Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive44

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 talk| contribs 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia &mdash; which is to present all majority and significant-minority POVs? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 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 Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process."

from remedy 1.1 of 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)

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:

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

Wikipedia 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-Wikipedia 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) [] 
 * 2) [] 
 * 3) [] 

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
 * 1) [] Warning by
 * 2) [] 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia.

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.''

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 on the English Wikipedia. Please provide the username of the account on the English Wikipedia that has been "banned for eternity". If you have been banned at the Hebrew Wikipedia, we here on the English Wikipedia 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
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, Wikipedia 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? -- Good Damon 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)

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

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2

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
 * 2)  Warning by

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: 

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 onus was on Parishan to prove his point in talk.
 * 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.
 * 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, 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.  Grand  master  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 Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, 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)

User:Spanishboy2006 violating ArbCom decision on Kosovo
User:Spanishboy2006 in engaging in an edit war on Kosovo, an article under probation:. Please take action. -- Cin é ma 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)

Request concerning StephenLaurie
User requesting enforcement: Durova 280 05:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: 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

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

Additional comments by Durova 280: 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 280 05:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
 * 

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: 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)
 * 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.


 * StephenLaurie is probably a sock puppet of, an indef blocked user. The following diffs suggest that StephenLaurie backs the position of Eleemosynary's sock puppets in edit wars.  StephenLaurie is clearly a "recycled" user.  Their early contributions are a dead giveaway. I recommend indef blocking StephenLaurie as a sock puppet account.  They are a single purpose account that on balance is more disruptive than helpful.  The combined weight of evidence suggests that Wikipedia is better off without them. Jehochman Talk 20:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See also Sockpuppet investigations/Eleemosynary, now endorsed for checkuser. If that comes out confirmed, it's an obvious block. If not, I'll take a closer look at the behavioral evidence.  Sandstein   21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

StephenLaurie is now indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of Eleemosynary, which renders this request moot.  Sandstein  09:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Request concerning Jmh649
User requesting enforcement: scuro (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: "Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for six months. Jmh649 is limited to one revert per page per week within the topic area (except for undisputable vandalism and biographies of living persons violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Jmh649 exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, Jmh649 may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below".

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
 * 1) my edit
 * 2) his revert
 * 3) my edit
 * 4) his revert

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

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

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

Additional comments by scuro (talk): Doc James has long standing page ownership problems. He continues to make editing difficult even shortly after an arbitration restriction.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmh649&diff=304014867&oldid=303940287

Statement by Jmh649
I request that Scuro be blocked based on the above edits he lists. He did not discuss these changes or acheive consensus in violation with the arbitation ruling. Also he continue to attempt to drive other editors away from the ADHD article. This appears to be page ownership.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification Abd. I though the regulation ment that I had one revert per topic under question not one revert per page. -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors
According to the sanctions, both users (ie the reporter [Scuro] and the reportee [Jmh649]) are under a one revert restriction, and further both do not seem to have been complying with the requirement of the Arb sanctions against them to discuss all content reversions on the article's talk page. Although, it appears this thread was started by the reportee after making their revert. Perhaps it should be made clear that discussion should begin prior to reversions. Nja 247 22:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made one revert since the sanction, and posted on the talk page immediately after the revert. I am in full compliance of the sanction. Do you have differentials that show otherwise?--scuro (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You were supposed to discuss changes before you made them. You removed "generally" from chronic even after we had previously discussed this point extensively.  I started the conversation on the talk page.  I discussed all of my changes and have not reverted the same point more than once.  Scuro has made changes as he lists above without any discussion.


 * Not sure how my actions do not complying with arb sanctions?-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting how the title of this request has been changed without permission. Also interesting that the parties involved are trying to make this about me. It's cut and dry case, two reverts on one page, in less then a week. Also isn't there some protocol where Nja247 should declare that he is not neutral administrator in this case?--scuro (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nja's an administrator? If you say so! My point is that Nja247 commented here as an editor, not as an administrator and has no apparent content axe to grind. He's knowledgeable about the history of the dispute. Did Scuro disclose that he is also under the same sanction? I didn't see it. The wikilawyering is embarrassing, as if policy requires that an editor be blocked for technical ban violation. The violation allows a block, and it is up to an enforcing admin whether or not the edit or the pattern of behavior warrants a block. Doc James made a common mistake, violating edit warring restrictions in the service of policy, guidelines, or consensus. Happens all the time, actually. In substance, though, the Scuro edits were more disruptive, the only problem with Doc James is that he should not have taken on fixing those changes.

This is pretty outrageous. The dispute in the first set of edits is the sequence of presentation. Scuro was moving text, giving an argument in his edit summary that could be expected to be controversial. Generally, Doc James should sit on his hands when he sees problematic editing by Scuro, or he's going to get sucked into violating the remedies also. He was correct, this should have been discussed, but he shouldn't be the one to enforce that on the other editor. Similarly, Scuro seems to be editing at least as contentiously here, he should not be the one to call down sanctions on Doc James. I do see a big difference here: There are, above, two edits shown from each editor. Both edits could be considered controversial. But Doc James didn't file an AE report on Scuro, and doesn't even seem to have been complaining or threatening. AE is not to be used as a bludgeon to further one's personal agenda, but only to address actual disruption. In both cases, Doc James' position was reasonable, even if it technically violated the revert restriction. Per Nja247, both editors should be warned and this report closed. I'm more concerned about the furious pace of changes to the article, without sufficient attention being put into building clear consensus.

Scuro did not discuss what, from long experience with the article, he should clearly have expected would be quite controversial. Doc James should not have reverted him, I'd agree, the second time. Both edits were silly insistence on textural perfection as seen by each editor (I.e., no emergency). (I don't like 1RR/week because it can get fuzzy in one's mind, when was that last damn revert? And what is a revert, anyway? 0RR might be better!) By my standards, both Scuro and Doc James violated the 1RR/week limit, but Doc James did go to the Talk page to explain his action. . With only a little discussion, and no effort to clearly lay out the issues with evidence first, Scuro took this to the Fringe theories noticeboard.

The second set of edits is over whether ADHD is "generally chronic" or "chronic." Doc James cites a source for use of "generally," and Scuro doesn't seem to understand what it means, and supplies his own interpretation that turns it into an oxymoron. I won't explain this, but Doc James is correct, I'm sure, and he's the one with the training to recognize proper usage. Still, that minor difference (important for accuracy,) is what led Doc James into a technical violation of the restriction. Put an expert on a 1RR/week restriction, they will violate it, predictable.

So, there is are problems with both editors here, but the problem with Doc James is really only technical; his edits would have been totally acceptable for an editor not under sanction; he has reasonable expectation of being supported by editorial consensus on both issues (very likely, I'd say); on the other hand, Scuro changed standing content in a manner he must have known would be controversial, and then sought to have Doc James blocked for opposing him with edits. Scuro should have discussed first, and so should Doc James, but Doc James did immediately explain his edits, to which Scuro then responded. If Scuro was going to go ahead and make a controversial edit, at least he should have started the discussion. So while Doc James should be more careful, Scuro is being positively disruptive. At the very least he should be warned. --Abd (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, scuro is now spreading this to the fringe noticeboard. He is trying to recruit more people into the disruption, not to mention filing here and also the ammendments part of arbcom. The source says a "common chronic (long lasting) childhood disorder, source was misrepresented, scuro wanted to make it say chronic to imply once you have it you have it for life but perhaps learn coping strategies when at least 50% of people outgrow the symptoms. Anyway it was original research and misrepresentation of ref, I have correctly represented the ref with a recent edit. We really need a restriction on scuro spreading disruption with 500 kb per week of data on wiki "boards" and talk pages, it makes wiki depressing. I have filed evidence below, Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(Post edit conflict) Technically Doc James did violate the 1R rule. While it's frustrating when someone makes a controversial change to be unable to do anything about it quickly, Doc James could have and should have pursued other avenues instead. These avenues include seeking a third opinion, initiating a talk page discussion, commenting on one of the noticeboards, or requesting oversight from other editors in a non canvass-y way. Also, if the edit was particularly controversial, it is likely another editor will be along soon and undo it. At the same time I think Scuro's moving of this section without prior discussion was reproachably shortsighted. Large scale rearrangements in general should be discussed on the talk page beforehand, especially considering the recent arbitration and ADHD's classification as a controversial topic. Also recent prior discussion of content in the same section has established that sweeping changes to material related to controversial views of ADHD should be discussed first as they are liable to be controversial. Scuro should take considerably more care when making edits to controversial views of ADHD and put more thought into how other editors are likely to react to the changes before making them. Sifaka  talk  00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is incredible irony here. You folks don't know what you want. During arbitration, I am beaten around the head because I don't edit, now I am told not to edit. During arbitration I am told that I "live on the talk pages" and should avoid that, now I am told that I am to use the talk pages to telegraph every movement I do. Further, I am told to seek outside input and when I do, I am castigated as, "trying to recruit more people into the disruption". More irony, Doc James starts a recent thread on the talk page that one should just fix it, I do as requested and I get clobbered again. Lets get real here folks, instead of trying to create drama and narrative here, lets live by what was stated at arbitration. Better yet would be if any of these parties earnestly tried to seek true consensus for the first time, instead of vilification of myself once more. What Doc James should do is live up to the mistake, and shush others away who go to extreme ends to defend him.. An act of good faith would go a long way here also. How about an apology and reverting my edits? Personally I don't need a block. I just need the long term page ownership and uncivil behaviour to stop, as it should have with arbitration.--scuro (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have added one reference and it has stuck to the page. You have misinterpreted the "fix it" quote mentioned above.  It means adding well referenced statement to balance what you preceive as unbalanced point.  You do not however get to remove well referenced points you disagree with from the article.  I must agree the irony here is amazing. :-) -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Scuro, I think you are missing the point. Don't make edits that are almost certain to be controversial without first discussing them on the talk page and trying to solicit opinions from other editors. It doesn't matter if a change will make the article better reflect the truth or correct a major problem; if the change has a high probability of being controversial, discuss it first. If the discussion consensus isn't unilaterally opposed to a proposed change then try WP:BRD. This way, edit wars are prevented. It's fine to go ahead and make edits which are unlikely to be controversial and then wait to see if they "stick." How do you tell if something is likely to be controversial? Check the talk page for discussions or flip through some of the page history. Scuro, I'm sure you have noticed that relocating or deleting the alternate theories section without prior discussion tends to get reverted. There is a discussion about this in the most recent archive. It would be unimaginable that this time around everyone would suddenly be complicit with relocating it. So why do it again when you are only setting yourself up for a revert? That's not consensus seeking nor a good use of WP:BRD, it's frustrating. When using WP:BRD on the ADHD page, you should consider working in smaller chunks. I have found that to be highly effective for me. Rather than using global tags consider section tags and work with one section at a time: that will help keep the discussion centered on the primary issues. Sifaka   talk  07:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I submit that the above statement by Sifaka is invaluable advice to all involved, and that it should be read twice. Also this has turned into a slinging match and serves no purpose but to irritate all involved and therefore I move that it be closed with all parties under restrictions to realise that you should discuss first, reach consensus, and then edit. Nja 247 07:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sifaka, I appreciate the advice but this can be done on talk pages and not here. If you folks want to build another case at arbitration, that is your right. Otherwise, there has been no attempt at "good faith" by Doc James, I stick with my original request of a block.--scuro (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Jmh649

