Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlevse (talk | contribs) at 14:39, 26 July 2009 (→‎Arbitrator views and discussion: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology]] none none 25 July 2009
Request for clarification: Bluemarine none none 10 December 2008
Request for clarification: ADHD none none 24 July 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Date delinking|Request for clarification: Date delinking]] none none 14 July 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: User:The Wurdalak and User:Manhattan Samurai|Request for clarification: User:The Wurdalak and User:Manhattan Samurai]] none none 13 July 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Ancient Egyptian race controversy|Request for clarification: Ancient Egyptian race controversy]] none none 13 July 2009

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Damian Yerrick

Remedy 8 ("Editors instructed") requires users "(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration". However, some Internet service providers run all users' Internet connections through a proxy. This includes or included AOL and the only ISP in Qatar (see WP:SIP). Other Internet service providers, such as all ISPs in the People's Republic of China (see WP:TOR), use other forms of connection filtering, and users of those ISPs cannot view or edit Wikipedia except through proxies. On behalf of people affected by an ISP's proxy, I request an explanation of why these people should remain topic-banned.

Statement by other user

Statement by OverlordQ

The method currently described by the pages on WP:WOCP has not worked since CentralAuth was enabled, as such mine has never been online, nor had any users. Q T C 16:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Note that the preamble to the remedy 8 rulings limits them to "edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:" — Rlevse • Talk • 12:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was inactive on this case, and I may not quite grasp the technical material being discussed here, so I will defer to those of my colleagues that were active on the case, and to those who can answer the technical questions better than I could. Carcharoth (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Bluemarine

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Sandstein

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine, on 1 February 2008, the Committee decided upon the following remedy: "Bluemarine is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year to run concurrently with the existing indefinite community ban."

On 10 December 2008, the Committee passed the following amendment to that case (permalink):

"Limited unblock with conditions:This committee's decision in this case and the preexisting community ban of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Wikipedia to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of Durova (talk · contribs). Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, 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. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted.
Passed 7 to 0, 09:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)."

Yesterday, I blocked Bluemarine for a week following a report at WP:ANI#Matt Sanchez part 2 that he had violated these restrictions. The block has since been contested at the ANI thread by Durova and one reviewing admin, Jpgordon (talk · contribs), who unlike me believe the restriction(s) on Bluemarine are no longer in effect. As of this writing, there is also an open unblock request at User talk:Bluemarine#July 2009.

I ask the Committee to clarify:

  1. whether the community ban of Bluemarine as referred to in the remedy and amendment remains in effect,
  2. whether the conditional lifting of this ban and the restrictions on Bluemarine's editing as specified in the amendment also remain in effect.

Thanks,  Sandstein  05:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Allstarecho

I'd just like to clarify that Matt Sanchez, aka User:Bluemarine, was under a community ban before his Arbcom ban. His 1-year Arbcom ban did expire in February of this year, which would have been before the 60-day stipulation to end. 60-days would have put him under Arbcom ban until March when the initial 1-year ban expired in February. So technically, there is nothing Arbcom can, or needs to, rule on here as Arbcom's jurisdiction ended in February by the original Arbcom ban or in March by the Arbcom 60-day stipulation - depending on how you interpret the Arbcom ban. What is left to do is for the community to decide whether or not to lift his community ban, which again, he was placed under before his Arbcom ban.

This is all brought about because he made 6 edits yesterday while still under community ban, after having been informed he was still under the community ban back in May when he made edits. In May he was told by Durova not to edit anywhere but his talk page until the matter was resolved. Unfortunately, it went stale and was never resolved then but as he wasn't informed that it was resolved, he should have asked on his talk page what the status was.

As I have agreed with Durova in recent past discussions with her, I support the lifting of his community ban with the stipulations that he is banned from editing his related BLP article or article talk page as well as the same for the Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article. In addition, as also agreed with Durova in recent past discussions with her, based on Sanchez's history of vile personal attacks towards other editors, should he lodge any personal attacks, he shall be immediately and indefinitely blocked again. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 07:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jpgordon

Just a slight correction -- at this point I have no idea what the status of ArbCom's restricted unblocking is. It's not clear from the language whether the committee intended it to outlive the committee's original sanctions. A reasonable person could interpret it either way. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

Recommend remanding this to the community. Bluemarine's arbitration ban has expired. The community could clarify his status and/or impose new restrictions on its own. Durova284 15:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My view is that we should cut to the chase, and decide what editing restrictions, if any are needed for the editor. Once that is enacted, then the past sanctions do not matter. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands there are no more active arbitration remedies, but the community ban remains in effect (the original decision deliberately did not override that). Bluemarine can now either appeal the ban to the community, or appeal it to us. --bainer (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Bainer, with preference the community handle this. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On an initial look, I agree with bainer's comment. I do want to look at this more closely though, so may return to this at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: ADHD

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Scuro

There are several examples of Literturegeek being uncivil during the topic ban proposal. I complained at the time on the project page but nothing came of it. This behaviour continued throughout the whole Arbitration process, particularly in the workshop area. An example was given by me in my evidence section.(In presenting her evidence Literaturegeek is being abusive and uncivil. She states, "This archive is half a megabyte of mostly paranoid obsessive ramblings about conspiracies of scientologists and antipsychiatrists, useless drama, fighting.." or "Manipulative often playing the victim role. This can even deceive administrators and make admins turn on their fellow admins"....) [2].

