Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:49, 8 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

Nableezy

Closed without prejudice to a good-faith complaint because the complainant was blocked as a sock. Sandstein 12:52, 2 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 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'" [1], or a philosopher imprisoned and questioned for his alleged writing of "papers in support of the Zionists".[2].

@Bellezzasolo: You mentioned Nableezy’s comment that I could not possibly know who NoCal was since no editor named NoCal has ever been registered on Wikipedia. What you didn’t mention was my response to Nableezy: Regarding how I knew about NoCal? You ever hear of google? Here's the search results showing both you and NoCal! Enjoy:https://www.google.com/search?q=nableezy+nocal&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS806US806&oq=nableezy+nocal&aqs=chrome..69i57.5120j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.

The third item listed in the google search is this. Search for "NoCal" and you'll find Nableezy speaking about “NoCal socks” and “sockpuppets of NoCal100”, cira 2009!

NoCal obviously did one hell of a job on Nableezy because a decade later, he’s still accusing every new editor who opposes him of being a NoCal sock. In my particular case, I have 800+ edits in two years. Of that whopping 400 a year average, most have not been in the Arab-Israeli topic area. In fact, after almost two years, I think that Nableezy and I never even had direct communication until the recent Maqluba article, where he was trying to insert the word “Palestinian” into the lede (and it did not belong), but I digress.

@Admins: Nableezy has shown over a 10-year period that he is obsessed with NoCal socks. That’s fine. What is not fine, and goes against policy WP:ASPERSIONS WP:NPA WP:CIVIL is repeatedly and directly calling another editor by a sock name as Nableezy has done to me, and again here in this complaint, apparently with impunity. He even admitted that he has done it!

@GoldenRing: With all due respect, if you (and the admins) don’t consider that Nableezy has seriously violated the policies that I just now mentioned, then you are essentially giving him carte blanche to continue.

Aside from all of Nableezy's other policy violations being discussed, might I suggest an indef ban on referring to any editor as NoCal, or any name other than their username? If Nableezy suspects one of being a sock, he knows where to go, otherwise, he would just need to act...oh, I don’t know, CIVIL. The Kingfisher (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldenRing: I respectfully disagree that banning one editor from repeatedly violating policy de facto green lights other editors to violate. Everyday editors are sanctioned without consideration that others will misconstrue it that they can violate that policy. Any editor who violates this policy should be warned, and if it is repeated, should be sanctioned. Nableezy has been warned, admitted to this, he should be sanctioned. NOT sanctioning is closer to what you suggested, that other editors will now know that they can violate this policy with impunity.

Regarding a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive, has anyone ever considered McCarthyism or Witch-hunt? Unfortunately, there's no DNA testing that could ultimately prove that some of these editors simply may not have been NoCal socks. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

User:GoldenRing, as far as constructive, here is my providing a number of sources that say Ms Maasarwe was in fact a Palestinian, in response to the verging, if not outright, on racist claim that calling somebody a Palestinian is a grave BLP concern. I think that was constructive. Was it collaborative? I admit I find it hard to collaborate with people who say things like calling somebody a Palestinian is a BLP violation, but I try. nableezy - 14:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the claim that I am still accusing every new editor who opposes him of being a NoCal sock, um no. The ones I do accuse of being NoCal socks however generally have a habit of being proven as such. A quick trip to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive would demonstrate that. nableezy - 16:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calthinus, after it was made clear that reliable sources call her a Palestinian, after her family's wishes that she, and they, be called Palestinian, Icewhiz has continued to claim that calling her a Palestinian is a BLP violation. Seriously, just work through that sentence replacing Palestinian with Jew. If somebody were to say that calling some person a Jew was a BLP violation, despite the express wishes of that family and reliable sources, including some of the ones that person was citing themselves, called them a Jew, that it was a derogatory claim to call a person a Jew, what would the reaction be? You wouldnt think that person could rightly be called anti-Jewish? nableezy - 16:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are also an ethnic group. nableezy - 16:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoldenRing, I wasnt clerking the request. I was striking all the comments made by the sock of a banned user per WP:BANREVERT. Here it isnt possible to simply revert the edits so I struck them. I apologize if that was out of order. nableezy - 11:03, 2 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]

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]

Re Icewhiz's comparison of Palestinian in Israel with Jews in the US: that is a comparison of apples and oranges. The US is a country for all its people, while Israel defines itself as a "Jewish state". (If the US had defined itself as, say, a "Christian state", then it would have been comparable. But it doesn't.) And, when Israel defines itself as a "Jewish state", you cannot possibly expect the 20-25% of the population who are not Jewish, to primarily identify with it. It is like having your cake, and eating it too: it can't be done, Huldra (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...aaaaaand The Kingfisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked as a Nocal sock. Can we please end this report? And Nableezy: in the future: please go direct to CU, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:32, 1 February 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 -- [[3]]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]

