This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) at 23:03, 19 September 2009 (→Discussion concerning ChildofMidnight: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 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.

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:

1. Edit warring without logging in
2. Edit warring without logging in
3. Edit warring without logging in
4. Edit warring without logging in
5. Edit warring without logging in

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

1. 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:

1. 03:18, 15 September 2009 Will Beback deletes all citations to a book by Andrea Cagan.
2. 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:

1. partial rv of this edit
2. rv of this edit

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)

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.

• , : continued battlefield mentality at the same board.

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:

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

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

1. - 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)"
2. - changes a section of the lede that I initially wrote, and arose from a consensus on my talk page
3. characterizes the several editors on the page, me included, of "POV efforts...and other disruptive and policy violating pushed for censorship and bias"
4. 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"
5. 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:

4. 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
• As before, in the spirit of the no-interaction injunction I have ignored any issues with this that do not directly affect my editing. 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)

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 are 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.

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.

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 endosrsement after Arbcom's slap on the wrist abortion of justice.

It's time finally for Arbcom to take seriously this ganging up and incivility. Stalking, harassment and intimidation simply aren't appropriate. 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.