Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

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

AmYisroelChai

AmYisroelChai is indefinitely banned from all pages and edits related to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed and may appeal after six months. GoldenRing (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
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 AmYisroelChai User who is submitting this request for enforcement MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested AmYisroelChai (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:ARBAPDS Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it January 23, 2019 Assumption of bad faith; broadly discrediting reliable sources. January 8, 2019 Politicizing disputes. November 13, 2018 Discrediting reliable sources and a vague legal threat. November 13, 2018 Assumption of bad faith August 29, 2018 Assumption of bad faith; politicizing disputes. Warned August 29, 2018 Politicizing disputes. Struck Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any April 26, 2018 Topic banned If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on April 26, 2018 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on February 5, 2018 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [1] Discussion concerning AmYisroelChai 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 AmYisroelChai regarding aug 29th edit I struck it aug 29 I wasn't wrong his comment was politicized by the media because he is a republican nov 13 The accuser admits to pushing his own views so how could me saying he is be a problem nov 13 RS doesn't mean or at least shouldn't that people who write the articles are automatically reliable if they are writing an opinion article with a blatant bias and I was referring to WP:LIBEL jan 8 I didn't politicize it Soibangla did jan 13 RS is decided by consensus so editors biases can color that consensus and for some reason opinion pieces are considered reliable because they are in an RS. I think I am correct as shown on multiple pages regarding Trump where anything that's anti Trump is added because so called RS say so for example Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections where you have a timeline from 1986 - 2014 all before Trump decided to run and before russia could interfere with the election as the election campaign didn't start until at the earliest 2015, for any other page this timeline would have never been added let alone kept as it is idiotic to say that Trump visiting moscow in '87 led to russia interfering in an election nearly 30 years later or the rest of the timeline for example October 15: Trump praises Putin in an interview on CNN. I can find multiple times clinton or obama or any other person praised putin. but since opinion writers wrote articles saying that it gets added.עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC) either way i struck the edit as for the edit to death of a nation that doug referenced it was biased opinion which didn't belong as it was written which as you can see from subsequent edits that the correct version is now there. Statement by (username) Result concerning AmYisroelChai This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This is very clearly not behaviour that is at all helpful to a collaborative project, and I'm thinking that a topic ban from the whole American Politics sphere would be good here, probably for three months. Maybe combined with an indefinite restriction on politicising discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Indeed I wasn't aware of the three-month topic ban mentioned below, which does indeed push me towards a much longer sanction - six months or indefinite with appeal in six months and yes it needs to be broad not just focused on Trump or Russian interference. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Above, MrX mentions a previous one-month topic ban from everything related to Donald Trump or Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, placed in April 2018. However, I note there has been another similar ban since then: a three-month topic ban placed in July 2018, also from everything related to Donald Trump or Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, placed by Doug Weller.[2] (Thryduulf probably wasn't aware of that one, since it wasn't listed.) These short bans don't seem to have improved his practice or attitude any. I noticed his sour discrediting of reliable sources today myself, January 23, 2019, and was inspired by it to renew his DS alert for American politics, just to make sure there isn't a gap in his "awareness" when the previous alert expires in a couple of weeks.[3] His style obviously tends to suck the oxygen out of the talkpages where he posts in that way. Still, I'm not sure whether we need to topic ban him again. That's because I don't know if he is the worst on these pages, and also because Mr X's diffs are rather spread out, going back to August 2018. But if discussion here suggests a topic ban I won't be against it, and I do think it should in that case be indefinite, and from post-1932 American politics in general. It's time to stop piddling with one month and three months, and with Donald Trump and specific issues, for this user. All this micromanagement is very wearying. Bishonen | talk 14:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC). I pretty much agree with Bishonen. When you've had repeated sanctions and chances to change your approach, we've killed enough time giving you chances. Next ban should be indefinite, with an appeal allowed in six or twelve months. GoldenRing (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Apologies. my bad. I will say that almost as soon as I did it I regretted making it so narrow and only a month. When I saw this edit[4] Tuesday to Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time? I wondered if it was time to do something more but got distracted. I think it's probably time to ban him from the area entirely and indefinitely as suggested above. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Doug, the topic ban you placed on AmYisroelChai in July was for three months — it was the previous ban, that he got in April, that was for one month only. Placed by Sandstein summarizing an AE discussion, I think. Anyway, you have nothing to apologize for, and I'm going to fall in with you: I support an indefinite Tban from post-1932 American politics. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC).