Commentary on Aiia Masarwe issue

Just wanted to point out here -- I did not join in when the editors noted were trying to remove the description "Palestinian" from her page, because I did not agree with that but I think it is entirely wrong to paint this as some massive infraction on their part. You have to understand, in Israeli society, which is in a state of a low level permanent war, that label is very much heavy and can be interpreted to mean "fifth column". This is not some simple issue of Icewhiz or others allegedly pushing their POVs and Nableezy calling it out, instead it is a case where there are two sides and some on the "Palestinian side" appear unable to accept that the other side could have been editing in good faith -- even when, in this case, I personally also disagree with them. Instead of helping create a good atmosphere, Zero is actually egging Nableezy on to assume bad faith in his comment. --Calthinus (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: "Palestinian" is a national group, Jew isn't quite. The closer equivalent would be Israeli -- but not really since there isn't another country with a similar issue to the Israeli Arab vs Israeli Palestinian one. A better example : calling an Arab from Khuzestan "Iraqi". An Iranian might very well claim that was a BLP offense (well maybe BDP -- biography of dead persons) as per the Iraq-Iran War. --Calthinus (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: yes this is true, but the point for me I guess is that Palestinian -- simultaneously an ethnic group but also a national group -- can mean "fifth column" hence Icewhiz may have convincingly been editing in good faith. I.e. see also Turkey not calling Arabs in Hatay Syrians, same for Iran in Khuzestan vis a vis "Iraqi" -- even though ethnically if we were going to assign Hatay or Khuzestani Arabs to a group, Syrian and Iraqi respectively would probably be valid and many do identify that way. As I said I actually agree with your position on that article given that her family expressedly said that she called herself Palestinian -- but I don't think this was necessarily an anti-Palestinian push by Icewhiz and etc.--Calthinus (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[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 [4], 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]

@The Kingfisher: I did see that you'd cited a Google search, I just wanted to add that there's more than that way of finding out. I'm not sure about topic banning Nableezy from referring to editors as socks like that, as I think doing so would imply that it's OK for other editors to do so. I'm by no means knowledgeable on the NoCal case, but every editor overlaps with somebody eventually. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:19, 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]

Icewhiz knows full well that nobody would ever claim it was a BLP violation to call someone Jewish except for a mundane reason such as lack of source (which doesn't apply here). Anyway Icewhiz gave quite a different reason: "this potentially implies allegience to a group in conflict with the state they are citizens of". (Compare to "Asserting that an American is Jewish is a BLP violation because this potentially implies allegiance to Israel" to see the underlying problem.) Then Icewhiz followed up with this masterpiece: "this BLP family lives in Israel and that identification here has real world consequences for ths family - consequences that may put real life people in danger". (Icewhiz is extremely familiar with Israel, yet believes this rubbish? In fact, no Israeli who has heard of Aya needs to be told that she was Palestinian.) Now he wants to deflect attention by listing entirely unrelated circumstances and irrelevant commentary.

Note that I am not asking for sanctions against Icewhiz; that will come another time. My purpose in posting is only to provide some context to the current case. Zero^talk 10:46, 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] Icewhiz (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

@GoldenRing: - The OP semi-grouped by article/topic. The first 7 are Israeli/Palestinian labelling on the edge of the conflict. Diffs 8,9,10, 12 are core conflict - Israeli occupation of the West Bank (e.g. [5]). As is 13 - 2017 Halamish stabbing attack. Diffs 14-16 concern an AN report which was also on ARBPIA. Diff 17 is on a user page. Diff 11 is a post following IDF field hospital for Gazans which is core conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by François Robere

See Debresser's and Calthinus's comments - I agree with both.
Content disputes should be left out of this thread.
Continuing where Calthinus left off: For most Israelis the face of Hizbollah (apart from its loquacious chief) is this man, who bashed the head of a four year old child with a rock and shot and drowned her father dead in front of her; then, upon release from Israeli prison, got a hero's welcome by Lebanon and Syria's heads of state. Expressing public admiration for this sort of people is for me a red flag that one is not here to promote good faith and cooperation. François Robere (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Yes, Nableezy could have been more astute by avoiding calling a spade a spade.

It’s not for third parties to interrupt the presentation of the facts by extensive debates on the topic itself. But at least, given the contaminated character of I/P discourse generally, the terms being used here should be clarifed. References to extreme forms of Zionism have been around a long time, here, here,and here, to cite a few examples. There is a distinction between (secular) Zionists who consider the project essentially completed in 1948 (e.g.Walter Laqueur the conservative Zionist historian of the movement, whose hostile views of post 67 extremist Zionism I cited here), and those who, in the wake of 1967, think it an ongoing project, to be completed by the integration of (nearly) all Palestinian land into Israel and the relegation of half of that state’s population to a special regime of law not applied to people of Jewish ethnicity. Representatives of both these positions edit here (legitimately). Wikipedia's articles are comfortable with the former, embattled by the latter, for the simple reason that 'extremist Zionism' refuses to recognize that in a dispute between two parties, to be covered neutrally, you cannot persist in rubbing out the other ethnic narrative and feign 'neutrality'.

