Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:29, 1 February 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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by KidAd

Appeal declined and withdrawn. Sandstein 11:51, 27 January 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: KidAd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 3 month block

Administrator imposing the sanction: Ian.thomson (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 KidAd

I am aware of the parameters of my block, and I have complied with them. I reverted vandalism on the the page of a journalist and I have been engaging in debate on whether the first lady and second gentleman of California should be referred to as "first partners." These people are not politicians or political appointees, staffers, or public employees. I edited no information about policy or contested political opinions. On the page of the former Buzzfeed journalist, I reverted persistent vandalism with the help of other editors. It was never made clear to me that I couldn't edit the pages of journalists. I have complied with my topic ban thus far and believe that this new block is unjustified. If Ian.thomson wants to insult my competency, let him. KidAd (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: @TonyBallioni: I retract this unblock request and plan on logging out effective immediately. I suggest that you do not waste any more time on this. I initially attempted to comply with the topic ban after my block timed up, but found myself slowly inching back to editing topics that interested me (on the periphery of post-1932 American politics). I stand by these edits as made in good faith and productive, but I understand that they were in violation of the topic ban. I have nothing more to say about this it is not in my best interest to pointlessly argue with administrators. I Thank all involved for your time. I now plan on stepping back without any further excuses and diverting my efforts to other pursuits. KidAd (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2019 copied from KidAd's TP.Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ian.thomson

I hadn't quite thought that this would end up in front of ArbCom but I'm not sure if/how things would have gone differently. As Nil_Einne pointed out at ANI, in this edit, KidAd should have absolutely realized that he was editing an article that related to post-1932 American politics. Had I spotted that diff before carrying out the block, and had I known that KidAd was going to argue with a straight face that articles about American political journalists and spouses of American politicians and political consultants have nothing to do with American politics, I'd've just gone with an indef. I simply can't imagine simultaneous competence and good faith in the face of that (un)reasoning, just one or the other at most. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Innisfree987

Support block. As another example, KidAd repeatedly (starting here) tried to nominate Ashley Feinberg, a journalist who often reports on politics, for CSD despite multiple editors declining, and failing that, nominated to AfD saying that perhaps the journalist would one day be notable if she ends up publishing this generation's equivalent of the Pentagon Papers (here, for anyone unfamiliar). I don't know whether overlooking their own invocation of the political involvement reveals bad faith or a major WP:CIR issue, but if the bottom line is that an editor continually tests the limits of their topic ban, the TBAN isn't working to prevent disruption. That AfD alone has wasted the time of ten editors--eight ivoters unanimously voting keep and two more who helped get it listed properly. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Beyond My Ken

@KidAd: ~~Please explain what the phrase "Broadly construed" means to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind, I just read the egregious Wikilawyering on his talk page. I am no longer interested in this matter. Appeal should obviously be denied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by KidAd

Please note that this appeal was heavily edited by KidAd after it was copied here.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Related:[reply]

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To present just one example, KidAd edited Markos Kounalakis, the biography of a person who is a political scientist and foreign policy analyst, who is the president and publisher emeritus of the well known political magazine Washington Monthly and who co-hosted a radio show about politics, and who has helped establish chairs in politics and democracy at two major universities. KidAd's argument that editing this biography is not a violation of their topic ban on post-1932 politics broadly construed is disingenuous and laughable. The block should stand. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said one his talk page (and he agreed to do), "Don't be that person who stands right on the line he isn't allowed to cross with his toes across the line. Stay a mile away from the line you cannot cross. Make it so that if anyone accuses you of violating your topic ban the unanimous opinion will be that they are crazy." --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by KidAd

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

No opinion either way on the block, but noting as the block was for an AE TBAN violation, I felt it makes sense for it to come here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian.thomson, this isn't in front of ArbCom, but because the initial topic ban was made under WP:AC/DS it's an arbitration enforcement block, which is why I copied it here and mentioned the need to log it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that the partners of high-profile political figures aren't covered under your TBAN, especially when your arguing about their official title. As an example, I'm pretty sure edits to Melania Trump or Michelle Obama would be covered under a post-1932 politics ban. Definitely within the scope of the sanctioning admin's discretion, so I'd uphold. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline the appeal. While a first spouse can be notable for reasons unrelated to that position, the edits (example) by KidAd related to that position and therefore to the person's quality as a political figure. Sandstein 22:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there is a grey area here, between political journalists and journalists who occasionally cover politics; between activist authors and authors who sometimes comment on politics; and between edits to the biography of California's first related to her role as first lady and edits related to the rest of her life. None of the edits presented in the second ANI linked above fall into this grey area. They are all either on subjects that are squarely political or are about aspects of the subject that are obviously political. I would decline the appeal. If KidAd seriously contends that the title of the first lady is not a political topic then we are probably moving into CIR territory, but I would still let this block play out. GoldenRing (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was not an accidental transgressions into a grey area, it was multiple instances of editing subjects squarely within the topic ban and then trying to wikilawyer about it; and then there is the edit warring over the speedy deletion tag at Ashley Feinberg. This was a good block that I endorse. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FeydHuxtable

Edits in question do not fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 15:08, 29 January 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 FeydHuxtable

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: FeydHuxtable (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/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed: Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions : An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. . .

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

Edit warring:

Oct 23, 2017 Initial edit-warring of content back in; first notified of DS after this point.
15:55 Jan 27, 2019 Restored content from previous edit warring with no changes in talk consensus.
3:11 Jan 28, 2019 Edit-warred content back in despite second 1RR and DS reminder previously.

Battleground:

Jan 27, 2019 Accusing those who disagreed with their edits as tag teaming.
Jan 28, 2019 Aspersions: Folk could easily form the perception you're editing from a Fringe pro pesticide POV.
Jan 28, 2019 Considers relying on secondary academic sources for content Fringe POV pushing & wiki lawyering nonsense

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.[2]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

FeydHuxtable is more or less thumbing their nose at the 1RR and behavior discretionary sanctions involving WP:ASPERSIONS about pesticides, etc. while interjecting persistent battleground behavior. They initially edit warred this content back in 2017 after it was initially removed for exactly the same reasons as it was yesterday without gaining consensus on the talk page. I removed it again yesterday re-reminding them of the DS, WP:ONUS, and 1RR. They reinserted it anyways today without gaining consensus.

The underlying content dispute involves their on a primary source related to insect species decline with underlying causes of agricultural land use, pesticides, etc. for an area of Germany. I've been trying to get across that there are plenty of peer-reviewed reviews that take priority and discuss insect biodiversity and changes to due to agriculture, pesticides, etc. or by how much at an appropriate summary level for articles like Insect#Diversity and Insect_biodiversity rather than editor synthesis zeroing in on one primary study that is given relatively little weight in secondary sources.

That’s not to hash the content issue out further here, but just background since they are also casting aspersions claiming I'm trying to cover up the insect decline, fringe-POV pusher, etc. on the talk page section despite by suggesting the above. That kind of behavior became such a problem before the ArbCom case that arbs passed the GMO aspersions principle linked above as people coming in with that attitude commonly pull a bull in a china shop act like we’re seeing here and miss basic parts of the discussion lacking the ability to follow WP:FOC policy.

Instead, FeydHuxtable goes into soapbox diatribes largely unrelated to the content, edit wars, lashes out at editors, etc. as outlined above and can be seen at Talk:Insect#Biomass_decline. There’s also this in response to warning of the DS: If Im perma banned, I'm perma banned. (Obviously Id not get a formal perma-ban, the worst would be an indef, but as there's no way I post an unblock suggesting I wouldn't edit in the same way again. . .).

