< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:18, 21 July 2009 editSandstein (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,546 edits →Reply by Wdford to Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning Wdford: moving to Wdford's section← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:41, 21 July 2009 edit undoSandstein (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,546 edits →Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning Wdford: add my opinionNext edit →
Line 231:		Line 231:

	====Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning Wdford====		====Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning Wdford====
			* I propose to '''overturn Wdford's ban''' for the following reasons.
			:'''A.''' Per ], "The ] and ] articles are placed on ]. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned from the article and its talk page by any uninvolved administrator." We are called upon to review whether the article ban of {{user\|Wdford}} by {{user\|Ice Cold Beer}} from the article ] is authorized under these provisions.
			:'''B.''' To begin with, we must review whether a ban from ], an article not mentioned in the remedy, is authorized. The article ] was in August 2008 to the "rewritten and retitled version" called ]. The scope of that article is substantially similar to, but at any rate not larger than, that of the former ]. In my view, the article ] is the current form of the article ] as envisioned in the remedy, and is therefore the proper subject of the remedy's article probation.
			:'''C.''' That Ice Cold Beer is an uninvolved administrator is not disputed by Wdford. I also do ''not'' believe that he becomes too "involved" to take any future action solely as as a result of these proceedings.
			:'''D.''' We must therefore only review whether Wdford made "disruptive edits" to ]. In determining the level of disruption necessary to trigger a ban, we may be guided by ], to which the text "article probation" in the remedy links. As of the date of the ArbCom decision, in relevant part: "Article probation: Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be ''especially'' mindful of content policies, such as ], and interaction policies, such as ], ], ], and ]" (emphasis in original). This is instructive insofar as it makes clear that violations of relevant content policies constitute disruption for the purposes of the remedy to be applied here. This is equally underlined by the principle ], which reminds editors that "Misplaced Pages is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for ]—including, but not limited to, ], ], and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited."
			:'''E.''' We now have to examine Wdford's contributions as highlighted by Ice Cold Beer above in this light.
			::'''E.1''' Ice Cold Beer states that Wdford "was also supportive of the inclusion of this blatant POV fork (admins only) and was a primary contributor to the POV version of the article." The article ], which Wdford defended and heavily contributed to, was indeed deleted at ] because according to the closing admin it "sidesteps editorial consensus that exists (or doesn't exist) at ''Ancient Egyptian race controversy''". However, the article ] is not covered by the remedy's article probation (cf. par. B above), and accordingly actions with respect to it cannot be grounds for a topic ban under that remedy.
			::'''E.2''' Ice Cold Beer continues that "In this series of consecutive edits, Wdford adds unsourced content, promotes a fringe theory from an Afrocentrist author, and adds artwork along with captions designed to create controversy. Later, when {{user\|Dbachmann}} removed irrelevant POV material,, Wdford reverted.". I disagree. It is not clear to me how the edits linked to by Ice Cold Beer violate ]. The images added appear to illustrate the relevant text, their captions are entirely unexciting and the about the opinion of one ] is sourced and does not appear to violate ], particularly because it also mentions one ] who seems to hold the opposing view. On the whole, this does not constitute "promoting a fringe theory".
			::'''E.3''' Ice Cold Beer goes on to detail various edits made by Wdford to the article's talk page. It is not clear to me that an article's article probation, as described in the remedy, automatically also extends to the article's talk page. Even if it does, I am reluctant to support sanctions against editors who merely make talk page proposals (in good faith, as far as I can tell). If such proposals or polls have little merit, they are to be ignored, not sanctioned; at any rate they do not disrupt the actual article.
			::'''E.4''' Ice Cold Beer links to no other supposedly objectionable edits by Wdford.
			:'''F.''' On the whole, I believe that Ice Cold Beer may well be right in his general assessment that the article suffers from systematic fringe POV pushing. But as explained above, I believe that the evidence provided here is insufficient to establish bannable disruption by Wdford, specifically. For these reasons, I would overturn this ban, without precluding any later sanction against Wdford by Ice Cold Beer or others.
			:'''G.''' It might be helpful to note that I know practically nothing about the ancient Egyptians and have, as far as I know never been involved in any content disputes about this subject matter. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

	===Discussion concerning AncientObserver===		===Discussion concerning AncientObserver===

Revision as of 12:41, 21 July 2009

Shortcut

WP:AE

Requests for enforcement

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

Important informationShortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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.

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	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347

Israel-Palestine reliable-source issue

We have a problem on Israel-Palestine articles with a small number of Israeli editors removing material sourced to historian Ilan Pappe, simply because he is the source. Pappe is also Israeli, formerly with Haifa University in Israel, now a full professor of history at the University of Exeter in England. His speciality is Palestine 1947-1948, and in particular why 700,000 Palestinian-Arabs left their homes when the state of Israel was created. He is disliked among certain political groups in Israel, namely those who are strongly pro-Zionist, because he argues that Israelis engaged in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and because he called for an academic boycott against Israel. He has had death threats, has been accused of creating bad history by other Israeli historians, and he had to emigrate from Israel to England because of it in 2008.

Outside Israel, his views are as accepted as those of any other historian, to the best of my knowledge. He is the author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006), The Modern Middle East (2005), A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples (2003), and Britain and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (1988). It's important for us to include his research if we want our articles to be NPOV.

My question is what can be done about Wikipedians systematically removing him, as well as engaging in BLP violations as they do it, posting insults and various allegations. I requested input on the reliable sources noticeboard in May, where it was agreed by uninvolved editors that Pappe counts as a reliable source, but the removal of his material continues.