Further evidence of uncivilness was given under Stephen Bain's proposed findings of fact [3]. (Literaturegeek and continued uncivilness - this needs to be addressed - She has been abusive during the topic ban proposal, and arbitration and this continued after Stephen Bain pointed out these issues with his proposal. For example she stated;"as scuro's essentially has been making editors experiences on wikipedia a living death until they give up and leave and still a year later he is getting away with it. What amazes me is the ability of scuro to almost get people hypnotised and manipulate them (like on this admin discussion board for example and else where over the years) that he is an innocent persecuted victim and his opponents who he forces off wikipedia and removes all their contributions are terrible people. But then again I do understand because human beings are the perfect hypnotic subjects but that is another debate for another day. He wants these big discussions to wear people out. I see now Nja is being seen by some as persecuting poor scuro and poor scuro needs a break, I have been seen as the bad party, this is what I meant by scuro being professional in how he disrupts wikipedia and the levels he goes to and why I am willing to invest so much time in this admin noticeboard as enough is enough, years of forcing editors off, deleting anything they add which scuro doesn't like. Scuro knows when to be aggressive and knows when to calm down, it is all manipulative behaviour and he invests an enormous amount of time into doing this but yet admins can't see it as they don't follow it. The only time I have been involved in official wiki discussions was a discussion was when I was being harassed by sock puppets of mwalla, a vandal. I do not enjoy these debates. She also appears to have an abrasive style and conflicts on other pages". This behaviour and "drama" also continues to date on other pages."removing childish bullshit" [4][5][6][7][8][9])

Currently she continues to be uncivil and personalize the talk pages. [10][11]

  1. Why was her uncivilness not mentioned in the final decision, when her uncivilness eclipsed both documented examples of Doc James and my uncivilness, and this was happening right in the middle of arbitration?
  2. What can be done about this continued problem?

Statement by Literaturegeek

I shall not be replying in depth to this, perhaps it would have been better not to use the descriptive adjectives, paranoid, obsessive and rambling etc. It is an arbcom so we submit evidence against a person and their behaviour so it is difficult to criticise a person without "putting them down". Diffs, like childish bullshit and other related links as explained earlier, was due to me being stalked for over a year by an editor who was from an unnamed drug company who did not like my edits on benzos. Anyone followed around having contribs constantly monitored and admins doing nothing is going to lose their temper and ask them to stop "stalking me" on a couple of occasions. This is an old issue years old now. These other disputes scuro has found on my talk page are resolved. The NPOV noticeboard regarding antidepressants was not to do with me as I had not contributed to any great degree to the article, that editor just noticed my username on the talk page and gave me a notice and thanked me actually for helping to resolve the issue. If you read this section, Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#npov_fact_check_tag_added, scuro character assasinated Doc James saying he is advocates xyz and also was rude, barking orders at Doc James. I see no change, the article is being treated as a combat mission and this arbcom filing is more of the same type of thing I feel. I feel the editing environment remains a battle ground hostile environment. Even though I have been trying to make compromises on adhd talk pages, still things like this attacking me pop up. I would like to move on from the ADHD articles but feel this is unlikely with the continuing drama, this on this page here by scuro above being one example of hostility.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Issues concerning behavior on the arbitration pages themselves are water under the bridge. Issues concerning conduct since the case was closed should be resolved by enhanced civility on the part of all concerned; for example, as Literaturegeek acknowledges, some of her adjectives would have been better left unused. It might be best for one or more previously uninvolved administrators to keep an eye on these pages going forward, making sure that the parties to the case comply withour decision, and perhaps bring to our attention if problems involving any of the sanctioned or warned parties continue; but I see no need for further Arbitration Committee action at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Brad, I don't think any action is needed here. I would urge scuro and literaturegeek and other parties to the case to work together, rather than trying to test or explore the boundaries of the case decision. I note that one arbitration enforcement request has already been filed. If that is needed, sure, but please try and focus on the article content and its sources, and not each other's behaviour. This was made clear in the case, and should be made clear each time further requests are filed. If large numbers of frivolous requests are filed, indicating that editors are looking at each other's behaviour, rather than working on article content, new restrictions may need to be imposed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Date delinking

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Ohconfucius

In view of the following remedy in the recent ArbCom Date Delinking Case:

"31.1) Pmanderson is topic banned for 12 month from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions."

I seek clarification as to whether "Editing guidelines" includes the WP:Naming conventions, which is a policy page.

The user has edited the policy page 6 times since the case closed (1 2 3 4 5 6) In the fifth edit, he remove a link to the WP:Manual of Style and replaced it by a link to an article, with a possibly deceptive edit summary.

This undiscussed change may well have been contentious (it has since been reverted) and appears to involve just the scope that Remedy 31.1 refers to

I would ask for the status of the edits to this guideline be clarified in relation to the remedy. The editor has been made aware of this request. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to MBisanz: Maybe I misunderstood the function of this page, but if clerks believe it should be moved to AE, then so be it. The reason I brought it here was because I am only seeking clarification as to what was covered – I am under similar editing restraint and would gladly like to know whether same freedom applies to me. Anyway, I was not specifically after enforcement at this point, not clear as if there had been a breach.
Response to Mandy: I guess that the animosity and sarcasm from Manderson is to be expected, bearing in mind our historical antagonism. BTW, I am not one to judge whether the one "outrageous edit" was intended to game the system. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this thread can be closed - I have now moved this request to WP:AE, per the advice from Matthew. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pmanderson

What does this have to do with date-delinking? Why am I being dragged back into it?

