Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:07, 17 July 2017

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

Winsocker

Winsocker is topic-banned from everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and their extended-confirmed user right is removed. Sandstein 09:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Winsocker

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Winsocker (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:ARBPIA3#500/30 :

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

[1] Edits on I/P conflict and removal of sourced material
[2] Edits of I/P conflict and disruptive edit by its nature
[3] Edits on I/P conflict and sourcing criticism of organisation to its own twitter without any WP:RS
[4] Edits for gaming the system for 500 edits threshold for example [5]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

[6]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user was warned multiple times not to edit I/P area by various users [7] first he disregarded warnings but then he decided to game the system and make many minor edits to meet the threshold except the technical violation his edits by themselves disruptive changing anti-Semitic to anti-Jew deleting sourced material he didn't like and so on.--Shrike (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Winsocker

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 Winsocker

I've been under fire for mostly changing "Palestinian territories" to "Palestine" which is absurd. It seem's that when I edited the college's in Palestine to include the "State of Palestine", it apparently falls under the Arab-Israeli Conflict (I was given no warning when editing those Palestinian university pages). I feel this is a huge restriction on something that has nothing to do on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I really only understood the "Arab-Israeli" conflict message to be wary of editing only things that have to do with the conflict and that is how it should be enforced. Location's that just happen in Palestine should not get this restriction as it puts a blockade on improving those page's to begin with. (Especially if they are 'stub' pages)

The next proof he uses is me changing "anti-Semitic" to "anti-Jew. Firstly, the definition of "Semitic" is "a subfamily of Afroasiatic languages that includes Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, and Phoenician." [see here]. As you can see, the word "Semitic" covers mostly groups from the middle east, while the word "anti-Semitic" usually means "Anti-Jew" in North America, we must keep in mind for our users in Europe & Asia, and more importantly, the Middle East where the definition is taught differently. This is a more accurate version.

The third statement was a edit against the UN Watch, I did realize there was no "criticism" despite the group coming under fire from it. The organization does lean more of a pro-Israel lobbyist group but I do realize this should have edit better.

Lastly, the user say's I was trying to "game" the system. It is not very hard to go through random article's and try to slightly improve it better. What is worse is that GiantSnowman had to go and RV all of them without at least warning me first. "Gaming" the system mean's to gain something in a way it was not intended but nothing I did was out of scope of what Wikipedia allows you to do.

Many, many times, I have asked users to talk about issues in a talk page to handle problems and 0 people have done that, especially since the entire reason of a talk page is to go over issues instead of countless RV's. I have even explain my RV's.

It seem's that the user's i am talking to are taking action before discussion which is unhealthy since we get to no terms of reason. Winsocker (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

On top of gaming the system and other violations, I am troubled by this editor's seeming inability to understand what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is. She or he makes edits almost exclusively to articles about Palestine and Israel, yet asks "What did I edit that was part of the Arab Israeli conflict?". See User talk:Sir Joseph#You said I recently edited an Arab-Israeli conflict... as well. I think it's very disturbing that a partisan editor isn't aware that she or he is editing in a conflict area. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winsocker, you are mistaken about the meaning of the word "antisemitism". It has nothing to do with people who speak Semitic languages. It has, and always has had, one meaning, and that is Jew-hatred. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MShabazz 1. You say, "It has nothing to do with people who speak Semitic languages." which is false. "Semitic" means that you COME from these areas, not that you speak it. You can be arab yet unable to speak arabic. 2. "It has, and always has had, one meaning, and that is Jew-hatred." - This is where your location involves. You may be from the US which is what people call it but someone from Asia or the Middle East do not call it like that. It is even worse if they use a translator to try to translate the statement because while we read it in one way, they read it in another. Be mindful of where your reader's may be located and try to be almost exact & clear as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winsocker (talk • contribs) 13:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Winsocker, but you are completely wrong. On so many levels. The word "antisemitism" has nothing to do with "semitic" languages and it never has. The English-language word "antisemitism" doesn't have different meanings on different continents. You seem to be fond of dictionaries. As Objective3000 suggested, why don't you look up "antisemitism" and see what it says? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RolandR

Quite apart from any other violation, I think this editor needs to be blocked until they learn when to use - and not to use - apostrophes. RolandR (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

Just an aside to Winsocker. You cannot always determine the meaning of a word from its parts. The OED defines anti-Semitism as: “Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews.” Objective3000 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Winsocker

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

I'm certainly pretty uncomfortable with the string of 150-or-so edits on July 9 that mostly amount to reformatting infobox sources with no or little effect on the rendered article. I'm inclined to treat this as ECP-gaming and just remove the extended confirmed userright, but would like some input from others before doing so. GoldenRing (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the consensus here, I've removed the extended confirmed userright. I don't have time to dig in a lot of detail into this user's edits just now, so won't take an opinion on whether further action is warranted, though what I've done probably amounts almost to a de facto topic ban from Arab-Israeli subjects. GoldenRing (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removing it until this user takes note of our rules and expectations. Jonathunder (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with removing the extended-confirmed user right. A condition for restoring it should be his understanding of which matters are connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thinking that 'Palestinian territories' could be harmlessly replaced with 'Palestine' shows he is not there yet. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal, particularly in light of OR claims as in the 3rd provided diff. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are seeing a lot of gaming of ExtConf lately. My opinion is that the removal should be an AE sanction, and it should have a minimum time limit before it can be appealed here, in addition to the other terms already mentioned. 6 months seems reasonable to me. I think we need to send a clear message that if you game the system, there are consequences, so it is better to just earn the bit properly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The more I dig into his contribs, the less comfortable I am with him editing anywhere related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Not a judgement of his character, but he clearly doesn't understand the ramifications of his edits. Things like not understanding people's reaction to changing Palestinian territory to State of Palestine, is just the tip of the ice burg. I wish I could give a time limit, but I can't and would support anything up to and including indef. Hate to be a hard ass about it, but he gamed the system to get access to an area he has proven he is genuinely not competent in, showing his intention is to become yet more active and cause more problems. That isn't fair to the rest of the editors who understand the politics involved and already have to struggle to keep things NPOV there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Dennis Brown: By AE sanction do you mean something applied at AE by consensus or something applied by an individual admin (based on discretion)? An ArbCom remedy forbids the latter. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the heads up, you are absolutely correct, now that ECP is community based. Virtually all actions here are unilateral, even if we all agree, so a time limit would require consensus, which I would support any length. At this point, it is taken away already, so its less a concern. After looking at his contribs, I think a topic ban is more urgent anyway. It isn't about malice (I don't think) as much as competence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This does look like an editor who lacks the basic competence required to edit in this very sensitive area. Insisting that "antisemitic" means something other than what everybody else thinks it does is just one sign of this. I recommend an indefinite A/I conflict topic ban until they demonstrate their competence with a record of high-quality contributions in another topic area. Sandstein 19:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- User:BU Rob13: The editor was alerted to ARBPIA on 21 June and all the diffs presented above are *after* his notification. So it seems to me any admin could issue a topic ban. I would support an indefinite ban, with the right of appeal in six monrhs. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that a topic ban is warranted. As to the scope, I would go broader and ban from all Middle East-related topics, as this editor appears to be unable to tell whether an article is related to the A/I conflict or not. T. Canens (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point, and I would support that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might be useful, but within the scope of WP:ARBPIA we can at most impose a topic ban with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the whole Middle East. Closing accordingly. If the editor doesn't get it, blocks will have to follow. Sandstein 09:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support an indefinite TBAN on the A/I conflict with appeal possible after six months of productive and clueful editing elsewhere, but I too am concerned about this user's competence in working out what subjects fall into the scope of the A/I conflict. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments on my understanding of the technicalities here:
- The DS under which a topic ban would be imposed cover the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the Middle East in general. While maybe you could justify a tban covering ME topics with the other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project language of the DS policy, it's not generally done, I think.
- I don't follow the discussion above about time limits - any administrator can take "other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project" so long as the offending behaviour is within the scope of DS, and that logically includes taking away the extended-confirmed userright for either a fixed period or indefinitely. The policy doesn't explicitly allow this, but it at least implicitly says so when it says, "enforcing administrators are not authorised ... to require the removal of user rights that cannot be granted by an administrator or to restrict their usage" - that is, they are authorised to remove user rights than can be granted by an administrator, such as extended-confirmed.
- I don't think we can deny someone the right of appeal as part of an AE action, at least not until appeals become disruptive. If they want to lodge an appeal here, at ARCA or at AN, they are free to do so. If we're going to put this sort of limit, I'd phrase it as 'reconsideration after six months' - the intent is that they can appeal on the merits of the sanction itself immediately, but if they want it reconsidered on the grounds of a demonstrated improved track record then they need to wait at least six months.
- Reading the way the discussion above is going, someone could always just indef them as NOTHERE as a non-AE action. GoldenRing (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concur. Sandstein 09:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neuwert

Neuwert blocked for 48 hours for 1RR violation. GoldenRing (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Neuwert

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Casprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Neuwert (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/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :

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

02:31, 12 July 2017 First revert
02:43, 12 July 2017 ( Second revert. Violation of 1rr

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANeuwert&type=revision&diff=790143053&oldid=790120780

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor is new and seems to be a hard charger. I am mainly doing this so he/she understands better how the process works and to go to the talk page.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANeuwert&type=revision&diff=790182237&oldid=790181282

Discussion concerning Neuwert

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 Neuwert

I will not edit here anymore. Bad place for that. You can block me forever in order to keep me aware of the truth instead a forged one. The reality is much better. I want to be far from the arrogance, stupidity and inappropriate words the oldest editors say. Be happy with this parallel universe made by frustrated people. That's why Wikipedia is riducularizaded when mention, mainly in the academy.

Statement by Sagecandor

Agree with analysis by EdJohnston of evidence presented by Casprings. Suggest a two-day-block, and also a warning of a potential future topic ban if issues persist later. Sagecandor (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Neuwert

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

Looks to be four reverts on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, an article which is under 1RR. Would suggest a 48-hour block for the violation. They could be warned that a topic ban is possible if the user can't edit neutrally. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek

Not actionable. Sandstein 07:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: James J. Lambden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Volunteer Marek (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/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :; Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.