The word ‘Zionist’ is not a term of opprobrium in Israeli usage, to the contrary, and most Israeli politicians are proud Zionists beginning with Benjamin Netanyahu. It is ridiculous to make out, by citing some Lebanese or Iranian cleric, that, ipso facto the word is POV-charged. Icewhiz gives the impression of being on the extreme end of the Zionist spectrum in numerous edits. The following shows his position unequivocally.

in making this comment, branding several Israeli scholars ‘ on the fringes of the Israeli radical left’, he declared that in his view, moderate Zionists, rabbis and scholars of high distinction and international repute are not only ‘radical leftists’ but worse than that, on the extreme fringe of that 'radical' (extremist) 'leftist' group. This is an example of the extremist attitude Nableezy deplored.

Extreme Zionism consists in attempts to either contest mention or erase from the historical picture ‘Palestinians/Arabs’, when people of that origin constitute half of the population of Israel/Palestine, or to paint them as a terrorist security threat. Many editors here do precisely this, but they watch their p's and q's. This is all over the page which elicited Nableezy's remarks, at Killing of Aya Maasarwe.

‘Zionist’ is a legitimate (self-) descriptor in Israeli usage, since it is the doctrine underlying a legitimately constituted modern state, whose status as such under international law cannot be equivocated. Extremist Zionism, according to its many Israeli critics, wants the reality of Palestinians to disappear one way or another, and editors who persist in battling every use of trhe ethnic designator ‘Palestinian’ are not ‘moderate’ or neutral. They espouse in practice an extreme form of ethnonationalism, for which, in this area, there has been considerable tolerance.

Calthinus, I have responded to your remark about us all being ‘pro-human’ on your page.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

Regardless of the content dispute, this area is subject to higher level sanctions and ASPERSIONS is subject to discipline. Nableezy repeatedly calls people socks and if he thinks people are socks, he can file a sock report, but casting aspersions is not the way to go. And yes, for the record, I was blocked for stating that Nableezy was anti-Israel, so yes, stating that someone is "anti-Palestinian" is fair game to be blocked, if we want to be fair and impartial. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Just to be clear what Nableezy is referring to in the section just above this, The Kingfisher has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of NoCal100. [6] Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy

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

I'm struggling to see Nableezy's edits here as constructive or collaborative. However, these edits are IMO at the very edge of the "broadly construed" DS topic and I'd like to hear other admin's opinions on the scope before taking action. I'm thinking quite a narrow topic ban (probably just this article) but again would like to hear others' thoughts. GoldenRing (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: You, I think, have been around long enough to know you don't comment in other people's sections here. GoldenRing (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The account that brought this to AE has been blocked as a sock. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100 I'm striking their edits. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is no longer an active complaint, I'm inclined to close this without action, without prejudice to examining this conduct if a complaint is made by a non-sock editor. Sandstein 12:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This would make perfect sense to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy

No action. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 5 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 Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:43, 3 February 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

pertaining to Israeli occupation of the West Bank - directly related to the conflict
1. 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?"
2. 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"
3. 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"
4. 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"
Killing of Aya Maasarwe - conflict related as the content dispute is over labeling as Israeli, Palestinian, or a combination thereof.
1. 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..."
2. 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..."
3. 22:20, 29 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS - "If she were Jewish there is zero chance you would be arguing .... Literally zero chance"
4. 21:02, 29 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS - "Yes, of course, E.M.Gregory, serial author of Palestinians as terrorists articles, he knows more..."
5. 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"
6. 18:25, 29 January 2019: WP:CIVIL - "What the fuck does ..."
pertaining to IDF field hospital for Gazans - directly related to the conflict
1. 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).
pertaining to 2017 Halamish stabbing attack - directly related to the conflict.
1. 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). Labelling people as "settlers" (contrast "illegal immigrants") is questionable even if verifiable, all the more so when this is a false claim.
pertaining to this AN thread which exlicitly mentions ARBPIA and ARBPIA edits.
1. 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 Me 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.
2. 17:49, 22 January 2019: WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA (mocking English level), WP:HARASS as posted after reverted by me his prior request.
3. 18:16, 23 January 2019 - WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA (mocking English level), WP:HARASS as posted after I have explicitly hatted the section and said he wasn't going to answer these pestering posts.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

08:23, 4 January 2012 - TBAN 6 months.
15 December 2011 - "Nableezy is restricted from adding the word 'Palestinian' to any articles until 15 January 2012".
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

I have filed this following prior close with "without prejudice to a good-faith complaint". I must add that even that the original filer was blocked as a sock there are proper forum to make such accusations by making them in article talk space its create a toxic atmosphere that is not suitable for our collaborative project
Was warned here 18:58, 29 January 2019 that "comment violates Wikipedia policies" and it was suggested to retract. Replied 19:16, 29 January 2019 "Nah.", and then continued to attack editors - 19:35, 29 January 2019 as "Extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian" (diff in list above).
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).
Block precedent - Sir Joseph blocked on 11 November 2015 for 19:07, 11 November 2015 - " So in other words you're not interested in the truth, you're just interested in being anti-Israel." - a single anti-Israel use towards Nableezy.
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'" [7], or a philosopher imprisoned and questioned for his alleged writing of "papers in support of the Zionists".[8].
Zionist, as a proxy for Israel ("Zionist entity") or by itself, has a long history of pejorative use and is a personal attack.[9][10][11][12][13]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14]