I'm at a loss for how to handle their behavior at the article alone any further since they've made it clear they don't care about the discretionary sanctions, and it's distracting from what should be basic content discussion. That kind of behavior often eventually leads to topic bans in this subject if allowed to keep up. This is low-key right now compared to some past problem editors, but the DS were directly imposed to keep this nonsense out of the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein:, please remember that pesticides are explicitly mentioned as being within the scope of the DS. The background needed to discuss the content of the subject partially involves pesticides, and I was directly accused of "Fringe pro pesticide POV" on the talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

Discussion concerning FeydHuxtable

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 FeydHuxtable

Like user:Kingofaces43 Im at a loss at how to proceed. Our perspectives seem so different I see little chance of us finding common ground. So as per my last post on insect talk, I said I'd consider keeping out of Kings way, including not making further edits to articles about bugs. Had hoped that might be the end of our dispute.

The dispute is about much more than a German study; the central issue is the global decline of the insect population. There seems to be unanimous scientific consensus that this is a major issues. A few scientists have argued that warnings of an impending ecological collapse due to bug decline may be exaggerated - but even they agree the decline is a problem that warrants further investigation and funding. Accordingly, I see the omission of the decline phenomena as an even greater NPOV violation than it would be to delete any mention of man-made global warning from climate change. Granted, King has never flat out claimed we should have zero coverage, but they have deleted all mention of it. Their talk page contributions seem such spurious wikilawyering nonsense that Ive not seen any way to productively engage.

It's not true Im thumbing my nose at 1RR & DS. I am indifferent to whether Im indeffed, but its important to me to conduct myself with honour, which includes respecting our communities norms and other editors time. Even by King's own words, the applicability of the DS tag was "borderline" I see their use of the DS tag as possibly a feeble & manipulative ploy to help push a Fringe PoV. I dont recall mentioning pesticide or other biotech on insect or any other article. While I may sometimes remark about biotechs corrupting effect on science, it's also my opinion that biotech has and will continue to be a huge net +ve overall, essential to feeding & caring for the world's growing population.

I had previously warned King that if they take this to the DS board, they may not like how it ends. I was prepared to argue they warrant a boomerang, due to the impression some of their edits create of them being a pro pesticide shrill. The thing is, per my last post on talk, Ive came to see it's possible they are posting from a sensible good faith perspective, just one I can't fathom. The fact they've chose to square up against me on the DS board makes me think its even more likely they are good faith. So I don't recommend any sanction against them, maybe just a gentle trout slap for wasting your time with this unneeded filing. As indicated, I was already planning to try & stay out of Kings way, so not sure there is any need for action here. Just in case you feel my behaviour warrants an indeff, my last words are to wish all fellow editors the very best of luck. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

This is a prime example of how "broadly construed" is easily turned into "anything at all." The edit is question was not about pesticides, therefore any reasonable construction would find it acceptable. "Broadly construed" would imply that the party could not even write about a person who was ever stung by a bee (deliberate example), or had an allergy to honey. It is long past time for the "broadly construed" superhighway to see its exist ramp, and this would be a good place to start. Collect (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning FeydHuxtable

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

Not actionable, in my view. The 1RR does not apply because the page insect is not related to "genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals". The "battleground" edits are predominantly about content, not other users. Please, you two, find some way to resolve this content dispute outside of AE. Sandstein 22:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree not actionable, as there's nothing directly about GMOs in any of these edits. FH's edits speak towards pesticides, but not "GMO pesticides", so falls outside the DS. There are proper UNDUE concerns but that's a discussion for the talk page or other places. --Masem (t) 22:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: The scope of DS is "all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed." I haven't looked to check the merits of this report, but pesticides are definitely within the scope of DS, not just "GMO pesticides". GoldenRing (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But, this is "Insect", not "Pesticide", and the additions are about the broad class of pesticides, not just manufactured ones. If this was an edit to "Pesticide", I could rationally accept that as under "broadly", but to get Insect under that, that's just too far off the intent of the original case. --Masem (t) 14:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Yep, having looked a bit further I can't see Insect falling under the GMO 1RR rule. In fact, given the only mention of pesticides in the diffs given came up because someone posted the GMO DS notification on their TP, I can't see these edits falling within the GMO DS. GoldenRing (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz

Not actionable; content dispute. Sandstein 14:55, 31 January 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 Icewhiz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:36, 28 January 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(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda and (2) : disruption

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

12:23, 28 January 2019 Icewhiz changes "[[Arab citizens of Israel|Palestinian citizen of Israel]]" to an "[[Arab citizens of Israel|Israeli Arab]]" And "a [[Muslim-Arab]] family of [[Palestinians|Palestinian]] descent" to "an [[Arab citizens of Israel|Israeli Arab]] family.", thereby removing the word "Palestinian" from the article.
20:59, 28 January 2019 Shrike does the same

22:09, 25 January 2019 further example of recent disruption: Icewhiz removed 149,943 from an article (he did not move it, just let it "disappear"), without discussing the removal first.

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on
07:23, 30 November 2018: Icewhiz

13:08, 4 January 2019: Shrike

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Background: Aya Maasarwe was a young woman, recently raped and murdered in Australia, see Killing of Aya Maasarwe. She was from Baqa al-Gharbiyye, Israel, and according to her family, "The family has contacted media organisations asking [..] to reflect their wish for her to be identified as Palestinian."link I have filed this report against Icewhiz, as he started the removal of the Palestinian identity (after the article have been mostly stable for days), but Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues his same edits.

They refuse to undo their edits, even after being challenged on the article talk page, and being made aware of the Maasarwe family's wishes.

Black Kite: Shrike left the article calling her only "Israeli" in the lead. Her families wishes are further down. What if we called an African American for "black" in the lead, and then further down added "his/her family wanted him/her to be known as "Afro American"?
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

22:38, 28 January 2019 Icewhiz notified,
22:39, 28 January 2019, Shrike 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

Unlike Huldra, I took the discussion to the article talk page opening a discussion after Huldra reverted. Mainstream outlets such as BBC and AP (WaPo reprint) use Arab-Israeli (without Palestinian - which is a highly charged political stmt for a citizen of Israel to say about themselves - many do - but many do not) - which is the standard term for Arab citizens of Israel. Huldra participated in Talk:Arab citizens of Israel#Requested move 2 September 2018 (20:59, 3 September 2018) and was acting against consensus by changing a piped link to that article. With 23:00, 21 January 2019 and 20:36, 28 January 2019, Huldra introduced an opinion piece (and attributed reporting on the op-ed by Khalik) - [4], [5] that challenged mainstream coverage (which quite widely did not say Palestinian) - to make an unattributed assertion on a BDP and BLPs.Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the 25 January edit, I was acting in accordance to Wikipedia:Article size - I made a bold edit - and immediately opened a talk page section (22:16, 25 January 2019) - on an article that required trimming that whose trimming was discussed for months - Huldra then reverted (and did not participate in the dicussion other than to assert this was "undiscussed" [6]). Also - personal attacks by Huldra - 21:25, 28 January 2019 - "And you are spitting on them. Shame, shame, on you" (you - directed at an editor - myself). And 21:13, 28 January 2019 - "We are spitting on her family" - we clearly directed at a group of editors (including Shirke she was responding to). Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bellezzasolo

Just as we don't allow article subjects to dictate the content of the article about them, we follow RSes, not the desire of the family. Given that the quality of sources was increased in the course of the edit, furthermore that Shrike has noted the family's desire, in a DUE manner. This is frankly a frivolous report stemming from a new content dispute. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TracyMcClark: Even a Guardian article [7] uses Israeli. The article you cite uses Palestinian Arab of Israeli citizenship (I discount the second Guardian article [8] in Huldra's revision, as it is an Op Ed). So at best the Guardian gives no consensus. In comparison, Icewhiz's version cites the BBC and the Washington Post. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (TracyMcClark)

What Icewhiz describes as "op-reds and reporting on advocacy - not a RS..." in their edit summary is actually sourced to a news report in the Guardian [9] in first place.

Sure Belle, that was almost the same article going online 4 1/2 hours earlier before they knew more.

