Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335

Edit this section for new requests

Disruptive editing and uncivil behaviour by User:Green108

Green108 (talk · contribs), an involved party to the arbitration case [1], is showing a flagrant disregard for Wikipedias policies, the arbcom probation terms for the page Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_Organisation, consensus and respect for other editors.

I am reasonably certain that this editor is a major contributer to the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website forums that are mentioned in the arbitration case and posts under a similar alias there [2].

The following diffs show the offending behavior

Starting with a crap-flood of the talk page including statements made in bad faith [3] he is forcing his edits onto the page in a manner that suggests contempt for the views of other editors [4].

He has also taunted and made personal attacks & accusations against other editors [5].

I have tried to reason with him on his talk page [6] but received the response, "...i am not interested in speaking with you" [7].

Summation

It is clear to me that this editor has no intention of cooperating. I would appreciate some action is taken to restore order to the article. We just don't need this kind of rubbish.

Thanks & regards, Bksimonb 08:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the form of article probation put in place by the Arbitration Committee does not allow direct action against disruptive editors (other than the banned 195 editor). I have asked the Committee to review the situation; you may wish to make a comment here as well. Thatcher131 15:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising this for review. Bksimonb 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ombudsman

Ombudsman (talk · contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction - indefinite probation, to be ~~banned~~ blocked for any disruption on a medical article via tendentious editing. The final decision in their case is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. He has engaged in tendentious editing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency of autism, a medically related article, including putting forth various conspiracy theories and using the AfD as a platform for accusations against other users (such as User:Essjay and User:Midgley) for alleged misdeeds in the past.

The following diffs show the offending behavior

Comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency of autism (wikilink rather diff provided for context)

Violates probation and injunction to avoid tendentious editing and disruption of medically related articles (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cesar_Tort_and_Ombudsman_vs_others#Ombudsman_placed_on_Probation)

Summation

Request review of Ombudsman's edits at said AfD as I believe they are tendentious and violate terms of his probation. I am a participant in the AfD, but have not participated in any of the autism-related articles. Ombudsman has been notified of this report here.

Reported by: MastCell 01:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note Just to clarify, Ombudsman may be banned from any medically-related article he disrupts. Violations of the article ban may be enforced by blocking. Since the AfD is closed, there doesn't seem to be any response needed here at this time. Thatcher131 00:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were in the manner of advocacy, which is consistent with the purpose of Articles for deletion. He is entitled to express an opinion differing from community consensus in contexts where it cannot be mistaken for encyclopedic content written from the neutral point of view.

Ombudsman has also edit warred over a redirect at Autism epidemic, and I think this comes close to going against the sense of his probation. At times he has simply removed the redirect, leaving a blank article [8] [9]. He then edit warred over whether to place a rfd or afd tag to discuss deletion of that redirect [10] [11]. His justification for this edit warring is "misleading link", which given that the redirect target is Autism (incidence), could justifiably be described as tendentious. A ban from that redirect/article, which he is certainly disrupting, might be in order. --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:195.82.106.244

195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs) is banned. The final decision in their case is here: [12].

This user is believed to be continuing to edit the BKWSU article in an provocative and biased manner using various sock puppets. The article was semi-protected for a while due to the use of what appear to be random IP proxies [13] but the protection has now lapsed however even semi-protection would be insufficient since this user seems to be using various named accounts also.

Now the user is believed to be using the handles Quickerection (talk · contribs), Jankijunky (talk · contribs) and Fineupstandingmember (talk · contribs). The first of these three is already blocked for being an obscene name. In the latest bout I have not yet seen the usual pattern of taunting other editors but the type and style of edits is very familiar.

He/she is currently making edits to the Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University page. Here are examples of contentious or biased editing,

Removal of NPOV tag [14]. The 244 editor has always strongly contested any NPOV warning tag [15]. This view is unique and quite unusual since an NPOV tag is usually applied for much less reason to many other articles.
Re-insertion of obvious bias [16].
Biased opinions being referenced as a source for flatly stated facts [17]
Misuse of references. The Wikipedia:OR tag is removed, reference inserted, but the reference does not address the fact being queried [18] (that murlis were ever on sale to the general public).

Summation

Often the edits deliberately undo changes made by pro-subject editors which were made with consensus on the discussion page. We are currently building consensus on the talk page between editors with differing views. It is a shame that this disruptive editor seems to be able jump in at any time and make a mockery of our otherwise promising efforts to form a balanced team of editors. I was a participant to the arbitration case. Two other participants are currently active on the article, TalkAbout (talk · contribs) and Appledell (talk · contribs). It has never been possible to reach any consensus with 244 due to his/her agressive stance towards other editors, even editors with similar views [19]. I've noticed that 244 just seems to edit as he/she sees fit.

