=== Further discussion with admins and other editors by Debresser ===
=== Further discussion with admins and other editors by Debresser ===
@GoldenRing @El_C If I were warned for general edit warring, which I wasn't, you might have a point. Even though in that case, I'd insist that Dailycare be sanctioned as well. And frankly, I don't think that one revert on June 4, one on June 6, and one on June 10 is enough reason to sanction an editor for edit warring. That is just not enough of an edit war. But the issue here is that I was sanctioned for violating a "no reverts without discussion" rule, that was incorrectly applied. Even El_C has already admitted on his talkpage that he now understands how he misrepresented that rule, so I suggest he officially takes back the invalid ban he enacted, and clarifies what restrictions precisely he want to put in place on that article. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 18:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@GoldenRing @El_C If I were warned for general edit warring, which I wasn't, you might have a point. Even though in that case, I'd insist that Dailycare be sanctioned as well, since he reverted me just as many times as I reverted him. And frankly, I don't think that one revert on June 4, one on June 6, and one on June 10 (or Dailycare's reverts on June 5, June 9 and June 13) is enough reason to sanction an editor for edit warring. That is just not enough of an edit war. But the issue here is that I was sanctioned for violating a "no reverts without discussion" rule, that was incorrectly applied. Even El_C has already admitted on his talkpage that he now understands how he misrepresented that rule, so I suggest he officially takes back the invalid ban he enacted, and clarifies what restrictions precisely he want to put in place on that article. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 18:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
===Discussion concerning El_C===
===Discussion concerning El_C===
Revision as of 18:14, 13 June 2017
"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.
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
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
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;
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.
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
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;
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.
I'm not a veteran of AE, but I believe this is not the usual type of AE request. WP:AC/DS was very recently amended to explicitly allow editors to request removal/modification of DS page restrictions at AE. I'd like to request the removal of restrictions on Carter Page. As far as I can tell that page has seen zero disruption from the start and was only subjected to DS restrictions preemptively on April 12 because the subject was associated with Donald Trump. However, Mr. Page had been in the news in connection with Trump for months before that with no disruption. In fact the article has been pretty darn sleepy. I see no basis for maintaining DS restrictions.
In an abundance of caution I'm sending an AE notice to the imposing admin, who is on an indefinite wikibreak. They rejected my request to remove the restrictions. I hold nothing against them; I think their general approach to page restrictions is reasonable, but I just happen to disagree in some instances, and I hope a consensus of admins will agree with me. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GoldenRing, I have no reason for thinking this particular page restriction is a problem beyond the fact that these sorts of page restrictions have substantial costs associated with them (e.g. they slow down or inhibit productive editing) and therefore shouldn't be imposed on articles that haven't exhibited the types of problems that DS page restrictions are designed to address, e.g. persistent disruption. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston, ARBPIA is quite a different thing because in that case ArbCom intentionally imposed preemptive restrictions across an entire topic that was seeing particularly widespread and persistent disruption. No such decision was made in post-1932 American politics. As I've done a lot of editing on Trump-related articles the last few months, I can attest that the disruption in Trump-related article space has been in a much narrower set of articles. Carter Page is a great example (of many) of a Trump-related article that has seen minimal disruption. As for the question of whether it's worth the effort to review these sorts of restrictions, it's undeniable that DS page restrictions such as these impose substantial costs on the project, otherwise they would be the default across all of Wikipedia. And this isn't meant to be snarky, but if you don't think it's worth your time to review such modification requests, then don't review them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Sagecandor
