Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive216

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, especially the Decorum and Editors reminded paragraphs:

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

• "Remember my advice Debresser. Opinions count for zilch in editing"[1]
• "This is kindergarten level advice", "Do you understand this?"[2]
• "It is bad enough for Debresser to start reverting me when he had read neither the whole page nor knew of the relevant policy", "That is not how we do things here"[3]
• "Look up the word 'prevarication'"[4]
• "This is getting absurdly complicated, indeed stupid"[5]
• "You are not focusing on the specific problem raised in this section"[6]
• "You clearly are totally confused and are not examining with any attention the material provided for you by other editors", "virtually all serious sources", "the conflict you wish to erase or render all but invisible"[7]
• "Your arguments are meaningless because you do not bring sources and you do not reply to the specifics raised by myself"[8]
• "It's lazy to remove"[9]
• "You appear to know nothing of WP:NPOV"[10]
• "Don't be naïve", "You are wasting editorial time"[11]
• "You should drop your mission in your recent wiki life to provoke me and then make threats. Piss off" (sic) [12]
• "for fuck's sake"[13]
• "If you cannot think syllogistically, don't comment"[14]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive200#Nishidani A report at this forum, filed by me, where Nishidani received a warning that "If I see those names again with fresh examples, then the banhammer comes down." and a closing statement that said "All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case."

I'd add that I was at the time, and still am, unpleasantly surprised by the mildness of that warning regarding Nishidani, and the way it mentioned me in one breath with him, although the civility issue is clearly a one-sided problem of Nishidani.

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive212#Nishidani Another report at this forum, filed by another editor, where the civility issue was also raised.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see above.
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see my recent warning on his talkpage.
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see above.
• The editor acknowledges participation in previous discussion on their talkpage, "a couple of dozens times, several cases this year alone",[15] a fact which speaks for itself.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has a habit of putting down his fellow editors, making denigrating comments about them, doubting their logical faculties, general competence and knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, using strong language (to say the least). This has been pointed out to him many times, and objected to, including by this forum. Nishidani continues this behavior unchanged. It is time the community put a stop to this behavior. All the more so since it is a likely possibility that Nishidani uses this style, consciously or unconsciously, to stifle opposition against his POV.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[16] May it be noted that this editor has requested me to not comment on his talkpage.[17] At the same time, I have stated that I have no problem with him posting on my talkpage.[18]

@Black Kite One does not come to WP:AE because one disagrees with an editor. As Kingsindian has said correctly, the discussion from which most of these comments were culled, was resolved with general consensus. That however is not in itself a reason to not report violations that were made during the course of that discussion. In any case, I hardly participated in the discussion, which was mostly between Icewhiz and Nishidani and Kingindian. Also please note that a significant part of the comments was not even directed at me but at Icewhiz. I take offense to the bad faith assumption behind the suggestion that I reported Nishidani because I disagree with him. I reported him because he has a very, very long history of offending his opponents. A fact which is confirmed by the previous WP:AE decision. Even Nishidani's friend Huldra says she finds his comments inappropriate, and Icewhiz also calls his comments "incivility thrown my way", even if he was not offended by them. In addition, on a more genral note, most problematic behavior will naturally arise in conflict situations, and restricting the path to WP:AE because of that fact alone does not make sense and sets a dangerous precedent, opening the way for uncontrolled violations. If you hold, contrary to common sense and the warning issued to Nishindani at this very forum, that it is acceptable or even reasonable to systematically put down people you disagree with with insults to their intelligence, knowledge, and overall competence, say so, but suggesting to punish me for reporting a clear violation of basic and common sense ArbCom restrictions reminds me of the absurdities depicted in Kafka's The Trial. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani You seem to think that attack is the best defense. However, you forgot to mention that WP:ARBPIA3 was significantly altered just 5 days before I reported you on WP:ANI and neither of us was aware of that. It really is large of you to claim that I am "Utterly confused about the AE/ARCA ruling" when in your very next post here you ask for editors to explain to you something as simple as the meaning of a revert, saying "I would like a simple explanation of whether the 2 edits I count as reverts are so or not. I don't understand the rule, never will"! I already explained to you that this edit of mine can by no means be counted as a revert. In any case, please do not try to avoid the real issue here, that you are not going to stop insulting your fellow editors when they disagree with you, and that you don't care about warnings you receive, including given here at WP:AE regarding WP:ARBPIA. And since you are already trying to find violations, please look at this revert of yours, which at the time you made it was still a violation of the unaltered WP:ARBPIA3 per the "do not restore an undone edit without gaining prior consensus" rule. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C @Neutrality One can hardly compare my single uncivil edit, which was a direct reply to his incivility (as I said specifically), to Nishidani's systematic pattern of psychological warfare aimed to dissuade editors from disagreeing with him. Especially since he was told here on a previous occasion to stop that behavior, and he simply couldn't care less. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System It is good to see that all my friends have assembled here. :) I just wanted to react to something very interesting you mention, namely that pro-Palestine editors are targeted here. Please be aware that pro-Israel editors are targeted here even more often, as recent archives can show you. In general, the "we are the victims here" attitude is typical of both parties in any prolonged conflict, read Albert Ellis. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein Lol. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Background

• 15 July 2016 3 month topic ban for Debresser, In it he stated against the plaintiff Nableezy

I think it is about time WP:AE put a stop to attempts by Nableezy to discredit editors who disagree with his POV by posting bogus reports here.

• he tried to get it overturned and the appeal was declined.
• Debresser made a person appeal to Lord Roem, and got this reduced to a month
• He told a now banned editor that Nishidani likes to call people names, and is likely to be called to order for that soon enough.(12 August,2016)
• He served his month stating he was not ‘much repentant’.
• 27 September 2016 He went ahead, free of his 3 month topic ban, and took me to AE, unsuccessfully
• On 13 March 2017 jumping into another complaint by yet another editor against me, he repeated more or less what he repeats here.

The Present Instance

Debresser, the discussion at Jordan Valley (Middle East), you admit above, was ‘resolved with general consensus’. You also admit that you ‘hardly participated in the discussion, which was mostly between Icewhiz and Nishidani and Kingindian.’ I.e. as I have said to you for donkey’s ages, you don’t participate productively in consensus building.

Indeed, that whole discussion began because the page came to my attention when an IP removed material, in violation of ARBPIA30#500, and I restored, while adding a contribution. You immediately reverted that edit, saying, in a totally irrational edit summary, that I needed a consensus to edit that page. This was an amazing thing to say: i.e. that someone with 54,000 edits requires a consensus before editing an I/P page. Yes, this implication really pissed me off.

• I duly went to your page, noted that you had broken 1R (I did not run to AE), and asked you to revert yourself, while analysing the 3 specious reasons you gave for reverting me. In my view you consistently revert me from dislike, but that's neither here nor there.

• I might add that Debresser is one of several people who automatically reverts me almost on sight, and he never replies to my complaints that his removal has no rational or policy based motive.

• I had no feedback and so, after 2 days, I restored the irrationally (no known policy based objection) removed material

• Rather than complain to AE, as I told him I might, I went to the AN/I board, not to ‘denounce’ Debresser but simply requested clarification on his view that I had broken 1R (while in his view, reverting on that page twice in 24 hours was not a revert).
• For the record, Debresser did revert, altering restored text, or removing my addition, twice within 24 hours
• 1st revert 14:38, 21 May 2017‎
• 2nd revert 19:07, 21 May 2017

• Utterly confused about the AE/ARCA ruling, Debresser then posted on my page a threat to take me to AE for a non existent violation, as was clarified by Kingsindian (who however waived commenting on Debresser's 2 reverts within 24 hours). Had I a punitive or vindictive temper, I could easily have brought Debresser to AE. I refrained.