Statement by Sir Joseph

This is a frivolous request and should be closed as such. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To continue, Wikipedia tries to be an encyclopedia. We don't edit the encyclopedia because a family member wants certain words in there, we report on truth. The victim was an Israeli. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

No comment on the Killing of Aya Maasarwe edits, but regarding the removal of 149k from Israeli occupation of the West Bank, that was preceded by months of discussion at Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank about size and npov issues, including a recent thread about the article's DYK nomination potentially being in jeopardy due to the ongoing content dispute. Both Huldra and Icewhiz have participated in that discussion (as have I). Icewhiz posted to the talk page after making that edit, and since being reverted by Huldra, Icewhiz has continued discussion on the talk page (and hopefully Huldra will join the conversation, too). I see this edit as a bold move to try and break a logjam in discussion, not as a violation of DS. ^Leviv_ich 06:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

@Black Kite: My version is better because its actually follows our guideline WP:ETHNICITY.Also if my edits wasn't so good what do you think about removing "Israel" from the article [10] --Shrike (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bella

So..the deceased and the family identifies themselves as Palestinians. [11] Sources (removed by Icewhiz) also describe the dead as "..a Palestinian Arab of Israeli citizenship.." [12], "A Palestinian with Israeli citizenship"[13] "The 21-year-old was Palestinian, yet because of the title of her passport, she was described in news reports as Israeli or Arab-Israeli"[14] Icewhiz eliminated every word "Palestinian" from the article [15] including the sources and replaced it with "Israeli Arab" adding references of his choice, that don't identify Maasarwe as "Palestinian". Why not quote both classifications?? I don't believe this was a good faith edit. Sensitivity of the matter is quite obvious. It is natural to expect the opposing side being offended and provoked. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by E.M.Gregory

Just for clarity, we have no source on how the deceased self-identified. All that we can source (beyond the fact of Israeli citizenship) is that the family identifies as Palestinian and that the family after her death asked the press to identify her as Palestinian.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stefka Bulgaria

Icewhiz seems to have continuously discussed edits on the relevant talk pages. If there was a disagreement in reaching consensus, perhaps a RfC could have helped, but this request is uncalled for. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:47, 29 January 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.

This is a content dispute, and as such not actionable. The request identifies no applicable conduct policy that these edits could violate. Sandstein 23:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Shrike did include this later in the article (and before this AE was filed) - diff. Having said that, I don't see why the original wasn't better - it does smack of eliminating "Palestinian" from the article. But unless there's a clearly defined pattern of the two editors avoiding 1RR by tag-teaming articles, there isn't an issue here, and doing it on one article doesn't reach that point. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are no further admin comments, I'm closing this. Sandstein 14:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man

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 The Rambling Man

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: The Rambling Man (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/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited: "The Rambling Man is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: There's three distinct edits in the last hour that violate TRM's restriction. I'm supplying the full sequence of edits for the sake of context:

Drmies prunes some content from the article Neil Warnock [16].
The Rambling Man reverts Drmies [17], with the summary including the phrase "perhaps avoid editing things you know absolutely nothing about in the future", which itself is a violation of the restriction, as it is a reflection on Drmies's competence
Drmies posts to TRM's talk page [18].
TRM responds [19].
Drmies replies [20]
TRM responds a second time [21], a response which includes the comment "Get over it, you're wrong, and you're one of those who will never know how to fix it", alongside other incivility.
I see this stuff on TRM's talk page, click on the edit, find that it's both redundant and a borderline BLP vio, and revert TRM [22].
I post a comment to TRM's talk [23], edit-conflicting with TRM's reply above, mentioning the fact that the quote he is reverting into the article was already present in a different section.
TRM reverts for a third time [24] (there's a revert of an IP in between those of Drmies and me), and uses an edit-summary that is a speculation about my motivation if there ever was one.
TRM replies on his talk page, challenging me to file an arbitration request [25].
As I type this, TRM challenges me again, despite my not having made any edits in the interim [26].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: Several, visible here and at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

All I want is for him to stop yelling at other folks this way; the weeks since ARCA were blissfully friction-free, and I don't know why TRM felt the need to be rude today. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: Are you saying these diffs do not constitute violations, or are you saying they do, but a block isn't required? If it's the former, I think we may have to go back to ARCA, because I find it difficult to come up with language that would be a clearer violation of this sanction, which suggests the sanction is unworkable. If it's the latter, I actually have no problem with that; contrary to TRM's beliefs, I'm not desperate to have him blocked, I would just like someone besides me to tell him that that sort of commentary is a violation of the sanction, and that he shouldn't say stuff like that again. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Shih: If TRM recognized that the edit summaries and the commentary that followed on his talk page were inappropriately personal, I'd withdraw this myself. Given that he felt the need to revert me despite knowing the content was unnecessary (I don't think there's anyone here who thinks the same quote should have been pasted into the article twice), I not optimistic about that happening. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Shih: I do think the most recent amendment makes a difference here; not so much to the need for a block as for a need to acknowledge that this behavior was over the line: without such a recognition, we're asking for this sanction to be ignored. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this isn't where we draw the line, @Alex Shih and Alex:, what is? Are you saying that because no matter what he does a couple of folks will always insist he has done no wrong, we should ignore his ARBCOM restrictions completely? That does seem to be something for ARCA, much as I hate to go there. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: "he can explain this in human language, focusing on the edit, not on me" – the fact is that TRM's revert wasn't just wrong, it was obviously wrong; and when I pointed this out, he reverted me anyway. AGF has its limits; it's hard to believe that that edit was about you and not the content (and the subsequent one was about me). Vanamonde (Talk) 02:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified.

Discussion concerning The Rambling Man

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 The Rambling Man

Unclear as to why this has to go to Arbcom, demonstrates a serious lack of ability of the posting admin to go through standard approaches to content dispute and a really savage need to get me blocked. Tragic. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could I also see clear diffs where I have "post[ed] speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence." please? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(It's just a side issue, but the section that Drmies unilaterally deleted has been prominently discussed on UK radio, that Neil Warnock article was subject to plenty of exposure and debate, and most of what was there was already well sourced, including the well-covered Brexit issue that this "edit war" was about too.) The Rambling Man (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

I find TRM's statement puzzling. "Unclear as to why this has to go to Arbcom": Vanamonde already presented TRM's express directive to take it to ArbCom: [27], [28]. "Could I also see clear diffs where I have "post[ed] speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence." please?": Vanamonde already posted that: [29].

As for myself, it looks to me like Vanamonde's case is pretty cut-and-dried and airtight. Softlavender (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: It sounds to me like you are trying to explain away what are clearly multiple violations of TRM's sanctions. There are no conditions on the very clear and specifically worded sanction, and you are trying to insert conditions, exceptions, and exemptions into it that do not exist. If you want there to be conditions, exceptions, and exemptions in the sanction, I suggest you file at WP:ARCA. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Shih

