From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFAR)
Jump to: navigation, search

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:


Requests for arbitration

America: Imagine the World Without Her

Initiated by Casprings (talk) at 14:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Casprings

The conflict has been ongoing for months and shows ongoing WP:Battle.[] [1]. Moreover, there are edit wars everytime the article comes off being protected. [2][3][4] The basic dispute involves the WP:Weight of certain content. That said, this has been ongoing for months and the behavior on the page indicates this is mainly a behavior problem and cannot be resolved by working though the dispute resolution process.

Statement by Gamaliel

My feeling at this time is that I really want nothing more to do with this article and I would like to disengage from this conflict, as I have attempted to do so. I feel that the nature of this conflict, its duration (6 months or more), the lack of signficiant unbiased community input aside from User:Erik, and the constant belligerence of an SPA who has camped out at the article, and the arrival of Wikipedia's resident political warriors has caused an impossible situation and has caused a number of editors, most definitely including myself, to act in ways that they should be ashamed of. At this time, I feel like all the editors listed above except User:Erik should disengage. Whether or not the Committee should take this case, I have no idea. Gamaliel (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Per Courcelles, policy issues that the Committee could consider in this case.

  • WP:RS: What qualifies as a reliable source? A number of editors, including myself, have pointed to the requirement for "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and noted that Breitbart has a well-documented reputation for the opposite, bringing up repeated instances of egregious errors and deliberate falsifications on the part of both the publication and the author of one of the Brietbart articles in particular. Other editors have contended that the fact that Breitbart has an editorial structure and people with the title of journalist is sufficient to quality as an RS.
  • WP:AGF: Editors should not be allowed to repeatedly accuse other editors of a biased agenda or of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when those editors raise policy-based objections.
  • WP:UNDUE: Is it appropriate to cite a questionable source three times in this article? Is this unduly elevating a fringe source? Should, as some editors have advocated, this fringe source be included three times because mainstream sources allegedly have a political bias against the nature of the film?
  • The proper use of an RFC. Several RFCs have been held regarding whether or not Breitbart can be used as a source for its own opinion and have been closed in the affirmative. Is this a mandate that Breitbart should and must be included in the article regardless of considerations of undue weight, elevating fringe viewpoints, and POV?
  • When is consensus achieved? Should contentious material remain in the article while it is under discussion on the talk page? Is it edit warring to keep this material in the article or is it edit warring to remove it until consensus is achieved on the talk page? Is a consensus required before such contentious material is removed?
  • WP:OWN and WP:SPA.

Gamaliel (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to say that I'm really not sure how I keep finding myself in the middle of protracted drama in the last six months. I really need to go back to writing articles about low drama topics like deceased librarians, apparently. Gamaliel (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"There are none because, for the most part, the involved editors are well behaved". Srich32977 does not recall the same article I recall, nor does he apparently recall when he and I collaborated heavily on talk and via email attempting to curb conflicts and hat contentious discussions on the talk page and deal with one troublesome editor in particular. Why he now dismisses behavior he once thought was troublesome I have no idea. Gamaliel (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Steelbeard1

While I am no longer involved in this article because of the constant edit warring, my issue has to do with the inclusion of biased and unreliable sources such as Breitbart which is infamous for editing news stories to fit their biases and change the context of the material. Breitbart citations should never be allowed in Wikipedia articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Erik

I came across the article a couple of months ago when I saw a discussion that indicated that individual film reviews should be left out of the article. I found this questionable and have since become involved. I have expanded the article from 13 kb to 57 kb so the article could be more well-rounded. The biggest debate to date has been whether or not to reference, a conservative website, to state that professional film critics panned the documentary because they were liberally biased. Concerns about referencing at all were also raised (since the website is also referenced in two other places in the article body). I disengaged from editing over the liberal-critics claim, but edit warring has taken place essentially to combat the wrong version, and I requested for page protection three times to halt this animosity. (I was fine with including the liberal-critics claim because I offset it with many details from a variety of mainstream sources but did not forcefully edit to include it.) The RfC about the claim recently closed with the outcome of including it. Now I think the focus has shifted to other aspects of the article that I added, in particular the "Critical reception" and "Political commentary" sections. For the former, the talk page is being used to work out the proper balance of sampling reviews.

My concern going forward are mainstream sources (appropriate per WP:SOURCE) being challenged as "obviously" liberal and warranting being equally or near-equally offset by conservative commentary. For example, a current discussion is about stating in the lead section that film critics panned the film, and the push is to follow that with conservative commentators claiming the critics were liberally biased. I argued that this was a false balance because there is not "sufficient detail" (per WP:DUE) in the lead section about the majority view (the straightforward assessment of critics panning the film) when presented beside the minority view (questioning the credibility of these critics). The "Critical reception" section is sufficiently detailed about the majority viewpoint to offset the brief liberal-critics claim; readers can see specifically how reviews like those from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter analyze the film. There may be other issues that come up with the "Political commentary" section, which is a somewhat novel structure to try to fold specific political statements under certain sub-topics, such as the "Alinsky" sub-section where the National Review says Alinsky's background was worth mining, and the National Journal finds Alinsky's connection to Obama too conflated. The balance of statements in this section may be a challenge since this topic is a narrow one with mostly "newsy" sources and being too new to have any retrospective, critical analyses yet (if at all). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Thargor Orlando

My involvement basically begins and ends with a comment or two on the RFC. Putting aside the content issue, if there's a way for ArbCom to simply, via motion, put the article under discretionary sanctions or something similar, that might just be able to solve the issue without having to go through an entire case. The behavior issues are on the line, but some sort of more significant oversight with teeth might be the solution.

