Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:35, 11 April 2019

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	334

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dlthewave

Warning retracted, page restored--Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions being appealed: Discussion Log

Logged warning by Sandstein
Deletion of User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles by Goldenring

Administrators imposing the sanctions

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

Notification of those administrators

Sandstein

Goldenring

Statement by Dlthewave

I feel that the closing statement "Springee, Trekphiler, RAF910 and Dlthewave are warned not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities.", which appears to be copy-and-pasted from WP:POLEMIC, is not an accurate assessment of consensus among the admins who participated in the discussion. Among other things, it implies that all four editors are equally at fault, which does not appear to be what the admins intended in their support for a logged warning. Although Goldenring did delete a page in my userspace under WP:POLEMIC, there was no discussion of my "attacking" or "vilifying" anyone and one admin even stated "Dlthewave is in fact engaged in appropriate editing and discussion." There was no proposal to issue a logged warning to Dlthewave. (As a sidenote, I also feel that issuing a polemic warning to the other three involved editors instead of a warning related to talk page conduct was entirely out of left field, but that is something for them to address in their own appeals if they choose to pursue them.)
I feel that Goldenring's deletion of a page in my userspace, User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles, has a chilling effect on my ability to document and share what I view as a long-term pattern in the gun control/gun crime topic area. This documentation plays an essential role in addressing current problems that are, in my opinion, a continuation of that pattern. My intention is to demonstrate a pattern and not to attack the individual editors who have been involved in that pattern. This removal is especially concerning when the "opposing" attacks and accusations which I documented are allowed to remain in full view at WP:Firearms and other talk pages. I would be open to discussing ways to do this that would not be viewed as an attack page, since similar pages maintained by other editors have passed MfD.

Although this deletion may have been within Goldenring's editorial discretion, I would like it to be reviewed by other admins and preferably discussed by the community at Miscellany for Deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a Deletion Review here as suggested. –dlthewave ☎ 21:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

After rereading User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, I agree with the appellant that the page was not (quite) a violation of WP:POLEMIC because it did not name editors and did not make allegations of misconduct, except as implied in the title ("whitewashing"), but that alone probably doesn't merit a warning. Because that page was the reason for my warning, I am striking it and recommend that GoldenRing (talk · contribs) undelete the page. A case can perhaps be made for its deletion on grounds of copyright / attribution, but that's a matter for the deletion process. Sandstein 18:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment here, I've also withdrawn the warning with respect to Springee. Clearly I should have read the enforcement request more carefully; sorry for that. I think that we should be more careful in the future as to whether or not to entertain enforcement requests directed at multiple editors. Sandstein 22:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Bishonen, GoldenRing is correct that an action that has been labeled as an AE action may only be reviewed by way of the process described at WP:AC/DS#Appeals, that is, here at AE, or at AN or ARCA – but not at DRV. Bishonen, I recommend that you undo your temporary restoration of the page for the purpose of the DRV, or you may be desysopped for undoing an AE action out of process, as described at WP:AC/DS#Modifications by administrators. Any admin who acts on the currently ongoing DRV by overturning the deletion may likewise be desysopped. Sandstein 15:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

I'm clearly an involved editor. As I said before I think Dlthewave has a very strong POV on this topic and I frequently disagree with them. However, when push comes to shove, I don't think on good faith they viewed the page as a POLMIC. For what it's worth, I would support reverting Dlthewave's warning. Springee (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

I disagree with Sandstein above and stand by this action. Dlthewave has stated right here that the purpose of this page is to document long-term problematic editing and policy is clear that such material is allowed only for dispute resolution and when used in a timely manner. I don't see the practical difference between, "so-and-so said this" (which the appellant seems to admit would be disallowed) and "someone said this and here's a link showing who it was" which is what they've actually done. GoldenRing (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I'm not sure why you've suggested deletion review here. AE actions cannot be overturned at deletion review, only at AE, AN or ARCA. Have you also not just unilaterally undone an AE action? GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: I will reiterate here what I've said on the deletion review: if you wish to use this material for valid dispute resolution (probably either an ANI or arbitration case request) and can outline a reasonable timeline for doing so (either on-wiki or privately by email), then I will self-revert my enforcement action. GoldenRing (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add, for what it's worth at this point, that I agree a formal warning to Dlthewave was not warranted. GoldenRing (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have requested clarification from the arbitration committee regarding my deletion at WP:ARCA. GoldenRing (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

Marginally involved. I just found out about the removal of DLThewave's excellent summary of the challenges faced to bring firearms into compliance with WP:N including the way that a wikiproject has tried to present their MOS suggestions as policy. I've said as much at another venue, but this is definitely not a violation of WP:POLEMIC and should be undeleted for the valuable resource it is. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dlthewave

The matter of the deletion itself should be deferred to WP:DRV as that venue is much better equipped for such reviews. Whether or not the action itself was appropriate should be discussed here or in a more general manner at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee (where Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions redirects). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Dlthewave

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

I commented in the initial thread, so I'm not sure whether my response should appear in this section, or above with GoldenRing's and Sandstein's. The deletion of Dlthewave's userspace subpage was arguably appropriate under WP:POLEMIC, and within reasonable admin discretion on GoldenRing's part. While I'm not sure I would have done the same, I'm comfortable leaving the page deleted. That said, I don't think a formal warning to Dlthewave is warranted; there wasn't really any support for such a warning amongst uninvolved admins in the previous thread, and it seems like overkill. The proper response to a potentially polemical userspace subpage is to delete it, which has been done. There wasn't any convincing evidence of a pattern of behavior warranting a logged warning on Dlthewave's part, at least not that I saw.
Regarding the logged warnings, I do take Springee's point that they perhaps paint the remaining 3 editors with an overly broad brush. There are clearly gradations of concerning behavior, with Springee on the mild end and Trekphiler/RAF910 showing a much more sustained and problematic battleground attitude. I'll leave it up to other admins whether we should modify the warning to exclude Springee, but it is worth considering while we're here. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This is definitely a confusing situation. Reading the deleted page, it does seem borderline WP:POLEMIC so, perhaps, GoldenRing was right in deleting it. But, Dlthewave brings up a good point. If they do plan on making a future case then how else can they keep a record of the edits they see as forming a pattern? They could do it off-wiki of course, but isn't it better to be open about one's activities? While the deletion was within admin discretion perhaps, in cases of this nature, it is better to leave them as is with a note to the editor that they can't leave it sticking around for too long. Imo, the warning should be withdrawn. --regentspark (comment) 00:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about deleting the whitewashing essay; I can't seem to make up my mind. Suggest dlthewave take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. An admin should be asked to temporarily undelete the page for purposes of discussion as soon as the DR is opened. But I don't have any trouble agreeing with Sandstein, Springee, MastCell, and Regentspark that dlthewave's warning should be withdrawn and struck from the log, and Sandstein has already done so. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Dlthewave:, I've temporarily undeleted your page for the deletion review. Bishonen | talk 22:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Your deletion can't be overturned at Deletion review, GoldenRing? Are you sure? In that case, obviously I suggested it because I didn't know any better. A bit of bad luck that apparently nobody who did know saw my suggestion for Deletion review here at AE, some 20 hours before Dlthewave actually opened the deletion review. I'm not sure what should be the next step, considering there is quite a lot of discussion at the review already, and some disagreement about how to proceed. But whatever action is taken, rest assured I won't feel "undermined" by it, as somebody suggested there. I'm personally fine with whatever, although I want to apologize to Dlthewave for potentially complicating his situation. As for "Have you also not just unilaterally undone an AE action?", no, I haven't. If you're referring to my temporary undeletion of the page, for the deletion review only and with the front page covered by a template, per the instructions here, I can only ask you not to be so silly. If you're talking about my giving Dlthewave bad advice, well, I've explained how that came about (=ignorance on my part). Bishonen | talk 12:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