Ohconfucious appears to have missed this outrageous edit in which I inserted a space between two paragraphs.

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

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

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

Response to MiBisanz: If the arbitrators intend their wording to have anything like this scope, it would be nice if they would say so. But if this is simply moved to AE, would you make sure my response goes along? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Sigh. It's another thing to actively watch. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Ohconfucius: Why no; I added this line to divide a paragraph into two, as the edit summary (divide paras) says. This made that section uniform with all other sections.
  • The insinuation (Cicero had a term for this figure of speech) that I have been gaming the system is incivility; so is the distortion of my username. I have two; either would be acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBisanz

Without looking at anything beyond the first couple of lines, this looks like something for WP:AE as it does not seem to rise to the level of an intractable dispute between enforcing admins over what a remedy means. MBisanz talk 17:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Pmanderson
I'm recused on this case, so I won't be doing anything clerk-ish or admin-ish with regard to it. Best to ask another clerk. MBisanz talk 21:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment No. Naming guidelines, while a policy, are not within "style and editing guidelines" vis a vis the scope of the date delinking arb case. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't naming guidelines as within the scope of the restriction.  Roger Davies talk 01:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AE is a better venue for this request. An admin and other uninvolved editors can decide if the edits are problematic considering the letter and spirit of the editing restriction. In any given situation, it is possible for edits to be considered disruptive or good. For this particular case, I see no reason to automatically increase the range of the topic ban to the point that every edit is reviewed for a potential misstep. But if the edits are tendentious, disruptive, or controversial in other ways then it would make sense for an admin to enforce the editing restrictions in the broadest way. In my opinion, this is best decided at AE. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I'll concur with my colleagues here and agree that naming guidelines are not a matter of style, but of contents. Therefore, discussion there does not fall under the restriction's scope. — Coren (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting here (on the off-chance that any motions are proposed) that I recused on the original case. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: User:The Wurdalak and User:Manhattan Samurai

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:


Statement by Jayron32

  • The issue here is whether or not The Wurdalak and Manhattan Samurai are the same person or not. There appears to be strong behavioral evidence to link the two, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manhattan Samurai/Archive, where a May 2nd comment by Nishkid64 indicated that the case was being handled by the Audit Subcommittee. A further note by RogerDavies at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of The Wurdalak indicates that ArbCom is involved in this case. The third account listed above was one that I thought was a clear Manhattan Samurai sock, but was instead linked to The Wurdalak. I am thoroughly confused by this, and need clarification on the AUSC's/ArbCom's position on the nature of these two accounts. Are they believed to be the same person or not? If they are not, what do I need to look for to know the difference between them. If they are, can we get the Sock categories and SPI reports merged? Thanks for the clarification on this! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to Thatcher and Nishkid below for clarifying this. It appears that there are, according to the CUs, two unrelated scokpuppeteers here which have similar MOs? Am I reading that right? If so, thanks for clearing that up. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 06:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well then, now that Thatcher has clarified that Wurdalak and MS are different people, I think I need clarification from ArbCom over reblocking Wurdalak. If he just recently used the Urbanus account, then he is in violation of his ArbCom-placed 6-month block. To any ArbCom/AUSC member patrolling this request: Should we now extend that six-month block back to indefinite for repeat socking while under that 6-month block? --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respond to Rlevse: This is here because there were notes made to both block logs and talk pages that the block was part of an existing or pending AUSC/ArbCom ruling and I came to ask for clarification on that. Also, this HAS gone through SPI, but the SPI case noted the ArbCom involvement so I brought it here to ask for help in sorting out how ArbCom was involved and how to proceed, and for clarification on the intricacies of these two confused cases. --Jayron32 05:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher

This doesn't really have anything to do with Audit, other than that Roger Davies of the Ban Appeal committee asked for an independent recheck. Last I knew, Wurdalak's block appeal was in the hands of the Ban Appeal subcommittee and I don't know what the disposition was. The Wurdalak (talk · contribs) and The Wurdulak (talk · contribs) (unblocked doppelganger) are not related to Manhattan Samurai on a technical level and appear to be geographically separated, although checkuser can never rule out the possibility of various forms of collusion and coordination from different locations. The technical findings with respect to Urbanus et instructus are consistent with The Wurdalak, but of course the importance of that turns on the outcome of the appeal. Check with the members of the ban appeal subcomittee on this one. Thatcher 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, there are likely two distinct individuals involved here. The original question was whether Wurdalak should have been blocked as a sockpuppet of Manhattan Samauri. Since they are geographically distinct, the block question would then turn on an analysis of edits, and whether this is a case of two distinct people coordinating their editing after one of them was blocked for using multiple sockpuppets. However, it appears from Wurdalak's block log that this has already been sorted out by Arbcom's ban appeal subcommittee, [12]. Thatcher 15:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishkid64