Agree with EdJohnston. The restrictions should not be removed. Also agree with EdJohnston that it hopefully helps encourage more talk page discussion. The topic is subject to an active investigation ongoing and to be elaborated upon more in testimony upcoming later this week. That would lead to increased activity and likely increased controversy. As for the question posed by GoldenRing, the restrictions are not posing harm to the article and could hopefully only prove to encourage others to discuss proposals more with each other. Sagecandor (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Sandstein
Commenting here because I have created the article and have on occasion continued to edit it. I have not observed editorial (mis)conduct that would warrant particular page-level sanctions, and would therefore favor removing them. Sandstein 10:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion among uninvolved administrators
@DrFleischman:: I don't have an immediate opinion on this, but do you think the restrictions are doing some sort of harm to the article? I'm not opposed to the view that needless restrictions could be removed, but I'm trying to figure out whether you just think this is a needless restriction that could be rescinded or if there's some particular reason you think the restriction is a problem. GoldenRing (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with Dennis on this one. While I can see the potential for disruption on this page, I find Sagecandor's reasoning unpersuasive; if the restrictions are not posing harm to the article and could hopefully only prove to encourage others to discuss proposals more with each other then why don't we start a big RfC to just impose 1RR on the whole site? Absent actual evidence of disruption on this page, I think the restriction should be lifted, with no prejudice against re-imposing it if editing there does become disruptive. Of course, if anyone wants to present diffs of actual disruption that would justify the restriction, that would be a different matter. GoldenRing (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean towards agreeing to lift restrictions because I think the default state of the article is naturally to be unrestricted and we shouldn't use restrictions unless there is a clear need. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I apply this logic to any page that is not obviously under the Arb ruling for politics and is only tangentially political in any way. And of course, if there are problems on any article that relates to politics post-32, then it makes sense to put the restrictions on them for the period of time it is likely to continue. Without evidence of actual disruption, I'm still inclined to lift restrictions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer more admin input before anyone jumps, I think we are at kind of a stalemate and the perspective of others is greatly appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Carter Page is a bona-fide Trump-related page, and the connections to Russia suggest it may remain controversial. I would be opposed to lifting the DS unless there is some general reason for believing that the Trump and Russia issues have become less controversial. Trying to lift this page sanction by itself would be like trying to pick and choose individual ARBPIA pages for exemption; not likely to be worth the effort, or worth the time spent in reviewing the issue. Talk:Carter Page remains open for proposals to anyone who wants to improve the article. Anyway this is Template:American politics AE which is just a kind of a 1RR and is not even a 500/30 restriction. The article itself is open to everyone for editing including IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ed as well as with Dennis but, on the balance, I'd support lifting the restrictions in place (even though the timing is probably not ideal). Absent actual disruption, we should err on the side of fewer restrictions. --regentspark (comment) 17:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: I am lifting User:Coffee's 1RR restriction. My understanding is this doesn't prevent its being restored by some other administrator if problems occur. (In that case it would be a new ban). The main argument in favor of lifting was that there is not yet any disruption. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Md iet
Topic ban lifted per consensus. --NeilNtalk to me 14:55, 8 June 2017 (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).
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 Md iet
Now I understand the importance of reliable sources and why it is required for a reliable encyclopedia like of Wikipedia.
My earlier mistake was due to confusion that real facts are self qualified for inclusion with mere justification. No justifications are valid without valid proof.