What an absolute joy you are to work with, Sandstein. It's a wonder more admins don't flock to help out at AE, where honest mistakes get met with immediate threats of desysopping. I do want to point out that there's a pretty clear consensus at DRV that the page doesn't violate WP:POLEMIC. @GoldenRing:, do I understand correctly that you are not going to recognize that consensus because it is being discussed on the Wrong Page^(TM)? If this is the case, then I suppose we should tell everyone at DRV their opinions are not wanted there, re-delete the page, and then have the exact same discussion here. Or alternately, GR could rescind the deletion.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I not only agree that restoring the page for deletion review is not an abuse of process, but that deleting the page via AE would be an abuse of process. The way to remove userspace essays that are contrary to policy is MfD., and review of decisions there is at Deletion Review. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, do you intend to delete under AE every page in an area subject to DS (such as AP or PIA) that you think might arguably be the result of an action that violation an arb ruling,? DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I have just noticed, Sandstein, that your closing at the AE Discussion used the wording of the arb case "for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, " but the entire discussion above about whether it violated POLEMIC is irrelevant, because the page is obviously related to WP. And the arb com wording continued " attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. " I do not see any editors named on the page in question. It was discussing edits. (Of course the editors were implied, because the statements wee linked, but nothing about the editors is question is said on the page, only about the edits. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been stalled for a month, the deletion review was closed as consensus to overturn, and we need to proceed in one or other way. I see consensus to withdraw the warning, and this has been already done by Sandstein. The situation is more difficult with the deletion of the page, but if I take into account all opinions at DRV and also that all uninvolved admins here who commented after the close of the DRV supported undeletion, I would say there is consensus to undelete. I will wait a couple of days before closing, may be somebody wanted to comment and forgot or overlooked this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support User:Ymblanter's idea of undoing the AE deletion of the page, based on the apparent consensus of admins in this thread. Arbcom is still debating whether 'AE deletion' can ever be considered to be an option, but there is no risk of any conflict with Arbcom if the present deletion is simply undone on the merits. (We would be closing as though AE deletion was really allowed, but this *particular* deletion was reversed through the normal AE appeal process). It appears that a deletion review has already occurred which supported restoration of the page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese

Blocked for a week. Sandstein 17:40, 4 April 2019 (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 Roscelese

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality#Motion:_Roscelese_restricted_.28September_2015.29 :

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

Roscelese has three restrictions against her that are, as far as I know, currently in place. They include being indefinitely prohibited from:

making more than one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.

I offer here a few representative samples. First, reverting without discussing the issue first on the talk page:

It is also worth noting that 25 of her last 100 edits have "Reverted" in the edit summary. Some of these are clearly reverting vandals, but many are reversions not discussed on talk first.

Next, casting aspersions and personalizing disputes:

[6]
[7]
[8] See edit summary
[9] See edit summary
[10] See edit summary

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

For what it's worth, I tried extending an olive branch to Roscelese about a month ago, but it was rejected.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning Roscelese

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 Roscelese

The restriction doesn't require that reverts be discussed first, and all of these are things I've discussed on the talkpage when Slugger/Brian continued his tendentious and disruptive editing, which I noted previously at WP:DR (and which generally took the form of editing against explicitly established consensus in order to push a point of view about Catholicism and homosexuality - actually, Slugger has even linked to one of the situations where he was trying to push language against which an explicit consensus had developed!) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pudeo: I see where you're coming from, but ultimately the situation you're linking is one where (if you'll look at the rest of the bit you quoted) Slugger is ignoring sources from all over the POV spectrum because it seems to be his personal opinion that the Church's position on homosexuality is not one of condemnation. This isn't some grand nemesis conflict here, nor a situation where I can say "your side of the dispute is wrong" because there is no "side" - I'm just dealing with an individual user who is editing tendentiously, against sources and consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Pudeo: Yes? Slugger is insisting there that we can't describe the RCC's position as "condemnation", despite the fact that even extremely pro-church sources describe it as such; additionally a consensus had already developed on the talkpage against Slugger's addition about how, actually, the church loves gay people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

The diffs that represent "engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes" at Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality#Condemnation of homosexuality seem very valid.

Roscelese wrote: This is an encyclopedia read and used by everyone, not the personal encyclopedia of Briancua Slugger O'Toole. Your personal caviling about how homosexuality being inherently a tendency towards sin and a moral evil--. I can't think much of a worse way to personalize a dispute.