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

Its nice of Shrike to, again, take the mantel up for a banned editor. But fine. Again. There are editors who have a history of extremely pro-Zionist and or anti-Palestinian editing. Some of them have been making claims that verge into, if not jump directly to, racist claims that even calling somebody a Palestinian is a BLP violation. I've already said number 4 was a mistake, was unaware a single victim was not a settler. The rest is not "casting aspersions", Ive very much documented why I say these editors have a history of extremely pro-Zionist or anti-Palestinian editing. For example, the new filer of this complaint, says it is ASPERSIONS to say he or she has a history of pro-Zionist and or anti-Palestinian editing. Well here you change Jewish terrorist to Jewish militant and in the very next edit, in the very same article, an article on a settler shooting four unarmed civilians, add Palestinian terrorism as an easter egg link to Palestinian political violence. Is that not extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian. 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". That is not a history of anti-Palestinian editing? Icewhiz at this very article has repeatedly said that even calling a person, despite the sources doing so and her own family requesting so, a Palestinian is a BLP violation. That it is so severely negative to call somebody a Palestinian that even with sources it violates BLP to do so. How exactly does somebody even pretend that is not anti-Palestinian is rather beyond me. Yes, I said that a group of users who all have a history of extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing have taken it as their shared goal to expunge a persons own identity from the article. And they do it shamelessly I might add. That is manifestly true.

Its nice to see my calling your buddy an obvious sock is no longer cited as an aspersion.

And since Shrike, as you are now claiming I mocked your English (I wasnt). Could you please tell us if you wrote this complaint, or, if like this very complaint you are making now, it was written by a banned user and you posted it on their behalf? Because I have never seen you write so many consecutive sentences in perfect English. You have never, as far as I can recall, even used the apt, much less used it aptly. Can you tell us what aptly means? Because editing at the direction of a banned user is a violation of WP:BAN, and if you are writing sentences on talk pages likeMeantime all the article is without the proper context removing it.Its clear WP:POV violation but on AN writing about who aptly noted that while "controversial subjects" is so overly broad that it is unenforceable then I question why you cannot use that level of English in talk pages, to say nothing of the uniformly poor English used in articles by your good self. Who wrote the complaint and why did you post it on their behalf? If they were not banned they could have done it themselves.

User:Bellezzasolo, you know that is an essay right? Can yall accept that I do not make unfounded claims of somebody being a sockpuppet? That I was just waiting for that sockpuppet to provide a bit more evidence to file? nableezy - 15:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That user was emphatically not found to not be a sock of NoCal100. It was archived as nobody wanted to look at it. If and when that particular sock picks back up, a new report will be filed. Please do not misrepresent the situation here. It isnt grave dancing, I was genuinely curious. I cant expect a sock that had not yet been reported to answer honestly about if the 30/500 rule has made a difference, I was hoping one that had been reported already might be willing to. nableezy - 16:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

On a point of order. The gravamen of this charge sheet is with some slight editing, copied and pasted from the prior complaint run up by perhaps the most deleterious puppet-master in the history of wiki I/P articles. That is shown by the repetition of the spelling error, TABN, reproduced from the archived report. In reproducing the gist of that material virtually verbatim it looks, disturbingly, like Meat puppetry, unwittingly certainly, but proxy editing objectively. This is now the 30th attempt to get Nableezy banned (A trip down memory lane), 20 of which were dismissed, and the last 5 for the preceding 7 years were dismissed as frivolous or withdrawn. That is no guarantee of immunity, but piping a sock master’s files looks odd, as was odd the cheer squad commending the first complaint when it was obvious for months that Kingfisher was one of NoCal's socks (I think there is another, - only Nableezy seems to be able to sleuthe up proof for what is otherwise a strong subjective impression which, as such, is not actionable,- and this influences the way one judges the flow of a talk page). I will not comment on the merits, but Nableezy is not the only person to note that Shrike’s English is normally full of grammatical errors (here and here, to the point one does not know what he is saying) except when he files an AE complaint. Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing. I have edited without complaining with about two score editors who had all of the hallmarks of being socks, purely on stylistic grounds and certain minutiae. In the I/P area 95% of socks come from the one POV, and one has to just live with that, since the empirical proof is very hard to come by. I don't make AE reports, or SPI reports when I see this. In the latter regard I am totally technically incompetent in any case. I keep the knowledge to myself (give your private bag of clues away, and the sockmaster learns to avoid them), and put up with the gaming - even when the evidence of two editors who I was certain were socks (NoCal and this chap) was cited by Arbitration against me for my old permaban. In my book an 'editor in good standing' is judged by the quality of his editing, not by the fact that (s)he has a clean record to date. I don't regard editors as 'in good standing' who smear as radical 'leftists' moderate Zionist rabbis or scholars who have been bombed, or stabbed by terrorists for expressing 'liberal'(classic English sense) or 'humanist' opinions. But I don't complain either. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bellezzasolo