Statement by Srich32977

As filing party says "The basic dispute involves the WP:Weight of certain content." That said, where are the administrative actions (blocks, warnings, scoldings, etc.) taken to enforce proper editor behavior? There are none because, for the most part, the involved editors are well behaved. Accordingly this request is outside the purview of Arbcom. – S. Rich (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

America: Imagine the World Without Her: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Awaiting more statements. I'd like to see statements specifically addressing, given we cannot decide content, how a case would improve the general conduct and editing environment. Courcelles 17:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Awaiting statements per Courcelles. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Ancient History of India-Pakistan

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 17:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected


Statement by User:Robert McClenon

There are currently multiple WP:ANI threads concerning the hypothesis that the Indo-European languages originated in India, as opposed to the hypothesis accepted by most scholarship that these languages originated to the west of India and spread both east into India by migration and west into Europe by migration. They include Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents# Massive POV pushing problem at WP:FRINGE and Indo-Aryan topics. My question is whether tendentious and disruptive editing about this aspect of the ancient history of India is subject to WP:ARBIPA, in which case discretionary sanctions are applicable, or whether WP:ARBIPA only applies to the modern history of the subcontinent. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

No need for clarification: of course DS applies. The ideological fight over the origins of the Indo-Aryans is a classic hotspot of modern nationalist discourses in India, and the backdrop of modern Hindu nationalism is the one thing that keeps these disputes alive on Wikipedia and makes them so much politically charged. This is precisely what the DS are for. Fut.Perf. 17:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

< !-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Ancient History of India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

Clarification request: Ebionites 3

Initiated by John Carter (talk) at 15:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3#Ignocrates-John Carter interaction ban

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

Statement by John Carter

Requesting clarification if the existing i-ban prohibits taking the other party involved to ANI for input of the broader community in the event of further obvious stalking which by avoiding explicit mention of me does not necessarily explicitly violate the i-ban, but is clearly of a STALKing nature, and, if it does, amendment to permit it, with of course reasonable consequences to me as the possible filer should the request there be found to be poorly based or otherwise improper. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If the entire case were about me casting aspersions, it is unthinkable that Ignocrates would have been subjected to an i-ban as well, although that was specifically included in the remedies. I believe there are reasonable questions raised by comments here regarding the basic honesty of involved individuals, which may well be worth considering. But, to clarify, does the ruling rule out taking obvious stalking as per WP:STALK, which might fall short of being completely clearly an "interaction ban," to ANI? This request was prompted by the existing WP:AE filed regarding this matter, and that, to date, I have felt that I would not be able to do so. Can such requests be made? Also, just for clarification, I understand that if such requests can be made in general, any requests made which are clearly found baseless or poorly justified would still reasoanbly qualify as a violation of the interaction ban. Also, I suppose, if ANI requests are permitted, are there specific limitations to what can and cannot be said in such requests? John Carter (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ignocrates

I have no idea what the poorly worded statement above based on non-existent evidence even means, so I can't respond to it. This entire case is about John Carter casting aspersions. It's why the Ebionites 3 arbitration case was filed; it's why he was stripped of his tools; it's why we have this I-ban. Despite the restriction, he has used every available opportunity to continue this aggressive behavior at ARCA, AE, and on the talk pages of other editors. He can't seem to stop himself from doing it. Ignocrates (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

John Carter seems to misremember that I requested a two-way interaction ban. That was the point of filing. Ignocrates (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Information update from NE Ent

Both those folks were blocked JC, I as a result of AE request by Ignocrates. NE Ent 23:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Note/clarify: it was not my intent to offer any opinion here, simply to notify the committee that the parties may not currently post here (unless the committee directs some action to enable that). NE Ent 00:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Ebionites 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • In my view wikihounding/wikistalking someone you have an interaction ban with is a violation of that interaction ban. As such if a party to a topic ban has evidence that the other party is hounding/stalking them, they should present that evidence at AE. If you have queries about whether something is or is not covered by an arbitration remedy, ask the arbitration committee on this page (or by email if it is sensitive). A discussion at ANI of the sort that was proposed here would be a breech of the interaction ban in my view.
    The purpose of an interaction ban is to separate people who cannot interact with each other productively and civilly - it means do not interact with the other person, do not follow them around the project, do not comment on what they have to say, stop thinking about them - if you can't do that while working in the same area as them then go and find different corners of this project to edit. Use Special:Random and find a stub to expand for example, improve the encyclopaedia while expanding your own horizons away from the other party and the topic(s) that got you ibanned. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

Initiated by Ncmvocalist (talk) at 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) (principle 3.1.2 - Deliberate and careful use of discretionary sanctions in particular)

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

Statement by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

My first request for clarification concerns the AC procedures - standard provision for appeals and modifications. In particular, the section entitled "Modification by administrators" in the following situation:

1A) An administrator X blocks an user for a period of time after reviewing a complaint alleging a breach of a topic ban (which was imposed as a case remedy). After the block has expired, administrator Y imposes another block of the same or a longer duration for the same complaint (and where there are no further breaches). Administrator Y did not obtain prior affirmative consent/agreement from administrator X, or at AN, AE, or here, for imposing the further block. Can the committee please confirm in those circumstances whether administrator Y's further block would be considered a modification of administrator X's block, and that such an action is unauthorised?

My second request for clarification concerns the AE sanction handling case (principle 3.1.2 - Deliberate and careful use of discretionary sanctions) in the following situation:

2A) An administrator X refuses to block an user after reviewing a complaint alleging a breach of a topic ban (which was imposed as a case remedy). Other administrators opine on the issue at AE and there appears to be division regarding the appropriateness of any block (and the appropriate duration for a block even if it is agreed). Administrator Y unilaterally imposes a block (where there is clearly no pressing need to), and did not obtain prior affirmative consent/agreement from administrator X, or at AN, AE, or here for imposing the block. If there is a division in opinion at AE regarding the appropriateness and duration of a block, has the committee indicated to its admins that they can unilaterally impose a block anyway? Does principle 3.1.2 only apply to discretionary sanctions? Or does that principle apply to requested enforcement of case remedies too?