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


 * The request does not contain all required information (i.e., a link to the arbitration remedy at issue). If it is not completed soon, this request will be closed.  Sandstein   08:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on the evidence submitted, I am blocking Jmh649 for 48 hours for violating the revert restriction imposed at Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD, as provided for by Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD. Should enforcement against Scuro be required as well, please submit the required evidence in the form of diffs in the section dedicated to his conduct below, as I have requested there.  Sandstein   11:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Request concerning MarshallBagramyan
User requesting enforcement: Grand master  05:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
 * 1)  First revert
 * 2)  Second revert, of this edit

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
 * 1)  MarshallBagramyan was placed on 1 rv per week restriction in accordance with the ruling of arbitration case Armenia - Azerbaijan 2 by
 * 2)  which was logged at AA2 page by

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

Additional comments by Grand  master : MarshallBagramyan has been edit warring on Moses of Chorene for quite some time now. Previously he has been blocked for 2 days for violating the rv parole on the same article: The blocking admin recommended a topic ban if MarshallBagramyan continued similar behavior. Soon after that MarshallBagramyan was blocked for 3 months for sock/meatpuppetry on the same article about Moses of Chorene: Admins gave him another chance, and lifted his block earlier:  This time MarshallBagramyan made 2 rvs within 1 week on the same article about Moses of Chorene, thus violating his editing restriction again. Grand master  05:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: 

Statement by MarshallBagramyan
I don't think I have violated my 1RR. I continuously have asked editors to discuss before adding controversial material on that article. Dbachmann initiated 3-4 unilateral reverts (it might be useful to read this for that matter) on the Moses of Chorene page and was reverted each time by a different user. We showed and told Dab to read the whole talk page to find the citations which supported the wording he was removing (see Sardur's comments). I don't think any controversial should be added or removed unless it is discussed on the talk page. I made a single revert but the second difference GM provided is nothing but me simply removing a tag and telling Dab to look at the talk page for the evidence of at least five authors supporting the wording of that phrase. I am more than committed to remaining under my 1RR restrictions but I'm somewhat confused by GM's reasoning that my second edit constituted a revert. Perhaps some clarification for both of us is needed - does the removal of a tag also count as a revert after multiple sources are introduced to thus support its inclusion? Thank you. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning MarshallBagramyan

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

On 24 July 2009, MarshallBagramyan made this edit, which reverts this edit. On 27 July 2009, MarshallBagramyan made this edit, which reverts this edit. This violates the one revert per week restriction as linked to in the request. This violation, in conjunction with MarshallBagramyan's recent block for topic-related sockpuppetry (see ) and his statement above (which is in substantial part devoted to accusing another editor), leads me to conclude that MarshallBagramyan is not interested in contributing in a collaborative manner to topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan. For these reasons, under the authority of Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, MarshallBagramyan is hereby indefinitely topic-banned from Armenia and Azerbaijan, broadly construed. That is, he (under all accounts) is banned from pages related to Armenia or Azerbaijan, including edits to such talk pages and other fora, and also from edits related to Armenia or Azerbaijan in fora not dedicated to these topics. Violations of this ban may result in blocks ranging in duration from one week to indefinite.  Sandstein  20:11, 28 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:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann

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. banned five editors from :

Relevant links (permalinks to avoid achiving link breakage) :
 * Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive551
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive198 [sic]
 * Arbitration clarification request
 * Arbitration requests talk page discussion
 * Discussions on the acting administrator's talk page
 * 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 and. 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 Wikipedia 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, 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  and had warned  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 ).

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. 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 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)

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 Wikipedia, 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. 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 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&mdash;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&mdash;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)
 * I have reduced the ban of Wdford to 22 days, effectively unbanning him/her. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:31, 29 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 Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann, "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  by  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 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 Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann, which reminds editors that "Wikipedia 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 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 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)

This ban was repealed by ICB. Jehochman Talk 18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Who finally decides whether or not we get unbanned? Sandstein appears to be taking a vacation. He supported unbanning myself and others but as far as I know we are still banned. AncientObserver (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply by AncientObserver to Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning AncientObserver

So there you have it. After multiple requests on my part Ice Cold Beer finally gives his reasons for banning me from the page. The first thing I think those reviewing our cases should take notice of is that Ice Cold Beer does not provide a single diff of mine supporting his claim that I am a disruptive editor. He simply has a problem with my editing patterns because he disagrees with the content I provide. By banning me from the article on such weak grounds he is using his Admin powers to POV-push an Anti-Afrocentric agenda, purging users from the page who's research he disagrees with even though no rules have been violated. Regarding the first diff he uses in his case against me I deleted the material because it did not adequately represent the research that was being referenced (Brace et al for which I had in my possession). After some discussion with Wdford a new version of this sentence was added which more accurately reflected the position of the reference. The 2nd diff is a new section I added to the article. The material is not biased. I provided plenty of credible references for my statements. The material is most certainly relevant because it reflects the views of modern scholarship on the subject of the Ancient Egyptian's race. Why is the teaching of Ancient Egypt as an African civilization in African studies classes relevant? It's relevant from a historical standpoint, ICB. The whole point of that section of the article is to report on how the debate has evolved over the years. It should be evident to everyone reading this that Ice Cold Beer has a problem with the material being posted rather than synthesis. Now on to the 3rd edit he again accuses me of synthesis. It was my understanding that the purpose of the article was to report on the controversy over the race of the Ancient Egyptians so I provided material from scholars relevant to that subject. And Ice Cold Beer is missing the point. The research I was addressing implied that narrow noses was a non-African trait. The French scholars also classified Tut as Caucasian, a euphemism for the White race. I simply added references from experts who challenge that notion to balance out that section of the article. The 4th and 5th diffs are simply more of the same. All ICB is complaining about is the content I provided. The material that I deleted in the 6th diff was extremely biased and inconsistent with the theme of the article. The purpose of the article is to report on the controversy not write a referendum on Afrocentrism or any other perspective. I think that Afrocentrism should be mentioned in proper historical context as should 19th and 20th century Eurocentrism but the article should not grasp at straws to discredit these perspectives only report on the historical contributions of the scholars holding such views. In the 7th diff Ice Cold Beer is criticizing me for accusing someone of making disruptive edits to the page by deleting pictures. That user should have tried to seek consensus on removing the art gallery all together if he had a problem with the posting of pictures rather than make bogus accusations against the pictures. Ice Cold Beer's criticism of the 8th and final diff is ridiculous. I was trying to put a heading up for all of the quotes. An editor wanted to put up a quote by Aristotle about the Ancient Egyptians so I found it for them. Ice Cold Beer clearly has no case against me. I have contributed constructively to this article providing proper sources for material at every turn to build a fair and balanced article that does not violate NPOV. What I am being punished for is contributing content that Ice Cold Beer doesn't want on the page. AncientObserver (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning AncientObserver
The single purpose account began editing in April, where (s)he dove headfirst into AErc. One of AO's first edits to the article was to remove cited material unkind to Afrocentrism. A few days later, AO adds biased material that contains synthesis. Note that while stating that race isn't a scientific concept, the contribution does show set out to show that the AEs were African (not really relevant to their race, unless you want to imply that African=black, and thusly introducing synthesis to the article). Also, note the absurd and irrelevant statement that Ancient Egyptian history is taught in African studies classes. So what? Later, we get more synthesis, this time with respect to King Tut. Notice that in this contribution, uses a quote from one article saying that King Tut had a narrow nose, quotes other articles saying that elongated noses can be an African/black trait, therefore implying that King Tut could have been black. The problem is that the first article, which details a study on King Tut's remains, concludes that King Tut was North African (not "black" or "white"). The next day, there is more synthesis regarding King Tut and even more a couple of days later. Here, AO removes cited material and adds irrelevant material that is sympathetic to Afrocentrism.