I think TRM was responding to the edit summary "How is that a controversy? also, who cares" (highlighted for emphasis), which really isn't constructive in the first place. In the subsequent edit summary, TRM did explain their revert as "was hugely covered in UK press, and something which is relevant and something our readers would expect to see" before making the first "speculation" that is in question here. It doesn't appear neither editor realise the quote was already in the article? So this just feels like a misunderstanding, and I'd think the sensible thing would be for that to be acknowledged and move on. Yes TRM was rude, but not as irrationally as one would expect. In contrast I find Drmies's first post to TRM's talk page a perfect example of borderline baiting ("...big guy. Be proud"), and I cannot really see any disciplinary action being taken here. The purpose of the restriction should be to prevent TRM from being incessantly hostile and combative, and by that standard this entire ordeal was rather mild in my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I would say it's the latter. The comments especially the subsequent ones are violations per se, but the same sort of violation that have been declined on every occasion in the past for not being a violation on the spirit of the restriction, I think. I wouldn't look at the subsequent responses because they are arguably provoked responses; TRM shouldn't make personal commentaries but no one should be making personal commentaries against them as well. Focusing on the initial comment alone, could The Rambling Man just acknowledge that it would have been far more helpful to just focus on the issue itself (seems to be about unproductive edit summaries and unilateral deletions based on personal opinion) instead of commenting about what people know or don't know; not only because it's not nice, but unnecessary because by explaining their revert like they have done, the point was delivered across already. Alex Shih (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: That is precisely not what I am doing, and looking at Vanamonde's response to my comments would reveal just as so. The potential ARCA you are suggesting has already been filed and discussed extensively ([30]), in which you have participated. Regardless of the latest amendment, the subjective nature of this restriction would mean that similar to previous enforcement requests, this kind of request would simply end up being yet another "yes/maybe/no violation, block not required". Alex Shih (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I disagree on that the most recent amendment made a difference, but agree on that some sort of recognition on where to draw the line is needed. I just don't think this is one of them for reasons I have stated. Even the latest comment not included your diffs ([31]), in which I think is the most problematic of all and probably should be block worthy, has many ways in which "no violation" can be argued. I do think TRM has been deliberately pointy with the restriction, so moving forward that should be where discussions needs to be based on. Alex Shih (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

Didn't realize we were here. We wouldn't have been, had it not been for that edit summary of TRM's. I think most everyone is familiar with his abrasive and dismissive commentary, his lack of respect for fellow editors and especially admins, and so am I. I'm sure someone can find the set of edit summaries in relation to that time, a few months ago, when I, meaning no harm, mentioned him in relation to some matter on DYK or ERRORS or something; TRM apparently needed some admin to help out with something, I didn't know how to do it, so I asked for a volunteer on AN and TRM blew his top cause OMG I mentioned his name. Since then I've completely disregarded him; I don't look at his edits, I don't look at his talk page, I don't try to assist him with ERRORS etc. (the record can show that I did), though I know he does a lot of good work there.

But then this--I don't know if this is because I'm an admin, and we all suck, or because I'm me, and I suck. What I do know is that it's bad manners to display that kind of personal hostility in an edit summary. I don't care if he blasts me on his talk page (I don't look at it, and after he first pinged me and then told me to fuck off I haven't looked at it, though someone pinged me from it, I believe), I really don't. But don't take that hostility into edit summaries, for everyday viewers and editors to see. Alex, if you're wondering why I responded why I did, it's because that remark ("you don't know shit, there's a million references even though only one is cited") was in an edit summary, in what would everywhere else be called a personal attack or at least a lack of AGF. If my edit is wrong, he can explain this in human language, focusing on the edit, not on me--this is standard operating procedure: focus on the edit, not the editor. TRM used to be an admin; he should know this.

I'm not sure I care much whether TRM gets slapped on the wrist or blocked for this, or whatever. Of course it's a violation, but meh. But if one of you could tell him that if he wants me to leave him alone, he should start by leaving me alone, that would be great. Seems straightforward to me. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The Rambling Man

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

This whole back-and-forth could've been handled better by both parties and I don't think this was particularly helpful either. That said, I'm of the opinion this edit summary does constitute a violation of the imposed sanction. Moreover, I'm troubled that TRM doesn't seem to acknowledge what they said was, at bottom, uncivil and unproductive. Were there not a specific sanction to stem this kind of behavior, I'd probably close this with a warning and leave this be since there's a part of me thinking this is overblown; but seeing as this is not the first time, I'd support a short block up to the 48 hours allowed under the terms of the December amendment. This temptation to spat with others over trivial content disputes needs to stop. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear to me that this violates the restriction. Even in their short response here, The Rambling Man manages to violate the restriction again: "a serious lack of ability of the posting admin" is a reflection on their competence, and "a really savage need to get me blocked" is a speculation about their motives. And it's continuing on their talk page ("[the user] is unable to deal with the regular edit conflicts ...", "a tragic inability to cope with the real world"). This cannot be anything but an intentional violation of their restriction. It is quite possible to resolve content disputes without calling into question the personal qualities of others. I question whether a 48 hour block would accomplish anything or whether we need to return this to ARCA. Sandstein 08:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goosemuffin

Indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action by Bishonen. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:45, 1 February 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 Goosemuffin

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA :

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

6 September 2018 Personal attack
8 September 2018 Personal attack
8 September 2018 offensive ethnic rant
30 January 2019 personal attack, dark conspiracy allegations

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 10 September 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think the diffs speak for themselves. It seems that the editor is unable to deal with "Hindus" in general, or anybody that has different views from himself. He has been told politely, by third party editors to avoid personal attacks. His posts have been modified by deleting blatantly offensive bits and even reverted. He has received a user warning and a DS alert. Yet he is back here today with the same kind of attacks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [32]

Discussion concerning Goosemuffin

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 Goosemuffin

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Goosemuffin

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

Waiting on Goosemuffin to reply, but if nothing very convincing is forthcoming, I think an indefinite block (as a normal admin action) is the appropriate response. Sandstein 14:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this user had not edited pages to which I have contributed content, I would block them myself. As it is, I agree with Sandstein that a normal indef is most appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. I agree Goosemuffin's comments from September 2018, and resumed on January 30, are irreconcilable with our policies. The attacks diffed above are all directed at the same user, DBigXray. I quote from each: "Unfortunately he is overly active on this page and should stop contributing because he cannot control his biases", "[I] have investigated you and your activity. It's an absolute lapse in judgement that you, as a pro hindoostani and hindutva activist, think it is appropriate to be so heavily involved in editing and monitoring a wiki about an anti-india seperatist movement. Relieve yourself immediately from activity on this page." "DBIGXRAY - SHUT UP YOU HINDOO ACTIVIST LOSER". (This in response to a well-grounded NPA warning from DBigXray on Goosemuffins' page.) And recently there was this: "I suspect [DBigXray] is a paid activist for the indian government and hired to push their narrative. I am severely disturbed by his willingness to openly cite biased Indian newspapers - a country with a press freedom ranking of 138 and an easily identifiable bias on this topic speicifically. It's time to start thinking about getting DBigXray off of SIkh wiki's all together." This last is not even on somebody's talkpage, but at Talk:Khalistan movement. The running theme of all the diffs is an attempt to drive off a user by insisting that user is editing in bad faith — perhaps a paid activist for the Indian government — and has no right to edit Khalistan movement, an article about a Sikh separatist movement. I have blocked Goosemuffin indefinitely for persistent nationalist harassment. This is an ordinary block, not per DS, so there are no special rules for unblocking the user, if any admin wants to. I'm leaving the discussion open in case anybody wants to continue to discuss other options. Bishonen | talk 22:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
They've only made 16 edits and are very clearly NOTHERE, so the most sensible option is an indef, and so hatting this as that has been done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boundarylayer

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 Boundarylayer

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Boundarylayer (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/Climate_change#Battlefield_editing :

Although the subject matter in the three diffs I provided all relate to nuclear power and renewable energy, that is part of the broad subject of climate change because (A) it is by definition part of climate change mitigation and (B) Boundarylayer himself said as much in a 2012 table-pounding, "As an environmentalist, I'm incredulous that you seem to think that the building of a gas power plant over a Nuclear plant, is a victory for you? Yet you are aware that Global Warming is also caused by gas… even before this reactor was cancelled,(and dashed the potential of the reactor to save millions of tons of CO2 being emitted) the IPCC already expected us to overshoot the 2 degree Kelvin of warming limit it has set, because we are increasingly using more and more fossil fuels, and this will result in the evacuation of millions of people….. I echo the opinion of the International Energy Agency, that the use of both Nuclear power & Renewables is necessary" [33]

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

Jan 31 2019 BATTLEFIELD EDITING in vio of civility policy at WP:ESDONTS; Here BL names another editor in an edit sum for purpose of attack using words "disregarding", "undermining", "pushing their own favorite fringe primary sources", and doing "fantasy-engagement". Even if these were true, there is a civil way to deal with such problems and duking it out in Edit sums is not one of them.
January 23, 2019 Battlefield editing.... names me an "ideological" editor; deletes my housekeeping note which I added per WP:MULTI to keep the discussions at different venues organized. The section heading where this takes place is also his creation, where I'm implicitly labeled a "quack editor"
January 10, 2019 Tendentious/CIR.... after BL reverted a revert without any discussion, I tried to explain that 3RR is not what makes an edit war but the first un-discussed re-revert is an opening salvo in an EW. I was trying to be helpful. In response he ran me down with ...Really? It's a first salvo...In a what now? lol How can you even write such nonsense without suffering a case of severe cognitive dissonance? It's good comedy man, keep it up. Especially with this, your penchant for coming onto my talk page drumming up all these fake accusations....