Would administrators be willing to take action in future, under the existing Israel-Palestine restrictions, against editors who continue to do this? SlimVirgin 16:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

While I don't know how the poster determines who is "uninvolved", by my estimation opinion was about equally divided in that noticeboard discussion, and I am one of those who consider Pappe's views to be notable and quotable but with qualifications, as he is a highly partisan and controversial figure not only in Israel. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the remedy allows sanctions against those who "fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." That means we can't sanction people on account of content disagreements (such as whether or not works by this professor should be removed because they are not a reliable source, a question about which I have no opinion and which should not be discussed here on the merits). But we can sanction people who conduct themselves badly in the course of such disagreements (e.g. edit warring or repeated BLP violations). I will entertain enforcement requests (see {{Arbitration enforcement request}}) in such cases. Prior to requesting sanctions, plase make sure that the following condition of the remedy is met: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Sandstein 22:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The thing is that, for the most part, it's all done quite politely, apart from the BLP violations against Pappe. Doesn't removing reliable sources for no reason fall under failing to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages — which is to present all majority and significant-minority POVs? SlimVirgin 01:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. In principle, yes, but I believe we should not use discretionary sanctions in cases where we would need to decide a content dispute to decide whether to apply sanctions (i.e., whether "reliable sources" are being removed "for no reason"). This is because ArbCom, which has devolved this enforced power to us, does not decide content disputes either. Do you have diffs for these BLP violations? Sandstein 13:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by arbs

I would think that removing material sourced with reliable sources after consensus had been determined that the sources were indeed reliable would qualify as "against the purposes of an encyclopedia" as per

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict 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.

from remedy 1.1 of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. So a warning, reversion and block if it persists without discussion or explanation. Do we all think this is reasonable? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: Note the arbitration committee isn't ruling on content, as that has been done by consensus elsewhere, just on behaviour. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Without comment on this particular case, it would be better if you clarified the above to indicate that material should be well-sourced and NPOV - i.e. that reliable sources are not a sufficient condition for inclusion. At present, a literal reading of the above could easily be abused to justify the standard POV-warrior behaviour of "if it's sourced it stays". CIreland (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Pmanderson

User requesting enforcement:
Ohconfucius (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Date delinking#Pmanderson_topic_banned "31.1) Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
The user has edited the policy page 6 times since the case closed (1 2 3 4 5 6) In the fifth edit, he remove a link to the WP:Manual of Style and replaced it by a link to an article, with a possibly deceptive edit summary. This undiscussed change may well have been contentious (it has since been reverted) and appears to involve just the scope that Remedy 31.1 refers to

addendum

Since I opened the request for clarification, PMA has made 1, 2, 3 edits to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English) as well as 1, 2 edits to Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names).

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):
I am seeking clarification as to what was covered by the restraining order – I am under similar editing restraint and would gladly like to know whether same freedom applies to me. If he has been in breach, a brief spell on the benches or a strongly worded warning would be in order.

Additional comments by Ohconfucius (talk):
moved here from Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification following advice from clerk.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

diff of notification

Discussion concerning Pmanderson

Statement by Pmanderson

To reuse my statement, when Ohconfucius made the same appeal to ArbCom, here:

This is the result of the quarrel over date-delinking, once brought to ArbCom, and settled at WP:ARBDATE. So far, the appeal to ArbCom has been ignored, except for Mbisanz recusing himself from clerking it; understandable, since Ohconfucius made a big deal about his commenting on the original case, when he wasn't clerking on it.

What does any of this evidence have to do with date-delinking? Why am I being dragged back into the date-delinking case?

Ohconfucious ~~appears to have missed~~ has now inserted this edit (which should, by the "logic" here, be the most outrageous), in which I inserted a space between two paragraphs.

As for the edit summary complained of, it says, in full: refer to article, with sources; there are advantages to working on an encyclopedia. There are; these include access to articles on English grammar when we want to indicate what that grammar actually is; they have citations and sources; MOS doesn't.

As Roger Davies wrote, now on the talk page of WP:ARBDATE, topic bans are intended to give severely disrupted topics a break from disruption and to give topic-banned editors an opportunity to get used to working in less contested areas. The naming conventions are in fact much less contentious; it was with relief that I returned to discussing them, as I have been doing for years. Applying them is less so, as the recently concluded Macedonia case will show; I have been discussing that also, and its consequences, with several admins and some arbitrators. Nobody suggested that this topic ban applied in any way.

It may indeed be possible to apply this decision mechanically, so that it will amount to a site ban; did ArbCom mean that? (And if so, did they mean it, somehow, just for me, or does it apply to all parties alike?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Greek patriot Xenovatis, or (as he now calls himself) Anothroskon, is one of the participants in the Macedonia ArbCom case, who deeply and emotionally believes in the use of FYROM and several other -er- debatable points of Greek history. As I said, the application of naming guidelines can be controversial. The use of procedural complaints to settle points of content is commonplace among such editors; this case, however, appears to have been largely touchiness on his part. Observe one of his last edits under his old username, which shows a calmer spirit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I also see that Ohconfucius protests that this effort to get me blocked, in two different forums now, is not about me. The gentleman doth protest too much; if what he wanted to know was whether he could edit the Naming Conventions, he could simply have asked. I also object to his persistent assumption of bad faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I have assumed this ban (as the others of the same wording) was limited to {{style-guideline}}s (this would include other templates transcluded into such guidelines, which was what I did wrong), because the express reason for not limiting them to discussion of date-delinking was that the actual wording would be easier to administer. The interpretation Ohconfucius suggests is not.

In addition, my restriction was suggested in the last days of the case, on limited evidence, and passed by a close vote. It never occurred to me that it was meant as a ban from most of Misplaced Pages space; if ArbCom had meant that, wouldn't they have been clearer?

(And, as said above, I have edited and discussed the new naming convention on Macedonia, in company with clerks and Arbs; surely one of them would have warned me if I had been in violation of a just-passed arbitration?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Sandstein: Please go to ArbCom instead; I have left messages with two Arbs myself. I will appeal any such interpretation immediately, and I have better uses for my time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To Sandstein: Can we not simply wait for an Arb to notice one of the (now three) requests for their opinion? If it is as Ohconfucius would like, the Arb may be able to express their collective opinion better than anyone here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(Moving the above comment from the admin section and replying) I see no harm in waiting, but it might be a good idea for you to refrain from editing the page at issue until the matter is resolved, to avoid further complications. Sandstein 21:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I have other things to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Two Arbs have now commented on the original discussion here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

