Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

MarshallBagramyan

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

Request concerning MarshallBagramyan

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 05:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. [1] First revert
2. [2] Second revert, of this edit [3]

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

1. [4] MarshallBagramyan was placed on 1 rv per week restriction in accordance with the ruling of arbitration case Armenia - Azerbaijan 2 by Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. [5] which was logged at AA2 page by Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Additional comments by Grandmaster:
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: [6] 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: [7] Admins gave him another chance, and lifted his block earlier: [8] This time MarshallBagramyan made 2 rvs within 1 week on the same article about Moses of Chorene, thus violating his editing restriction again. Grandmaster 05:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[9]

Discussion concerning MarshallBagramyan

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)

Comments by other editors

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 The Diamond Apex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, 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)

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

Ancient Egyptian race controversy ban review

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

Request concerning Ice Cold Beer

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

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
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):

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

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

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

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

• I asked for the input of the regulars from WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN ([10], [11]). I have notified Ice Cold Beer, the five sanctioned editors, and other editors that commented at the clarification request ([12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]). --Vassyana (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

General discussion

A general statement by Ice Cold Beer

First off, I would like to state that my delayed response to this appeal is the result of a lack of time to devote to 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, Ryulong (talk · contribs) asked for a review of five users' contributions to Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page.[26] Though uninvolved, I had previously enforced the sanctions outlined here against Big-dynamo (talk · contribs)[27] and had warned Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs) for disrupting the article[28], and therefore felt well-equipped to review the contributions of the five users. After reviewing the contributions of the five users for a period of two to three hours, I banned four of them (the five users currently appealing their bans subtract Panehesy (talk · contribs)).

The version of the article that brought my wrath was this one, which I determined to be result of the contributions of the now banned users with the help of a sockpuppet of the now unblocked Muntuwandi (talk · contribs). The main problem with this version is that while the article should be about the controversy, the four banned users instead developed an article that sought to create/further the controversy, a form of POV-pushing. Any editor who has worked in an area that is often invaded by those wishing to push their favorite fringe theory can spot this from a mile away. An editor attempts to edit the article such that it appears a legitimate controversy exists when it does not. This problem with the article had been pointed out to editors of the article before, but to no avail.[29][30] 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 Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, which states that "consensus can be assumed until voiced disagreement becomes evident". It also states that "if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so". If nobody had voiced disagreements over the approach that these editors had been taking over the last four months, is it the best approach to apply retroactive sanctions.

Finally, the application of bans and long term blocks implies that traditional methods of dispute resolution have failed. In this case, I don't think that traditional methods of dispute resolution, such as simply using the talk page, have even been attempted. From talk page archive, there were only two brief comments from Dbachmann before the article was protected. If editors with diverse views (Afrocentric and Anti-Afrocentric) had come to a tentative consensus, I see no reason why they couldn't have accommodated some of Dbachmann's concerns had he chosen to be an active participant in developing the article.Wapondaponda (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Wdford

Statement by Wdford

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

Reply by Wdford to Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning Wdford

Firstly, I am not a single-purpose account. I simply edit only those articles where I have an interest, where I know something about the subject and where I note an opportunity for improvement. I do not have unlimited time to dedicate to 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[31] (admins only) came about because admins including Moreschi and Dbachmann adopted the POV that this article should be about the history of the controversy only, and should not include the substance of the controversy. In good faith some of us then started a separate article to explain the substance of the controversy, since this material was specifically excluded from the main article, only to have this material once again suppressed by those same admins. I did not add artwork designed to create controversy, I added to artwork because that is one of the main foundations of the controversy. The material Dbachmann removed was actually a relevant part of the controversy, and can only be considered irrelevant by persons adopting a seriously biased POV. I did not promote a fringe theory from an Afrocentrist author, I included references to the work of authors of all spectrums, so as to create a balanced and neutral section. The author in question was indeed fringe, but censoring all the controversial authors out of an article about a controversy does the article no justice.

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

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

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

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

Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning Wdford

Of the five users I recently banned from AErc, the most difficult decision came regarding Wdford (talk · contribs). While Wdford has occasionally been a voice of reason against POV-pushing,[32][33] (s)he was also supportive[34] of the inclusion of this blatant POV fork[35] (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,[36] Wdford adds unsourced content, promotes a fringe theory from an Afrocentrist author, and adds artwork along with captions designed to create controversy. Later, when Dbachmann (talk · contribs) removed irrelevant POV material,[37], Wdford reverted.[38]

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.[39] Thereafter, Wdford and others use the illegitimate straw poll as a license to promote both sides of the debate as equals,[40] 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,[41] Wdford proposes a ridiculously watered down version of the lead and is of course joined by the other banned editors. That section of the talk page is the third of three straight, separate sections on the lead. This is another common tactic by POV-pushers—create several new sections on the same topic in order to wear down opposition.