I have listed 1A and 2A above only, as I may have a follow up under each. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's embarrassing that AE admins were responsible for attempting to derail this request into one about Eric Corbett (talk · contribs), when this request is really about (as the name of the case suggests): Arbitration Enforcement Sanction Handling. One of the main parties to that case was AE-active Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and it's disappointing to note that Sandstein's problematic behavioural patterns seem to continue, and that too in the name of Arbcom.
The community elected the committee, not Sandstein. Even if for some bizarre reason you want Sandstein to remain entitled to keep up his repeated wikilawyering, his overly bureaucratic approach and his OWN tendencies at AE (be it as far as the noticeboard requests or actions he takes at those requests), I think the community is entitled to hear that from you directly, rather than his comments on arbitrators 'deliberate intentions'. Alternatively, if previous reminders or indications have not worked for him to change his approach to be more consistent with what is expected at all levels, maybe something else needs to be tried.
Even here, I am concerned that Sandstein appears to improperly suggest that:
  1. I am filing an appeal on behalf of a certain blocked user (Eric Corbett) but have concealed it in the form of this request;
  2. I've filed this request to circumvent the appeal procedure, and thereby game the system in relation to Eric Corbett's block; and
  3. I and several other users are (a) friends of Eric Corbett, and (b) therefore incapable of assessing when enforcement is appropriate and necessary.
For the avoidance of doubt, those suggestions are false accusations made in bad faith without a shred of evidence (except possibly the bit about "other users" being friends of Eric Corbett as I don't know how accurate that is. Still, Wikipedia is not a battlefield even for this type of thing.
I do wish the arbitrators would find a more effective way to tell Sandstein to cease engaging in such needlessly problematic conduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@Roger Davies: Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me you are saying principle 3.1 of the case only applies to discretionary sanctions, and does not apply at all to requests to enforce individual editor topic ban case remedies enacted by the committee. That is, in the 2A hypothetical, you are saying that even if uninvolved administrators (plural) opine and determine a breach of a topic ban in 2A is minor that it does not warrant a block (or that a block is going to be ineffective), it doesn't matter; any admin who wants to block and first imposes a block will have a supervote. Is that correct? And is that what you want/wanted? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by IP

I feel it's worth noting that the situation described in 2A just played out in a recently closed AE request (it's still there but hatted). I assume that part was unmentioned in the hopes of avoiding a dramastorm, so I won't name it directly. That said, I consider it valuable context that arbs should be aware of and review. (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the dramastorm came anyway (sorry, Ncmvocalist) I will comment on the AE after all. Despite the criticism, I have found that Sandstein goes out of his way to accommodate other admins positions at AE. Most commonly he will state he disagrees with something but will not stand in the way of consensus. I have also seen him full on defer to other admins who disagree with him at AE when closing a case. His actions in the related AE surprised me. I think this is the first time he has pushed through his preferred action in the face of what was arguably a developing consensus for a simple warning. I'm not saying he was wrong, Sandstein is usually technically correct (the BEST kind of correct!), but it is curious that he would act... Out of character, I guess? I'm not sure how best to describe it.
to Roger, would you consider closing an AE request with no action an administrative action? It does not require use of the tools, but it is something only an admin is allowed to do. If so, does it enjoy the protection of other AE admin actions? So if, for example, HJ Mitchell had closed the case with a warning, would Sandstein need a "clear and active consensus" to block instead? I ask that you consider these scenarios seriously because it appears to me Arbcom is inadvertently creating a race to action in contentious cases where you are intending "deliberate and careful use". (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

I'm glad to see this has been asked already, I was about to. I think the answers so far to 1A are pretty reasonable and uncontroversial. I'm more interested in Arbs' answers to 2A. Normally, an admin can take unilateral AE action without waiting for a discussion, and then the normal AE rules apply to reverse that action: unlike a normal admin action, consensus would be required to overturn the AE action. However, when a discussion is already underway, and there is no consensus on the blocking (or a preliminary consensus not to block), it seems unfair to unilaterally make the decision to block, and then insist on a new discussion to overturn it. If it really is acceptable to do that, could not an admin with an opposing viewpoint decide to "officially warn" someone, or block them for 1 second, and then close the AE request, preventing any further blocking without a brand new discussion? (I'm not advocating that, of course, just pointing out that it kind of follows from the answers to 1A). AE enforcement is meant to streamline things, but in the scenario described above, it's being used instead as a trump card. It shouldn't be. If there is an ongoing discussion at AE with differing viewpoints on blocking among the uninvolved admins, an admin shouldn't wade in and block before a consensus develops. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Short comment from Collect

The principle of "do it first so the other admin will be wheel-warring" has been discussed before, without any solid answers. Zugzwang is a rough equivalent. Why not recognize that valid issue raised by Floq above - and issue a sua sponte dictum that blocks should generally require the initial input of (say) three admins in order to have standing against a simple reversal by another admin? Thus reducing the value of "first move wins." Collect (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Observation by TenOfAllTrades

While the IP has alluded to it, I'm going to make it explicit. This is another damn "hypothetical situation" thread that's actually not at all hypothetical, and like it or not the Arb's responses are going to be read in that context. Yep, it's another damn Malleus/Eric Corbett thread: link to discussion, closure.

Unlike most threads involving Eric Corbett, it was dealt with in a reasonable amount of time, after a reasonable discussion, and resulted in a reasonable final decision that wasn't followed by a firestorm or wheel warring. The ArbCom should be very cautious in how it approaches the question in 2A, in that the question seems to be exploring ways that an ArbCom decision to impose discretionary sanctions can be nullified by a single admin. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Passing comment from Harry Mitchell

I was one of the admins who opined against a block in the "hypothetical" scenario. I disagree with the block for reasons I've stated elsewhere (mainly that it is based on an overly literal interpretation of the remedy with no regard for its spirit), but at the end of the day AE cannot afford to become deadlocked like ANI whenever a big name is involved. The solution? More objective, level-headed admins at AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

As the admin who made the block discussed in the second question, I'm offering the following comments:

  • This looks like an appeal in the guise of a clarification request, and an attempt to circumvent the Committee's rule that appeals are heard only if they are made by the user who is the subject of the sanction. Because that user has chosen, in this instance, not to appeal the block, and the user asking the question is not in any way affected by this situation, there is in my view nothing that needs – in the sense of an actual controversy awaiting resolution – to be clarified.
  • On the merits, I'm of the view that any discussion among admins or others about an enforcement request does not prevent any admin from taking, or not taking, any enforcement action they deem appropriate.
  • First, the rules about enforcement actions (as well as discretionary sanctions, which are not at issue here) do not envision or require any form of discussion among whoever. The only exception is the case mentioned in the question but not at issue here because no discretionary sanctions are concerned: "Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE". Even this does not require admins to follow or look for consensus, but only advises them to listen to the opinions of other admins (which they may then choose to disregard). As far as I know this was an intentional decision by the arbitrators who drafted these rules. Any discussion that does occur is merely an aid for coming to the right conclusion, but it is not envisioned by any rule to be a consensus-forming process. Discussion and consensus become relevant only at a later stage – in an appeal, either to the community or to administrators.
  • Second, as has been mentioned above, requiring admins not to act in the absence of a consensus to act would have two effects that would severely impair the effective enforcement of the decisions made by this Committee. First, sanctioned users who have many friends, as seems to be case here, can block enforcement just by having enough people show up that any consensus becomes unfeasible to establish and timely action impossible to take, as is regularly the case on community noticeboards. Second, this would in effect compel admins who are interested in arbitration enforcement to take action as soon as possible without waiting for discussion, which would likely impair the quality and acceptance of enforcement actions, and by extension the effectiveness of this Committee's decisions. I would prefer that not to be the case, because I think that the discussions among the admins who regularly work at AE are often very helpful.  Sandstein  08:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Regarding 1A, the key part of your scenario are the words "After the block has expired". Once the block has expired any further blocking, for any cause, is a new action. I suspect that in most circumstances this second blocking would be very ill-advised and possibly a bad block. There exists the possibility that the second administrator is in possession of new/additional information (which may or may not be publicly shareable) that justifies the action, so I am not going to say it will always be a bad block. Your question 2A requires more thought before answering. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Concerning 1A, I tend to agree with my learned colleague. As a general rule, I'd say that once an administrator has imposed a discretionary sanction on an editor, said sanction should not be modified in pejus (i.e. should not be made harsher) in the absence of a. the imposing administrator's consent, b. a consensus of uninvolved editors or administrators, b. arbcom's authorisation or d. supervenient circumstances justifying the increase. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This is perhaps the least hypothetical hypothetical I've seen in a while. Blocking after a prior block has expired strikes me as double jeopardy in the absence of either a fresh violation, or a consensus of uninvolved editors that the editor actually needs a harsher block (the situation that comes to mind readily is a community request for an indefinite block/community ban.) But in most cases, if the block "fixed" the issue and there are no new violations, blocks are not punishment, and the discretion of the first administrator likely should be respected. Courcelles 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Placing a fresh block for conduct that has already been dealt with - at least on the face of it and absent a rationale from the second admin - seems to me to be gaming the prohibition on modifying another administrator's blocks. On the second question, what distinguishes administrative actions is use of the tools or making an action explicitly reserved for administrators. A refusal to act cannot therefore be an administrative action as no administrative action has taken place. As a hypothetical if a bunch of people are hurling abuse at each other and furiously edit-warring, and - for whatever reason - an administrator explicitly refuses to act in respect of any of them, are each of them immunised against blocking? The common sense answer has to be "Certainly not".  Roger Davies talk 09:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with my colleagues's views on 1A - there would have to be something new or overlooked to justify a 2nd block. The phrase 'supervenient circumstances' is a great description but I'd warn against reading our article Supervenience. As for 2A, I'm not convinced it can be answered as a hypothetical question - and I'm not convinced that ArbCom trying to specify an answer wouldn't be micro-managing, rarely a good idea. I'd perhaps be willing to opine on a specific situation. And I like Roger's example. Dougweller (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Requests for enforcement

Mike Searson


Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Eurocentral

Eric Corbett

John Carter


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.

Request concerning Pigsonthewing

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Pigsonthewing_and_infoboxes :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Jan 25 2015 Please see this diff and Template_talk:Geobox#Boroughs where Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has recently proposed removing the {{Geobox}} template (an infobox in all but name) from 159 articles and replacing it with {{Infobox settlement}}. According to the active topic bans page "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.", so this is a clear violation of his ban. I leave it to others to decide what to do. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This can be parsed two ways, both of which mean Andy has violated his current ban. 1) If a Geobox is not an Infobox, then the 159 articles in question have no infoboxes and Pigsonthewing is proposing adding Infobox Settlement to all of them. OR 2) If a Geobox is a kind of generic infobox (which Andy seems to say), then he is proposing to both remove the Geobox, and then add Infobox Settlement. For the Wikilawyers out there who say this is a replacement, and that is somehow different than a removal followed by an addition, I note that Geobox Borough and Infobox Settlement are NOT functionally equivalent (and to me "replacement" implies substituting an equivalent, which is not the case here). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I also note that Andy has a long-running history of removing / trying to remove Geobox from various articles where it is used (and if Geobox is removed from a group of articles, he then removes the relevant code from the Geobox itself). Given that he has proposed the deletion of Geobox itself (which failed), my assumption is that his long-term plan is to remove enough uses and code piecemeal that he can then TfD and delete Geobox itself (despite earlier failures to do this). See my evidence in the ArbCom case on Infoboxes Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Ruhrfisch. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Final comments - 1) since this issue has been addressed before, PLEASE link that clarification at the ArbCom current sanctions page and at the original decision page. It is already a daunting task just to ask if someone has violated their sanctions, no need to waste everyone's time but not providing links to prior clarifications. 2) I find it funny that the Geobox template, which was originally envisioned as being one large template which could be used for a wide variety of geographic features (i.e. one template that could fit many kinds of articles) is now being targeted by Andy "in favour of the few centralized ones he favours" (to quote Fut. Perf. below). Kafka would have enjoyed this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified here diff Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Pigsonthewing

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.

Statement by DePiep

The original poster quotes: "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes". Can I get a link to the original statement (with authoritative status)? -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

regarding HJ Mitchell #below, can you be more specific as to how WP:ARCA would be applicable here? I could not make a head or toe connection. -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand that EdJohnston (at 00:07, below) responds to this. Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • re EdJohnston below "recommend against a block or other sanction" - in this I disagree. The behaviour we are talking about is not isolated (ask me if you need more links). Also, there is no guarantee that Andy will follow the (intermediate) pacification you describe. Meanwhile, a lot and more editors are strained to the edge in patience with this behaviour. [43]. All in all, a block for disruptive behaviour should not be excluded (and why exclude it at all? If you trust it, then it's OK without -- if you don't trust it, then it is needed!). -DePiep (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Must say, I am surprised to read about this issue {{geobox}}. Last months I've had a dozen or two rough encounters with Andy, mostly on TfD pages. And now I discover this post, new to me today, by about another, parallel line of behaviour.
So, independent from my recent meetings with Andy, this history exists. And on top of that: descriptions ofr "fait adccompli", "asinine" and [accusation of] "rig[ging] the figures in your favour". I myself have examples of good will editors being chased away from a discussion by Andy.
I wonder why this can go on so long. If the corps of admins could not steer this into good waters, I don't know why the arb is shy. What more does arb need? -DePiep (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Note to self: could have to do with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil

Copy of my cmt on Arbitration request talk page:

As I understand, coding is incomplete on Geobox, an info box-like structure but technically not an infobox. Andy is suggesting a remedy for that probelm. Further, as far I know he is not discussing the removal of a specific article info box which is what his sanction seems to have been specifying, but is suggesting a technical fix for a problem. I believe his usefulness in such technical situations has been established. At any rate the issue of how far his sanction extends is presently at arbitration. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)) (Littleolive oil)

Statement by HJ Mitchell

The discussion currently at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Infoboxes is relevant. Two previous enforcement requests have held that the restriction does not apply to discussions about merging or deleting infoboxes, and the amendment requests asks ArbCom to codify this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Edited for clarity. 00:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda Arendt

  • Clearly, replacing one kind of template by a better kind of template, which is not adding nor deleting, is no violation of the present (!) restriction.
  • @Sandstein: Your memory is wrong. The nominator was not well informed, as he admits (see above). The decision can not be overturned by a proposal to change it, as RexxS explained (see below). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I remember the convincing summary by Floq: "Odd; I strongly agree with AGK that the remedy as written was clear, but at the same time I disagree with his interpretation of it. Since neither of us is a fool, I guess that's evidence that the interpretation of it isn't as clear as either of us think. So far, the things Andy has done that have brought him before WP:AE ... don't violate the restriction, and don't really look like attempting to test the boundaries of it either." - I conclude: the remedy is not clear. After it has been interpreted one way for more than a year (that discussions about templates don't fall under the restriction), we can't sanction what would be a violation of a different interpretation without first a clarification leading to a clearer wording.

Statement by RexxS

This previous clarification request from 21 July 2014 makes it abundantly clear that the Arbs never intended Andy's restrictions to include replacing one infobox with another. These are the Arbs' responses to Sandstein's suggestion that replacing an infobox with another was sanctionable: "This is not worth discussing"; "that wasn't adding an infobox"; "I agree that this was not the addition of an infobox and did not breach the restriction"; "This edit was not in violation of his restriction".

@Callanecc: You were a clerk last year and were clearly aware of that decision. In addition, you had accepted at AE the previous day that replacing an infobox was never intended to be part of Andy's sanctions: "Given the clarifying comments and discussion I have no problem with this being closed with no sanction. Thank you to everyone who commented it definitely helped to define this sanction. As I've said before whilst I take a fairly hard line to what is and is not a violation (and no ill will intended Andy) I am very happy (and generally prefer) to be proved wrong in cases like this. Thank you all, Callanecc"

I find it astonishing that you have forgotten so quickly. Now, I suggest you do the right thing and rescind your unfounded call for sanctions on an editor who has clearly not breached the terms of his sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: You should know that policy is never made by *not* passing a resolution. And you're quite wrong about the reason we're here again. It's because - as predicted - those who disagree with Andy find making complaints about him a useful tactic to try to remove opposition to their view. Ruhrfisch has a track record of conflict with Andy dating back to the infobox arbcom case and can't be considered as making this meritless request in good faith. DePiep is presently engaged in stalking Andy's edits, automatically opposing his TfD nominations and needs to be told to stop. These sort of attempts to game the system illustrate how anyone under any restriction will have those restrictions thrown at them time and again over unrelated issues. I find it most disappointing that you, Callanecc, are jumping on that bandwagon. The decisions from last year have not been overturned, and you need to abide by them. --RexxS (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by(username)

Result concerning Pigsonthewing

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

  • At WP:ARCA, User:Courcelles offered a motion that, if passed, would clearly have allowed the type of work that Andy wants to do on Template:Geobox. It seems that motion has stalled and is unlikely to pass unless somebody changes their mind. Instead, it is likely that Arbcom will open a review. We could close this by advising User:Pigsonthewing to avoid participating in any discussions about revising templates until the committee has made its final ruling on the pending matters. In the meantime I would recommend against a block or other sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ed on this. Guettarda (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree, that motion has not passed, and no arbitrator has voted on it for around a week tell us that the Committee has decided that Pigsonthewing should remain bound by the restriction for the moment at least. For that to mean anything we need to enforce the restriction, in this instance, there is a clear violation. As such I believe a 48 hour block is in order. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Gerda makes the point that this is replacing, which, if we accept, is the same as removing and adding. That the motion specifically included this as part of a motion to clarify (and relax) the restriction suggests that the original intention was actions such as this would be covered. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Why do we have to be here again? Rexx is right this time: this was clarified last summer, and both we here at AE and subsequently the arbs told Andy that this sort of thing was okay. Callanecc, sorry, but you were there. I don't remember all the intermediate stages of this drama and haven't followed the currently open amendment request, but unless the arbs have in the meantime told Andy unambiguously something that overrides the outcome of that case from July, that outcome must still stand. The scope of the infobox arbcom case was behaviour in disputes over whether or not specific articles ought to have boxes. The question that Andy has been dealing with since, to what extent different box templates ought to be unified and reduced to a small set of templates, is quite orthogonal to what that case was about, and therefore outside the scope of the sanction, no matter how much we might wikilawyer over whether "replacing" is the same as "first removing, then adding". That said, there may well be another issue here: Andy's campaign of trying to discourage the use of certain box templates in favour of the few centralized ones he favours may well be showing signs of the same disruptive tendency of steamrollering opposition through sheer single-minded tenacity that was ultimately also at the heart of the problems about the "boxes yes or no" issues. Still, it's a different question. Fut.Perf. 15:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah I was, but since then the Committee has decided not to pass a motion (which specifically included TfD) stating that the interpretation was correct, in fact more than one arb said that the intention was to prevent disruptive behaviour (hence not in mainspace and mainspace talk). The fact that we are here again suggests that the behaviour is disruptive, so it's not really a different question at all. The arbs who have commented have told us that the sanction extends as far as the behaviour is disruptive. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 23:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I seem to remember that in a previous case I was of the view that replacing an infobox with another means adding and removing one, which would make this case a topic ban violation. There are arguments in favor of and against this view, I suppose. But arbitrators at WP:ARCA#Motion (Infoboxes) are divided as to whether or not to accept a motion that would allow the conduct at issue here. This indicates to me that the Committee is not currently ready to explicitly allow this conduct, and that they all seem to assume that the conduct is covered by the current sanction (else the motion would be unnecessary). On this basis, I think that the edit at issue violates the topic ban currently in force and should be responded to with a block. The ArbCom remains free to modify this as necessary in the course of any review they decide to undertake.  Sandstein  11:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


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.