with regard to the "outrageous edit" which I allegedly missed, please see this correction diff Ohconfucius (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe I have already explained (relative to my first at Clarification) why I am posting this and why it has been moved here. I note that the sniping continues but will not allow PMA to indulge in this style of questioning of my motives. He may be forgiven for believing this is about him, but it's really not. Greg L's participation in the WP:DATEBOT was questioned although I did not see the relevance at the time either, and I was proven wrong. My reason is now highlighted in red above. An official can ignore or dismiss this for all I care, but don't then come after me when I start editing similar editing guidelines, because I will come and say "I did ask" (referring to this query, of course). Ohconfucius (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
On the "much less contentious" guideline which is WP:NAME, PMA appears nevertheless to have created some ripples of his own. His behaviour over the naming of certain articles was the subject of a complaint which graced these very pages only ten days ago; User:Xenovatis has asked for his talk page to be protected against PMA's unwanted attention. Therefore, it is not as "uncontentious" at WP:NAME as PMA would like to suggest. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"The gentleman doth protest too much": WP:NPA; "if what he wanted to know was whether he could edit the Naming Conventions, he could simply have asked.": I did. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but editors usually only work on specific areas of interest to them, and what they do best is usually in that area they care about the most. Please note that, in the same decision, Lightmouse was banned from using any form of automation - an area he excels in. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (Non-admin response to Fut. Perf. moved from admin section. Sandstein 05:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

Response to Ohconfucius

I see that Ohconfucius has compared me to Lightmouse; there seems to me a clear differentiation: Until this matter arose, I left dates alone, as ArbCom wished; Lightmouse (a sockpuppet of the infamous Bobblewick) refused to. Ohconfucius has indeed spent his time in article space, not only delinking dates (redundantly, a bot is being built to do it) but switching articles from one dating format to another, a violation of MOS and of the Jguk ArbCom decision to which it refers.

This is Date Warring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

<sign> I can't say I wasn't expecting this return of fire.</sigh> Ohconfucius (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You chose to throw stones while sitting in a glass house. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

Just a correction to one thing dragged in falsely by Ohconfucius above: The protection of Xenovatis' talk page had nothing to do with any complaints against Pmanderson, as far as I can tell (and if it had, it would be a breach of protection policy); the talk page was merely abandoned because the editor chose to move to a new name. Also, whatever conflict there was between Xenovatis and Pmanderson, it wasn't over style guideline edits, so what has it to do with anything here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologise that it may have been a false conclusion, but it is pretty obvious, from the state of said talk page before it was blanked and protected, that some serious accusations were being made by PMA to the displeasure of Xeno. Furthermore, although I am not making any such accusation, it does not preclude a user seeking the upper hand in a content dispute on WP by changing the relevant guideline. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If I were them and didn't want much trouble, I'd state a clear-cut restriction such as "is prohibited from editing pages in Category:Misplaced Pages style guidelines and talk pages thereof". --A. di M. (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC) (Non-admin comment moved to here from section below. Sandstein 13:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Agree that precision is clarity. However, my belief is that Arbcom would not have chosen to be so 'vague' if it wanted a narrow interpretation of the remedy. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Note There is a request for amendment that may or may not affect this request for enforcement. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Pmanderson

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

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Pmanderson topic banned, "Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines". His edits reported by Ohconfucius were to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions, a policy that is not part of WP:MOS (which was the area of conflict in the case). I would appreciate comments by arbitrators or other uninvolved editors whether the naming conventions are "style and editing guidelines" for the purpose of the topic ban. I would tend to agree that they are. Sandstein 05:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If I read that correctly its a ban from "style guidelines" and "editing guidelines". The case (in Styles locked in dispute) found that problematic behavior had spilled out of the MOS which may explain the broad wording of the remedy. I would tend to agree that Naming conventions, though policy, would fall under the remedy (in fact, the way I read it, any policy about editing or style would be covered). Perhaps an clarification from the Arbs about whether they meant things to be that broad or limited to the MOS would be helpful? Shell 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This was already moved here from the clarification requests page. Unless others disagree, I will close this with a warning to Pmanderson that we understand his ban to also include Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions, and that he will be blocked should he edit it again. Sandstein 13:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The wordings of arbitration remedies, because of the way they are processed, don't always reflect the spirit and intent behind them very well. Though I might be in the minority, I would be very strongly in favour of interpreting the ArbCom remedy here narrowly, unless instructed otherwise by arbs through a clarification. PMAnderson's work in naming conventions is usually very good and most of it is philosophically and wikipolitically unrelated to the disruption around the date delinking case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Deacon. It would be a pity to lose Pmanderson's work on what he does best. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is still open under clarfications - since there does seem to be a disagreement about what the remedy was supposed to cover, maybe we should wait and see if an Arb comments? Shell 16:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it appears that I am now in a content disagreement with Pmanderson in a naming conventions-related issue (), I will recuse myself from any further action with respect to this issue if he so requests. Sandstein 20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy ban review

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Ice Cold Beer

User requesting enforcement:
Vassyana (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann#Article_probation

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
This is not a request for direct enforcement against Ice Cold Beer, but rather a request for review of his actions. Dispute over the suitability of his administative intervention has become heated and distracting. Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) banned five editors from Ancient Egyptian race controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Wdford (talk · contribs)
AncientObserver (talk · contribs)
Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs)
Big-dynamo (talk · contribs)
Panehesy (talk · contribs)

Relevant links (permalinks to avoid achiving link breakage):

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):
Some editors are objecting to the topic bans, including uninvolved editors such as ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) and Slrubenstein (talk · contribs). It would help lay this matter to rest if a few AE regulars could review the matter and comment here. I am notifying the acting administrator and involved parties, as well as those who have commented at the clarification request.

Additional comments by Vassyana (talk):
I am also posting to WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN to draw awareness to this review request, due to the content issues and claims involved. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked for the input of the regulars from WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN (, ). I have notified Ice Cold Beer, the five sanctioned editors, and other editors that commented at the clarification request (). --Vassyana (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A general statement by Ice Cold Beer

First off, I would like to state that my delayed response to this appeal is the result of a lack of time to devote to Misplaced Pages in the last few days. I apologize to the banned editors or anyone else who has experienced any frustration to my lack of a response.

On 7 July, Ryulong (talk · contribs) asked for a review of five users' contributions to Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page. Though uninvolved, I had previously enforced the sanctions outlined here against Big-dynamo (talk · contribs) and had warned Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs) for disrupting the article, and therefore felt well-equipped to review the contributions of the five users. After reviewing the contributions of the five users for a period of two to three hours, I banned four of them (the five users currently appealing their bans subtract Panehesy (talk · contribs)).