Many editors have complained about Debresser’s inability to contribute with analytic precision to these disputes. He reverts, doesn’t reply to remonstrations, and, in my regard consistently threatens to get me banned for incivility, which is frustration at the exhaustion of time caused by his revert powers, silence or vague stonewalling (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which was what admins noted when he got a 3 month topic ban in July last year). He should be told in very strong terms that a revert must be justified by a clear reference to an intelligible policy guideline, and that one is under an obligation to interact with editors one disagrees with, not just cause endless problems by insisting he, or whoever he supports, is right. Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is decided, I would like a simple explanation of whether the 2 edits I count as reverts are so or not. I don't understand the rule, never will. I am not pushing either for acting on them if they so prove to be. But they were the cause of my frustration. Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser really is pushing this. In raking over the traces, I noticed a revert he made (only him, and with a wholly subjective edit summary), which I meant to restore, because of an inadequate edit summary. I am reverted so often, that I can no longer really edit in the I/P area. My right has been taken away. As I say, I have long lists of diffs showing how consistently this is done. When I recall them, as here, I put the information back, esp. if it is impeccably sourced, cogent, to the point, and I can see no policy grounds for their erasure . Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, the article esp. the lead is basically, as anyone can see, an indictment, with all contextualization of the behavior regarding Palestinians erased. It is severely unbalanced. So I today restored statistics from Rashid Khalidi, an authority in the area, and Debresser immediately reverted me. Of the few edits (given other, very exhausting work on aboriginal tribes), which I have recently done in the I/P area, Debresser has intervened to revert them. I am a careful editor, and I think natural justice is being denied here. There is nothing in Debresser's complaint, except, on the basis of 2 reverts and a frivolous complaint here, a consideration of WP:Boomerang. Please don't tell me this is a content dispute. It is reverting a targeted editor on sight, and is behavioural. He was treated with leniency by Roem the last time round. I think that should be reconsidered, with at least a stiff warning not to WP:Hound editors. Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SJ, since you also appear to deny me a right to edit in the I/P area (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, to name just a few), your support of Debresser is utterly predictable, and not helpful in clarifying anything. I can't get the diff where you tell me to lay off the I/P area and just concentrate on aboriginal tribes. That was extremely offensive, if only because editors are ignoring their responsibility to ensure also that the other side is duly represented.Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein. I don’t have much time to waste on a defense, but proposing a 1 month ban wouldn’t change the de facto status quo. Your job's already been done for you, an effective partial permaban is already in place for me on the I/P, save for one article. Apparently administrators have missed this, or it doesn't interest them, but the gravamen of my frustration is that I have been informally banned from editing any I/P article except one, and even there I'm reverted frequently. Any action by arbitrators will only give a formal ARBCOM endorsement of an informal decision by fellow editors with one POV that, in the meantime, has already usurped administrative discretion on this issue. Let me illustrate. I have rarely, except for one article (List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017) edited in the IP area regularly since January. Of the 2,500+ edits since then, few relate to the I/P area. The very few edits I have undertaken in this area have about a 90% probability of suffering a revert from any one of several people, who in the meantime have reported me for a lack of 'decorum'. I'll just give a few examples (there are plenty more, but I can't afford too much time on this trivia):-

• At Sippenhaft I was reverted by SJ 9 January 2017

• At Al-Dawayima massacre reverted by User:Shrike, who erased a translation of the one Herbrew source as Undue(?!!). I restored it since the pretext was purely subjective. I was in turn reverted by SJ with a false edit summary. RSN has validated Mondoweiss for such things, and the consensus approved). I restored the text because RSN has not invalidated that source. This was again cancelled by User:Jonney2000 on 23 February 2017‎. I went to the RSN board and had my call endorsed. Shrike refused to accept the verdict, and insisted that I needed their their talk page consent. In sum, the 3 editors tagteamed revert just me. I used the talk page and RSN, got consensus, and they still refused to budge. This was pure stonewalling attrition uniquely in my regard. Their bluff was called by another editor who restored it, over their protests.

• At Michael Sfard User:Shrike reverted on 14 March 2017 an innocuous edit I made documenting that the parents of a human rights lawyer in Israel had survived the holocaust and been expelled from Poland per antisemitism. I went to the RSN board again over the silly meme Mondoweiss cannot be used, and they again ruled in my favour.
• At Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel User:Debresser reverted me on 10 April 2017

At List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017

• I was reverted by User:Plot Spoiler 9 May 2017‎ with a false edit summary, since twice this year the RSN board I appealed to endorsed the source he claimed was not RS.
• Reverted by User:Shrike on 9 March 2017‎

At List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016

• by SJ on 28 February 2017 saying the Gush Shalom page of an eminent Israeli Zionist and parliamentarian Uri Avnery is not RS for a point of Israeli law, everyone knows is true.
• by User:Bolter21 backing Shrike 28 February 2017 asserting that mention of an Israeli law sentencing stone throwers who haven’t hit anyone to 18 months in prison is a POV push.. I.e. any statement of an Israeli law regarding Palestinians is a POV push, I guess.
• Again at List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017 SJ

13 March 2017‎ reverts with a false edit summary), as he does on 20 March 2017‎; on the 29 March 2017 on 31 March 2017‎ and again by User:Bolter21 13 March 2017‎

At Jordan Valley (Middle East)

• I was reverted by Debresser 21 May 2017‎. The es suggests I uniquely need consensus to edit the article and he followed up false edit summary with threat to report me to AE here 23 May 2017‎:

At Archaeology of Israel

• Debresser reverts me 20 March 2017‎ by erasing the material from the lead, rather than putting it somewhere else. This was restored and put down the page by User:Poliocretes That meant Nishidani+Poliocretes were for inclusion against Debresser's holdout. Notwithstanding this Debresser immediately reverted Poliocretes again.I restored it because Debresser was alone in his opinion, and was immediately reverted by Debresser again, who on the talk page stated bizarrely 'A "consensus" of 2:1 is no consensus.’. His erasure of a detail concerning the Christian presence in ancient Israeli still stands, unfortunately. He won’t budge against the majority.
• At Marwan Barghouti I was again reverted by No More Mr Nice Guy on 10 May 2017 The editor made no effort to compromise, going from my full exposition of Barghouti's trial controversy, to a one line summary. The WP:BLP violation is all over the page.

To this one might add that this year at least I have been reported several times basically by the people who keep reverting me. I remember 3:

• (1)on 20 April (by User:Cyrus the Penner an obvious sockpuppet)
• (2)13 March 2017 by SJ (piddling, but a 24 hour suspension, I took on the chin)
• ([3) 27 May, this case by Debresser

I know the response already, i.e.these are content disputes. No. Several of those revert stories are utterly farcical (Michael Sfard,Archaeology of Israel,Al-Dawayima massacre,etc) and any neutral review could not but conclude that the reverts were factitious forms of targeting an editor, while ensuring that relevant material one dislikes is kept off the encyclopedia. When no other editor has this degree of reversion imposed on him on the few articles he still touches in the area, it means either after 54,000 edits I am incompetent, or, uniquely, some idiosyncratic POV warrior who throws the caution he exercises on all other articles (where I am never reverted) to the wind, or . . .there is a consistent pattern on editorial enmity over my presence there, by several editors who, with one exception (Bolter21) have never thought that the I/P area must be governed by WP:NPOV, and that they must ensure both sides are duly represented. In any case, I'll make it easy for you guys. I'll retire from Wikipedia. If you can't see even an inkling of something wrong (I readily admit I find a lot of this mechanical revert behavior outrageous stonewalling ), also on the plaintiffs' side, then it is pointless using what time I have to contribute anywhere here.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing I do appreciate you, for one, actually looked at 'my evidence (a consistent resolute revert behavior in my regard goes back to September last year by several editors, but as I said, I have better things to do with my readerly life than drag up the full diff history. Someone who is curious might note that I have been dragged to AE/AI over 11 years at least two dozens times, and the cases have been almost invariably dismissed as piffling. The only thing I would advise you to do is read my view of that permaban. I didn't protest at the time, but did make a note on how odd the evidence was just for the record. It is continually cited against me, while no one remembers much of the 'evidence' regarded conflicts with known (and only later recognized as) sockpuppets. Sensible people who work in this 'toxic area' (which admins know little about, understandably: life is short, and it's too bloody troublesome to keep an eye on) have far more tacit knowledge of the gaming that is normal there, only they don't waste time using forums to get at perceived 'enemies'. In any case, since, in a repetition of that odd judgement, ARBCOM will, it seems, not take seriously my grounded belief that several editors have effectively permabanned me from productively contributing to even a handful of I/P articles by repeated frivolous reverts to 'tie me up' on the talk pages until I secure a consensus they never concede, and indeed will enact a 1 month topic ban, I feel I have no option than to permanently withhold my contributions to Wikipedia at large. My premise that I am permabanned there is arguable, of course. But I know that, even after the month or so, were I to return there, the same inflexible reverting of my sparse contributions will continue, with the confidence that since no one else can see what I complain of, I can be provoked until another 'episode' gives some the opportunity to haul me back here for a permaban. I'm not going to work with that hanging over my head. This is of course, a technical victory, after 11 years of repeated pressure, to remove me from the I/P area. Those who have successfully achieved this can pride themselves on ensuring thereby that Wikipedia won't have the 420 articles remaining, of the 600 I planned on each Aboriginal tribe in Australia on this encyclopedia. That is not a threat: it is my only option in protesting at the extraordinary view that punitive sanctions for remonstrative language at stonewallers are far more important to the construction of an encyclopedia that ensuring that minimal conditions of fairness and equity to produce close and careful scholarly work in every area of Wikipedia. I can see you all have some reasons for executing this judgement - it's the way this place works - so, while writing the above, I intend no remonstrance. We live in different mental universes, that is all, and I have no right to presume that my sense that the application of these laws is far too subjective and erratic is the only possible view. Regards to all, and best wishes, personally. This is final, except for a link to the decision on my page. Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just notice NMMGG, the great article content underperformer with a mission to rid Wikipedia of 'anti-Semites' (Ha! if he only knew my real history!) like me, saying my remark above is a ritual. It isn't, but I am not going to argue the point. Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the comments above have little or no relation to the main complaint. Also, many of the comments go both ways: the second "kindergarten" diff was a reply to Debresser's comment to Nishidani to stop being a "patronizing dick", in response to the first diff. I don't know, but this comment by Debresser might count as "denigrating" editors.