Request concerning Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ashtul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 11:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 14:09, 7 January 2015 Blatant case of WP:POVPUSH by changing "Israel maintains that the blockade is legal and necessary to limit Palestinian rocket attack" -> "Israel has sought to justify the blockade as necessary to limit Palestinian rocket attack" based on a new source while an official Israeli source from IDF website is present. The word “maintains” appear in sources [11],[12] and [114]. There was no mention of this change is Edit Summary.
  2. 11:54, 7 January 2015 WP:LIBEL of Naftali Bennett and WP:CHERRYPICKING from Times of Israel. The article balances Bennett’s share of that tragedy which Nishidani failed to include. WP:ALIVE page states “The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism does not apply to biographies” and “Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page”.
  3. 18:33, 24 January 2015 Introducing information by jfjfp which is not WP:RS and was discussed here and here. Nishidani often uses WP:RSN and asks other editors to verify their sources on the noticeboard as well. 2nd revert after Ashurbanippal highlighted non WP:RS.
  4. 15:45, 16 December 2014 The sentence "It is known among Palestinians as "shit"" is upgraded to 2nd sentence in the lead. Later, a mediation was declined. WP:POVPUSH
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

The editor was banned indefinitely in WP:ARBPIA2 the topic ban was lifted by appeal

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  • An arbitration request was not filed earlier as I wasn't aware of the existence of such system on WP.
  • During my investigation I have seen additional questionable edits by Nishidani. I will add them later in the evidence.
  • On Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 Nishidani WP:EDITWAR an WP:UNDUE lead. Several proposals for a WP:BALANCE by either adding pro-Israeli sources or removing sources were declined. Talk page. In response to my hope of settling our differences, Nishidani replied "Me settle? Never. I do admit to squatting, though. regularly every morning." Lovely! This wasn't one diff but on going difficulties.

This isn't about revenge or 1RR, this is about an experienced editor pushing his WP:NPOV in blatant way. He have accused me before of hounding and I have made it very clear that I don't touch any of his edits, as much as i may not like them, if they are grounded. From WP:HOUND "This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor". This isn't my goal and I have stressed it many time. I have been forthcoming and reasonable but was dismissed by him a few times. IjonTichy suggested I will get a WP:CLUE and this is exactly what I have done. I have interacted before with a few editors from Nishidani 'camp' and differences were always settle quickly and in mannered way (for example Al-Aqsa). I intentionally didn't bring up WP:PERSONAL as I understand it is part of editing. This isn't revenge or retaliation. A long-timer like Nishidani knows exactly what he is doing and Diff 1 is as blatant WP:POVPUSH as it gets. My frustration, as well as of editors such as Igorp lj, WarKosign Plot Spoiler and probably other from WP:WAREDIT is tiresome especially since Nishidani's edits are so extreme at the WP:POV they represent. Ashtul (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani has a special gift of presenting information in a misleading way. It happen in the previous AE and it just happen in this very arbitration.
21:08, 19 January 2015 During an arbitration (that led to my block), Nishidani's comment was in the grey zone between misleading to completely false. (a) What he claimed as 2nd revert wasn't the 01:29, 18 January 2015 edit but 14:51, 18 January 2015. (b) He neglected to disclose I've removed within minutes sources that he questioned or without damage. Now he pretends Ashurbanippal is a sign he didn't break WP:RS.
I would like to ask the administrator to refer to the diffs presented so far and explain how they are not blatant. Nishidani have been topic banned before but it seems like he forgot that important lesson.
Nishidani, can you please explain how are you edits justified? I had no problem with the word 'sh*t' but I did have a big problem with locating it before any useful information and go to WP:WAR for leaving it there. Ashtul (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Replies to other editors

If any editor can explain me this and this edits, I will drop this request.

@Sandstein This isn't about dispute over content but repetitive editing behavior. Diff1 is an example of WP:Disruptive editing while diff 4 is just the tip of the iceberg of the WP:WAR that took place. I collected more evidence and I will share some more -

  • Here he edited back his own version of WT:Legality of Israeli settlements statement saying “ref to its legal status under international law in lead is normative”. So, he knows there is a norm but still chose to improvise a longer version.
  • A year after an extensive discussion took place on the talk page, he deleted ‘false’.
  • Here he felt one translation of a racist Israeli poem wouldn’t be enough.
  • Here an article from a no-name journalist on +972 (not RS) is introduced to say As-Seefer is nearby which can be done by simply looking at a map. Seem like a way to force pro-Palestinian article into the page.
  • Here he chose to take out the statement "in which Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in dozens of factories" and added "on Palestinian land from the villages of Qarawat Bani Hassan and Deir Istiya". His edit summary - “update”.

I believe this is enough to prove WP:Tendentious editing, WP:POVPUSH as well as WP:WAR. Ashtul (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cailil As Nishidani said here and in the previous AE against me, I am a newbie. If I was aware of AE before, I would have used it. Nishidani was very teritorial over the Skunk page as he is over Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 now. Nishidani's and co. trying to dismiss this as retaliation is incorrect. If Nishidani can explain diff1 and why he changed "in which Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in dozens of factories" into "on Palestinian land from the villages of Qarawat Bani Hassan and Deir Istiya" I will cancel this request myself. Those two cases are great indicators of his WP:POVPUSH as well as WP:Tendentious editing. An editor with his history, had all the warning one may look for. Ashtul (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz, this isn't about a single edit but a repetitive behavior and not to mention the WP:WAR on Skunk_(weapon). We had a few exchanges on Al Aqsa and they all lasted 1-2 edits.