@Nishidani: - that's what "closed without prejudice" means. Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or "proxying") unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. - WP:BE. That makes it quite clear that editors are allowed to endorse a sockpuppet's AE report, if they think it was grounded. As an example of a civility issue: while it did transpire that they were a sock, Do not ever call someone a sock puppet on an article or user talk page or in any edit summary. Doing so is often considered uncivil and can actually get you in trouble. If you suspect they are a sock, then file a report at WP:SPI or put a polite note to this effect on any active admin's talk page. Reporting them at WP:ANI or WP:AN is discouraged. - WP:DWS. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just have one thing I am really curious about. Does it bother you even a little when one of your accounts is found out? User talk:Attack Ramon - Nableezy had just filed an SPI. There's absolutely no need for such an interaction (and the SPI was closed without action.)
A collection of your usernames has pointed to the language in WP:ONUS, a part of WP:V. - User talk:TheGracefulSlick. Again, another throwaway accusation of sockpuppetry.

Some form of warning is needed for the above behaviour. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Essay or not, it's really just applied WP:ASPERSIONS. There's absolutely no need to go around calling people sockpuppets until you file an SPI. In both of the interactions I mention above, the editor concerned was not deemed a NoCal sock, and is still in good standing. The first one comes across as GRAVEDANCING too. It's just completely unnecessary and not particularly CIVIL. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: I never said that Attack Ramon was found not to be a NoCal sock, inferring so is misrepresenting my comment. If you notice, I was careful in saying that the SPI was closed without action and the editor concerned was not deemed a NoCal sock. It's well known that SPI cannot prove a negative. However, without proof of a positive, any accusations of sockpuppetry should be kept there, per AGF. If you suspect sockpuppetry, you can quietly build a case. Throwing your suspicions around in content discussions really doesn't seem helpful. If you're so curious about them, you could try emailing a blocked account (do you really think that an account under investigation would admit to sockpuppetry?). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Just a little note about WP:AGF: it is rather difficult to AGF, when you are dealing with serial liars like Nocal. What was really illuminating to me, was a discussion with a Nocal−sock a few years ago, on Talk:Walid_Khalidi#Khalidi: he basically argued for keeping stuff in an article, even when it was clearly false.

Now, over the years I have found many mistakes in books which are clearly WP:RS; books by, say Benny Morris, Israel Finkelstein, or Walid Khalidi (see here). And I will fight, tooth and nail, to keep those mistakes out of any Wikipedia article. That someone, even a serial lier, can argue to keep them in, is truly shocking to me. So, sorry, when his socks are concerned: there ends my AGF, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hijiri88

I'd suggest closing this with no action. Most of the filer's comment (which I hear is a copy-paste from that of a blocked sock, but that's really beside the point) amounts to "User X on the pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian side was blocked or sanctioned for Y, I think what User Z on the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli said/did is equivalent to Y, therefore you must sanction user Z to be fair". The conflation of what User X did and what User Z supposedly did (or, rather, the repeated insinuation that what User Z supposedly did was much worse) appears to be entirely subjective, with virtually all of the long comment consisting of links to prior sanctions of User X. I don't see anything of substance here, except perhaps the possibility of a strongly worded warning that "closing without prejudice" does not necessarily mean "please reopen immediately". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nableezy

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

As I commented at the previous request, I'm doubtful that this falls in the scope of DS. The more I think about it, the more I think not. This is all about the question of someone's nationality, who is otherwise completely unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Out there in the real world, this has nothing to do with that conflict and it is only related here because some editors have decided that it is desperately important to them. I would close this with a reminder to Nableezy that they are expected to edit collaboratively with others from all over the "POV spectrum". GoldenRing (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Since the close of the previous section was explicitly without prejudice to an editor in good standing bringing the complaint, I don't see the relevance of your comment here. If you think you've found more NoCal socks, SPI is thataway. GoldenRing (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would close this with no action: I see nothing approaching sanctionable here, only frustration about a very sensitive topic, which is understandable if not perfect behavior. I would oppose closing it with any formal logged reminder, but sure, I agree with GoldenRing that everyone should get along regardless of what side of the ARBIPA spectrum you fall on. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by muffizainu

Appeal declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:48, 8 February 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: muffizainu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Muffizainu (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Sanction appealed. sanction case

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

Notification of that administrator: diff

Statement by muffizainu

The topic ban was initiated after I created the article “Khafd”, which is the Arabic term for the term for female circumcision. Wikipedia has similar pages defining Arabic terms, for example, the male equivalent practice, which is called “Khitan”. The Khafd page was created after a lengthy discussion on the FGM page, here and here. Following that talk, I reverted to doing doing research on the term Khafd, and drafted the page accordingly. In this page, I added multiple credible dictionary references (including Britanica) to define the Arabic term.

I am also aware on the difference of opinion on the debate around FGM vs Female Circumcision vs Cosmetic Genital Surgeries; it is for this reason, and to be neutral, the “Khafd” directed the link to the original FGM page for more information.