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

22:19, 11 July 2017 Restores challenged edit without talk page consensus

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: December 13 2016
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on: July 10 2017
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on: June 22 2017

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

14:28, 4 July 2017: Alt-right is added to the lede sentence of r/The_Donald
09:00, 9 July 2017: The addition is reverted by Dervorguilla
20:18, 9 July 2017: The addition is restored
00:54, 10 July 2017: Dervorguilla starts a talk page discussion, noting the DS prohibit restoration without consensus
06:05, 10 July 2017: VM participates in that discussion
21:37, 11 July 2017: I make a sequential series of edits, one which removes the disputed term
22:08, 11 July 2017: VM makes what I believe to be a wholesale revert of these edits
22:13, 11 July 2017: I warn VM that the DS prohibits restoration of the disputed term and urge him to revert
22:14, 11 July 2017: VM tells me I have it "backwards" and removes my warning
22:19, 11 July 2017: Contrary to my belief, his edit had reverted all of my edits except the disputed term. VM indicates the exclusion was an oversight and restores the term, twice citing "established consensus" [1] [2]
NOTE: At the time of VM's restoration and of this enforcement request !votes to include are evenly divided (3 for, 3 against)
22:22, 11 July 2017: I challenge VM to link to the established consensus or a version with the term prior to the July 4 addition, warning again I may escalate
22:26, 11 July 2017: I ping VM
22:27, 11 July 2017: VM edits another article but does not respond to my ping or revert the offending edit

VM was made aware of the consensus requirement at least twice, and provided no evidence to support an "established consensus" for inclusion. The editor ignored two opportunities to revert the offending edit.

This is a straightforward violation. Past requests against VM have been muddled with unrelated and obfuscatory claims. I would be grateful if admins encouraged succinct and on-topic comments. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Link

@Sagecandor: The violation is a single edit. It is linked prominently at the top of the request. None other of VM's edits violated the sanctions. I provide a timeline of events and link twice to the same edit for convenience. It is not an attempt to mislead. The June 21 version claims in the third paragraph of the lede "it's connected to the alt-right" not, in the intro sentence that it is an alt-right forum, as VM's edit did. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

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 Volunteer Marek

There was an addition of this material on July 4th, although as Sagecandor notes it was in the article before, and it was removed without discussion and consensus. Regardless, it was not removed until July 9th. Three editors - User:Grayfell, User:ValarianB and myself expressed support for the inclusion which shows that consensus was indeed in favor of it. The removal was done by red-linked, brand new, throw away account and in fact, the article was protected against vandalism [8]. Please note the stated reason for protection. It is NOT "edit warring". It is "persistent vandalism". The text was restored by Grayfell and ValarianB. Several other established users, such as User:MrX, made intervening edits and did not object to the text. And this being a controversial article, a piece of text remaining in for five days pretty much makes it "status quo". The only person objecting at the time was Dervougilla who claimed, somewhat strangely, that this was not in line with WP:MOS. Additionally another user, Power~enwiki also expressed support for inclusion.

Then James J. Lambden jumped in. And Lambden, in addition to a long history of him following me around and reverting blindly (WP:HARASS), basically just stirs up troubles and turns molehills into mountains. He turned what was originally vandalism-reversion with some civil discussion on the side into an edit war which he is now trying to leverage into an AE report.

So. My edit did in fact restore consensus (four users vs. one, and that one seems to be making strange objections about MOS). Additionally, ask yourself this - why did Lambden report me, rather than Greyfell, who restored the edit several times, or ValerianB, who also restored it? Why didn't he complain to the admin who protected the page against vandalism, that "vandalism" being the removal of the text? If an admin, User:Anarchyte, protects the page because of "persistent vandalism", that vandalism being the removal of this text (and some other), how can you drag somebody to Arbitration Enforcement over the same thing? It doesn't make sense, except that it's a spurious WP:BATTLEGROUND report - and notably Lambden has complained before about the fact that AE reports concerning my person haven't gone the way he'd like, even went as far as to make a little infamous blacklist (don't remember if he still has it in his userspace - it's late right now), and this is just an obnoxious and insulting attempt to "remedy" that situation. Perhaps, a better question would be why Lambden is restoring what was considered vandalism (like I said, Lambden's editing on Wikipedia consists mostly of trying to stir things up and create unnecessary drama (take a peak at his user page for some more evidence as to his purpose here)).

There's another piece of bad faithed manipulation in Lambden's presentation of the timeline. He might have pinged me at 22:26 while I made another edit at 22:27. But that's essentially at the same time. I didn't see Lambden's ping until about 5:09 when I returned to editing [9] (had to make dinner and stuff in the meantime). So his suggestion that I was even aware of his stupid threats to take me to AE - which is really at that his contribution to the discussion consists of - is false. I wasn't. I had shit to do. By the time I cam back the edit had been reverted anyway. But hey, Lambden just couldn't let it go, he couldn't pass up an opportunity to file an AE report however spurious it may be.

This kind of battleground attitude on his part has characterized all of my interactions with Lambden, and most of his interactions with other users as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, one more thing. I seem to recall it being stated several times that the restriction about "before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" being removed from the DS sanctions because it was so damn confusing. There's always disagreement about whether it's the removal or the inclusion which is "reinstating any edits" and what constitutes a status quo piece of article text. MelanieN removed the restriction from some articles and IIRC Sandstein has noted, here I think, that there's no basis in any ArbCom decision for such a restriction. And it does seem very stupid to be dragged to AE for a single edit (especially since the same edit had been made by several other editors - just Lambden is not currently engaged in harrasing THOSE editors, just me).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DennisBrown and the 5 days thing - sure, but I've seen that argument made before and we have don't have a good working definition of what "status quo" is. It's obviously different for high-edit articles than for low-edit articles. But how much? In fact, "forfeits their right to object" because they haven't edited the article in some time is EXACTLY what this restriction establishes/enshrines. Say it was 10 days. So you forfeit your right to object if you don't edit it for 10 days. Is that alright? 15 days? Etc. So blame the restriction. Which I think is really silly to begin with, for this exact reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sagecandor

Appears to be trumped up attempt by complainant to have remedies imposed on Volunteer Marek in this case. Complainant cites one (1) diff, twice, in the complaint. Volunteer Marek was participating in talk page discussion, which is a good thing and is encouraged in cases like these. Volunteer Marek was correct that previously there was consensus to include the term prominently, and prior versions did so as recently as 21 June in the 5th sentence of the article. It is also quite unfair to Volunteer Marek to have diffs in the evidence by the complainant presented, that are NOT edits by Volunteer Marek but by multiple other users including Don1182 and Grayfell. Sagecandor (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with GoldenRing [10] and Sandstein [11], regarding the lack of basis for the nature of the restriction here. Further, agree with analysis by Dennis Brown that there is no actionable issue at this point in time, and as a content dispute and not an AE issue, further discussion is merited, at the article's talk page [12]. Sagecandor (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

Contra Volunteer Marek, editors are sanctioned at AE for a single edit all the time. However, in this case I agree that I can't find any actual basis for a "consensus required" restriction on that page. Talk:/r/The Donald has {{Template:American politics AE}} at the top, which does claim this restriction is in place - however, WP:Arbitration/Active sanctions lists only standard DS for AP2. I'm aware that some administrators have imposed this restriction on specific articles (Coffee in particular seems fond of it), but this particular page doesn't appear in WP:AC/DSLOG. So I'm not seeing a basis for action here (I haven't even looked at the merits of it yet). @Lord Roem: added the talk page notice in Special:Diff/775808888 - perhaps he could comment here? GoldenRing (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The restriction was logged here. It's been several months since then, but it looks like my intent was a 1RR restriction after edit-warring was rampant on the article. I agree the 'consensus required' wording is confusing and should be removed from that template. As far as the merit of this request, I'm with Dennis's position below. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict: I'm not sure that there is anything enforceable here. The complaint cites a "consensus required" restriction that is not found in the ArbCom remedy linked to in the complaint. If this restriction is a discretionary sanctions page restriction, has it been properly logged and added to the edit notice per WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page? Sandstein 08:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that needs action, however, I will say that Volunteer Marek's claim that "a piece of text remaining in for five days pretty much makes it "status quo". " is absolutely absurd, as some people don't edit for 5 days, implying they forfeit their right to object. This needs to go back to the talk page for a discussion on the term since obviously it is contentious. That makes it a content dispute, not an AE issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LesVegas

No AE action taken. This matter can be reported to WP:ANI if desired, which is the place in which to request enforcement of community sanctions. Sandstein 14:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning LesVegas

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: LesVegas (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/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :

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

14 June 2017 obviously lobbying an editor about the acupuncture article (see Special:Contributions/Arthur_Long)
I asked them to self revert the TBAN violation (see below). See this section of their talk page for their denial that this is a TBAN violation (contradicting the block they received for doing the same thing in January - see below)
15 June 2017 Change to their Arthur Long comments (not really) after I notified them above
12 July 2017 Again, obviously lobbying an editor about the acupuncture article (see Special:Contributions/Playalake)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

17 December 2016 TBAN from acupuncture via this thread at ANI
6 January 2017 blocked for 60 hours for doing the same thing described above, as described in this diff

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. (diff)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is two instances of obvious and petty trolling in violation of their TBAN. I think it is time for an indefinite block as they don't do anything here but this, but a block longer than 60 hours is at least called for.