For context, please read the discussion at Talk:Jordan_Valley_(Middle_East)#Jordan_Valley. The main problem is that the term "Jordan Valley" is ambiguous, having at least three meanings. After a very long discussion, we were able to get a consensus on the scope of the article. As I say on Debresser's user talkpage, the overall discussion was focused on content. All participants brought various sources to the discussion, we argued, and finally got consensus. I call that a success we can build on. I don't know why Debresser chose to bring this complaint here when the discussion was ultimately fruitful. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Debresser, really?? Is this the best you can come up with? Though I wouldn't mind seeing Nishidani using a bit fewer "for fuck's sake" or "Piss off" ...with the diffs Debresser have brought here he is trying to make a tempest in a teacup. Seriously. (We are editing in the IP area, where things tend to get a bit ...rough. (I was promised to be boiled alive couple of days ago on commons.) I would like to give Debresser the advice "Grow up!" ...but I guess he will consider that a violation of "Decorum", too.) Huldra (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, you are misrepresenting my views. I never called Nishidanis comments "inappropriate". Btw, just a couple of days ago, someone called me "a racist" on my user page, something I find extremely insulting. But that doesn't mean that I go crying off to the AE board to have the editor sanctioned because of it...Huldra (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was a side to some of these diffs in Talk:Jordan_Valley_(Middle_East)#Jordan_Valley and Talk:Jordan_Valley_(Middle_East)#Demolitions and evictions in the West Bank - NPOV and UNDUE- I will throw in my 2-cents. I for one, was not offended by incivility thrown my way, I have a thick skin. I was however flummoxed by the initial suggestion to redefine the Jordan Valley as being contained in the West Bank - which was patently absurd (by any definition of the Jordan Valley) - though understandable if one has a knowing of the area only via the very narrow Palestinian human-rights context. I was frustrated by the approx. 27 retorts (to which mostly I responded, I hope civilly) to the refutation of the initial claim and that only approx. a third the Jordan Valley is in the West Bank - something that is quite visible on several maps (which led to whether a map is an accepted source argument). This was a long back and forth on an extremely simple geographical fact, which shouldn't have been that long.Icewhiz (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to add about the complaint against Nishidani, but I think Black Kite's suggestion that Debresser be restricted is inappropriate at this point. I don't believe he has a particularly bad record of bringing meritless complaints here against editors with whom he disagrees. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first, nor second, and most likely not third as well, time Nishidani has been brought here or to ANI for civility issues. He is extremely condescending and nasty to editors and really doesn't help make this a pleasant atmosphere for collaboration. He has been warned about this and there does come a point where something has to happen. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani's most recent edit of his just proves that he is unable to edit here without personalizing the dispute. (it's also very sneaky, as I'm sure many people will not look at those diffs, and you just post diffs of reversions (which everyone has), you also post duplicates, and you also post diffs of other users. Very sneaky indeed) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any denying that editors who are perceived to have a "pro-Palestine" or "anti-Israel" POV are, essentially, targeted in the ARBPIA area. If you ask me, edit summaries to the effect of "reverting POV pushing edit" or "reverting because of editors POV" are also personal comments—but this is usually not considered disruptive or actionable. However, in effect, it is extremely disruptive and it is damaging to NPOV. I don't think it is good to respond with personal comments, but I also understand the immense frustration that stems from the battleground mentality of editors in this area, and the seeming helplessness of admins to contain it. In the highlighted diffs, I see personal attacks that run both ways - I don't think an editor should file a complaint about personal attacks after calling someone a "patronizing dick", which was Debressers response to Nishidanis comment that "Opinions count for zilch in editing. We are obliged to use sources." (not a personal attack). After the "patronizing dick" comment Nishidani replied "This is kindergarten level advice". — Debresser has been cautioned in the past about escalating situations through the very bad behavior that he accuses others of—this seems to be yet another example of what is routine behavior on his part. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: It's only a problem when editors are prevented from legitimately adding sourced balancing content to articles because of other editors POV, and thus routinely an endemicly subjected to personal attacks and non-policy based arguments that amount to "So and so can't edit because their POV is different from mine" - that is not how NPOV in articles works. The article content in ARBPIA is inarguably biased, so when you say "Pro-Israel editors are targeted" it sounds like you are whining that some editors are trying to maintain NPOV standards in articles on a topic where you think you should be given special treatment because it's only POV-pushing when other people do it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since Nishidani summoned me here by mentioning my name, I would like to make the following points:

1. Calling someone a liar ("Look up the word 'prevarication'") or incapable of rational thought ("If you cannot think syllogistically, don't comment") are obvious personal attacks. Rather than saying they aren't, you guys should stick to the traditional "he might not have behaved perfectly but we can use our discretion to let him off the hook", for appearances' sake.
2. Nishidani has been warned about the way he treats other editors multiple times. Most importantly note Xeno's comment here. Some of us warned about his behavior when his original ARBPIA topic ban was removed. This was supposed to be the forum where that was dealt with.
3. Nishidani regularly says he's quitting Wikipedia or putting himself under self-imposed topic bans. Those things never materialize.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• As far as i can see, practically none of those diffs (most of which are taken out of context of the full diff) rise to the level of AE enforcement; indeed, most of them seem reasonable in the circumstances of the relevant dispute. It is probably time that some sort of restriction is placed on Debresser with regard to bringing people with whom he disagrees with to AE. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I clarify; I am not suggesting banning Debresser from bringing cases here (I would have said "ban" instead of "restriction"), but perhaps it would be wise for him - except in very obvious cases - to check with another experienced editor or admin before doing so? The same issue has been occurring at WP:ANI, as well. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree about the "most of them seem[ing] reasonable"—some are not, and that goes for both parties. The more contentious a topic is, the more we have to insist on moderate language and maintaining decorum, precisely because a topic is heated. I'm tired of contentious topics turning into a toxic editing environment due to editors not being able to restrain themselves. So, no, not par for the course. But, that also goes for explaining reverts in cogent and comprehensive way, and frustration born from failing that. *** That said, I agree that there's nothing actionable here as far as Arbitration Enforcement. As for the latest ARCA ruling, I have edited the pagenotice to reflect the latest Arbitration Committee motion, so there should be no confusion there from now on. El_C 11:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would urge Nishidani to reconsider leaving Wikipedia over this. There's more to this project than ARBPIA, where burnout is, indeed, staggeringly high. El_C 18:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree (mostly) with Black Kite. Reading through the diffs (and following them to the context) they are not of the level required for enforcement. Collectively, however, I can see that they can be frustrating and not unworthy of an AE complaint and I don't think this should be used to restrict Debresser from filing AE requests. (I also think El C's edit to the ruling is better - less ambiguity is a good thing). --regentspark (comment) 16:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I do think these edits are actionable because they personalize disputes rather than focusing on the content (and Nishidani's response is more of the same, disregarding WP:NOTTHEM). The "Piss off" is a personal attack even though it was submitted already struck through. I would topic-ban Nishidani for a month to give them the opportunity to focus on less stressful topics. As to the reverting rules according to the ARBPIA123456etc. rulings, they have become so complicated that I've given up on trying to understand or apply them, and so won't even try here.  Sandstein  07:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree fully with Black Kite, i.e. with both his posts above. How is "Piss off" a personal attack? Bishonen | talk 19:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• I would say "Piss off" is not a personal attack, but is uncivil (a broader category than personal attacks, but no less disruptive to encyclopedia-building). The condescending remarks are alarming. It seems clear to me that both parties, however, have been uncivil here (i.e., comment telling another user to stop being a "patronizing dick" followed by "kindergarten" diff). Ordinarily, I would close this with an admonition to all parties editing in the (contentious) area to be civil, avoid condescending remarks, and keep discussion narrowly focused on specific content. But that exact thing happened at AE previously (Oct. 7, 2016 close by The Wordsmith: "All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case. Parties are urged to spend some time reflecting inwardly on their own conduct, and whether it is truly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. No further action is taken at this time. The parties are advised to chill."). Not sure on outcome. Neutrality^talk 19:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Taken as a pattern, I do believe Nishidani's civility problem is indeed a problem that needs to address. I don't see it brought up in this particular complaint, but this was brought up on my talkpage fairly recently. Things like "from your nationalist perspective" and "the usual Israeli POV pushers deny mention of the fact" is further evidence that he's unduly personalizing things. Had the diff not already been six weeks old at that point, I would have issued a block or ban. However, while none of these are individually bad enough to warrant a block or ban, when taken as a whole I firmly believe that both Nishidani and the ARBPIA topic area would be better off if he didn't participate for a while. When I gave that warning I did mean it, and Nishidani's conduct since then has reaffirmed that stricter measures are needed here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• While the diffs given do have to be taken in their context, I'm not convinced that an editor who comments, "you weren't making a point. You were evincing an intrusive illiteracy in logic," is dedicated to collegial editing. And digging through the diffs and the history, my concerns only grow. Stepping back from the detailed behaviour involved, we have an editor who is trying, apparently with perfectly earnest sincerity, to argue that the geographical feature known as the Jordan Valley is somehow different to the valley containing the river Jordan.
• The history is important here, too. Debresser didn't mention it in this report, but Nishidani was indefinitely topic-banned from PI articles for "repeated and extensive edit-warring, as well as incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith." Given the intervening time it was probably right for Debresser not to bring it up, but I think admins need to be aware of it when assessing the outcome here. The restriction was lifted in 2011 to see if it was still needed or not - and the evidence presented here seems to suggest that perhaps Nishidani has slipped back into old ways. Given this history, a one-month tban strikes me as somewhat on the light side, though I also don't think we're at the stage of re-imposing the indefinite ban.
• I'm a little concerned by the evidence given by Nishidani, but a spot check leaves me unconvinced that they are the innocent victim here. Nishidani regards several of the cited reverts as "utterly farcical", but I have to admit all of the reverted edits are ones I'd have a problem with. For instance, this edit at Archaeology of Israel takes a very high-level overview of the field of study, itself stretching over six centuries and studying a period of three millenia, and adds that A third of the 40,000 objects recovered annually from archaeological digs in Israel testify to Christian realities in the area. This sort of random statistic seems out of place anywhere in the article but in the lead it sticks out like a sore thumb; it smacks of an editor who has come across a statistic and decided he must be able to crowbar it into Wikipedia somewhere. This edit to Michael Sfard is perhaps not the BLP violation some argued it to be, but it also seems to me to be verging on hagiography. I would have at least asked why it should be included. The third example again seems to be not necessarily a policy violation but editorially questionable. GoldenRing (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Taking into considerations the admin opinions above, I am closing this with a one-month topic ban for Nishidani for the reasons given above.  Sandstein  13:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Politrukki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Archwayh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Enforcement : WP:ARBAPDS