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Boundarylayer does have a topic ban for pregnancy/abortion and various blocks. Since I'm only asking for a formal warning in the nuclear & energy topics I'm not going into the details of that prior history at this time.

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

DS alert for Climate change given Jan 9; Although the venues in question are on pages titularly related to nuclear power, this is broadly related to Climate change mitigation as Boundarylayer himself has said (see prior sections above)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Boundarylayer does not accept advice from mere editors so at this time I am formally asking for a word of caution from an admin.
@Sandstein: Thank you for commenting! I respectfully ask you to reconsider. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a whole working group on prevention. Key to this work is deciding what technologies can move the ball forward, and a critical element of that policy debate is Energy return on energy invested. Amory Lovins has staked out a position on this issue (anti nuke, pro renewable). Finally, in case you overlooked the quote from Boundarylayer he himself links these topics. I'm not asking for a sanction. I'm asking for a warning, after which if problems continue I'll probably seek community sanctions. If you push this off to DR (without a warning) then the likely result is more of the same battle attitude which usually makes reasoned discussion impossible. With a warning - include one for me if you like - the chances of DR success increase, and if necessary its easier for admins to see which ed has the problem. Incidentally we have tried RFCs. The result is usually walls of text and low participation. My goal is attract level headed collaborative minded eds. For all these reasons, I think it (A) is climate change broadyly construed and (B) in the interests of prevention not punishment marking a time with an admin warning will help down the road. Thanks for reading and at least giving a moments thought to reconsidertion even if you don't change your mind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If admins are convinced the nuclear vs renewable debate is beyond scope of WP:ARBCC, then even though this is technically AE, do you think you could give him/me/us a civility and collaboration warning anyway, just not under ARBCC? I'm not testing the scope of the ruling here, just trying to prevent future problems or lay a benchmark in time to show warnings had no effect, which happens first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning Boundarylayer

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 Boundarylayer

This desire to drum up apocalyptic notions of attacks and battlefields, is simply part of the ongoing WP:STALK conduct of news and event guy which they have truly disturbingly engaged themselves in, these past weeks. As they curiously like to to invent scenarios that demonstrably did not take place and by doing so, generate these groundless and laughable vexatious complaints for cautions and other spurious nonsense.

Let's take their attempted inversions, one by one. Here the WP:HOUNDing has involved the putting in block capitals to prime the arbitration viewers, into seeing what is to follow as MORTAL COMBAT, COMMENCE FIGHT. Well if it's in blocks, who can argue with that. lol. Yet actually it's just a re-iteration of what I wrote on the talk page, that thomas, the other editor needs to come back with secondary sources, that's how wikipedia works and they are indeed "disregarding" and "undermining" wikipedia policy by blanking an article and similarly engaging in absolute fantasy building by declaring consensus has formed, when in actual reality, no such consensus exists. That's you can all agree, the very definition, of what it is, to engage in fantasy. I would hope you'd agree?

Here BL names another editor...for purpose of attack.For the purposes of attack? Really? Here guy is really seen in full, as attempting to fantasize events and motivations and cast those aspersions onto another editor, they are hounding? One truly wonders?

Jan 31 2019 BATTLEFIELD EDITING in vio of civility policy at WP:ESDONTS; Here BL names another editor in an edit sum for purpose of attack using words "disregarding", "undermining", "pushing their own favorite fringe primary sources", and doing "fantasy-engagement". Even if these were true, there is a civil way to deal with such problems and duking it out in Edit sums is not one of them. ]

On the place point there again. Myself and Thomas are actually discussing on the talk page, not your fantasy notion of 'duking it out in the Edit sums' that you just concocted. One misrepresentaion from guy after another, could it be, for the purposes of WP:HOUNDing?

Next, this is really where the weird WP:STALK campaign reaches some disturbing levels. As you can see, guy clearly came onto an article talk page, simply because I was there and then once he was there, with the most astounding case of motivated reasoning, guy personally decided toread-into what I wrote and continues to this very day, to believe, I was talking about him. Yet guy is neither mentioned, again contrary to what they just claimed. Nor is he the editor on that article, to whom I was referring. So can you tell us guy, what is your explanation for thinking this is about you? As you are neither named as you have disturbingly claimed here nor ar you implicitly labeled. - Whatever that means.

Yet Mr. guy again has framed it, as apparent MORTAL COMBAT, where I'm in his fantasy, naming him. Neither of which are anything close to reality, nor are they even plausible. Guy has never explained why he insists with this fantasy of theirs and it's truly a little troublingly, at this stage, as you can imagine.

January 23, 2019 Battlefield editing.... names me an "ideological" editor; deletes my housekeeping note which I added per WP:MULTI to keep the discussions at different venues organized. The section heading where this takes place is also his creation, where I'm implicitly labeled a "quack editor"]

Claming people 'named you' and you were implicitly labeled a "quack editor", when you're in actuality [A]Not even an editor on the article you followed me to, and [B] in the real world, clearly not named, or even mentioned in passing by me there, at all. So can you explain to us, why you think, or really, why you want to build the fantasy, that this was me, talking about you?

I'm genuinely getting worred about you man. While coming onto my talk page continuously with all this demonstrably fantastical stuff man, was actually good comedy, at one point. I'm taking this I want him to be punished arbitration, as the epitome of WP:HOUNDing.

January 10, 2019 Tendentious/CIR.... after BL reverted a revert without any discussion, I tried to explain that 3RR is not what makes an edit war but the first un-discussed re-revert is an opening salvo in an EW. I was trying to be helpful. In response he ran me down with ...Really? It's a first salvo...In a what now? lol How can you even write such nonsense without suffering a case of severe cognitive dissonance? It's good comedy man, keep it up. Especially with this, your penchant for coming onto my talk page drumming up all these fake accusations....

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will be away with work for the next few weeks, so anyone filing any more of these things, or the result. I won't actually see. It's really regrettable. As with this, I will be considering WP:BOOMERANG, as I hope you can all see, this repeated attempt to hound and inhibit editing with this following me around and these spurious proceedings and warnings, it's all well past the point of just kind of ridiculous at this point. With guy following me around wikipedia, the leaving of trollish comments during discussions that they acknowledge as such on their talk page, canvassing, jumping in to celebrate when talk-page discussions are pointed and guy feels like he can prepetually misrepresent and cultivate into a grand-narrative of warring. It's all together at this point, past the point anyone should just have to struggle on with.

When I've some free time during work again, I will be back.

Boundarylayer (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thomas pow s

I am engaged in the dispute with BoundaryLayer in the EROI article.

BoundaryLayer's conduct is frequently odd, in my opinion.

For example, I provided three meta-analyses from notable researchers, which summed up data from 250+ scientific articles on a topic. BoundaryLayer insisted that the 250+ studies are written by paid solar power advocates as part of a grand swindle: "Pumping out reams of papers ostensibly to grease the wheels on the swindle train?... With their fantasy-world-building statistical tricks?"