The edits are blatantly egging on editors who are SPA and are blatantly only editing WP to advocate for acupuncture (and are heading for TBANs themselves). LesVegas has not left similar comments at any other kind of editor's talk page. TBANs are broadly construed and standing on the sidelines cheering on people who are doing what you can no longer do, is a violation. User:Sandstein, for you to not be able to see this is rather surprising, to say the least. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AE is for dealing with disruption in areas where people do this kind of thing. The TBAN is squarely in that area, regardless of from where it arose. I am sure that LesVegas is rolling around on the floor laughing as folks debate the fine points of whether this is really welcoming people. Whatever. You all should act or not and close this, rather than continuing the giggles for LV. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the diffs are petty trolling. Trolling but petty. If you all find them not actionable, then so be it. But please, no hyperlegal claims about venue. Dennis Brown, in another discussion you and I had, you wrote It is frustrating to see people try to nail down every single detail in policy because it makes it harder to admin....If you don't want admin to have any discretion, get bots to do our jobs. All this rules and outlines and process hurts enforcement. The TBAN is in the field of the DS; bringing it here makes both issues available, and any admin could take action under either; this is just a forum to bring it that is uncluttered. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking for anything to be modified. Shall I quote the close of the ANI thread: Due to issues with civil POV pushing and edit-warring, there is community consensus for a topic ban. LasVegas is indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to Acupuncture, broadly construed. As a side note to the administrators here, Acupuncture is a topic area with active Arbitration remedies, including discretionary sanctions. A community topic ban is perfectly fine, but this could have probably been handled by any uninvolved administrator via the discretionary sanctions You really think applying the entirely standard (and giving -- ahem - broad discretion to admins) "broadly construed" as encompassing this sort of petty trolling is "amending the ban"? Or that applying DS for such obvious (if petty) triolling with their feet as absolutely close as possible to the topic, is counter to the spirit of the TBAN or otherwise somehow harms the community? This is ... Monty Python esque silliness. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning LesVegas

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 LesVegas

Jytdog declared a personal vendetta against me after I helped get him topic banned from GMO's, broadly construed, so I'm not surprised he's jumping the gun on this issue. Yes, I was blocked for alluding to a topic on Playalake's talkpage before. This time I did not. I'm just giving him a newbie welcome and pat on the head is all (and Arthur Long), and I would be more than happy to show anyone the email I sent. The email contained no allusions whatsoever regarding the topic I was banned for. Since the email was sent through Wikipedia's official system, I would welcome any admins/bureaucrats with access it to post it here for everyone's viewing.

Let me ask a serious question: since Jytdog was topic banned from GMO's, is he allowed to greet or interact with anyone editing the GMO topic? Because that's all I did, and if he seriously wants to pursue this action against me, I would love to provide diffs to show how black his pot is.

So do I have this straight: I'm not allowed to say "Welcome to Wikipedia!" if that editor happens to have edited on a topic that I can't edit on? Is that what I'm being accused of? LesVegas (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: the whole reason I ever sent some welcoming love towards editors like Playalake is that I saw diffs like this this (edit warring with a newbie on talk pages, just sad). If Jytdog is going to behave like this (which is exactly the kind of behavior that got him TBanned at GMO, I might add), there would be no need to show a new editor that not everyone on Wikipedia acts like that. The last thing I'd ever want to see is an editor be discouraged to edit because they believe everyone here bullies them like Jytdog. LesVegas (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sagecandor

Clear violation. Evidence as presented by Jytdog is clear cut and strong. The topic ban as given by BU Rob13 is "broadly construed". Last violation resulted in block for 60 hours. Suggest longer block than that, this time. Sagecandor (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that LesVegas proudly displays the Graham's hierarchy of disagreement image [13] on their userpage [14]. Unfortunately, the focus of their choice of response, here, appears to stem from the 2nd-to-last-level of that very hierarchy, including the choice of edit summary in the edit, itself: DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Newyorkbrad

Just as a point of clarification, administrators and bureaucrats have no ability to read other users' e-mails. (Nor do arbitrators.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

Perhaps I'm dense, but I see no mention of acupuncture in any of the diffs. Emails, of course, don't fall under topic bans. The relevant basis for sanctioning the behaviour would be editing by proxy. Is there any evidence that this has occured? If not, I don't see a case here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

@Sandstein: "The diffs make no reference to acupuncture"
The two diffs are 14 June 2017 and 6 January 2017.

They show LesVegas offering advice to two new editors, each of whom has edited only at Talk:Acupuncture. The advice did not mention acupuncture but it obviously concerns that topic. Is it necessary to ask for a clarification regarding whether such comments violate a topic ban?

@BU Rob13: As the admin who imposed the topic ban (17 December 2016), would you like to comment?

Is it acceptable for a topic banned editor to monitor relevant talk pages, then offer welcoming advice to new editors who have a common POV? Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it would be satisfactory for WP:TBAN to be interpreted as allowing a topic-banned editor to monitor articles under the topic ban, then welcome single-purpose accounts who are only interested in that topic. That is particularly so when the welcome is not merely a standard template, but contains advice and offers of assistance. I was wondering whether it might be necessary to ask for a clarification, but it occurs to me that this topic ban was issued by the community at ANI, so Arbcom might not be the right place to ask. Any thoughts on that? In fact, should this AE request be replaced with a request at ANI? Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Roxy the dog)

@Dennis Brown, Les' comments to two strictly Acupuncture WP:SPA editors are clearly in violation of the broadly construed topic ban. Les seeks to be disruptive in the Acu area, as these two editors have been. What is difficult to see regarding this infringement? He's adressing acu SPAs for goodness sake. @Bish - no time is a bad time for wielding the banhammer on disruptive editors.-Roxy the dog. bark 15:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

Mention of the GMO topic caught my eye (albeit a red herring in this conservation), but I'll admit LesVegas' extreme adversarial attitude here shows that enforcement of the broadly construed topic ban is needed without the presence of interaction bans to prevent LesVegas from going after editors they've had disputes with in their topic-banned area.

Some admins so far seem to be missing that these communications were with purely SPA accounts in the topic area. That is the distinguishing feature and should be a clear violation of trying to skirt the ban, which broadly construed is supposed to account for. Had these been established users that edit in a variety of topics, then it would be more of a gray zone. The slipperly slope LesVegas is trying to imply in their lashing out here would really only apply if Jytdog was interacting with GMO SPAs, but not editors with other overlapping subject areas. The editors LesVegas were getting in contact with only edit in their topic-ban area. There's no other way than to say LesVegas was interested in them because of where the SPAs edited, and I have seen cases where topic-banned editors were blocked because it was apparent they were following ongoings in their topic area as we see here.

DS are also meant to deal with problem behavior in the topic area. Violating a topic ban is one of those, which can place action dealing with that at AE regardless of where the ban originated. When DS are imposed at ArbCom, they are intended in part to deal with controversial subject areas at AE rather than at ANI where controversial subjects are often not handled well. The only time ANI would need to follow-up on this particular topic ban is if it was the actual appeal of the topic ban. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I understand and agree with Dennis' point that because the TBan was not an AE action, this is the wrong forum for the complaint to have been filed in, however, we have a situation where the admin who imposed the TBan agrees that Les Vegas' actions were a violation of the intent of the ban, so it seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to restart the discussion at AN/I. As pointed out, admins don't necessarily need a consensus discussion before they enforce a sanction, and this would appear to be a case where it would be appropriate for an admin to block Les Vegas for his behavior on their own initiative, not as an AE action. If the admin wants community confirmation of their action, they can always open a block review thread on AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning LesVegas

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

I see nothing actionable. The diffs make no reference to acupuncture and were not made on a page related to acupuncture. Sandstein 05:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, interacting with acupuncture SPAs is not a violation of the acupuncture topic ban, insofar as the interactions themselves are not about acupuncture. See WP:TBAN. If no admins disagree, I'll close this request. Sandstein 07:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do I not disagree, the TBAN that's supposedly been violated is a community sanction, not one imposed under arbitration, making this the wrong forum. If I saw any merit in the complaint, I'd do something anyway under ordinary admin discretion; but the type of complaint made here would turn every TBAN into an effective IBAN with every editor who took a strong interest in the topic. I just can't see it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog seems to have missed differentiating betwen community sanctions and arbcom sanctions. The correct thing to do would have been to either approach BU Rob13, who implemented the ban, or (groan) take it to ANI. That said, I don't think these technicalities need stop any admin from evaluating and acting on the complaint.

I'm far from impressed by LesVegas' response. Their question "I'm not allowed to say "Welcome to Wikipedia!" if that editor happens to have edited on a topic that I can't edit on?" (my italics) is self-serving and insincere. (Yes, yes, assume good faith, but note also that AGF is not a suicide pact.) There was obviously no "happens to" about it, especially as the newbies LesVegas offered advise to had edited nothing but acupuncture, and in a tendentious, forum-y way. And LV's posts weren't merely welcomes, they were invitations to e-mail. Looking at their contribs certainly suggests that they have no interest in editing Wikipedia as such, but are here solely to promote their POV on acupucture. That's very close to not being here to create an encyclopedia IMO. However, this is probably the wrong time to bring out the sledgehammer. Bishonen | talk 11:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I kind of get that, but where do you draw the line around this sort of thing? Do we really want to get into the business of policing who editors with TBANs welcome to Wikipedia? GoldenRing (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policing who they welcome? No, we shouldn't make a business of that. Jytdog's report wasn't really about "welcoming". (It's a bit like editors who use the "thanks" function to taunt an opponent, mutatis mutandis: that's not really about thanking.) If they're being disingenuous about their manner of, and motives for, welcoming, as in this case, I'm going to say "I see you", even if I don't write them a ticket. Both they and I may hopefully even remember about it next time they try to skirt their ban. Bishonen | talk 14:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