The version of the article that brought my wrath was this one, which I determined to be result of the contributions of the now banned users with the help of a sockpuppet of the now unblocked Muntuwandi (talk · contribs). The main problem with this version is that while the article should be about the controversy, the four banned users instead developed an article that sought to create/further the controversy, a form of POV-pushing. Any editor who has worked in an area that is often invaded by those wishing to push their favorite fringe theory can spot this from a mile away. An editor attempts to edit the article such that it appears a legitimate controversy exists when it does not. This problem with the article had been pointed out to editors of the article before, but to no avail. Below, I will provide arguments for the individual bans of these four editors in their individual sections.

The ban of Panehesy was separate and I will address it in full in his/her section below. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Wdford

Statement by Wdford

I too was banned out of the blue by User:Ice Cold Beer. There were no warnings given, the process per WP:Banning policy was not followed, and there was no prior discussion at all, far less consensus. As far as I can tell I do not appear on any list of banned editors. Per wiki policy admins are only allowed to impose bans "to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." However the article was actually functioning smoothly, with the isolated exception of the disruptive edits by Dbachmann, and many editors contributed constructively to challenge and remove points on either side that were POV or unsupported. Ice Cold Beer's claimed rationale of "POV-pushing" is ridiculous, since the banned editors were arguing opposite sides of the coin, and the only thing the banned editors all have in common is a desire to have the controversial material properly explained rather than simply suppressed. I ask that the higher authorities review the actions of User:Ice Cold Beer, and lift the ban. Wdford (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply by Wdford to Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning Wdford

Firstly, I am not a single-purpose account. I simply edit only those articles where I have an interest, where I know something about the subject and where I note an opportunity for improvement. I do not have unlimited time to dedicate to Misplaced Pages, and I am not one of those who is trying to set a record for most edits ever.

Secondly, it appears from the above that the entire basis of this banning is the assumption that I have been “promot(ing) both sides of the debate as equals”, thereby violating the undue weight clause. This is a false accusation, as even a cursory review of my actual contributions would reveal that I do not support the Afrocentric position, despite being African myself, and that I repeatedly introduced referenced material that contradicted the more-extreme Afrocentric claims. However this is a notable controversy - among black people especially – as any Google search will show. I therefore firmly believe the article should exist, and that it should address the controversy thoroughly and completely. I include the works of Afrocentrist authors because they are a valid part of the controversy, not because I accept or promote their viewpoint.

Your so-called blatant POV fork (admins only) came about because admins including Moreschi and Dbachmann adopted the POV that this article should be about the history of the controversy only, and should not include the substance of the controversy. In good faith some of us then started a separate article to explain the substance of the controversy, since this material was specifically excluded from the main article, only to have this material once again suppressed by those same admins. I did not add artwork designed to create controversy, I added to artwork because that is one of the main foundations of the controversy. The material Dbachmann removed was actually a relevant part of the controversy, and can only be considered irrelevant by persons adopting a seriously biased POV. I did not promote a fringe theory from an Afrocentrist author, I included references to the work of authors of all spectrums, so as to create a balanced and neutral section. The author in question was indeed fringe, but censoring all the controversial authors out of an article about a controversy does the article no justice.

I do not believe that participating in a straw poll should be considered evidence of disruptive behaviour, especially when various admins had advised us to seek consensus on the talk page. Using language like “silly” and “illegitimate” further exposes the POV at work here. The creation of successive versions of the lead section came about because the admins instructed interested editors to thrash out a consensus on the talk page before taking the article itself forward. It is upsetting indeed that when we follow the advice of those admins we discover that this apparently again constitutes disruptive behaviour. It is pathetic to propose that the opposition could be worn down, as the “opposition” in this case consists primarily of admins who are quite happy to use their powerful tools to ban, block, revert and protect articles in order to maintain their POV.

In conclusion, at no time did I do anything intended to “disrupt the article”. I contributed constructively, despite some poor advice from people who should have been trying to help. I still maintain that User:Ice Cold Beer acted inappropriately to ban me based on an incorrect understanding of my work, that a ban of six months is seriously inappropriate, and that due process was not followed.

As regards questioning the apparent racism of certain people, I was simply applying the WP:DUCK test which Dbachmann loves so much.

Wdford (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Statement moved to this section by Sandstein 11:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC))

Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning Wdford

Of the five users I recently banned from AErc, the most difficult decision came regarding Wdford (talk · contribs). While Wdford has occasionally been a voice of reason against POV-pushing, (s)he was also supportive of the inclusion of this blatant POV fork (admins only) and was a primary contributor to the POV version of the article. Indeed, a review of Wdford's contributions reveal that (s)he has been a single purpose account since late January of this year. In this series of consecutive edits, Wdford adds unsourced content, promotes a fringe theory from an Afrocentrist author, and adds artwork along with captions designed to create controversy. Later, when Dbachmann (talk · contribs) removed irrelevant POV material,, Wdford reverted.

Wdford's disruptive behavior has occured on the talk page as well. After an admin protected the article, a "poorly constructed" straw poll was conducted on the talk page. Thereafter, Wdford and others use the illegitimate straw poll as a license to promote both sides of the debate as equals, a blatant violation of the undue weight clause. In my experience, such polls are often a weapon of those seeking to advance fringe positions. A silly poll is conducted, and while any serious user ignores it, those on one side of the debate participate and use the result as means to violate WP:NPOV. Here, Wdford proposes a ridiculously watered down version of the lead and is of course joined by the other banned editors. That section of the talk page is the third of three straight, separate sections on the lead. This is another common tactic by POV-pushers—create several new sections on the same topic in order to wear down opposition.

