Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive44

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
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. Edit warring on Armenians
2. Edit warring on Armenians
3. Edit warring on Armenians
4. Edit warring on Armenians

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

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

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

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

Prior reports on this board

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

Plus number of other complaints, when discussing other users .

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I warned Serouj about AA2 sanctions back in June 2009, before the recent edit war, please see: So Serouj is not correct when saying that he was not aware of the arbcom imposed sanctions. He was warned, but disregarded the warning. Grandmaster 07:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Moved from section below,  Sandstein  15:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

I am not at this time sanctioning Serouj, but will do so on request if he edit-wars again.  Sandstein  15:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

1. Warning by Durova (talk · contribs)

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

Additional comments by 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. The Matt Sanchez biography, a BLP, is under arbitration general sanctions. Additionally, this account behaves like a returning user with long knowledge of the personalities involved in this dispute. Possibly this could be Eleemosynary, who was article banned from Matt Sanchez in April 2008 and indefinitely blocked shortly afterward. Note the edit summary of the first ever edit by this account, the account's second ever edit summary asserts a familiarity with the Sanchez history. With less than 20 total account edits StephenLaurie was tagging suspected Bluemarine socks (Bluemarine is Sanchez's username) then removing posts from the Eleemosynary user talk. Eleemosynary's and StephenLaurie's edit interests have substantial overlap (note Thomas Scott Beauchamp controversy and Matt Sanchez in the Soxred report), and StephenLaurie's POV on the Matt Sanchez article is indistinguishable from Eleemosynary's. He even claims to know my history with Sanchez, although he distorts it badly. A new account would probably not recognize me, although Eleemosynary would have bitter recollections because I had something to do with his article ban and indefinite block. Whether this is enough to establish StephenLaurie as the sock of a banned user is something for the reviewing administrator to determine, yet if the socking determination is inconclusive discretionary sanctions may still be warranted per the diffs above and this dialog. Durova²⁸⁰ 05:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

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. 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)

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".

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

1. my edit
2. his revert
3. my edit
4. his revert

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

I request that Scuro be blocked based on the above edits he lists. He did not discuss these changes or acheive consensus in violation with the arbitation ruling. Also he continue to attempt to drive other editors away from the ADHD article. This appears to be page ownership.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Abd. I though the regulation ment that I had one revert per topic under question not one revert per page. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the sanctions, both users (ie the reporter and the reportee ) 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. . 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, I do as requested and I get clobbered again. Lets get real here folks, instead of trying to create drama and narrative here, lets live by what was stated at arbitration. Better yet would be if any of these parties earnestly tried to seek true consensus for the first time, instead of vilification of myself once more. What Doc James should do is live up to the mistake, and shush others away who go to extreme ends to defend him.. An act of good faith would go a long way here also. How about an apology and reverting my edits? Personally I don't need a block. I just need the long term page ownership and uncivil behaviour to stop, as it should have with arbitration.--scuro (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You have added one reference and it has stuck to the page. You have misinterpreted the "fix it" quote mentioned above. It means adding well referenced statement to balance what you preceive as unbalanced point. You do not however get to remove well referenced points you disagree with from the article. I must agree the irony here is amazing. :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Scuro, I think you are missing the point. Don't make edits that are almost certain to be controversial without first discussing them on the talk page and trying to solicit opinions from other editors. It doesn't matter if a change will make the article better reflect the truth or correct a major problem; if the change has a high probability of being controversial, discuss it first. If the discussion consensus isn't unilaterally opposed to a proposed change then try WP:BRD. This way, edit wars are prevented. It's fine to go ahead and make edits which are unlikely to be controversial and then wait to see if they "stick." How do you tell if something is likely to be controversial? Check the talk page for discussions or flip through some of the page history. Scuro, I'm sure you have noticed that relocating or deleting the alternate theories section without prior discussion tends to get reverted. There is a discussion about this in the most recent archive. It would be unimaginable that this time around everyone would suddenly be complicit with relocating it. So why do it again when you are only setting yourself up for a revert? That's not consensus seeking nor a good use of WP:BRD, it's frustrating. When using WP:BRD on the ADHD page, you should consider working in smaller chunks. I have found that to be highly effective for me. Rather than using global tags consider section tags and work with one section at a time: that will help keep the discussion centered on the primary issues. Sifaka ^talk 07:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I submit that the above statement by Sifaka is invaluable advice to all involved, and that it should be read twice. Also this has turned into a slinging match and serves no purpose but to irritate all involved and therefore I move that it be closed with all parties under restrictions to realise that you should discuss first, reach consensus, and then edit. 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)