Reported by: Bksimonb 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Result Blocked Fineupstanding. Will probably checkuser the others to make sure. Thatcher131 07:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thatcher131. FYI the username Jankijunky is a reference to one of the administrative heads of the organisation, Dadi Janki. Obviously adding the word "junki" after it indicates that a point is being made. Regards Bksimonb 09:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What appears to be the same user is now continuing the reverts as 86.152.174.239 (talk · contribs). They follow exactly the same pattern and preferred version as the sockpuppets listed above. This is a static IP address based in London using British Telecom. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 18:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't prove/nor will I assert that the vandalism is .244 (I don't trace IPs nor seek to find out identities), I will ask here as I did on the bot (it removed the protection on some automated basis) page, to please put the protection back on the article as it is only creating havoc. We are just now beginning to get some level of decorum and peaceful working agreements in working with the resources available. Thank you for your time and consideration with regards to this matter. PEACETalkAbout 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address has changed to 86.137.200.131 (talk · contribs) now, still based in UK, Newham and using BT ISP. Also the usual WP:OWN and BKWSU taunts have started appearing in the edit comments. Regards Bksimonb 14:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Re-indenting)We now have a new suspected sockpuppet Shortskirtlonglegs (talk · contribs). Interesting new style but enough similarities to give the game away. I have also reported on sockpuppet board [20]. Regards Bksimonb 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request long-term solution

This user isn't going to give up in a hurry. This is getting to be hard work. Right now I am the only user around to revert the disruption and because of an obvious perceived COI with the article subject on my part I am probably not the best person to be doing it. Plus, since I am not an admin, I have to post here and other places to report the disruption and this creates a lot of noise (read attention for the banned user). I would really like to discuss what we can do as a long term solution. Ideally, I guess I, would like an admin to monitor the article and article talk page and block any socks as soon as they appear, they are easy enough to spot due to common themes, style of editing and the nature of allegations/insults thrown. Experience has shown that this user will dominate a talk/article page faster than Russian Vine takes over a garden given half a chance, so speed of response is essential.

I am also being subject to off-wiki attacks on the website that is run by this user [21].

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 07:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shortskirtlonglegs (talk · contribs) is starting to make disruptive changes to the article now in the usual escalation pattern of previous sock puppets. Would appreciate some attention to this matter or at least some response. Thanks Bksimonb 15:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about violations of user:Azerbaijani

on 22 february 2007 I, user:Elsanaturk and User:Azerbaijani were restricted on two pages to 1rd parol[22], but user:Azerbaijani since then have violated this restriction in order to do edit warring, on 4 march he did six edits in 27 minutes, on 10 march he did two edits, in 12 march again two edits [23] and also an arbitration commitee decided to restrict involved parties among them User:Azerbaijani on 28 february and thus User:Azerbaijani still violates that decision. [24] Elsanaturk 20:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Its a one revert restriction per 24 hours, not an edit restriction. I have not broken 1rr at all on any article I am involved in, infact, I have put it upon myself to wait 48 hours between reverts to prove that I have no intention of edit warring anywhere. Its funny that you should report me, because you are the one that broke 1rr: [25][26] (thats two reverts just under 24 hours)Azerbaijani 21:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin response There is a technical violation by Elsanaturk and no violation that I can see by Azerbijani. However there is a lack of productive discussion, so whether you revert once a day or once a week you're still not making progress. I tend to think that if someone made a dramatic speech on VoA you could find a newspaper or something that talked about it, or a book or other source on the history of the region. If there is no real dispute about authenticity the speeech might go in the external link section and some reference found to describe the speech's content in the article body. Thatcher131 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grandmaster and User:AdilBaguirov

These users are working together to avoid 1rr and game the system on the Mammed Amin Rasulzade article.

Here is the history of the article: [27]

Here is the history of the article's talk page: [28]

Notice how Grandmaster has not been involved in the article since the 21st of February and did not participate in any of the recent discussions. Here is Adil Baguirov's revert, in which he is adding information which has nothing to do with Rasulzade, let alone his exile: [29] Then, after I revert, with good reason, since the information is completely irrelevant and I have said this many times, Grandmaster comes out of nowhere and reverts back to Adil, saying that "you cant decide on your own whats relevant and whats not": [30] None of what Adil inserted into the article is relevant about Rasulzade or his exile. I keep telling Adil that he should put his information in the relevant article (such as the ADR article) but he wont listen. If you read the full quotes from the sources that Adil is using to put that information in the article, you will see that known of them are referring to Rasulzade. Adil also clearly distorts the Swietochowski quote, which would not be the first time he has distort quotes and information. My conclusion is that either Grandmaster was reverting blindly, without even looking at what he was reverting, or he reverted due to a request by Adil, or maybe because he is stalking me. None of the information Adil is trying to add is about Rasulzade, let alone his exile.