I have also pointed out many inaccuracies in the FGM articles in the past, which have all been ignored. The topic around FGM is an extremely sensitive topic in which there are many different opinions. Wikipedia must be a platform where multiple sides of the story are shared with good references, and that is what I proposed to do. However it seemed that only one side was heard. In the past few years, more and more academics are having reasoned dialogue around biases surrounding FGM, and I’d be happy to continue that dialogue on Wikipedia.

Going forward in good faith. I propose a lifting of the ban on the following conditions:

I will no longer directly make contributions to articles or edit war. I will also not make excessively long debates over any part of content and instead I will use consensus from RFCs where there's a very controversial issue.
There was some confusion ie. when I created the new article, the editor did not object to its deletion via proper articles for deletion venue so I had concerns about a single editor redirecting it to another article calling it POV fork where as it was thought to have its own references. In the least it was supposed to be AFD'd. I feel it was unfair to request a ban based on that. I will ofcourse accept any consensus in all regards. I'm not going to enforce my views, this, I can of course agree to.
Editors decide content where as admins enforce behaviour as far as I understand. I will definitely be happy and agree to abide by all rules including avoiding any kind of POV pushing which was perceived of me. However, I simply want a say in consensus.
I agree to go for new controversial articles via articles for creation process if that is necessary ie. if the admins think it will help as a good faith gesture from me to lift the ban. I can voluntarily do this.
I have not violated the ban through the ban period as of yet and want to support Wikipedia with constructive edits.

Statement by AGK

Thanks to GoldenRing for notifying me.

Reading the appeal, I suspect muffizainu still does not grasp why I topic-banned them to begin with. Muffizainu would need to display a radical change of attitude in order to convince that the problems exhibited in 2018 had been addressed. Consequently, I cannot recommend lifting or amending this sanction.

AGK ■ 21:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by muffizainu

Result of the appeal by muffizainu

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

This will be closed shortly if the required notification of the enforcing administrator is not made. Sandstein 07:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified AGK on behalf of muffizainu. Yes, they should have done it themselves, but repeated refiling of requests due to process defects gets tiring. GoldenRing (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And this is the sanction being appealed. GoldenRing (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose lifting this restriction. The topic around FGM is an extremely sensitive topic in which there are many different opinions. Wikipedia must be a platform where multiple sides of the story are shared with good references, and that is what I proposed to do. This is pretty much a textbook case of not understanding what led to the restriction. GoldenRing (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Upon re-reading the original discussion which led to Muffizainu's topic ban, I'm convinced the ban should not be lifted. Also, it seems reasonable to ping User:SlimVirgin for information. Bishonen | talk 21:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I would decline this appeal based on AGK's arguments. Sandstein 22:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also decline. As there appears to be a consensus early on, I am closing this. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man

There is no appetite for sanctioning someone for criticism of Wiki institutions or editors in official roles for their actions in those roles. Several editors have commented that Softlavender appears over-zealous in reporting TRM's actions and, while there are no arbitration remedies covering such behaviour, I hope they will take note and leave well alone. GoldenRing (talk) 08:51, 7 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 The Rambling Man

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Softlavender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:09, 7 February 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

These are all from between 20:18 6 February 2019 and 00:10 7 February 2019 at WT:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard:

[15]: Speculates negatively as to why the members of ArbCom did not consider desysopping Alex Shih
[16]: Questions or reflects on the general competence of (the members of) the Ombudsman Commission
[17]: Appears to dismissively question or reflect on the general competence of Natureium
[18]: Edit summary and comment appear to dismissively question or reflect on the general competence of Bbb23
[19]: Questions or reflects on the general competence of (the members of) the Ombudsman Commission
[20]: Appears to negatively reflect on the general competence of Drmies
"this is definitively bullying on a grand scale": Speculation about an editor's motivations
"You are seeking, very hard, to catch me out at every step of every edit I make": Speculation about an editor's motivations
"continually berate me"; "continual accusations": Speculation about an editor's motivations
"please stop harassing me, following my edits": Speculation about an editor's motivations

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Here and at WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Arbitration Committee.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[21]

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

I literally have had enough of Softlavender's harassment now. I can't take this any more. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

I don't have much sympathies for TRM's communication style but this request is ridiculous. You need to understand the context of TRM's statements and most importantly, the sanction, imposed by the committee, is not a tool to hunt TRM with. I will urge for an rejection.∯WBG^converse 07:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

Yes, as Sandstein has just noted in the section below, this report is an overstretch. I have watched from afar for some time and wonder if Softlavender now needs some encouragement to leave TRM alone. There are plenty of other people who are capable of reporting should circumstances appear to justify it. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 one's just plain silly. The restriction wasn't intended to police every single statement TRM makes and I don't think any of examples listed above, in context, violate the sanction. I'd dismiss this entirely. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this is actionable. The first set of edits are, broadly speaking, criticism of Wikipedia governance bodies, and concern the editors at issue in their "official capacity", so to speak, rather than in their individual capacity as editors. It would be very problematic, from a wiki-constitutional point of view, if ArbCom authority were to be used to sanction criticism of ArbCom itself. The second set of diffs reflects disagreements about the sanction to be enforced here. These are not the contexts in which restrictions like this are usually applied (cf. WP:BANEX). Sandstein 07:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Karumari