My editing after my unblock indicates the clear change. I think more than one year is sufficient period and method of contribution to Wikipedia during the period also need consideration to give me a chance for this appeal to contribute further to Wiki
I agree with view of EdJohnston. In fact why FGM only, all the controversial edition to be better resolved at talk page itself.--Md iet (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by EdJohnston
As the banning admin, I am OK with lifting User:Md iet's topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra. Before doing so I'll wait to see if any of the admins commenting below have concerns about Md iet's editing and want to keep the ban in place. The original dispute was about whether to declare a specific contender as the new head of the Dawoodi Bohra. That dispute is now mostly over since the rival candidate died. I haven't noticed any recent edits by Md iet that would cause concern, so the ban no longer seems necessary. I trust that Md iet will be aware that any changes about the Dawoodi Bohra have to be neutral and must not be promotional. The topic of female genital mutilation as practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra remains controversial and any changes should have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Md iet
I would agree with GoldenRing and say it could be lifted after this length of time. Can always be re-imposed, hopefully not necessary, if needed, at a later date. If re-imposed later, maybe the user could retain ability to comment about it on talk pages, so as to still be able to participate and suggest drafts on sub-pages, etc. Sagecandor (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support entirely lifting the topic ban: I have never edited these articles or had any interaction with Md iet. But I have seen his editing on different articles such as India and I appreciate the attitude of Md iet, that he has shown significant improvement in his editing. He knows now when to continue the discussion and when to drop it. Capitals00 (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Result of the appeal by Md iet
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I'm suggest to denying this request. Md iet, you should first ask the admin (EdJohnston) who imposed the sanction on you. (Regardless, you do need to notify them of this appeal and you don't appear to have done that.)--regentspark (comment) 07:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: to be fair, the ban notice instructs him to appeal here, not consult the banning admin. As far as I can tell, this user was indeffed about two and a half years ago. They were unblocked under the standard offer about sixteen months ago, retaining a topic ban from Dawoodi Bohra. Eight months ago that topic ban was relaxed by EdJohnston to allow involvement on talk pages but not the article itself. As far as I can tell (at least judging by their user talk) no disruption has resulted from any of this gradual re-admittance to the community. I'd like to hear User:EdJohnston's opinion first, but I'd be wiling to see the ban removed. It can always be reimposed, but it doesn't seem likely to me that removing it will lead to disruption. GoldenRing (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GoldenRing, generally speaking, the ban imposing admin is better able to evaluate whether it should be lifted or not and we should encourage users to appeal to them first and come here only if they feel they are being treated unfairly or not getting a response (this is also the recommended, though not mandatory, process - re the instructions above). Though, of course, you are correct that they don't have to go back to the sanctioning admin, we should encourage users to use this board only when necessary. In this case it seems particularly unnecessary when the sanctioning admin has already shown an inclination to modify the sanctions. (But, sure, at this point we might as well wait for Ed.) --regentspark (comment) 14:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: Sure, I'm all for avoiding the boards where possible. Just saying that the ban notice doesn't say, "Go to the sanctioning admin," it says come here, so it's understandable that that's what he's done, if not optimal. @EdJohnston: as there's been no further objection here, I think the ban should be lifted. GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as per EdJohnston, above, who imposed the ban. Md iet appears to understand, and has been back here in good standing for quite some time now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Andalusi
Al-Andalusi is banned from all edits and pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for a period of six months. GoldenRing (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2017 (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 Al-Andalusi
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
His edits were reverted by 4 different editors, and he still believes that they all need his "consensus" to revert him.
He claimed The Jerusalem Post to be an opinion piece,[4] after he saw that no one supported his claim that Jpost is an opinion piece, he resorted to personal attacks and WP:FILIBUSTER on talk page:-
"Capitals00 is a liar who appears to have a personal vendetta", "Capitals00 is ignorant of WP:BRD"[5]
"So the entire, Arab press and all Arab residents in Palestine are blind, and only the Jewish media is capable of authenticity"..."only a moron would lump them all together"[6]
"whether blanket reverting idiots like Capitals00 and OccultZone, who have been entirely absent from this debate on the talk pages"[7]
I could bring more diffs of misconduct, but they many of them don't fall under the Israel-Palestine conflict and they are older than 8 November (last sanctions reminder), when he was more active as editor. Capitals00 (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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 Al-Andalusi
Statement by Icewhiz
My personal opinion, as a participant in "Acid Throwing" was that most of Al-Andalusi's editing wasn't helpful.
I'd like to point out that he also committed a 1RR violation in these diffs:
[14] - Revision as of 21:18, 2 June 2017 - blanket return of information.
which was a 2nd revert in relation to piecemeal removal of the same items 8 hours earlier: [15][16]
(besides being against talk-page consensus, particularly "Suyuf al-Haq" (Swords of Righteousness) which was discussed at length)
He was asked by me to self-revert: [17]. His response was to delete (without archiving I believe) the request from his talk page: [18].
This is material clearly under the I/P area - particularly the 2nd revert of an acid attack by a Palestinian on a Jewish family.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Al-Andalusi
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Al-Andalusi
Al-Andalusi is blocked for a week for violating their topic ban. Sandstein 09:56, 9 June 2017 (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 Al-Andalusi
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
He got topic banned from all Palestine-Israel articles hardly a few hours ago, and he has violated the topic ban already by writing on the talk page regarding the same West Bank and Gaza Strip section.