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)

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. First revert
2. Second revert, of this edit

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

1. MarshallBagramyan was placed on 1 rv per week restriction in accordance with the ruling of arbitration case Armenia - Azerbaijan 2 by Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. 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: The blocking admin recommended a topic ban if MarshallBagramyan continued similar behavior. Soon after that MarshallBagramyan was blocked for 3 months for sock/meatpuppetry on the same article about Moses of Chorene: Admins gave him another chance, and lifted his block earlier: This time MarshallBagramyan made 2 rvs within 1 week on the same article about Moses of Chorene, thus violating his editing restriction again. Grandmaster 05:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

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)

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)

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

Reply by Wdford to Statement by Ice Cold Beer concerning Wdford

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have reduced the ban of Wdford to 22 days, effectively unbanning him/her. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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 of the inclusion of this blatant POV fork (admins only) and was a primary contributor to the POV version of the article." The article Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?, which Wdford defended and heavily contributed to, was indeed deleted at 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, Wdford adds unsourced content, promotes a fringe theory from an Afrocentrist author, and adds artwork along with captions designed to create controversy. Later, when Dbachmann (talk · contribs) removed irrelevant POV material,, Wdford reverted.". I disagree. It is not clear to me how the edits linked to by Ice Cold Beer violate WP:NPOV. The images added appear to illustrate the relevant text, their captions are entirely unexciting and the text added about the opinion of one Ivan van Sertima is sourced and does not appear to violate WP:UNDUE, particularly because it also mentions one Frank Yurco who seems to hold the opposing view. On the whole, this does not constitute "promoting a fringe theory".

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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. 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. Yet again more edit warring without consensus.
4. Even more edit warring by scuro
5. Adding tag very shortly after conclusion of arbcom, considering adding tags was a major issue for several members of the arbcom, as it was felt they were being misused, I regard it as poor faith on scuro's part, as we were discussing and resolving issues on the talk page.

I hope this helps. I noticed this behaviour going on on the article and article talk page and could see that scuro was resuming his old ways and little had changed but was trying to ignor it and work things out in the hope the arbcom haad some effect but I see scuro now filing stuff about me 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)

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)

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

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

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 Cystic fibrosis is chronic ( no one with CF grows out of it ). Viral infections are acute lasting weeks / months. ADHD is half way between." This thread generated several comments.

• A ways down the thread, Doc James cites a specified source saying, in part, "Given the fact that AD/HD is a generally chronic neuropsychiatric condition that may last many years, ..."

• At 20:44 on 24 July 2009, scuro removed the word "generally" with Edit summary; (Adhd is chronic, not "generally" chronic. It's not like one describes a bout of ADHD but I'm over it now. ADHD is with you everyday. ADHD does change but that is because of developmental reasons)
• At 20:59 the same day, Doc James put the word "generally" back in, with Edit summary: (the reference says generally chronic, we discussed this extensively in the past and this is what we agreed upon)

This was the edit Doc James got blocked for! After ALL the previous discussion about that word, no one could remove it again just-like-that. Scuro's removal of the word "generally", after all that history, was vandalism.

It was a revert which James could have asked someone else to do, but I can understand that he thought it just obviously legit. - Hordaland (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's "been there forever" and stayed that way because I had been page blocked off the article through page ownership. Basically the same thing with what we saw here, with Doc James reverting my edits. For six months I could only get one piece of punctuation to stick to the article. (more here). He may believe he had consensus but he never did.

