Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:37, 3 October 2016

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333

Sean.hoyland

Epson Salts is cautioned that further attempts at wikilawyering and obstructionism is likely to lead to sanctions. No further action is taken at this time. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Sean.hoyland

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Sean.hoyland (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#Amendments

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

21:54 16 Sept First revert (notice no explanation in edit summary)
03:00 17 Sept Second revert 5 hours later, this time claiming a BLP violation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[1] 3 month topic ban for 1RR violation.

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.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months. He mentions ARBPIA 79 times in the edit summaries of his last 500 contribs, so it's safe to assume he is aware.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 3 May 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Sean.hoyland (who according to the banner on the top of his user page edits exclusively in the ARBPIA topic area because of something related to "suppressing dissent" [2]) first appeared on the Walid Khalidi article after two weeks of no editing. Despite never having edited this article or its talk page before, he reverted another editor without explanation in the edit summary or talk page [3]. I reverted him reminding him of BRD (can be seen in the first diff I link to above). He reverted me, again with no explanation. He was reverted and 5 hours later made the second revert noted above, where he refers to BLP but does not explain what the problem is exactly.
I notified him on his talk page that he violated 1RR [4] and invited him to either participate in the discussion and explain the nature of the BLP violation he sees there or self-revert. He removed my warning and did neither.

@Kingsindian, even if your description were accurate (and it isn't. Anyone can see only 4 people including you and me have participated in the discussion in the past year, and you arrived after Sean's 1RR violation), restoring the RIGHTVERSION is not exempt from 1RR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to a previous case in which Sean was reported for violating 1RR and received a 3 month topic ban. I would also like to point out that he has been warned [5] about accusing other editors of being socks without providing sufficient reasoning, as he did below.
Putting aside his ridiculous justification, I don't care if he talks to me or not. It has been long established here and elsewhere that "reverting but being unwilling to discuss the revert is unacceptable and disruptive behavior" [6]. He can address his comments to someone he likes, but he can't invent reasons for reverting without discussion and in violation of 1RR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG, could you please explain how this is "a deliberate attempt at entrapment", and by whom? Am I reading you correctly and you think someone tricked Sean into making reverts without discussion or edit summaries, and in violation of 1RR? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AnotherNewAccount, you'd think a BATTLE laden rant in which an editor announces he will not collaborate with those he finds ideologically unacceptable would elicit some kind of reaction from the admins but apparently that's acceptable behavior for ARBPIA and this board. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While we wait for the admins to finish contemplating this case (and I'm starting to get the feeling that Sean's sense of impunity is not completely unfounded), I have a question: would an editor saying it is "proven" that a living person deliberately committed academic fraud in order to "get" another academic be a BLP violation? Seems exactly like the sort of thing Wikipedia could get sued for. Such an accusation has been sitting in this thread for a few days now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone close this already? Here is a summary of the salient points that came up in the filing and resulting discussion:

1RR violation (previously topic banned for 3 months for 1RR violation: [7])
Refuses to discuss his reverts ("reverting but being unwilling to discuss the revert is unacceptable and disruptive behavior": [8])
Proclaims here and on his talk page that he's an SPA only interested in reverting other editors in ARBPIA, and his edits in the last several months reflect this.

I gather you guys are going to just ignore all these things which would, for most other editors, result in indef bans (I wish you were more honest about your reasons for this. Entrapment? Come on), but someone is going to have to close this and put their name on the close. It's not going to just get archived. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamel, there's no consensus problem here. Not a single admin has indicated they accept Sean's BLP reasoning. Not a single admin said Sean's behavior was acceptable or that he didn't violate the Arbcom mandated 1RR restriction. There's a consensus, they just don't want to act on it. Apparently some editors get extra privileges, like not being bound by Arbcom decisions or normal editing practices. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens, don't forget to note you're using your discretion to let his refusal to discuss his reverts slide as well. Someone might compare this request to the filing just below and get the wrong (or right) idea. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani, on the contrary, I'm arguing that cases should be judged only on their merits and regardless of what "side" an editor is on. Usually someone who violates the 1RR restriction would get sanctioned (see below). If they had been previously topic banned for a similar offence they would get a longer topic ban (I can easily show dozens of examples). Usually the fact someone outright refuses to discuss their reverts is of concern to admins (see below), not something to be ignored. Usually BATTLEGROUND fueled rants on AE get people sanctioned. Etc, etc. Why is this is a special case? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[9]

Discussion concerning Sean.hoyland

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 Sean.hoyland

Ed, I don't think your solution will work. Firstly, I don't think there can be a legitimate consensus to include a misquote presented as a legitimate quote and so I will not pursue one. The evidence that demonstrates that the Village Statistics 1945 survey was misquoted was provided on the talk page (see here) and the orginal document can be seen at the National Library of Israel here (see Explanatory Note, paragraph A/5). Secondly, I choose who to engage with in ARBPIA. It is not a choice for anyone else to make and it excludes people I regard as belligerant ethno-nationalist POV-pushers and/or sockpuppets. There also has to be a good reason to expose myself to the inevitable pitifully infantile personal attacks that accompany engagement with these kinds of editors on talk pages (many examples of which can be seen at Talk:Walid_Khalidi#Dr_Brawer_quote), and in this case there was not. So for me, there will be no response to statements made by NMMNG and Epson Salts here or anywhere else, no dialog or collaboration, no replies to questions, no explanations and no discussion on talk pages and no seeking consensus with these individuals on this or any issue. If that results in a block or topic ban, the benefit for me personally outweighs the cost of engagement. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that, while I have made hundreds, perhaps thousands of 1RR violations in ARBPIA reverting disruptive editors (as anyone can see from my edit history), I don't believe this was a 1RR violation. I think the removal was justified by WP:BLPREMOVE because a statement that criticizes a living person based on a demonstrably false quotation of the source they used fails the basic verifiability test. The source cited is simply wrong. The associated quote can and should be removed, in my view. There was no justification for the repeated restoration of the misquote and no amount of waiting or discussion could produce a situation that would justify its restoration based on policy. A legitimate consensus for that is impossible. There was nothing to wait for and there is never a good reason to avoid the inevitable reports that follow from any attempt to suppress the illegitimate actions of belligerent ethno-nationalist POV-pushers in sock and/or non-sock form. 1RR is not there to facilitate editors repeatedly and knowingly restoring false information into a BLP and self-preservation is not a valid reason to delay an action that an editor or bot regards as justified by policy in my view. Any long term editor knows that effective suppression of the disruption and contamination that inevitably follows from Wikipedia's inability to exclude these kinds of editors from ARBPIA will have costs for the editors doing it. So admins can do as they see fit and there will be no complaints from me. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AnotherNewAccount, you are correct that I have 'no intention of editing collegially with those whom he deems "belligerant[sic] ethno-nationalist POV-pushers'. You are incorrect in assuming this is related to an "ideological agenda", but that doesn't matter. I had the privilege of attending a good college where working 'collegially' was possible. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to edit this way in ARBPIA with all editors, but right now that is neither possible or advisable in my view. The topic area does not have an effective admissions policy and so the notion of 'editing collegially' is wishful thinking and an irresponsible policy that exposes editors to attacks and the idiocy and ugliness of nationalism. My view after many years of editing, is that editors in ARBPIA should not collaborate with these kinds of editors because it is counterproductive. Editors who violate WP:NOTADVOCATE should not be here in the first place. Collaboration perpetuates the toxic unsafe environment which is why my edits are now restricted to uncommunicative bot-like reverts mostly of long-term-abuse accounts. I am glad that you misidentify these as "often good-faith new editor[s]" because the less you know about it the better. ARBPIA should be treated as an unsafe work area in my opinion and shutdown until Wikipedia can provide an effective measure of protection to editors and content.

