Administrators affect Wikipedia’s editing atmosphere and, as a result, the encyclopaedia itself. Those whose decisions include passing judgements at A/R/E have a strong impact. The failure that occurred in this incident needs to be examined.

The complaint is limited to the conduct of Drmies that took place at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GHcool (A/R/E Page) in his role as closing admin. Involved parties are those admins who took part in the result section.

It includes two issues:

1. Was the decision by Drmies to close this request, and the manner with which he did it, misconduct?

There is a good deal of confusion concerning the remedy itself.

We have the first comment, by Black Kite, “So - there actually is a violation here. But FFS, I'm generally considered to be a pretty intelligent person and this remedy is - as Kingsindian says - stupid. If anyone wants to sanction GHCool for it, I won't object, but I'm certainly not going to do it myself.”

Sandstein states, “This is just to note that I will not take action here because I find anything involving xRR too complicated to understand and apply with a reasonable amount of time and effort. I leave this to smarter admins and editors.”

This is followed by Drmies statement: “Sandstein, I am totally with you,” implying that he is also out of his depth here. However, he then throws out, “Or how about this: GHcool, don't do it again.” Drmies immediately closes the file.

The decision to close a tricky remedy hastily in this manner was irresponsible, unsatisfactory and flippant. If Drmies was as perplexed by the remedy as the other two admins were, he should have also declined to close it.

2. Considering it was GHcool’s 7th violation with a prior history including 6 other blocks for reverting, was the sanction given out by Drmies misconduct?

Drmies' sanction in his closing note reads , “GHcool is urged to be more careful next time.”

This was an absurd warning for an editor with a ten year span of breaking the revert policy, no less than seven times in the Arab–Israeli conflict. The Active Arbitration Remedies template states in no uncertain terms, "Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."

Summary

Unequivocally, there was a good deal of confusion on how to deal with this particular Active Arbitration Remedy’s complexity. However, that fact should not have interfered with the punitive measures handed out which, in this case, was tantamount to sweeping it under the carpet for expediency by Drmies. If the remedy is too difficult or time-consuming to wrap one’s head around, the involved admin should also have chosen to excuse himself rather than proceed recklessly. This resulted in a seven time repeat-offender going scot-free. It gives, both him and the rest of us, the wrong message entirely.

Two links that concern this are included (A/R/E Page, Drmies Talk Page).

Response to other statements

Let’s be absolutely clear. This is about the conduct of an admin, NOT the contents of a revert. Imagine what a Pandora's box you would be opening by making it about the latter. Each and every revert incident would have people arguing about the subjective contents of their edit to justify their revert. That we certainly don’t want. Do you intend on setting a precedent here? So stop trying to make it about that.

My 500 words are finished with this comment. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final Words

I asked two admins what recourse I had. Drmies suggested I ask Sandstein, while the latter pointed here offering it as the only possible avenue. However, I found no documentation on my way though this process that suggested ARCA as the proper venue to take this to, nor was it suggested from the admins I sought advice from. Only in the responses by the Arbitrators at the end of this process have I learned that ARCA deals with this. Had this information been clearly available, I would have raised it there. This is the first time I’ve been down this street, so cut me some slack and a little goodfaith please.

I’ve spent more time on this than anyone else; let’s not forget that. And why? For trying to file a report on someone who broke a revert remedy many times and an admin who let him off - all for naught. What a colossal waste of time – for me and for everyone. Wikipedia’s system of filing reports against those who do break its rules has some serious flaws. The reverter is free to continue his transgressions spending no more than about three sentences on this. The reporter, however, is left to spend a ridiculous amount of time trying to rectify this. I’ve been failed thrice now by three different remedies and at the end it is me who is seen as the problem. How absolutely twisted. This has been a disappointing experience. In all fairness, the guide here did warn me that would be probable. That warning should be given to editors when they make their account, not just here. Frivolous? No, I wasn’t the one directing the bulk of my statement to Santorini. Several editors here have confirmed that changes need to be made to the remedy.

I’ve surpassed my 500 words and ask the committee for a little indulgence. I was not directed to save words in the initial report to make responses at a later time. That’s it for me. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

I'm very honored; I think this is my first time here.

The violation, sure, it was a violation, technically. But: a. We are not a punishment machine in a penal colony. Not every infraction is worth a block. The "other" admin also didn't think this was blockworthy and I fully agree with them. b. Arbitration is for serious cases. This was not a serious case, no matter how often the block log of the editor was brought up; it was clear to everyone but the filer that we were not dealing with a major disruptor here. c. At least a half a dozen editors and admins indicated to Veritycheck that this was a complete and utter waste of time--so much so that I don't mind using two adjectives. d. I take that back: this is not a complete waste of time, since it's made clear to many editors that such requests by themselves, esp. if they are revived again and again, are acts of disruption--and it may well be that Veritycheck finds reference made to this in the future. We've blocked editors for taking up way too much space on article talk pages, for instance, and here we are, in an arbitration request.