Also note that while Grandmaster is telling me not to revert and wait until there is a consensus, yet he again shows his double standard by continuously reverting to his own version: [31]Azerbaijani 21:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user Azerbaijani, all my edits you complain about are a response to your insertions of taken out of context quotes (such as Atabaki's poorly cited and ripped out of context quote). Meanwhile, when you attempt to attack Prof. Swietochowski (a preemenent authority on Azerbaijani history in the West), at least try better, and not some weird and baseless "Adil also clearly (?!) distorts (?! huh?) the Swietochowski quote" (really? how?). It's you who try to portray Mammed Amin Rasulzade as some Pan-Turkist maniac, deny his own voice to be heard (MP3 file), remove Academician Iqrar Aliyev's quote (another top authority on Azerbaijani history, and himself of Iranic extraction), try to make Rasulzade appear appologetic for the name "Azerbaijan" and make him appear pro-Iranian (nice -- you are going from Pan-Turkist to Pan-Iranian) and argue about a host of other things. Meanwhile, both myself and GM have been active on Azerbaijan-related pages before you, and specifically, have been active on Rasulzade page before ArbCom, so all your other accusations are just as groundless. All my edits are well explained on the Talk page, and quite frankly, I've presented far more versatile and full information on Rasulzade, as opposed to your carefully selected, take out of context snippets. --AdilBaguirov 07:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note Unfortunately the injunction limits each editor, not each side of the dispute (as useful as such a ruling might have been). Reverting in general is poor behavior but I don't see grounds for a block at this time. If you are currently outnumbered you will have to try the dispute resolution process such as a request for comment on the disputed edits or mediation. Sorry. Thatcher131 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack

AdilBaguirov has diverted a whole section on a talk page to personally attacking me: [32][33]

For those of you who know the history, Elsanaturk, Atabek, and Adil have continuously thrown personal attacks against me, and they have been warned by admins several times not to do it again.

He doesnt even know what hes talking about, just his usual OR. For example, not only is he attacking me, but all of his information is wrong. He is not distinguishing the Iranic culture that is till within the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Russian culture that is still within the Republic of Azerbaijan, and the Turkic culture which is still in the Republic of Azerbaijan.Azerbaijani 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy this to WP:ANI since it seems to have no relevance to any arbitration ruling. --Tony Sidaway 18:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are not part of the injunction in the open arbitration case. "You're not a real Azerbaijani or else you would understand" is rather mild, but he should be asked to avoid such comments in the future. Thatcher131 16:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting page, removing evidence without Talk page comment

User:Artaxiad, who is one of the parties in ArbCom case, has reverted the page removing major part of relevant referenced material [34] and without leaving any explanation at Talk:Varoujan_Garabedian. I would like to remind that another user with the same type of violation [35] was blocked for 5 days. Thanks. Atabek 09:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For faster repsonse post to the 3RR noticeboard. I can look into this later. Thatcher131 16:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way this was not a revert, and I have explained my reasons on the talk page, thanks. Artaxiad 17:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response It was not a revert, it was an edit. Not all edits are reversions. Atabek did revert [36] Artaxiad's removal of the information. The example of Adil you cited is also a reversion, [37] Adil reverted to his own version, erasing 11 intermediate edits that had stood for 5 days. However in the case of Varoujan_Garabedian there was no previous version lacking this information and the removal of information is often part of the normal editing process. As an editor I don't agree with Artaxiad's logic in removing the statement; if John Smith is a member of Greenpeace, and Greenpeace is an environmental organization, then it strains logic to say that the sentence "John Smith, who is a member of Greenpeace, an environmental organization, participated in a Global Warming demonstration" is invalid because there is no source that says both thingsin the same source. However the arbitration case is about behavior, and this disagreement certainly could escalate to a reversion situation involving penalties if you don't have a meaningful discussion on the talk page. Thatcher131 02:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment and Personal Attacks by User:Fadix

I just wanted to check for how long I will have to tolerate the personal attacks and harassment by User:Fadix on ArbCom Workshop page. His recent proposal and comments were really a last straw [38] in assuming any good faith about this contributor. He is simply unable to move beyond personalities, keeps attacking them, stalking and finally simply lying about my affiliation as "official representative of the position of Azerbaijan republic in the United States". I hope arbitrators can address this ad hominem some time, I will be happy to furnish evidence to dismiss such false claim. User:Dacy69 already provided evidence dismissing the claim [39] . But I just wonder how long this will go on? This kind of activity is clearly contrary to principles and regulations of Wikipedia. Thanks. Atabek 18:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposition is not a personal attack, a proposition which has been already supported. There is a conflict of interest and those are really the official spokesmen, if of course we exclude Azeri ambassadors. Fad (ix) 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]