The talk sections concerns his edits[21][22] where the same paragraph goes to mention First Intifada, and other one describes attacks on Israeli family by Palestinian as part of Israel-Palestine conflicts.
Al-Andalusi also made personal attack on other editor "are you being dramatic here like the vinegar family?"[23]
This comes after his acknowledgement of topic ban on his talk page.[24]Capitals00 (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Andalusi: Gaza and Hamas are under Arab-Israeli confict discretionary sanctions as well. I also find issues with your statement " an alleged topic ban that I did not agree to", it is not an "alleged" topic ban, but rather a topic ban in force, nor does it matter whether you agreed to it or not. Capitals00 (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Topic ban for 6 months from all Palestine-Israel.[25]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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 Al-Andalusi
Nonsense. My comments came under talk sections concerning acid thrown within Gaza, and in no way are about the Palestine-Israel conflict. The 1st section "More than 18 attacks" describes acid attacks on Gaza residents, while the 2nd section "Hamas' reaction" describes Hamas torture allegations in Gaza. Now, if it is your belief that Gaza is part of Israel, and hence any discussion involving Gaza entails that I "violated" an alleged topic ban that I did not agree to, then that's an entirely different story. Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Uanfala
Just noting that the topic ban was enacted (see the thread immediately above) less than four hours after the case was opened, and before the accused party or any uninvolved editors have had the opportunity to comment. There's some discussion of that at User talk:GoldenRing#Topic ban of Al-Andalusi. – Uanfala 00:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Icewhiz
Commenting as I was a side to this. Two quick notes:
1. Gaza, in the 80s (some of this actually pre-dates the first Intifada (1983), some during) was under Israeli civil and military control - Israel was in charge of law and order in the territory and for preventing attacks, preventing them, and dispensing justice. I personally, saw/see this as part of the I/P area and adhered to 1RR and other ARBPIA in all edits related to the West Bank and Gaza in Acid Throwing. (note that in a technical sense, Israel is still claimed by some (International bodies, Palestinians) of still being the occupying power in Gaza today (also after disengagement) - so it is possible that current Palestinian/Palestinian issues in Gaza are still I/P. In the 1980s - Israel was in actual full or almost full control).
2. But, I will want to note that Al-Andalusi was being constructive in some of his comments - and this was a discussion that was on-going parallel to the enforcement case (I believe the discussion started before the enforcement action). I agreed with some of his comments - and edited them in myself. He also stuck to the talk page. One of the mentioned diffs is a thanks for an edit.Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Al-Andalusi
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
In one of the edits, [27], Al-Andalusi mentions Hamas, which is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The talk page section to which Al-Andalusi contributed was titled "2014 Acid Attack in West Bank" and was about how to cover acid attacks by Palestinians against Israelis. Al-Andalusi has therefore violated their topic ban. I am blocking Al-Andalusi for a week. Sandstein 09:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Al-Andalusi
Appeal declined by a 4-0 vote. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:26, 10 June 2017 (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).