I based my findings on Thatcher's well-reasoned conclusion that The Wurdalak was not related to Manhattan Samurai. Since The Wurdalak is currently blocked, and will only be unblocked pending the result of his case before the Audit Subcommittee, I decided to block his sockpuppet indefinitely. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Question and comment What arb case is this a part of? If it's not part of an arb case, why is it at clarification instead of SPI? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK I see now. Yes, this should be here. As the new user is ANOTHER Wurdalak sock, I'd reset the 6-month ban to start anew or indef Wurkalak, I'll leave that to the community admins. And yes, Wurdalak and Manhattan Samurai are differnt, but there is a strong chance they are meats. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On investigation, it turned out that The Wurdalak and Manhattan Samourai were two different people. However, during the investigation The Wurdalak had also socked on his own account (with various permutations of The Wurdalak, plus Duh Elk At War and Duh Wart Lake) so he was banned for six months. If he has socked since, the ban clock needs to be reset (or indeffed, if appropriate).  Roger Davies talk 01:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Roger's summary here. To Rlevse, it is not clear where sockpuppet bans should be appealed - should the SPI case be re-opened if someone appeals? Who decides that? At the moment, ArbCom do get a fair amount of these sockpuppetry appeals, so we should work with the checkusers to make sure those appeals with merit do not get rejected. This case had some merit, but that was cancelled out by the socking Roger mentions above. Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Dbachmann arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Panehesy

I have been banned from editing for a period of six months by User:Ice_Cold_Beer for 1. POV pushing. 2. Personal Attacks 3. Contributions without citations. This is the latest in a pattern of POV administration in the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. I request that, of course, my ban be lifted, as I was not given proper administrative warning, nor was I properly communicated in the manner. I also did not engage in POV pushing. I frequently reminded the contributors to not engage in turning the article into a referendum on another related issue Afrocentricism, which was becoming a habit. At one point, an editor put in comments about how Afrocentricism tried to change the European heritage (which has nothing to do with the article).

I have notified one other user User:AncientObserver who is directly affected by the ban itself. As I am relatively new to this process, I am under a disadvantage as I am going linearly through the administrative hierarchy, and trying to navigate through these processes to get a remedy that allows the article to be complete. This article, as I understand it is almost like a sandbox in itself to prevent editing in the Ancient Egyptian article. For example, all the images shown in the Ancient Egyptian article exclude those which display Ancient Egyptians with negroid characteristics. Please advise. --Panehesy (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ice Cold Beer

I would like to note that this is not the proper forum for such a complaint and the complainant has not formatted this request properly. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification by William M. Connolley

P has been banned from the article and talk only [13]. P is moving far too fast - he hasn't even noticed that he has turned the article into a redlink. It should be Ancient Egyptian race controversy. I fixed up the link to ICB though. The article itself is an edit warring disaster and a mess of socks, probably best erased William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've noticed Incidentally William M. Connolley who was looking over the article unlocked it immediately after our banning leading me to suspect that he had no intentions whatsoever of honoring the consensus of the talk page to return the article to a more recent version by AO. Yes I unlocked it after the banning, and in response to it. Because after that, there seemed a good chance that the edit warring might well be over (and I think that has proved to be true). I explained why I'd unprotected the article [14], though it would have been more helpful of me to point to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Log of blocks and bans. I don't have a strong opinion as to whether the bans are a good idea, though I've enforced at least one [15]. As to honoring the consensus of the talk page I've not been following closely enough to know if there is such a thing as a consensus there - whenever I look it just looks like a mess - and I'm not really sure how I would "honour" it anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@CoM: Large parts of your statement are wrong. I protected it for reasons that I had long forgotten but have now dug up [16]: I simply took over the protect from User:Hiberniantears to avoid tedious legal wrangling. I have no interest in the article contents. I've reverted once, to a version suggested by GoRight, mostly for the amusement of agreeing with someone I rarely agree with. finally banning four editors with whom they disagree - pardon? I haven't banned anyone. Have you mistaken this for Cold Fusion? Thank you for your offer to engage in constructive discussion and editing but I'm afraid, as I said, that I'm not interested in the article William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dbachmann

It is perfectly unclear why I am listed as "involved" here, since I have not taken any administrative actions in this area for a very long time. Not that this matters, since this is a painfully obvious case of a user banned for excellent reasons who just won't stop wikilawyering about it. Nothing to see here. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

I have also been banned with five other people including Panehesy Log of blocks and bans from contributing to this article for six months by User:Ice Cold Beer. I am very much surprised by this decision since I have received no warnings and also since User:Dbachmann who in the first place brought disruptive edits to the article is not banned. I suspect an abuse of power by adm Ice Cold Beer and ask that the ban be lifted.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AncientObserver