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

Comments by other editors concerning Wdford

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

I am concerned about Ice Cold Beer's attempt to inervenein an argument about undue weight. This is a content dispute and is best left to editors on the page to work out, in good faith. ICB's only defense seems to be an insinuation that Wdford was not acting in good faith. Well, there are good reasons why we generally do not enter into content disputes. if ICB wishes to, I sugges that he read up on ancient Egyptian history and participate as an actual editor. But he should not be using administrative powers to try to resolve a content dispute. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion by uninvolved administrators concerning Wdford

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

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

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

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

D. We must therefore only review whether Wdford made "disruptive edits" to Race of ancient Egyptians. In determining the level of disruption necessary to trigger a ban, we may be guided by Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Purpose of Wikipedia, 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[42] of the inclusion of this blatant POV fork[43] (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 Wikipedia: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,[44] Wdford adds unsourced content, promotes a fringe theory from an Afrocentrist author, and adds artwork along with captions designed to create controversy. Later, when Dbachmann (talk · contribs) removed irrelevant POV material,[45], Wdford reverted.[46]". I disagree. It is not clear to me how the edits linked to by Ice Cold Beer violate WP:NPOV. The images added appear to illustrate the relevant text, their captions are entirely unexciting and the text added about the opinion of one Ivan van Sertima is sourced and does not appear to violate WP:UNDUE, particularly because it also mentions one Frank Yurco who seems to hold the opposing view. On the whole, this does not constitute "promoting a fringe theory".

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

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

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

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

Discussion concerning AncientObserver

Statement by AncientObserver

All I have to say is that I have done my best to be as cooperative with all the other editors on 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)

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 AncientObserver (talk · contribs) 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.[47] A few days later, AO adds biased material that contains synthesis.[48] 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.[49] 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[50] and even more a couple of days later.[51] Here, AO removes cited material and adds irrelevant material that is sympathetic to Afrocentrism.[52]

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.[53] Later that month, after adding a quote from Aristotle stating that the Ancient Egyptians were "too black",[54] AO adds an unsourced statement legitimizing the use of the quotes.[55]

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)

Statement by Wapondaponda

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)

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 [56]. 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 Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs) was not my first encounter with the user. After several discussions on T:AErc, in September of last year I left Lusala a final warning for disrupting the talk page.[57] 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[58] and the next day is a baseless implication that two other editors are racist.[59] 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").[60] Further, Lusala further disrupted the talk page by repeatedly bringing up the same arguments after they had been repeatedly rejected.[61][62][63] 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.[64] 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.[65] A couple of days later, (s)he insinuates that another editor is intoxicated.[66] Later that month, Lusala suggests adding a fringe theory to the lead to "balance it out", a violation of WP:UNDUE.[67] In April, Lusala announces that he will "systematically eliminate" all contributions from another editor that don't agree with Lusala's beliefs.[68] In May, Lusala announces his/her intention to continue the POV crusade.[69] 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.[70] Here, Lusala takes pot shots at another user who had come to clean up the article.[71]

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 [72]; his writing is discussed in a whole host of books by reputable academic publishers [73], [74], [75] 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. JN466 14:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Wapondaponda

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

Over a period of time it is possible to cherry pick some controversial statements that an editor has made in order to paint a caricature of an editor. Yet we may overlook other useful contributions that editors have made. From my interactions with Luka, he has done a lot of research about the controversy from the perspective of French Egyptologists. Currently, there aren't many, if any, editors on English wikipedia who have the studied this controversy from that perspective. So I think his contributions should be welcomed. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by deeceevoice

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.

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)

Discussion concerning Big-dynamo

Statement by Big-dynamo

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

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)

Discussion concerning Panehesy

Statement by Panehesy

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

Enforcement by block 1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at 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.[76] I determined the user in question to be Panehesy (talk · contribs) and took a look at Panehesy's contributions to AErc and its talk page. After looking through Panehesy's contributions I banned him/her for six months for POV-pushing and making personal attacks.[77]

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.[78] Several days later, Panehesy adds more unsourced content (the edits do not at all reflect the source provided)[79][80] The following day, in consecutive edits, Panehesy again adds unsourced, POV content.[81] When reverted by Wdford, Panehesy re-added the violating content.[82] After a hiatus, Panehesy returned to add more unsourced content.[83] After another hiatus, Panehesy returned early this month to add yet more unsourced, POV content.[84][85][86] Immediately before I imposed the ban, Panehesy added (you guessed it) yet more unsourced, POV-pushing content.[87]