Really, that's all I have. I thought the original request was...almost frivolous (please consider what the whole thing was about: the addition of a picture of a building), and this, well. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have one more thing: everything that Black Kite said. And Huldra, and others. This "remedy" is not workable--though that has little to do with the original case or this request. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

It's probably easier to do this as bullet points.

I originally thought this was a violation because I misread the diffs and thought GHCool had reverted twice in 24h, mainly because Veritycheck included their own reversion in the list of four diffs.
Other editors pointed out my mistake, at which point I then believed there not to be a violation.
However, User:KingsIndian then pointed out that according to the letter of the remedy, there actually was a violation, even though the first revert was no less than 13 days previously.
(At this point, I was wishing I'd listened to User:Sandstein, who simply replied to the complaint with "This is just to note that I will not take action here because I find anything involving xRR too complicated to understand").
As KingIndian says here, "The purpose of the remedy is to make the editor wait 24 hours after the other guy reverts. The revert violates the remedy, clearly. But it is an extremely stupid remedy, because nowhere except in ARBPIA does one find this interpretation of 1RR. I warned ArbCom at the time that this would happen."
Why is the remedy unclear? Because it says this;

"If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit."

Now due to a slow-moving edit-war, the first time this edit was reverted was on the 7th September [4]. So you could read into that (and I did, the first time) that a revert to that made on the 20th of September couldn't possibly fall under the remedy.
Now, if you look at the Motion as it was originally drafted (the 2018 version), it's clear from the discussion in Section 38.15 that ArbCom wanted to stop editors re-reverting any revert of their own edit (regardless of when that edit was orginally made) within 24 hours of that revert. But the wording is useless.
In that discussion User:Callanecc suggested "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the other user's revert.". Now if that had been the wording, I would have suggested sanctioning GHCool straight away.
But. I'm not going to sanction anyone based on such confusion, and I'm unsurprised that the other admins didn't either.
Summary: This case isn't worth taking, but if nothing less: ArbCom, please sort that wording out. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I've been added as a party for unclear reasons, and, as per BU Rob13's good advice, decline to comment on the request. Sandstein 17:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

As the involved parties added by the filer are all admins (and may not even bother to respond), thought I’d comment as a non-admin. I suggest the OP withdraw the filing. 1.) Seems to me it’s bad form to bring an issue here because admins chose not to take action against another editor. 2.) Linked discussion and text here suggest the filer sees offense where it probably doesn’t exist, and seeks “punitive action” as opposed to corrective action. 3.) Three admins decided not to take action. If filer believes their judgement better, perhaps they should submit an RfA. (OK, that was a bit snarky.) 4.) If filer is correct and the editor they seek to “punish”, deserves some action; then that opportunity will present itself later on. My point is that if the filer wishes a better editing atmosphere as stated, then this probably isn’t the best way. O3000 (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

The OP apparently doesn't like a decision at WP:AE. AE outcomes are at individual admin discretion, as far as I'm aware. No evidence is presented of prior attempts at dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

The present ARBPIA rules are nearly impossible to understand: some of us "regulars" in the area warned agains it during the last ARCA preceding. I suggest that we close this, and get a modification of the rule over at ARCA Huldra (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

It is pointless to revisit this case after its closure. But the need to have rules that everyone can understand is very strong. We should all show up at ARCA and demand that ArbCom take our need seriously. Zero^talk 02:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

I have nothing more to add to the comment I've already made regarding this nonsense. Veritycheck, by posting this ridiculous request all you've done is boost the number of people watching your actions which—as I've already pointed out—are not exactly being made with clean hands; please withdraw this nonsensical request before you waste even more peoples' time. ‑ Iridescent 23:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(adding) I know I'm already contradicting my I have nothing more to add, but if Arbcom does feel there's any editor conduct issue here worthy of discussion, may I suggest that the issue that most needs addressing is whether an editor who doesn't see anything wrong with demanding that "punitive measures be handed out" (in a content dispute over whether a mention of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario should be illustrated with a photo of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Building, lest we forget) is an editor whose attitude is compatible with participation on Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 23:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with every word AGK says below. Anything that helps the community and committee judge whether there's a broad sentiment that action needs to be taken despite it not being immediately apparent from the case request that there's an issue, or that despite a rule technically being broken there's clear consensus that it's the rule at fault not the editor, is something the committee should be welcoming. To complain that the job they volunteered for means they have to listen to the opinions of people they consider less important than themselves would be prima facie evidence of a serious attitude problem from any editor, a serious conduct issue from an admin, and grossly inappropriate coming from an arbitrator. ‑ Iridescent 11:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WRT this diatribe, how is it anybody fault but your own that you didn't bother to read the instructions at the top of WP:AE? The reason at the end it is me who is seen as the problem isn't because the system is "twisted", it's because you're coming across as a vindictive crank who sees Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes as a mechanism to punish those who disagree with you. ‑ Iridescent 14:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