I too am one of the banned editors. I was also not given a warning before being banned, only a message by Ice Cold Beer saying I was banned for "POV-pushing fringe theories". This came as a surprise to me because as far as I knew I was contributing constructively to the article and the talk page where ongoing discussion took place on the direction the article would take once it was unprotected. When I asked this Admin for clarification and evidence for why he banned me he explained what it meant but refused to provide evidence in the form of diffs, claiming that all of my edits to the talk page in general fit under the category of his justification for unilaterally banning myself and the others. I came to his talk page and asked him directly for evidence that I was pushing fringe theories on the article. He provided a diff of one of my edits for example but did not clarify what was wrong with it. The edit was relevant to the discussion and provided reliable sources on the topic. Incidentally William M. Connolley who was looking over the article unlocked it immediately after our banning leading me to suspect that he had no intentions whatsoever of honoring the consensus of the talk page to return the article to a more recent version. If this isn't the appropriate location to air our complaints and if the format isn't correct I will look into how to do it properly but we might as well inform someone of the situation. I think this definitely qualifies as abuse of power on Ice Cold Beer's part. I request that we be unbanned, Ice Cold Beer blocked from making decisions on this article and that the article remain unprotected so that we can restore it to a more recent version and let civil discussion on the talk page about content resume. I also believe that Dbachmann should be banned from the article because his disruptive edits are the source of this entire conflict. There hadn't been edit warring on the page for months before he showed up to cause trouble and he has been warned about his behavior before.

Comment 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. As far as I can tell I do not appear on any list of banned editors. Per 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. The claimed rationale for the banning of POV-pushing is ridiculous, since the banned editors were arguing opposite sides of the coin, and all we have in common is a desire to have the controversial material properly explained rather than simply suppressed. It is quite revealing that those who failed to follow WP policies themselves now complain that this is "not the proper forum", and accuse the wronged editors of "wikilawyering". I ask that the higher authorities review the actions of User:Ice Cold Beer, and lift the ban. Wdford (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Vassyana.
At WP:AE it says in the Big Red Box that “Arbitration Enforcement is not the place for anything other than enforcement of a closed Arbitration Committee ruling.” This issue does not involve the enforcement of a closed Arbitration Committee ruling, rather it involves the unilateral ruling of a lone admin. Accordingly, that portion of your advice is seemingly incorrect. The issue has already been thrashed out at WP:ANI without success, and its clear that the huge corpus of WP:Everything does not include guidance on how to deal with an improper ban imposed by a lone admin. This grey area in WP:Everything is now being abused, and we are seeking redress as best we can. Its also clear that a number of admins who were happy to put their oar in to help stop the article are not prepared to go further and help solve the problem, as their POV holds that the true solution is make the article disappear. They are not prepared (or able) to explain why, and this is itself part of the problem. Do you have any other ideas where this issue should be appealed, as WP:AE seemingly is not the place? Wdford (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user Slrubenstein

Ice Cold Beer questions suggests this is not the appropriate venue to request clarification; I believe it is, given the fact that in banning user:Ancient Observer, instead of edit differences providing evidence of disruptive editing, Ice Cold Beer simply refered to the ArbCom article probation [17]; thus, the question is: does the probation justify the ban? I personally think that it does not. I think that Ice Cold Beer is using the probation to prop up a ban made as an administrator that would not otherwise be sustained by the community.

User dab questions why he is a named party. My reading of the disputes on the article talk page is that they either began or were seriously fueled by dab's tendentious edit in which he identified the controversy with Afrocentrism [18]. This is an underhanded way of changing the topic of the article from a controversy over the racial identification of ancient Egyptions, in which there are at least two, if not several, sides, to a controversy over Afrocentrism. Of course, the controversy over the race of ancient Egyptians is a far more complicated controversy - between Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists, and between racial essentialists and social constructioniss. I am not trying to ask ArbCom to involve itself in a content dispute; I am explaining why, in the context of this content dispute, dab's comment was tendentious.

I do not think dab should be banned. But for the same reasons, I do not believe that those editors who disagree with him should be banned either. At least some of the banned editors have made good faith efforts to reach compromises. Banning them is counterproductive.

I admit I could be wrong here, but given that Ice Cold Beer has not provided edit-diffs for evidence (at least not on the article talk page, or the talk pages of Ancient Observe and others) how else am I to understand what appears to be hasty and ill-conceived bans? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Sandstein

Reply to Newyorkbrad: The more recent decisions tell us that appeals against discretionary sanctions are to be directed to either the ArbCom or to the relevant administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE). This older case does not contain such a provision. I recommend that the arbitrators clarify that this appeals procedure is applicable to all older discretionary sanctions remedies. Panehesy and the other complainants will then have the option to make an appeal to either WP:AE or to the Committee (by e-mail, I suppose, because there is no dedicated subpage for appeals).  Sandstein  13:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved user User: deeceevoice

I've skimmed slRubenstein's comments above, and I agree with him.

I haven't been substantially involved in this article for some time, so I suppose that qualifies me as "uninvolved." If I had been involved, I suspect I would have been banned along with the other editors. This appears to be just another attempt at censoring a non-Eurocentric viewpoint at Wikipedia. The article banning of the above parties appears no different from the content ban precipitously and unjustly imposed on me at Afrocentrism - which subsequently was overturned. Dbachmann is at it again. The bans should be overturned and the article locked down in the interim. Bachmann & Co. drastically changed the article from a version that was arrived at after months of wrangling and negotiation to a highly POV and astoundingly inaccurate mischaracterization of the nature of subject matter, and now it seems these editors/admins have conspired to enforce their contorted and inaccurate version of the article by locking out those with whom they disagree. This isn't the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Either you're willing to work collaboratively to hash out differences, or you're not. And I think it's quite clear to everyone involved, and those who are uninvolved, that collaboration and compromise are not Dbachmann's strong suit. That's not a slam on Bachmann; that's just stating fact. deeceevoice (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:ChildofMidnight

There has been atrocious policy violating behavior by Dbachmann, Ice Cold Beer and William Connolley. Dbachmann has a strong POV about how the article should read as shown here in this rant full of personal attacks such as the very first sentence that says "Slrubenstein quite obviously has no idea what he is talking about." [19]

Without appropriately assessing the situation Connolley and Ice Cold Beer have sided with Dbachmann and engaged in inappropriate reversions and protections in support of their preferred article version, finally banning four editors with whom they disagree. Ice Cold Beer has refused to provide a single diff in support of the ban despite repeated requests from several editors. These admins also fail to understand and appreciate that their view is not the only one that's valid. An article that was edited constructively and collaboratively by numerous editors with varying points of view over a period of several months was gutted by them because they didn't like it.