In May, AO makes an unjustified and incorrect claim of vandalism against a user removing pictures from the ridiculous art gallery that once stood in the middle of the article. Later that month, after adding a quote from Aristotle stating that the Ancient Egyptians were "too black", AO adds an unsourced statement legitimizing the use of the quotes.

The diffs that I have provided detail a majority of AO's major contirbutions to the article. They overwhelmingly show a user that wishes to push the idea that Ancient Egyptians were "black" and is sympathetic to Afrocentric views. As a result, I believe that my six month ban of AncientObserver is justified. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

I see nothing egregious in the above edits. One may or may not agree with the edits, but they seem like edits made in good faith, and most have been referenced to reliable sources. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Statement by Wapondaponda

Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning AncientObserver
I do not have the time and/or knowledge to evaluate Ice Cold Beer's assessment that AncientObserver's cited contributions constitute WP:SYNTH or push a WP:POV, which might technically qualify as disruption under the terms of article probation as I explained in respect of Wdford above. But I am uncomfortable with sanctioning an editor solely because of the perceived merits of his contributions if these contributions, as here, appear prima facie to be in order. Unless evidence of more obvious misconduct is provided that can be more easily and clearly evaluated (e.g. plagiarism, false referencing), I support a lifting of AncientObserver's topic ban.  Sandstein  07:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 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, , etc. (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.  JN 466  14:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 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.
 * Statement by Wapondaponda

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)

I've had little time to devote to this issue, but these bannings seem unjustified. Luka is most certainly not POV pushing, and the scholarly Afrocentric perspective he brings to the article does not constitute a "fringe theory," as has been charged. It may not be "mainstream" consensus -- indeed, it is arguable that there is no one, single mainstream consensus on this subject. Ccertainly there are many mainstream and highly respected historians who share at least elements of Luka's perspective, as is evidenced by the literature on the subject. The ongoing efforts of writers like dBachmann who persist in blatantly mischaracterizing the controversy from the outset -- despite the presentation of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary -- constitute, in fact, POV pushing of the highest order.
 * Statement by deeceevoice

Further, it's been my experience that Luka is a solid contributor to Wikipedia. He is patient, strives for cooperation and consensus and is not disruptive. I regret that I cannot say the same for dBachmann. It's obvious to me that Luka's banning is an abuse of administrative authority and a travesty. I don't see anything in Luka's recent conduct that merits a warning, much less a topic ban. The warning Ice Cold Beer cites as an excuse -- and I do mean excuse, because I see this as merely a blatant attempt to silence/censor an editorial perspective that others find unacceptable, a common enough practice on Wikipedia when it comes to Afrocentrist/Black contributors -- was dated September of 2008! I haven't researched the basis of that warning, but knowing what I know about Luka, it seems likely occasioned by a similar motive. Certainly, a warning issued almost a year ago shouldn't figure into this matter at all, and it shouldn't be the basis for such a Draconian measure. I'll have more to say later, but I had to weigh in at least in this matter now. This is bogus/utter hogwash. deeceevoice (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Comments by other editors concerning Big-dynamo
AFAIK, Big-dynamo had no opportunity to edit the article as it was protected. He only made some contributions on the talk page. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia: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 [1], 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 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
Panehesy opened an account on 29th March 2009. He/she is a new editor with only about 300 edits. I think 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 Wikipedia's guidelines, policies and culture, rather than deliberate violations.Wapondaponda (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Statement by Muntuwandi

I agree with Muntuwandi; it seems unnecessarily harsh. Elsewhere we are discussing why the rate of new editors seems to be levelling off (WP:ARFR); this sort of thing is unlikely to help. Perhaps some people have forgotten what it was like to be a new editor, presented with an "Edit tab" at the top of the screen, yet blissfully unaware of WP:V, WP:OR etc. I wager if you look at established editors' first 300 edits (and I mean really their first, not just the first under their current acccount name), unsourced edits, insertions of editorial opinion and so forth will not be exactly rare. That sort of thing was frowned upon less in 2003 than it is today, due to the growth in culture since then, but it creates a bigger hurdle for new editors to leap across today. Rather than turning up our noses at new editors, we should extend a welcoming hand. (Incidentally, the unsourced POV expressed in this edit is by no means extreme, expressing, as it does, criticism of Afrocentrist pseudoscience as well as Eurocentrist approaches.)  JN 466  23:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Statement by Jayen466
 * Response to Jehochman:
 * Panehesy clearly has some things to learn about how to contribute to an article, but I don't think it is necessary to ban them from the article for six months to convey that message. In my view, a six-month ban is more likely to send the message that "You are not wanted here because we do not like your POV". That gives me rather a stomach ache, given the topic of the article.  JN 466  23:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the message it sends, Jayen. The 6 month ban is incredibly severe given that Ice Cold Beer has not presented any evidence of malicious behavior on the part of any of us. Clearly the Admins who approve of this banning have more of a problem with Panehesy personally and his/her POV rather than any violations Panehesy is accused of making. A simple warning and explanation of the violations Panehesy made would have been a more reasonable solution. It's very obvious that Ice Cold Beer banned myself and these other editors because of a belief that we held sensitivities towards Afrocentrism. He implied as much on his talk page. This charge of POV-pushing is nothing but a smokescreen for an agenda to purge editors from the page who have made edits and expressed views that Ice Cold Beer and like minded editors do not approve of. I encourage the Admins reviewing this situation to look objectively at the evidence being used to justify our banning and consider whether or not the punishment and it's rationale are consistent with Wikipedia policy. AncientObserver (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really care if you're an Afrocentrist so long as you don't abuse your editing privileges to promote it. As for the other matter, can you honestly read my evidence against Panehesy and conclude that (s)he was editing the article constructively and with the neutral intent? If the answer is yes, then I think it says quite a bit about your motivation for editing AErc. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I see a good-faith editor wishing to make the encyclopedia better, and making typical newbie mistakes in the process. Barely a couple of hundred edits to rub together, no idea how to place a wikilink, and probably never heard of WP:OR. Couldn't you have plonked a welcome message on their talk page with a link to the 5 pillars, and gently explained to them how things work around here?  JN  466  11:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Sandstein:
 * Sandstein, please reconsider. New user, no prior warning whatsoever, 6 months out of the blue?  JN 466  11:40, 28 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 Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann, 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)


 * WP:BITE is not an issue here. To restrict a new editor (or an old editor returning with a new account) from editing one or a few topics is hardly burdensome.  Looking at the contribution history, this account appears to be single purpose.  We really don't need people who are here just to push a point of view on a narrow set of articles.  Hopefully the user can get involved in other, less contentious topics and learn how Wikipedia works. Jehochman Talk 23:20, 25 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)


 * Wdford has been unbanned by Ice Cold Beer, which renders his appeal moot.  Sandstein   07:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Request block of scuro
User requesting enforcement: Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
 * 1)  Adds original research POV to cast doubt on certain theories that scuro doesn't like. As can be seen from talk page Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder there was an ongoing discussion and no consensus, scuro also altered title of section to label some mainstream theories as "alternative health" eg low arousal of ADHD people and neurodiversity)
 * 2)  Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder Another discussion showing no consensus but scuro continues to edit war over it
 * 3)  Yet again more edit warring without consensus.
 * 4)  Even more edit warring by scuro
 * 5)  Adding tag very shortly after conclusion of arbcom, considering adding tags was a major issue for several members of the arbcom, as it was felt they were being misused, I regard it as poor faith on scuro's part, as we were discussing and resolving issues on the talk page.

I hope this helps. I noticed this behaviour going on on the article and article talk page and could see that scuro was resuming his old ways and little had changed but was trying to ignor it and work things out in the hope the arbcom haad some effect but I see scuro now filing stuff about me Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and and doc james here, so I now have to go on the defense. I did as most know have the impression that the arbcom did not bring about enough resolutions to resolve the numerous issues, I feel soon within weeks we will need to perhaps reopen the arbcom, hopefully I am wrong.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
 * 1) I warned scuro just before submitting this to arbcom. Warning by

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban, failing that a block. I think that scuro should be restricted from any activity on the ADHD pages until a mentor is found.

