This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 15:40, 24 July 2009 (→Result concerning Parishan: forgot to specify duration). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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 WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

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):

• Dbachmann arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Log of blocks and bans
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive551#Admins vs contributors
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive198#Unilateral banning of everyone one side of an editing _dispute
• Arbitration clarification request
• Arbitration requests talk page discussion
• Discussions on the acting administrator's talk page

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)

General discussion

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 by other editors

A general statement by Muntuwandi

I view this as a case of applying retroactive sanctions on edits that were made up four months before the bans. The editors involved have diverse views, as has been noted, some lean towards an Afrocentric view point, and others are Anti-Afrocentric. If editors with diverse views agree on content, then a tentative consensus can be assumed. If diverse editors had come to a tentative consensus on certain content, say up to four months ago, is it appropriate to punish them today. If editors are violating Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, wouldn't it be more appropriate to warn the editors or even sanction them right at the time when these violations are taking place. If diverse editors reach a tentative consensus, then they will assume that they are doing the right thing, and they will continue with what they have thought to be the correct approach.

This is not to say that the editors involved have even violated Misplaced Pages's policies. This is very much a content dispute, and what is one person's POV pushing is another person's objective material. Dbachmann, who started the recent controversy, obviously has the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy on his watchlist. Wouldn't it have been appropriate for him to voice his concerns while these editors were debating content, rather than waiting for four months to revert and nullify all the discussions and research that these editors had done over the course of four months. There is an essay that supplements WP:CONSENSUS entitled Misplaced Pages:Silence and consensus, which states that "consensus can be assumed until voiced disagreement becomes evident". It also states that "if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so". If nobody had voiced disagreements over the approach that these editors had been taking over the last four months, is it the best approach to apply retroactive sanctions.

Finally, the application of bans and long term blocks implies that traditional methods of dispute resolution have failed. In this case, I don't think that traditional methods of dispute resolution, such as simply using the talk page, have even been attempted. From talk page archive, there were only two brief comments from Dbachmann before the article was protected. If editors with diverse views (Afrocentric and Anti-Afrocentric) had come to a tentative consensus, I see no reason why they couldn't have accommodated some of Dbachmann's concerns had he chosen to be an active participant in developing the article.Wapondaponda (talk) 13:01, 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)

I am concerned about Ice Cold Beer's attempt to inervenein an argument about undue weight. This is a content dispute and is best left to editors on the page to work out, in good faith. ICB's only defense seems to be an insinuation that Wdford was not acting in good faith. Well, there are good reasons why we generally do not enter into content disputes. if ICB wishes to, I sugges that he read up on ancient Egyptian history and participate as an actual editor. But he should not be using administrative powers to try to resolve a content dispute. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:36, 24 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

My ban of Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs) was not my first encounter with the user. After several discussions on T:AErc, in September of last year I left Lusala a final warning for disrupting the talk page. While reviewing Lusala's contributions, I found several disruptive edits to the talk page (he/she has just one edit to the article). In May 2008, Lusala unacceptably questioned the intelligence of another editor and the next day is a baseless implication that two other editors are racist. Several days later we Lusala misrepresent both another editor's comments and make a false statement (it is not a fact tha the Ancient Egyptians were "black"). Further, Lusala further disrupted the talk page by repeatedly bringing up the same arguments after they had been repeatedly rejected. This is a common tool of POV-pushers and it was a large part of what got Lusala warned by me last year.

This year, Lusala returned after hiatus to further disrupt the talk page. In February, Lusala proposes using outdated sources, although modern science contradicts those sources. A few days later, Lusala posted this nonsense to the talk page, essentially arguing that people who are not white are black, and therefore so were the Ancient Egyptians. A couple of days later, (s)he insinuates that another editor is intoxicated. Later that month, Lusala suggests adding a fringe theory to the lead to "balance it out", a violation of WP:UNDUE. In April, Lusala announces that he will "systematically eliminate" all contributions from another editor that don't agree with Lusala's beliefs. In May, Lusala announces his/her intention to continue the POV crusade. Lusala's theory that Ancient Egyptians have to be considered black is a fringe theory that does not stand up to scholarly or scientific rigor. Recently, Lusala made a vague threat in response to a legitimate and polite comment from another user. Here, Lusala takes pot shots at another user who had come to clean up the article.

In conclusion, Lusala is an editor who is here to promote the idea that the Ancient Egyptians were black. I have provided several diffs showing this and I could have provided many, many more. Additionally, I, perhaps, cannot provide a more damning diff of Lusala's intentions than this one, where (s)he supports the contributions of a blatant POV-pusher. (S)he has been openly hostile to nearly any editor disagreeing with his/her views on the article. I believe that this creates an editing environment which discourages contributions from other editors. For this reason, I chose to ban Lusala. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

One of the above diffs has Lusala arguing against another editor that Théophile Obenga is not a pusher of fringe theories. I note Obenga is currently a professor at San Francisco State University ; his writing is discussed in a whole host of books by reputable academic publishers , (and a UNESCO publication). On a page entitled Ancient Egyptian race controversy (!), which is supposed to describe the academic controversy, the writings of Obenga and scholars like him are clearly of central importance. JN466 14:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Wapondaponda

I see nothing wrong with Luka having a specific opinion about the race of the Ancient Egyptians, as long as he is able to back it up with reliable sources. Since the article is largely about a controversy, then different points of view from different editors are expected. It isn't a violation of wikipedia policy to have an opinion, in fact as WP:BEBOLD, editors are in fact expected to do so. ICB has decided by himself, which theories are fringe in this controversy. I don't think a single administrator, acting individually should be the sole arbiter in a content dispute concerning what is fringe or not. The community as a whole is better equipped to assess fringe theories from mainstream theories.