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

All listed edits are made in violation of topic-ban, see my comment below.

1. 11:10, 2 June 2017 (article Donald Trump–Russia dossier)
2. 11:30, 2 June 2017 (article Donald Trump–Russia dossier)
3. 11:50, 2 June 2017 (article Donald Trump–Russia dossier)
4. 11:14, 2 June 2017 (article Links between Trump associates and Russian officials)
5. 11:14, 2 June 2017 (article Links between Trump associates and Russian officials)
6. 11:17, 2 June 2017 (AFD for Links between Trump associates and Russian officials)
7. 11:19, 2 June 2017 (AFD for Links between Trump associates and Russian officials)
8. 11:36, 2 June 2017 (article Christopher Steele)
9. 11:24, 2 June 2017 (article Robert Mueller)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 25 May 2017 – Topic-banned from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people for one month. Still in force.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 25 May 2017 by Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Just one week ago, Archwayh was topic-banned from American politics for one month. They have since made several edits in violation of the topic-ban. Donald Trump–Russia dossier has en edit notice which clearly shows that the page is under discretionary sanctions. Edits to other pages such as Christopher Steele and Robert Mueller are obviously related to U.S. politics, specifically Donald Trump.

Moreover, enforcing administrator reminded Archwayh to "not mark edits as 'minor' if they're making substantive changes to an article", yet still they consistently mark their edits as "minor". I don't know what to think of this. Politrukki (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

This one seems pretty straightforward violation. Topic ban still in force [20], followed by edits [21] [22]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like User:Lord Roem has blocked him for a week. --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is a pretty flagrant violation. I want to hear from Archwayh, but I'm thinking we may need to block and extend the topic ban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord Roem has already blocked for one week, a term that fits exactly into my line of thinking. Now the question is whether or not the ban should be extended, which I would support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking 3 months, but that isn't far off, so I would say that is a reasonable extension and support both actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and extended it as well. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dbrote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 :

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

1. [23] Making RFC comment on I/P discussion
2. [24] Restoring the RFC comment
3. Date Explanation
4. Date Explanation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't ask any sanctions against the user only ECP protection of the RFC.This is similar to this case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive209#Islington Bloor]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[25]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

A request for comment was made on the talk page of McMahon–Hussein Correspondence. I provided what I believe to be a constructive, non-disruptive comment on that talk page. Shrike argues that this violates WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 states that "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." My account has fewer than 500 edits, so I fall under the general prohibition. However, an exception to the general prohibition exists: "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." My comment falls within that exception. I used the talk page of McMahon–Hussein Correspondence to post a constructive, non-disruptive comment. My action was proper and no enforcement is necessary or appropriate.

Shrike points to a subsequent sentence contained within the exception that states "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc." I was not involved in "other" internal project discussions. I made a comment to a Talk page, which is explicitly listed as one of the two permitted internal project discussions. This cannot constitute an "other" internal project discussion due to its explicit inclusion. The word "other" (as opposed to a term such as "notwithstanding" or "nonetheless") implies that the subset of internal discussions which fall outside of the exception are those not previously stated (i.e., it explains that the boundary goes no further than explicitly spelled out in the exception; it does not impose limits or restrictions on the previously stated exception). The exception to the exception is inapplicable.

Shrike points to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive209#Islington Bloor as a similar case. Ignoring the personal attacks/etc. portion of the ruling, I believe that enforcement action to be wrongly decided for the reasons I've discussed above. Dbrote (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is a case of Arbcom sending mixed, contradictory messages. On one hand, Dbrote is right. The present remedy explicitly allows non-ECP accounts to non-disruptively post on article talk pages. It does not list RFCs among "internal project discussions" - a strange omission if they considered a RFC to be an internal project discussion. On the other hand, Arbcom has repeatedly said that one of the main purposes of the mandatory 30/500 was to eliminate the sock and meat puppetry in this area. Allowing non-ECP editors to influence the outcome of a RFC seems a rather large loophole to leave open. Common sense (at least mine) says this loophole should be closed but Arbcom should clarify or expand what is an internal project discussion. No action should be taken against Dbrote. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur. Refer to ARCA. El_C 20:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that this is not actionable. In the Bloor case, I blocked for personal attacks, not illicit editing. Closed without action.  Sandstein  22:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sagecandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBBLP and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 (user disruption involving Vice President of the United States Mike Pence, among other issues.) : Standard discretionary sanctions WP:AC/DS.

---> Summary: Edit-warring, disruption, ignoring consensus, ignoring talk page discussion, violating WP:NPA, violating guide.decor.

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

1. 23:57, 3 June 2017 - page moving against consensus, during ongoing talk page discussion. User ignored the discussion [26].
2. 00:44, 4 June 2017 - edit-warring against consensus with zero talk page participation. Talk page consensus was against this, with Thryduulf, MrX, and Wesley Wolf in consensus. User ignored the discussion. [27].
3. 00:53, 4 June 2017 - edit summary: "And you're being idiotic"
4. 00:58, 4 June 2017 - edit summary: "oh fuck off you busybody numbskull"
5. 01:00, 4 June 2017 - this time visible on talk page during previously constructive discussion immediately above on page: "there are a number of busybody numbskills"
6. 01:42, 4 June 2017 - Violation of guide.decor, casting aspersions, in this AE request itself. "Sagecandor is being a busybody"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 18 January 2015 - Violations of WP:BLP related to WP:GS/GG sanctions. Blocked by admin HJ Mitchell.
2. 7 November 2015 - Violations of Arbitration decision. Blocked by HJ Mitchell.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• 1 October 2015 - related to WP:BLPs, given by Cwobeel.
• 2 September 2016 - related to American Politics 2, given by NeilN.
• 4 June 2017 - related to American Politics 2, given by Sagecandor.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• @Masem:Can the above issues and diffs be dealt with somehow? What about the violations? How best to address them? Sagecandor (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Masem:I'm citing both WP:ARBBLP and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Unfortunately, I feel that the multiple issues of: Edit-warring, disruption, ignoring consensus, ignoring talk page discussion, violating WP:NPA, violating guide.decor -- make it much too complex to resolve efficiently at ANI. Bringing here as this is more efficient. Relates to both BLP, AmPol, as well as WP:AC/DS and guide.decor. Sagecandor (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[28]. Posted notice to user's talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

How is the london terror attack under American Politics? I'm not sure how one can edit war with a single copyedit and no reverts. And the page move wasn't against consensus, it was made, reverted and it's now on the ttalk page per BRD (I started that talk page discussion, BTW, after my move was reverted. There was noo edit war. - here's the diff). Sagecandor is being a busybody that needs to stop templating regulars and discuss rationally. I velieve he was just brought here for AP2 and maybe he needs a topic ban himself especially if it broadly covers London terror attacks. --DHeyward (talk)

The extent of my edits to Mike Pence was replacing "also wrote of his condolences" to "offered his condolence." That's it. One edit. Not a revert. A copyedit that made it through after edit conflicts. The hysteria is large even by Wikipedia standards. --DHeyward (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But let's look at the ingenuous nature of this frivoulous complaint:

1. 23:57, 3 June 2017 - page moving against consensus, during ongoing talk page discussion. User ignored the discussion [29].