@Nishidani, I met a friend from Beit Lehem who smelled the Skunk quite a few times. I show her the page the way it was before and even she agreed it was not WP:Neutral. Ashtul (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, can you please give a sensible explanation to diff 1? or why you would change "in which Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in dozens of factories" into "on Palestinian land from the villages of Qarawat Bani Hassan and Deir Istiya"?
Many of the other changes included are result of WP:AGF that was lost when I saw these (in addition to your approach on Skunk page). Ashtul (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani, I didn't try to make this personal b/c overall I think you are good. On Alon Shvut you changed the agreed upon text!
It is OK for an editor to be biased, aren't we all. It doesn't have to be I/P, it can be Airbus vs. Boeing. But some of the changes you have made cross all possible red-lines. All my encounters with other editors were resolved in a matter of 1-2 edits, but with you, somehow it never get solved. Which is exactly why I started to look at your past edits and was startled to find out the amount of POVPUSH you practice. If you can explain how the two edits I have mentioned in my previous edit don't exhibit WP:Tendentious editing and WP:POVPUSH I will drop this request. Deal?
Nishidani, you are an excellent editor and it is easy to see you have tons of experience. I have a lot of respect for you and in a way, you are my mentor. This doesn't the fact many of your edits are blatant POVPUSH. Please answer my previous question and we can be done here. Quite simple, isn't it? Ashtul (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani, The IDF link isn't and wasn't dead. Your statement about neutrality is a sad joke as even though I am not a linguist and English is not my first language, what I do know is that "sought to justify" in nowhere close to neutral, not to mention the removal of the word "legal". Sorry but I'm not convinced. This edit is not simply adding information that supports your views (like many other editors do) but POVPUSH through modifying an existing sentence.
As for the other diff, I didn't but mean for Bennett but this one. You don't see a source for "Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in dozens of factories." put a tag next to it. Replacing it with "on Palestinian land from the villages of Qarawat Bani Hassan and Deir Istiya." is just... well, I don't have words to describe it. (I worked there for about a month a few years ago and I can tell you it is true).
I apologize for wasting your precious time but the fact arbitration requests keep on being filed against might tell you, you are doing something wrong.
I might not be near a computer for the rest of the night Ashtul (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Nishidani

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.

Statement by Nishidani

Statement by NISHIDANI

What's going on here? My talk page is subject to assault today (here, herehere here), with the usual jibe I am or host anti-Semitic crap; red-linked editors are popping up everywhere I edit to revert, and now this? Of course, as User:Ashtul notified me, this, coming straight after the expiry of his one week ban, after I requested something be done about his stalking of me, is not 'retaliation'. I would note that if I have broken 1R, the proper thing to do is to advise me, to allow me to make amends. I can't see at a glance that I have done so.

This is an example of WP:Battleground as well as WP:Hound. Ashtul appears to have confused me with Ashurbanippal against which the request for an 1R violation should have been made, as the evidence above itself shows. I.e.,

Ashurbanippal, along with several other red-linked systematic reverters flooding in recently, just broke 1R at Battle of Shuja'iyya.

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:ARBPIA - 1RR

The editor duly self-reverted immediately after I had notified him. Impeccable behaviour.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As for the pretext that Jews for Justice for Palestinians is not RS, there was no significant response, except for an obiter dictum from, uh, User:Brad Dyer. I have occasionally used it on several articles over several years, and have yet to have it challenged, even by experienced POV pushers. This place is getting chaotic, flushed with newbies on a mission. Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As to 'shit', it is standard practice per WP:NPOV to give both Israeli and Palestinian names for battles or things, in the lead. I can't help it if RS say that what Israeli Defence Force calls, quite accurately, 'skunk' liquid, is called by Palestinians sprayed with it, 'shit'. That's their word, and per parity, quite appropriate to the lead, however vulgar. Again, that is a content dispute, or rather an unseasonable discontent dispute, to misquote Shakespeare.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
'this is about an experienced editor pushing his WP:NPOV.'The only thing wrong with this description of what I do, Ashtul, is the possessive pronoun 'his'. After several months you still have not understood that NPOV is not 'pushed'. It is a pillar of Wikipedia. With an area where a state of war exists, both versions of the reality of events must be incorporated. I stand by the principles I applied in developing Susya, where I edited comprehensively both sides of the historical and contemporary reality. As the edit history will show, most of the edit-warring consisted in removing material about the Palestinians, by editors who, though 'pro-Israeli', never troubled themselves to help me write the difficult synagogue section. Your objections at Skunk (weapon) Carmel, Har Hebron and elsewhere (you created umm al-Kheir, Hebron this morning by plagiarizing the Carmel article to keep two communities within 30 yards of each other separate, and remove all mention of Palestinians in the former article) is that Palestinians should not be mentioned, but put on a reservation, as it were, in separate articles, though they form, per sources, an integral part of each site's history. That is a political POV. Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The repeated, it's now every other month, filing of requests to get me sanctioned on frivolous grounds, is problematical, if only because a few stray diffs, on content disputes, constantly raised against one editor, leave behind an impression, even if the cases are dismissed, that there's no smoke without fire. For just a few of the recent ones, see here, here and here. The worst part of this attrition on everyone's time is that editorial incompetence is patent, and still tolerated. Just look at the first two diffs of Ashtul's new charge sheet, in his response section.
If I edit in that a Palestinian who stabbed several Israelis was a terrorist (neutral and objective) as here, Ashtul and co do not object. They let that pass. It coincides as a fact with an Israeli POV as well. But If I note, using a comment with attribution by one of Israel’s most outstanding minds, who happens also do be a peace fieldworker in the West Bank, that an illegal outpost, widely known for its cruelty to shepherds, was founded by 'fanatics', this is jumped at as proof I am pushing a Palestinian POV. In both cases, I couldn't care less whose POV is scratched on the back.Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Collect. At Battle of Shuja'iyya, the article in the lead stated as an ascertained fact that Palestinian deaths ran to 120. The other day I made this edit, implying the guesstimate range was from 66 to 120. In this weird environment, that edit would be considered by POV pushers as subjectivizing to Israel's advantage the mortality figure, when, like so many edits, it is simply trying to make this encyclopedia reliable, regardless of which side is being documented.Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Your problem Ashtul is that, while you sound, and probably are, a nice guy, you can't read for nuts, and cause huge time loss on futile edit challenges that distresses people like myself who've 8 years of commitment to one of the hardest areas in Wikipedia which everyone thinks a death zone. I'll show you, by replying to your request to clarify the first two diffs, why you can't grasp elementary points, and cause needless stress and grief at time wasted to editors like myself.
The IDF link you cite for the phrasing you wanted is a deadlink. One of the many sources I introduced, Human Rights Watch, neutral and critical of all sides, wrote:’ 'Israel has sought to justify its broad restrictions by citing security concerns.'
Well, neither Human Rights nor any other neutral international organization think that a blockade broad restrictions that denied the import of light bulbs, candles, matches, books, musical instruments, crayons, clothing, shoes, mattresses, sheets, blankets, pasta, tea, coffee, chocolate, nuts, shampoo and conditioner, soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream, potato chips, cookies, fishing ropes and rods, ginger and chocolate etc.etc. did so just to limit Palestinian rocket attacks. When this is the case, the Human Rights Watch (critical of both Israel and Palestine)'s phrasing ‘sought to justify’ governing ‘broad restrictions’ is adequate to the reality. No one can seriously maintain with a straight face that denying potato chips or tampons to the enemy will stop rocket attacks. That's my call. Others may disagree.
That is an absurdly crass interpretation of the diff. The article already contained both Bennett and other people’s defence of his actions at Kfar Qana (see the left side of that diff) . My fresher diff just gave more background detail missed by earlier editors. What is absolutely unacceptable here is that, had you read the diff sequence, you would have realized that rather than cherry pick the evidence, I earlier had already supplied testimony from an impeccable (to me) source namely from ( David Zonsheine) defending Bennett’s honour, a few minutes before .
I’ve wasted another fucking afternoon defending my integrity instead of building articles or preparing gardens for the spring. Get off my back, learn to edit, read policy, and, if possible, some books on the subject of the history of that area. It’s bad enough coping with the trouble you cause on articles without having to face down outrageous and arbitrarily vindictive accusations. It's not enough to say you'll drop the charges amicably if I come through with the goods. Editors must neither hound, raise spurious charges, nor be vexatious, and this is particularly true of the I/P area where attempts to keep serious editors are mostly doomed by the endless fatigue of IP or inexperienced editors intent on defending one's side national dignity, while blind to everything else.Nishidani (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
To Admins. I don't think this is just a content dispute. The evidence Ashtul presents represents his discontent with edits that he has failed to show are violations of NPOV, cherry-picking, etc. He may mean well, but he is making content disputes by consistently refusing to read and master the relevant policy pages, which I have frequently asked him to review, and by hunting, as he admitted, my edit history in the belief I am harming the national interest. I think this is a tad more serious than might at first seem to be the case. I'm not being vindictive, but this is a hard area, and these patterns of frivolous vexation shouldn't be tolerated. Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Your new diff again is a content dispute, accompanied by the disingenuousness that plagues your editing. You cited a diff with an edit summary suggesting I was libeling Bennett. I demonstrated the totally inaccuracy of your interpretation of the diff, which looks malicious. You say now, you didn't mean that one (sure!), but another one on a completely different topic (Kiryat Netafim). I removed some WP:OR suggesting some harmony between Kiryat Netafim's Jews-only settlement and the villagers of Qarawat Bani Hassan. After all Kiryat Netafim 's sewage is all pumped on Qarawat Bani Hassan, and the village challenges its landuse. That is normal editing. You keep inventing stuff, all discontent with the information I add, and technically therefore content disputes. You have no case. I believe that having to cope with you over dozens of pages, when you can't even show cause on anything here, is unfair.Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