Over a period of time it is possible to cherry pick some controversial statements that an editor has made in order to paint a caricature of an editor. Yet we may overlook other useful contributions that editors have made. From my interactions with Luka, he has done a lot of research about the controversy from the perspective of French Egyptologists. Currently, there aren't many, if any, editors on English wikipedia who have the studied this controversy from that perspective. So I think his contributions should be welcomed. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:32, 24 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

On 12 July, Ryulong posted to my talk page and asked me to take a look at the contributions of an unnamed user who was adding unsourced content to the article. I determined the user in question to be Panehesy (talk · contribs) and took a look at Panehesy's contributions to AErc and its talk page. After looking through Panehesy's contributions I banned him/her for six months for POV-pushing and making personal attacks.

Panehesy joined us in late March and immediately immersed him/herself into the article. In one of Panehesy's first edits to the article, (s)he adds an unsourced editorial. Several days later, Panehesy adds more unsourced content (the edits do not at all reflect the source provided) The following day, in consecutive edits, Panehesy again adds unsourced, POV content. When reverted by Wdford, Panehesy re-added the violating content. After a hiatus, Panehesy returned to add more unsourced content. After another hiatus, Panehesy returned early this month to add yet more unsourced, POV content. Immediately before I imposed the ban, Panehesy added (you guessed it) yet more unsourced, POV-pushing content.

The part of the ban resulting from personal attacks came from a review of the talk page, where I came upon a section where Panehesy repeatedly accuses his/her adversaries of racism.

I believe that Panehesy's contributions to this article demonstrate a history of blatant POV-pushing and adding unsourced content. The baseless accusations of racism are, of course, completely unwelcome. Panehesy, above, claims that I banned him/her before he/she could add citations to the article. This is complete nonsense when taking into account the time between the edits and the ban (several hours), and Panehesy's history of adding unsourced content. Perhaps the only fault of mine in imposing the ban on Panehesy is that the duration may not be long enough. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors concerning Panehesy

Statement by Muntuwandi

Panehesy opened an account on 29th March 2009. He/she is a new editor with only about 300 edits. I think Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers should at least be considered. If he/she has made any missteps, it might be due to lack of experience or knowledge about Misplaced Pages's guidelines, policies and culture, rather than deliberate violations.Wapondaponda (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

• I agree with Ice Cold Beer's assessment that the diffs of edits by Panehesy he provides add unsourced content apparently aimed at promoting a particular point of view to the article under probation. This violates WP:V and probably WP:NPOV, which constitutes disruption for the purposes of the applicable remedy (see my comment in respect of Wdford, above). This means that the ban was properly authorized by the applicable remedy, as also explained above, and that this appeal should in my opinion be declined.  Sandstein  11:02, 23 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

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

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:

1. Edit warring on Armenians
2. Edit warring on Armenians
3. Edit warring on Armenians
4. Edit warring on Armenians

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

1. Warning by Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. 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

1. Archive 9
2. Archive 25
3. Archive 33
4. Archive 35
5. Archive 40
6. Archive 43

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:

1. 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.
2. 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)

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) (Moved from section below,  Sandstein  15:32, 24 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)

As a result of this request, under the authority of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, Parishan is sanctioned as follows: For six months, he is prohibited from making more than one revert per page per seven-day-period with respect to any page related to Armenia or Azerbaijan, broadly construed, with the exception of reverting obvious vandalism. Violations of this restriction may result in blocks and additional sanctions.

I am not at this time sanctioning Serouj, but will do so on request if he edit-wars again.  Sandstein  15:36, 24 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:

1. <Explanation>
2. <Explanation>
3. <Explanation>
4. ...

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

1. Warning by ] (] · ])
2. Warning by ] (] · ] · ] · ] · ] · ] · ] · ])
3. ...

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)

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)

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:

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

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

1. 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)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

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.

The arbitration decision was that "The article on Matt Sanchez is placed on article probation." This means that "editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages." (For what I believe "disruptive" means in this context, see my comment on the Wdford matter, above.)
The diffs no. 2 and 4 provided by Durova are edits to pages other than Matt Sanchez and cannot therefore be the basis of an article ban under article probation. Also, any possible sockpuppetry requires examination at WP:SPI, not here.
We are left to determine whether the diffs no. 1 and 3 provided by Durova constitute bannable disruption. I believe that this has not been established here:

• The "diminishment of BLP subject's professional accomplishments" (diffs no. 1) would constitute disruption only if these edits were factually untrue or were to violate some relevant content policy. This is not immediately apparent, and Durova does not show how this might be the case.
• The edit at diff. no. 3, "removal of referenced information", is also not prima facie disruptive, but on its face appears to reflect a good faith content dispute. There can be good reasons to remove referenced information from an article, such as when it would violate WP:NOT or another content policy, and Durova does not indicate what policy this removal would violate, and how.

For these reasons, I believe this request is insufficient grounds to ban StephenLaurie from editing Matt Sanchez. (This of course does not mean that this discussion is closed; other admins may come to a different conclusion and ban StephenLaurie on their own discretion.)  Sandstein  08:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Spanishboy2006 violating ArbCom decision on Kosovo

User:Spanishboy2006 in engaging in an edit war on Kosovo, an article under probation: . Please take action. --Cinéma C 00:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide all information required for arbitration enforcement, such as the ArbCom decision that you believe is being infringed, and notify the other user? The template {{Arbitration enforcement request}} will help you to do so.  Sandstein  08:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)