Re: Kamel's 'directly rendering Wikipedia's policies meaningless' statement. This is nonsense. Wikipedia's policies are already meaningless. Bear in mind that in practice I have absolute impunity. I can literally do as I please. If blocked I can create as many accounts as I wish, all of which would be impossible to confirm as sockpuppets because, like many others, I have the access to the resources and experience necessary to do that. The fact that I wouldn't do that is just a random factor over which Wikipedia has no effective control whatsoever. Blocking is only effective against people with integrity, which sadly means it is largely ineffective in ARBPIA.

Re: Sir Joseph's statement "It is a common practice for those on the Palestinian side to claim sockpuppet for other people. We see that here and that has to stop. It is a chilling atmosphere when every dispute has allegations of sockpuppetry." The reason it's common practice to claim sockpuppet for other people is because it is common practice in ARBPIA for people to use sockpuppets. I'm aware that accusing someone of sockpuppetry without filing an SPI report is an article of faith the Church of Wikipedia. I haven't accused anyone of sockpuppetry here but I would have no qualms doing so even if it resulted in a block. I have simply reflected the reality that in ARBPIA the editors can be legitimate editors or socks, and the mix is probably 50/50. Complaining about the number of sockpuppets or telling people to shut up about sockpuppets does no good either way. It changes nothing. Blocking a sock changes nothing, they will just come back. In practice, if an editor that resembles a sock behaves well, does not violate WP:NOTADVOCATE, complies with all content policies, they will be left alone. But if they harass editors they dislike, which is what usually happens, or go back to their misuse of Wikipedia, someone is going to say they resemble a sock, and wishing they didn't or blocking them for voicing their opinion changes nothing. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

Please see the comment I made here on the talkpage. The basic issue is that there is (at least) 6-2 or 7-2 consensus on the talkpage to pare down some material, which is being obstructed by one editor by using wikilawyering. In the face of this obstructionism, Sean.hoyland has violated WP:1RR. You can "punish" the 1RR violation, or see the underlying issue. Up to you. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised that Epson Salts is wikilawyering here as well. Here's the consensus timeline. The initial discussion was a year ago, which nobody objected to, 3-0. Here Zero made the first edit which they forgot to do a year ago. Epson Salts reverted (3-1). Sean Hoyland reverted (4-1). Nishidani commented (5-1). NMMNG commented and re-reverted (5-2). Sean Hoyland reverted again. I comment (6-2). Pluto2012 commented (7-2).

This is of course not the first time Epson Salts has engaged in wikilawyering. Nor is it the first time they have given an unsolicited opinion that Zero and Nishidani should not be editing in ARBPIA, insinuations about source falsification, personal attacks and so on. One can easily find a ton of pages where they insert themselves into a content dispute, always to throw gasoline on it. I can give diffs if required. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this, one way or another? There is no more edit-warring on the text and there are proposals on the talk page to fix the text, one way or another, without including the misquote from Brauer directly. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Although it would have been good for Sean to state his explanation more expansively on the talk page, I believe that it is a reasonable judgement that the revert was justified by the BLP rules. As KI says, one editor is wikilawyering to keep a fake quotation in the BLP, that reflects badly on the subject of the BLP, despite everyone agreeing that it is fake. Even if you disagree that this justifies a revert, I think you should see it as a fair call made in good faith. Zero^talk 05:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Actually a link to a scan of the misquoted document has been on that talk page for over a year; see Huldra's text "I agree". Everyone has long all they needed to check that there was indeed a misquote. Zero^talk 23:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Epson Salts is easily the worst editor in the I/P area at the moment and I challenge anyone to identify any positive contribution he/she has made to the encyclopedia. What I see is endless POV-pushing, stonewalling, sneering and abusive tone and bad faith. The case brought here is actually representative. Any editor who is dedicated to article improvement, on noticing an objectively incorrect item in an article (in this case, a BLP even) will be thinking about how to fix the error within the rules. Epson Salts instead wastes the time of multiple editors by fatuous wikilawyering to keep the incorrect item in the article. The reason is quite obvious if you examine the direction of his POV-pushing. He/she even went to WP:NORN without notifying anyone else in the discussion and tried to get support by means of a distorted description (he/she makes it sound like a disagreement between an editor's opinion and a source's opinion, but it is nothing of the sort). Zero^talk 23:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Epson Salts now claims that all should be forgiven because the dispute was resolved. The fact is that there was never any cause for a dispute and it was only Epson Salt's disruption and wikilawyering that created one. Zero^talk 01:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement byEpson Salts

This is a very clear cut case of 1RR violation. Even the editors who posted here in support of Sen.hoyland do not deny that fact. I won't go into detail into the misrepresentations by Kingsindian or Zero as to the nature of the dispute (the quote is not 'fake' - we are talking about a possibly missing ellipsis; the current discussion is 4:2; it obviously can't be obstructionism by a single editor if they concede there are at least two who opposed to their position etc...) - because we are not supposed to be rehashing and deciding content issues here- that's for the talk page discussion - a page where Sean hoyland has been conspicuously absent. The question before us here is - do we allow 1RR violations for what some editors think are 'good' edits. That's a very slippery slope. Epson Salts (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: You are confused as to the argument I am making. A noted scholar, who is a geographer by training and current occupation, who is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal on a topic of geography, is an academic source. An activist, who is an anthropologist by training and a current researcher in internet activism, who is published in a group blog on a topic far outside her academic expertise (WII history, Nazism and Arab antisemitism), is not. There's nothing inconsistent about this position.

Would you care to point out where I am wikilawyeirng on the relevant talk page? I have already said I am willing to rephrase the Brawer crticism and have asked Zero0000 for a proposal for such re-write - what is the issue?

And let me understand the position you are taking: It is ok to violate an Arbcom mandated 1RR restriction, refuse to discuss the reasons for the revert, and declare that you will continue to do so in the future , provided it is a revert to the "right version"? It would be useful to know this. Epson Salts (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If any of the admins jumping to the "topic ban" conclusion actually care, the dispute over which I was supposedly "wikilawyering" has been fixed for two weeks now, due to a collaborative effort between me and @KingsIndian: . Epson Salts (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

There is no 'misrepresentation' by those editors. The second diff constitutes an IR violation, but was motivated as a WP:BLP violation. Zero outlined a case one year ago that the quote from Brawer comes from him running together two sentences widely separated, with a crucial element missing, to formulate a criticism of another scholar, Walid Khalidi.Nota bene that on perceiving this, he did not rush to 'score' a point, the vice of many editors here. He waited a year for further collegial input This is an inexpugnable fact which ES still challenges above: 'we are talking about a possibly missing ellipsis. I.e. the talk page has the evidence, a scan has been provided to verify the full text, the fact that Brawer in defiance of fundamental scholarly practice dropped the (. . . .) marks indicating an ellipse, to get at Khalidi is proven. For ES it remains a possibility. That is wikilawyering on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT principles.