In conclusion, the decision to ban Wdford was not an easy one. While (s)he often opposes his/her fellow banned editors, (s)he often engages in the same tactics in order to disrupt the article. I would also add that the user's behavior after the ban has only reinforced my decision—here, Wdford calls me and others racists (I'm not), rednecks (nope), and implies that we are supporters (no) of a racist (wrong) president. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors concerning Wdford

Wdford seemed to be making a good faith effort to reach a compromise. At best I thought the situation required a mediator. I did not see any behavior that justified such a long block. Despite requests, I was never shown any edit difs to justify a block. This AE involves a case where dab was reprimanded and warned ... yet Ice Cold Beer chose to block this user rather than dab - this smacks of a double standard at best, and something more chilling at worse. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning Wdford

I propose to overturn Wdford's ban for the following reasons.

A. Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article probation, "The Afrocentrism and Race of ancient Egyptians articles are placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned from the article and its talk page by any uninvolved administrator." We are called upon to review whether the article ban of Wdford (talk · contribs) by Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) from the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy is authorized under these provisions.

B. To begin with, we must review whether a ban from Ancient Egyptian race controversy, an article not mentioned in the remedy, is authorized. The article Race of ancient Egyptians was redirected in August 2008 to the "rewritten and retitled version" called Ancient Egyptian race controversy. The scope of that article is substantially similar to, but at any rate not larger than, that of the former Race of ancient Egyptians. In my view, the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy is the current form of the article Race of ancient Egyptians as envisioned in the remedy, and is therefore the proper subject of the remedy's article probation.

C. That Ice Cold Beer is an uninvolved administrator is not disputed by Wdford. I also do not believe that he becomes too "involved" to take any future action solely as as a result of these proceedings.

D. We must therefore only review whether Wdford made "disruptive edits" to Race of ancient Egyptians. In determining the level of disruption necessary to trigger a ban, we may be guided by Misplaced Pages:General sanctions, to which the text "article probation" in the remedy links. As of the date of the ArbCom decision, that page read in relevant part: "Article probation: Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT" (emphasis in original). This is instructive insofar as it makes clear that violations of relevant content policies constitute disruption for the purposes of the remedy to be applied here. This is equally underlined by the principle Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Purpose of Misplaced Pages, which reminds editors that "Misplaced Pages is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited."

E. We now have to examine Wdford's contributions as highlighted by Ice Cold Beer above in this light.

E.1 Ice Cold Beer states that Wdford "was also supportive of the inclusion of this blatant POV fork (admins only) and was a primary contributor to the POV version of the article." The article Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?, which Wdford defended and heavily contributed to, was indeed deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? because according to the closing admin it "sidesteps editorial consensus that exists (or doesn't exist) at Ancient Egyptian race controversy". However, the article Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? is not covered by the remedy's article probation (cf. par. B above), and accordingly actions with respect to it cannot be grounds for a topic ban under that remedy.

E.2 Ice Cold Beer continues that "In this series of consecutive edits, Wdford adds unsourced content, promotes a fringe theory from an Afrocentrist author, and adds artwork along with captions designed to create controversy. Later, when Dbachmann (talk · contribs) removed irrelevant POV material,, Wdford reverted.". I disagree. It is not clear to me how the edits linked to by Ice Cold Beer violate WP:NPOV. The images added appear to illustrate the relevant text, their captions are entirely unexciting and the text added about the opinion of one Ivan van Sertima is sourced and does not appear to violate WP:UNDUE, particularly because it also mentions one Frank Yurco who seems to hold the opposing view. On the whole, this does not constitute "promoting a fringe theory".

E.3 Ice Cold Beer goes on to detail various edits made by Wdford to the article's talk page. It is not clear to me that an article's article probation, as described in the remedy, automatically also extends to the article's talk page. Even if it does, I am reluctant to support sanctions against editors who merely make talk page proposals (in good faith, as far as I can tell). If such proposals or polls have little merit, they are to be ignored, not sanctioned; at any rate they do not disrupt the actual article.

E.4 Ice Cold Beer links to no other supposedly objectionable edits by Wdford.

F. On the whole, I believe that Ice Cold Beer may well be right in his general assessment that the article suffers from systematic fringe POV pushing. But as explained above, I believe that the evidence provided here is insufficient to establish bannable disruption by Wdford, specifically. For these reasons, I would overturn this ban, without precluding any later sanction against Wdford by Ice Cold Beer or others.

G. It might be helpful to note that I know practically nothing about the ancient Egyptians and have, as far as I know never been involved in any content disputes about this subject matter. Sandstein 12:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning AncientObserver

Statement by AncientObserver

All I have to say is that I have done my best to be as cooperative with all the other editors on Misplaced Pages that I have encountered and now find myself banned from an article and its talk page for 6 months. I asked Ice Cold Beer for one thing....provide diffs justifying my ban. He refused to do so. He didn't give me any kind of warning he simply, unilaterally banned myself and the other editors at the suggestion of another editor and said that our discussion on the talk page was self-evident of the fact that we were being disruptive. He accused us of "POV pushing fringe theories", yet I provided reliable sources for all of my edits which were relevant to the article. He gave me an example of an edit of mine he felt was in violation of NPOV yet would not be specific about how it was. I'm new to Misplaced Pages but I recognize abuse of power when I see it. I urge the higher authorities to investigate this matter and if you find ICB's decision to be in poor judgment lift our bans. If not atleast explain to us what we did wrong so we do not make the same mistake in the future. AncientObserver (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning AncientObserver

Comments by other editors concerning AncientObserver

Ancient Observer seemed to be making a good faith effort to reach a compromise. At best I thought the situation required a mediator. I did not see any behavior that justified such a long block. Despite requests, I was never shown any edit difs to justify a block. This AE involves a case where dab was reprimanded and warned ... yet Ice Cold Beer chose to block this user rather than dab - this smacks of a double standard at best, and something more chilling at worse. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning AncientObserver

Discussion concerning Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

Statement by Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

What I can say has been very well summurised by ChildofMidnight . An admin had people banned from editing the article AERC. I am one of those banned. I think that we have been unfairly banned. It happened without warning. Besides, the editor who brought unilateral changes to the article is injoying freedom of editing. What makes me to believe that in his action the admin embraced one side of the editing dispute. In almost 2 years of editing this article, I don't remember of being banned. I have always tried to respect other's views. I don't remove edits made by other people even when I disagree with the statements. I just ask for sound sources. Is it not what Misplaced Pages expects from editors? I would like to see, if possible, the ban reverted. Finaly, thanks to Vassyana for his mediation!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