Declined. Karumari needs to demonstrate that they understand WP:NOR by editing constructively in areas that are not connected with India or Pakistan. --regentspark (comment) 16:24, 8 February 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: Karumari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Karumari (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of India-Pakistan, imposed at [[22]]

I was informed about it here: that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/882241628

Statement by Karumari

I have avoided editing articles where other editors raised objections to some of my edits. Subsequently, I have asked on the talk pages of articles if a particular reference could be used as a source before editing any other article. I want my topic ban to be lifted completely as I believe I am refraining from editing articles where there are objections, voluntarily. I have not indulged in any edit war. I am not sure if my links are as they should be-someone please correct them if they are not. Thanks!

Statement by JamesBWatson

Karumari has certainly made a good-faith attempt to keep out of topics where his or her editing has been considered problematic, and I acknowledged that on his/her talk page when I imposed the topic ban. However, as I also said then, the effect has not been to end the problems, but merely to move them to another topic. More than one section of Talk:Anti-Hindu sentiment shows Karumari unable to understand what he or she is told. To give just one example, he/she seems to be sincerely unable to understand that women entering the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala because they think excluding women is wrong does not mean that they are doing so to express "anti-Hindu sentiments". Indeed, many of them are Hindus themselves. It may be, in fact, that Karumari's difficulty in understanding the problems with his/her editing will be there no matter on what topic he/she may edit, so that they will not be able to edit successfully anywhere. However, I have gone for a topic ban rather than a block in order to give Karumari a chance to learn, away from issues to do with Pakistan and India, where there are issues on which he/she clearly has strong feelings which may make it more difficult to stand back and see things in perspective than for other topics. I really think that accepting this topic ban, and editing for six months on other topics, will give Karumari the best chance of eventually settling in as a Wikipedia editor, and being able to continue to edit, without either getting blocked from editing altogether or else leaving in frustration because of continually finding that every attempt to be helpful is rebuffed by other editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

The problem here is not that Karumari has edit-warred, but that they have demonstrated a persistent inability to understand our policies on verifiability and WP:NOR, as is seen here, here, here, and here. As such, I recommend that this appeal be denied; I think Karumari needs to learn how to edit in compliance with these policies in a less contentious area. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Karumari

Result of the appeal by Karumari

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

Decline. I think the topic ban is the right thing for this editor at this stage. Go and learn the ropes in less-controversial areas. GoldenRing (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Willwill0415

User indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action by Black Kite.

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 Willwill0415

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Wumbolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Willwill0415 (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: AP2 topic ban

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

7 February 2019 Copyediting a politician's article
7 February 2019 Editor should probably not edit in the incel topic

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

27 November 2018 AP2 ban for 6 months

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I'm unsure if the gender ban was appealed. If no, the edit #2 above is a violation of it.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [23]

Discussion concerning Willwill0415

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 Willwill0415

All I did was put a comma in the Mosler article lol, how is that bad? I wrote maybe a third of the article, and people liked it, so I think Ive been useful to that article. I already submitted an arbcom request and an ANI about the incel article months ago the only people who care about the article basically bullied me and everyone else who wrote neutrally about incels on that article (last year). I got sent from Arbcom to ANI last year, where a group of ideologues and people who admit on wikipedia about a political agenda against incels topic banned me to get me to stop challenging them on the talk page. To repeat myself, Involuntary celibacy as a sociological concept was purged from Wikipedia as a political goal by veteran Wikipedia and ideological feminists that dominate the incel talk page. Its a 30 or so person "consensus" that roams Wikipedia engaging in political fights under the pretense of preserving Wikipedia. Involuntary celibacy as a sociological phenomena isnt dependent on the misogyny of the incel boards. But people claim that is so, and thats utterly ridiculous, and the lack of professionalism of the Wikipedia community continues to astound me. Also, note that love-shy redirects to that incel page full of yellow journalism in a negative-feedback-loop from Wikipedia too. This article reads like an encyclopedia dramatica article. If someone complains about the incel article, theyll probably get topic banned, even though involuntary celibacy (or incels) isnt fundamentally a gender issue. Its a mental and societal health issue as defined by academic sources. Also, my recent contributions to the incel article today were kinda sloppy, but my contributions last year were better.

Statement by Jorm

Willwill0415 is not here to edit the encyclopedia in good faith. A simple glance at their history will tell you all you need to know about them - including their stated intent to immediately violate their topic ban from American Politics and to the surprise of no one, they've done it.