• Not quite. That discusssion happened even before the move from "incident" to "attack". Consensus already had changed. RS's had changed as well. My edit was bold and undiscussed. I started the discussion for my edit. This seems to be a deliberate ommission of facts.

1. 00:44, 4 June 2017 - edit-warring against consensus with zero talk page participation. Talk page consensus was against this, with Thryduulf, MrX, and Wesley Wolf in consensus. User ignored the discussion. [30].

• I ignored nothing except that wording that I saw was awkward. It wasn't a revert, it was a copyedit from "also wrote of his condolences" to "offered his condolence.". My only edit to Mike Pence. Sagecandor and others were in an edit war, I made a copyedit to a reversion that was unwieldy. I made a similar copyedit to Trump that was not reverted or part of Sagecandor's edit war but in the same section [31].

All of the sanctions he noted were reversed but he fails to note that. If ever there was a time for a boomerang... --DHeyward (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An edit about the current U.S. vice president most certainly does fall under post-1932 politics. DHeyward's string of personal attacks, which continued even after being warned by an admin, are shameful.- MrX 02:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masem I never said anything about 1RR. One of the reasons we have discretionary sanctions for post-1932 politics is because of editors who are unwilling or unable to conduct themselves civilly while they are attempting to promote certain political points of views, irrespective of the main subject of the article. In this case, Pence platitudes and OMG terrorists!- MrX 02:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to go to bed so I'll keep this brief.

• Even though some of this relates to Mike Pence agreeing with Trump's comments which related the events in London to US domestic political issues, this does not bring it within the scope of the American Politics DS area. It's worth noting here that I was on ArbCom when the DS was authorised for this topic area.
• The personal attacks by DHeyward do merit action being taken, but not at this venue.
• I haven't looked in detail at the edit warring claims or DH's response to them so I offer no opinion of them at this time. Thryduulf (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better if Sagecandor, instead of templating DHeyward, had simply told the latter what their problem was. It turns out that DHeyward copyedited a comment involving Mike Pence, and it was removed by someone else while they were copyediting it. A simple, courteous request would have settled the matter.

Trouts all around. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward has been formally admonished by the arbitration committee for violations of WP:NPA in the past. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward and I have crossed paths once or twice. I don't think there's much on which we agree; I wouldn't be surprised if he has applied some colorful invective to me in the past -- though always, so far as I know, privately. All that being said, I find this complaint pretty thin gruel for all the reasons already stated. In addition, I don't find his "attacks" particularly troubling but for the overly vulgar way in which he expresses them. If it were up to me, I'd say there should be an admonishment to make more respectful word choices, but other than that, everyone should carry on. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Only noting that I agree that this seems way outside the American Politics DS; and that I do think it is highly premature to add the word "terror" to the title when there has yet to be a motive. Trouts needed, this seems frivolous and a content dispute that can be treated by regular admin actions and not an AE requirement. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sagecandor: Standard Edit Warring? ANI? I agree moving a page while there's an active discussion and continually moving is a problem, just not one that falls within the AmPol DS. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sagecandor: You have provided diffs that only appear to be tied to the London attacks that happened today which is clearly outside American Politics, and currently has no BLP issues (no names have been named). Anything DHeyward has been previous sanctioned under doesn't factor into those diffs. But this still is behavior that should not be happening under general edit warring principles, and that would be an issue to raise at either WP:ANI or WP:AN3. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also the comments DHeyward made against you aren't BLP issues, but they may be issues under WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA , which becomes an ANI issue. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MrX: Adding (and not readding after it was removed) the condolences of the VP on an article that otherwise falls outside US politics is neither something that falls into Am Politics, nor is a DS volitional since there was no 1RR on that specific addition. All the other diffs are edit warring while consensus was being developed and/or close NPAs, but not DSes. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will disagree that just because there are some responses by American politicians on an event that has zero to do with the US that that suddenly makes the article fall under the DS; that's a very slippery slope to call nearly any article that happens to mention Trump even if it doesn't deal with any politics whatsoever fall under the DS. I do agree overall there's broad issues with many editors on that page pushing the terrorism angle far too early (this is why WP:NOT#NEWS/WP:DEADLINE/WP:RECENTISM needs to be upheld), and it would be inappropriate to call only one editor out for this. I do agree there's behavior from DHyeyward that probably needs a look at under normal editing expectations, but nothing needed a DS to enforce. --MASEM (t) 02:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Al-Andalusi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles :

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

• Frequent habit of edit warring.

Palestinian right of return

19:48, 19 March 2017‎ got reverted[32]

[20:46, 19 March 2017 got reverted[33]

16:34, 21 March 2017‎ got reverted[34]

• Edit warred over Israel-Palestine conflict related content on Acid throwing, until page was protected:-

22:20, 16 March 2017

21:17, 29 May 2017‎

14:41, 30 May 2017

14:59, 2 June 2017‎

21:18, 2 June 2017‎

• His edits were reverted by 4 different editors, and he still believes that they all need his "consensus" to revert him.

• He claimed The Jerusalem Post to be an opinion piece,[35] after he saw that no one supported his claim that Jpost is an opinion piece, he resorted to personal attacks and WP:FILIBUSTER on talk page:-

"Capitals00 is a liar who appears to have a personal vendetta", "Capitals00 is ignorant of WP:BRD" [36]

"So the entire, Arab press and all Arab residents in Palestine are blind, and only the Jewish media is capable of authenticity"..."only a moron would lump them all together"[37]

"whether blanket reverting idiots like Capitals00 and OccultZone, who have been entirely absent from this debate on the talk pages"[38]

• WP:POV pushing doesn't end here. He wants to give same weight to Hamas as much as Amnesty International.[39][40] (WP:UNDUE)

• Making non-neutral talk-header in violation of WP:TALKNEW[41] despite being blocked and admonished for exact same kind of talk headers before.[42]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

3 blocks for edit warring last year[43]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

8 November 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I could bring more diffs of misconduct, but they many of them don't fall under the Israel-Palestine conflict and they are older than 8 November (last sanctions reminder), when he was more active as editor. Capitals00 (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[44]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

My personal opinion, as a participant in "Acid Throwing" was that most of Al-Andalusi's editing wasn't helpful.

I'd like to point out that he also committed a 1RR violation in these diffs: [45] - Revision as of 21:18, 2 June 2017 - blanket return of information. which was a 2nd revert in relation to piecemeal removal of the same items 8 hours earlier: [46] [47] (besides being against talk-page consensus, particularly "Suyuf al-Haq" (Swords of Righteousness) which was discussed at length)

He was asked by me to self-revert: [48]. His response was to delete (without archiving I believe) the request from his talk page: [49].

This is material clearly under the I/P area - particularly the 2nd revert of an acid attack by a Palestinian on a Jewish family.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Md iet (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of Dawoodi Bohra, imposed at

      [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Md_iet/Archive_1#Topic_ban],  logged at
      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive278#Standard_offer_unblock_request_from_Md_iet

Administrator imposing the sanction

EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Now I understand the importance of reliable sources and why it is required for a reliable encyclopedia like of Wikipedia. My earlier mistake was due to confusion that real facts are self qualified for inclusion with mere justification. No justifications are valid without valid proof. My editing after my unblock indicates the clear change. I think more than one year is sufficient period and method of contribution to Wikipedia during the period also need consideration to give me a chance for this appeal to contribute further to Wiki

