Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:05, 19 July 2009

WP:AE

Requests for enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 — which is to present all majority and significant-minority POVs? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pmanderson

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

Request concerning Pmanderson

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

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

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

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

addendum

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

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

Not applicable

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

diff of notification

Discussion concerning Pmanderson

Statement by Pmanderson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Ohconfucius

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

Response to Ohconfucius

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

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

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

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

Comments by other editors

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning Pmanderson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because it appears that I am now in a content disagreement with Pmanderson in a naming conventions-related issue ([1]), I will recuse myself from any further action with respect to this issue if he so requests. Sandstein 20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Relevant links (permalinks to avoid achiving link breakage):

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

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

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

I asked for the input of the regulars from WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN ([2], [3]). I have notified Ice Cold Beer, the five sanctioned editors, and other editors that commented at the clarification request ([4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]). --Vassyana (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Wdford

Statement by Wdford

Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning Wdford

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)[reply]

Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning Wdford

Discussion concerning AncientObserver

Statement by AncientObserver

All I have to say is that I have done my best to be as cooperative with all the other editors on Wikipedia that I have encountered and now find myself banned from a 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)[reply]

Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning AncientObserver

Comments by other editors concerning AncientObserver

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

Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning AncientObserver

Discussion concerning Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

Statement by Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

What I can say has been very well summurised by ChildofMidnight [18]. 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)[reply]

Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

Comments by other editors concerning Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

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

Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

Discussion concerning Big-dynamo

Statement by Big-dynamo

Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning Big-dynamo

Comments by other editors concerning Big-dynamo

Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning Big-dynamo

Discussion concerning Panehesy

Statement by Panehesy

Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning Panehesy

Comments by other editors concerning Panehesy

Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning Panehesy

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)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 199: / Line 199: @@
 ===Discussion concerning AncientObserver===
 ====Statement by AncientObserver====
+All I have to say is that I have done my best to be as cooperative with all the other editors on Wikipedia that I have encountered and now find myself banned from a 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. [[User:AncientObserver|AncientObserver]] ([[User talk:AncientObserver|talk]]) 15:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning AncientObserver====
 ====Comments by other editors concerning AncientObserver====