Dbachmann and Dougweller have been pushing one particular perspective, setting up Afrocentrism as a straw man and knocking it down, ignoring that there are many other perspectives in the history of the debate and investigation into who the Egyptians were. Their bias against Afrocentric approaches does not entitle them to launch a smearing attack on that approach or the editor who chooses to add content reflecting that perspective (most of the editors are not advocating that point of view, a fact that the admins involved seem unable to grasp which is good evidence of their refusal to properly investigate and their failure to understand the situation). This is not how we do things on Wikipedia and the situation needs prompt correction.

The appropriate action at this point is to ban Dbachmann from the article. He has caused enough disruption there. Ice Cold Beer and William Connolley should refrain from any admin actions related to the article, but they are welcome to engage in constructive discussion and editing. The four good faith editors should be apologized to and immediately unbanned. Their patience and restrained response in the face of this admin abuse has been extraordinary and should be commended. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Doug Weller and clarificiation in support of my statement: Wow indeed. Here's the consensus version of the article worked up by many editors over months [20]. Here's the version of the article reverted to by William Connolley (and previously protected by him) [21]. This is also the version being pushed by Dbachmann. If someone wants to argue that this version doesn't focus (almost solely) on Afrocentrism, setting it up only to debunk it, then I have serious concerns over his or her reading comprehension skills. The series of actions leading up to and including the ban are an outrageous abuse of admin tools and need to be corrected ASAP. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Dougweller

Wow. This is getting more and more surreal, I thought we had enough drama, but evidently I was wrong. The discrepancy between what I have written on various talk pages and what CoM claims I've said is a deep chasm (CoM, why do other people have to provide diffs but you seem to think it is ok to make personal attacks without providing them?). Among other things, I already made it clear to you that it is not true that the article only discusses Afro-Centrism and nothing before that school of thought developed, albeit only summarily, and I'd be surprised if you could have have anywhere that I said no other perspectives should be included, although you will find me saying that they should be included. Claims like this just make the whole issue even more of a quagmire. And I have seen very little 'good faith' in this debate, mainly a lot of bad faith. Sometimes your actions are very constructive, but I'm afraid not this time. Perhaps you would consider removing the personal attacks above? Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by user:Slrubenstein

A day has passed in which I have spent considerable time trying to sort out what has happened, and have given opportunity for various parties to respond to my requests for information. At this point i have to say, all I see is a massive abuse of administrative powers by user:Ice Cold Beer. It is true that there is a content dispute at Ancient Egyptian race controversy and in my own opinion several users are clearly making disruptive edits. But at least two of the banned users, user:AncientObserver and user:Wdford have sought out compromises and have strived to comply with our content and behavioral policies in their edits. What I find most upsetting is the complete lack of due process. I have seen no evidence, no edit-difs, provided to support banning these two users. I asked Ice Cold Beer for evidence and was told to look at ANI and FTN. I was not provided with specific links, but I searched and found the archived discussion at ANI, and FTN. At neither place was any evidence provided to support a ban of Ancient Observer or Wdford. At neither place was there a poll or even a discussion among mny administrators concerning banning Ancient Observer or Wdford. In short, Ice Cold Beer has made a unilateral decision to ban these users, without any evidence or discussion. I find it hard to believe that an ArbCom Parole is meant to deprive editors of the most basic and simple forms of due process. I would like to see the bans rescinded. Even here, Ice Cold Beer refuses to be held accountable for his actions. He seems to believe that this matter should have been handled at ArbCom enforcement - yet, Ice Cold Beer never brought this up at Arbcom Enforcement. Ice Cold Beer should be reprimanded for his mishandling of this case. If he believes he was enforcing an ArbCom decision, he should have opened up a case at ArbCom Enforcement, named the policies that were violated, and provided edit-difs. As is, editors like Ancient Observer and Wdford have nothing to defend thmselves against, because they are being denounced by a rogue admin. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A ban established through ArbCom enforcement would be, logically, a form of ArbCom enforcement. But a block made at AN/I is, like any other administrative block, one that any other administrator may overturn. I have approached Ice Cold Beer twice asking for supporting evidence for his ban. Since he has not provided it, I feel satisfied that this ban can be overturned. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Vassyana