Comments by other editors concerning Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

Frankly, I seldome agree with Lusala. But as far as I have ever seen, Lusala comports him/herself pretty much like the average Wikipedian. L. can sometimes be abrupt or sarcastic but frankly dab is just the same. Why Lusala would be blocked and not dab is really hard for me to understand. And I say this fully understanding that blocks are meant to provide people with time to cool off - I do not think that either Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka nor dab are racists, and I think each of them have valid points. I think they usually talk past one another and neither has the patience to take the time to try to underswtand the other. So maybe they do need a cooling off period. Frankly I think a good mediator would be more effective. But whatever is called for should apply to Lusala and dab equally. This AE involves a case where dab was reprimanded and warned ... yet Ice Cold Beer chose to block this user rather than dab - this smacks of a double standard at best, and something more chilling at worse. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

Discussion concerning Big-dynamo

Statement by Big-dynamo

What I added to the conversation is that the history of the topic goes back farther than the 1960s. I do not agree that this article is the place to focus on genetics, artwork and every nuance and detail about the subject of race. The point should be that various scholars have been debating concepts of "race" and ancient Egypt since the 18th century. And the fact that it was during this time that scientific ideas about race were being developed and debated in and outside of scholarly circles. Discussion and references showing that there has been debate over this very topic since the 18th century is all that is required. There are numerous references that are available that show this clearly. This article is not the place for polemic arguments about Egyptology. It is not the place for arguments about Afrocentrism. It is also not the place for arguments about race science and racism. All those articles already exist and if people want to expand on them, then they should. This article should simply link to them. That is my perspective on what the article should be about. Of course some people don't want to talk about the racism of European scholars. But that is fundamental to the reason for the controversy in the first place. Likewise, some others want to argue over the ancient Egyptians being black. Again, this is also not the place for that discussion at all. Present the facts relevant to this issue and let people come to their own conclusions. Big-dynamo (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning Big-dynamo

Comments by other editors concerning Big-dynamo

Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning Big-dynamo

Discussion concerning Panehesy

Statement by Panehesy

The rule regarding the enforcement of the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy is as follows:

Enforcement by block 1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Log of blocks and bans. Passed 12 to 0, 19:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

However this is the result of the first alleged violation:

You are banned from Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page, per , for a period of six months for POV-pushing, adding unsourced content, and personal attacks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If it serves you, please note my contributions on the page were sourced (except the last one which I was blocked before I could add citations), I did not engage in personal attacks only except to respond to personal attacks against me by others who were and are still not blocked. I did not engage in POV pushing, I routinely reminded the contributors that the article is about the debate and the history of the debate itself, and I proceeded to chronologically describe it. By the way, most of my contributions are still on the page as of now. Further details can be provided upon request. Finally I was not given any warning prior to enforcement for any alleged violation. --Panehesy (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made an edit to the article. One week and one minute after the ban was initiated against me. The potential response, by the arbitrators of the enforcement itself should require no further action taken upon me unless I engage in further violations. Contributions in themselves are not a violation as the time of the block has ended. --Panehesy (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning Panehesy

Comments by other editors concerning Panehesy

Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning Panehesy

Without having evaluated the merits of the ban (I prefer to wait until Ice Cold Beer has commented), I'd like to note that I have now blocked Panehesy for 24 hours in an arbitration enforcement action because he violated the ban by editing Ancient Egyptian race controversy, as announced in his statement above. Panehesy, the ban was validly imposed on you under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article probation, and remains in effect until such time (if ever) it is lifted by consensus of administrators here or by decision of the Arbitration Committee. Sandstein 21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like Panehesy may have mixed up article bans and blocks enforcing those bans (the "one week" figure being quoted by the user appears to apply to the latter). If they agree to avoid editing the article, an unblock to allow them to better appeal here might be wise. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but judging from his unblock requests, where the various remedies have been explained to him several times, Panehesy still doesn't get it. Sandstein 06:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; I keep checking back at their talk page, hoping for some indication to the contrary, but they haven't posted in a while. Guess we'll see. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Result of the appeal against the bans by Ice Cold Beer

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

Comment: I have adapted the standard section structure to allow for the parallel discussion of five appeals. Sandstein 06:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Parishan

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Parishan

User requesting enforcement:
Fedayee (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

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

Edit warring on Armenians
Edit warring on Armenians
Edit warring on Armenians
Edit warring on Armenians

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

Warning by Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Warning by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Placement under AA2 editing restrictions.

Additional comments by Fedayee (talk):
Parishan has been party to both AA arbcom cases and has a long history of edit warring and POV pushing. Parishan has already been blocked twice for edit warring in the Armenians article .

Prior reports on this board

Plus number of other complaints, when discussing other users .

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

Discussion concerning Parishan

Statement by Parishan

Edit 1 is not an example of edit-warring; I just added information that was missing in the article and sorted the items on the list by population figures in descreasing order. The article had not contained that information before. Where is the act of 'warring'?

Edits 2 and 3 were attempts to prevent what seemed as disruptive editing on Serouj's part: futile and superficial statements like 'no Armenians in AZ' and 'source is incorrect' provided as rationale for reverts really made me question this user's attitude and the seriousness of his approach to the article. I addressed this concern on Serouj's userpage and stopped making changes to the article despite his subsequent reverts, until the issue was resolved.

Edit 4 is not an example of edit-warring either: from the two simultaneous discussions that were taking place on the talkpage, I received no response for one and a positive response to my compromise proposal for the other, hence assuming that the entire discussion was over and restoring the discussed text back in the article. Parishan (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Serouj

This article recently had its entire "Armenian population" section replaced by me using the only Western academic source (to my knowledge) that has done any research on the global Armenian population in the last 5 years (see Astourian, 2007). There were two issues at hand with Parishan's edits:

The inclusion of "de jure part of Azerbaijan" for the category of "Nagorno Karabakh Republic". This fact, I argue, had no place in this article, as it is irrelevant.
The addition of an explicit Armenian population in Azerbaijan, which is widely known to contain no Armenian population. Astourian (see above) had no explicit category for this group and notes in his paper that there have been indeed no Armenians living in Azerbaijan since the Sumgayit and Baku pogroms. Such additions clearly needed to have multiple reliable sources in order to be acceptable.