I reject Sandstein's claims that I violated a topic ban. He claims that my edit is in violation because Hamas "is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict". However, the nature my talk page edit concerned an internal Palestinian event with regards to torturing Palestinians. To me, this is unrelated to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Secondly, Sandstein claims that I contributed to a talk page section titled "2014 Acid Attack in West Bank" and that my contribution was on how to cover acid attacks by Palestinians against Israelis. This is patently false and I ask that the reviewer of this unblock appeal to review my edit here. It comes under a section titled "More than 18 attacks" (which I created btw long before the topic ban), which concerns acid attacks carried out by Mujama al-Islamiya in Gaza in the 1980s, a local issue as far as I'm concerned. The talk page section titled
"2014 Acid Attack in West Bank" that Capitals00 (originator of the enforcement request) and Sandstein claimed that I contributed to is somewhere else on the talk page Talk:Acid throwing#2014 Acid Attack in West Bank, where you won't find my alleged edit. It is a shame that Sandstein would take Capitals00's words at face value and not bother with verifying the claims. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Sandstein
I have commented further on this block on my talk page, and recommend declining the appeal. Sandstein 05:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Zero0000
I think Al-Andalusi is skating on very thin ice here and that his two edits were asking for trouble. That said, Sandstein's justification is highly dubious, especially the part "Al-Andalusi mentions Hamas, which is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict". It is elementary that something that does not involve Israel also doesn't involve the Israel-Palestine conflict. Would we apply ARBPIA to, say, this article on Israeli food on the grounds that "Israel is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict"? Of course not. The rest of the justification seems to be that the edits concern text that is adjacent to text about the Arab-Israeli conflict. What sort of argument is that? Zerotalk 03:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Capitals00
I would recommend obvious decline. Sandstein's justification was correct. Its like similar to saying that if a user is banned from India-Pakistan conflicts, they are not allowed to talk about Lashkar-e-Taiba as well. Al-Andalusi should instead edit something like Party of the Danes, that has to do nothing with Israel-Arab conflicts. Capitals00 (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Debresser
The violation was on a talkpage, and seems to have been based on an honest misunderstanding. It would have been enough to simply explain his mistake to Al-Andalusi, and no block would have been necessary. I recommend to retract whatever is left of the block, since block should not be punitive. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Al-Andalusi
Result of the appeal by Al-Andalusi
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I would decline the appeal. The judgement and swiftness of Sandstein's actions were well within policy and expectations for an admin. It would seem Al-Andalusi wants to game the system, but that seldom works, particularly in an area that is as visible as this. Looking at the previous sanctions, I think the duration of each is well within norms. Looking at the edits, it is obvious they were in violation. The appeal is without merit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd need to stretch my credulity pretty far to think these edits were not in violation. Given the editors previous blocks, presumably in the same area, this may actually be a lighter block than was warranted. Decline. --regentspark (comment) 07:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. This is clearly within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict, widely construed. Huon (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Within the scope of the topic ban, and Sandstein's block was reasonable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot be processed in this form. Sandstein 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There was a Rfc on the Jewish diaspora talkpage. After it was closed,[28] there arose a difference of interpretation regarding in how far editors are at liberty to make changes to the version that was endorsed by the Rfc, based on the fact hat both the proposal that was accepted[29] as well as the closing statement of the Rfc[[30]] specifically mentioned that the accepted version was not binding verbatim and tweaks and other general improvements can be made. A minor edit war ensued, in the middle of which El_C decided to enact the Consensus required provision.[31] The version on the page at that moment was my version, so when it was changed,[32] I had all right to revert, which I did.[33] Only after that happened, El_C decided that the version he would like to see preserved for the time being is not my version,[34] and now he demands I revert and threatens me with sanction should I not revert my version.[35][36] I explained on on the talkpage, that he can not demand I revert an edit which I was entitled to make according to the very same sanction he imposed, but he insists. As I see it, El_C is at liberty to revert my edit himself, if he is of the opinion that the other version is for whatever reason preferable to mine, but by all rules of Wikipedia, including the very consensus required provision he decided to enact, I was in my rights to made the edit I made and can not be sanctioned for that. I ask for your opinions, and, in case you agree with me, to explain this to El_C. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC) El_C notified.[37]Debresser (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like it belongs at WP:AN since it is about admin conduct, and not a particular Arb remedy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, I don't know. On the other hand, the talkpage has this large {{ARBPIA}} sign on it. It was my impression that when El_C enacted the Consensus required provision, he did so within that framework. As he said: I realised the Consensus required provision was removed from ARBPIA, but I'm adding it to this article, for now (may lift it at a later date).[38]Debresser (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, this request is a jumbled mess. Please resubmit it in the standard format per the instructions if you want it to be processed. I am closing it in this form. Sandstein 18:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