A further point.In reverting Sean.hoyland’s revert Epson Salts’s edit summary reads: disruptive edit warring by editor not participating in the discussion. But that is precisely what ESS does. For example, this, at Max Blumenthal, where he reverted never having participated on that talk page. Epson Salts varies policy reasons for reverts from page to page, indulges in abuse of, and bad faith accusations of several editors, and when told to desist replies:'You get back exactly what you dish out', which misses the point. I asked him to stop abusing Zero, not me. There is no trace in Zero's edit record of intemperate language. Hoyland should have waited: there were several eyes on that page. But it is not as if he can't see what has been obvious to several editors since ES arrived on the I/P scene.Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the I/P area is always going to be difficult. But there is an uptick in hostility and sneering recently that is effectively making any form of editing close to impossible because the hostility is undisguised, and it comes with theories about me, or others. I am assumed to be a Hamas-POV pusher (here and here, herewhere the technical literature I cite (per WP:NPOV - one cannot just cite incidents of terror and cancel out what the huge scholarship on it regularly produces as contextualization or theories regarding its causes - is then interpreted invariably as 'my opinion'), or part of a 'gang of buddies' who are going to get what, apparently, 'we' dished out now the 'shoe is on the other foot' (here; here against Zero;here; or here), which today echoes exactly the unembarrassed, openly 'vindictive' declaration of an intent to 'dish it out' to a perceived group which I mentioned earlier. It comes, note, after The Blade of the Northern Lights advised him to 'tone down' the aggressiveness he flaunts.Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NMMGG/KT.The innuendo above that the respective merits of each particular case be ignored, and that in its place all I/P cases be collapsed into 'if you take one of our guys out, you have to take one of theirs' logic, and if you don't, you're biased, is, if not rhetorically coercive, then arguably intimidatory, and out of place. If a IR rule is broken, though the reason of the reverter had a policy basis, that is one thing. A sanction is probable, but it is not to be taken as identical to repeated aggressive personal attacks, amply documented, by the editor Hoyland reverted. There is no mechanical parity between the respective behaviours. Hoyland is not fighting a sanction, if his interpretation for the second revert is invalid. Epson Salts has been attacking everyone. They are two qualitatively distinct forms of behavior. Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Ah, this is a case of horrible "wiki-lawyering"; saying that if anyone is scholar, is a WP:RS, therefor should be represented. Well, there are countless of WP:RS-sources which gives the number of killed in the Deir Yassin massacre around 250. Today we know this isn´t true, so we do not use them in the article (except to note that the estimates of killed were earlier larger.)

That Brawer is a scholar does not mean that everything he wrote is correct. When shown that what he wrote was not correct, then it is a horrible (sanctionable?) idea to put it into an article. Huldra (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the Brawer quote S.H removed twice is: [According to Brawer, the reliability of the original version is in doubt,] to the point where the explanatory note on the original 1945 version specifically states: "The population estimates published here cannot, however, be considered other than rough estimates which in some instances may ultimate be found to differ considerable from the actual figures." This in a discussion of Khalidi`s 1992 book: All that remains.

Besides the fact that the Brawer quote is not as stated in the Village Statistics 1945, it also seems to me that Brawer wants to give the impression that Khalidi has hidden the fact that the 1945 populations were estimates. However, Khalidi does no such thing. On p. xxi in "All that remains" Khalidi writes: "It should also be stressed that the population figures are not the result of an actual census but extrapolations as at year-end 1944 prepared by the Mandatory Government´s Department of Statistics on the basis of the 1931 census."

It is not Khalidi´s fault that the 1945 populations figures were estimates!

To me: if editors add the full Brawer quote to Khalidi´s BLP, it indicates that the editors have no knowledge of Khalidi´s work, Huldra (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kamel Tebaast

Most all of Sean.hoyland's edits are reverts, s/he walks the fine line and knows the rules, and you admins are suggesting a warning for a 1RR. No topic ban! No block! Nothing! A warning! You're out of order! You're all out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order! That man, that crazy man, reverted everyone, and he'd like to do it again! It's just a show! It's a show! It's "Let's Make A Deal"! "Let's Make A Deal"! Hey Admins, you wanna "Make A Deal"? I got an insane judge who likes to let off Palestinian nationalists with warnings! Whaddya wanna gimme Admins, 3 weeks probation? Kamel Tebaast 07:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Not my fault you don't know one of Pachino's best scenes ...And Justice For All

@Zero0000: The worst editor in the A/I area is Sean.holyland. Since 11 August 2008, s/he has made 5,739 revisions. Clearly very little "positive contribution he/she has made to the encyclopedia".

@Kingsindian: You don't find it ironic that you wrote about Epson Salts giving "unsolicited opinion" about other editors while you were giving an unsolicited opinion about another editor?

@Admins: Enough with all these straw man and misdirection arguments, refocusing on other editor diversions, and, a first that I've heard on Wikipedia, "entrapment". With 5,739 REVISIONS, most all in the A/I area, Sean.hoyland clearly knew the rules. S/he made two reverts in five hours and bi-passed the opportunity to self-revert and discuss in Talk. A sanction must be given. If not, you are directly rendering Wikipedia's policies meaningless, and you are adding to the real concern that Wikipedia has one set of rules for editors who support Palestinian nationalism and one for editors who support Israel. Kamel Tebaast 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can Wikicourt end with no consensus? Kamel Tebaast 18:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NMMNG, you're forgetting some very important details. The admins acknowledged that "wikilawyering" and "entrapment" were the real culprits, apparently causing Sean.H to act this way. Kamel Tebaast 20:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens: As a relatively new editor who wants to learn, and for all the new editors, can you please explain how you justify that an undisputed 1RR violation should "slide", while many other editors have received sanctions for far less? Thank you. Kamel Tebaast 17:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

Two things need to be kept in mind. (I am not taking any sides in the content dispute or 1RR since I haven't looked into it.) It is a common practice for those on the Palestinian side to claim sockpuppet for other people. We see that here and that has to stop. It is a chilling atmosphere when every dispute has allegations of sockpuppetry. Secondly, the claim that there will be no interaction, no explanation, no discussion is completely contrary to Wikipedia. When someone edits they are editing under the guidelines that there will 100% be discussions and explanations. These comments need to be addressed, independent of the actual 1RR case presented here. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding calling others socks, Sean Hoyland was already warned for this before. Here is one time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive152#Sean.hoyland Quite frankly I'm surprised no admins are commenting on his statements that he will not cooperate with editors. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AnotherNewAccount

This is a very clear 1RR violation, and I fail to see how the content in question violates BLP guidelines either. (As for Kingsindian's supposed "consensus", it looks very much to me like a traditional ARBPIA non-consensus: the standard sizable group of pro-Palestinian editors with strong views all agreeing with each other, out-arguing the rump of 1-2 opposing editors by sheer force of numbers. Neutral editors, are of course, entirely absent.)

Scrutinizing the accused editor's overall conduct of late, I question whether Sean.hoyland is even here to build an encyclopedia anymore. The last few months' editing has consisted of little more than ideological revert ninjaing and POV-motivated enforcements of 30/500 without even the courtesy of an explanation to the often good-faith new editor being reverted. Reading his rant above, it's clear that he has no intention of editing collegially with those whom he deems "belligerant[sic] ethno-nationalist POV-pushers" - that is, those editors who oppose his heavy ideological agenda. I was originally going to suggest he be placed on 0RR, but demonstrating this clear battleground mentality, I now think administrators should consider a topic ban. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ijon Tichy

Sean.hoyland should be sanctioned for clearly violating the 1RR restriction. Perhaps a (short-term, temporary) topic-ban or block. I greatly respect and admire Sean's work, he is a net positive asset to the project by a very wide margin, he is clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and does a great job of reverting a wide range of edits by disruptive editors. Sean's work always strictly follows, and asserts, Wikipedia policies and guidelines across many articles in the I/P topic area(s). I hope that he will soon decide to exit his retirement or semi-retirement and resume contributing many more edits to the encyclopedia --- I enjoy reading his good work. However, he broke the rules (which is a very rare behavior for him) and should bear the consequences.