At the same time, BoundaryLayer suggests that the meta-anaylsis, dervied from many independent studies, was produced in a collective marijuana-induced haze: "The only nonsense here is believing that solar PV is whatever solar advocates say it is. Tomorrow if EROI is declared a zillion... You don't have to build anything man, the energy just flows, pass me a joint yo."

Please note that the EROI for solar PV in the meta-analysis was 14.4, which is totally unremarkable and moderately lower than other sources of energy. It was not "declared a zillion" by people who were passing marijuana joints amongst themselves as part of a swindle train, nor was there any risk of that happening.

BoundaryLayer appears to have a hysterical or histrionic debating style, including odd, fabricated personal accusations against researchers in the field. Often, BoundaryLayer posts odd, emotional accusations against the other editors of wikipeida. Much of what he writes consists of odd personal remarks. Sometimes he writes mildly insulting remarks toward the other editors ("Are you trying out to be a comedian next?" and so on).

However, I'm not sure if it warrants disciplinary action. He's not horribly insulting or vicious. I think it might warrant a comment or remark from an admin, but nothing more serious than that. I doubt that any remark to him will have any effect anyway, since this appears to be an established behavior.

Thomas pow s (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, BoundaryLayer just posted a remark that I have a "truly revealing level of fantasy-engagement". That is a comment about an EDITOR, not the topic. It's that kind of thing, which is happening all the time. That said, he posts nothing horribly insulting or vicious.

Thomas pow s (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Boundarylayer

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

This is out of the scope of discretionary sanctions, in my view. While there are certainly aspects of nuclear energy that relate to climate change, the edits and pages at issue here do not. I would therefore take no action and refer the parties to WP:DR. Sandstein 19:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandstein. These edits do not fall within the scope of DS. If we construed the scope this broadly, all of economics, politics, quantum mechanics and many other fields besides would also be included. GoldenRing (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy

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 Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: The Kingfisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions : breach of WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:V - falsely accusing WP:BLPs of a possible war crime, WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:HARASS

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

15:25, 31 January 2019: WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS - "Your past accounts have the same habit of lying about what a person said. I wrote that certain editors have a history of extremely Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing. Please dont continue that habit of lying..."
19:35, 29 January 2019: WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS - "I am saying is that you, and for that matter Shrike, E.M.Gregory and Icewhiz, all have a history of editing on one end of a POV spectrum. Extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian..."
18:39, 29 January 2019: WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS "Now this may be impolite to say, but the number of users with a history of extremely Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing..."
22:20, 29 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS - "If she were Jewish there is zero chance you would be arguing .... Literally zero chance"
21:02, 29 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS - "Yes, of course, E.M.Gregory, serial author of Palestinians as terrorists articles, he knows more..."
20:23, 29 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS -"This is only a problem for editors who, we all know this to be true, are very much on one side of the POV spectrum"
18:25, 29 January 2019: WP:CIVIL - "What the fuck does ..."
16:41, 27 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS - "Ive seen a destructive attempt in which an editor excised material not to their personal liking, but no I have not seen any constructive edits reverted"
00:54, 26 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS - "Icewhiz did not spin anything off. He chopped off parts that he would rather not be covered on Wikipedia"
06:35, 22 January 2019: WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS - "You are allowing some of the most extreme pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian editors on Wikipedia ... But because the more extreme pro-Israel editors dislike this article it isnt NPOV?"
21:36, 27 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS,WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:HARASS - warning a user who hasn't edited in 4 years and did nothing wrong (edited prior to WP:ARBPIA3).
01:22, 22 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS - "You are very purposely reducing exposure of a topic and doing so based purely on facile claims of POV"
18:32, 29 January 2019: changing civilians to settlers - which doesn't pass WP:V and is a BLP vio vs. the surviving widow and small orphans who lived in El'ad which is not a settlement. Nableezy is aware of the potential illegality of settlements ("war crime" - 22:38, 9 January 2019) - by calling the non-settler civilians settlers, Wikipedia was making a a false accusation of possible war crimes towards the BLP widow and orphans (as well as one of the deceased).
17:15, 19 January 2019: WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA (mocking English level) - "Your English on ANI was much improved as opposed to your ....". Note this is related to ARBPIA since Shrike and Nableezy are both active in ARBPIA (see diff2) and since the AN report in question also included several diffs on editing in ARBPIA and mentioned ARBPIA specifically.
17:49, 22 January 2019: WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA (mocking English level), WP:HARASS as posted after Shrike reverted his prior request.
18:16, 23 January 2019 - WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA (mocking English level), WP:HARASS as posted after Shrike explicitly hatted the section and said he wasn't going to answer these pestering posts.
21:51, 4 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA - "Will talk more, with this or the next sock"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

08:23, 4 January 2012 - TBAN 6 months.
10 May 2011 - TBAN 2 months
4 December 2010 - TBAN 4 months
16 April 2010 - TABN 2 months.

(While these are old, XTools shows that Nableezy significantly curtailed his editing after the 2012 TBAN).

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

notified 04:51, 3 August 2018 alerted other user 21:36, 27 January 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

AE precedent - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive218#Debresser - an editor was TBANed for 2 months for saying once(!) - "but only if there would be some more input from editors who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish/Israeli camp". Nableezy, 04:18, 16 July 2017, saw this as " baseless personal attack" and called for banning. TBAN was upheld on appeal: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive218#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Debresser. The repetitive labeling in the diffs above are far more egregious.
AE precedent2 - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive245#AmYisroelChai - indef TBAN from AP2 for politicizing disputes (in a less egregious manner than above).
Was told here that "comment violates Wikipedia policies" and it was suggested to retract. Replied "Nah." Then attacked editor for previous violations.
Was warned here WP:CIVIL, here, here, and here WP:ASPERSIONS, yet continued today 15:25, 31 January 2019
Calling someone "extremely anti-Palestinian" is quite offensive and implies ethnic hatred by the labelled editor.
Please note Nableezy's userpage where he says he supports "the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist" but "due to an alleged consensus he is disallowed from naming..." - linked to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox.
According to WP:WIAPA: "Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by a government...". Labeling Wikipedia editors as "extremely pro-Zionist" exposes them to government persecution in several countries. For example Iran (editors may reside, travel, or transit through): "Group Of Evangelical Christians Arrested In Iran And Labeled 'Zionist Christians'" [34], or a philosopher imprisoned and questioned for his alleged writing of "papers in support of the Zionists".[35].

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here and here.