This motion is from 2015, so perhaps it's hard for Roscelese to always keep in her mind, or then she's just being harsh with new editors who aren't aware of these personal sanctions. In any case, this sanction should be either enforced or rescinded, because it's pointless otherwise. --Pudeo (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese: unless I'm mistaken, the dispute that led to the comments were the contents in this revert. So here's it for easy accessibility. --Pudeo (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Slugger O'Toole

It is true that the restriction does not say that reverts need to be discussed first on the talk page, but they were not discussed by you at all. Additionally, when you call me out by name, and use my former username to boot, that is personalizing a dispute. So is talking about my "personal caviling." I am not saying I am blameless. There are surely times when I could have acted better and for those times I apologize. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Debresser

I think this request should be rejected since it was made by an editor who has admitted to not having clean hands. In addition, I do not think that mentioning Slugger/Brian by name has "personalized" the conflict, as claimed. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Roscelese

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

The request has merit. While the restriction does not require discussing reverts first, Roscelese does not argue that they have made any attempt at discussion even after the reverts. Additionally, some of the diffs at issue do personalize disputes in violation of the restriction. In consideration of Roscelese's block log, I am blocking Roscelese for a week. Sandstein 17:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

Debresser (talk · contribs) is banned from creating or making comments in WP:AE reports related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except if they are the editor against whom enforcement is requested. Sandstein 16:57, 7 April 2019 (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 Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:07, 6 April 2019 (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: WP:ARBPIA :

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

[11] WP:HOUNDING violation. Nishidani had never edited that article or its talkpage before. In addition, his edit was poisoning the well.
[12][13][14] Using the f-word. Nishidani does so even after he was asked to stop this: [15]. In the past he has been warned at this same WP:AE to stop this behavior: [16] and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive200#Nishidani. In addition, his appearance on this article was likely also a case of hounding, as Nishidani had never edited that article or its talkpage before.
[17][18] Repeated and deliberate violations of my request not to edit on my talkpage. The second edit was made after I reminded him of that: [19].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: Nishidani has been a regular guest here from early stages onwards, with topic bans and more bans, blocks, and warnings like the one cited above from archive 200, and even a few self-imposed periods of penitence which failed to last long.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I haven't seen Nishidani around in a while after his latest announced retirement ended (admittedly not after a week but after 6 weeks), but he unfortunately has still not mended his bad ways. His inflammatory and insulting language, consciously or not intended to intimidate his opponents, coupled with hounding and harassing me on various pages, including my talkpage, are unacceptable battleground behavior on this project, and especially in the IP-conflict area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

@Huldra

Wow! Three examples in more than 10 years and 100,000 edits. Compare that to the 3 edits of Nishidani made within 10 hours, and you more or less made my point for me. And please also see this reply. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and, by the way, that was only one of the three issues I reported. Debresser (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite The hounding and general battleground mentality are a result of Nishidani's problem with me, which is rooted on our disagreements in the WP:ARBPIA area. If this forum would, however, decide, IMHO mistakenly so in view of the larger picture, that this is the wrong venue, I will indeed take your advice and report him at WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328

You are confusing the content issue with the behavioral issue. This post is about the behavioral issue.
I really think you should take back the statement or implication that I oppose certain images because of my personal believes. That was unwarranted and severely out of line. Debresser (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a big difference between being aggravated by an especially unpleasant editor once every 3-4 years and then using the f-word in the heat of the moment, between using it systematically to intimidate other editors and in spite of several requests and warnings to refrain from doing so! Debresser (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2019 (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 Nishidani

I don't think I need comment, after Cullen's palmary reflection. If I were to, it would be easy to show Debresser's behavior in my regard has been persistently vexatious. But since on principle I refrain from whingeing, I won't do so even under provocation (unless of course an admin thinks I need to defend myself from the 'evidence' given above).Nishidani (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'especially unpleasant editor'. Many things are forgotten, and mountains are made of molehiles. Once, Debresser, you violated a 3 month ban by editing a page, Temple Mount, and correcting my edit. You self-reverted when alerted to the technical risk by Sir Joseph. Noting this, what did I do? I reassured you with an undertaking I have stuck to, that I would never use petty slips to try and get at you in an administrative forum. O tempora o mores!.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Debresser to an editor: "Go fuck your righteous self."
Debresser to another editor: "If, however, you care to read a few basic Wikipedia guidelines and FUCKING DOES AS OUTLINED THERE,"
Debresser to a third editor (me): "why the fuck wouldn't you use the word "evacuate" unless you had a pro-Palestinian POV from here till Ramallah, huh?"

Pot.Kettle.Black, Huldra (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Debresser, and I hope you take this as honest advice, but I would suggest that inviting scrutiny to the editing history of Eliezer Berland would likely not be in your own interest. If you do however want to invite that scrutiny then this cannot be the place for it, as this page is very specifically about enforcing arbitration decisions. Neither of the articles here are covered by ARBPIA (or any other arbitration case), making them irrelevant on this page. nableezy - 02:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this seems relevant here. nableezy - 03:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: youve attributed noble pursuits to me that I regretfully cannot take credit for. nableezy - 03:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I am involved in discussing the content issues at the talk pages of both articles. Debresser brought the Eliezer Berland dispute to ANI, incorrectly accusing another editor of refusing to discuss the dispute at the article talk page. Debresser was edit warring on that article to include promotional self-published puffery from a website controlled by a convicted, self-admitted rapist. As for Talk:Jewish religious clothing, there was an active RFC underway there, which draws in previously uninvolved editors. Surely Debresser knows that processes such as RFC and venues such as ANI draw previously uninvolved editors such as Nishidani into the discussions. This is not hounding. I do not like use of the f-bomb in conversations among editors, do not use it myself and recommend that other editors refrain from its use. But there is no consensus that this word is banned from spirited debates among editors. Debresser seems to be advocating a stranger standard here: it is OK for him to drop f-bombs every 33,000 edits or so, but not OK for other editors to do so more frequently. As for ARBPIA, these are both topics related to Judaism but neither has any connection to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. If Eliezer Berland was related to that conflict, then Debresser's edit warring there would have been even more egregious. As for Talk:Jewish religious clothing, Nishidani is advocating for genuine improvements to that article, while Debresser is dragging his feet, because he does not like images and content that deviate from his admitted personal ultra-Orthodox Jewish identity. I recommend that Nishidani dial back use of the f-bombs because I consider that counterproductive. Nishidani should also be advised to stay away from Debresser's talk page, with the exception of standard required notifications. In my opinion, the real cause of this report is that Debresser resents the fact that a pro-Palestinian editor is making cogent and incisive observations about articles concerning Jewish topics. That is nothing to be concerned about and instead should be welcomed. No formal action is required here other than mild admonitions to the two parties. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy, I apologize for my error in confusing the usernames of two editors whose usernames begin with N and both of whom I respect. I could blame my smartphone's AI spellchecker, but instead I accept the responsibility. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Nableezy properly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Note there was a recent RfC at WP:CIVIL regarding "fuck off" - Wikipedia talk:Civility#Request for comment on the specific term "fuck off" – sanctionable or not! that concluded that "This discussion has been open for long enough that there is a coherent outcome. Namely, most of us agree that "fuck off" is definitely uncivil in many contexts, and incivility is sanctionable, but consideration should be given to the surrounding context of each instance before deciding to apply sanctions ....". Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dan Murphy