This request by Ashtul comes on the day Ashtul's 1-week block expires. The block came as a consequence of Nishidani's request at AE concerning Ashtul, [44]. The hands are not clean, and the request is tainted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

As Nomoskedasticity says, this is a transparent attempt at payback for Ashtul's recent short block that he never accepted. The charges consist only of weakly argued content disputes. Zerotalk 12:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

comment by Collect

Appears to be a vanilla content dispute. Example 2 is not "libelous" AFAICT, and 3 may not be "best source" but the statement is attributed to a specific person, and should be verifiable otherwise as Battle of Shuja'iyya contains the same and similar claims. The Guardian states 120 deaths of Palestinians. Content dispute utterly. Collect (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz

As Ashtul's comments make clear, this is a content dispute. Ashtul should we warned against using this forum as a means to gain the upper hand in content disputes. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nishidani

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

  • At first glance this looks like a non-actionable content dispute to me. While our content policies such as WP:NPOV do have a conduct aspect, there is normally a wide range of defensible opinions about whether a source or text is neutral or otherwise appropriate for inclusion. That is the range in which consensus must be found among editors, and which cannot be reviewed by the arbitration or arbitration enforcement process, because we don't make content decisions. Editorial behavior only crosses the line into sanctionable misconduct if an editor's actions show that they are not here to in good faith help write a neutral encyclopedia, but to promote their point of view at the expense of neutrality, often by means of such conduct as edit-warring, source falsification or tendentious editing, that is, making edits exclusively in favor of one point of view. The evidence submitted here does not support a finding that this might be the case here. While I have and express no opinion on the sources cited and the texts edited, they do not strike me as so obviously unreliable or partisan that a sanction for misconduct could be seriously discussed. I would close this with a reminder to the filer that AE is not to be misused as a weapon with which to win content disputes, but only for genuine concerns of misconduct.  Sandstein  12:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree this is not actionable and is probably a retaliatory AE filing, and that a warning would suffice.
By way of clarification, there are issues here but only normal content matters, ones better suited to RFC or RSN etc. However, the hostility and entrenched belligerence "on all sides" of this topic area make that nigh impossible. The problem, like many many nationalist disputes, is the treatment others as "the enemy". This is an unsustainable mindset to bring to writing an encyclopedia or writing collaboratively in general. My point is that Ashtul's own attitude, and others who behave in the same way, is what gets in the way of the issues they see in this area actually being resolved--Cailil talk 14:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ubikwit

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 
Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 

Per this Arbitration case, this discussion and your previous warning, I am invoking discretionary sanctions and topic banning you from editing any articles (and their associated talk pages) relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, with immediate effect. Note that any violation of this ban may result in an immediate block from any administrator with no further warning given, as this notice has already explained the sanctions you are subject to and served as sufficient notice. This ban has no expiry, although this ban may be revisited by the community at a later date.

Administrator imposing the sanction 
Deskana (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.

Statement by Ubikwit

The topic ban was largely the result of my having been trolled and not knowing how to handle it by disengaging, instead of engaging. I would like the ban overturned. The counterparty of the concurrently imposed interaction ban was a self-avowed activist that has subsequently been topic banned from all topics related to Judaism and appears to no longer be active on Wikipedia.

Statement by Deskana

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ubikwit

Result of the appeal by Ubikwit

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

Note for the sake of completeness: The topic ban (and interaction ban) were imposed 3 January 2013 in this edit by Deskana. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)