Discussion concerning Nableezy

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 Nableezy

WP:ASPERSIONS applies to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. I admit I repeatedly called this obvious NoCal sock a NoCal sock. The "extremely Zionist or pro-Palestinian" comment, which is about edits, and not as dishonestly claimed above about an editor, however is not that. I can substantiate that each of the editors I named have a demonstrated history of extremely Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing. E.M.Gregory has authored Anti-semitic anti-Zionism, List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing, and a string of articles that had as their common topic "Palestinians as terrorists". Shrike, when not just reverting, followed this edit with this one. Icewhiz, well, thats a longer list. But here, a simple one, part-time historian, fine to use when it is a pro-Zionist voice as opposed to an actual historian who happens to be cited as a pro-Palestinian voice is A book by a visible activist and self described as Finkelstein’s magnum opus is both a monument to Gaza’s martyrs and an act of resistance against the forgetfulness of history. is definitely a WP:BIASED source. All those editors do have a history of pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing. That isnt an aspersion, its a fact. As far as calling this new editor an obvious sock of NoCal, well, dont be so obvious then. And for the record, the lie that I accused anybody of harboring any ethnic hatred is just that. A lie. I said, and say, that a number of editors who have taken it as their common goal to label a Palestinian woman an Israeli have that history. That is true. nableezy - 21:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these diffs I have no honest idea what they are supposed to violate though. A user declined a DYK based on what I view are spurious claims of "POV" made on the talk page by other users and I said they are purposely reducing exposure of a topic and doing so based purely on facile claims of POV. Thats an aspersion? Directed against who? The civilian to settlers change was an error, I didnt realize that one of the victims was not a settler and only the others were. nableezy - 21:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was not mocking Shrike's English. I was curious as to how their usual level of English was so much more improved an AN. What I said is that based on his or her English in use throughout the project, I dont understand how they wrote that ANI post and I asked if he was directed to post it by somebody else. But thanks for bringing that one back up, cus I would still love an answer as to how somebody who would put in an encyclopedia article a sentence like professor from Wellesley College describe the book "comprehensive historical description and compelling psychological interpretation of the “delusions of a people under siege"" or comments Meantime all the article is without the proper context removing it. but is able to make a perfectly formatted complaint with excellent grammar and words I have never seen him or her use such as a view not shared by Cullen328 who saw this as a commitment to the community, or TonyBallioni who aptly noted that while "controversial subjects" is so overly broad that it is unenforceable. nableezy - 21:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and another obvious similarity with NoCal, the above user is dishonest with my edit to User talk:LeahBorovi, neglecting to include I removed that their creation violated the arbitration case when I saw that it was created a few months prior. Seems odd you have such a similar style as NoCal in making a complaint doesnt it? nableezy - 21:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calthinus, you are reading way more into the userbox than what it actually is. Its a critique of Wikipedia and its issues with systemic bias. I do not have and have never had on my userpage any statement of support for Hezbollah. But at the time Wikipedia allowed statements expressing support for such entities as the IDF but disallowed ones supporting ones for Hezbollah. I see that as a problem, obviously. I didnt even make that box, credit for that goes to User:Eleland. And I dont believe pro-Zionist equals anti-Palestinian. I meant each of those editors does have either extremely pro-Zionist editing histories or anti-Palestinian ones. Not that the two are equivalent. Just look at the context here. One of the editors claims it is a BLP violation to call somebody a Palestinian. You want to tell me that is not "anti-Palestinian". To claim that even being associated with that title violates WP:BLP? That title never seems to be an issue when applied to a terrorist. But a girl that none of these people would think twice about had she not been an Arab who preferred to be called a Palestinian, it is so seriously a negative to call a person a Palestinian, that despite her family's express wishes, despite several reliable sources explicitly calling her a Palestinian, it is a BLP violation to call her that. Does that not fit the description of "anti-Palestinian"? Am I guilty of "casting aspersions" when I say that it does? nableezy - 00:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Just my 2 cents: note that in no. 6 above, under The Kingfisher "Additional comments by editor filing complaint"...they link to a discussion from ...2008. What are the chances they followed each and every link on Nableezy's user page...compared to the chances of them knowing that discussion from a "previous life"? Huldra (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, this editor was created on Jan 2 2017. NoCal was blocked in June 2009. Yet, and without even having the user's full username said to him, he apparently knew that NoCal referred to a banned editor already. Obvious sock is obvious. nableezy - 21:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, Nableezy: in my experience, NoCal has at any one time lots of socks "maturing", to reach the 30/500 level. I assume he use a spreadsheet. The thing is, whenever some "new" editor appear in the I/P area who are "learning the ropes" way, waaaaaaay, faster that I did.......(like The Kingfisher), well, then a dozen alarm bells goes off in the back of my head. Huldra (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calthinus, a history check: Hizbollah came into existence as a direct answer to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. As for being called a "terrorist": my own, much beloved, and unfortunately late father was a "terrorist", once. Yes: between 1940−45 my father was a dangerous "terrorist", according to the rulers of our land. Some of the things he did carried a death sentence...if he had been caught. (Which he luckily never was). One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter", etc.

User:Calthinus: I am not advertising anything, I am just saying I understand where Hizbollah is coming from. They came into existence when their homeland, Lebanon was invaded in 1982. My father became a "terrorist" when our homeland was invaded in 1940. Huldra (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calthinus: Says who? A long interview with Hassan Nasrallah was published a week or two ago; all the Israeli newspapers were saying that he threaten to bomb Tel Aviv. What he actually said, was that if Israel bombed Lebanon again, he wouldn't rule out bombing Tel Aviv, etc. A slight difference, Huldra (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calthinus

Imo -- I've had mixed interactions with Nableezy, case of a user who is passionate so is willing to devote time (positive) but this can come at the cost of fights on controversial issues (meh). Some of things I've seen him saying from time to time do really need to stop, especially on this very fraught topic area. One must comment on the edit, not the editor, and AGF. Case in point, [| he calls editors] most extreme pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian editors, plus all the aspersions regarding socking and etc. I understand that wiki has a lot of POV/nationalist/uncivil crap on it but if you treat people like that, you become part of the problem. I also object to the possible equation he made of "pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian" -- I personally like to think most people are generally pro-human, they just have different viewpoints. Furthermore if you believe that pro-Israel equals anti-Palestinian it's really hard to see this going with being able to work cooperatively with people on the other side. Which is a shame -- the best articles are made through people cooperating while having opposite viewpoints. I often don't see the effort being made.

Case in point about the lack of conciliatoriness -- note the defiant note on his userpage about being not allowed to support Hezbollah in a userbox -- [[36]]currently on Nableezy's user page -- imo, even if one supports Hezbollah, this is not a good way to signal that (if?) your goal here is to build an encyclopedia together with others. Hezbollah's goal is to "obliterate" a state of 8 mill people, spreads wild conspiracy theories that Jewish people are responsible for spreading HIV, etc -- even someone who would like to with others can be honestly really put off by that. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: then you and I both have in common having familial ties to people who might be called "terrorists". But I would never advertise it, because I understand that on Wikipedia where the goal is an encyclopedia, not the homeland (mind you, I don't share the views of my distant cousin), it's better not to express your admiration of groups that -might- have killed another user's girlfriend/dad/etc, and at the very least clearly would not mind doing so. So no, no freedom fighters either, because that's not what building an encyclopedia is about. --Calthinus (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: -- to be clear, I didn't think you were advertising. Instead I was saying I wouldn't advertise my own connection, to be clear that (a) I don't agree with that individual and (b) I don't think showing these things ("this user supports Hezbollah") is a good way to introduce yourself on your user page to users who are meeting you for the first time ... Wiki is a very tense place. Expressing admiration for "freedom fighters" who want to "obliterate" a separate country, accuse an entire ethnic/religious group of spreading HIV, etc... doesn't help. --Calthinus (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: okay fair. But a better way would be to have a box saying that you oppose IDF boxes as the Hezbollah box is bound to be misinterpreted. Regarding the attempts to counterexplain Hezbollah, I dispute these but in any case it's kind of common knowledge that most Israelis (and in fact probably many non-Israeli Jews) will see that in a very different light.--Calthinus (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC) this latter part being in response to Huldra -- i.e., Hezbollah has been saying since 1985 they want to obliterate Israel, the books are full on it.[reply]

Statement by Debresser

I know only one thing, and I have said it before: this editor is systematically aggressive in both his style and in his disregard for the opinions of others regarding proper editing and editing behavior, and his contributions in the IP-area are in the final account more disruptive than positive. I have not examined the present accusations in detail, but Nableezy has been guilty of all of the types of transgressions he has been accused of one time or the other, most of them more or less permanently. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bellezzasolo

@Nableezy: if it's so obvious, SPI is thataway. If there isn't enough evidence to support a sockpuppetry investigation, then continually making allegations of socking is textbook ASPERSIONS. Regarding no editor named NoCal has ever been registered on Wikipedia [37], the first result in the search box for "User:NoCal" (how I navigate pages) is User:NoCal100, so it really doesn't take a genius to work it out. I personally think there's scope here to AGF, but could be proved wrong by an appropriately filed SPI. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

How long would an editor last after claiming that it was a BLP violation to call someone Jewish? Hours at most. But when someone claims it is a BLP violation to call a dead person a Palestinian, even after her family begged everyone to call her Palestinian on account of her being, duh, Palestinian, well...what can be said? Nableezy's description of such editing as "extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian" is understatement. There was a concerted effort at Killing of Aya Maasarwe to remove the word "Palestinian" from the article and nobody should imagine for a moment that it was motivated by article quality.