I would like to simply point out that Drmies is the only rational editor here and this request is evidence supporting that. Thank you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MLauba

Echoing Iridescent's addendum, before this gets dismissed, the filer ought to show cause why they shouldn't be blocked for WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, on the principle that doing so today will be a preventative measure avoiding deeper issues and further waste of the community's time and patience down the road. MLauba ^(Talk) 00:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

It not clear the conduct Veritycheck was complaing about was even a violation - it depends on how you parse "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." - if you consider "original authorship" being content, not a revert, then this 2017 insertion of an image was reverted on Sep 7, making the revert in Sep 20 not the first revert.... It seems however there is disagreement on to parse this. Regardless this was an entirely technical and vexatious complaint - at best this was a technical violation of the letter of the law.

I would like to note Veritycheck was forewarned this filing "will be almost certainly unsuccessful and a waste of time for everybody involved." 13:50 22 September - and filed anyway. Drmies was clearly acting within the bounds of admin discretion, as well as rather clear consensus at AE.Icewhiz (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BullRangifer

Three words: Frivolous, Disruptive, and Boomerang.

Please compensate Drmies with an all-inclusive two-week vacation to Santorini. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

The complaint is petty and does not rise to the level of needing arbitration. It should be quickly rejected by the Committee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

Committee member @BU Rob13 commented that submitting statements to obvious arbitration requests should be discouraged:

As a side note, I strongly dislike the current practice of everyone and their grandmother showing up to make a "statement" at a case request that does not speak to the core of the dispute. In order to make a well-considered decision, arbitrators typically read every word of every statement in an open case request, as we should. A bunch of "This should be dismissed" statements without additional evidence eat up a considerable number of man-hours. They make it more difficult to decide the case request should be declined, not less, as we have to read through every statement before making that determination. If you see a case request that's frivolous, I would encourage you not to pile on with a content-free statement of agreement with that sentiment. We'll be able to dispatch of it more quickly if you do not.
— User:BU Rob13 07:09, 23 September 2018

Every point in their comment was quite wrong. AGK [•] 11:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SN54129

Well, pace BU Rob13, my grandmother is currently unable to comment here (the internet access within the City of London Cemetery leaves much to be desired) ;) but I saw the original thread one Drmies talk, which apart perhaps from the original question and its answer, was quickly quagmired by the Op. Thus they have already wasted plenty of editors' time and energies, and are perfectly aware of this since they have been told so. Yet, they insisted on filing here, even though were told or would be pointless. And now we are here, multiple editors/admins/arbs see also having their time and energies wasted...as the Op had been repeatedly advised. This selective deafness has moved from an annoyance to a few editors to being disruptive too many. Is there a better example of begging for a boomerang? I don't know: but I suggest that this is withdrawn ASAP before we find out. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