Additional comments by Literature geek  |  T@1k? : See above submission by scuro fore more background.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Scuro sucessfully it appears ruined an opportunity to get the wiki medicine and wiki pharm projects involved in reviewing the article. See this conversation User_talk:Jmh649. I believe it is because the medical and pharmacology contributers will not agree with scuro on most points and thus he acted to put jdfwolf off nominating the ADHD article as a medicine collaboration project of the month.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: I have notified scuro of this request for enforcement.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by scuro
I am in full compliance of the sanction remedies. There has been one revert since arbitration. After the revert, the content revision was discussed on the talk page as stated by the sanction. As Abd suggested diffs #1, #2, #3, and #4 was a good faith reorganization of material. The diff of #5 is simply adding a tag to the article. I see this request for a block as harassment and would like the administrator in charge to rule or at least comment on this. Literaturegeek has been advised not to go forward with this by Abd and was given the chance to reconsider.--scuro (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

 * Literaturegeek, I recommend you strike this request. Scuro's behavior is problematic, but he hasn't been "edit warring." He made some controversial edits he should have discussed first. What's more worrisome is his rapidly jumping to AE and to RfAr/Clarification without adequate attempts to discuss and resolve disputes, locally, among the involved editors, without demanding that this or that user be blocked. It's very difficult to cooperate with people who are trying to have you blocked. And you just imitated that bad behavior. Don't. I don't see that even a content RfC was ripe, much less this mess. The diffs you gave could be misleading, making it look like he was adding, or cutting large amounts of material, when he was just reorganizing with some framing; bad enough, but not what you made it look and sound like. --Abd (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * LGs statements help to balance the issues at hand. Scuro does make one not want to edit Wikipedia.  Changes in content were to be discussed.  Since his changes were not discussed I though I was completely in the right to revert them and start a discussion.  His actions contraveined the arb decision.  I have found references to support the way it was.  Scuro only provided his personal POV.  Would like to mention that the one change Scuro made that was referenced stuck to the page.  Yet he continues to claim page ownership as his POV is not sufficient for WP:V...  The neutrality tag was placed as a warning to readers not to those who are editting.  This contraveins the purpose of the tag.  Scuro is attempting to keep editors away.  States how unneutral the page is in many treads so everyone who edits the page knows his views.  I do not understand why he wishes to remove all views that oppose his.  The world is not that black and white.  He is attempting to singlehandedly censor any view other than one pushed by the pharmaceutical industry.  With respect to the ccause of ADHD the scientific community says it is unknown.  Genetics is listed as the first possiblity.  Yet this is not good enough.  He wishes it seems for the page to say Genetics is really this cause.  And the only support is his POV.


 * The main issue I wish to ask is if Scuro does not think the current experts who edit the article do not represent the mainstream why does he not want the involvement of other edits from the WP:MED project? You would think that they would support his point of view if as he claims he holds the mainstream view.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Doc James, this section is not for discussing issues unrelated to this request. Please use the article talk page for this. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Question to Sandstein: Wondering if I have misunderstood the restriction you cite below '' "Scuro is limited to one revert per page per week within the topic area (except for ... ), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page".
 * I thought that meant what it said. You've added "at least two diffs of reverts of the same content within a week". (My bolding.)  Is that the usual interpretation?  If that's what is meant, the decision should have said so.  Thanks, - Hordaland (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, thanks. I've struck that part.  Sandstein   07:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have updated first talk page link, I gave same one twice. I believe that scuro is doing a form of edit warring, see here, gaming the system, Revert_war and this relevant page WP:GAME. As can be seen from talk page, we are discussing issues, scuro doesn't like how discussion is going so then makes his edits, leaving people with the decision ok, he just went against consensus or didn't even wait for consensus or compromise/agreement etc, putting people in the position thinking, do we then leave the edits or revert them.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  11:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said below, we cannot sanction edit warring or "gaming the system" here. We can only sanction violations of the exact terms of the arbitration remedy. You need to submit two diffs of two reverts on the same page within a week, or you need to submit a diff of a revert without discussion. Otherwise I can't do anything here.  Sandstein   12:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh ok, fair enough. I understand what you are saying. I guess then as it is not a violation of exact terms in arb remedy then it is best for you to fail this proposal. -- Literature geek |  T@1k?  12:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Doc James commented on his user page that by scuro broke the arbcom enforcement with this edit. Thee enforcement states that scuro must discuss content reversions, which he did not, thus I feel he is equally to blame for the problems on the article and should be treated equally. This issue had been discussed and argued about previously so on scuro's part the edit was a reversion and restart of an old argument without any disscussion. I feel scuro should be blocked. See enforcement link above.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Which edit does that revert?  Sandstein   22:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Doc James seems to be under the mistaken belief that I must discuss every edit that I do on talk "before" I make it. That is not the restriction stated within arbitration. This edit is also "discussed" on talk so I fail to see how either criteria of the sanction has been breached.--scuro (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if you read these two sections, you will see that Doc James and Scuro had had several lengthy disputes which going by the text went as far as the village pump on wikipedia.Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder/Archive_8 and Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder/Archive_7 Here Doc James, aware that scuro is meant to discuss things before doing reversions, especially controversial ones to disputed text raised the issue on the talk page.Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder From what I can tell Doc James felt justified in reverting scuro as he felt scuro was misrepresenting a source and was also in violation of the condition to discuss before revert. I hope that this is enough evidence to demonstrate that the reversion scuro did was a long running reversion to a long lasting disputed statement. You asked for a diff, I gave two previous lengthy discussions on talk page which I think is more than you asked for to demonstrate that this was a reversion of disputed text without discussion.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The principle of decorum and personalizing disputes repeatedly have been broken by Literaturegeek since arbitration's final decision.      How does one report this to make it stop?--scuro (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Diffs don't look bad to me except for one where I got second thoughts and ammended it as your diff shows. There is nothing wrong with me asking you to stop using original research and to use citations. You already filed this in clarification arbcom project, why are you reposting it scuro here? Please stop trying to hijack this discussion and divert the conversation off course away from what is being discussed, which is whether you broke the terms of your arbcom and whether you are just as guilty as Doc James and deserve a block or not.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the regular talk page comments, here is evidence that doc James and scuro had editing reversions over this sentence.,, , Scuro was wrong to start revising that long disputed sentence without discussion which he was required to do by arbcom.-- Literature geek  |  T@1k?  01:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Scuro, remember it was you who went on the attack against me by filing that verification arbcom thing even though I was compromising on the ADHD talk page, even though you had already been through that evidence in the workshop arbcom talk pages etc etc, now you are refiling here to divert the convo. You filed against Doc James which got him blocked (fair enough he broke terms of arbcom) but it was you who triggered the drama on the ADHD page with your reversions without discussion (as the terms of your arbcom ruling requires) to your prefered version of a long disputed sentence. As far as I view things you are at least as guilty as Doc james and just as deserving of a block.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict. I think I'm providing more recent stuff here.  [Would that we all were being paid for all this work!!])
 * The phrase "is generally a chronic" has been there "forever". Before 19 September 2008 it was "is a generally chronic".
 * At 19:06 on 24 July 2009, Doc James started the talk page thread Discussion before making changes, writing "We had this discussion previously to leave ADHD as decribed as "generally chronic" and consenus should be acheived before changed. ADHD is refered to as general chronic because about 50% of people with ADHD not longer have the diagnosis once they reach adulthood. see ref 8 and 9 [new paragraph] Cystic fibrosis is chronic ( no one with CF grows out of it ). Viral infections are acute lasting weeks / months. ADHD is half way between." This thread generated several comments.
 * A ways down the thread, Doc James cites a specified source saying, in part, "Given the fact that AD/HD is a generally chronic neuropsychiatric condition that may last many years, ..."
 * At 20:44 on 24 July 2009, scuro removed the word "generally" with Edit summary; (Adhd is chronic, not "generally" chronic. It's not like one describes a bout of ADHD but I'm over it now. ADHD is with you everyday. ADHD does change but that is because of developmental reasons)
 * At 20:59 the same day, Doc James put the word "generally" back in, with Edit summary: (the reference says generally chronic, we discussed this extensively in the past and this is what we agreed upon)
 * This was the edit Doc James got blocked for! After ALL the previous discussion about that word, no one could remove it again just-like-that.  Scuro's removal of the word "generally", after all that history, was vandalism.
 * It was a revert which James could have asked someone else to do, but I can understand that he thought it just obviously legit. - Hordaland (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's "been there forever" and stayed that way because I had been page blocked off the article through page ownership. Basically the same thing with what we saw here, with Doc James reverting my edits. For six months I could only get one piece of punctuation to stick to the article. (more here). He may believe he had consensus but he never did.
 * I don't think the arbitrators meant for this to reach back more then 1/2 a year. I've been editing the page for years. How many edits have I made in that time, hundreds? Much of it has left the page, especially after Doc James's, and others, major revision of the whole article this fall. Would this apply to any material of mine that has ever been taken off the page? That would seen to place a much heavier burden on myself. Regardless, it's not a requirement to post in discussion "before" the edit and the issue was discussed shortly after.--scuro (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But arbcom did not agree with your claims of ownership and made no finding of it scuro.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  02:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning scuro