Meanwhile, Epson Salts appears to continue to edit disruptively while completely ignoring the warnings and helpful advice that were provided to him here on this board from experienced users including Kingsindian, Zero0000, Nishidani, Huldra, Drmies, JzG, and The Blade of the Northern Lights, as well as from user Joe Roe here. For just one recent example of Epson Salt's many disruptive edits over the last few months, users may want to take a look at Talk:2008 Dimona suicide bombing. This is just one representative case of the numerous incidents where Epson Salts has used WP as a battleground and where Epson Salts has continued to relentlessly hound and personally attack Nishidani across numerous WP articles, despite many requests and warnings by Nishidani, and others, to stop. Ijon Tichy (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Sean.hoyland

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

I would close this with a warning to User:Sean.hoyland that he may be blocked if he edits the Walid Khalidi article again without getting prior consensus on the talk page. Sean's second revert doesn't appear to be justified by BLP. People are claiming that the Village Statistics 1945 survey could have been misquoted but there is not quite enough information provided at Talk:Walid Khalidi#Dr Brawer quote to be sure that happened. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with EdJohnston--respectfully of course! I think that Sean.hoyland hasn't been perfect here, but it is pretty obvious to me that indeed Epson Salts is wikilawyering on the talk page where there seems to be a pretty clear consensus that a. not every apparently status quo is a "stable version" and b. the challenged material was indeed excessive and its source questionable. I note that Epson Salts claims that "sourced, academic material" (a rather vague adjective, that second one) shouldn't be reverted, though in another discussion (still at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Miriyam_Aouragh_as_a_source_for_the_views_of_Gilbert_Achcar) they are acting as if they believe the opposite. So yes, I think I'm with Kingsindian here (that that day would ever come...) and I think that the underlying issue needs to be dealt with here. If one calls Sean.hoyland's disruptive or in violation of this or that, then surely the handiwork by Epson Salts is, and I think that they're ready for a topic ban. That is, I think Wikipedia is ready for that. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Epson Salts, not confused, but your sarcasm is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Kamel Tebaast, I love a bit of entertainment, but huh? what? Drmies (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, this looks to me like a deliberate attempt at entrapment. Sean.hoyland needs a shot across the bows, which is fair, but nothing more. And Epson Salts needs a pretty strong warning to watch his step. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially agree with JzG, and further emphasis that Epson Salts seriously needs to back it way down. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this be closed with a strong warning to Epson Salts for wikilawyering and wasting time. I don't see much reason to sanction or warn Sean.hoyland or No More Mr Nice Guy. Bishonen | talk 09:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
For Epson Salts, I would go for a topic ban right now. I think we can use our discretion to let this 1RR violation slide. T. Canens (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to a topic ban for Epson Salts, either. Bishonen | talk 01:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

ה-זפר

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 ה-זפר

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ה-זפר (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: [1rr]

pov pushing
vioaltion of npov

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

Revision as of 19:19, 15 September 2016
Revision as of 21:55, 16 September 2016
Revision as of 18:21, 18 September 2016
Revision as of 18:50, 18 September 2016
Revision as of 16:49, 22 September 2016
Revision as of 03:04, 23 September 2016
Revision as of 21:49, 23 September 2016 "the edit was neutral and enhancement of the article head. discussion net required."

In the edits above he puts Hebrew before Arabic in the infobox and main article text, changes the map to an Israel north east map removes "occupied" by Israel in infobox and changes it to "control", adds Israel time zone.

I warned him at his talkpage and he continued to edit war and violate the 1rr after:[10]

He has not made one single post at the talkpage, he is just resorting to edit warring. I asked him to please discuss at talkpage and get consensus and he just continued to edit war:[11] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A4%D7%A8&type=revision&diff=740892709&oldid=740860033

Discussion concerning ה-זפר

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 ה-זפר

Statement by Debresser

This editor is damn annoying, but that isn't specific to his editing in the IP-conflict field. I think that it would be more beneficial for this project if WP:AE would explain to him the essentials of community editing one last time, and put him on probation. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

My experience with ה-זפר has largely been limited to the article about Israel, but I find that the editor rarely uses edit summaries or the talk page, and inappropriately marks most edits minor. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ה-זפר

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

In addition to the two blatant 1RR violations after a warning specifically about it ([12]), I'm quite spectacularly unimpressed by the attitude shown in these edits: [13] ("the edit was neutral and enhancement of the article head. discussion net required."), and [14] ("Enhanced the head. Added currently administrated by. My edit is not disputed. I'm just adding current administration status. [de facto and de jure cannot be used]"). For clarity's sake, ה-זפר: If someone disagrees with or reverts your edits, they are in dispute and discussion absolutely is required. This type of aggressive, dismissive attitude has no place in a sensitive area like ARBPIA, and I'd support a lengthy topic ban for both that and the blatant 1RR violations and general edit warring. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Towns Hill

Blocked 72 hours to prevent further disruption of the India-Pakistan topic area. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Towns Hill

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Towns Hill (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:ARBIPA :

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

03:13, 26 September 2016 Editing in section about the‎ Kashmir conflict
03:13 - 7:29, 23 September 2016‎ (4 consecutive edits) Explanation
03:13, 23 September 2016 Adding content about Bangladesh on Wartime sexual violence
22:31, 22 September 2016 Creating content about Bangladesh on Wartime sexual violence
06:24 - 8:23, 19 September 2016‎ (5 consecutive edits) Creating section about Kashmir on Wartime sexual violence
00:08 - 02:58, 29 August 2016‎ (13 consecutive edits) Added content about Kashmir on Wartime sexual violence
07:27-10:59, 28 August 2016‎ (4 consecutive edits) Added content about Kashmir on Wartime sexual violence
09:25, 30 August 2016 Edited on article about battle from Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

Diff since AE filing

11:14, 27 September 2016 Reinserted Kashmir content on Wartime sexual violence with edit summary "Sexual crimes by Indian occupation forces against Kashmiri women is not part of Indo-Pakistan conflict (which is separate and dates to 1947). Its part of Indo-Kashmiri conflict. This referenced and cited section cannot be removed by a random IP address."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

02:49, 24 March 2016 You may make no more than one revert every 24 hours to a page within the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area for a period of 1 month, subject to the standard exceptions by Slakr
15:12, 15 May 2016 Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh by EdJohnston

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 15:12, 15 May 2016 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User was also indef blocked by Diannaa on 19:22, 30 August 2016 copyvio and later unblocked.