For fuck's sake. Debresser was formally warned against filing any more "vexatious" arbitration requests. Less than six months ago. So there is some enforcement to be done here. Here is what the closing admin said of Debresser's ongoing pattern of behavior at the time:

"On a number of occasions, Debresser has improperly presented requests for arbitration enforcement. Taken as a pattern, Debresser's actions are an abuse of process that is serving to inflame tensions in topic areas that already are heated. Furthermore, whilst Wikipedia process pages are internal, conduct such as abuse of process itself, indirectly, affects the external topic area that is subject to arbitration enforcement. Conduct such as Debresser's is therefore equivalent in seriousness to tendentious or disruptive editing of content pages. I therefore formally warn Debresser that continuing such conduct will result in enforcement action, such as restrictions from requesting enforcement, blocks, and topic bans."

You'd be foolish just to punt on this problem. His dissembling and dishonest presentation of disputes only grows worse when he isn't disciplined.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2019 (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.

Um, surely this is the wrong venue. The talkpage posts are irrelevant to ARBPIA and the two articles on which the edits took place aren't covered by it either. If you want to complain about Nishidani's general behaviour, ANI is thataway. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Black Kite says, I do not see this dispute falling within the scope of ARBPIA. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these edits have nothing to do with the I-P dispute, and are therefore clearly outside the scope of sanctions. Dan Murphy notes that Debresser has been warned not to file vexatious AE reports such as this one. I also agree with Huldra's observations that complaining about expletives cannot be taken seriously from users who use expletives themselves. I am banning Debresser from filing AE requests in the I-P topic area or commenting on them unless they are the editor against whom enforcement is requested. Sandstein 16:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz

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 Icewhiz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

Tendentious editing is defined in WP:TE as a manner of editing that is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions. WP:ARBPIA3#Tendentious editing further says that Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring may be banned from the affected articles. I believe the evidence below demonstrates that Icewhiz is such an editor engaging in sustained tendentious editing.

Icewhiz routinely removes material on spurious grounds when that material is, in his view, negative towards Israel. He will routinely make opposing arguments based solely on the POV presented. He will oppose reliable sources when it suits him and support unreliable sources when it suits him, sometimes making the exact opposite argument nearly simultaneously depending on the POV of the source.

Rouzan al-Najjar

In this edit (7 June 2018) Icewhiz places in the article material on footage that was doctored by the IDF, footage that was widely denounced as a propaganda ploy
In this edit (8 June 2018) Icewhiz restores that she was "allegedly shot" by the IDF, when the cited source says flat out as shot dead by Israeli troops the previous day along the Israel-Gaza border. ... Razan Najjar, a 21-year-old volunteer paramedic, was shot as she tried to help evacuate wounded near Israel's perimeter fence with Gaza. Yes, that was a revert of an IP editor. However, the material had likewise been added by an IP, with Icewhiz editing directly after and not enforcing the general prohibition there. And even if the revert is excused by the general prohibition, we all take responsibility for our reverts. When Icewhiz restored the edit he took responsibility for its content. That content being quite different from what the cited source said.
In this edit (11 June 2018) Icewhiz removes all of the content critical of the IDF's manipulation, changing misleadingly took a prior interview that al-Najjar gave to a Lebanese television station out of context to cut a short segment of a prior interview that al-Najjar gave to a Lebanese television station in which she He also removed the rest of the statement, a statement that every reliable source covering the manipulation included as demonstrating that the IDF manipulation was done to mischaracterize her words.

When asked about why he removed what every reliable source had said about the doctoring of the video, he responded That is a factual representation of this 10 second clip.

Restores an op-ed by a political activist (1 January 2019). On the talk page he argues that this should be retained because it was published in an RS. Compare to his removal of an op-ed published in a reliable source which he said was Random opinion of non-politician/expert - UNDUE and on the talk page said of highly fringe political activist, in an op-ed. That is his arguments are diametrically opposed based solely on the POV of the op-ed. Where it supports his POV he argues for inclusion, when it opposes it he argues for exclusion. I dont think there is a better example of tendentious editing than making the opposite argument based solely on POV.

In sum, his efforts at Rouzan al-Najjar consisted of originally pushing propaganda, removing that it was propaganda when covered by numerous reliable sources as such, and pushing in opinion pieces of the sort he rejected when it suited his own POV elsewhere.

Israeli occupation of the West Bank

In this (13 December 2018) and this edit Icewhiz removes a source, and all material cited to it, as "propaganda" and claims the source is misrepresented because we included the wrong publisher. The living person who he says was "propaganda minister", which if I am not mistaken is a pretty blatant BLP violation, is in fact the former Information Minister (in charge of election polls and TV and other media licensing) and Foreign Minister. Note that Google Books includes the wrong publisher, which is Kluwer Law International and not Brill. Instead of correcting the error, the entire source is removed. The book is edited by two academics (Moshe Maoz and Sari Nusseibeh) and published by a respected press, but Icewhiz's BLP violation of an edit summary ignores all of that to excise material he dislikes on the most spurious of grounds.
His other contribution of note (25 January 2019) was to excise about half of the article unilaterally. The removed information was uniformly of material that has garnered criticism of Israel. He completely removed, not condensed or moved to sub-articles or anything else that might be justified by WP:SIZE, reliably sourced material on comparisons to colonialism, on terminology bias, on American media bias, on land seizures, on the history of the settlement enterprise, the entirety of the section on settler violence, most of the material on torture, the impact on children, on fragmentation, the road closure system, censorship, restrictions on Palestinian agriculture, on the use of the territory as a waste zone. What he removed had one common thread. It was reliably sourced material that dealt with topics that have drawn criticism of Israel's methods. No attempt at justifying the removal, not splitting but straight up removal, was ever even attempted besides a vague wave to WP:SIZE. He made no attempt to summarize, no attempt to split. It was purely a tactic to excise material that Icewhiz would rather not be covered on Wikipedia.