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


 * Literaturegeek, the arbitration remedy reads: "Scuro is limited to one revert per page per week within the topic area (except for undisputable vandalism and biographies of living persons violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page". That specific restriction is all that can be enforced here. Any other possible issues, such as edit-warring or adding tags, cannot be dealt with in this forum. Please submit evidence showing specifically that Scuro exceeded the revert limit (i.e., at least two diffs of reverts of the same content within a week) or failed to discuss a content reversion. If you do not, this request may be closed without action.  Sandstein   05:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Closed without action. The evidence submitted in the request section does not demonstrate a violation of the terms of the arbitration remedy.  Sandstein   09:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Peter Damian
User requesting enforcement: Ironholds (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: this motion (sorry - best diff I can find since the motion archive doesn't give the full details)

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
 * 1)  Adding a sockpuppet tag to FT2s page
 * 2)  edit-warring to restore the tag
 * 3)  again, edit-warring to restore the tag
 * 4)  Seems to admit this is making some kind of WP:POINT
 * 5)  incident brought to the attention of WP:AN/I.
 * 6)  claims that the agreement is now null and void because FT2 broke it first.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
 * Not applicable

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

Additional comments by Ironholds (talk): As a condition for his unblock Peter Damian was directed by the committee "not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, FT2 (talk · contribs) on any page in Wikipedia. If Peter Damian violates this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator". In the diffs above he directly violates this, and edit-warred to continue doing so. In diff #4 he essentially admits that he's doing so to make a point, and I can't in good faith believe that he didn't see this would be a violation of his restrictions. His "FT2 broke it before I did and therefore the agreement is null and void" point in diff #6 certainly doesn't fly. Ironholds (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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.''
 * notified Ironholds (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors
I was the editor who brought Peter Damian's edits to the attention of admins on the admin incident noticeboard. It is clear he has violated the terms of his unblock: this campaign against FT2 is vindictive, disruptive, and pointless. This particular incident is based on an apparent sockpuppet of FT2's (unconfirmed), which made its last edit over three years ago, long before FT2 was an admin, and before I even started editing here. The edits by Peter Damian were also made in violation of WP:POINT (and believe me, I am not the type of person who goes throwing that around when I just don't like somebody's actions). I don't understand why it is difficult for a grown adult (assuming Peter Damian is one) to not communicate, interact with, or talk about somebody.  Majorly  talk  22:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh gesh Peter. I saw the off site back and forth with you and FT2. You should know better than to take off site fights onto wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as a procedural note, does Peter's block preclude him from responding here? I don't disagree with the action taken, but shouldn't the user typically be allowed to respond in an AE case before being blocked? Also, /agree with Ottava. Off-wiki stuff should stay off-wiki. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When I was an active administrator here I always went out of my way to let the scrutinized editor say something, but I was usually in the minority in that practice. Peter has the option, as always, to speak his mind (reasonably) on his talk page, and usually someone will transcribe its contents here as a courtesy.--Tznkai (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Peter Damian

 * Blocked for 1 month.  Mikaey,  Devil's advocate  03:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian (2)
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Peter Damian
User requesting enforcement: FT2 (Talk 22:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Further breach of unban decision 17 December 2008:
 * "Peter Damian and FT2 are directed not to interact with or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other on any page in Wikipedia."
 * "Should Peter Damian interact with or make any comment concerning FT2, or make any other comment reasonably regarded as harassment or a personal attack , he may be blocked"

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
 * 1) diff 18.54 July 30


 * Yesterday Peter Damian made several posts in breach of the ruling on-wiki. He also edit warred to keep some of them in place. Following brief discussion at ANI, he was blocked at AE for a month . The block length was discussed at AN (14.19 July 30) and endorsed by a high level of consensus.


 * However, around the time it became obvious that the ANI consensus would almost unanimously endorse the block length, Peter Damian then further posted the above attacking/commenting edit on his talk page (18.54 July 30). This was separate and in addition to the edits which led to the block, it was not taken account of in the block length, and it took place after several warnings and posts to desist had already been posted . It contains fairly transparent comments "on" and "about" myself (likely direct but certainly at worst very unmistakable as to the target referred to) and is obviously a comment "concerning" FT2. As well, it constitutes personal attacks which were also forbidden.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): Not applicable. Arbcom ruling.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Enforcement action requested is simply removal (to rectify the breach of ruling) and warning. It's a fairly small request, but I (obviously) cannot do it myself, hence the request. If another admin reviews the request and decides the matter it will be less inflammatory. I would also like Damian to be aware that this kind of "attack list" or "hostile post" is not okay and does breach his unban conditions so that he doesn't repeat it. Again that is best made clear by an uninvolved reviewing admin.

Additional comments by FT2 (Talk: This is a post of the form "I was right anyway" and a rehash of views. It is a poor show that Damian, blocked for breach, then responds by (in effect) saying "okay and this is my view on FT2 anyway". The post breaches the ruling in two ways - it is a direct comment "about" and "concerning" myself, although it is careful not to name the target, and it is a personal attack.

My hope is that 1/ the breaching attack comments I should not respond to are removed, and 2/ Peter Damian will be formally reminded and warned that his unban conditions literally are "commenting in any way (directly or indirectly) about or concerning FT2" and "any other comment reasonably regarded as harassment or a personal attack" -- and they mean exactly that.

If for any reason this request is improper for me to post, or the reviewing admin considers that requesting enforcement would breach my own requirement to not comment on Peter Damian, then any admin is welcomed to remove it in order not to breach it. My commitment to avoid engagement can be found here.

FT2 (Talk 22:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: I would ask a reviewing admin to notify Peter Damian, so that I may avoid all improper interaction.

Comments by other editors
FT, can you say definitively whether you were ? Peter was blocked for having posted a sockpuppet tag on that page, saying you had admitted it somewhere. I don't defend his posting the tag, or reverting to retain it, but it would be good to know whether there was truth in what he was saying, even if he expressed it inappropriately. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Peter Damian

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

The current content of Peter's talk page doesn't seem to warrant administrative action under these provisions; he's already been blocked for a month, and there seems to be support to escalate that block if he pushes the envelope. Removing content from his talk page, edit warring over it, possibly protecting it and almost certainly provoking a lot of drama all around, seems like a lose-lose scenario for everyone involved. No prejudice to Slim's question, I just don't think it's material to this specific thread. In the meantime, I wouldn't take this as an invitation for Peter to post more of the same, now that we know FT2 feels targeted by it. – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Lontech
User requesting enforcement: Cin é ma C 01:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
 * 1)  Listed Kosovo as a disputed country, despite Wikipedia consensus to call Kosovo a 'disputed region'. Both 'disputed country' and 'disputed province' are Albanian and Serb POV respectively.
 * 2)  Listed Kosovo as a country, despite Wikipedia consensus to call Kosovo a 'disputed region'. Both 'disputed country' and 'disputed province' are Albanian and Serb POV respectively.

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

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block for a while or topic ban from Kosovo related articles for a while

Additional comments by Cin é ma C : also reporting other Albanian nationalist users below

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: 

Result concerning Lontech

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

Blocked indefinitely as a single-purpose account. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Sulmues
User requesting enforcement: Cin é ma C 01:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
 * 1)  Removed "disputed" from the lead, enforcing the disputed country version, despite Wikipedia consensus to call Kosovo a 'disputed region'. Both 'disputed country' and 'disputed province' are Albanian and Serb POV respectively.

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

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block for a while or topic ban from Kosovo related articles for a while

Additional comments by Cin é ma C : also reporting other Albanian nationalist users below

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: 

Statement by Sulmues
I think that reporting me is unjust. I made two very reasonable changes and I argumented them in the discussion page:

1) I changed Kosovo from region to country. There are many reasons for this and they are in the discussion page. First of all if Scotland is a country so should be Kosovo. Second, Kosovo has been a sovereign state. Third, I reverted from "state" to "country", whereas Cinema C (who banned me) changed that back to "region". There has been enough discussion to not call Kosovo merely a "region": we are trying to split between Kosovo-country and Kosovo-region, but a consensus has not been found yet.

2) I took away "disputed" and I well argumented it in the discussion page: "Disputed" would mean that the counterpart of Serbia should be another country that disputes Kosovo, because Serbia IS a country. So what is this "country" that disputes Kosovo? Is it Albania? No! Is it the USA? No! If it's Kosovo itself, then either one should accept that Kosovo IS also a country, or there is no need to say that Kosovo is "disputed". Furthermore, in the same sentence, we have "partially recognized" so "disputed" becomes redundant.

