implications for everyone in ARBPIA so I also posted it at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration here. And you should trust me. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR

Sandstein, if you have blocked Sean for his comments above suggesting sockpuppetry, you really should block checkuser Elockid for his comments here. RolandR (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

SH's comments about ASL's (putative) sockpuppetry ('The use of multiple Misplaced Pages user accounts for an improper purpose') appear to draw on Elockid's checkuser judgement that 'it is a user who has edited before', which AmirSurfLera is on record as denying. If those comments consist of an inference, unproven and therefore unwarranted, then there might be a case for SH's short suspension for disruptiveness. If they stem not from personal guesswork, but rather, as would appear to be the case, from taking an experienced admin's judgement as objective, then it is hard to understand the severity. (Well, it is not that severe, except contextually. I haven't checked the log,- but can't recall him ever doing anything that brought down the book against him - but SH is notorious for not allowing his judgement to succumb to group pressures or POVs from either side. He keeps both honest by his independence.) I dislike expressing opinions here, and do so only because of the senile frailty which tempted me to make a semantic joke, for which I apologize.Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, Sepsis, you cannot choose your judges here or elsewhere. You have no right to impose conditions, and in doing so by personalizing this you implicitly challenge the bona fides of an admin with extensive experience. and in doing so you thus prejudice your defence. You should retract or expect that the attitude displayed tells against you (whereas in my view, the evidence by ASL is groundless). Nishidani (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No. You are still in the wrong. Admins do not block people 'ironically', which would be a patent abuse of their function, which is rule-governed. Sandstein requestd a comment from you if the non-actionable charge underwent amendment. It requires no great exercise of imagination to see that, if ASL has not emended his statement, his charge is not actionable, and no statement is required. If ASL has emended his charge and evidence, then you are obliged to respect Sandstein's request for your comment. You are making something simple look extremely complicated. All you need do is construe precisely what Sandstein wrote, and reply succinctly if necessary. I don't know how things stand, but this is a matter of WP:AGF, demonstrating one's bona fides and wikipedian compliance with standard procedures, and should not be personalized implicitly or otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Without wishing to defend Sandstein, I think you ignore that,were WP:IAR and WP:DUCK part of an admin's tools, the result would be chaos, since the first would lead to discretionary abuses, while the second is inferential. Editors can avail themselves of these measures on rare occasions. Administrators must hew with finicky exactness to (a) evidence and (b) the written code for judging evidence. A second point is that, admins have a collegial environment, which generally, not always, is self-correcting. They may not convince the plaintiff, but they must convince each other. Given that, your reserve is misplaced, for you are at liberty to request, I would think, a further opinion. But you should not judge or prejudge the outcome of any admin's review. We all have POVs that are at odds with the interests of wikipedia, this is true of me as it is of you, and we are obliged to rein that in. The interests of wikipedia are not with 'truth' but with quality and comprehensive range of precise reportage of the best sources and admins do not evaluate edits in terms of their qualitative value, but in terms of their consonance with the given rules. They can't be expected to know what editors on the ground might know, which is your real complaint. For were they to evaluate cases omnisciently, they would get a God complex and exercise a discretion as arbitrary in mundane terms as it would prove parlously close to partisanship (since the vast majority of bad editing comes from obvious IP, sockpuppet and POV-obsessed editors promoting a national cause, something its partisans grieve over in blogs that rage against wikipedia precisely because the rules, and general adminitrative sanctions in wikipedia do, in the end, militate against these practices, and the collateral damage is minimal. Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

The above diffs are for 3 reverted editors. 2 of those are ip editors. IP under these sections fall under the 3rr policy as understand. Since as written above this can be "declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below." I do have to question you waiting for it to be amended. And while these sanctions are allowed to be applied broadly under ARBPIA, I have to say you went a little bit more broad than I expect was intended. Being that the only relation to this and ARBPIA is that this was a request for sanctions under it and being that you do have policy that governs user conduct here I have to question such a broad application. Taking into account Nishidani comments, then taking into account Sean's comments... Specifically the third paragraph. He says he would like to see AmirSurfLera blocked but with requirements that actually would allow him to came back and edit properly. With all of that I'd like to ask you to reconsider your sanctions and amend them. Sean is often a contributor I see in arbpia related pages. I often see him making editors aware of arbpia sanctions. That is both Partsan types of editor any other type of editor. Over all I feel he very nuetral in his actions. His conduct here not withstanding, I do feel overall he can be more helpful than hurtful to this specific process.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dlv999

Are any of the of the admins willing to address the point raised by RolandR? Namely that SHoyland's comments about AmirSurfLera being a sock were based on information he received directly from checkuser Elockid. To my mind it seems totally rational and reasonable to base statements about editor's sockpupetry on information received from checkusers. Dlv999 (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Sepsis II

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

I have removed an extraneous comment that had nothing to do with the matter at hand. Editors who have nothing useful to say about the specific complaint being made here should not comment. All participants are reminded of WP:AC/DS#Decorum.