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by KidAd

Appeal declined and withdrawn. Sandstein 11:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user KidAd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Sanction being appealed 3 month block Administrator imposing the sanction Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification. Statement by KidAd I am aware of the parameters of my block, and I have complied with them. I reverted vandalism on the the page of a journalist and I have been engaging in debate on whether the first lady and second gentleman of California should be referred to as "first partners." These people are not politicians or political appointees, staffers, or public employees. I edited no information about policy or contested political opinions. On the page of the former Buzzfeed journalist, I reverted persistent vandalism with the help of other editors. It was never made clear to me that I couldn't edit the pages of journalists. I have complied with my topic ban thus far and believe that this new block is unjustified. If Ian.thomson wants to insult my competency, let him. KidAd (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC) @Ian.thomson: @TonyBallioni: I retract this unblock request and plan on logging out effective immediately. I suggest that you do not waste any more time on this. I initially attempted to comply with the topic ban after my block timed up, but found myself slowly inching back to editing topics that interested me (on the periphery of post-1932 American politics). I stand by these edits as made in good faith and productive, but I understand that they were in violation of the topic ban. I have nothing more to say about this it is not in my best interest to pointlessly argue with administrators. I Thank all involved for your time. I now plan on stepping back without any further excuses and diverting my efforts to other pursuits. KidAd (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2019 copied from KidAd's TP.Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by Ian.thomson I hadn't quite thought that this would end up in front of ArbCom but I'm not sure if/how things would have gone differently. As Nil_Einne pointed out at ANI, in this edit, KidAd should have absolutely realized that he was editing an article that related to post-1932 American politics. Had I spotted that diff before carrying out the block, and had I known that KidAd was going to argue with a straight face that articles about American political journalists and spouses of American politicians and political consultants have nothing to do with American politics, I'd've just gone with an indef. I simply can't imagine simultaneous competence and good faith in the face of that (un)reasoning, just one or the other at most. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by Innisfree987 Support block. As another example, KidAd repeatedly (starting here) tried to nominate Ashley Feinberg, a journalist who often reports on politics, for CSD despite multiple editors declining, and failing that, nominated to AfD saying that perhaps the journalist would one day be notable if she ends up publishing this generation's equivalent of the Pentagon Papers (here, for anyone unfamiliar). I don't know whether overlooking their own invocation of the political involvement reveals bad faith or a major WP:CIR issue, but if the bottom line is that an editor continually tests the limits of their topic ban, the TBAN isn't working to prevent disruption. That AfD alone has wasted the time of ten editors--eight ivoters unanimously voting keep and two more who helped get it listed properly. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Question by Beyond My Ken @KidAd: Please explain what the phrase "Broadly construed" means to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Never mind, I just read the egregious Wikilawyering on his talk page. I am no longer interested in this matter. Appeal should obviously be denied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by KidAd Please note that this appeal was heavily edited by KidAd after it was copied here.[5] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Related: User talk:KidAd#Blocked Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#KidAd, again Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive998#KidAd --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC) To present just one example, KidAd edited Markos Kounalakis, the biography of a person who is a political scientist and foreign policy analyst, who is the president and publisher emeritus of the well known political magazine Washington Monthly and who co-hosted a radio show about politics, and who has helped establish chairs in politics and democracy at two major universities. KidAd's argument that editing this biography is not a violation of their topic ban on post-1932 politics broadly construed is disingenuous and laughable. The block should stand. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC) As I said one his talk page (and he agreed to do), "Don't be that person who stands right on the line he isn't allowed to cross with his toes across the line. Stay a mile away from the line you cannot cross. Make it so that if anyone accuses you of violating your topic ban the unanimous opinion will be that they are crazy." --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Result of the appeal by KidAd This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. No opinion either way on the block, but noting as the block was for an AE TBAN violation, I felt it makes sense for it to come here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Ian.thomson, this isn't in front of ArbCom, but because the initial topic ban was made under WP:AC/DS it's an arbitration enforcement block, which is why I copied it here and mentioned the need to log it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that the partners of high-profile political figures aren't covered under your TBAN, especially when your arguing about their official title. As an example, I'm pretty sure edits to Melania Trump or Michelle Obama would be covered under a post-1932 politics ban. Definitely within the scope of the sanctioning admin's discretion, so I'd uphold. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC) I would decline the appeal. While a first spouse can be notable for reasons unrelated to that position, the edits (example) by KidAd related to that position and therefore to the person's quality as a political figure. Sandstein 22:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC) I'm sure there is a grey area here, between political journalists and journalists who occasionally cover politics; between activist authors and authors who sometimes comment on politics; and between edits to the biography of California's first related to her role as first lady and edits related to the rest of her life. None of the edits presented in the second ANI linked above fall into this grey area. They are all either on subjects that are squarely political or are about aspects of the subject that are obviously political. I would decline the appeal. If KidAd seriously contends that the title of the first lady is not a political topic then we are probably moving into CIR territory, but I would still let this block play out. GoldenRing (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC) This was not an accidental transgressions into a grey area, it was multiple instances of editing subjects squarely within the topic ban and then trying to wikilawyer about it; and then there is the edit warring over the speedy deletion tag at Ashley Feinberg. This was a good block that I endorse. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable

Edits in question do not fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning FeydHuxtable User who is submitting this request for enforcement Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed: Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions : An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. . . Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Edit warring: Oct 23, 2017 Initial edit-warring of content back in; first notified of DS after this point. 15:55 Jan 27, 2019 Restored content from previous edit warring with no changes in talk consensus. 3:11 Jan 28, 2019 Edit-warred content back in despite second 1RR and DS reminder previously. Battleground: Jan 27, 2019 Accusing those who disagreed with their edits as tag teaming. Jan 28, 2019 Aspersions: Folk could easily form the perception you're editing from a Fringe pro pesticide POV. Jan 28, 2019 Considers relying on secondary academic sources for content Fringe POV pushing & wiki lawyering nonsense Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.[6] Additional comments by editor filing complaint FeydHuxtable is more or less thumbing their nose at the 1RR and behavior discretionary sanctions involving WP:ASPERSIONS about pesticides, etc. while interjecting persistent battleground behavior. They initially edit warred this content back in 2017 after it was initially removed for exactly the same reasons as it was yesterday without gaining consensus on the talk page. I removed it again yesterday re-reminding them of the DS, WP:ONUS, and 1RR. They reinserted it anyways today without gaining consensus. The underlying content dispute involves their on a primary source related to insect species decline with underlying causes of agricultural land use, pesticides, etc. for an area of Germany. I've been trying to get across that there are plenty of peer-reviewed reviews that take priority and discuss insect biodiversity and changes to due to agriculture, pesticides, etc. or by how much at an appropriate summary level for articles like Insect#Diversity and Insect_biodiversity rather than editor synthesis zeroing in on one primary study that is given relatively little weight in secondary sources. That’s not to hash the content issue out further here, but just background since they are also casting aspersions claiming I'm trying to cover up the insect decline, fringe-POV pusher, etc. on the talk page section despite by suggesting the above. That kind of behavior became such a problem before the ArbCom case that arbs passed the GMO aspersions principle linked above as people coming in with that attitude commonly pull a bull in a china shop act like we’re seeing here and miss basic parts of the discussion lacking the ability to follow WP:FOC policy. Instead, FeydHuxtable goes into soapbox diatribes largely unrelated to the content, edit wars, lashes out at editors, etc. as outlined above and can be seen at Talk:Insect#Biomass_decline. There’s also this in response to warning of the DS: If Im perma banned, I'm perma banned. (Obviously Id not get a formal perma-ban, the worst would be an indef, but as there's no way I post an unblock suggesting I wouldn't edit in the same way again. . .). I'm at a loss for how to handle their behavior at the article alone any further since they've made it clear they don't care about the discretionary sanctions, and it's distracting from what should be basic content discussion. That kind of behavior often eventually leads to topic bans in this subject if allowed to keep up. This is low-key right now compared to some past problem editors, but the DS were directly imposed to keep this nonsense out of the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC) @Sandstein:, please remember that pesticides are explicitly mentioned as being within the scope of the DS. The background needed to discuss the content of the subject partially involves pesticides, and I was directly accused of "Fringe pro pesticide POV" on the talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [7] Discussion concerning FeydHuxtable Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by FeydHuxtable Like user:Kingofaces43 Im at a loss at how to proceed. Our perspectives seem so different I see little chance of us finding common ground. So as per my last post on insect talk, I said I'd consider keeping out of Kings way, including not making further edits to articles about bugs. Had hoped that might be the end of our dispute. The dispute is about much more than a German study; the central issue is the global decline of the insect population. There seems to be unanimous scientific consensus that this is a major issues. A few