Thank you! 02:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)-- 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply by Cinema C
"I changed Kosovo from region to country. There are many reasons for this and they are in the discussion page."
 * Sulmues is ignoring Wikipedia consensus on the issue. Albanian editors consider Kosovo a country, Serb editors a province. The majority of UN states see Kosovo as a part of Serbia, a minority recognize it as a separate state. UN Security Council Resolution 1244 explicitly describes Kosovo as a part of FR Yugoslavia, of which Serbia is the recognized successor state. Therefore, it is impossible to take one side and completely ignore everything else.

"First of all if Scotland is a country so should be Kosovo."
 * Scotland is recognized as such and it is not disputed by anyone.

"Second, Kosovo has been a sovereign state."
 * Never in it's history. Even today it is disputed, unrecognized by 2 permanent UNSC members and the majority of UN states.

"Cinema C (who banned me) changed that back to "region""
 * I cannot ban anyone, I'm not an administrator.

"There has been enough discussion to not call Kosovo merely a "region""
 * Purely by Albanian nationalists, characterized as such on the talk page by well established users.

"but a consensus has not been found yet"
 * It has, after marathon discussions with User:Interestedinfairness, who kept pushing his POV, but was forced to stop when he realized that the consensus is to lean towards neither side and call Kosovo a "disputed region". We should not have to repeat this discussion every time a new POV-pusher appears on the stage.


 * The arguments under "2)" make no sense to me and I will not comment on them. However, I would like to add that those who believe that adding "disputed" in front of "country" makes everything OK should think twice. It could go both ways - "disputed province"... and then we just open up another Pandora's box. Therefore, the best way to keep the calm is to reject all nationalist POV-pushers, whether they be Albanians or Serbs, and use completely neutral wording, as per Wikipedia consensus on the Kosovo talk page. -- Cin é ma C 02:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply by Sulmues
"I changed Kosovo from region to country. There are many reasons for this and they are in the discussion page."
 * Sulmues is ignoring Wikipedia consensus on the issue. Albanian editors consider Kosovo a country, Serb editors a province. The majority of UN states see Kosovo as a part of Serbia, a minority recognize it as a separate state. UN Security Council Resolution 1244 explicitly describes Kosovo as a part of FR Yugoslavia, of which Serbia is the recognized successor state. Therefore, it is impossible to take one side and completely ignore everything else.


 * We're not ignoring everthing. We are saying that Kosovo is a country because it is de facto independent. We are saying that it is partially recognized. Why should we say more? Why should you insist in claiming Kosovo simply a region while it is not merely a region? A region is a geographical notion, not a political one. It is a very incorrect way of calling Kosoovo. The fact that the UN recognizes Kosovo as part of Serbia doesn't make it a good point to be blind in calling things with their own name in Wikipedia. Besides there still has to be made a decision on it in an International Court. For now Vuk Jeremic is saying that he doesn't exlude that Serbia also might recognize Kosovo.
 * Cin é ma C reply: Kosovo is not a country because the Kosovo government claims sovereignty and some other states recognize it. The Kosovo government claims control over the region of Kosovo, while it de facto does not have control over all of it. The international community has control over Kosovo. Sulmues or any other user simply can not ignore these facts just because they don't like them. -- Cin é ma C  06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"First of all if Scotland is a country so should be Kosovo."
 * Scotland is recognized as such and it is not disputed by anyone.
 * Recognized by whom? You should point me to the seat that Scotland has in the UN. Since you claimed earlier UN, you should be consistent and show me that the UN recognizes Scotland as a "country". So why in Wikipedia we have Scotland country and Kosovo region???
 * Cin é ma C reply: London recognizes Scotland as a country, within the territory of the United Kingdom, and so does every other state in the world. There isn't a majority of UN states that consider Scotland to be a province, or a part of England perhaps. Your analogy makes no sense, every case is unique (as the West likes to say). -- Cin é ma C  06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Second, Kosovo has been a sovereign state."
 * Never in it's history. Even today it is disputed, unrecognized by 2 permanent UNSC members and the majority of UN states.
 * It has been a sovereign state in the last 10 years. Recognized by 3 permanent UNSC members and the majority of the Balkan states, EU states, and Europe states, where it exists.
 * Cin é ma C reply: No factual accuracy - even the Kosovo government has not claimed sovereignty for the last 10 years, only since 2008. Yes, it is recognized by 3 permanent UNSC members and the majority of the Balkan states, EU states, and Europe states, but it is also not recognized by the majority of world states. No one can ignore this fact, just because they don't like it. -- Cin é ma C  06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Cinema C (who banned me) changed that back to "region""
 * I cannot ban anyone, I'm not an administrator.
 * I'll correct myself: "reported", not "banned". I am polite enough to not make any edits until I am cleared from this unjust reporting.
 * Cin é ma C reply: If you were so polite, you wouldn't vandalize an article under probation. -- Cin é ma C  06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"There has been enough discussion to not call Kosovo merely a "region""
 * Purely by Albanian nationalists, characterized as such on the talk page by well established users.
 * Excuse me? I don't think 62 countries who recognized Kosovo, think Kosovo is merely a region. I'm afraid those 62 countries are not Albanian nationalists.
 * Cin é ma C reply: We're talking about Wikipedia consensus, which is disrupted purely by Albanian nationalists. Wikipedia is not here to present the views of the minority of countries which do recognize Kosovo and then just mention how the majority disputes that. It's not anybody's Wikipedia, it's a free encyclopedia that has to be neutral.

"but a consensus has not been found yet"
 * It has, after marathon discussions with User:Interestedinfairness, who kept pushing his POV, but was forced to stop when he realized that the consensus is to lean towards neither side and call Kosovo a "disputed region". We should not have to repeat this discussion every time a new POV-pusher appears on the stage.
 * I am referring to the consensus on dividing between Kosovo region and Kosovo country. Show me where the consensus was reached.
 * Cin é ma C reply: Look at previous discussions on the talk page. There is no division, Kosovo is Kosovo - a region that some call a province, and some call a country. Nobody can take the general article and claim it for their own POV. -- Cin é ma C  06:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The arguments under "2)" make no sense to me and I will not comment on them. However, I would like to add that those who believe that adding "disputed" in front of "country" makes everything OK should think twice. It could go both ways - "disputed province"... and then we just open up another Pandora's box. Therefore, the best way to keep the calm is to reject all nationalist POV-pushers, whether they be Albanians or Serbs, and use completely neutral wording, as per Wikipedia consensus on the Kosovo talk page.
 * I think you should read more carefully 2) and you will understand. sulmues 04:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Sulmues

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

Request concerning Lida Vorig
User requesting enforcement: Grand master  06:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
 * 1)  This is a new account, and was used for the most part for edit warring and voting at AFD.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
 * 1) none

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Official warning about the existence of arbitration restrictions.

Additional comments by Grand  master : Per discussion with another admin:, the official warning about the editing restrictions needs to be considered. Grand master  06:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: 

Statement by Lida Vorig
I edited wikipedia with my IP address before I created this account, and I'm aware of the Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration case. What actually strikes me odd is that none of the articles I edited were ever touched by user grandmaster. So how exactly did he noticed me? Is this kind of harassment and stalking a norm for wikipedia? Lida Vorig (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably he was watching the Erich Feigl page. Meowy 15:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lida Vorig voted at AFD that I initiated. I mentioned that above. That's how I noticed him/her. Grand  master  04:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors
What "edit warring"? There is none! Since when did voting at a deletion request become a banning offense? The only slightly questionable edit was the removal of the link to a propaganda website from another editor's user page. Maybe Lida Vorig didn't understand that removing content from a user's page is considered to be unacceptable (as well as being pointless because that user can simply re-insert the content and protect the page). <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 15:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * personally, I can't see the issue, anyone editing in contentious nationalist topics should be aware of the restrictions and I trust Thatcher to show good judgement in these matters. Spartaz Humbug! 06:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then place a warning about those restrictions onto any page that might fall under those restrictions. Or inform every editor who has made edits to such pages about those restrictions. This page exists to report problems with specfic editors - so what problems are there with the edits of this particular editor? Except for the issue of editing another editor's user page (which could be addressed by giving some friendly advice), there are none as far as I can see. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher
It is my recommendation as a checkuser that Lida Vorig be officially notified of the case restrictions. I'm sorry but I can't say more. It does very little harm to place someone on formal notice in any case, as someone who edits according to policies (civility, edit warring, etc) will never trigger any of the restrictions. Thatcher 23:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but saying "I can't say more" is simply not acceptable. Will you also be recommending that every editor who makes edits to any article that could possibly fall under the case restrictions is officially notified of the case restrictions? If you are not, then why are you discriminating against this editor, given that he/she has done nothing to merit any reprimands so far? Saying "it does very little harm" is wrong - you know it is. It is well-known that those wanting to get an editor put on restrictions always write something like "this editor has already been warned about such and such restrictions" with the obvious implication that have got that warning that editor must have been guilty. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 02:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can not say more without disclosing information protected by the privacy policy. I would be willing to discuss the situation with an Arbitrator or another checkuser, if you want an independent endorsement. Thatcher 03:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Privacy policy"? What policy? Sounds rather like one of those catch-all excuses, like "for heath and safety reasons". I think that if an accusation or suspicion can't be said openly, in public, it has no relevance. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Privacy policy – the policy that governs what CheckUsers can and cannot reveal. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A policy which, because it is easily exploitable as a catch-all excuse (exactly like "for heath and safety reasons"), needs to be cited sparingly and not used in a case involoving an editor who has made a tiny number of edits, none of which were controversial, and none of which consitituted an edit war. If something bigger is going on here then it needs to be openly stated. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All we can say is that his IP address was formally placed under AA sanctions and then later blocked for violating sanctions. He was instructed that if he wished to continue editing, he was to create an account. That having been done, the original sanctions from the IP carry over to the new account here. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why couldn't you or Thatcher just have said that at the start? <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 15:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Lida Vorig