As for the diffs referring to Israeli occupation of the West Bank, in this edit Icewhiz deleted 149,943 characters claiming to be motivated by article length. Anyone looking at what was deleted will see how well it matches Icewhiz's very strong pov. So Nableezy's description of that edit was correct too.

So who is the greatest danger to the project: those who endlessly push their political pov and "support" it with tendentious argument, or those who call it for what it is?

AGF is an important principle on this project, but as WP:AGF makes clear it is not a permanent free pass to behave badly and expect everyone else to pretend that you aren't. Zero^talk 01:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

The entirety of the statement above, by Zero000, is a repeat of an AE report just closed on 14:55, 31 January 2019 as "Not actionable; content dispute.". Zero000 did not notify me of the allegations above. Is this not WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior?

In regards to Zero000's hypothetical Jewish labeling question, we would: (NB: diffs here not discussed in the closed report)

Very quickly block users Jew-Marking Americans of Jewish decent in the lede - we wouldn't accept such a marking on Jerry Seinfeld, Larry David, or Woody Allen (we do mention Jewish roots in the body). An edit such as Nableezy's 00:50, 29 January 2019 (where "Israeli" was turned into "Palestinian citizen of Israel" in the first lede sentence) would not be acceptable on most American-Jews ("Jewish citizen of the United States" ?!?!?!). A search for "Jewish citizen of" on all articles leads to 6 hits - pre-20th century, a movie role, and the Berlin office of AP in 1937 (in a ref quote) referring to Helmut Hirsch in this way.
We would swiftly block editors placing Hebrew prior to the native language for Jews outside of Israel (even in a non-DS area). For instance - an edit placing (or removing) Persian after Hebrew in Siamak Moreh Sedgh - would be seen as unacceptable. Yet in 21:42, 31 January 2019 Nableezy placed Arabic prior to Hebrew for an Israeli citizen (official language: Hebrew), as well as removing a source from a BDP (leaving the Hebrew name un-sourced). He also - 21:43, 31 January 2019 wrote "She was a Palestinian Arab with an Arabic name. Even if the Hebrew should be included (and I dont actually think it should be), it shouldnt be first." (no Israeli in that comment). Flip that on a Jewish-Iranian? Block.

Nableezy has an AE past for "Palestinian" use - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive103#Nableezy - "Nableezy is restricted from adding the word 'Palestinian' to any articles until 15 January 2012."

I too have noticed Nableezy's hostile behavior in the last month, and hats off to @The Kingfisher: for taking the time to comb through the edits and present all this. In the space of 253 edits in January 2019 (entirely, or almost entirely, to I/P topics) Nableezy has managed to be hostile towards (counting by named editors, and "you"s addressed to people he responded to in the diffs above): @The Kingfisher:, @Sir Joseph:, @Shrike:, @E.M.Gregory:, Icewhiz, @Lagrange613:, @LeahBorovoi:, + a serious BLP vio in turning non-settlers into settlers. 7 editors + BLP vio - in 253 edits.

In regards to Nableezy's argument he was addressing editing history - the argument itself is entirely unconvincing, and is resoundingly refuted by diff10 in the report above - 06:35, 22 January 2019 - in which Nableezy refers to "the most extreme pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian editors on Wikipedia" and " the more extreme pro-Israel editors".

Finally, in regards to use of "Zionist" - some of the alleged "extremely pro-Zionist" editors never said they were Zionist (e.g. myself). "Zionist" itself has a long history of being used as a pejorative - from the USSR,^[1] in recent years in the West,^[2]^[3] as well as Hezbollah - which uses "Zionist Entity" to refer to Israel,^[4] and "Zionists" to refer to Israelis and supporters of Israel (against which Hezbollah's moqawama (resistance / struggle) has carried out attacks - including civilians). In some circles "Zionist" is stigmatised and anchored to "Nazism".^[5]

References

^ Soviet Decision-Making in Practice: The USSR and Israel, 1947-1954, Yaacov Ro'i, Routledge, quote: "This, for example, the traditionally pejorative term "Zionist" began to reappear..."
^ How did ‘Zionist’ become a pejorative? (And why hasn’t David Horowitz been to Israel?), TJA, Daniel Treiman, 27 May 2011
^ There's no shame in Zionism: we must reclaim the word from anti-Semites, The Telegraph, Tom Harris, 24 Feburary 2016
^ Bombs and Ballots: Governance by Islamist Terrorist and Guerrilla Groups, Krista E. Wiegand, Routledge page 114
^ Jaspal, Rusi. "Representing the ‘Zionist Regime’: Mass Communication of Anti-Zionism in the English-Language Iranian Press." British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 41.3 (2014): 287-305., quote: "The two outlets resist social representations of Israeli statehood, which serves to delegitimise the existence of the State of Israel. Moreover, there is no acknowledgement of Israel’s civilian population, which leads to a rhetorical ‘de-population’ of Israel. Instead, the category of ‘regime’ politicises the civilian population. In some articles, the government and the people are collectively referred to as ‘Zionists’, rather than in terms of their (Israeli) citizenship, which similarly serves to anchor them primarily to the political ideology of Zionism. Zionism itself is largely stigmatised in Arab, Muslim and even some Western contexts, given that it is frequently anchored to racism and Nazism (Takeyh, 2006).

Result concerning Nableezy

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] Soviet Decision-Making in Practice: The USSR and Israel, 1947-1954, Yaacov Ro'i, Routledge, quote: "This, for example, the traditionally pejorative term "Zionist" began to reappear..."

[4] How did ‘Zionist’ become a pejorative? (And why hasn’t David Horowitz been to Israel?), TJA, Daniel Treiman, 27 May 2011

[5] There's no shame in Zionism: we must reclaim the word from anti-Semites, The Telegraph, Tom Harris, 24 Feburary 2016

[6] Bombs and Ballots: Governance by Islamist Terrorist and Guerrilla Groups, Krista E. Wiegand, Routledge page 114

[7] Jaspal, Rusi. "Representing the ‘Zionist Regime’: Mass Communication of Anti-Zionism in the English-Language Iranian Press." British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 41.3 (2014): 287-305., quote: "The two outlets resist social representations of Israeli statehood, which serves to delegitimise the existence of the State of Israel. Moreover, there is no acknowledgement of Israel’s civilian population, which leads to a rhetorical ‘de-population’ of Israel. Instead, the category of ‘regime’ politicises the civilian population. In some articles, the government and the people are collectively referred to as ‘Zionists’, rather than in terms of their (Israeli) citizenship, which similarly serves to anchor them primarily to the political ideology of Zionism. Zionism itself is largely stigmatised in Arab, Muslim and even some Western contexts, given that it is frequently anchored to racism and Nazism (Takeyh, 2006).

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 420: / Line 420: @@
 [[User:Boundarylayer|Boundarylayer]] ([[User talk:Boundarylayer|talk]]) 18:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
+::I will be away with work for the next few weeks, so anyone filing any more of these things, or the result. I won't actually see. It's really regrettable. As with this, I will be considering [[WP:BOOMERANG]], as I hope you can all see, this repeated attempt to hound and inhibit editing with this following me around and these spurious proceedings and warnings, it's all well past the point of just kind of ridiculous at this point. With ''guy'' following me around wikipedia, the leaving of trollish comments during discussions that they acknowledge as such on their talk page, canvassing, jumping in to celebrate when talk-page discussions are pointed and ''guy'' feels like he can prepetually misrepresent and cultivate into a grand-narrative of warring. It's all together at this point, past the point anyone should just have to struggle on with.
+::When I've some free time during work again, I will be back.
+::[[User:Boundarylayer|Boundarylayer]] ([[User talk:Boundarylayer|talk]]) 09:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Thomas pow s====

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