The onus was on Parishan to prove his point in talk.

Nevertheless, Parishan insisted on these facts without any talk. Indeed, it is I who initiated the dialogue (1 and 2) on the talk page after my first reversion (of 3 ) and after Parishan's second addition. Nevertheless, without going to the talk page to reply to the conversation that I had started and included in my comment of the reversion, he proceeded to add his POV for a third time to the article. Such controversial edits deserved to be reverted, because the user clearly did not want to engage in dialogue.

In any case, it was only after my last reversion that Parishan agreed to dialogue. We agreed (albeit on a technicality) that the 18-30,000 figure of Armenians should be accepted, with a footnote that these are Armenians whose spouse is an Azeri ("mixed marriage").

With regard to the first point (inclusion of "de jure'), we didn't really compromise on anything yet, as I haven't had the chance to comment on it. (I still think it's irrelevant to this article. The words "de facto independent" and "de jure non-independent" don't need to be qualifications for the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic for every one of its occurrence.

An edit war could therefore have been prevented if Parishan had addressed the two dialogues that I had started after my first reversion. Parishan started dialogue after his third addition of the controversial information and after my third reversion (Almost as if he wanted to initiate this 3RR against me? It is also interesting to note that User:Grandmaster came out of seemingly nowhere to initiate this 3RR claim. Perhaps a coordinated effort?). Serouj (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (Copied here from User talk:Serouj by Sandstein 06:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

Comments by other editors

We should at the same time consider possible sanctions against Serouj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the editor Parishan was edit-warring with (see the history of "Armenians"). He is currently blocked for violating WP:3RR in this dispute. I am notifiying him that he is invited to make a statement in his defense and am preparing a section header for this, above. Any editor is invited to copy any statement Serouj might want to make to that section. Sandstein 21:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

AA2 suggests careful editing in Amended Remedies and Enforcement, which Serouj as reverting editor had not maintain so the rationale for this report is questionable. Brandt 08:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Parishan

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

Both Parishan and Serouj have edit-warred with each other and some others about whether the infobox of Armenians should include Azerbaijan (and related issues) on or about 18 July 2009. Taking into account both of their block logs with respect to disputes in this topic area, I intend to sanction both with a six month revert restriction, unless other administrators object. Sandstein 11:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Serouj has correctly pointed out on his user talk page that his warning about the AA2 case occurred after the edit war at issue here. This means he may not be sanctioned at this time, and accordingly I am currently only contemplating a revert restriction of Parishan. Sandstein 16:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I warned Serouj about AA2 sanctions back in June 2009, before the recent edit war, please see: So Serouj is not correct when saying that he was not aware of the arbcom imposed sanctions. He was warned, but disregarded the warning. Grandmaster 07:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

דוד שי

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning דוד שי

User requesting enforcement:
85.64.39.213 (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
דוד שי (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Off-wiki attacks

Misplaced Pages cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Misplaced Pages is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.

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

<Explanation>
<Explanation>
<Explanation>
...

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

Warning by ] (] · ])
Warning by ] (] · ] · ] · ] · ] · ] · ] · ])
...

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):

Additional comments by 85.64.39.213 (talk):
I was banned for eternity, after I called someone a donkey off-wiki. A donkey in Hebrew is a very naive aphorism for a stuborn person, similar to the English word `ass`. I see no proportion and a violation of the above rule. More severe is the fact that in Hebrew Misplaced Pages, the Arbitration page is virtually inactive and there is no easy way to get there, especially when one is banned. For instance, I found no translation to most important pages concerning dispute resolution, or for templates like "unblock". My hebrew name is "בועה בזרם", the ban #72823. I have no former conduct issues with Misplaced Pages.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning דוד שי

Statement by דוד שי

Comments by other editors

This request will be closed soon if the requesting editor does not show how it is related to the enforcement of an Arbitration Committee decision (please provide the linkt o that decision). This board is dedicated exclusively to such enforcement. If you want to appeal a block, follow the instructions at WP:GAB. Also, we do not have a user בועה בזרם (talk · contribs) on the English Misplaced Pages. Please provide the username of the account on the English Misplaced Pages that has been "banned for eternity". If you have been banned at the Hebrew Misplaced Pages, we here on the English Misplaced Pages cannot do anything about it. Sandstein 09:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning דוד שי

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

Not an actionable request for the reasons explained above. Sandstein 05:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued incivility and censorship at Obama articles violating NPOV and other core policies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is not an actionable arbitration enforcement request for the reasons explained below. Use {{Arbitration enforcement request}} to submit a proper request. Sandstein 05:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In contravention of the adopted remedies in the Obama Arbcom there is a continuing pattern of incivility and aggressive censorship in violation of our NPOV guidelines. We have policies to deal with content disputes, and suspected socks, but the name calling and harrassment is unacceptable.

Numerous threads are being collapsed including legitimate discussion of lawsuits and issues related to the teleprompter issue, Afghanistan casualty figures, criticisms and yes allegations Obama wasn't born in the United States. Not only are they being closed but aggressive and antagonistic closure title are being used such as: "Closing trolling sockpuppet conversation that's going nowhere fast", "More trolling, including the use of 'wikilawyering in the senate'. ThuranX (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2009 "Birther trolling. Sceptre (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A new user posts "Read the news: July becomes deadliest month for foreign troops in Afghanistan. And this is the data only for the first half of July. Nagy reccs (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)" In response their user page is vandalized . If they are a sock there are appropriate processes to address that. But sticking "This account is a troll. A very smelly troll. /Shoo troll. Go back to troll land." is unacceptable.