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


 * Per my explanation here, this user has been placed on indefinite editing restrictions, the terms of which are detailed here. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Poeticbent
User requesting enforcement: Sciurinæ (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes and Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: Diffs demonstrating personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, battleground creation and edit warring:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) (edit summary)
 * 6) (edit summary)
 * 7)
 * 8) (edit summary)
 * 9)
 * 10) (edit summary)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13) (edit summary)
 * 14) edit warring in violation of 3RR: revert 1, 2, 3, 4

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
 * 1)  Warning by
 * 2)  Caution issued by
 * 3)  A list of previous misconduct presented by
 * 4)  FoF by the Arbitration Committee
 * 5)  Proposed block by

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Poeticbent's persistent uncivil behaviour and edit warring finally need attention. A placement on the Eastern European topic discretionary list (Template:Digwuren enforcement) would be the first step.

Additional comments by Sciurinæ (talk): Even to the accusation of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, Poeticbent replied with yet another personal attack coupled with assumptions of bad faith, only this time against me. Sciurinæ (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to Piotrus' claims, reporting a user for policy violations is neither stalking nor harassment. In fact, "the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioural oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." I can only remember one other time I reported Poeticbent, and that was for a 3RR violation resulting in a block for him. There is nothing wrong with reporting an editor who has a long history of incivility, ABF and edit warring for continuing just that. It is incredible to get abuse hurled at for the act of reporting abuse, with now Piotrus apparently making an implication below of me belonging to a "very small group of extremists trying to out other editors who enforce NPOV" and also accusing me of bad faith motives (by the way, when is someone finally cracking down on Piotrus's personal attacks and ABF?).


 * While Piotrus says that the users in the relevant dispute didn't need sanctions and that it was detrimental to the mediation effort, in actuality a disputant from the other side is currently up at this board, reported even before I did by no other than Piotrus himself. Shall I now also accuse Piotrus of trying to get an editor of the opposite party sanctioned and defending his compatriot against sanctions or much better: how about we refrain from ad hominem personal attacks and accusations of bad faith and instead address the content of my report or would you please just acknowledge it is indisputable? Sciurinæ (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Tymek, there is no threshold for how involved or uninvolved one has to be in order to be "allowed" to file a proper report, so there is nothing wrong with having been uninvolved in the dispute. As I said, there already is a report against the user Lvivske. At least read what I write, won't you please? Being already familiar with Poeticbent's previous conduct, that's a good basis. It took only a couple of minutes to find Poeticbent's incivility since it is in almost every comment. Of course you cannot find the diff that escapes your memory: I've never been warned by an admin in over three years (unlike you: ), nor to stop wasting the admins' time, nor did I ever have or say anything against Poles in general. I see that not only Poeticbent but also you have disrupted only recently the other AE report with similar ad hominem personal attacks of a subject just being anti-Polish. Also you should note that a group of users advancing personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith at the same target does not excuse one another's misconduct at all. The recent remedy about Collective behavior of blocs of editors is explicit that "mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy". Sciurinæ (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As for Radeksz's comment, the 3RR report was an incompletely filed belated one that would never result in anything. However, for your convenience since you haven't felt it necessary, either, I've now requested closure myself. I'm not the subject of the thread, so please leave your two diffs against me from 38 and 41 months ago respectively out of here and don't join in on the irrelevant ad hominem personal attacks and attacking my intentions. Your engagement in the same previous AE thread together with Poeticbent and Tymek by also making personal attacks that a subject was just anti-Polish in conjunction with the others does not make it any better. You're now already on the Digwuren list, Radeksz, so please stop this instant. Sciurinæ (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm of the opinion that to report unbecoming conduct of a user one does not have to be subjected to running the gauntlet with ad hominem implications of being an "extremist" (by Piotrus), anti-Polish and whatever else ridiculous, and insulting can be invented about my intentions ("trying to out other editors who enforce NPOV", "his intent is to harass Poeticbent", "taking a potshot at an editor he had previous disagreements", "bad faithed comments by Sciurinæ", "is trying to bait Poeticbent and reignite the conflict", "It looks like Scurinae's mission", "If Scurinae's intents were pure", "Scurinae is doing a type of pre-emptive forum shopping", "just to double the chances of an outcome s/he'd like to see.", "There is no reason for Scurinae to show up here and try to pour gasoline on a fire", "At least no good reason, but I don't know what's in Scurinae's head.", "so as to make it look as there's many horrible violations here whereas there's not much there in fact", "This is just making crap up and hoping nobody bothers to actually follow the links"). I'm out of here, having already had enough abuse thrown at me as a person for the time being and seeing nothing of substance against the contents of my report. Collective behaviour of a bloc of editors with shared nationality does not contravene the application of Wikipedia policy and enforcement. It should be possible to be able to file a proper report against misconduct without having to get treated improperly. Sciurinæ (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: 

Statement by Poeticbent
It’s been a long time since I came into contact with the user, who filed this report, and so I am understandably puzzled by it. User mounted groundless attacks on me before (see:Tag team 3: German - Matthead, Stor stark7, Sciurinæ), the attacks which went on till finally everyone who ever spoke out was exhausted; but now, I think Sciurinæ wants to get back at me for taking a stance against yet another one of his fellow German editors, reported by another Polish editor for edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Skäpperöd reported by Radeksz, so this report is obviously tainted by our past history.

Going back to the merits of this report. It is based entirely on my recent interaction with another user with whom Sciurinæ has nothing in common. In fact, Sciurinæ never participated in the development of the article in question, called Massacres of Poles in Volhynia, and has no interest in its subject. – Why he is getting involved here again (other than to harass me), I wouldn’t know? There were some heated exchanges at the article talk page due to the fact that my elaborate and well balanced edit which took hours to prepare, was being blanket reverted several times. I was understandably upset by having my work erased, especially, that I did not delete anything from that article in the process, and did not rephrase anything added by my content opponent earlier. For me, the blanket revert of everything I did felt like an insult, that’s why I filed a request for assistance from the community here at WP:RFC. Under the circumstances, Sciurinæ’s surprise attack on me here at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement can be perceived only as a payback time as well as his attempt at disruption of the usual editing process involving most controversial articles. It is inspired by a desire for revenge. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  18:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to comments made after my initial statement

First, Sciurinæ’s reaction to comments made by others does not surprise me a bit, because it is a pattern established long before now. His seemingly uninvolved "reports" on Polish Wikipedians, followed by passive-aggressive language in the discussions (dragged by him until everyone’s exhausted), is the only thing I remember from the past. Please note, Harassment defines that sort of pattern as wiki-hounding. "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason" (emphasis added).

I noticed that my own content opponent chipped in below. I have nothing against User. He devotes countless hours every day to this project. By the same token, I would like Faustian to step outside the box and to try to understand, that repetitive blanket reverts of my serious revisions constitute an ultimate slap in the face of a fellow editor. Blanket reverts are rude and insulting, because they don’t require thinking. I’m sure you realize that quickly reverting elaborate edits made by your content opponent is a form of personal attack – only nonverbal – similar to a middle finger. Automatic reverts are reserved for blatant vandalism like page blanking, swearwords, silly jokes, etc. So please don’t use blanket reverts as an editing method. Such reverts are inflammatory, and make you look bad. I spoke to you the way I perceived you through them. – Going back to information, which you claim to have been falsified by me (yet another insult added to injury), the line about the Orthodox churches did not originate with Subtelny, but with another Wikipedia article called Polonization. Quote. “In 1938 about 100 abandoned Orthodox churches were destroyed or converted to Roman Catholic in the eastern parts of Poland.” Please click on the link and see it for yourself. The information originated probably with this PDF file, which I don’t seem to be able to access. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  17:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that Poeticbent felt personally offended by my revert. When making large and controversial changes it's important to seek comment first instead of just making such massive changes.  I spent a lot of time creating those sections that were moved, yet did not insult him when he did so.  I merely restored the previous order and began two discussions about the order to see what others think:  and . The first attempt was met by insult and the second was ignored.  Basically he chose to insult and revert.


 * With respect to falsification of the source, there was a statement with accurate information and a reference right after that statement. Poeticbent removed the accurate information and replaced it with other information while the reference was kept in place.  See here: . He changed "Hundreds of Orthodox Churches were destroyed or converted into Roman Catholic Churches and hundreds of Ukrainian langage schoolls were closed." to "In 1938 about 100 abandoned Orthodox churches were destroyed or converted to Roman Catholic churches and a number of Ukrainian language schools closed".  Googlebooks shows the original passage here:  which reads "   The original referenced page is on googlebooks which in the third paragraph states "the authorites transfered about 150 churches to the latter (Roman Catholic) and destroyed another 190." Readers can decide for themselves what Poeticbent, who has been accusing me unfairly of "whitewashing", has been up trying to do here.