For starters, the Tban is not an AE issued tban, so it should be at ANI instead of here. That doesn't prevent us from taking action, but this is not the preferred venue and we certainly can opt to give instructions to take it elswhere. Secondly, if this was ANI, I would not take action based on this evidence. If BU Rob13 previously blocked for this [15] (which is more detailed but similar to the current complaint), then I'm at a loss how this is a tban violation. Perhaps he can explain; maybe I'm missing some finer point, maybe the block was for a different diff than provided, I don't know. LesVegas is stating he was banned in an area but doesn't mention it. I can see how that is disruptive considering how it was done, but not a violation of the tban. The tban does not mention that he can't say he is tbanned [16], and no tban SHOULD prohibit someone from saying they are tbanned in an area. An editor has to be able to say "I can't talk about that subject, I am topic banned from it" if they approached by another editor, for instance. I also don't think we can police email unless it is a claim of abusive email. I see no authority in the admin bit that lets us do that. Welcoming new editors might look like skirting the ban, but we aren't mind readers and we don't have the authority to expand or modify the tban, which is very narrow in scope and community imposed. I suggest we close this without prejudice to it being moved to the proper venue. If I saw it there, I would still recommend no action be taken, btw, but that decision should be made there, or by the filing party here, who could choose to just not refile it at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Jytdog, the problem is that you are asking enforcement of a community ban, not an AE ban. at AE. If it was an AE ban, we could modify it or change it any way we felt was necessary (within Arb limits). Any of us, unilaterally. With a community ban, we absolutely can not do that, and usually you need to a consensus at AN/ANI to modify. So we have to enforce the ban "as is", and I see this as grey area. I DO see a problem, but I find it hard to press the button and own the action in a borderline case like this. That doesn't stop another admin, and I did ping the admin who blocked him before. Taking it to the community allows for clarification of the ban, adding to it, etc. Most of the time, if this is the wrong venue but the case is cut and dry (vandalism, socking, disruptive editing) then we just sanction as non-AE and move on, but this isn't so obvious, at least not to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They were not blocked for mentioning their topic ban; they were blocked for messaging an editor related to the topic they're banned from. Everything in their message that I blocked for (petition, etc) had to do with acupuncture. An edit does not have to explicitly mention acupuncture to be about acupuncture, and we should not draw such a distinction to prevent gaming. The intent of the community was clearly to remove this editor entirely from the topic area, not for them to continue lobbying from the sidelines and via emails. If that's all the editor is doing, I'd recommend indeffing them with talk page access and email access revoked. Welcoming editors who share their POV, giving them advice about conflicts they've had related to the topic, and telling those editors to email them for more? We all know what's going on there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AE is still the wrong place to do it, and I would say that this case should probably go to a community discussion, if anywhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basically agreeing with Dennis here. I can see the problem, but it's not one where I'm comfortable pulling the trigger on my own discretion. To me, this is enough of an edge case — unusual enough as a TBAN violation — that I'd want to see sort of consensus for action. So if someone feels willing to exercise their discretion over this, risking the consequences, then they should carry on. Otherwise, action is going to need broader discussion than is going to happen at AE. GoldenRing (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by User:Hyper9

Appeal declined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: Hyper9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Hyper9 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Sanction being appealed User talk:Hyper9#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban This user (User:SpacemanSpiff) with administrative powers has applied sanctions on my WP account. Opaque warnings served on 16th June - User talk:Hyper9#Discretionary sanctions alert and on 1st July - User talk:Hyper9#Final warning

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

Notification of that administrator

Notified. here

Statement by User:Hyper9

Reason for the appeal There has been a round of edit warring on the Chera_dynasty page. The two editors (one of whom was me) that were involved have used several rounds of edits to improve the page and a closely related one. Several rounds of discussion by the other editor and me were held on the Talk page, in the middle of which this Administrator chose to suddenly serve a 'Sanctions' warning. The next warning was served in a complete opaque manner and I immediately sought clarifications on what behaviour is being censured by the Admin - but there was no satisfactory response. Now, the sanctions have been imposed for an edit by me on the said page. The other warring editors have not responded on the Talk page for ONE week (after I even went to the length of providing screenshots of referenced pages) but have gone ahead with their disruptive edits and removed referenced/sourced content. I reverted this and all of a sudden the Sanctions were imposed on me. When I pointedly asked what is the action for which the sanction has been imposed - this Administrator (User:SpacemanSpiff) had no response (see Talk page end).

As with any edit warring - there are two parties involved. This Administrator has shown themselves to be highly biased in never ONCE censuring the other editor (with whom they regularly interact). I would also like to point out that the Administrator has been quite involved in the page in the past and I would hardly rule out the fact that they are imposing their own POVs on the content. A second reason for a conflict of interest is the fact that the page (and content) that is being disputed is about the area directly opposite their stated location on their User page - and appears to be wholly biased with regard to this topic regarding neighbouring geographies. This Admin has a clear conflict of interest in administrating this page and as a genuine contributor (the largest active contributor of the Chera_dynasty page), I would like to request this action to be revoked or reduced and another uninvolved administrator to look into future edits on this page.

I would also like, as a WP user and the largest contributing Editor of this page, to raise a formal complaint against this Administrator (User:SpacemanSpiff). I would like to record it here and if pointed out, will add it to any other place if needed. Hyper9 (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:SpacemanSpiff

Firstly, I have explained the issues clearly as have other admins Doug Weller and RegentsPark who are both involved in the discussions at Talk:Chera dynasty. The problem is that Hyper9 clearly exhibits a WP:IDHT attitude here and keeps repeating the same thing again and again and people stop responding as it's already been addressed, if it's not WP:IDHT then it's a case of being unable to understand discussions or how the encyclopaedia works, in which case the sanction is too light. The user has been refusing to follow proper process of DR and continues to edit war, so I'm hoping that the limited topic ban will allow the user to edit other areas and learn the processes, policies, and guidelines of the encyclopaedia. Also, the allegation of WP:INVOLVED is nothing more than rubbish. THis isn't a case of two parties here, but multiple editors in good standing (and who edit this area) including Doug Weller, RegentsPark and Cpt.a.haddock have continued to engage with the editor. The problem started at Malayalam where the user was trying to push a particular school of though [17] and there was a back and forth between this user and Cpt.a.haddock, then the refusal to go through DR, though the user participated in DR afterwards. The DRN case closed with a resolution somewhat similar to the original state of the article with the addition of "it's a matter of dispute".

A similar situation is going on at Chera dynasty where there was an edit war between Hyper9 and Cpt.a.haddock. MelanieN protected the page and warned them both. Subsequently Doug Weller and RegentsPark joined the two editors in the discussions and edited the article based on that, but were consistently reverted by Hyper9 -- [18], [19], [20], [21]. All this has to be taken in the context of the talk page discussions and if one reads Talk:Chera_dynasty#Cheras_as_Malayalam_or_Tamil_speakers and other posts further down from there, consensus is that this is WP:SYNTHESIS and doesn't belong, but Hyper9 has evaluated consensus for themselves that there's no synthesis and refuses to acknowledge that the other opinions hold (and the constant reverts on the article) and repeatedly says the same thing, which the others have stopped responding to as there's nothing new there.

I think this sanction is absolutely necessary at this point and would recommend against it being removed. —SpacemanSpiff 03:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I forgot to include the refusal to participate in a DR for Chera dynasty, per the diff provided by Haddock below --[22]. —SpacemanSpiff 11:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cpt.a.haddock

I am one of the editors involved in this fracas. IMO, Hyper9 is a tendentious editor with a warped view of how Wikipedia or, for that matter, how scholarship works. He is yet to grasp the concepts of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NPOV or more fundamentally, the idea that Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour.

In addition to the points made by SpacemanSpiff, I'd like to point out that after Hyper9's general disappointment with the DRN resolution on Malayalam, he refused to go through any moderated dispute resolution process for Chera dynasty and the second DRN which I'd opened, expired unanswered.

There have also been a number of personal attacks: "mindless editing", "whose name you can't even spell", etc. The latter attack was after RegentsPark informed Hyper9 that the consensus was against him and to self-revert. The revert never came.

I believe the topic-ban will help Hyper9 understand both how to behave and how to collaborate.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by User:Hyper9

Result of the appeal by User:Hyper9

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

Endorse TBAN - I think one of the very reasons we have discretionary sanctions is to be able to deal with combative WP:SPAs swiftly and efficiently. This is one such case. User was appropriately warned (twice, including a final warning), and their TBAN was additionally explained to them plainly and clearly by Doug Weller, and Hyper9 needs to understand and accept that this TBAN includes their own talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline the appeal if only for procedural reasons, because Hyper9 does not support any of their difficult-to-understand assertions with evidence in the form of diffs. Sandstein 06:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline the appeal based on the merits. These was a problem, the solution was within admin discretion, nothing has changed since the TBAN was imposed. I would note the TBAN has already been violated on the talk page and somewhat on Talk:Chera dynasty after explaining they were TBANed. It should be expected that future breaches of the TBAN will likely result in them being blocked temporarily. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the topic ban. I read through the DRN about the origins of Malayalam and perceive that reasoning with User:Hyper9 is likely to exhaust anyone who tries. SpacemanSpiff's final warning (July 1) looks to be abundantly justified, but Hyper9 went right on regardless. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with EdJohnston: reasoning with Hyper9 looks very exhausting. We don't want constructive and knowledgeable editors to squander their time and energies on trying to contain problem editors; we want them to have some leisure to improve articles instead of endlessly arguing with those who don't listen. That's perhaps the most important reason we have discretionary sanctions at all. Endorse the ban. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Playalake

Indef blocked as a standard admin action for not being here to build an encyclopedia, then CU linked as a sockpuppet. All non-AE actions, not logged. Closing as no AE action is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Playalake

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Playalake (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/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions:

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

15:00, 4 January 2017 1st edit here; a talk page comment: he Change.org petition lists the many problems with this article. I come here and see you editors locking discussion about it. Now NICE is being accused of being problematic. NICE is made of scientists who the NHS takes recommendations from. If you editors want to be on the opposite side of scientific officials, and pretend to have a scientifically backed article, shame on you..
4 January 2017 opening 2nd thread after first one was closed. You editors prefer to censor questions than answer them. I won't bring up other websites, but my questions remain unanswered. How did Wikipedia cover NICE before they updated? And why is everyone here quick to update based on NICE, but not care to update many Cochrane Reviews?
4 January 2017 Response on their talk page, when I tried to explain what article Talk pages are for: You locked my questions then you deleted them. Everything I saw on the Change.org petition is correct. Not only do Wikipedia editors censor studies beneficial to acupuncture, you also censor discussion on talk pages. You tell me to add what I believe is correct to the article but there is no edit button for me to make changes. This is obvious. Only select editors like you with an obvious censorship problem edit the article, nobody else is allowed to edit. Shame.
6 January 2017 Thank you for this. These editors are very bad and you give good advice. I will set up my email.. This was Playalake's response to LesVegas' terrible initial welcome message (diff).
14 July 2017 Reverting an edit, with edit note: why does Wikipedia remove all positive statements on acupuncture? This is exactly what change.org accuses you of. Now you do it? Unbelievable
15 July 2017 reverting, with edit note RACIST EDITS! On talk page admits it's being removed because Wikipedia says if authors are Taiwanese then they are not following scientific proofs! RACISM!