I agree with view of EdJohnston. In fact why FGM only, all the controversial edition to be better resolved at talk page itself.--Md iet (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the banning admin, I am OK with lifting User:Md iet's topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra. Before doing so I'll wait to see if any of the admins commenting below have concerns about Md iet's editing and want to keep the ban in place. The original dispute was about whether to declare a specific contender as the new head of the Dawoodi Bohra. That dispute is now mostly over since the rival candidate died. I haven't noticed any recent edits by Md iet that would cause concern, so the ban no longer seems necessary. I trust that Md iet will be aware that any changes about the Dawoodi Bohra have to be neutral and must not be promotional. The topic of female genital mutilation as practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra remains controversial and any changes should have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree with GoldenRing and say it could be lifted after this length of time. Can always be re-imposed, hopefully not necessary, if needed, at a later date. If re-imposed later, maybe the user could retain ability to comment about it on talk pages, so as to still be able to participate and suggest drafts on sub-pages, etc. Sagecandor (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support entirely lifting the topic ban: I have never edited these articles or had any interaction with Md iet. But I have seen his editing on different articles such as India and I appreciate the attitude of Md iet, that he has shown significant improvement in his editing. He knows now when to continue the discussion and when to drop it. Capitals00 (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm suggest to denying this request. Md iet, you should first ask the admin (EdJohnston) who imposed the sanction on you. (Regardless, you do need to notify them of this appeal and you don't appear to have done that.)--regentspark (comment) 07:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @RegentsPark: to be fair, the ban notice instructs him to appeal here, not consult the banning admin. As far as I can tell, this user was indeffed about two and a half years ago. They were unblocked under the standard offer about sixteen months ago, retaining a topic ban from Dawoodi Bohra. Eight months ago that topic ban was relaxed by EdJohnston to allow involvement on talk pages but not the article itself. As far as I can tell (at least judging by their user talk) no disruption has resulted from any of this gradual re-admittance to the community. I'd like to hear User:EdJohnston's opinion first, but I'd be wiling to see the ban removed. It can always be reimposed, but it doesn't seem likely to me that removing it will lead to disruption. GoldenRing (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• GoldenRing, generally speaking, the ban imposing admin is better able to evaluate whether it should be lifted or not and we should encourage users to appeal to them first and come here only if they feel they are being treated unfairly or not getting a response (this is also the recommended, though not mandatory, process - re the instructions above). Though, of course, you are correct that they don't have to go back to the sanctioning admin, we should encourage users to use this board only when necessary. In this case it seems particularly unnecessary when the sanctioning admin has already shown an inclination to modify the sanctions. (But, sure, at this point we might as well wait for Ed.) --regentspark (comment) 14:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @RegentsPark: Sure, I'm all for avoiding the boards where possible. Just saying that the ban notice doesn't say, "Go to the sanctioning admin," it says come here, so it's understandable that that's what he's done, if not optimal. @EdJohnston: as there's been no further objection here, I think the ban should be lifted. GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as per EdJohnston, above, who imposed the ban. Md iet appears to understand, and has been back here in good standing for quite some time now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Al-Andalusi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles :

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

He got topic banned from all Palestine-Israel articles hardly a few hours ago, and he has violated the topic ban already by writing on the talk page regarding the same West Bank and Gaza Strip section.

1. [50] 8 June 2017, 20:39
2. [51] 8 June, 20:40

The talk sections concerns his edits[52][53] where the same paragraph goes to mention First Intifada, and other one describes attacks on Israeli family by Palestinian as part of Israel-Palestine conflicts.

Al-Andalusi also made personal attack on other editor "are you being dramatic here like the vinegar family?"[54]

This comes after his acknowledgement of topic ban on his talk page.[55] Capitals00 (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Andalusi: Gaza and Hamas are under Arab-Israeli confict discretionary sanctions as well. I also find issues with your statement " an alleged topic ban that I did not agree to", it is not an "alleged" topic ban, but rather a topic ban in force, nor does it matter whether you agreed to it or not. Capitals00 (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Topic ban for 6 months from all Palestine-Israel.[56]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[57]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Nonsense. My comments came under talk sections concerning acid thrown within Gaza, and in no way are about the Palestine-Israel conflict. The 1st section "More than 18 attacks" describes acid attacks on Gaza residents, while the 2nd section "Hamas' reaction" describes Hamas torture allegations in Gaza. Now, if it is your belief that Gaza is part of Israel, and hence any discussion involving Gaza entails that I "violated" an alleged topic ban that I did not agree to, then that's an entirely different story. Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting that the topic ban was enacted (see the thread immediately above) less than four hours after the case was opened, and before the accused party or any uninvolved editors have had the opportunity to comment. There's some discussion of that at User talk:GoldenRing#Topic ban of Al-Andalusi. – Uanfala 00:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting as I was a side to this. Two quick notes:

1. Gaza, in the 80s (some of this actually pre-dates the first Intifada (1983), some during) was under Israeli civil and military control - Israel was in charge of law and order in the territory and for preventing attacks, preventing them, and dispensing justice. I personally, saw/see this as part of the I/P area and adhered to 1RR and other ARBPIA in all edits related to the West Bank and Gaza in Acid Throwing. (note that in a technical sense, Israel is still claimed by some (International bodies, Palestinians) of still being the occupying power in Gaza today (also after disengagement) - so it is possible that current Palestinian/Palestinian issues in Gaza are still I/P. In the 1980s - Israel was in actual full or almost full control).

2. But, I will want to note that Al-Andalusi was being constructive in some of his comments - and this was a discussion that was on-going parallel to the enforcement case (I believe the discussion started before the enforcement action). I agreed with some of his comments - and edited them in myself. He also stuck to the talk page. One of the mentioned diffs is a thanks for an edit.Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• In one of the edits, [58], Al-Andalusi mentions Hamas, which is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The talk page section to which Al-Andalusi contributed was titled "2014 Acid Attack in West Bank" and was about how to cover acid attacks by Palestinians against Israelis. Al-Andalusi has therefore violated their topic ban. I am blocking Al-Andalusi for a week.  Sandstein  09:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Carter Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not a veteran of AE, but I believe this is not the usual type of AE request. WP:AC/DS was very recently amended to explicitly allow editors to request removal/modification of DS page restrictions at AE. I'd like to request the removal of restrictions on Carter Page. As far as I can tell that page has seen zero disruption from the start and was only subjected to DS restrictions preemptively on April 12 because the subject was associated with Donald Trump. However, Mr. Page had been in the news in connection with Trump for months before that with no disruption. In fact the article has been pretty darn sleepy. I see no basis for maintaining DS restrictions.

In an abundance of caution I'm sending an AE notice to the imposing admin, who is on an indefinite wikibreak. They rejected my request to remove the restrictions. I hold nothing against them; I think their general approach to page restrictions is reasonable, but I just happen to disagree in some instances, and I hope a consensus of admins will agree with me. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• GoldenRing, I have no reason for thinking this particular page restriction is a problem beyond the fact that these sorts of page restrictions have substantial costs associated with them (e.g. they slow down or inhibit productive editing) and therefore shouldn't be imposed on articles that haven't exhibited the types of problems that DS page restrictions are designed to address, e.g. persistent disruption. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• EdJohnston, ARBPIA is quite a different thing because in that case ArbCom intentionally imposed preemptive restrictions across an entire topic that was seeing particularly widespread and persistent disruption. No such decision was made in post-1932 American politics. As I've done a lot of editing on Trump-related articles the last few months, I can attest that the disruption in Trump-related article space has been in a much narrower set of articles. Carter Page is a great example (of many) of a Trump-related article that has seen minimal disruption. As for the question of whether it's worth the effort to review these sorts of restrictions, it's undeniable that DS page restrictions such as these impose substantial costs on the project, otherwise they would be the default across all of Wikipedia. And this isn't meant to be snarky, but if you don't think it's worth your time to review such modification requests, then don't review them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Agree with EdJohnston. The restrictions should not be removed. Also agree with EdJohnston that it hopefully helps encourage more talk page discussion. The topic is subject to an active investigation ongoing and to be elaborated upon more in testimony upcoming later this week. That would lead to increased activity and likely increased controversy. As for the question posed by GoldenRing, the restrictions are not posing harm to the article and could hopefully only prove to encourage others to discuss proposals more with each other. Sagecandor (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting here because I have created the article and have on occasion continued to edit it. I have not observed editorial (mis)conduct that would warrant particular page-level sanctions, and would therefore favor removing them.  Sandstein  10:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @DrFleischman:: I don't have an immediate opinion on this, but do you think the restrictions are doing some sort of harm to the article? I'm not opposed to the view that needless restrictions could be removed, but I'm trying to figure out whether you just think this is a needless restriction that could be rescinded or if there's some particular reason you think the restriction is a problem. GoldenRing (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with Dennis on this one. While I can see the potential for disruption on this page, I find Sagecandor's reasoning unpersuasive; if the restrictions are not posing harm to the article and could hopefully only prove to encourage others to discuss proposals more with each other then why don't we start a big RfC to just impose 1RR on the whole site? Absent actual evidence of disruption on this page, I think the restriction should be lifted, with no prejudice against re-imposing it if editing there does become disruptive. Of course, if anyone wants to present diffs of actual disruption that would justify the restriction, that would be a different matter. GoldenRing (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I would lean towards agreeing to lift restrictions because I think the default state of the article is naturally to be unrestricted and we shouldn't use restrictions unless there is a clear need. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I apply this logic to any page that is not obviously under the Arb ruling for politics and is only tangentially political in any way. And of course, if there are problems on any article that relates to politics post-32, then it makes sense to put the restrictions on them for the period of time it is likely to continue. Without evidence of actual disruption, I'm still inclined to lift restrictions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer more admin input before anyone jumps, I think we are at kind of a stalemate and the perspective of others is greatly appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The article on Carter Page is a bona-fide Trump-related page, and the connections to Russia suggest it may remain controversial. I would be opposed to lifting the DS unless there is some general reason for believing that the Trump and Russia issues have become less controversial. Trying to lift this page sanction by itself would be like trying to pick and choose individual ARBPIA pages for exemption; not likely to be worth the effort, or worth the time spent in reviewing the issue. Talk:Carter Page remains open for proposals to anyone who wants to improve the article. Anyway this is Template:American politics AE which is just a kind of a 1RR and is not even a 500/30 restriction. The article itself is open to everyone for editing including IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Ed as well as with Dennis but, on the balance, I'd support lifting the restrictions in place (even though the timing is probably not ideal). Absent actual disruption, we should err on the side of fewer restrictions. --regentspark (comment) 17:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing: I am lifting User:Coffee's 1RR restriction. My understanding is this doesn't prevent its being restored by some other administrator if problems occur. (In that case it would be a new ban). The main argument in favor of lifting was that there is not yet any disruption. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Al-Andalusi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – GoldenRing (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Al-Andalusi is blocked for a week for violating their topic ban. Logged here: Special:Diff/784636372