 * That being said, I would say that in areas not related to Polish ethnic conflicts Poeticbent has made very good contributions and so whatever sanctions are deemed necessary, I hope they will be specific rather than broad.Faustian (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Further remarks

I’m asking myself, is it OK to add a very controversial piece of information to an article about a genocide, using a dead link as the only reference, and than claim (even swear by it) that the information is true? – Why is the information no longer available at the source? Why is the page discontinued by the portal? Please note, we’re talking about more than just one piece of information, for example: the dead link to http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/upa/16.pdf is referenced five times by Faustian; there’s also the dead link to http://www.history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/11.pdf implying even more deleted links at the source, between the numbers /upa/11.pdf and /upa/16.pdf. Meanwhile, the portal in question is still active: http://www.history.org.ua/, go check it out. The removed links were removed by the webmaster on purpose, but for a reason unknown to us. – These are nagging questions, inspiring more doubt. For example, has the information been discontinued at the source, because the portal, which removed it from its database, discovered that there’s something seriously wrong with it? Perhaps so, because what was quoted from those few deleted pages sounded to me like cheap political propaganda. However, it takes a calm and well balanced approach to deal with this sort of challenges properly in Wikipedia. No edit wars will help, and no stubborn repetition of the same explanation of why blanket reverts are deemed necessary in a content dispute.... They are not, and never will be! --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place for such a discussion. Move these comments on the article's talk page and we'll discuss it.Faustian (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors
I think it should be made clear that this is not a conflict between German editors and Polish, but a very small group of extremists trying to out other editors who enforce NPOV. I think it is very telling that Sciurinæ is filling a request to investigate an issue in articles he has never shown any interest in; it seems obvious that his intent is to harass Poeticbent. Most of the diffs he cites are from a recent dispute at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia; I've recently warned both parties there to calm down, as indeed edit warring and bad-faith fueled personal attacks have occurred from several editors. Since Poeticbent and Faustian (who are primary disputants there) are otherwise calm, good and civil editors, prone to neither edit warring nor incivility, I (and several other editors) are now trying to mediate their conflict, and I don't see the need to smack them with arbcom restriction (it was not suggested by anybody on article's talk, and such an escalation is akin to a storm in a teapot). What Sciurinæ is doing - taking a potshot at an editor he had previous disagreements with and fueling the battleground - is IMHO an example of wikistalking/harassment, and further it is detrimental to dispute resolution already ongoing in the article, and he should be warned not to use AE in such a fashion again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by Piotrus
 * PS. I will also point out that it is interesting to consider moderate comments made by Poeticbent's primary content opponent in the article in question, Faustian, with much more aggressive and bad faithed comments by Sciurinæ. It seems that our mediation is having an effect and Poeticbent and Faustian are talking again, in a civil fashion, and not edit warring - yet Sciurinæ as seen in his comments above is trying to bait Poeticbent and reignite the conflict. I hope this will be taken into consideration by a reviewing uninvolved AE admin. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always been moderate and civil in my comments towards him.Faustian (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that the only thing I wrote that can be considered a "personal attack" was when I stated that Poeticbent has falsified information from a source. This was proven with the diffs and link to the source which he had misrepresented (see the 4th paragraph here: ). I did not call him a liar, or otherwise insult him; I merely stated the fact. In contrast, Poeticbent has been abusive repeatedly, even started an RfC which was full of abuse:. Please to not draw comparisons between the two of us. With that in mind, it seems that Poetic bent has made good contributions to many other articles. A general ban on all eastern European history articles may be inapropriate; perhaps a very strict warning followed by an immediate ban on articles involving any sort of conflict between peoples would be sufficient.Faustian (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I find it really odd that user Scurinae, completely uninvolved in the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia article, who has not edited this article, and has not made a single comment on the talk page there, suddenly has collected all the diffs concerning Poeticbent. It looks like Scurinae's mission on Wikipedia is to get as many Polish users as possible banned, and as far as I remember, he has been told to stop wasting other admins' time and cease going after Polish editors (I do not have the diff, as I do not collect such stuff). If Scurinae's intents were pure, he should have filled a request to investigate user Lvivske, who has been removing photographs, using such friendly terms as Polack propaganda. Somehow, this has slipped Scurinae's attention. Tymek (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by Faustian
 * Comment by Tymek

Well, I'm not going to say anything more about the fact that Scurinae just appears out of the blue and files a report on yet another Polish editor since all that's been said. Instead let's actually look at the diffs that Scurinae provides:
 * Comment by Radeksz

Diffs 1 (40), and 4-10 (43-49) all have to do with Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. This is already being dealt with here which in fact what diffs 2 (41), 3 (42) and 11 (50) link too. Basically Scurinae is doing a type of "pre-emptive forum shopping" - just in case the other report does not turn out the way s/he'd like, s/he's filling this present, second report, just to double the chances of an outcome s/he'd like to see. Even if there is a problem with Poeticbent's actions (and I think what there is is minor) in the real world this is called "Double Jeopardy". Let the matter resolve itself there. Additionally, both Faustian and Poeticbent have stopped editing the article in question, presumably to cool down, and this is nothing that a simple mediation on the talk page can't resolve (as I've been trying to do). There is no reason for Scurinae to show up here and try to pour gasoline on a fire that's going out by itself as we speak. At least no good reason, but I don't know what's in Scurinae's head.

Throwing out the duplicates, that leaves us with diffs 12, and 13 (note that diff 14 also refers to the Massacres article - Scurinea's stringing out the diffs so as to make it look as there's many horrible violations here whereas there's not much there in fact).

Diff 12 is a comment Poeticbent makes on a AE report I filed on Deacon of Pndapetzim. In that report I was concerned about Deacon's anti-Polish bias and his supposed "uninvolvement" in Eastern European disputes. Poeticbent is merely making a comment supportive of my report (which was more or less agreed with by the involved admins - please take a look at it). Where exactly in that statement is there an instance of a "personal attack" or "incivility"??? Nowhere. Sure, Poeticbent agrees with me that Deacon has an anti-Polish bias but that's a completely different thing. Scurinea seems to be under the mistaken impression that "no personal attacks" and "be civil" implies that no criticisms can be made of other editors, their statements or their actions. Or at least that this applies to Polish editors who dare to criticize others. This is obviously incorrect.

Diff 13 ... well I don't know what to say about this one since I don't see anything in there that is a "personal attack" or "incivil". I'm not sure what Scurinea's talking about here. If you want to see real incivility look here:, or here.

So what we have here is a whole bunch of diffs regarding a matter that is already being dealt with, strung out to make it look like there's more to it than there really is, and two other relevant, but completely spurious diffs.radek (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Sciurinæ second comment: I have not made any kind of personal attack against Sciurinæ . S/he seems to interpret any kind of disagreement or criticism as a "personal attack". If this was the case then no kind of productive discussion - which is necessary for any kind of resolution of disagreement - between opposing parties would be possible on Wikipedia. Sciurinæ also seems to think/hope that providing a diff and calling it a "personal attack" would be sufficient for lazy admins to take her/his word for it. Please tell me where the "personal attack" takes place in this diff s/he provides: . This particular allegation is actually representative of this whole report - pretending something is when it isn't. This is just making crap up and hoping nobody bothers to actually follow the links.radek (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Sciurinae's third comment, and seeing nothing of substance against the contents of my report. - actually I took the trouble to reply against the contents of your report quite substantially, diff by diff. You still haven't said how this constitutes a "personal attack" (especially since it's part of an AE report! How can one argue that some editor is doing something bad w/o actually criticizing the editor in question?!?!?) or how diffs 12 and 13 you provide are "incivil". But since you ask for more substance against the contents of your report, let me go through the "Diffs of prior warnings" diffs you provide:
 * Diff 1 by Gamaliel - this predates either Eastern European or Digwuren so is irrelevant to this report.
 * Diffs 2-4 merely show that Poeticbent was in fact part of the Eastern_European_disputes. This is different than a warning.
 * Diff 5 - Straight up mischaracterization of what Tznkai is saying. He is not proposing a block. He says Is anyone other than Poeticbent and M0RD00R actually reading this thread? It is very much to long didn't read for me, and its quickly approaching "block both for a week" status. He's basically just expressing his frustration and boredom with the discussion going on between the two users. AFAIK the block was not implemented or even seriously considered.radek (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Lvivske


 * I can say with certainty that I've seen Poetricbent being disruptive on numerous occasions over the last year, and this report has made it clear to me that I wasn't just not giving him a fair shake. As far as Piotrus goes, it's clear there is collaboration going on here to "fight" the other side of the edits. Honestly, this whole situation is a mess and these articles will never get cleaned up and made neutral as long as these characters continue. --Львівське (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Poeticbent

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