Oh for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 and diff. 18 January 2017

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Account is pure SPA. From their 1st edit here, this person made it clear that they had no interest in editing Wikipedia per the policies and guidelines, but came here to WP:RGW driven by a petition at change.org. They have never attempted to understand WP nor the policies and guidelines, and they are now just all-caps yelling personal attacks.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notice provided.

Discussion concerning Playalake

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 Playalake

All positive statements about acupuncture are removed from Wikipedia and only insults remain. They remove everything! Studies from great journals are deleted because they say the authors of those studies are Taiwanese! So any Asians are problems for Wikipedia? Asian scientists are incapable of proper science? I am Asian American and Wikipedia now wants me to be internment it seems! That is how you deal with all of us, by deleting all of us from your encyclopedia. I am offended by your policies and will fight to expose this. I found the unjust article from change.org where it is shown that Wikipedia doesn't follow its own policies because they want to hurt acupuncture. We will create many more petitions now!

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Playalake

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

A glance at Playalake's contributions show that they are a WP:GREATWRONGS WP:SPA here only to promote their point of view, and in a highly confrontative manner. Without admin objections, I intend to block them indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE as a normal admin action, which probably obviates the need for AE sanctions. Sandstein 14:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with an indef block. The editor is practically waving a flag with WP:NOTHERE on it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to either block or topic ban this account the other day after I saw the edits made yesterday to this article and talk 1, 2, 3. This disruption wouldn't be tolerated on any article let alone an article under AC/DS... I agree that an indefinite block is justified here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser needed. We have had more problems with Acupuncture as of late, and this SPA is raising some serious red flags. Otherwise, I agree with with Sandstein's solution, but I think a Checkuser should at least look at this and decide if the CU tools would be beneficial and justified here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Playalake is now indeffed. Waiting for checkuser response before closing this. Sandstein 19:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In progress I'm assuming I'm checking Playalake, not comparing the user to any other user/account. If I'm wrong, someone please ping me and let me know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Playalake is Confirmed to LesVegas (talk · contribs · count). Blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser

I'm going to assume good faith and believe Debresser's explanation that he didn't mean anti-semitic, he meant anti-Israeli-political-objectives. That is still focusing on editors and not edits, still a personal attack and, as far as I can see, battleground behaviour. We edit collaboratively, not by assigning each other to factions. I don't think this amounts to an indefinite sanction, but I do think it amounts to sanctions. Consequently, Debresser is banned from all edits and articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for two months. I am very tempted by an indefinite IBAN between Debresser and Nishidani, but will (probably unwisely) leave it until next time.

The idea of a "casting aspersions" restriction is a curious one to me. I accept that it has worked well in another area if others say it has, but casting aspersions and classifying people by their nationality or politics or religion or whatever is prohibited anyway. If someone wants to introduce this restriction as an AE action then they are very free to do so; I'm not going to as part of this close because I don't personally see what it adds to the existing policy. It is a bit disturbing to me that some editors here seem to consider the idea of not casting aspersions on the basis of ethnicity/nationality a novel one and something we should do.

Other editors are reminded: (1) This is arbitration enforcement and you are expected to behave with decorum here. (2) Evidence presented should be evidence that adds to the record, or uninvolved opinion that advances resolution, not, as BMK lightly puts it, statements ex cathedra (thank you for that touch of humour, even if I did feel I had to hat it). (3) When someone makes a mistake and owns it and corrects it, you should consider it done, not something to whip them with repeatedly (thus Debresser's edit summary). (4) While it is true that arbitration enforcement may take the opportunity to scrutinise the activity of everyone involved, presenting a string of months-old diffs is not relevant and not welcome. GoldenRing (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Debresser

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Debresser (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/Palestine-Israel_articles#Decorum :

tl, dr: Debresser calls me (and Nishidani) anti-Jewish, i.e., racist. He does not retract this, even when asked multiple times.

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

21:47, 12 July 2017 I suggest naming a period Hellenistic period
21:52, 12 July 2017 Nishidani agrees
16:26, 13 July 2017 Debresser writes: "I would have no problem with that suggestion, but only if there would be some more input from editors who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish camp."
16:35, 13 July 2017 Nishidani writes: "I'd appreciate you striking out your remark above about 'editors who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish camp.' Contextually this says the two other editors here discussing this issue are in an 'anti-Jewish camp', i.e. their contributions are being read as motivated by anti-Semitic hostilities."
16:42, 13 July 2017 Debresser strikes: ~~who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish camp~~
16:13, 14 July 2017 Debresser restores: "but only if there would be some more input from editors who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish/Israeli camp."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

3 April 2017 last block

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 18:14, 13 June 2017.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After 16:13, 14 July 2017 Debresser has had several requests to strike the anti-Jewish comment. He has not done so. I consider this extremely insulting, in my country to call someone anti-Jewish is basically saying that they are racist. I ask that Debresser either

1. show how I am anti-Jewish, or
2. strike the comment and apologise, Huldra (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoldenRing: Your statement: "anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli are regularly conflated by both sides of the Arab-Israeli dispute," (My bolding) is simply not correct. Only one side conflates, or try to conflate, "anti-Jewish" with "anti-Israeli" and/or "anti-Zionist". Huldra (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Debresser: You have no reason to blame this AE report on Nishidani, Nishidani actually advised me to "sleep on these things overnight and reconsider" when I said I would bring this to AE if you didn't retract your words. I thought you has been given plenty of chances already, therefor this report. Huldra (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:No More Mr Nice Guy: Whaw, finding a 3 year old edit from me, proving ...what exactly? The sources given were Source 1, Source 2 People can check for themselves if they think I did a good summary, or not, Huldra (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Noted

Discussion concerning Debresser

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 Debresser

Nishidani is only back from his latest month-long ban since July 12, although he had promised to retire,I'll retire from Wikipedia.Waiting for it to be archived so I can put in a permalink, and then goodbye and already he has managed to escalate what has been a very quiet WP:ARBPIA area for the last month. I will not hide that I am less than thrilled about his return, and for good reason. That, however, is not a crime, and should not be held against me. This post is likely some kind of payback for that ban.

Regarding Huldra. She can hardly be said to have clean hands herself, see this WP:ANI thread, where she was shown to hide POV edits behind the innocent "ce" edit summary. If that is bad editing in general, in the WP:ARBPIA area this is reason for sanctions. Please also see User_talk:Black_Kite, where Black Kite mentions that this is indeed a WP:AE issue. Per WP:BOOMERANG, Huldra should be sanctioned for making such misleading and POV edits in the WP:ARBPIA area, and then having the gall to report me.

What it is I am being accused of precisely? I saw 6 edit summaries above, of which the first is Huldra's, and another two are Nishidani's. By the way, I already stated more than once on the talkpage, that I have no problem with Huldra's proposal.

All I said which seems to have struck the wrong note with Huldra, is that the agreement of only a few editors is too feeble, and that I would like some outside input. Seeing the same group of editors time and time again, and noticing that they always agree with each other, makes one suspicious of team work, and so I felt that asking for outside input was the right thing to do. Surely that is reasonable. Regarding team work, please notice this, and see also the comment of another editor here, so I think some suspicion is not out of order, and asking for outside input is always a good idea. Debresser (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by Debresser

Based on Huldra's "additional comments", I now see that she has taken offense to the fact that I asked for input from editors who are not "anti-Jewish/Israeli". Contrary to what she claims, I did not call her "racist" or "anti-Semite". All I did was notice, that her stance on the Israeli-Palestine conflict is such which shows her to be on the Palestine side of these political matters. As a matter of fact, I have not mentioned any editor by name, and she has decided herself that the shoe fits.

As a matter of fact, I had first written "anti-Jewish", and when Nisdani asked me to strike that, I did so, precisely because I meant the political side of things and "anti-Jewish" has another connotation than the one I had in mind. When I later had time for further consideration, I added "/Israeli", to clarify that I meant the political issue only. I am surprised that Huldra has ignored that clarification of mine, and is using the old version as an excuse to open this WP:AE post. I think that my subsequent commentaries on the talkpage in that section make it sufficiently clear that I had only the political issue in mind, nothing more. Whether Huldra has misread om good faith, is anybody's guess, although I think that in view of the WP:ANI thread just a few days ago in which I showed her to be hiding POV edits under misleading edit summaries, there is place for doubt in this regard. All cries here and elsewhere as though I called somebody anti-Semitic, are baseless and obvious attempts by the usual editors at discrediting me. Debresser (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein I struck out "anti-Jewish, as soon as Nishidani pointed out to me the problem with that term. How many more times do I have to say that? I changed it to "anti-Jewish/Israeli", because in the framework of the political situation in the Israel-Palestine area, the problem is between the Jewish Israelis and the Arab Palestinians. In other words, I made it unequivocally clear that I was referring to the political issue only. See also admin GoldenRing's comment to your post. Debresser (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani I never "followed" you to Shuafat. That article is on my watchlist since May 2016. Please do not demonize the enemy. Debresser (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@All Regarding my edit with the edit summary "The source does not say "no longer", just states a different opinion." All editors who are crying to high heavens how this was a mistake, conveniently ignore that I was the first to acknowledge the mistake in my following edit: More true. So let's simply ignore all those who raise that issue (like Nishidani and Johnuniq). Debresser (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphim System

I can't see a lot that helps us resolve this here. GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~this basically amounts to "I would have no problem with that but I can only reach consensus with people who are pro-Jewish"~~—after that stunning admission, I think a significant TBAN would be appropriate, as it pretty clearly indicates an unwillingness to collaborate with editors who he perceives have a different POV from his own, the only "acceptable" POV. I would at least want to see a statement from the editor acknowledging that the he understands why this is a problem, and a commitment to sincerely engage the consensus process with all editors and not canvas for editors with a particular POV. (Posting to Wikiprojects seeking expertise is OK, but I don't think posting to Wikiprojects looking for editors with a particular POV is ok.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing asked me to strike the above statement and I agreed. I should not have used quotes as this can easily be misinterpreted by those quickly scanning the page (even though I qualified it with "this basically amounts to"). However, I disagree that this casts the evidence in the worst possibly light. In my opinion, the language I used was more favorable then the language used by the editor ("anti-jewish") and I used quotations only as a convenience to summarize my understanding of the evidence - but the best thing would be to let the editors words speak for themselves.