Tendentious editing regarding sources

Here (25 July 2018) Icewhiz argues that a "part-time historian" (his words) would be perfectly fine for an attributed statement. Compare that to here (15 June 2018), where an actual historian who has been published by academic presses is rejected as definitely a WP:BIASED source, and would require balancing at the very least. The only consistency in Icewhiz's arguments regarding sources is when they are supportive of his POV he encourages their use, and when they are not he opposes them.
Removes Yael Berda per WP:BLOGS (8 April 2019). Note that this is hosted by Stanford University Press, where the author had just had a book on this topic published which WP:BLOGS says means her self-published work is allowed (established expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications). Compare that to this (17 March 2019) where Icewhiz argues for the inclusion of material referenced to IDFBlog.com (now defunct) for attributed quotes. However, a blog entry by an author who is academically published and hosted by Stanford University Press is not usable for an attributed quote because the author is a fairly young scholar. The only consistent part of this argument is how it reflects his POV. A blog by an unnamed person at the IDF that has been cited by no-one and has an h-index of 0 that coincides with his own POV is fine to use. One by a published academic that has has over 100 citations to her work but that opposes his POV is not because her h-index is 5 and she is "fairly young".

Tendentious editing regarding tagging

Again, the only thing consistent about these actions is how they reflect on his POV. When his POV is presented no tag may be included absent a consensus for it (which is honestly kind of silly, if there were already a consensus then the article content would be adjusted), but when his POV is not given what he feels is its appropriate prominence the tag must remain absent a consensus to remove.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 29 March 2019
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 8 April 2019
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 7 April 2019.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I understand this is a long complaint. I dont know how to demonstrate tendentious editing without exceeding 500 words as the act is defined by a long term pattern and not just one or two diffs. I also understand it deals with content, but I think the evidence demonstrates continued tendentious editing and not merely a content dispute. One cannot make opposing sides of the same argument and pretend that they are two individual content disputes. Either Icewhiz feels that blogs may not be used or that they may. Either Icewhiz feels that opinion pieces may not be used or they may. Either Icewhiz feels tags may not be removed without a consensus or they may. Icewhiz apparently feels all these things, it just depends on what POV is under discussion. That is, to my understanding, textbook tendentious editing.

Sir Joseph, I am not complaining that Icewhiz claimed Finkelstein is biased. I am complaining that he has made polar opposite arguments about sources when it suits his POV. This is not about opposing Finkelstein or supporting Tabenkin. It is about making opposing arguments where the only consistency is the POV being pushed. That behavior is, I think, called tendentious editing here, and it is prohibited on Wikipedia, especially so in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions. As WP:TE says, a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, so yes these diffs stretch back to show that pattern. nableezy - 17:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I've dated the diffs, however I dont think their age makes them stale. The very nature of WP:TE is that it requires showing a pattern. A pattern is something that occurs over time. How would one show a pattern over time without showing diffs from the past? nableezy - 18:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Icewhiz, I called this claim that this established a consensus a lie. Because it says "no consensus". Calling something that says "no consensus" "a consensus for language in this article" can best be described as what exactly? nableezy - 19:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The responses below just provide further evidence for tendentious editing. As Zero wrote below, nothing Icewhiz writes can be accepted at face value. I agree, he is a very smart person. He could be a fantastic editor. But he makes bogus arguments on a regular basis. He says Nableezy contrasts an expert in journalism commenting on the NYT imvestigation in Rouzan al-Najjar with a pianist/conductor/activist commenting on Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People. No, lets be clear on this. Ira Stoll is not an "expert in journalism". He was managing editor of a failed newspaper and an author of two books, neither on journalism. And the justification of receiving third party coverage was offered only later. When added, Icewhiz was on record opposing the use of op-eds even when published in reliable sources. But with one that supports his POV, Ira Stoll's column was published by a RS, the end. This is a constant issue when discussing issues with Icewhiz, he makes comments that are expected to be taken at face value and they cannot be because they are so often false. nableezy - 05:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Sandstein may be right and AE is not well suited to such a request. But, Sandstein, it is exactly a person who is not interested in the subject that should be looking at this. Just look at the bullets for tendentious editing regarding sources. Can an editor be acting in good faith when they both support the use of a blog by an unnamed person with an h-index of 0 and then reject the use of a blog by an established expert on the topic because her h-index is 5? Can an editor be acting in good faith when they remove op-eds by non-experts published in reliable sources because they are op-eds by non-experts and then also add op-eds by non-experts and respond that its fine because it was published by a reliable source? Ignore the content entirely. Can an editor in good faith make such opposing arguments? Or is it tendentious editing when their arguments flip depending on POV? nableezy - 14:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Icewhiz

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 Icewhiz

Due to the extreme length of the complaint, with diffs ranging back almost a year, I can not respond in 500 words and address each accusation here. I will note that in regards to the trim to Israeli occupation of the West Bank (which I discussed prior, after, and initiated Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#RfC: Article size that resulted in the article being trimmed in the end) - I already responded in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive245#Icewhiz - closed "Not actionable; content dispute". I can explain all my actions, though I will note I am not a robot and that my view of Wikipedia policy has evolved over time (e.g. today I am much less of an inclusionist in relation to a year ago). Admins - please point out which diffs I should respond to, if at all.

I do want to raise the immediate background to this complaint: Israeli permit system in the West Bank. Nableezy moved it from "system" to "regime", after 2.5 days of discussion (Talk:Israeli permit system in the West Bank#name), 02:06, 12 March 2019. After his move was challenged, he 14:56, 19 March 2019 move warred. Not only that - he opened an ANI against Wikieditor19920 who challenged him (closed no action, Oshwah moved the article through a few different titles - until it moved back to system). At ANI - Nableezy repeatedly called me "dishonest" (after I challenged his assertion that "regime" was the stable form of the title) - [20][21]. A subsequent Talk:Israeli permit system in the West Bank#Requested move 19 March 2019 closed with "system" remaining. Nableezy then decided, 21:57, 7 April 2019, to add a direct-quote to the lede from one (of the minority) of sources that uses "regime".

When I challenged this quote by Berda in the lede, that resulted in 2 out 3 sentences in the lede being sourced to Berda (sentence 2 already containing her definition - from a published source) - my edit summary wasn't just "BLOGS", it was "WP:BLOGS. No need for direct quote in lead.". I further expanded my argument on talk - diff - that presenting Berda twice in the lede, was UNDUE, and that there was no need to use unpublished work here (as published work is not lacking - including published work by Berda). I did not challenge Berda as a source overall - I challenged the direct quote, from an academic blog (as opposed to her published work), specifically in the lede.