scientists have argued that warnings of an impending ecological collapse due to bug decline may be exaggerated - but even they agree the decline is a problem that warrants further investigation and funding. Accordingly, I see the omission of the decline phenomena as an even greater NPOV violation than it would be to delete any mention of man-made global warning from climate change. Granted, King has never flat out claimed we should have zero coverage, but they have deleted all mention of it. Their talk page contributions seem such spurious wikilawyering nonsense that Ive not seen any way to productively engage. It's not true Im thumbing my nose at 1RR & DS. I am indifferent to whether Im indeffed, but its important to me to conduct myself with honour, which includes respecting our communities norms and other editors time. Even by King's own words, the applicability of the DS tag was "borderline" I see their use of the DS tag as possibly a feeble & manipulative ploy to help push a Fringe PoV. I dont recall mentioning pesticide or other biotech on insect or any other article. While I may sometimes remark about biotechs corrupting effect on science, it's also my opinion that biotech has and will continue to be a huge net +ve overall, essential to feeding & caring for the world's growing population. I had previously warned King that if they take this to the DS board, they may not like how it ends. I was prepared to argue they warrant a boomerang, due to the impression some of their edits create of them being a pro pesticide shrill. The thing is, per my last post on talk, Ive came to see it's possible they are posting from a sensible good faith perspective, just one I can't fathom. The fact they've chose to square up against me on the DS board makes me think its even more likely they are good faith. So I don't recommend any sanction against them, maybe just a gentle trout slap for wasting your time with this unneeded filing. As indicated, I was already planning to try & stay out of Kings way, so not sure there is any need for action here. Just in case you feel my behaviour warrants an indeff, my last words are to wish all fellow editors the very best of luck. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by Collect This is a prime example of how "broadly construed" is easily turned into "anything at all." The edit is question was not about pesticides, therefore any reasonable construction would find it acceptable. "Broadly construed" would imply that the party could not even write about a person who was ever stung by a bee (deliberate example), or had an allergy to honey. It is long past time for the "broadly construed" superhighway to see its exist ramp, and this would be a good place to start. Collect (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning FeydHuxtable This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Not actionable, in my view. The 1RR does not apply because the page insect is not related to "genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals". The "battleground" edits are predominantly about content, not other users. Please, you two, find some way to resolve this content dispute outside of AE. Sandstein 22:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Agree not actionable, as there's nothing directly about GMOs in any of these edits. FH's edits speak towards pesticides, but not "GMO pesticides", so falls outside the DS. There are proper UNDUE concerns but that's a discussion for the talk page or other places. --Masem (t) 22:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC) @Masem: The scope of DS is "all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed." I haven't looked to check the merits of this report, but pesticides are definitely within the scope of DS, not just "GMO pesticides". GoldenRing (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC) But, this is "Insect", not "Pesticide", and the additions are about the broad class of pesticides, not just manufactured ones. If this was an edit to "Pesticide", I could rationally accept that as under "broadly", but to get Insect under that, that's just too far off the intent of the original case. --Masem (t) 14:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC) @Masem: Yep, having looked a bit further I can't see Insect falling under the GMO 1RR rule. In fact, given the only mention of pesticides in the diffs given came up because someone posted the GMO DS notification on their TP, I can't see these edits falling within the GMO DS. GoldenRing (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Icewhiz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda and (2) : disruption