It would have been better to say that my understanding of the evidence taken as a whole is that Debresser's approach to this was not conducive to collaborative editing. I also very much do not think that striking out anti-Jewish and replacing it with anti-Jewish/Israeli was helpful, since the content dispute is about what language to adopt for a periodization question, adding anti-Israeli here could be interpreted as an escalation. I don't believe the editor was unaware of how this was received, because this was the response when it was brought to his attention: [23]. I don't really find the explanation that "POV considerations" are excluded from WP:NPA acceptable. I will add that these disputes should be resolved based on current academic sources, and not religious "truth" or religious literary traditions.

I would note that AGF runs both ways. As Debresser notes here [24] Hellenistic Period covers a shorter period, and allows for more precision, and it is also used more by academic sources. This comment POV attempts of editors to remove all mention of things Jewish from articles as much as possible escalated to an out right personal attack ("anti-jewish") for editors who are trying to introduce academic precision and update articles to reflect current scholarship. I disagree with characterizations that this is a "minor" issue. There are significant advantages to being as precise about dating as we can be [25]. Representing a religious/nationalist POV is not a factor that should be given equal weight in these discussions, and to accuse those who disagree of being anti-Jewish/Israeli is way over the line. It would not be tolerated in any other topic area (including Turkish history, Ottoman history, Chinese history, American history...) To me, this incident is part of a pattern that is not conducive to improving the encyclopedia based on academic sources, that accurately summarize the available, current scholarship for readers, students, professors and others who make use of this encyclopedia. It certainly does not help to assume that editors trying to make this improvements are motivated by nefarious intentions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@No More Mr Nice Guy: I think this is an important point so I want to respond to it. I reviewed both of the sources Huldra used in her copyedit. The NY Times source says ritual baths were found in private dwellings, but it does not identify a source for this statement. More importantly, it contradicts the Haaretz source, which identifies the director of the dig (Debbi Sklar-Parnas) as the source for the statement that no ritual baths were found. This pretty clearly shows the problems that arise when non-academic sources are cherry-picked for statements that do no clearly identify a source. I would also note that this "The main indication that the settlement was a Jewish one is the assemblage of stone vessels found there. Such vessels, for food storage and serving, were only used by Jews because they were believed not to transmit impurity. Archaeologists believe stone basins discovered at the site were used to hold ashes from the destroyed Temple" is a direct copy/paste from the article, and Huldra was correct to remove it (and she should have removed the entire thing, not only that one sentence.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@No More Mr Nice Guy: I'm not sure what those edits are supposed to show, other then an unwillingness to respond productively to an issue that you raised about another editor. It seems WP:BATTLEGROUND to dig up ancient edits which are not even peripherally related to what is being discussed here. What exactly are edits adding Sabra and Shatila to the lede of Ariel Sharon, or a long list of references in a discussion about eunuch slave trade on the Harem article supposed to show? The slave trade was kept in the article by Eperoton after I stopped working on the article, btw. I suppose you think it's somehow significant that I added a quote about Zionism from Mein Kampf to an article about Zionism. I didn't really fight over this quote, but when I added it, I didn't even know what WP:OR was, El_C told me, and it was removed for WP:OR not for any nefarious reason that your post strongly implies (and somehow connecting it to a post about Sabra and Shatilla, which the MacBride Commission said was genocide, makes it difficult to extract anything of significance from the random diffs you just posted)- I'm still not 100% sure it is OR - I think inferences can be drawn from it without secondary source analysis, but I didn't really go looking for secondary sources to try to add it back in, and it still isn't very high on my to do list. I still think the claim that Eichmann was a "major organiser" of the Holocaust needs a citation, and I have since found citations for this in law review articles. This seems like an obvious point, but sometimes we don't remember that it was disputed at the time. Eichmann, compared to others who were punished much more lightly then he was, does not really stand out - especially as some of those people (there were many) were found guilty of directly committing significant atrocities, but were punished very leniently. Hannah Arendt goes through a lot of them, and instead of bludgeoning others will ill-informed accusations, I would suggest reading her work carefully and making up your own mind. But these discussions would be more suitable for article talk pages (that is, if they weren't ancient and stale) Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another note about the Eichmann article, I made exactly two adds: The first was to make sure that Rafi Eitan's own recent public comments about Mengele/Eichmann were represented in the section about Eichmann's capture, and the second was to add the following quote from Arendt: "this case was built on what the Jews had suffered, not on what Eichmann had done." When I added the citation needed tag, I was still completely new and did not really know about FA criteria. I was satisfied with resolving this by adding the quote from Arendt, because I think her view is significant enough that it should be (briefly) represented in the article. So, again, I don't really appreciate the sarcastic comment about WP:RS, I think my edits did improve the articles I was working on. Maybe we can get back on track with the current discussion now? Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: I think the idea of an Aspersions restriction is not a bad one, as so many discussions in this area do seem to focus more on the alleged POV of an editor, then the content of the edits or WP:RS. But there are a few problems - how would it be enforced? Tying it to allegations of Nationality would not seem to address the particular problems in this area where so many of the aspersions are worded as "anti-Jewish" or "anti-Zionist" or "anti-Israel" — I'm not sure if this is different from the Pakistan/India area, but in ARBPIA we don't really see aspersions about actual nationality as often as we see aspersions about alleged political or ideological POV (anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish, anti-Israel) — calling someone "anti-Jewish/Israeli" is not a statement about their nationality. This would really have to be specific to the problems in this area, which may not be identical to problems in other area ("Indian nationalist POV" etc.) It would be like, if one side were saying "You are an Indian nationalist" and the other was saying "You are anti-Indian nationalist" — if this proposal isn't worded precisely, it would go from being potentially beneficial to an absolute disaster that could exacerbate systemic bias in the area over a semantics issue - for example most Wikipedia editors are male, most are from Christian-majority countries, most are English speakers - so a Muslim woman's POV, for example, would be a net benefit to Wikipedia, because this group is severely underrepresented. In the India/Pakistan section, our own figures show participation is quite healthy due to the English language education in those countries. But this is not the case most Muslim majority countries, so we have to consider that those who are trying to improve content related to Palestine are usually engaged in a good faith effort to balance the encyclopedia. I would recommend broader discussion about the specifics before something like this is implemented, and not simply leaving the implementation open to interpretation. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Power~enwiki

Regarding the specific content dispute: I'm not sure that this neighborhood should be portrayed as having an independent history from East Jerusalem. Regarding the editors involved; they might all need a topic-ban based on the continuing hostility at Talk:Shuafat. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note a recent AN/I thread involving these editors that had no action. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:No More Mr Nice Guy has taken offense to my reversion of one of his edits here that was clearly in violation of Arbitration rules and had already been reverted once. [26] Power~enwiki (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

I can't see how this helps us to resolve this GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

That a user takes a request to strike a baseless personal attack, that one is antisemitic (and yes Debresser that is generally taken as a synonym of anti-Jewish) to continue with another personal attack that they are anti-Jewish and anti-Israel, is somewhat bizarre. That this very user has repeatedly complained about personal attacks and civility, including recently at this very board, in which he said of Nishidani that he has a habit of putting down his fellow editors, making denigrating comments about them, makes that a rather blatant example of cognitive dissonance. Debresser repeatedly denigrates other editors, and he routinely fails to abide by the basic principle of WP:NPA that one comments on content, not on the contributors, and he does this on talk pages and it disrupts good faith editing. Debresser has requested others be banned for much less blatant personal attacks than calling one an antisemite, what's good for the goose ... nableezy - 04:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

I have come back after a month’s suspension to edit the I/P area after this judgement, brought by Debresser. While surprised by that judgement, as is my rule, I did not contest it. On returning I undertook to strictly conform to the rules I was judged to have violated.

Stating I intended to resume work here immediately generated a comment by Debresser, itself innocuous.noting my return as though it were newsworthy, he then added that I had failed to live up to my word not to return. This elicited a sneering comment by the editor he linked to. That is the background.

(1) I started to work on the article on Shuafat. Debresser immediately took my presence there as evidence I was angling to clash with him. Apart from the needless WP:AGF violation imputing to me that I was seeking a pretext to attack him, the assertion is demonstrably counterfactual. Since 2008, I have edited the Shuafat page 23 times whereas Debresser has made just 6 edits since May 2016. Likewise I have made 67 edits to the talk page (42.14% of the total) and Debresser only appeared there after I advanced a proposal. If one must make an inference it would be that, upset by my return, Debresser followed me to that page and sought a confrontation, accusing me of seeking one. He repeats this in his first reply above, accusing me of doing what I think he did, 'escalating' things. Indeed.