Concerning Sepsis II: The complaint is not actionable as submitted because it does not cite a specific remedy that is to be enforced. I am waiting for it to be amended and, if it is, for a statement by Sepsis II.

Concerning AmirSurfLera: The allegations by Sean.hoyland of sockpuppetry and violating revert restrictions are not actionable for, among other reasons, lack of submitted evidence in the form of diffs.

Concerning Sean.hoyland: The conduct by Sean.hoyland, above, is disruptive in that they repeatedly allege that AmirSurfLera is a sockpuppet without providing appropriate or indeed any evidence, even after being asked to (see WP:ASPERSIONS). Because this complaint concerns the Arab-Israeli conflict, this thread is subject to WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions, about which Sean.hoyland has been previously notified. As a discretionary sanction, and also as authorized by WP:AC/DS#Decorum, Sean.hoyland is blocked for 48 hours for their conduct on this page, and is also banned from commenting on arbitration enforcement requests by others relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, except where Sean.hoyland's own conduct is the subject of the request.  Sandstein  11:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sepsis II: Could you please tell me why you think I should recuse myself?  Sandstein  18:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The reasons you give – disagreeing with my approach to arbitration enforcement – are not reasons that would warrant a recusal. Your request that I recuse myself is declined. On the merits, the request is not actionable. As Sean.hoyland points out, the remedy at WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction (as amended) provides that "reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring". The complaint does not make the argument, and it is also not evident, that the reverts (of IPs) at issue are sanctionable as edit-warring, or that any other remedy might apply. I would therefore take no action in this case.  Sandstein  19:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sandstein I agree with everything (including that it's non-actionable re the reverts of IPs) except one thing: I think the indefinite restriction on Sean.hoyland from commenting in AE requests (etc) is very harsh given that they were also blocked for it. I'd ask that you at least set an expiry date, three months seems to be reasonable period. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sepsis II made three reverts but two of them were of IP edits, so they don't count against 1RR. I agree with Callanecc that if Sean.hoyland is to be banned from commenting on ARBPIA requests at AE, the duration should not exceed three months. It should also be made clear whether Sean's restriction only prevents him from making posts at AE or if it restricts him from comenting on others' AE problems on all pages of Misplaced Pages. Note that there were three reports of violations by AmirSurfLera at AE in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive151 and two of them led to sanctions. One time he was blocked for a week. The next time a problem with AmirSurfLera's edits is reported here a topic ban ought to be considered. We can tolerate a few mistakes by new users but this editor is pushing the limits. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Concurring with the comments above discussing a limited restriction for Sean.hoyland regarding comments at AE, and that this request should be closed without action. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Kipa Aduma, Esq.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Kipa Aduma, Esq.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA - 1RR, WP:SOCKPUPPET, WP:COMMONSENSE

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

1. Revert 1
2. Revert 2

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

He's a sock.

Well Callanecc, there are just so many puppetmasters with the same hatred, the sock in the case above is obviously either Nocal or AndresHerutJaim per their long history of using socks to edit 2012 in Israel and like articles. This account could be so many, possibly not even one of a known sockmaster but a second account of a current editor. I could point to the account editing the same pages as previously blocked sock but these sockmasters have been working so long that the vast majority of IP articles have been attacked by them. Other editors have stated this account could be one by AnkhMorpork, Nocal, or Breein1007. Here's one of his sister account . At least one admin can spot that this account is a sock .

Anyhow, this account fails the duck test; no normal editor makes a hundred edits over two years but only on a few days. His first edit is a revert, his second is to delegitimize the existance of Palestinians. I know this is futile; many of these sockmasters have hundreds of warnings to their names from this ineffective board.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Block the sock.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Kipa Aduma, Esq.

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Kipa Aduma, Esq.

What is described as "revert #2" is nothing of the kind - it is the addition of a new tag to the article. As to sock allegations, I see that in the report just above this one, an editor making similar allegations without proof was blocked for disruptive editing. Consistency requires that the same standard be applied here. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kipa Aduma, Esq.

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

• Sepsis II: Sock of whom, where is the evidence that they are a sock (same or similar edits by the master and the sock)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Pre-empting Sandstein-- you need to include the specific remedy of the case you want enforced for this to be actionable. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• This is going to be wayyyy too difficult to handle here, I'm in the process of filing an SPI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)