The Kashmir conflict clearly falls under ARBIPA as it's an ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan. Anything related to that conflict or Indian/Pakistani actions in that area would easily fall under the discretionary sanctions, broadly construed. I agree with Lankiveil that it's disingenuous to suggest Kashmir is not under these DS. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

17:04, 26 September 2016

Discussion concerning Towns Hill

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 Towns Hill

Actually I think all this is being over-interpreted. I have not edited anything contentious re. Bangladesh or Indo-Pakistan disputes. Rape of Kashmiri women by Indian troops is not part of Indo-Pakistan conflict. Its part of the Indo-Kashmir conflict. Towns_Hill 11:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Conflicts between India and Pakistan do not include conflict between India and Kashmiri people. If Indian army is raping Kashmiri women, it does not fall under Indo-Pakistan conflict. What would fall under Indo-Pakistan conflict would be the charge that the Indian Army raped Pakistani women.Towns_Hill 00:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

As he is still a fairly new editor, I am pretty sure he has misunderstood his restrictions and thought that Wartime sexual violence does not come under this restriction, as he is been staying away religiously from the pages which got him this topic-ban at the first place. This is a common mistake made by new editors when under a topic-ban as they think that the restriction is on the article names rather than content. Requesting that he should be given a leeway here with a more clearer explanation as how these restrictions apply to the edits he made. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: Blocks/bans are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, he did not respond yet himself but my thinking is that he must have misunderstood these restrictions as I can see he stayed away from most of those articles which were specific to Bangladesh. Wartime sexual violence is not specific to Bangladesh. I see a potential of good contributor in him and think he should not be punished. Maybe he can be given a rope here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Towns Hill topic-ban was invalid to begin-with, it was issued in haste and was based on a rather inflammatory comment of one editor to an admin's TP. He was never reported at AE and was not given a chance to defend himself. He was banned on a comment of an editor who went on admin shopping and knew which admin would be more than willing to entertain his request because that specific admin has been mentioning distributing topic-bans on forums in the past. Bans/Blocks should not be distributed like candies and avoided as much as possible until they are absolutely necessary as they put a huge stain on an editor's credibility and history especially when the editor is a new editor. Towns Hill's t-ban should be reviewed and reversed. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

@User:EdJohnston - dropping "and Bangladesh" from the restriction is just going to cause a shift in the problematic behavior. Like a balloon - you press in one place, it gets bigger in another. And that area has a lot of problems already (SheriffIsInTown's presence here indicates that if TownsHill is let loose there, it will probably get worse). @User:Seraphimblade - Bangladesh was part of Pakistan until the bloody and brutal Liberation War in 1971. That war also involved India. So for most practical purposes "and Bangladesh" is redundant with "conflicts between India and Pakistan". I'm assuming it was added in there just so TownsHill or whoever can't try to WP:WIKILAWYER it. I mean, there probably are some articles which are about "just Bangladesh" and are not somehow tied up with the India-Pakistan conflict, but probably not many, and in any case, these are not the ones that TownsHill chooses to edit.

As an aside, I do wonder if the increase in disruptive activity on Bangladesh-related articles correlates with the imposition of discretionary sanctions on India-Pakistan in 2012. It's possible that users who wanted to fight over I-P conflicts realized that was an easy way to get sanctioned, so they went over to Bangladesh articles to fights their battlegrounds there by proxy. I can think of a couple accounts who seem to fit that pattern. Another good reason to leave "and Bangladesh" in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

I'd just like to point out that although it is belt and braces to insert 'and Bangladesh,' the provision on the original restriction- that is, 'broadly construed'- should be enough to include it. Since, as had been pointed out above, before 1971 it actually was part of Pakistan ('East Pakistan'), it is disingenuous to argue that is now completely irrelevant.

Statement by Kautilya3

Just a note to say that the user has also edited Partition of India after this report was filed. The edit even adds text saying Thus the 1946 election was effectively a plebiscite where the Indian Muslims were to vote on the creation of Pakistan. The edit summary is worth noting too. It does seem that the user has great difficulty understanding the scope of their topic ban. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Towns Hill

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

Not sure what clarification is needed. The restrictions clearly apply to anything to do with Bangladesh and there are a whole string of edits on that topic. So also is the India Pakistan conflict restriction. Sexual violence during the conflict is clearly about the conflict. On the face of it, these are clear and umambiguous violations of the ban. --regentspark (comment) 18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Bangladesh, the part not covered by the liberation war, can be withdrawn because much of that is independent of India and Pakistan. However, that still leaves many problematic edits. The ones connected with the liberation war, the Kashmir conflict ones, the annexation of Hyderabad (definitely India/Pakistan related). I'm willing to be lenient, but TownsHill's own statement leaves a lot to be desired. Disassembling aside, the majority of the edits are India Pakistan related. --regentspark (comment) 22:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear from EdJohnston as to how the topic ban from Bangladesh-related topics works. WP:ARBIPA authorizes discretionary sanctions for India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, but I can't find anything indicating that the area of the case was ever broadened to Bangladesh. If it wasn't, that portion of the ban seems to exceed the authority to impose sanctions and wouldn't have been valid to start with. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see that there are several problematic edits aside from the Bangladesh portion. I'd endorse the suggestion of a 72-hour block, and removing the portion of the sanction regarding Bangladesh (though with the caution that if any edits regarding Bangladesh touch on the ARBIPA area, they are still covered under the ban and can be accordingly sanctioned). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The restriction I imposed on User:Towns Hill says "Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh." I would be open to dropping "and from anything to do with Bangladesh". However this won't make the present complaint go away, since all the diffs given above (except #4) apply to war-torn countries where Indian and Pakistan were fighting. The atrocities that were said to be committed in Kashmir were due to India-Pakistan conflict. Diff #4 does not violate the restriction because it was a charge that rapes were committed by soldiers of the post-independence Bangladeshi army. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think a clarification (or extension) is required to make it clear that matters relating to military conflict in Kashmir absolutely come under the banner of "conflicts between India and Pakistan", given the frozen conflict between the two states over the territory. It does to me seem somewhat disingenuous to claim that one thought the ban didn't already apply in that situation, however. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The edit linked to by Kautilya3 would seem to indicate that this user is probing at the limits of the topic ban to see how far they can go. Initially I was happy to go with good faith, but I'm finding that an increasingly difficult position to maintain. A short block might be in order. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I think at least a 72 hour block, and a firm notice that this sort of thing is going to lead to very rapidly escalating blocks. There's no shortage of disruption in India-related articles, and it gets amplified several orders of magnitude if admins don't send an unambiguous message that they will enforce sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

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: Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:21, 27 September 2016 (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 :

Specifically Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Decorum and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions.

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

28.9.16 Personal attack in the claim that I am "drifting", in the claim that I argue "from self-esteem". WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT claim that my objections are not policy/guideline-based.

He acted precisely in the same manner the last time we disagreed on the talkpage of an IP-conflict related article, Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Gilbert_Achcar, with blatant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior.[15] The insults were at other pages during that same time.[16][17]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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 Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive_11#Amendment_request:_Debresser_.28August_2016.29.
Was warned recently.[18]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [19]