I made a single edit, introducing the most recent scholarly source I could find to clarify an issue and Debresser immediately rewrote my wording, in a way that was openly provocative. I can take any amount of niggling, but I am extremely impatient with source falsification. His edit summary falsified the facts, since it denied the source used the words ‘no longer’. The source uses those words twice. Falsifying a source is a very serious thing, or used to be considered so. Interfering with my first edit on blatantly false grounds looks provocative. I raised the issue of source falsification on the talk page, asking D for an explanation.

Debresser answered with a personal attack accusing me of engaging in WP:DRAMA, and he ignored clarifying the point and simply told me to to shut up (‘be quiet for a while!.’.

(2)I went to the Archaeology of Israel page. There was an old problem there. 2 editors, myself and User:Poliocretes were in favour of mentioning a third of the artifacts dug up in that field annually are Christian. Debresser alone has reverted all efforts to add the item. To resolve this old problem, I set up an RfC for external comment. I noted – it is verifiable on the talk page – that despite 2 editors being in favour and only Debresser opposed – he kept reverting it off the page. Hence my request for external imput. Debresser’s reaction was to personalize this,also here andhere by citing a statement regarding the edit on this by User:GoldenRing at AE which earned me a suspension, as if that remark evened opinion to 2/2. I put up an RfC to resolve a conflict, and Debresser kept on referring to that AE suspension, as if it invalidated my proposal, and the RfC.

(3) Soon after, as I tried to keep the argument focused, Debresser expressed diffidence about my whole outlook as an editor by insinuating I and the other editor were anti-semitic. That is one strong implication of referring to an 'anti-Jewish camp' on that page. It cannot refer to anyone else.

This was duly retracted at my request, signifying D realized it was inappropriate. A day later however, disconcertingly, he retracted his retraction here andfinissed it with a variation adding anti-Israeli as a further innuendo. For the record the article on Antisemitism uses the word ‘anti-Jewish’ as synonymous with anti-semitic.

I asked the editor to strike out the offensive smear again. I also held off from Friday to late Saturday from raising this issue in consideration of the Sabbath, intervened to ask Huldra to give Debresser more time, and requested an indisputably neutral and level-headed I/P hand, Kingsindian to put in a word with Debresser to erase the offensive remark. Unfortunately, as I discovered this morning, it was too late.

To sum up, Debresser, challenging my return, followed me to Shuafat and falsified the source I used while messing up the text and (2) started baiting me about my putative 'anti-Jewish' attitude, admitted it should be retracted, then reinserted the offending words, and added 'anti-israel' as well, and refused to budge on the issue when asked to cancel the offensive language. It is, in both cases I believe, evidence of the WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT approach identified by Lord Roem a year ago. Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli are regularly conflated by both sides of the Arab-Israeli dispute.

@GoldenRing.This is wildly inaccurate. You are saying those who are critical of Israel's policies regarding Palestinians confuse 'anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist, and anti-israeli'. That is not their language at all. To the contrary serious critics are pertinaciously exact in distinguishing Jews, Zionism, and Israel, whereas their opponents conflate them.

I'd like some explanation as to why being defamed as hostile to Jews and to Israel is a piffling offense. Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein. I have difficulty in seeing how a denial a given source has two words, when anyone clicking on the page can see that the source repeats those two words twice, is a content dispute. Debresser can dispute the content of the article. Disputing the known, independently verifiably content of the source page is not a content dispute. It is falsifying the evidence. In the old days, editors were banned at sight for doing that.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Icewhiz. Please focus. The material you cited confirms that conflating 'anti Jewish', 'Anti-Zionist' and 'anti-Israel' is what one side, pro-Israeli, does. GoldenRing was making a different claim, that both sides do this. As all close readers of the topic know, this is not correct. It is a highly political and rhetorical stratagem to conflate criticism of Israeli policies (not Israel) with being anti-Jewish and/or anti-Israeli and/or even anti-Zionist (I can name off the cuff many Jewish Zionists who are critical of those policies. Please don't add to the initial confusion.Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NMMGG. Your ideas about anti-Zionism don't jell with the evidence at Anti-Zionism or better still Timeline of anti-Zionism. It has a long and very intricate history within modern Jewish thought, and violently 'dismantling' Israel has nothing to do with its maincurrents. Just to clarify since there's a lot of confusion around here on terminology.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to a bunch of editors trying to disconnect 'ancient Jewish heritage from today's Jews', don't blame editors for trying to keep Wikipedia updated on contemporary scholarship, in Israel or elsewhere, by Jewish and non-Jewish scholars. No one I know here who might be put in that dock cites anything but the technical literature, which, unfortunately is generally ignored in the public sphere, and therefore, to those unfamiliar with, can seem disconcerting.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NMMGG. Since you apparently (a) have dozens of examples of how a 'group' of editors secretly remove and meddle with texts (suddenly this secret is revealed) (b) and you anticipate that your interpretation of what I might say regarding any one example will take it as mere 'spin', it is pointless answering, except in these terms: if you look at the last thousand edits of any of that 'group', you will find an extremely high percentage of the edits are reffed and linked to academic publications. If you look at what other editors -the revert and tweak school- are doing, this use of high RS plummets. But this is wasting AE time. I have stated my views sufficiently.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

I confirmed that Nishidani's claim of "source falsification" is correct. Debresser changed the meaning of Nishidani's edit five minutes after Nishidani made it, using edit summary 'The source does not say "no longer", just states a different opinion'. The source ([27]) uses "no longer" twice in the first paragraph, and it unequivocally sums up current knowledge, overturning an earlier finding from 1993 that was based on "general information". Describing that merely as a "different opinion" is highly misleading, and summarizing the source as "Others do not consider" falsifies what the source said. Standard procedure would be for Debresser to ask at WP:RSN about the reliablity of the source, a scholarly overview published in 2013 by Brill Publishers and written by Professor Rachel Hachlili from the Zinman Institute of Archaeology at the University of Haifa. Moreover, Talk:Shuafat#False edit summary shows unacceptable aggression from Debresser. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Not helping us to resolve this GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
GoldenRing, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Only one "side" of the dispute regularly conflates criticism of Israel or its policies or actions with antisemitism. If you don't believe "anti-Jewish" is the same as antisemitic, I recommend you read an encyclopedia article about antisemitism or consult a dictionary. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I think Debresser did not mean to accuse Nishidani or Huldra of anti-Semitism, and most likely referred to a political POV. But their choice of words was bad and clumsy, and they should have struck it out when asked. I think Debresser doesn't realize even now that their usage was inflammatory. It might be simply be a language issue.

Leaving aside anti-Semitism issue, the charges about personal attacks are correct. As I said in the last AE request, some amount of heat is to be expected in this area (and other political areas). The questions which should be asked are the following. Does the overall discussion concentrate on the content? Are the participants trying to argue in good faith, and are amenable to compromise? I believe this is true (this was true of the last request as well, but the admins thought otherwise). This matter should simply not have escalated this far.

I don't think an indefinite ban would be proportionate to the offence. Something milder should be pursued first.

Finally, a word about the "source misrepresentation" issue. Debresser is clearly wrong in their edit summary. The source clearly uses the words; Debresser either didn't read carefully or didn't care, and didn't accept their error. They, however, did edit their own text in the article to mitigate some of the error (which is still not enough) Anyone can make a mistake, but one hopes that they accept it if it is pointed out. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

This is a distraction GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Conflation of anti-Israel or anti-zionism with anti-semitism is a widely asserted claim. Various books (e.g. [28] [29] [30] [31]), and even the president of France today - Macron: Anti-Zionism Is a Reinvented Form of anti-Semitism, Jule 16 2017. Conflating the two is a legitimate political viewpoint. The specific content dispute regarded redacting ancient Jewish (more than 2,000 years ago) history of a modern location in the land of Israel - which would be hard to label as anti-Israel or anti-Zionist as Israel did not exist back then. It seems Debresser's use of anti-Jewish was intended to label this action of redacting ancient Jewish history (which was not Zionist or Israeli) - an action not limited to the Shuafat article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

This isn't helping GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is totally scurrilous to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. The main difficulty here is that there is no evidence at all that the editors in question are anti-Jewish. More broadly, the equation is illegitimate insofar as it suggests that Jews cannot be critical of Israel (when in fact many Israeli Jews are very critical of their own country/government). In any event, this way of viewing/treating other editors is poisonous and completely unhelpful in this topic area. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

This is a distraction GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since making pronouncements ex cathedra seems to be the order of the day, I'll make a few of my own for the consideration of the assembled AE admins.

"Anti-Jewish", "antisemitic", "anti-Israel", and "anti-Zionist" are not all exact cognates. Of them, "anti-Jewish" and "antisemitic" are equivalent, and "ant-Zionist" and "anti-Israel" are very close in meaning, but not exactly the same. It is true that many who oppose Israel do so from antisemitic motivations, but one can oppose the policies of that state, or even, in extremis, its very existence, without being anti-Jewish or antisemitic. In the real world, though, given the close correlation between them, it's no wonder that "one side of the debate" would see them as equivalent.

All of which is perhaps interesting, but also probably irrelevant. Debresser used "anti-Jewish" (meaning antisemitic), and struck it out, only to return it connected to "anti-Israel". Even if one wishes to be tolerant of the strong feelings in this area and issue a pass for "anti-Israel", "anti-Jewish" (antisemitic) was never permanently struck out. Since that is the case, Debresser is guilty of a personal attack in calling another editor a racist without evidence of such.

In the examination of the various words involved, one should not lose sight of the fact that "anti-Jewish" remained on the table, and was apparently a deliberate choice, as it was returned after having been struck out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

This is a distraction - and please don't take the opportunity to drag up ancient history GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

First of all, "anti-Zionism" is not "criticism of the Israeli government", it is a movement to have Israel dismantled, violently. Very few Jews support it and many Jews and non-Jews alike find it to be based on antisemitism or antisemitic in practice. Let's try not to obfuscate that point.