In last few days (7-8 April), in the permit system talk page Nableezy has called me or my edits/arguments: "dishonest"/"deceitful"[22]. I requested him to strike these statements (as a personal attack) [23], which he refused. He continue to use language such as "lying"[24], "dishonest arguments"[25][26], "being dishonest",[27]. He did not strike "being dishonest" even after admitting "you are right".[28] (this in regards to this source,^[1] which uses "regimen" in a sub-title and in paragraph2 (further down there is a regime) and which we were quoting in the citation as "regimen").

In ~~less than~~ a span of 3 weeks - Nableezy has filed once in AN/I and once over here in AE against two different users on this article.Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Israel Has 101 Different Types of Permits Governing Palestinian Movement". Haaretz. 2011-12-23. Retrieved 2019-04-07. The most common permits are those allowing Palestinians to work in Israel, or in Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Over the decades, however, the permit regimen has grown into a vast, triple-digit bureaucracy.

@Vanamonde93: - in regards to the first 4 bullets, note that the article was created on 3 June 2018 on a 1 June event. The article was heavily edited in those days, with various new news items added (a general NOTNEWS/RAPID issue). In regards to the 7 June 2018 - when I added this, it was not widely denounced - I summarized the sources I cited. Criticism developed later. In regards to 8 June 2018 - this was a revert per the General Prohobition of an IP (who removed a whole paragraph + allegedly). At the point this was made (7 days from the shooting, no definitive investigation) - while it was highly likely the shots came from the IDF, and some sources said this as fact - others did not. At that point in time, per BLPCRIME and erring in the side of caution, avoiding a definitive stmt in Wikivoice is inline with what we do with other crime/military articles. In regards to 11 June 2018 - contrary to Nableezy's assertion I left criticism in the very next sentence - "The Israeli military was widely criticized for its efforts in manipulating the video, with commentators drawing parallels to past instances of the IDF manipulating or otherwise faking evidence in the past.". There was also an issue in that some of the content was sourced to an article title (often edited for sensationalism) and not to its body. I thought that presenting what the IDF presented (in one sentence), followed by a sentence of how this was criticized would separate the exhbit by the IDF and criticism of the exhibit. Regarding 1 Jan 2019 - Stoll's criticism of the NYT piece (which we cover in depth - 4 paragraphs in a level2 header) was covered in a secondary manner by JTA. Nableezy agreed on the TP to use of Stoll via JTA - 8 Jan 2019. Nableezy contrasts an expert in journalism commenting on the NYT imvestigation in Rouzan al-Najjar with a pianist/conductor/activist commenting on Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People - for the basic law we have no shortage of critical (even very critical) opinions by experts in law - which we should favor over a non-expert. Inclusion of opinions can of course be debated - there isn't a hard and fast law for DUE/UNDUE - it is article dependent, and in this case the basic law is very different (a topic very well commented and studied - we have no shortage of sources and opinions). In all cases, I participated in the talk page and attempted to form a consensus. I could have done some things better, but I do want to stress that the article was in breaking-news turf in June 2018 - it started with videos and reports from the Palestinian side, followed by Israeli retorts, and only a few months later (e.g. the NYT choosing this incident for an in-depth reconstructive investigation) we had more definitive sources. I am not sure I would have made the same edits today back then (e.g. by avoiding NOTNEWS).Icewhiz (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I'm not saying I was perfect. I was reverting this IP edit with no edit summary, was acting inline with WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 in regards to an IP edit, and I was probably responding to the removal of the paragraph. In retrospect (having re-read NBCNews/AP again now) I should've added a citation that used other language, or used attribution - I admit to sloppy handling of the NBCNews citation - had this been contested on this basis (on the talk-page or in an edit rationale) - I probably would've discussed and/or rectified the citation issue. In terms of lead balance at that point in time - this Washington Post piece in the article at the time was using - "who witnesses say Israeli soldiers shot dead near the border fence on Friday." - and didn't directly say Israel in its voice. Our policy - WP:NPOV generally and WP:BLPCRIME specifically - has us being cautious with statements in our own voice. And I stress - this is all me thinking back of what I was thinking in June 2018 - based on sources available then.Icewhiz (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also - in regards to Nableezy's claim I did not revert per the General Prohibition on - this IP on 7 June - my subsequent edit was my very first edit to this article. I frankly probably did not look at the edit history at all when I made that edit at all. I probably got drawn to the article (4 days after creation) by news or it popping up an alert, and was looking at it for the first time which is not a situation in which I usually look at the editing history too much. After doing my edit - I probably watch-listed it. Icewhiz (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to "doctoring" vs. "editing" in June 2018 - I was responding directly to Zero himself who advocated (without citing any source) inclusion of "deliberate doctoring of the video" - 11:50, 12 June 2018. I opposed this - and what Zero fails to mention is that I described it as possibly "Deceptive editing". Unlike Zero - I cited sources for my assertion - namely a dictionary and the New York Times which used "tightly edited".13:06, 12 June 2018 Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

There is so much to say here, especially considering that many of the diffs are old, and that this is just a wall of text and trying to blast yet another opponent out of the sphere. I will just note one thing, Nableezy complains that Icewhiz says Finkelstein is biased, of course he's biased, indeed, the very first sentence of his article calls him an activist, "Norman Gary Finkelstein (/ˈfɪŋkəlˌsteɪn/; born December 8, 1953) is an American political scientist, activist, professor, and author." Any serious editor in the IP area would not use Finkelstein as an unbiased source. If you do take this matter seriously, I urge you to take it with a grain of salt. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To Nableezy, regardless, it's irrelevant, those edits were not in mainspace, they were in WP:RS, so I don't get the harm, that is where we do give editor a little leeway to offer why they feel sources are or aren't RS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

I would like to issue a solemn appeal to reviewing administrators to study this report in depth and with special attention. Additionally, please allow some time for other editors to share their comments and opinions.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikieditor19920

Having interacted with both parties, I regard this as a frivolous and vindictive report. Nableezy almost exclusively edits within the ARBPIA area with a distinct edge. If any of Icewhiz's edits, collectively or individually, are considered to show a discernible bias actionable under WP:TE, then an evaluation of Nableezy's contributions by that same standard would have to lead to equivalent or more severe sanctions. Also, the diffs provided could be attributed to errors in judgment or reading sources; in other words, mistakes made in good-faith. Hardly a compelling basis.