This will continue ad nauseum.--Jorm (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Willwill0415

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

Note As Willwill0415 has continued to violate their topic ban since this AE report was opened, has removed large amounts of content from Incel (twice), and given their previous history, I have blocked them indefinitely. Note that this was not an admin action taken in response to this AE request; I saw the problem as I have Incel watchlisted and have come here after looking at Willwill0415's previous edits. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User has been indefinitely blocked by Black Kite. User still has an active TBAN from gender issues listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#GamerGate 2, and the edits at Incel are a clear violation. The politician edit is a minor violation of the other TBAN, but I would consider that to be intentional boundary pushing. I would favor reindeffing the user as an AE sanction, over Black Kite's discretionary block. Is that something we can do here, or nah? Maybe it's not necessary, IDK. ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucratically speaking we can't do that, Swarm, as discretionary sanctions blocks can only be up to one year long.[24] That may be the reason why the shrewd Black Kite chose a common or garden block. Though I have seen an arrangement whereby a user is blocked for a year per DS, with a regular block waiting in the wings to take over when the year is up. To my mind, there is something displeasing about that.. sort of lawyerly. Anyway, I think Black Kite's indef will do the job, and I support it. Bishonen | talk 03:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Closing accordingly. Sandstein 08:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Koertefa, Norden1990, Borsoka, KIENGIR, Fakirbakir

Procedurally closed. Please resubmit using the format provided by the instructions at the top, and provide all required information. Sandstein 16:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: cealicuca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

User against whom enforcement is requested

Koertefa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Borsoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
KIENGIR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Fakirbakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions
any other sanction regarding tag-teaming or forming a "cabal" on Wikipedia

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editors have formed a practical "cabal", with the purpose of fixing what they call "ethnic bias" on Hungarian, Slovakian, Romanian history articles and they have been doing this for a long time (translation sometimes required, google translate should be enough to get the general picture):

Assistance/Collaboration/Consensus building

Norden asks for support on Battle of Hermannstadt (was Sibiu at the time)1. The same plea is made to Koertefa and Fakirbakir. Borsoka, Fakirbakir, and Koertefa support it 2. None of the editors had previous input into this.

Fakirbakir asks for help, emphasizing that it's about a Serb editor and Slovak editor, and asks to make the article "free" again3. Koertefa obliged4.

KIENGIR asks for help with an editor "disrupting" the Austrian Empire (and bring reinforcements) 5. And Fakirbakir helps6.

Norden1990 asks for opinions7. And is swiftly supported by Borsoka, Fakirbakir and Koertefa 8.

KIENGIR again asks for help (some weird things going on, read it) 9 and both Fakirbakir and Borsoka support him 10. The supporting editor had no previous input on that page before.

Norden1990 Asked for support here 11, and Koertefa obliges 12.

One Team, One Mission

How communicating in Hungarian on the talk pages presents certain advantages 13.

Stubes99 (a sock of his) makes and angry jab at Borsoka. At one point Stubes99 makes a personal attack (several actually) on Borsoka, but the one answering is Norden1990 - who by the way reminds Stubes99 how little he had to add to the "project", and that he's more of a liability than an asset. Stubes99 fights back against Norden1990, angrily juxtaposing himself to the new "star" of the year - Borsoka. Stubes99 fights back and... whatever. Please notice though the "ethnic cleansing on sensitive topics" 14.

How 15 the team consensus is used to push the PoV they want.

A rally call, fight the good fight, for the credible PoV.16.

And how a discussion about a map exemplifies what PoV the team is working on 17. Fakirbakir calls things as they are (which is not a NPOV...). But they go further... and decide to call that a NPOV basically. And you can read about the team's map-creating business here 18.

Norden1990's temporary departure, and his goodbye to Fakirbakir, Borsoka, Koertefa (which all respond in kind - Koertefa just above the section, Fakirbakir and Borsoka in the section). Some of the administrators here may also notice a pattern - how the block was "unfair" in the PoV of the "team" 19.

A lengthy conversation on how they must fight against Slovakian and Romanian editors, on how KIENGIR is admiring Borsoka, Koertefa, Norden and Fakirbakir for doing the "right" thing, about how the administrators cannot understand their fight, about how the Balkan and Eastern European mentality needs to grow up and lots of other exciting stuff. About the mission, in general. Very nice read until Borsoka reminds KIENGIR that maybe this is not the right place for such a conversation (obviously).19.

And last, but not least, a combined activity 20 of the users, that needs no comments, as the list of topics combined with their own admission on what their "mission" is on Wikipedia is more than enough to give the full picture.

Other users whom may give more insight

Ditinili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
PsichoPuzo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Rgvis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Koertefa, Norden1990, Borsoka, KIENGIR, Fakirbakir

Statement by Koertefa

Statement by Norden1990

Statement by Borsoka

Statement by KIENGIR

Statement by Fakirbakir

Statements by other editors with insight in this case

Result concerning Koertefa, Norden1990, Borsoka, KIENGIR, Fakirbakir

[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 323: / Line 323: @@
 ==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by muffizainu==
+{{hat|Appeal declined. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 17:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)}}
 <small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small> <p><small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small></p>
@@ Line 378: / Line 378: @@
 *Upon re-reading [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=864190944#Muffizainu the original discussion] which led to Muffizainu's topic ban, I'm convinced the ban should not be lifted. Also, it seems reasonable to ping [[User:SlimVirgin]] for information. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 21:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC).
 *I would decline this appeal based on AGK's arguments. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
+*I would also decline. As there appears to be a consensus early on, I am closing this. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 17:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
+{{hatb}}
 ==The Rambling Man==

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