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.[88]

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

Comments by other editors concerning Panehesy

Statement by Muntuwandi

Panehesy opened an account on 29th March 2009. He/she is a new editor with only about 300 edits. I think Wikipedia: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 Jayen466

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#Do_we_have_a_problem_recruiting_new,_or_retaining_current,_editors?); 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.) JN466 23:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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. JN466 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. [89][90][91][92] 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? JN466 11:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Sandstein

Sandstein, please reconsider. New user [93][94][95][96], no prior warning whatsoever, 6 months out of the blue? JN466 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article probation, and remains in effect until such time (if ever) it is lifted by consensus of administrators here or by decision of the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein  21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I agree with Ice Cold Beer's assessment that the diffs of edits by Panehesy he provides add unsourced content apparently aimed at promoting a particular point of view to the article under probation. This violates WP:V and probably WP:NPOV, which constitutes disruption for the purposes of the applicable remedy (see my comment in respect of Wdford, above). This means that the ban was properly authorized by the applicable remedy, as also explained above, and that this appeal should in my opinion be declined.  Sandstein  11:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

StephenLaurie

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

Request concerning StephenLaurie

User requesting enforcement:
Durova²⁸⁰ 05:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. [97][98][99][100][101] Diminishment of BLP subject's professional accomplishments.
2. [102] Diminishment of BLP subject's professional accomplishments at a related page.
3. [103] Removes referenced information (note highly derogatory edit summary).
4. [104][105][106] Abusive edit summaries in other settings.

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

1. [107] Warning by Durova (talk · contribs)

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

Additional comments by Durova²⁸⁰:
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.[108] 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,[109] the account's second ever edit summary asserts a familiarity with the Sanchez history.[110] With less than 20 total account edits StephenLaurie was tagging suspected Bluemarine socks (Bluemarine is Sanchez's username)[111][112][113][114] then removing posts from the Eleemosynary user talk.[115] Eleemosynary's and StephenLaurie's edit interests have substantial overlap (note Thomas Scott Beauchamp controversy and Matt Sanchez in the Soxred report),[116] 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.[117] 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.[118] Durova²⁸⁰ 05:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

• [119]

Discussion concerning StephenLaurie

Statement by StephenLaurie

Comments by other editors

Result concerning StephenLaurie

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

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

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

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

StephenLaurie is probably a sock puppet of Eleemosynary (talk · contribs), an indef blocked user. The following diffs suggest that StephenLaurie backs the position of Eleemosynary's sock puppets in edit wars. [120][121][122] 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 Wikipedia: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)

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

Jmh649

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

Request concerning Jmh649

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

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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".[123]

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

1. [124]my edit
2. [125]his revert
3. [126]my edit
4. [127]his revert

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
{{{Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so}}}

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

Discussion concerning Jmh649

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.[128] 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 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. [129]. 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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#scuro.--Literaturegeek | 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[130], 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.[131]. 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Jmh649 restricted, as provided for by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Enforcement by block. 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)

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

scuro

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

Request block of scuro

User requesting enforcement:
Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. [132] 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#ADHD_causes_and_diet_article_fork.3F 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. [133] Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Movement_of_diet_section_to_treatment Another discussion showing no consensus but scuro continues to edit war over it
3. [134] Yet again more edit warring without consensus.
4. [135] Even more edit warring by scuro
5. [136] 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_ADHD 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.--Literaturegeek | 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 Literaturegeek (talk · contribs)

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 Literaturegeek | T@1k?:
See above submission by scuro fore more background.--Literaturegeek | 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#ADHD. 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.--Literaturegeek | 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.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning scuro

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#What_is_edit_warring.3F 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.--Literaturegeek | 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.--Literaturegeek | 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.--Literaturegeek | 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"[137] 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#GA_review and Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder/Archive_7#Do.2C_please_reinsert_the_word_.22chronic.22_in_the_lead_sentence 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#Discussion_before_making_changes 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.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The principle of decorum[138] and personalizing disputes[139] repeatedly have been broken by Literaturegeek since arbitration's final decision. [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] 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.--Literaturegeek | 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.[145], [146], [147], [148] Scuro was wrong to start revising that long disputed sentence without discussion which he was required to do by arbcom.--Literaturegeek | 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.--Literaturegeek | 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[149]). 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.--Literaturegeek | 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)

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