I don't want to exceed my limit here, but Zero0000 should have disclosed in his statement below that he consulted with Nableezy about this report prior to its filing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stefka Bulgaria

I agree that too many diffs going back almost a year isn't helpful. Looking at Icewhiz's more recent edits, he seems to have been actively participating in TP discussions working with other editors in a level-headed manner. If there is a disagreement to the point a RfC/RSN/etc. is needed, then those would be more apt venues to explore. Other than that, I don't see a violation here by Icewhiz. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've known Icewhiz's editing for a while now, and though we have not always seen eye to eye on certain topics, I agree that he's "one of our best editors" here. If there are issues with the reliability of sources being used, RSN would be the appropriate forum. It takes two to tango, and eliminating the opposition via AE does seem vindictive. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Icewhiz is an intelligent and knowledgeable person who could easily be one of our best editors. Alas, he doesn't want to be. His transparent purpose in the I/P area is to defend the good name of Israel by means of endless pov-pushing combined with endless tendentious argument. My honest opinion is that Icewhiz is one of the worst editors to have ever appeared in the I/P area of the project.

I don't blame casual observers like Stefka for not seeing the problem at a glance. It takes longer experience to learn that nothing Icewhiz writes can be accepted without checking, and that "discussion" for him means writing anything, anything, that supports his pov.

Nableezy restricted himself to self-contradictions. I won't. Here Icewhiz argues that an anonymous blacklist is a reliable source, and follows up with "McCarthyite" does not mean inaccurate.. He is way too experienced to actually believe that, but the blacklist fits Icewhiz's personal pov. Here he quotes from a Hebrew court ruling without telling us that the very next sentences give contrary context. (Basically, the ruling said that the charges were very serious but the evidence for them was insufficiently compelling; Icewhiz brought just the first part.) These examples are not aberrations but just Icewhiz being Icewhiz.

Many of Icewhiz's talk page contributions can reasonably be called trolling. Nableezy's first case provides an example. Here he brings a dictionary definition of "doctored" to argue that a video which had purposefully been cut in order to change its meaning had not been doctored, even though the dictionary definition fits perfectly. I do not believe this was an argument in good faith; rather, Icewhiz' pov was in danger and he had to write something. Such lack of integrity is why the project would be better off without him. Zero^talk 03:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Calthinus: "Tendentiously cutting" is a form of doctoring. But that is not the point, since nobody ever tried to put the word "doctored" into the article. Icewhiz didn't want the article to mention the fact that the Israeli army had cut the end off a recording in order to smear (per several reliable sources) a medico they had just killed in cold blood. Since it is impossible to argue for such censorship on a policy basis, Icewhiz chose instead to sideline the discussion by bringing a dictionary definition for a word used only on the talk page. Zero^talk 07:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Icewhiz is still at it (above). The real issue was inclusion of the well-sourced fact that the video had been altered to change its impact and thereby smear its subject. Icewhiz didn't like that idea. The precise word to be used for the video manipulation was a side-show that Icewhiz used to deflect attention from the real issue. Even if he had to bring a dictionary definition that proves himself wrong. Zero^talk 14:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that I discussed this case with Nableezy before it was opened, though he didn't (I think) follow any of my suggestions. We discussed it quite openly (not a single email) and if there is any rule against that I'd like to hear about it. This problem has been brewing a long time and I've often wished I had the time and stamina to open such a case myself. Zero^talk 15:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calthinus

If I had to sum up a number of things I despise about wiki, this would be a poster case ... alas this hairball could never be condensed to fit on a poster, not least because half of the crap involved is essentially fluff that is likely totally inscrutable to anyone not balls deep in Israel-Palestine wiki bloodletting. Alas, if they were, they couldn't possibly be impartial. Here's one of many points that I think illustrate the issue here - the statement by Zero above. It takes totally out of context an argument about semantics (in this case, the word "doctored" -- indeed something can be "tendentiously cut" and not be doctored -- as the NYTimes perhaps more correctly put it [[29]]) and tries to turn it into some case of "trolling". But most people in good faith would see a simple disagreement... unless they already hated one side's guts. Zero admits Icewhiz "could easily be one of our best editors" -- well the one thing I agree on is that his life on wiki might be more enjoyable if he didn't feel he had to constantly deal with ARBPIA matters, but that is his choice. As much as I hate to say it, what Zero sees as Icewhiz being some sort of manipulative, tendentious editor who the project would be better without (even though he "could be" one of the best if he "wanted to" -- very odd thing to say if you're also saying we should get rid of him), I think most observers would simply see a guy who is trying to stand up for what he believes in, and simply has a disagreement with someone who doesn't seem to be properly differentiating misalignment of opinions with lack of good faith.--Calthinus (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

I respectfully request the 500 word limit be enforced, as well as some reasonable measure of staleness (June 2018? Seriously?). Excessively long submissions prevent other editors (including admin) from participating, are unfair to the editor being reported, and to every other editor who has ever worked hard to reduce their AE posting down to 500 words. These standards should be applied equally to all editors. Thank you. Leviv ich 14:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal at AE for an editor to help another editor gather diffs in preparation of an AE report, and then comment on the report without disclosing that they helped prepare it? Leviv ich 15:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Icewhiz

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

The first diff is from June 2018. I stopped reading there. Please date all diffs as per the template so we can see what's stale and what's not. Sandstein 18:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this request is unsuited to AE. If an issue can't be summarized in 500 words, that's an indication that it's more suited to a full case request, not a quick response by an individual admin. And as to the subject matter, AE is fine for dealing with obvious cases of tendentious editing, such as throwing ethnic slurs around. But here, making a determination of tendentious editing would likely require a hour or more of detailed study of numerous complicated content issues and the underlying sources, while distinguishing genuine conduct problems from good-faith content disputes, which is very difficult in this kind of case. Speaking only for myself, particularly as somebody uninterested in this topic area, this is not something I see myself doing in my spare time. This does not preclude others who think that this can be resolved more straightforwardly from taking whatever action they consider appropriate. Sandstein 19:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ARBCOM would look kindly on a request at this stage. More generally, new editors keep cropping up in troublesome areas; if we kicked any difficult case to ARBCOM, they would be snowed under very quickly. I haven't looked through all of the diffs here, just the first four bullet points. They are somewhat concerning. While they are quite old, nothing formally prevents us from applying discretionary sanctions for old behavior. The question really is what Icewhiz has to say about those diffs now. Icewhiz, I for one would like to hear a response to Nableezy's first four bullet points. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a specific point in your reply I'm none too happy about, Icewhiz. The general prohibition is all very well, but enforcing it to revert the removal of POV language is questionable. I'm not suggesting sanctions in that respect; it's a mistake several people have made, including myself. But it is a mistake. If you think the IP's edits were correct on the substance, the thing to do is to revert it and then perform the same edit yourself (this is also broadly true for dealing with the edits of socks that have made constructive edits). If you still think the IP's edits were wrong, we have a problem. I don't particularly care how that shooting was described, so long as the description was in line with RS. If you want to change it, you need sources supporting the change. Reverting in text that is not explicitly supported by the sources is a problem, especially in a topic such as this; and this is a problem with that edit of yours that you are not acknowledging in its entirety. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by David Tornheim

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – --David Tornheim (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of GMOs imposed here at WP:AE on July 2016. Also the appeal of that decision in July 2016 at WP:ARCA before the original case had closed. ([30], [31])

Administrator imposing the sanction: Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Statement by David Tornheim

I am appealing my topic ban from GMO’s imposed in July 2016—almost three years ago. Of course, I have not made any edits in the area since then.