I don't think the arbitrators meant for this to reach back more then 1/2 a year. I've been editing the page for years. How many edits have I made in that time, hundreds? Much of it has left the page, especially after Doc James's, and others, major revision of the whole article this fall. Would this apply to any material of mine that has ever been taken off the page? That would seen to place a much heavier burden on myself. Regardless, it's not a requirement to post in discussion "before" the edit and the issue was discussed shortly after.--scuro (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But arbcom did not agree with your claims of ownership and made no finding of it scuro.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

User requesting enforcement:
Ironholds (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Not applicable

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

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

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

• notified Ironholds (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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

• Oh gesh Peter. I saw the off site back and forth with you and FT2. You should know better than to take off site fights onto wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as a procedural note, does Peter's block preclude him from responding here? I don't disagree with the action taken, but shouldn't the user typically be allowed to respond in an AE case before being blocked? Also, /agree with Ottava. Off-wiki stuff should stay off-wiki. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When I was an active administrator here I always went out of my way to let the scrutinized editor say something, but I was usually in the minority in that practice. Peter has the option, as always, to speak his mind (reasonably) on his talk page, and usually someone will transcribe its contents here as a courtesy.--Tznkai (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

User requesting enforcement:
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Further breach of unban decision 17 December 2008:

• "Peter Damian and FT2 are directed not to interact with or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other on any page in Wikipedia."
• "Should Peter Damian interact with or make any comment concerning FT2, or make any other comment reasonably regarded as harassment or a personal attack, he may be blocked"

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

1. diff 18.54 July 30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User requesting enforcement:
Grandmaster 06:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Lida Vorig (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. This is a new account, and was used for the most part for edit warring and voting at AFD.

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

1. none

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

I edited wikipedia with my IP address before I created this account, and I'm aware of the Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration case. What actually strikes me odd is that none of the articles I edited were ever touched by user grandmaster. So how exactly did he noticed me? Is this kind of harassment and stalking a norm for wikipedia? Lida Vorig (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably he was watching the Erich Feigl page. Meowy 15:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lida Vorig voted at AFD that I initiated. I mentioned that above. That's how I noticed him/her. Grandmaster 04:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What "edit warring"? There is none! Since when did voting at a deletion request become a banning offense? The only slightly questionable edit was the removal of the link to a propaganda website from another editor's user page. Maybe Lida Vorig didn't understand that removing content from a user's page is considered to be unacceptable (as well as being pointless because that user can simply re-insert the content and protect the page). Meowy 15:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• personally, I can't see the issue, anyone editing in contentious nationalist topics should be aware of the restrictions and I trust Thatcher to show good judgement in these matters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Then place a warning about those restrictions onto any page that might fall under those restrictions. Or inform every editor who has made edits to such pages about those restrictions. This page exists to report problems with specfic editors - so what problems are there with the edits of this particular editor? Except for the issue of editing another editor's user page (which could be addressed by giving some friendly advice), there are none as far as I can see. Meowy 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is my recommendation as a checkuser that Lida Vorig be officially notified of the case restrictions. I'm sorry but I can't say more. It does very little harm to place someone on formal notice in any case, as someone who edits according to policies (civility, edit warring, etc) will never trigger any of the restrictions. Thatcher 23:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but saying "I can't say more" is simply not acceptable. Will you also be recommending that every editor who makes edits to any article that could possibly fall under the case restrictions is officially notified of the case restrictions? If you are not, then why are you discriminating against this editor, given that he/she has done nothing to merit any reprimands so far? Saying "it does very little harm" is wrong - you know it is. It is well-known that those wanting to get an editor put on restrictions always write something like "this editor has already been warned about such and such restrictions" with the obvious implication that have got that warning that editor must have been guilty. Meowy 02:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I can not say more without disclosing information protected by the privacy policy. I would be willing to discuss the situation with an Arbitrator or another checkuser, if you want an independent endorsement. Thatcher 03:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Privacy policy"? What policy? Sounds rather like one of those catch-all excuses, like "for heath and safety reasons". I think that if an accusation or suspicion can't be said openly, in public, it has no relevance. Meowy 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

meta:Privacy policy – the policy that governs what CheckUsers can and cannot reveal. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A policy which, because it is easily exploitable as a catch-all excuse (exactly like "for heath and safety reasons"), needs to be cited sparingly and not used in a case involoving an editor who has made a tiny number of edits, none of which were controversial, and none of which consitituted an edit war. If something bigger is going on here then it needs to be openly stated. Meowy 16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

All we can say is that his IP address was formally placed under AA sanctions and then later blocked for violating sanctions. He was instructed that if he wished to continue editing, he was to create an account. That having been done, the original sanctions from the IP carry over to the new account here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why couldn't you or Thatcher just have said that at the start? Meowy 15:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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