Further comments

@Kingsindian Content dispute? This post is about incivility in a very specific and sensitive area, where there exist clear standards of behavior, that have been violated. This post is about tendentious editing. When an editor asks for a policy/guideline even after it has been provided again and again, and does so on various talkpages, to create the false impression as though those who disagree with him refuse to reply to his "legitimate" request, and thereby show them as though illegitimate, that is extremely disruptive behavior. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy If all you see in this post is a complaint about the words "drifting", then you are either trying to deliberately mislead editors here, or you are completely unfit to edit articles in the IP-conflict area. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@All I find it telling that editors with a well know POV try to make it look as though this post is about some triviality. This post is about a very smart editor, who knows how to hide his blatant POV and tendentious editing behind a mask of adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but is guilty of minor but systematic transgressions for years now, and it is about time he is called to answer for that. This WP:AE post is about what just a small example of that behavior, which I hope suffices to get him warned or temporarily topic banned, and my hope and expectation is that Nishidani will see it as a warning and mend his ways. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani Why do you say I represent the Israeli point of view?[20] (and many more edits that prove I am a good editor, who does not let his personal opinions stand in the way of good editing) Debresser (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith If all you saw in my report is 1 mildly standoffish comment, then I suggest you read it again. Shame on you. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AnotherNewAccount Nice collection. In my post I only wrote about his insults to me, not other editors, and even there you found another good example I had already forgotten about, since this way of denigrating talk has become expected from Nishidani. The only correction I would like to make to your post is minor, that I didn't "boil over", rather calmly reached the decision to post here in an attempt to finally stop Nishidani's POV pushing. I am glad to see my take on Nishidani's editing is shared by other editors. Debresser (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ijon Tichy You are falling in Nishidani's trap too. I don't have to quote the policy page to quote policy! If I say something is not reliably sourced, do I have to provide a link to WP:RS? If I say something is not relevant, e.g., do you really need a link to a policy page, or is it evident that information should be relevant? Debresser (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani 1. A suggestive question is not a reliable source, even if the person who asked it would be a reliable source if he made a clear statement. One of the two uninvolved editors who replied at WP:RS/N said so specifically. 2. With only two uninvolved editors replying at WP:RS/N and one of them saying "In short, it is not encyclopedic." and the other "The only question I see is if his comments *should* be included. Which would be an NPOV issue. Personally I favour inclusion but there might be a slight BLP issue", how did Nableezy, or anybody else for that matter, reach the conclusion that the WP:RS/N was in your favor? That is delusional! It is precisely this type of behavior - deliberately misrepresenting consensus, and other types of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior - that I think warrants that Nishidani be sanctioned. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

This is vexatiously piddling, and coming quickly in the wake of Debresser's earlier problems here (arguing without regard to policy), doesn’t look like he has absorbed the lesson. Indeed, above in the indictment, he expressly shows that he has not accepted that verdict by directly referring to my behavior at Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Gilbert_Achcar and citing as evidence a diffwhere I pleaded with him to drop the chat and argue from policy. He was sanctioned for refusing to listen.

This is essentially a clash over whether the same interpretation of the rules should be applied to events regarding Israeli victims of terrorism, and Palestinian victims of terrorism, regardless of the ethnicity involved. I insist that editors are obliged by WP:NPOV to adopt the same criterion everywhere. Several Israeli victim pages include the names of the injured. No one objects. When I added the names of Palestinians maimed in an Israeli terrorist attack, Debresser suddenly objected. After 14 years of wikipedia, that one can still hairsplit and argue the point to exhaustive attrition on very simple policy guidelines in the I/P area is a further sign that it is totally dysfunctional. The seriousness of commitment can be generally judged by a simple glance at the edit history of each editor: who is actually constructing an article, and whose edit record consists mainly in raising objections to the addition of content, by revert and then by engaging in extenuating wikilawyering on the talk page. Since I have interests I in both areas I am never obstructed if I go and write up, say, to cite a recent example, Elio Toaff, I can triple the content in a day, undisturbed: if I touch the I/P area I am drawn into absurd melodramas over the simplest edits, which are contested, reverted or challenged at sight.

Regarding the specific complaint. Debresser in opening a thread to challenge my addition made an insinuation about my motives. I made the briefest of responses to this WP:AGF violation, and asked that one focus on policy, as did the other editor. Debresser’s comments here, here, here, here, and and here, are void of policy considerations. This is exactly the substance of the complaint made at the earlier arbitration case regarding him. He keeps talking past requests for policy justifications for his position, trusting in his opinions or suspicions. Having started the thread motivating his challenge by a personal insinuation against me, he ended it by protesting I had not observed WP:NPA, and jumped at an opportunity to report me.

When I asked him for the nth time to respond by policy his answer was I am applying good editing rules to this article

It is this that I referred to in the diff he adduces. In my judgment, his repeatedly ignoring requests to cite a policy ground for his objection, and, when asked to focus, simply replying ‘I am applying good editing rules to the article,’ sounds to be like an argument from self-esteem. To answer a request for a policy reason with the riposte:’I am a sound editor’ is to privilege a confidence in one’s own personal judgment over logic, policy and the reasoned objections another editor might raise. I.e. self-esteem gets the better of a neutral rule-based system of collaboration.Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to Debresser's link to the warning on my page by Lord Roem, I responded here, and I think my record since will show I have hewed closely to that advice.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian. All reports are based on 'content disputes'. The difference is, is the dispute being handled by respect for the rules, i.e. policy, or not. If an editor, as Debresser in the Mahmoud Abbas case, and, I believe here, refuses to cite policy when repeatedly requested to do so, it is no longer a content dispute, but a behavioural issue. He had 3 months for that, which he leveraged back to a month. Fine, that was fair. I'm bewildered as to why he would try to get back at me on such trivial evidence for insisting he just begin, after 90,000 edits and a sanction, to adopt solid policy grounds to oppose edits. I should add that I do not want a sanction: I'd like to see Debresser simply warned strongly to take to heart the advice he was given when he was sanctioned. Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser by this and this, you are suggesting I am such a subtly devious editor I get away with pushing a blatant POV, and that my recourse to policy is just a ‘mask’.

I take care, among other things, to try and see to it that the Palestinian side of the conflict is fairly represented just as numerous editors (like yourself) edit the Israeli side of the conflict to ensure fairness. I don't see the latter as being 'blatant' because they represent a POV. That's their job and it is perfectly respectable. The only thing is that both perspectives must accept that there are 2 points of view to be described, not one. WP:NPOV is obtained by balancing POVs, not by erasing one of them as ‘blatant’. If you think our interaction is to be governed by a suspicion, as you declared recently that my contributions are to be read as ‘inspired by’ this ‘blatant’ POV, then anything I attempt to register is subject to challenge, not on policy grounds, but by reference to my putative bias. Were that principle adopted, no one would be allowed to edit the I/P area. All policy reasons can be dismissed as a ‘mask’, which, effectively, may throw light on why you ignore repeated calls to cite policy. If it’s a ‘mask’, policy for you becomes meaningless or a pretext: it need not be addressed because your diffidence about the editor’s supposed ulterior motives is enough for you to oppose this or that edit. That way of thinking creates obvious problems here.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the load of diffs AnotherNewAccount provides is that one should not discuss in detail proposed edits on the talk page. One of the deepest problems here is the profound unfamiliarity of many editors with the history of this area. Time and again, one is dragged into detailed explanations about the most trivial issues because many editors appear to not have familiarized themselves with the technical or scholarly literature. Indeed, offense is taken if one tries to set down facts or authoritative interpretations on a talk page, and they are airily dismissed as WP:SOAP. I thought collegiality meant consensus building through ample discussion. Nope. Shut up. If a group of editors assert that:'The Golan Hights is within Israel', one sets out the documentation. If they wikilawyer it, and are reminded that this view is that adopted, singularly, by the ruling Likud party and is authoritatively endorsed by the Likud Prime Minister, they feel insulted. My point was, by all means defend an 'Israeli official POV', but do not try to enter as a fact a specific party position with the complex constellation of Israeli politics. It is a running complaint since 2010 by members of either Likud or Yisrael Beiteinu, which is part of the present coalition, that Wikipedia maps of Israel do not show the Golan Heights, and that funding and courses are in place to get young students to register on Wikipedia and change the maps.