El_C
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 El_C
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
There was a Rfc on the Jewish diaspora talkpage. After it was closed,[39] there arose a difference of interpretation regarding in how far editors are at liberty to make changes to the version that was endorsed by the Rfc, based on the fact hat both the proposal that was accepted[40] as well as the closing statement of the Rfc[41] specifically mentioned that the accepted version was not binding verbatim and tweaks and other general improvements can be made. A minor edit war ensued, in the middle of which El_C decided to enact the Consensus required provision.[42] The version on the page at that moment was my version, so when it was changed,[43] I had all right to revert, which I did.[44] Only after that happened, El_C decided that the version he would like to see preserved for the time being is not my version,[45] and now he demands I revert and threatens me with sanction should I not revert my version.[46][47] I explained on on the talkpage, that he can not demand I revert an edit which I was entitled to make according to the very same sanction he imposed, but he insists, and has at a matter of fact issued a ban for me for that article,[48], which I do not recognize,[49] since I consider it a mistake (I won't go as far as to call it abuse of admin privileges) As I see it, El_C is at liberty to revert my edit himself, if he is of the opinion that the other version is for whatever reason preferable to mine, but by all rules of Wikipedia, including the very consensus required provision he decided to enact, I was in my rights to made the edit I made and can not be sanctioned for that. I ask for your opinions, and, in case you agree with me, to explain this to El_C and annul the 72 hour article ban.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Further discussion with admins and other editors by Debresser
@GoldenRing @El_C If I were warned for general edit warring, which I wasn't, you might have a point. Even though in that case, I'd insist that Dailycare be sanctioned as well, since he reverted me just as many times as I reverted him. And frankly, I don't think that one revert on June 4, one on June 6, and one on June 10 (or Dailycare's reverts on June 5, June 9 and June 13) is enough reason to sanction an editor for edit warring. That is just not enough of an edit war. But the issue here is that I was sanctioned for violating a "no reverts without discussion" rule, that was incorrectly applied. Even El_C has already admitted on his talkpage that he now understands how he misrepresented that rule, so I suggest he officially takes back the invalid ban he enacted, and clarifies what restrictions precisely he want to put in place on that article. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning El_C
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.
I think Debresser should add evidence to his complaint showing that consensus supports his version, or this should be dismissed for lack of evidence. My read on the talk page is clear consensus against the language Debresser wants to include ("some historians"). Apparently, the definition of consensus Debresser is basing this complaint on is The version on the page at that moment was my version. If the consensus on the page is in fact to exclude his language, I think WP:BOOMERANG might be appropriate, as an experienced editor can be expected to know better. Seraphim System(talk) 16:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Sagecandor
I'm not seeing evidence that El_C is involved here, merely assessing consensus of a discussion. Unfortunately, the edit history even only for the last 50 edits shows back-and-forth edit-warring by Debresser, going back to March 2017 [52]. Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Dailycare
This complaint appears to revolve around the misconception that Debresser could obtain some advantage to "his version" by edit-warring it in the article, since that was the only reason it happened to be in when the CRP was put in place. The contrary is true, in fact, since edit-warring is penalized, not rewarded. As such, this complaint can be seen as one or more of frivolous, wikilawyering or disruptive in that he is seeking to continue his edit-war crusade in favour of a text ("some") that is trivially contrary to WP:NPOV. WP:BOOMERANG could be considered here. Debresser has recently received warnings on the 3RR board. --Dailycare (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning El_C
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
There's some discussion going on at User talk:El_C about what exactly CRP means and whether it did give Debresser the right to revert a change made after CRP was imposed which would then need consensus to re-revert. But stepping back a bit this all seems a bit of a storm in a teacup; there is a discussion happening on the article talk page trying to arrive at a consensus version of the text (and whether that's different to the RfC that closed a week ago) and, as far as I can make out, this report is about which version is present in the article while that discussion happens. I think Debresser probably needs to let it go. GoldenRing (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sagecandor rather has a point regarding the edit warring on that page. I haven't read through a lot of the history here, but a quick perusal of the page history might give some the impression that Debresser has got off lightly with a 72-hour ban. GoldenRing (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