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

1. 12:23, 28 January 2019 Icewhiz changes "[[Arab citizens of Israel|Palestinian citizen of Israel]]" to an "[[Arab citizens of Israel|Israeli Arab]]" And "a [[Muslim-Arab]] family of [[Palestinians|Palestinian]] descent" to "an [[Arab citizens of Israel|Israeli Arab]] family.", thereby removing the word "Palestinian" from the article.
2. 20:59, 28 January 2019 Shrike does the same

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

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

• 13:08, 4 January 2019: Shrike

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Discussion concerning Icewhiz

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Icewhiz

Unlike Huldra, I took the discussion to the article talk page opening a discussion after Huldra reverted. Mainstream outlets such as BBC and AP (WaPo reprint) use Arab-Israeli (without Palestinian - which is a highly charged political stmt for a citizen of Israel to say about themselves - many do - but many do not) - which is the standard term for Arab citizens of Israel. Huldra participated in Talk:Arab citizens of Israel#Requested move 2 September 2018 (20:59, 3 September 2018) and was acting against consensus by changing a piped link to that article. With 23:00, 21 January 2019 and 20:36, 28 January 2019, Huldra introduced an opinion piece (and attributed reporting on the op-ed by Khalik) - [8], [9] that challenged mainstream coverage (which quite widely did not say Palestinian) - to make an unattributed assertion on a BDP and BLPs.Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

In regards to the 25 January edit, I was acting in accordance to Wikipedia:Article size - I made a bold edit - and immediately opened a talk page section (22:16, 25 January 2019) - on an article that required trimming that whose trimming was discussed for months - Huldra then reverted (and did not participate in the dicussion other than to assert this was "undiscussed" [10]). Also - personal attacks by Huldra - 21:25, 28 January 2019 - "And you are spitting on them. Shame, shame, on you" (you - directed at an editor - myself). And 21:13, 28 January 2019 - "We are spitting on her family" - we clearly directed at a group of editors (including Shirke she was responding to). Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Bellezzasolo

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

@TracyMcClark: Even a Guardian article [11] uses Israeli. The article you cite uses Palestinian Arab of Israeli citizenship (I discount the second Guardian article [12] in Huldra's revision, as it is an Op Ed). So at best the Guardian gives no consensus. In comparison, Icewhiz's version cites the BBC and the Washington Post. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (TracyMcClark)

What Icewhiz describes as "op-reds and reporting on advocacy - not a RS..." in their edit summary is actually sourced to a news report in the Guardian [13] in first place.

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

Statement by Sir Joseph

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

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

Statement by Levivich

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

Statement by Shrike

@Black Kite: My version is better because its actually follows our guideline WP:ETHNICITY.Also if my edits wasn't so good what do you think about removing "Israel" from the article [14] --Shrike (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Bella

So..the deceased and the family identifies themselves as Palestinians. [15] Sources (removed by Icewhiz) also describe the dead as "..a Palestinian Arab of Israeli citizenship.." [16], "A Palestinian with Israeli citizenship"[17] "The 21-year-old was Palestinian, yet because of the title of her passport, she was described in news reports as Israeli or Arab-Israeli"[18] Icewhiz eliminated every word "Palestinian" from the article [19] including the sources and replaced it with "Israeli Arab" adding references of his choice, that don't identify Maasarwe as "Palestinian". Why not quote both classifications?? I don't believe this was a good faith edit. Sensitivity of the matter is quite obvious. It is natural to expect the opposing side being offended and provoked. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by E.M.Gregory

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

Statement by Stefka Bulgaria

Icewhiz seems to have continuously discussed edits on the relevant talk pages. If there was a disagreement in reaching consensus, perhaps a RfC could have helped, but this request is uncalled for. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Result concerning Icewhiz

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

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

The Rambling Man

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning The Rambling Man

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited: "The Rambling Man is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence.

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

There's three distinct edits in the last hour that violate TRM's restriction. I'm supplying the full sequence of edits for the sake of context:

1. Drmies prunes some content from the article Neil Warnock [20].
2. The Rambling Man reverts Drmies [21], with the summary including the phrase "perhaps avoid editing things you know absolutely nothing about in the future", which itself is a violation of the restriction, as it is a reflection on Drmies's competence
3. Drmies posts to TRM's talk page [22].
4. TRM responds [23].
5. Drmies replies [24]
6. TRM responds a second time [25], a response which includes the comment "Get over it, you're wrong, and you're one of those who will never know how to fix it", alongside other incivility.
7. I see this stuff on TRM's talk page, click on the edit, find that it's both redundant and a borderline BLP vio, and revert TRM [26].
8. I post a comment to TRM's talk [27], edit-conflicting with TRM's reply above.
9. TRM reverts for a third time [28] (there's a revert of an IP in between those of Drmies and me), and uses an edit-summary that is a speculation about my motivation if there ever was one.
10. TRM replies on his talk page, challenging me to file an arbitration request [29].
11. As I type this, TRM challenges me again, despite my not having made any edits in the interim [30].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Several, visible here and at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

All I want is for him to stop yelling at other folks this way; the weeks since ARCA were blissfully friction-free, and I don't know why TRM felt the need to be rude today.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

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.