I am inactive on current requests, but I felt I should comment here. More appropriate venues were suggested at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Banning and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive551#Admins vs contributors. Almost no real attempt has been made to take that advice or otherwise persue normal dispute resolution. (Slrubenstein's attempts to discuss the matter with ICB is one of the few and limited exceptions, as an example.) While there may or may not be a problem with the administrative actions taken here, the manner in which this is generally being persued is disruptive, only serving to further increase the drama. I recommend that if editors persist in rejecting sensible suggestions for resolution, while continuing to make noise and drama over perceived wrongs, that the behavior be treated like any other disruptive conduct. While I am sympathetic to Slrubenstein's concerns, as administrators are expected to be prepared and willing to justify their actions, I do take partial issue with his statement about "depriv[ing] editors of the most basic and simple forms of due process". He may certainly have a valid point, but the lack of "due process" in this situation has at least as much to do with failing to persue repeatedly suggested avenues of recourse as with any failing on the part of the acting administrator. The failure to accept and follow up on that advice is illustrative of a core issue in this topic area, as well as other problematic topic areas. If this was raised at WP:AE for review as suggested, with possible companion requests at WP:FTN and/or WP:NPOVN to clarify the content assertions that cut to the core of the issue, we wouldn't be here right now and this situation would be resolved or on the way to resolution. --Vassyana (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the most ridiculous and innaccurate statements I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The issues were raised on the respective admin's talk pages repeatedly by various editors. The issues were brought up at ANI where the editors were sent off to Arbcom. The issues were raised on the discussion page here. And now that numerous editors have taken the time to make statements and engage in good faith discussion with the arbitration committee, you ball them out for not jumping through the right bureaucratic hurdle in the right bureaucratic place? What a disgrace. It's no wonder so many people in the community are fed up with Arbcom's arrogance and insularity. If this isn't the right place why don't you help move it where it belongs? Aren't we a collaborative Wiki? How many different places do these good faith editors have to be sent before they get some help. How ridiculous! And the cherry on top is your disgusting threat that further efforts to get resolution and redress will be considered disruptive. If this discussion isn't in the right place why don't you MOVE IT where it belongs. Believe it or not most good faith editors and contributors don't hang out at Arbcom all the time so they're not experts on navigating all your pages. Maybe try to be a little more editor friendly instead of taking such a nasty and unwarranted stance against editors who are already facing incompetent asdministrative abuse. Thanks so much. Further incivility and threats on from you after this pointer will be considered disruptive and treated accordingly. And if someone care to move this comment, I know they can move this whole discussion where it belongs too. Thanks in advance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A BIG thank you to Vassyana for taking the time to move the request over to Arb Enforcement. Given some of the broader issues involved, I might have preferred a wider venue to review some of the admin actions and to consider possible sanctions, but if the editors involved can get a fair shake and at least have their bans reviewed and considered (until very recently Ice Cold Beer refused to provide a single diff of evidence in support of his bans) I'll try to live with that. Thanks again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, User:Vassyana if the process had been followed consistently, the users would not be banned in the first place, but instead your very suggestions, if tried, would result in resolution BEFORE banning. I was banned without warning, without any kind of actual violation. I did not engage in edit warring, my contributions if anything have been among the most helpful. I also had to deal with contrary editors adding in stuff out of chronological order, reinserting debunked claims, and using illogical thinking. For example, one user suggested that skin color over generations can naturally go from white (Like European) to black (like black Africans) or vice versa over a few thousand years. His citation: Pure speculation. But that was something to be taken in consideration because the notion that original black inhabitants of Egypt were the primary ancestors of the great legacy of the Dynastic period (basically a resurgence of the Dynastic Race Theory. And you have to ask, what does that have to do with the article? Nothing. That user is engaging IN the debate, rather than citing the history OF the debate. It was after I removed that by reminding them of the purpose that I was banned. --Panehesy (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Followup comment by User:Vassyana

Briefly, I strongly disagree with the manner and tone of CoM's response, and also feel that ANI and the clarificaiton talk page discussion clearly and repeatedly pointed to better venues. However, he does have a valid point in the spirit of {{sofixit}}. In that spirit, I will raise the matter for review at WP:AE, perma-linking to this request, the ANI thread, and other places where discussion has taken place. I will also cross-post an invitation to review the AE thread to WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN, to attact the attention of editors experienced with neutrality and fringe theory considerations. Additionally, I offer my assistance as an informal mediator, or to help acquire another mediator from MedCab or MedCom, to assist on the content side of things. If there is any other way that I can help move things forward constructively, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Vassyana (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Muntuwandi

I won't reflect on what has happened in the past but instead propose a possible solution. For all of us involved, we should have two long term goals. Firstly, to produce a well written article. Secondly to establish a system of self regulation, in which the need for administrative intervention in the article is minimal, and the editors themselves do most of the policing for content that violates Wikipedia's policies. In other words, it would be ideal if this article was like any other good article, and that the article, in the long term, should lose its "special" status.

For this to occur, the editors have refrain from pov-pushing, original research and other poor editing behaviors and agree to monitor the article for such violations. Because if the established editors don't police the article, administrators are sure to intervene.

I therefore propose that the banned users provide some form of assurance to the administrators about editing behavior. On the other hand, Ice Cold Beer should consider lifting the ban he imposed on them. This is a quick solution to the problem. It avoids the need for further escalation, additional bureaucracy and spamming of talk pages and noticeboards. Should this issue be escalated, say to the arbcom, the atmosphere is likely to become more unpleasant. Specifically, there is the possibility of administrators disagreeing with each other. If users agree to take responsibility for the article, then it is within Ice Cold Beer's power to avoid these unpleasantries.