The request has nothing to do with 1RR. It is to answer whether Drmies acted inappropriately. The answer is no. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Admin Drmies conduct: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Admin Drmies conduct: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Decline The only policy your pointing to is WP:AC/DS#Role_of_administrators. And even then, those are discretionary. Was it the best decision? I'm not going to weigh in on that, as it's not our job to second guess enforcing administrators, only deal with problematic reoccurring behavior. Drmies filled WP:ADMINACCT, so I don't see what policy violation is here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Closures of AE discussions may be appealed at ARCA per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Dismissing_an_enforcement_request, including closures that result in no action. If you disagree with the closure, that is the proper avenue of appeal. Further, any uninvolved admin can still take action to enforce any arbitration remedy as an individual action. Without comment on the AE close, I do not see anything here that warrants arbitration. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This clarifies what I said on my talkpage, that closures with no action are appealable. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I strongly dislike the current practice of everyone and their grandmother showing up to make a "statement" at a case request that does not speak to the core of the dispute. In order to make a well-considered decision, arbitrators typically read every word of every statement in an open case request, as we should. A bunch of "This should be dismissed" statements without additional evidence eat up a considerable number of man-hours. They make it more difficult to decide the case request should be declined, not less, as we have to read through every statement before making that determination. If you see a case request that's frivolous, I would encourage you not to pile on with a content-free statement of agreement with that sentiment. We'll be able to dispatch of it more quickly if you do not. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @AGK: Correction: I said submitting content-free statements should be discouraged. Per the Arbitration Guide, statements to arbitration cases should be "short and factual ... including diffs where appropriate, to illustrate specific instances of the problem". The intent of the request is to "show why Arbitration is needed" (or not needed, presumably). If a statement does this, I am all for receiving it, and I have absolutely no qualms about such statements. They produce better outcomes. What I dislike is the practice of submitting statements that provide no evidence and summarize nothing about the situation. This is a minority of current statements, but they certainly do exist (and perhaps shouldn't). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline per my colleagues and virtually everyone above. There's no action for us to take here and sorry USer:Drmies, we can't afford to give you a vacation, our budget was exhausted giving ourselves vacations. Doug Weller talk 06:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, per everyone above. Doug, you're not supposed to tell people we have a super secret ArbCom vacation fund, let alone that we've already exhausted it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per above. There is a broad consensus that any violation here was minimal and I agree. Even if an appeal to ARCA would be procedurally proper, it would not be warranted in this instance. If there is a proposal to revise the remedy wording it should be raised separately, with a specific proposal for altering the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Amanda. I agree with Brad that concrete proposals to revise the 1RR language should be submitted separately. And Drmies had his chance to take his paid vacation while he was on the committee; not our fault he didn’t do it, but my new sarong I got in Tahiti on our latest committee holiday thanks you. Katie^talk 12:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per everyone above. Wait, no one ever told me about the vacation fund... RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Mkdw ^talk 16:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
 {{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}}
-== Block and abuse of admin rights on EO Wiktionary by Pablo Escobar and no local appeal procedure available ==
-'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Taylor 49|Taylor 49]] ([[User talk:Taylor 49|talk]]) '''at''' 11:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
-=== Involved parties ===
-<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
-*{{userlinks|Taylor 49}}, ''filing party''
-*{{admin|Pablo Escobar}}
-;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
-<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
-*[diff of notification Pablo Escobar]
-;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-* [https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Uzanta_diskuto:Pablo_Escobar]
-* [https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Uzanta_diskuto:Taylor_49#Mososa_te(ror)pa%C5%ADzo_:-D] (appeal on my user page was ignored)
-* [https://utrs.wmflabs.org/index.php] (auto-rejected due to the fact that I am blocked on EO Wiktionary only)
-* [https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Vikivortaro:Administrantoj#Misuzo_de_la_administrantaj_rajtoj] (local page about admins is useless: in case of abuse of admin rights suggests to contact Jimbo Wales (not yet done, see below why) or The Arbitration Committee (that does not exist yet and possibly never will))
-* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&action=edit&section=new] (not very promising)
-=== Statement by Taylor 49 ===
-[https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Speciala%C4%B5o:Protokolo/block] My account got blocked on EO Wiktionary by "Pablo Escobar". There is no appeal procedure available there. There is almost no community, there is only one administrator abusing eir rights and totally controlling the place. I am not a vandal. I am a contributor with (globally) > 12'000 edits. The edit causing the block [https://eo.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Helpo%3ARapida_kreado&type=revision&diff=692822&oldid=692239] is consistent with previous discussion, while Pablo's revert and block are not.
-=== Statement by Pablo Escobar ===
-=== Statement by SoWhy ===
-{{re|Taylor 49}} Even if all of that were true, this is the English Wikipedia. This page deals with problems on the English Wikipedia only. What you probably want is [[:meta:Requests for comment]], a process that allows more users to have a look at local problems when there is no local recourse available. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 11:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
-:Taylor 49 now has created [[:meta:Requests for comment/Administrator abuse on the EO Wiktionary]] and hopefully they can resolve it. I think a SNOW close of this request might be in order? Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 19:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Rschen7754 ===
-As a courtesy, I have notified the user of the discussion [https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/Uzanta_diskuto:Pablo_Escobar#Appeal_of_block_of_User:Taylor_49 here]. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
-=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
-Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
-<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
-=== Block and abuse of admin rights on EO Wiktionary by Pablo Escobar and no local appeal procedure available: Clerk notes ===
-:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-*
-=== Block and abuse of admin rights on EO Wiktionary by Pablo Escobar and no local appeal procedure available: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0> ===
-{{anchor|1=Block and abuse of admin rights on EO Wiktionary by Pablo Escobar and no local appeal procedure available: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
-*'''Decline''' as SoWhy stated above, this is the English Wikipedia and we have no control over what goes on with other projects. [[:meta:Requests for comment|Going to the Meta RFC page]] would be your best recourse at this time. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 12:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per Rick and SoWhy. Out of our jurisdiction [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 12:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' as above. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 13:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''', per above comments. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' -- [[User talk:DeltaQuad|<span style="color:white;background-color:#8A2DB8"><b>Amanda</b></span>]] <small>[[User:DeltaQuad|(aka DQ)]]</small> 18:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
-*Procedural '''decline'''. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 19:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
-*'''Decline'''. We do not have jurisdiction. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 05:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per above. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 10:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
-* '''Decline'''. <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 12:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 == Admin [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] conduct ==