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Special:Diff/784756914

Pasted here from User talk:Al-Andalusi on behalf of Al-Andalusi GoldenRing (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reject Sandstein's claims that I violated a topic ban. He claims that my edit is in violation because Hamas "is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict". However, the nature my talk page edit concerned an internal Palestinian event with regards to torturing Palestinians. To me, this is unrelated to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Secondly, Sandstein claims that I contributed to a talk page section titled "2014 Acid Attack in West Bank" and that my contribution was on how to cover acid attacks by Palestinians against Israelis. This is patently false and I ask that the reviewer of this unblock appeal to review my edit here. It comes under a section titled "More than 18 attacks" (which I created btw long before the topic ban), which concerns acid attacks carried out by Mujama al-Islamiya in Gaza in the 1980s, a local issue as far as I'm concerned. The talk page section titled "2014 Acid Attack in West Bank" that Capitals00 (originator of the enforcement request) and Sandstein claimed that I contributed to is somewhere else on the talk page Talk:Acid throwing#2014 Acid Attack in West Bank, where you won't find my alleged edit. It is a shame that Sandstein would take Capitals00's words at face value and not bother with verifying the claims. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented further on this block on my talk page, and recommend declining the appeal.  Sandstein  05:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Al-Andalusi is skating on very thin ice here and that his two edits were asking for trouble. That said, Sandstein's justification is highly dubious, especially the part "Al-Andalusi mentions Hamas, which is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict". It is elementary that something that does not involve Israel also doesn't involve the Israel-Palestine conflict. Would we apply ARBPIA to, say, this article on Israeli food on the grounds that "Israel is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict"? Of course not. The rest of the justification seems to be that the edits concern text that is adjacent to text about the Arab-Israeli conflict. What sort of argument is that? Zero^talk 03:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend obvious decline. Sandstein's justification was correct. Its like similar to saying that if a user is banned from India-Pakistan conflicts, they are not allowed to talk about Lashkar-e-Taiba as well. Al-Andalusi should instead edit something like Party of the Danes, that has to do nothing with Israel-Arab conflicts. Capitals00 (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The violation was on a talkpage, and seems to have been based on an honest misunderstanding. It would have been enough to simply explain his mistake to Al-Andalusi, and no block would have been necessary. I recommend to retract whatever is left of the block, since block should not be punitive. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I would decline the appeal. The judgement and swiftness of Sandstein's actions were well within policy and expectations for an admin. It would seem Al-Andalusi wants to game the system, but that seldom works, particularly in an area that is as visible as this. Looking at the previous sanctions, I think the duration of each is well within norms. Looking at the edits, it is obvious they were in violation. The appeal is without merit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd need to stretch my credulity pretty far to think these edits were not in violation. Given the editors previous blocks, presumably in the same area, this may actually be a lighter block than was warranted. Decline. --regentspark (comment) 07:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. This is clearly within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict, widely construed. Huon (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Within the scope of the topic ban, and Sandstein's block was reasonable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Rfc on the Jewish diaspora talkpage. After it was closed,[59] there arose a difference of interpretation regarding in how far editors are at liberty to make changes to the version that was endorsed by the Rfc, based on the fact hat both the proposal that was accepted[60] as well as the closing statement of the Rfc[[61]] specifically mentioned that the accepted version was not binding verbatim and tweaks and other general improvements can be made. A minor edit war ensued, in the middle of which El_C decided to enact the Consensus required provision.[62] The version on the page at that moment was my version, so when it was changed,[63] I had all right to revert, which I did.[64] Only after that happened, El_C decided that the version he would like to see preserved for the time being is not my version,[65] and now he demands I revert and threatens me with sanction should I not revert my version.[66][67] I explained on on the talkpage, that he can not demand I revert an edit which I was entitled to make according to the very same sanction he imposed, but he insists. As I see it, El_C is at liberty to revert my edit himself, if he is of the opinion that the other version is for whatever reason preferable to mine, but by all rules of Wikipedia, including the very consensus required provision he decided to enact, I was in my rights to made the edit I made and can not be sanctioned for that. I ask for your opinions, and, in case you agree with me, to explain this to El_C. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC) El_C notified.[68] Debresser (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This sounds like it belongs at WP:AN since it is about admin conduct, and not a particular Arb remedy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, I don't know. On the other hand, the talkpage has this large {{ARBPIA}} sign on it. It was my impression that when El_C enacted the Consensus required provision, he did so within that framework. As he said: I realised the Consensus required provision was removed from ARBPIA, but I'm adding it to this article, for now (may lift it at a later date).[69] Debresser (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, this request is a jumbled mess. Please resubmit it in the standard format per the instructions if you want it to be processed. I am closing it in this form.  Sandstein  18:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

El_C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA :

There was a Rfc on the Jewish diaspora talkpage. After it was closed,[70] there arose a difference of interpretation regarding in how far editors are at liberty to make changes to the version that was endorsed by the Rfc, based on the fact hat both the proposal that was accepted[71] as well as the closing statement of the Rfc[72] specifically mentioned that the accepted version was not binding verbatim and tweaks and other general improvements can be made. A minor edit war ensued, in the middle of which El_C decided to enact the Consensus required provision.[73] The version on the page at that moment was my version, so when it was changed,[74] I had all right to revert, which I did.[75] Only after that happened, El_C decided that the version he would like to see preserved for the time being is not my version,[76] and now he demands I revert and threatens me with sanction should I not revert my version.[77][78] I explained on on the talkpage, that he can not demand I revert an edit which I was entitled to make according to the very same sanction he imposed, but he insists, and has at a matter of fact issued a ban for me for that article,[79], which I do not recognize,[80] since I consider it a mistake (I won't go as far as to call it abuse of admin privileges) As I see it, El_C is at liberty to revert my edit himself, if he is of the opinion that the other version is for whatever reason preferable to mine, but by all rules of Wikipedia, including the very consensus required provision he decided to enact, I was in my rights to made the edit I made and can not be sanctioned for that. I ask for your opinions, and, in case you agree with me, to explain this to El_C and annul the 72 hour article ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[81], [82]