Some of the banned users are new to Wikipedia, in terms of longevity or edit count and this is a new experience for them. I think that having been banned for a few days, they all have a better understanding of how to deal with controversial articles. If they are unbanned they are likely to be more cautious. In addition, bans can always be reimposed if editors violate Wikipedia's policies. I think its worth a try. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Vassyana
I think it's commendable that Vassyana has offered to be an informal administrator. I suggest that his offer be seriously considered. The only concern is that any mediator should be prepared to put aside any preconceived notions about the subject in order to gain the trust of all involved. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Panehesy

Finally, based on the block itself, Ice_Cold_Beer violated the terms of enforcement

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)

I was not blocked for a week, but for six months. There was no indication that I had violated any restrictions before the first block. SO again, I reiterate, that the method of enforcement is very biased, and only helps one POV of the entire issue, for any article relating to Afrocentricism, Ancient Egypt, Race, and Black people. Please end this flagarant violation of neutrality by firstly unbanning me (I cannot even add the citations now requested in the article), and unbanning everyone else. Then proceed to address POV concerns by ALL sides. Thank you. --Panehesy (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Second statement by Panehesy

Enforcement by block Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann#Article_probation

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...


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)

One week has now passed. I am observing the enforcement by block as termed here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann#Article_probation. My block time has passed. I do not see anything indicating that an editor may increase blocks for additional time. I was not cited in Wikipedia's general terms for any violation, but only here specifically for this article. Therefore, there is no provision for me to be blocked further than one week, you, the higher administrators have instructed. When I edit, everyone, please note the reactions of the editors. This will be very helpful, either way, once or if, any further action is taken against me for contributions at that point, within Wikipedia's and the article's policy. --Panehesy (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)--Panehesy (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Arbitrator views and discussion

Well Brad, if you're not sure, them just imagine how we feel. As it happens the policy on appealing against a ban by a lone admin is not so clear and user-friendly, so your guidance would be gratefuly received. May I request you to assist us by finding out to whom we should be appealing, and that you then cut-and-paste this issue and its existing comments into that forum, with due notification etc of change of address, and with due regard to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, so that the matter can progress efficiently and free of drama. Please? Wdford (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm asking that we just lift the ban. Bring an administrator on who is not so knee jerk against the black side of the issue, and lets stop using procedural methods to limit a legitimate POV on the subject matter. For example, the Tut picture. SOmeone fought again and again to prevent the three variations of the picture from being posted, His logic "it just wasn't needed". Ok, this is about the controversy, and all three pictures were needed. Not one Admin involved in that article ever said anything. The contributors banned are frustrated with the lopsided approach and the uncivility against them. And how when that uncivility is only matched only they are banned. --Panehesy (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Greyyschwartz

Dbachman and Dougweller had me blocked last year on the basis of "Afrocentricism" Before that I complained about him on Admin notice boards for some strange reason every notice was removed my on of his "friends". Dougweller How ironic, that you post here about good faith under a noninvolved user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Statement_by_User:Dougweller. You also posted this [[38]] About Panhesy comment on some one elses page. Is that asumming good faith? The truth is User:Dougweller you have left many comments about other users edits to User:Dbachmann and most of it is relates to black people and Egypt. Just like during the time Dbachman decided to remove most of the information on this page Black_(hieroglyphic_'km')with no explanations and changed the name. Starting with this edit on June 10, 2009 4 other edit followed one on top of the other all with no explanations and because of it, an edit war erupted. You went and left Dbachman this message asking him to make your reverts for you because you didn’t want to violate 3RR [[39]]. These people are not even half of the people how have been blocked wrongfully by these gang of administrators. I took a look at your block logs and just recently you blocked this editor User_talk:Bottracker on false accusations all because another editor User:Polly asked you to do so when he left this message on your talk page claiming there were issues concerning the editors images and that he did not want the editor to be able to upload images again [[40]] you left a message telling Polly that you have given the editor a warning because you have to {[41]]. And in a few minute after that warning you blocked the editor indefinitely from ever editing on Wikipedia based on nothing other than a request to do so. Some one just leaves a message on their friends page and their friend do their dirty work for them and hide under the fact that he or she is an administrator. The administrator abuse on Wikipedia by Dbachman and his “friends” and the cry of afrocentricism for every thing have gone one long enough something needs to be done. Greyyschwartz (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'm not sure whether this belongs here for review by the arbitrators, or in the enforcement section to seek a consensus of the admins who are active on AE. I'm not trying to be a procedural pain-in-the-neck here, but it's just happenstance that the sanction was levied by an administrator directly and review was sought here, rather than the issue having been raised through a request on AE, in which case comments would have gone there. What do people think is the most efficient, drama-free way to address this type of issue? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a general principle, appeals of individual sanctions imposed by admins are probably best at AE as that is normally where contemplated sanctions would be discussed. This I suppose is analagous to the initiating action against individuals at WP:ANI and also seeking review there. Certainly, other routes should really be explored prior to bringing it here.  Roger Davies talk 02:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • recuse. --John Vandenberg (chat) 22:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go to AE — Rlevse • Talk • 23:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm aware, this has gone to arbitration enforcement. Carcharoth (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=304300097"