Second, what Debresser was probably trying to say here is that there's a group of editors who methodically attempt to disconnect ancient Jewish heritage from today's Jews. They try to dilute ancient Jewish connections to the Land of Israel, and the connection between today's Jews and ancient Jews. I can easily support this with diffs if anyone cares (I know. Nobody does). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani, that self-serving description does not jive with the actual practice of the aforementioned group. Let me give you an example (just one out of literally dozens I can provide) that's relevant to this case. In the Shuafat article we're discussing, Huldra, the editor who submitted this AE, made this edit with a "ce" edit summary (ie, it's just a copyedit). She moved two large chunks of text, while surreptitiously removing "Archaeologists believe stone basins discovered at the site were used to hold ashes from the destroyed Temple" and adding "However, no remains of ritual baths were discovered, therefor doubts remains about weather the inhabitants were Jews. The baths were probably used by the Romans". Feel free to explain how this is "trying to keep Wikipedia updated on contemporary scholarship". I look forward to seeing how you spin this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani, you made a claim. I posted proof that your claim is self-serving falsehood. You decline to refute my proof. I'll call that case closed. By the way, the above is just something I happened upon while looking at the history of the article this AE refers to. It's quite easy to show much worse abuse of academic sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System, thanks for the ping. It reminded me I wanted to address your "a pattern that is not conducive to improving the encyclopedia based on academic sources" above with these few examples of your edits (just the tip of the iceberg): [32] [33] [34] [35]. That's some high quality improvement of the encyclopedia using academic sources right there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K.e.coffman

I don't think this adds anything GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I followed the link provided by Debresser, and the full statement (after revision) was: ...but only if there would be some more input from editors who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish/Israeli camp. That's not only accusing fellow contributors of being anti-semites, but also of belonging to a "camp" of such problematic editors. Debresser's explanations on this thread have not been satisfactory, and I would support AE sanctions in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Debresser

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

The request is actionable. In calling another editor "anti-Jewish", which means the same as "anti-semitic", Debresser has personally attacked them, without providing, even when challenged here, appropriate evidence for such a charge. In addition, by insisting here that they meant to accuse the other editor of a political bias against Israel (for which they also do not provide evidence), they conflate opposition to Israel and opposition to Jews. Editors must comment on content, not on the contributor (WP:NPA). Such conduct is not acceptable, particular in this sensitive topic area. Considering Debresser's long list of blocks in this topic area, and a previous topic ban in July 2016, I intend to impose an indefinite topic ban. - As to the "source falsification" issue, the discussion at Talk:Shuafat#False edit summary indicates that this is probably more of a content dispute than a conduct issue, but there also Debresser uses a dismissive, aggressive tone ("be quiet for a while!"), which is also entirely inappropriate for a collegial, collaborative scholarly project such as ours. Sandstein 12:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more inclined to believe Debresser's explanation - anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli are regularly conflated by both sides of the Arab-Israeli dispute. It does still represent a beach of NPA - the comment is on editors and not on edits - but I don't think it necessarily amounts to the same as "anti-semitic". I'm still thinking about what is an appropriate response; the history is long, but the offense, to me, seems relatively minor. GoldenRing (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also remind editors commenting here that they are expected to assume good faith and edit collaboratively and constructively, even at AE. Recasting the evidence in your own words with the worst possible interpretation is a transparent assumption of bad faith and does not help your cause. GoldenRing (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned by the fact that Debresser wrote "All I did was notice, that her stance on the Israeli-Palestine conflict is such which shows her to be on the Palestine side of these political matters" as an explanation for calling an editor "anti-Jewish/Israel", as if this were a zero-sum game between two sharply delineated parties. Such black-and-white thinking (no matter which side is black) is not only far from a useful characterisation of the conflict, it also makes it very hard to edit cooperatively with editors who do not share his position exactly. For me, this suggest a (temporary) topic ban. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is actionable. While this topic area is rife with poor behavior on all sides (which Debresser is not innocent of), I'm inclined to believe the statement that Jew, Zionist and Israeli are often conflated. It is a personal attack, for sure, but I don't think an NPA block is warranted. This topic area is an inherently polarizing one, and accusing somebody of being against one partisan side is poor behavior, but hardly an uncommon offense in these parts. If we sanction for this case, we should also sanction the majority of contributors to the topic area for making similar accusations at one point of another. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have an "casting aspersions" restriction around the ethnicity/nationality of editors, including using their own self-declared status in arguments around the Kashmir conflict, enacted here after discussion -- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive196#TripWire. Something like that could be implemented here too. I believe it's helped in that area and could be beneficial here too. In this particular case I share Stephan Schulz' opinion. —SpacemanSpiff 03:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandstein. This is actionable. It is more than reasonable to assume (given editing history) that Debresser understands the whole meaning of the term "anti-Jewish". You would have to be completely ignorant of 20th century history to not understand it. Accusing someone of being anti-Semitic (which is an equivalent term) without evidence, is a bright line, even in this disputed territory. Given the opportunity to strike it, they did at first, then ante'd up, parsing slightly, but confirming their original comment was fully intended. I think an indefinite topic ban is appropriate. Per some other comments, if this sort of comment hasn't been properly policed in the past, it is high time it was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Debresser

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: Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Debresser (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topc ban from IP-related articles, see section above

Administrator imposing the sanction: GoldenRing (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 Debresser

I would like to see this sanction lifted for five reasons: 1. The main reason for the topic ban was "Seeking input from a wider group of editors is good; classifying the input of those already involved based on their perceived politics or ethnicity is not."[36] When an article relates to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and all editors commenting are members of WP:WikiProject Palestine, then it makes imminent sense to ask for input from editors who are members of WP:WikiProject Israel, and forbidding to do so is neither in the best interest of creating good articles, nor is it fair. 2. The admins who stressed that I had previously written "anti-Jewish" have not sufficiently paid attention to the fact, that I struck that later and replaced it by "anti-Jewish/Israeli", which is clearly and only a political distinction, since the conflict is between Jewish Israelis and Arab Palestinians. See the "Jewish Israelis"? Therefore, Sandstein is mistaken when he says I called another editor "anti-Jewish", because I struck that, and rightfully so. Likewise Peacemaker67 is wrong when he says that the later edit is "confirming their original comment was fully intended". How can he even say that, when I have explicitely stated and explained so many time the precise opposite. 3. The reporting editor came with unclean hands, since she herself was reported just a few days before for hiding POV edits in the IP-area behind misleading edit summaries, and has herself violated 1RR in the IP-area just today: [37][38], for which she should be sanctioned herself. Or is the unclean hands doctrine not applicable on Wikipedia? 4. None of the admins related to my accusation that Huldra was just trying to get back to me for my report of her (as mentioned above), and she and Nishidani are just trying to get back to me for having Nishidani topic banned for one month (see Nishidani's talkpage, where he keep extensive records regarding my edits). 5. I think that the decision in the WP:AE case was made too early, within less than 48 hours. I think that more admins would have added their input, with some likely agreeing with the point of view of The Wordsmith, that this is not actionable. I myself would have reacted to comments by admins, and possibly been able to make them change their mind. Pressures from real life have prevented me from going online regularly, but less than 48 hours is not enough to fully discuss issues which, as the admins section itself clearly shows, are not unequivocal. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity I was at the time of that edit not aware of the ban. As you can see, I made that edit a few minutes before I noticed the notification on my talkpage, and replied to it. Debresser (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Debresser

Editing Cave of the Patriarchs [39] to add a "see also" for List of World Heritage Sites in Israel doesn't seem like a wise first edit following the imposition of the topic ban. (Key detail: Hebron is not located in Israel, so the edit seems like POV-pushing at best.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Debresser

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 688: / Line 688: @@
 I would like to see this sanction lifted for five reasons: 1. The main reason for the topic ban was "Seeking input from a wider group of editors is good; classifying the input of those already involved based on their perceived politics or ethnicity is not."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Debresser&diff=790969632&oldid=790969550] When an article relates to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and all editors commenting are members of [[WP:WikiProject Palestine]], then it makes imminent sense to ask for input from editors who are members of [[WP:WikiProject Israel]], and forbidding to do so is neither in the best interest of creating good articles, nor is it fair. 2. The admins who stressed that I had previously written "anti-Jewish" have not sufficiently paid attention to the fact, that I struck that later and replaced it by "anti-Jewish/Israeli", which is clearly and only a political distinction, since the conflict is between ''Jewish Israelis'' and ''Arab Palestinians''. See the "Jewish Israelis"? Therefore, Sandstein is mistaken when he says I called another editor "anti-Jewish", because I struck that, and rightfully so. Likewise Peacemaker67 is wrong when he says that the later edit is "confirming their original comment was fully intended". How can he even say that, when I have explicitely stated and explained so many time the precise opposite. 3. The reporting editor came with [[unclean hands]], since [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive958#Huldra.27s_.22ce.22|she herself was reported]] just a few days before for hiding POV edits in the IP-area behind misleading edit summaries, and has herself violated 1RR in the IP-area just today: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Or_Yehuda&diff=790763688&oldid=790664332][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Or_Yehuda&diff=790912273&oldid=790806595], for which she should be sanctioned herself. Or is the [[unclean hands]] doctrine not applicable on Wikipedia? 4. None of the admins related to my accusation that Huldra was just trying to get back to me for my report of her (as mentioned above), and she and Nishidani are just trying to get back to me for having Nishidani topic banned for one month (see [[User_talk:Nishidani#AE_comments|Nishidani's talkpage]], where he keep extensive records regarding my edits). 5. I think that the decision in the WP:AE case was made too early, within less than 48 hours. I think that more admins would have added their input, with some likely agreeing with the point of view of The Wordsmith, that this is not actionable. I myself would have reacted to comments by admins, and possibly been able to make them change their mind. Pressures from real life have prevented me from going online regularly, but less than 48 hours is not enough to fully discuss issues which, as the admins section itself clearly shows, are not unequivocal. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 19:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
+@Nomoskedasticity I was at the time of that edit not aware of the ban. As you can see, I made that edit a few minutes before I noticed the notification on my talkpage, and replied to it. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 20:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 ===Statement by GoldenRing===

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