In any case, this is the 10th or 11th time I've been dragged into AE over 6 years, a venue I myself have used with great austerity, only once, against a sockmaster who represented an Israeli pro-settler NGO, and was permabanned. It seems to be a popular pastime. I don't know if the point is to wage a war of attrition to get me to retire in exhaustion, or swing a permaban. Speculation is pointless. Once more, all I can say is that if any diff above, checked in context, seems to suggest my behavior is problematical, then I'm quite willing to respond to any administrative challenge.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to hasbara, it is not a put down term by Israel's enemies. It is what the Israeli Likud-lead government funds since 2013, providing scholarships to students willing to 'defend Israel' by writing on social media, such as Wikipedia.It is endorsed by Binjamin Netanyahu.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamel Tebaast. Could you please refrain from confusing what is developing into a complex complaint. Taking me to task for putatively 'intellectualizing' Ariel Sharon' (?) by my having mentioned the facts established concerning his career ((duly documented on the pages you link) is extremely obscure and serves no evidential basis. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser. I can't let you get away with your latest assertion you know policy. This is the record you allude to.

*(1) I am not disputing that Gilbert Achcar is a reliable source 13:04, 24 July 2016

*(2) How does a question, even a suggestive one, turn into a reliable source? 14:08, 24 July

I.e. In response to repeated requests by 2 editors to clarify what you meant by 'Reliable Source' you said Gilbert Achcar, one of the world's foremost authorities on the Arabs and the Holocaust, was reliable, but not if if his quote contains a question. Then you said he wasn't reliable. You then repeated that your objections are policy based, refusing again to speak policy.

There is no other descriptive word for the above than WP:STONEWALLING/WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT

Even blind Freddy and his dog, sniffing at the RS/N discussion, should be able to twig that Debresser's response is farcical. Such are the rewards for trying to get some useful information into an encyclopedia anyone can edit (stuff out of).Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(A suggestive question is not a reliable source)

This repeated statement only proves you have no familiarity with WP:RS. A reliable source is what is acceptable for articles. Whether a recognized RS can be cited for an opinion is answered (yes, with inline attribution, at WP:OPINION), on that page. Whether such an opinion, when it contains an observation modulated as a rhetorical question (your point) can be quoted, is covered nowhere in wiki policy. That is your opinion, and is nowhere underwritten by wikipedia guidelines. We are supposed to be rule-governed here, to stop subjective opinion or bias from disrupting editing.

I still persist, despite all evidence to the contrary, in believing (perhaps it is one of my irrational(counter-factual) beliefs) that rationality, and things like simple addition, have some function in the world and its workplaces. This is not a content dispute. It is about the ability to read accurately both policy and sources, and evaluate them with detachment.

Nableezy and Nishidani were for inclusion. Debresser was for exclusion (2/1)

Third party input was asked for by Nableezy at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

The question posed was: is Gilbert Achcar RS?

Grammar's Li'l Helper said he would not answer that specific request, but noted one could question whether the quote, being an opinion, was relevant to the page.

Only in death does duty end wrote ‘Achcar is undoubtedly an expert in the field in which he is commenting. So he satisfies the 'RS' part for the purposes of inclusion.’ He too asked whether it ‘should’ be included.

This means, as to its RS status, Grammar's Li'l Helper would not comment; and Only in death does duty end said it qualified. Neither replied to clarifications, meaning one external editor said that Nableezy and myself were correct in claiming Achcar is RS (3/1). You had a 3/1 verdict that Achcar was RS: 2 opinions wondered whether it should be included, but didn’t say it couldn’t. You refused to accept that verdict. Your own opinion, without any policy grounding, was that it must not be included. If you read the whole page Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli or pro-Israeli opinion is quoted saying Abbas is Israel’s best partner for peace (Efraim Sneh); Abbas is Israel’s strategic asset (most Israeli insiders); Abbas is profoundly corrupt (Elliott Abrams, Jonathan Schanzer); that Jewish groups suspect his writings show Holocaust denial. What your editwarring did was challenge, citing as a guideline WP:BRD, which is not a wiki policy, an overview opinion by one of the most deeply informed scholars in this specific field (not a politician or partisan as the others) dealing with the contradiction in Israel’s policy regarding figures like Mahmoud Abbas. Reaction? Stop! Any source pointing out a contradiction regarding Israel's attitude to Abbas is intolerable, and one must stonewall to exhaustion until one gets rid of it. Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Kingsindian

Content dispute. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does the mass of diffs in AnotherNewAccount have to do with the original request? Are people simply allowed to randomly throw mud against the wall hoping something will stick?

The discussion at Talk:Israel#Map_of_Israel is about borders of the map of Israel. One position, which was the original one, is to show Israel's boundaries under international law, namely the Green Line. The problem is that Israel does not consider these the legal boundaries and claims some territories outside these lines. Some random drive-by editor removed the map saying that the Golan Heights isn't included in the map, so it's invalid. This led to an interminable, and so far inconclusive discussion, though we seem to be close.

Nishidani's points, contrary to AnotherNewAccount's characterization, are about the content and take the position of international law. There is a contrary argument which some people make on the talkpage: whatever the status of international law, one should at least show territories over which Israel has "de-facto control". The details are very thorny; see the comment I made here.

Now, because of repeated edit-warring, some people, including me, have made several compromise proposals, which people can read on the talkpage. As far as I know, Nishidani agrees with my proposal.

This absurd diff dump by AnotherNewAccount, who has never participated on the talkpage, is silly. As I pointed out here, AnotherNewAccount considers what other people write to be "childish rubbish", and talk pages to be "lunatic asylums", so this is not surprising. I'm sure this approach is very civil and constructive. It's easy to snipe from afar with no consequences for doing so.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Jesus christ, somebody says youre drifting and thats a "personal attack" that requires coming to AE?

Statement by AnotherNewAccount

Debresser clearly filed this in frustration after several run-ins with Nishidani of late. I haven't been here the last few days, but up until then I was observing Nishidani's conduct on Talk:Israel, which included some extremely insulting putdowns of several editors including Debresser, despite being asked several times to stop. Also stonewalling, soapboxing, and tendentious nitpicking over precise details to justify the retention of a map that clearly failed to reflect the reality of complete Israeli control of the Golan Heights - which he refused to accept for ideological reasons.

[21] Pretty much his first comment in the discussion was a POV-push, apparently Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights was "snapping off territory gained in war" while Russia's annexation of Crimea was merely "resumption of its 2 centuries+ sovereignty".
[22] Bad faith characterization of other editors' reasonings.
[23] Implication of the invalidity of a forming consensus (that the article's map should show, in light green, the disputed area of the Golan Heights, which Israel has controlled and ruled unimpeded for almost fifty years) as he considered it formed by merely an "ad hoc majority of people strongly attached to Israel". (Incidently, his later attempt to get "neutral input" over on WikiProject Maps was slapped down when a genuinely neutral editor all-but sided with the "unfavorable" view.)
[24] First partisan reference to the idea that this disfavored view is "Likud" in nature. (Note: Likud is a right-wing Israeli political party, and the current ruling party in Israel.)
[25][26] General stonewalling.
[27] Accuses other editors of "Likudization via imaginative maps".
[28] Assuming good faith, I think Nishidani was being facetious here, but this was a tendentious suggestion that mischaracterized the other editor's intention
[29] First condecending putdown, against Bolter21. Nitpicking over the exact details of "annexation". General high-handed attitude.
[30] I hardly know know where to begin with this tendentious reply.

Spectacularly rude putdown against Sir Joseph, declaring his intention to ignore him because this reasonings are just "throwoffs from rote learning from bad textbooks" and "this is all meme replication from school textbooks or middlebrow newspapers."
Trite dismissal in "...everything you say is impressionistic", followed by one of his irrelevant anecdotes.
Bad faith mischaracterization of opponents' editing as "...a Likud venture...". The filer Debresser politely expressed his frustration with Nishidani constantly calling the opposing view "Likud".