The have also been BLP violations like "By "massive critics" do you mean blimps like Limbaugh?... Hoary (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)"

The page is again being turned into a hostile and vicious pit which was why it was brought to Arbcom in the first place. Please put a stop to the incivility and the censorship of discussions. Not everyone supports Obama and per NPOV alternative viewpoints are legitimate to discuss and include. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This request is not actionable without the names of the users you want enforcement against, diffs of their alleged violations of arbitration remedies, and links to these arbitration remedies. I strongly suggest using the dedicated request template, {{Arbitration enforcement request}}, to format your request. Sandstein 20:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The names and some diffs are included. Is "birther trolling" an acceptable hatnote rationale given the terms of the probation? How about referring to a commentator as a "blimp"? Is vanadalising a userpage without going through sock investigation appropriate? And why is a discussion of Afghanistan casualties or teleprompter use inappropraite? There was an entire New YOrk Times story about the latter. Please consult our NPOV guidelines and explain why this censorship is allowed to continue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We do not, ever, ever grant fringe conspiracy theories equal validity in any article, let alone in a BLP. Yes, closing birther trolling as "birther trolling" is perfectly appropriate, because that's what it is. It's disruptive, it's annoying, and it detracts from time that could be spent productively. Barring a mainstream news bombshell, Misplaced Pages will never -- NEVER -- lend credence to the wackjob conspiracy theorists who do the drive-by editing you describe. Serious editors should not be expected to treat every new Obama-is-Kenyan thread with anything but disdain and instant closure. As for Afghanistan, the article is about Barack Obama. As for the teleprompter, why is that notable enough to be in Obama's BLP, but not in the BLP of every politician before and since who has used a teleprompter? --GoodDamon 22:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's only notable if you've drunk the Kool-Aid. Otherwise, not so much... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's notable the same way other controversial conspiracy theories are notable like theories regarding JFK's assanation, the moon landing being staged, Bush secretly continuing to drink (which we have a whole article on) etc. There's no need for incivility and behaving like infants shouldn't be acceptable. The double standard from editors like GoodDamon who march around pushing their personal POV isn't helpful.

It's not appropriate to talk about Rush Limbaugh as a blimp any more than it's appropriate to talk about Michael Moore as blimp. We're supposed to use reliable sources and news coverage, so whether one of you thinks the teleprompter issue is legitimate or not is irrelevant. It should be include in an appropraite place where that substantial coverage is reflected. We're not supposed to be censored according to the political biases and preferences of editors here. This type of censorship promotes ignorance and stupidity, which may be why it's so difficult for some of you to have an intelligent conversation over casualties in Afghanistan, criticisms over the stiumulus package and other issues including those that are more fringey and controversial. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of removing the "troll" edits to User:Nagy reccs, which your could have done as well rather than letting it sit there all this time. Beyond that, this user proves time and time and time again why ArbCom was right to give him the boot from Obama-related articles. Even when making a simple request of an admin over a long-deleted article, you descend into the very sort of incivility that you rail against. Along with the same ol "OMG CENSORSHIP" cry, this act is really starting to get a little tiring. The teleprompter issue was decided long ago as well, unfortunately for you, not in your favor. We all realize that you view yourself as grievously wronged party in all of this, but really, nothing could be further from the truth. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's see... Is JFK's article a BLP? Nope, he's dead. But even so, none of the conspiracy theories about his assassination are detailed in the article. They have their own article. And the moon landing, not a BLP either... The hoax claims make a (very brief) appearance there, but only in a debunked form. There is, again, a separate article for them. As for the teleprompter, most of its appearances in the "news" were in opinion and commentary pieces, and again, it's far, far, far too little weight for a BLP. As was explained to you before. Look, you'll get things like the Limbaugh comment when you keep bringing up the same things, over and over and over again, ad nauseum, to the point that people get a little punchy in their responses. This has long since passed WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT levels. --Good Damon 23:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say you don't know what you're talking about, but there's an entire article on Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories. Where are the very notable issues concerning criticisms and opposition to expanding the war in Afghanistan, to the stimulus bill, and to health care reform covered? These are real and highly notable and important issues, and we're an encyclopedia, yet because some editors want to act like kindergartners and attack anyone who has a different perspective, we have a hostile, censored, NPOV violating situation that needs correcting. Identifying addressing the behavioral issues is the first step. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no way that this discussion, in this format, will yield any results. CoM, ArbCom will pay no attention to your request until and unless it's properly formatted. Please pay attention to the advice (way) above, make a proper complaint rather than a barbaric yawp, and give yourself a chance for a fair hearing. PhGustaf (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of your remark, PhGustaf (I'm really not even allowed to be here during the Dramaout days), I just wanted to say how pleased I am to see Walt Whitman quoted on this board--but are you sure it's appropriate? Do you think CoM can give the sign of democracy? Drmies (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

StephenLaurie

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning StephenLaurie

User requesting enforcement:
Durova 05:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
StephenLaurie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine (general sanctions)

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

Diminishment of BLP subject's professional accomplishments.
Diminishment of BLP subject's professional accomplishments at a related page.
Removes referenced information (note highly derogatory edit summary).
Abusive edit summaries in other settings.

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

Warning by Durova (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Seeking independent review and discretionary action, per administrative decision.

Additional comments by Durova:
StephenLaurie is an editor with highly focused interests, arguably a single purpose account. Nearly all of his article and article talk edits have been to the Matt Sanchez article and the related Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article. The Matt Sanchez biography, a BLP, is under arbitration general sanctions. Additionally, this account behaves like a returning user with long knowledge of the personalities involved in this dispute. Possibly this could be Eleemosynary, who was article banned from Matt Sanchez in April 2008 and indefinitely blocked shortly afterward. Note the edit summary of the first ever edit by this account, the account's second ever edit summary asserts a familiarity with the Sanchez history. With less than 20 total account edits StephenLaurie was tagging suspected Bluemarine socks (Bluemarine is Sanchez's username) then removing posts from the Eleemosynary user talk. Eleemosynary's and StephenLaurie's edit interests have substantial overlap (note Thomas Scott Beauchamp controversy and Matt Sanchez in the Soxred report), and StephenLaurie's POV on the Matt Sanchez article is indistinguishable from Eleemosynary's. He even claims to know my history with Sanchez, although he distorts it badly. A new account would probably not recognize me, although Eleemosynary would have bitter recollections because I had something to do with his article ban and indefinite block. Whether this is enough to establish StephenLaurie as the sock of a banned user is something for the reviewing administrator to determine, yet if the socking determination is inconclusive discretionary sanctions may still be warranted per the diffs above and this dialog. Durova 05:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning StephenLaurie

Statement by StephenLaurie

Comments by other editors

Result concerning StephenLaurie

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