@GoldenRing @El_C If I were warned for general edit warring, which I wasn't, you might have a point. Even though in that case, I'd insist that Dailycare be sanctioned as well, since he reverted me just as many times as I reverted him. And frankly, I don't think that one revert on June 4, one on June 6, and one on June 10 (or Dailycare's reverts on June 5, June 9 and June 13) is enough reason to sanction an editor for edit warring. That is just not enough of an edit war. But the issue here is that I was sanctioned for violating a "no reverts without discussion" rule, that was incorrectly applied. Even El_C has already admitted on his talkpage that he now understands how he misrepresented that rule, so I suggest he officially takes back the invalid ban he enacted, and clarifies what restrictions precisely he want to put in place on that article. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Returning to the edit war version of March 13 again on June 10 violated "reverted material can't be reinstated without consensus." ("Mass," "some"—RfC) El_C 17:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Debresser should add evidence to his complaint showing that consensus supports his version, or this should be dismissed for lack of evidence. My read on the talk page is clear consensus against the language Debresser wants to include ("some historians"). Apparently, the definition of consensus Debresser is basing this complaint on is The version on the page at that moment was my version. If the consensus on the page is in fact to exclude his language, I think WP:BOOMERANG might be appropriate, as an experienced editor can be expected to know better. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely the sanction is too light, given Debresser's track record of edit warring and filing frivolous complaints, and he has already been warned about escalating an edit war[83] — claiming he is protecting "his consensus version" or demanding that other editors need consensus to change "his version" and filing frivolous complaints is all part of his editing pattern. To me, this incident looks like another repeat an ongoing disruptive behavior pattern, for which has been previously warned. It is routine for this editor, down to filing frivolous complaints. Last time he was warned, but in rather narrow terms by DESiegel. This time, I would like the admins to comment on this clearly, if and when and under what circumstances will they take action to prevent further disruptive behavior from this editor? Please set some clear limits on his behavior, including the filing of frivolous complaints. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing evidence that El_C is involved here, merely assessing consensus of a discussion. Unfortunately, the edit history even only for the last 50 edits shows back-and-forth edit-warring by Debresser, going back to March 2017 [84]. Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint appears to revolve around the misconception that Debresser could obtain some advantage to "his version" by edit-warring it in the article, since that was the only reason it happened to be in when the CRP was put in place. The contrary is true, in fact, since edit-warring is penalized, not rewarded. As such, this complaint can be seen as one or more of frivolous, wikilawyering or disruptive in that he is seeking to continue his edit-war crusade in favour of a text ("some") that is trivially contrary to WP:NPOV. WP:BOOMERANG could be considered here. Debresser has recently received warnings on the 3RR board. --Dailycare (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This a straightforward attempt by Debresser to game the system and it should be rejected. The idea that he can force his version, not the RFC agreed upon version, into the article and then have the gall to demand consensus to change what never had consensus to begin with is at best mildly amusing and at worst a blatant attempt to play the rules against each other. A 72 hr ban here is the definition of a slap on the wrist, and it appears to have been too light a touch if anything. nableezy - 03:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• There's some discussion going on at User talk:El_C about what exactly CRP means and whether it did give Debresser the right to revert a change made after CRP was imposed which would then need consensus to re-revert. But stepping back a bit this all seems a bit of a storm in a teacup; there is a discussion happening on the article talk page trying to arrive at a consensus version of the text (and whether that's different to the RfC that closed a week ago) and, as far as I can make out, this report is about which version is present in the article while that discussion happens. I think Debresser probably needs to let it go. GoldenRing (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Sagecandor rather has a point regarding the edit warring on that page. I haven't read through a lot of the history here, but a quick perusal of the page history might give some the impression that Debresser has got off lightly with a 72-hour ban. GoldenRing (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I would decline this request because it is still too confused. It does not set out in an understandable manner which specific edit(s) of which date supposedly violate which conduct rule for which reason exactly. See the format recommended in the request template. Also, if this is about alleged misuse of admin tools, we can't sanction this here, only ArbCom can.  Sandstein  22:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Admin are given a great deal of discretion to enforce ARBPIA. This is particularly true for reverts after an RFC. I don't see EL C's actions being outside of that discretion, thus I recommend closing the request without action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ryanfoster99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS

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

1. June 15, 2017 Added original research to Presidency of Donald Trump

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

See users talk page

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[85]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

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

• I'm confused. The claims made in the edit are completely consistent with what the sources are claiming in the references used in that diff. Whether or not it should be included would be a matter of editorial discretion, something for the talk page of the article, but I'm confused as to how this is a violation of the Arb restrictions, or how it is original research. Maybe I'm missing something, so please explain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, he is under a topic ban and he violated that. Jeez MrX, ya gotta help us out. It looked like the complaint was original research, not a topic ban violation. Blocked one week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan : Violation of indefinite topic ban on Pakistan, India, Afghanistan.[86][87] Even after few blocks and final warning last month[88]

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

1. 14 June
2. 14 June
3. 14 June

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[89] blocked before after ARE.

1. Indefinite topic ban on Pakistan, India, Afghanistan.[90]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

[91]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Clear violation of topic ban. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[92]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Some refs added to a sandbox page? seriously? Rhoark (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree here with Dennis Brown and GoldenRing. Wouldn't normally think so for sandbox, but after the warning given by Lord Roem, makes sense in this particular case.

Suggestion: Unless you want to talk with the user and make an allowance per {{2nd chance}}, to edit within userspace for express purpose of suggested improvements to articles for trial period, perhaps with a mentor or two. Sagecandor (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain how adding refs to a sandbox page is disruptive? It seems a little unhealthy to file an AE complaint over something like this. Can the editor who filed the complaint explain why he felt it was necessary? Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Thanks. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unambiguous violation. If this was the first problem since the topic ban was put into place, I could see fit to just warn, however, Lord Roem gave a very clear warning just a month ago.[93]. I'm thinking a block is due. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was blocked a week for the initial problem, although that was a year ago. I think anything in the 1 week to 1 month range is acceptable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To those asking, when someone is topic banned, that means all pages on Wikipedia, period. Articles, talk pages, templates, categories, and of course user space. For the purpose of enforcement, their own sandbox is hardly different than their user page or user talk page. If someone has a short term ban and hasn't violated it before, then it is typically easier to let them off with a warning. That isn't the case here. FreeatlastChitchat is topic banned for an indefinite period of time, meaning it is very possible they will NEVER be able to edit that topic again. There are two goals with a topic ban: 1. To remove that editor from any editing in any way that approaches a particular topic. (this is for the benefit of all other editors, so they may edit in peace) 2. Allow them to edit everything else, with the goal of eventually demonstrating that the tban is no longer needed. Editors that violate it with stuff like this [94] usually get warned, and that is exactly what happened, so he has already been given a length of rope, barely a month ago. The AE discussion a month ago [95] was closed as stale, but it showed clear violations. In short, GoldenRing expresses it properly when he says this is an editor who hasn't got the message to stay away from the topic. When enforcing at AE, we often look at more than just the diffs on the page and instead look at patterns, and in this case, there is one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed. Yes, it's in user space, yes it's in a sandbox. This is still clearly an editor who hasn't got the message to stay away from the topic. A week? GoldenRing (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Though mere editing of a sandbox might seem unimportant, the problem has been going on for a long time. If Freeatlastchitchat is sincerely going to stay out of the ARBIPA topic area, what does he need a sandbox about Pakistan for? He won't be able to use it. Endorse the proposed one-week block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with a one week block for the obvious violation. I also think the sandbox should be deleted as an AE action. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Davidbena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy :

(supervised editing)

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

1. [96] On 26 December 2016, WP:ARCA ratified a new amendment affecting all articles broadly construed with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, making all newly deleted content subject to consensus before it can be restored. But, as you can see by my edit made on 18 June 2017, which brought down a more complete picture of disturbances in Urif, as reported by the local media, the editor in question deliberately caused valid sources to be deleted, those sources which showed that, by one account, no Israeli had set fire to a field, and that it had been set ablaze by somebody else, perhaps even unintentionally. In other words, he maliciously construes the facts, or at least altered what was clearly "balanced" reporting, to make Israelis appear as the sole culprits, and with the full knowledge that once these changes have been made, they cannot be restored without consensus. In short, the editor in question has infringed upon the policy WP:Gaming the system. It is my view that discretionary sanctions should be taken against this phenomenon, to assure that we continue to maintain a basis of cordial collaborative editing, and that he and others might take heed not to abuse the system in the future.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 14 June 2017. As shown by Nableezy's statement, he is well-aware of Wikipedia's policy of not "Gaming the system," which he, himself, is guilty of doing.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Actually, I'm kind of new at this. Never before submitted a WP:AE. Nevertheless, I have since added the requested disciplinary measures to be taken, if administrators should think that our co-editor was actually "Gaming the system."Davidbena (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it were only to read this, it was worth submitting this WP:AE, as I had no idea that "consensus" had been dropped. I am much relieved. Now, the rest involves "burden of proof" or WP:ONUS. I appreciate your taking the time to show me this.Davidbena (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm sorry. As I said, I'm new at this. Anyway, for me the issue is resolved. My worries were unfounded.Davidbena (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[97]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

The "consensus required" provision has been dropped in a more recent ARCA. The normal rules about WP:ONUS and edit-warring etc. still apply.

In any case, consensus is usually achieved on the talk page, not at AE. I see no attempt at a talk page discussion. If you feel the earlier phrasing was better, create a section on the talkpage and make your argument there. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I recommend dismissing this complaint, perhaps with a warning to the complainant. He fails to cite a sanction or remedy he would like enforced, and he doesn't know the difference between a policy and a guideline. I don't see any problem with the diff he cites -- replacing a POV-pushing passive-voice account with one that uses the active voice to place blame where, according to the reliable sources, it belongs. "There was a struggle between X and Y, and a fire erupted" is almost always inferior to "X attacked Y and set fire to his fields" if that's what the sources say. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions appears blank. Complaint gives one (1) diff. Probably not enough prior steps of dispute resolution taken here yet. Maybe try WP:Third opinion or WP:Request for comment. Sagecandor (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Kingsindian and MShabazz obviously have a good bead on this. After reading the diffs and sources, it seems clear this is a legitimate content dispute. Both versions have reliable sources, so this is an editorial matter, not a policy violation issue. Dispute resolution has not been attempted but should so a consensus can be reached. I recommend dismissal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davidbena, please only put comments in your own section. I've moved your two comments to that area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• For anyone who may be wondering what this is about, it seems to be about the Husan article. Anyway, there is nothing more to resolve, so the report should be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]