I was blocked a few days after the topic ban for this post on Jimbo’s page which links to GMO talk page comments. That is the only time I have ever been blocked.

The only other action by an admin against me in the nearly three years since I have been topic banned is this warning in an area unrelated to GMOs.

If my topic ban is lifted, I will help keep the area up to date with the most recent science using the best reliable sources.

I think my edit history speaks for itself that I have been a net positive for Wikipedia.

Recent and long-term interests:

Removing vandalism (using Huggle)
Articles for Deletion (WP:AfD)
History -- I recently created an article on Richard Clough Anderson Sr. and fixed all the confusion between him and his son Richard Clough Anderson Jr.
Historic architecture
Geology
Politics

If this topic ban is lifted, I will be a productive and collegial editor in this topic area.

I have learned my lesson. Three years has been enough time for me to reflect on how to improve my editing behavior and mature as an editor. At the time I was topic banned, I was still a relative newbie with probably less than half of the edits I have now. I have since learned how to address conflict by working collaboratively. I recently spent a day at a Wiki-conference and met many real life editors, and this also helped me better understand Wikipedians, their interests, their personalities, and their priorities—something that is hard to really understand from simply editing on-line.

Thanks for your consideration. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by David Tornheim

Result of the appeal by David Tornheim

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

[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.

[3] "Israel Has 101 Different Types of Permits Governing Palestinian Movement". Haaretz. 2011-12-23. Retrieved 2019-04-07. The most common permits are those allowing Palestinians to work in Israel, or in Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Over the decades, however, the permit regimen has grown into a vast, triple-digit bureaucracy.

[a]

[b]

[1]

@@ Line 376: / Line 376: @@
 *I don't think ARBCOM would look kindly on a request at this stage. More generally, new editors keep cropping up in troublesome areas; if we kicked any difficult case to ARBCOM, they would be snowed under very quickly. I haven't looked through all of the diffs here, just the first four bullet points. They are somewhat concerning. While they are quite old, nothing formally prevents us from applying discretionary sanctions for old behavior. The question really is what {{U|Icewhiz}} has to say about those diffs now. Icewhiz, I for one would like to hear a response to Nableezy's first four bullet points. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 21:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 *:There's a specific point in your reply I'm none too happy about, {{U|Icewhiz}}. The general prohibition is all very well, but enforcing it to revert the removal of POV language is questionable. I'm not suggesting sanctions in that respect; it's a mistake several people have made, including myself. But it ''is'' a mistake. If you think the IP's edits were correct on the substance, the thing to do is to revert it and then perform the same edit yourself (this is also broadly true for dealing with the edits of socks that have made constructive edits). If you still think the IP's edits were ''wrong'', we have a problem. I don't particularly care how that shooting was described, so long as the description was in line with RS. If you want to change it, you need sources supporting the change. Reverting in text that is not explicitly supported by the sources is a problem, especially in a topic such as this; and this is a problem with that edit of yours that you are not acknowledging in its entirety. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 22:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
+==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by David Tornheim==
+<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved {{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME}} | Administrators noticeboard | editors | administrators}}" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small> <p><small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small></p>
+; Appealing user : {{userlinks|David Tornheim}} – --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 09:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
+; Sanction being appealed : Topic ban from the subject of GMOs imposed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive195#David_Tornheim here] at [[WP:AE]] on July 2016.  Also the appeal of that decision in July 2016 at [[WP:ARCA]] before the original case had closed.  ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=733514495#Clarification_request:_Genetically_modified_organisms_(1)], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=733514495#Clarification_request:_Genetically_modified_organisms_(2)])
+; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Seraphimblade}}
+; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|diff]] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.''
+===Statement by David Tornheim===
+:I am appealing my topic ban from GMO’s imposed in July 2016—almost three years ago.  Of course, I have not made any edits in the area since then.
+:I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Tornheim&diff=prev&oldid=732861249&diffmode=source blocked] a few days after the topic ban for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=732859115&diffmode=source  this post] on Jimbo’s page which links to GMO talk page comments.  That is the only time I have ever been blocked.
+:The only other action by an admin against me in the nearly three years since I have been topic banned is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Tornheim&oldid=878467787#Formal_warning_for_canvassing this warning] in an area unrelated to GMOs.
+:If my topic ban is lifted, I will help keep the area up to date with the most recent science using the best [[WP:RS|reliable sources]].
+:I think [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/David%20Tornheim my edit history] speaks for itself that I have been a net positive for Wikipedia.
+:Recent and long-term interests:
+:* Removing vandalism (using [[WP:Huggle|Huggle]])
+:* Articles for Deletion ([[WP:AfD]])
+:* History -- I recently created an article on [[Richard Clough Anderson Sr.]] and fixed all the confusion  between him and his son [[Richard Clough Anderson Jr.]]
+:* Historic architecture
+:* Geology
+:* Politics
+:If this topic ban is lifted, I will be a productive and collegial editor in this topic area.
+:I have learned my lesson.  Three years has been enough time for me to reflect on how to improve my editing behavior and mature as an editor.  At the time I was topic banned, I was still a relative newbie with probably less than half of the edits I have now.  I have since learned how to address conflict by working collaboratively.   I recently spent a day at a Wiki-conference and met many real life editors, and this also helped me better understand Wikipedians, their interests, their personalities, and their priorities—something that is hard to really understand from simply editing on-line.
+:Thanks for your consideration. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 09:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
+===Statement by Seraphimblade===
+===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
+===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
+===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by David Tornheim ===
+===Result of the appeal by David Tornheim===
+:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
+<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
+*

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