[31] Reply to Debresser. More inappropriate Likud/Netanyahu references. Nishidani uses erudite-but-vague language here but I think he's essentially accusing other editors of parroting the Likud party line.
[32] "I guess the next move for the ethnonationalization here will be to map the West Bank as an integral part of Israel." - another bad faith mischaracterization of opposing editors' intentions.
[33] Insulting putdown against filer Debresser, and was immediately asked to stop.
[34] Soapbox. In particular, "You keep harping on the hasbara theme..." (the term "hasbara" is used as a term of distain to imply the opposing editor is promoting propaganda).
[35] Issues a rambling reply that Sir Joseph's points come "directly from the standard 'how to reply' talking points lists", followed by another of his wordy offtopic rambles.

Collating the above has taken much of the evening, so I can understand if Debresser didn't have the will to do it himself. Judging by the diff submitted above, Nishidani is continuing with the problematic talk page attitude towards Debresser after he was asked to stop. I think Debresser has boiled over, and justifiably so. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kamel Tebaast

Thank you, AnotherNewAccount, for teaching me a new policy: WP:SOAP. In case your fine examples weren't enough to move Nishidani into the semi-finals, here are a few more:

[36]: Nishidani's SOAP that led No More Mr Nice Guy to remove unwarranted material and ask Nishidani if he could "kindly cut out the SOAP?"; and TheTimesAreAChanging to refer to Nishidani's rant as "mostly pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook (complete with Nishidani's trademark comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany, which is obviously necessary".
[37]: Illustrating a typical Nishidani SOAP, in one edit, as to whether Yasser Arafat should be referred to as a terrorist, Nishidani managed to slide in an ad hominem attack on me, that I "lack detachment and wish to skewer the subject of the article"; discounted that he could use straw man tactics; intellectualized Ariel Sharon's stature (notwithstanding that he killed Arabs, was the architect of the 1982 Lebanon War, responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacre); and culminated with a hypothesis that "We hsve [sic] a fair statement of Arafat's ambiguity in his lead, we have a one-sided hypothesis of Ariel Sharon in his lead."
[38] (If you need more, just go up above to AE Sean.holyland) Kamel Tebaast 05:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia

The curious thing about AnotherNewAccount's rather impressive-looking charge sheet is that you would have expected him to lead with the strongest part of his case, yet examination of the first diff actually tends to highlight as problematic the behaviour of Kamel Tebaast, who has commented above, rather than that of Nishidani. The comment Nishidani makes is innocuous and factual. Kamel Tebaast comes the closest to making a personal attack, which is what this incident is nominally about, with what could be called a honeyed insult. If anyone there is pushing a point-of-view it is also him.
Things crumble further with the second diff, where AnotherNewAccount's description misrepresents Nishidani's comment.
International law is very clear that the Golan Heights is Syrian, not Israeli, territory. The third diff shows a group of editors trying to claim that that clear legal position is only a point of view. Again, the effect of the diff is to highlight the behaviour of editors other than Nishidani as problematic.
And so on ...
← ZScarpia 23:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ijon Tichy

In general editors should refrain from analyzing the personality or character traits of fellow editors. It was not a good idea for Nishidani to make a remark regarding Debresser's self-esteem. That remark did not help the discussion. It would have been sufficient for Nishidani to request that Debresser provide a clear policy justification when Debresser makes a controversial or a contested edit (Debresser appeared to brush-off Nishidani's repeated requests that Debresser provide policy justifications for his edits). We assume good faith in each other and we trust that Debresser (or any editor) must have a good reason when he makes a controversial or a contested edit, but we are required, by WP policy, to verify that the edit is policy-compliant. Thus, it is incumbent upon Debresser, that when an editor asks him for a policy justification, that he not answer with something to the effect of 'trust me, I know what I'm doing.' (We are all required to trust, but we are also required to verify.) In the future, if Debresser can't provide that justification, then it is better that he refrain from making the controversial or contested edit until that time when he can provide it and discuss it on the article talk page.
Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the editors who provided diffs about Nishidani's behavior (Kamel Tebaast and AnotherNewAccount) have presented the diffs in good faith. However, it is impossible to fairly and objectively analyze the diffs without giving careful consideration to the full and unique context of each diff. Once the (typically complex, nuanced, specific, and unique) context is fully and carefully considered, it appears that in almost all cases Nishidani was entirely correct in saying or doing the things he said or did, and that in the remaining small number of cases he was as close to being correct as can be reasonably expected when editing in a highly controversial and contested topic area (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) with many sub-topics that are very complicated, broad, deep, messy, and intricate. The I/P area is one of the most difficult and most challenging topic areas to edit in WP.

Another factor that exacerbates the already-considerable difficulty is the fact that the data over the last several years show that the I/P area tends to attract people who often don't bother to read the high-quality sources that Nishidani provides, or they read them too quickly and superficially, or they read them carefully but they don't understand the nuances or intricacies involved, or people who don't have a genuine interest in history in general. Or they don't understand - or refuse to understand - the discussions that Nishidani provides [which are necessarily long and detailed, because of the many complexities, layers, nuances and subtleties involved, and which Nishidani does a good job of summarizing, explaining and clarifying; Nishidani never resorts to WP:SOAP]. The data additionally show that the topic area also tends to attract numerous meatpuppets, sockpuppets, posters who make death threats, anonymous blankers and reverters, ranters flooding one's email with vicious slurs, people who are gaming the system, or people who are using the WP I-P conflict topic area as a battleground, or as a vehicle for propaganda. Nishidani's overall track record over the last several years, including the last several weeks, in this highly challenging and difficult topic area, has been excellent. Nishidani is not perfect and there are some minor areas where his behavior could be improved (as I have alluded to above), but his contributions are strictly based on source-based reasoning and on full adherence to NPOV and NOR, and he strongly insists that others likewise limit themselves to making only policy-compliant contributions; and he also does a great job, overall, in dealing with many difficult or disruptive editors.
Ijon Tichy (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, I think Nishidani should not have commented about your self esteem. I also think Nishidani should refrain from offering any further analysis of your personality or character or emotional/ psychological makeup, because it's not constructive to article-building efforts. May I also ask that you refrain from escalating the situation --- please don't make any further allegations that Nishidani has laid a 'trap' or any similar words that may be seen as personal attacks or violations of AGF. Because, again, this does not contribute to article-development efforts. May I recommend that both you and Nishidani read WP: Don't escalate. Regards, Ijon Tichy (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nishidani

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

Seriously? A single diff of being mildly standoffish is now a personal attack worthy of asking for a topic ban? If that's the worst behavior going on in the IP topic area, we should probably just tell Arbcom we don't need DS anymore. This has all the hallmarks of a vexatious filing. Debresser, if I'm mistaken please tell me why and why there should not be a WP:BOOMERANG here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AnotherNewAccount: See, THAT is a request with some meat in it. Its going to take some time for me to look into that evidence, so please bear with me for a day or two while I evaluate it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 {{TOC left|limit=2}}{{clear}}
 ==Sean.hoyland==
+{{hat|1={{u|Epson Salts}} is cautioned that further attempts at wikilawyering and obstructionism is likely to lead to sanctions. No further action is taken at this time. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 15:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)}}
 <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
@@ Line 183: / Line 184: @@
 *For Epson Salts, I would go for a topic ban right now. I think we can use our discretion to let this 1RR violation slide. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 15:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 **I have no objection to a topic ban for Epson Salts, either. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 01:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC).
+{{hab}}
 ==ה-זפר==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards