Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dlthewave

Warning retracted, page restored--Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions being appealed: Discussion Log

Logged warning by Sandstein
Deletion of User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles by Goldenring

Administrators imposing the sanctions

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of those administrators

Sandstein

Goldenring

Statement by Dlthewave

I feel that the closing statement "Springee, Trekphiler, RAF910 and Dlthewave are warned not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities.", which appears to be copy-and-pasted from WP:POLEMIC, is not an accurate assessment of consensus among the admins who participated in the discussion. Among other things, it implies that all four editors are equally at fault, which does not appear to be what the admins intended in their support for a logged warning. Although Goldenring did delete a page in my userspace under WP:POLEMIC, there was no discussion of my "attacking" or "vilifying" anyone and one admin even stated "Dlthewave is in fact engaged in appropriate editing and discussion." There was no proposal to issue a logged warning to Dlthewave. (As a sidenote, I also feel that issuing a polemic warning to the other three involved editors instead of a warning related to talk page conduct was entirely out of left field, but that is something for them to address in their own appeals if they choose to pursue them.)
I feel that Goldenring's deletion of a page in my userspace, User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles, has a chilling effect on my ability to document and share what I view as a long-term pattern in the gun control/gun crime topic area. This documentation plays an essential role in addressing current problems that are, in my opinion, a continuation of that pattern. My intention is to demonstrate a pattern and not to attack the individual editors who have been involved in that pattern. This removal is especially concerning when the "opposing" attacks and accusations which I documented are allowed to remain in full view at WP:Firearms and other talk pages. I would be open to discussing ways to do this that would not be viewed as an attack page, since similar pages maintained by other editors have passed MfD.

Although this deletion may have been within Goldenring's editorial discretion, I would like it to be reviewed by other admins and preferably discussed by the community at Miscellany for Deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a Deletion Review here as suggested. –dlthewave ☎ 21:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

After rereading User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, I agree with the appellant that the page was not (quite) a violation of WP:POLEMIC because it did not name editors and did not make allegations of misconduct, except as implied in the title ("whitewashing"), but that alone probably doesn't merit a warning. Because that page was the reason for my warning, I am striking it and recommend that GoldenRing (talk · contribs) undelete the page. A case can perhaps be made for its deletion on grounds of copyright / attribution, but that's a matter for the deletion process. Sandstein 18:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment here, I've also withdrawn the warning with respect to Springee. Clearly I should have read the enforcement request more carefully; sorry for that. I think that we should be more careful in the future as to whether or not to entertain enforcement requests directed at multiple editors. Sandstein 22:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Bishonen, GoldenRing is correct that an action that has been labeled as an AE action may only be reviewed by way of the process described at WP:AC/DS#Appeals, that is, here at AE, or at AN or ARCA – but not at DRV. Bishonen, I recommend that you undo your temporary restoration of the page for the purpose of the DRV, or you may be desysopped for undoing an AE action out of process, as described at WP:AC/DS#Modifications by administrators. Any admin who acts on the currently ongoing DRV by overturning the deletion may likewise be desysopped. Sandstein 15:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

I'm clearly an involved editor. As I said before I think Dlthewave has a very strong POV on this topic and I frequently disagree with them. However, when push comes to shove, I don't think on good faith they viewed the page as a POLMIC. For what it's worth, I would support reverting Dlthewave's warning. Springee (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

I disagree with Sandstein above and stand by this action. Dlthewave has stated right here that the purpose of this page is to document long-term problematic editing and policy is clear that such material is allowed only for dispute resolution and when used in a timely manner. I don't see the practical difference between, "so-and-so said this" (which the appellant seems to admit would be disallowed) and "someone said this and here's a link showing who it was" which is what they've actually done. GoldenRing (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I'm not sure why you've suggested deletion review here. AE actions cannot be overturned at deletion review, only at AE, AN or ARCA. Have you also not just unilaterally undone an AE action? GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: I will reiterate here what I've said on the deletion review: if you wish to use this material for valid dispute resolution (probably either an ANI or arbitration case request) and can outline a reasonable timeline for doing so (either on-wiki or privately by email), then I will self-revert my enforcement action. GoldenRing (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add, for what it's worth at this point, that I agree a formal warning to Dlthewave was not warranted. GoldenRing (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have requested clarification from the arbitration committee regarding my deletion at WP:ARCA. GoldenRing (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

Marginally involved. I just found out about the removal of DLThewave's excellent summary of the challenges faced to bring firearms into compliance with WP:N including the way that a wikiproject has tried to present their MOS suggestions as policy. I've said as much at another venue, but this is definitely not a violation of WP:POLEMIC and should be undeleted for the valuable resource it is. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dlthewave

The matter of the deletion itself should be deferred to WP:DRV as that venue is much better equipped for such reviews. Whether or not the action itself was appropriate should be discussed here or in a more general manner at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee (where Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions redirects). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Dlthewave

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

I commented in the initial thread, so I'm not sure whether my response should appear in this section, or above with GoldenRing's and Sandstein's. The deletion of Dlthewave's userspace subpage was arguably appropriate under WP:POLEMIC, and within reasonable admin discretion on GoldenRing's part. While I'm not sure I would have done the same, I'm comfortable leaving the page deleted. That said, I don't think a formal warning to Dlthewave is warranted; there wasn't really any support for such a warning amongst uninvolved admins in the previous thread, and it seems like overkill. The proper response to a potentially polemical userspace subpage is to delete it, which has been done. There wasn't any convincing evidence of a pattern of behavior warranting a logged warning on Dlthewave's part, at least not that I saw.
Regarding the logged warnings, I do take Springee's point that they perhaps paint the remaining 3 editors with an overly broad brush. There are clearly gradations of concerning behavior, with Springee on the mild end and Trekphiler/RAF910 showing a much more sustained and problematic battleground attitude. I'll leave it up to other admins whether we should modify the warning to exclude Springee, but it is worth considering while we're here. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This is definitely a confusing situation. Reading the deleted page, it does seem borderline WP:POLEMIC so, perhaps, GoldenRing was right in deleting it. But, Dlthewave brings up a good point. If they do plan on making a future case then how else can they keep a record of the edits they see as forming a pattern? They could do it off-wiki of course, but isn't it better to be open about one's activities? While the deletion was within admin discretion perhaps, in cases of this nature, it is better to leave them as is with a note to the editor that they can't leave it sticking around for too long. Imo, the warning should be withdrawn. --regentspark (comment) 00:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about deleting the whitewashing essay; I can't seem to make up my mind. Suggest dlthewave take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. An admin should be asked to temporarily undelete the page for purposes of discussion as soon as the DR is opened. But I don't have any trouble agreeing with Sandstein, Springee, MastCell, and Regentspark that dlthewave's warning should be withdrawn and struck from the log, and Sandstein has already done so. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Dlthewave:, I've temporarily undeleted your page for the deletion review. Bishonen | talk 22:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Your deletion can't be overturned at Deletion review, GoldenRing? Are you sure? In that case, obviously I suggested it because I didn't know any better. A bit of bad luck that apparently nobody who did know saw my suggestion for Deletion review here at AE, some 20 hours before Dlthewave actually opened the deletion review. I'm not sure what should be the next step, considering there is quite a lot of discussion at the review already, and some disagreement about how to proceed. But whatever action is taken, rest assured I won't feel "undermined" by it, as somebody suggested there. I'm personally fine with whatever, although I want to apologize to Dlthewave for potentially complicating his situation. As for "Have you also not just unilaterally undone an AE action?", no, I haven't. If you're referring to my temporary undeletion of the page, for the deletion review only and with the front page covered by a template, per the instructions here, I can only ask you not to be so silly. If you're talking about my giving Dlthewave bad advice, well, I've explained how that came about (=ignorance on my part). Bishonen | talk 12:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

What an absolute joy you are to work with, Sandstein. It's a wonder more admins don't flock to help out at AE, where honest mistakes get met with immediate threats of desysopping. I do want to point out that there's a pretty clear consensus at DRV that the page doesn't violate WP:POLEMIC. @GoldenRing:, do I understand correctly that you are not going to recognize that consensus because it is being discussed on the Wrong Page^(TM)? If this is the case, then I suppose we should tell everyone at DRV their opinions are not wanted there, re-delete the page, and then have the exact same discussion here. Or alternately, GR could rescind the deletion.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I not only agree that restoring the page for deletion review is not an abuse of process, but that deleting the page via AE would be an abuse of process. The way to remove userspace essays that are contrary to policy is MfD., and review of decisions there is at Deletion Review. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, do you intend to delete under AE every page in an area subject to DS (such as AP or PIA) that you think might arguably be the result of an action that violation an arb ruling,? DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I have just noticed, Sandstein, that your closing at the AE Discussion used the wording of the arb case "for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, " but the entire discussion above about whether it violated POLEMIC is irrelevant, because the page is obviously related to WP. And the arb com wording continued " attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. " I do not see any editors named on the page in question. It was discussing edits. (Of course the editors were implied, because the statements wee linked, but nothing about the editors is question is said on the page, only about the edits. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been stalled for a month, the deletion review was closed as consensus to overturn, and we need to proceed in one or other way. I see consensus to withdraw the warning, and this has been already done by Sandstein. The situation is more difficult with the deletion of the page, but if I take into account all opinions at DRV and also that all uninvolved admins here who commented after the close of the DRV supported undeletion, I would say there is consensus to undelete. I will wait a couple of days before closing, may be somebody wanted to comment and forgot or overlooked this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support User:Ymblanter's idea of undoing the AE deletion of the page, based on the apparent consensus of admins in this thread. Arbcom is still debating whether 'AE deletion' can ever be considered to be an option, but there is no risk of any conflict with Arbcom if the present deletion is simply undone on the merits. (We would be closing as though AE deletion was really allowed, but this *particular* deletion was reversed through the normal AE appeal process). It appears that a deletion review has already occurred which supported restoration of the page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

Debresser (talk · contribs) is banned from creating or making comments in WP:AE reports related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except if they are the editor against whom enforcement is requested. Sandstein 16:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA :

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

[1] WP:HOUNDING violation. Nishidani had never edited that article or its talkpage before. In addition, his edit was poisoning the well.
[2][3][4] Using the f-word. Nishidani does so even after he was asked to stop this: [5]. In the past he has been warned at this same WP:AE to stop this behavior: [6] and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive200#Nishidani. In addition, his appearance on this article was likely also a case of hounding, as Nishidani had never edited that article or its talkpage before.
[7][8] Repeated and deliberate violations of my request not to edit on my talkpage. The second edit was made after I reminded him of that: [9].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: Nishidani has been a regular guest here from early stages onwards, with topic bans and more bans, blocks, and warnings like the one cited above from archive 200, and even a few self-imposed periods of penitence which failed to last long.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I haven't seen Nishidani around in a while after his latest announced retirement ended (admittedly not after a week but after 6 weeks), but he unfortunately has still not mended his bad ways. His inflammatory and insulting language, consciously or not intended to intimidate his opponents, coupled with hounding and harassing me on various pages, including my talkpage, are unacceptable battleground behavior on this project, and especially in the IP-conflict area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

@Huldra

Wow! Three examples in more than 10 years and 100,000 edits. Compare that to the 3 edits of Nishidani made within 10 hours, and you more or less made my point for me. And please also see this reply. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and, by the way, that was only one of the three issues I reported. Debresser (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite The hounding and general battleground mentality are a result of Nishidani's problem with me, which is rooted on our disagreements in the WP:ARBPIA area. If this forum would, however, decide, IMHO mistakenly so in view of the larger picture, that this is the wrong venue, I will indeed take your advice and report him at WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328

You are confusing the content issue with the behavioral issue. This post is about the behavioral issue.
I really think you should take back the statement or implication that I oppose certain images because of my personal believes. That was unwarranted and severely out of line. Debresser (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a big difference between being aggravated by an especially unpleasant editor once every 3-4 years and then using the f-word in the heat of the moment, between using it systematically to intimidate other editors and in spite of several requests and warnings to refrain from doing so! Debresser (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Nishidani

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 Nishidani

I don't think I need comment, after Cullen's palmary reflection. If I were to, it would be easy to show Debresser's behavior in my regard has been persistently vexatious. But since on principle I refrain from whingeing, I won't do so even under provocation (unless of course an admin thinks I need to defend myself from the 'evidence' given above).Nishidani (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'especially unpleasant editor'. Many things are forgotten, and mountains are made of molehiles. Once, Debresser, you violated a 3 month ban by editing a page, Temple Mount, and correcting my edit. You self-reverted when alerted to the technical risk by Sir Joseph. Noting this, what did I do? I reassured you with an undertaking I have stuck to, that I would never use petty slips to try and get at you in an administrative forum. O tempora o mores!.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Debresser to an editor: "Go fuck your righteous self."
Debresser to another editor: "If, however, you care to read a few basic Wikipedia guidelines and FUCKING DOES AS OUTLINED THERE,"
Debresser to a third editor (me): "why the fuck wouldn't you use the word "evacuate" unless you had a pro-Palestinian POV from here till Ramallah, huh?"

Pot.Kettle.Black, Huldra (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Debresser, and I hope you take this as honest advice, but I would suggest that inviting scrutiny to the editing history of Eliezer Berland would likely not be in your own interest. If you do however want to invite that scrutiny then this cannot be the place for it, as this page is very specifically about enforcing arbitration decisions. Neither of the articles here are covered by ARBPIA (or any other arbitration case), making them irrelevant on this page. nableezy - 02:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this seems relevant here. nableezy - 03:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: youve attributed noble pursuits to me that I regretfully cannot take credit for. nableezy - 03:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I am involved in discussing the content issues at the talk pages of both articles. Debresser brought the Eliezer Berland dispute to ANI, incorrectly accusing another editor of refusing to discuss the dispute at the article talk page. Debresser was edit warring on that article to include promotional self-published puffery from a website controlled by a convicted, self-admitted rapist. As for Talk:Jewish religious clothing, there was an active RFC underway there, which draws in previously uninvolved editors. Surely Debresser knows that processes such as RFC and venues such as ANI draw previously uninvolved editors such as Nishidani into the discussions. This is not hounding. I do not like use of the f-bomb in conversations among editors, do not use it myself and recommend that other editors refrain from its use. But there is no consensus that this word is banned from spirited debates among editors. Debresser seems to be advocating a stranger standard here: it is OK for him to drop f-bombs every 33,000 edits or so, but not OK for other editors to do so more frequently. As for ARBPIA, these are both topics related to Judaism but neither has any connection to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. If Eliezer Berland was related to that conflict, then Debresser's edit warring there would have been even more egregious. As for Talk:Jewish religious clothing, Nishidani is advocating for genuine improvements to that article, while Debresser is dragging his feet, because he does not like images and content that deviate from his admitted personal ultra-Orthodox Jewish identity. I recommend that Nishidani dial back use of the f-bombs because I consider that counterproductive. Nishidani should also be advised to stay away from Debresser's talk page, with the exception of standard required notifications. In my opinion, the real cause of this report is that Debresser resents the fact that a pro-Palestinian editor is making cogent and incisive observations about articles concerning Jewish topics. That is nothing to be concerned about and instead should be welcomed. No formal action is required here other than mild admonitions to the two parties. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy, I apologize for my error in confusing the usernames of two editors whose usernames begin with N and both of whom I respect. I could blame my smartphone's AI spellchecker, but instead I accept the responsibility. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Nableezy properly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Note there was a recent RfC at WP:CIVIL regarding "fuck off" - Wikipedia talk:Civility#Request for comment on the specific term "fuck off" – sanctionable or not! that concluded that "This discussion has been open for long enough that there is a coherent outcome. Namely, most of us agree that "fuck off" is definitely uncivil in many contexts, and incivility is sanctionable, but consideration should be given to the surrounding context of each instance before deciding to apply sanctions ....". Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dan Murphy

For fuck's sake. Debresser was formally warned against filing any more "vexatious" arbitration requests. Less than six months ago. So there is some enforcement to be done here. Here is what the closing admin said of Debresser's ongoing pattern of behavior at the time:

"On a number of occasions, Debresser has improperly presented requests for arbitration enforcement. Taken as a pattern, Debresser's actions are an abuse of process that is serving to inflame tensions in topic areas that already are heated. Furthermore, whilst Wikipedia process pages are internal, conduct such as abuse of process itself, indirectly, affects the external topic area that is subject to arbitration enforcement. Conduct such as Debresser's is therefore equivalent in seriousness to tendentious or disruptive editing of content pages. I therefore formally warn Debresser that continuing such conduct will result in enforcement action, such as restrictions from requesting enforcement, blocks, and topic bans."

You'd be foolish just to punt on this problem. His dissembling and dishonest presentation of disputes only grows worse when he isn't disciplined.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nishidani

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

Um, surely this is the wrong venue. The talkpage posts are irrelevant to ARBPIA and the two articles on which the edits took place aren't covered by it either. If you want to complain about Nishidani's general behaviour, ANI is thataway. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Black Kite says, I do not see this dispute falling within the scope of ARBPIA. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these edits have nothing to do with the I-P dispute, and are therefore clearly outside the scope of sanctions. Dan Murphy notes that Debresser has been warned not to file vexatious AE reports such as this one. I also agree with Huldra's observations that complaining about expletives cannot be taken seriously from users who use expletives themselves. I am banning Debresser from filing AE requests in the I-P topic area or commenting on them unless they are the editor against whom enforcement is requested. Sandstein 16:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz

No action with respect to Icewhiz (without prejudice against another admin taking action). Nishidani is blocked for a week and banned from creating or making comments in WP:AE reports related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except if they are the editor against whom enforcement is requested. Sandstein 14:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Icewhiz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

Tendentious editing is defined in WP:TE as a manner of editing that is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions. WP:ARBPIA3#Tendentious editing further says that Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring may be banned from the affected articles. I believe the evidence below demonstrates that Icewhiz is such an editor engaging in sustained tendentious editing.

Icewhiz routinely removes material on spurious grounds when that material is, in his view, negative towards Israel. He will routinely make opposing arguments based solely on the POV presented. He will oppose reliable sources when it suits him and support unreliable sources when it suits him, sometimes making the exact opposite argument nearly simultaneously depending on the POV of the source.

Rouzan al-Najjar

In this edit (7 June 2018) Icewhiz places in the article material on footage that was doctored by the IDF, footage that was widely denounced as a propaganda ploy
In this edit (8 June 2018) Icewhiz restores that she was "allegedly shot" by the IDF, when the cited source says flat out as shot dead by Israeli troops the previous day along the Israel-Gaza border. ... Razan Najjar, a 21-year-old volunteer paramedic, was shot as she tried to help evacuate wounded near Israel's perimeter fence with Gaza. Yes, that was a revert of an IP editor. However, the material had likewise been added by an IP, with Icewhiz editing directly after and not enforcing the general prohibition there. And even if the revert is excused by the general prohibition, we all take responsibility for our reverts. When Icewhiz restored the edit he took responsibility for its content. That content being quite different from what the cited source said.
In this edit (11 June 2018) Icewhiz removes all of the content critical of the IDF's manipulation, changing misleadingly took a prior interview that al-Najjar gave to a Lebanese television station out of context to cut a short segment of a prior interview that al-Najjar gave to a Lebanese television station in which she He also removed the rest of the statement, a statement that every reliable source covering the manipulation included as demonstrating that the IDF manipulation was done to mischaracterize her words.

When asked about why he removed what every reliable source had said about the doctoring of the video, he responded That is a factual representation of this 10 second clip.

Restores an op-ed by a political activist (1 January 2019). On the talk page he argues that this should be retained because it was published in an RS. Compare to his removal of an op-ed published in a reliable source which he said was Random opinion of non-politician/expert - UNDUE and on the talk page said of highly fringe political activist, in an op-ed. That is his arguments are diametrically opposed based solely on the POV of the op-ed. Where it supports his POV he argues for inclusion, when it opposes it he argues for exclusion. I dont think there is a better example of tendentious editing than making the opposite argument based solely on POV.

In sum, his efforts at Rouzan al-Najjar consisted of originally pushing propaganda, removing that it was propaganda when covered by numerous reliable sources as such, and pushing in opinion pieces of the sort he rejected when it suited his own POV elsewhere.

Israeli occupation of the West Bank

In this (13 December 2018) and this edit Icewhiz removes a source, and all material cited to it, as "propaganda" and claims the source is misrepresented because we included the wrong publisher. The living person who he says was "propaganda minister", which if I am not mistaken is a pretty blatant BLP violation, is in fact the former Information Minister (in charge of election polls and TV and other media licensing) and Foreign Minister. Note that Google Books includes the wrong publisher, which is Kluwer Law International and not Brill. Instead of correcting the error, the entire source is removed. The book is edited by two academics (Moshe Maoz and Sari Nusseibeh) and published by a respected press, but Icewhiz's BLP violation of an edit summary ignores all of that to excise material he dislikes on the most spurious of grounds.
His other contribution of note (25 January 2019) was to excise about half of the article unilaterally. The removed information was uniformly of material that has garnered criticism of Israel. He completely removed, not condensed or moved to sub-articles or anything else that might be justified by WP:SIZE, reliably sourced material on comparisons to colonialism, on terminology bias, on American media bias, on land seizures, on the history of the settlement enterprise, the entirety of the section on settler violence, most of the material on torture, the impact on children, on fragmentation, the road closure system, censorship, restrictions on Palestinian agriculture, on the use of the territory as a waste zone. What he removed had one common thread. It was reliably sourced material that dealt with topics that have drawn criticism of Israel's methods. No attempt at justifying the removal, not splitting but straight up removal, was ever even attempted besides a vague wave to WP:SIZE. He made no attempt to summarize, no attempt to split. It was purely a tactic to excise material that Icewhiz would rather not be covered on Wikipedia.

Tendentious editing regarding sources

Here (25 July 2018) Icewhiz argues that a "part-time historian" (his words) would be perfectly fine for an attributed statement. Compare that to here (15 June 2018), where an actual historian who has been published by academic presses is rejected as definitely a WP:BIASED source, and would require balancing at the very least. The only consistency in Icewhiz's arguments regarding sources is when they are supportive of his POV he encourages their use, and when they are not he opposes them.
Removes Yael Berda per WP:BLOGS (8 April 2019). Note that this is hosted by Stanford University Press, where the author had just had a book on this topic published which WP:BLOGS says means her self-published work is allowed (established expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications). Compare that to this (17 March 2019) where Icewhiz argues for the inclusion of material referenced to IDFBlog.com (now defunct) for attributed quotes. However, a blog entry by an author who is academically published and hosted by Stanford University Press is not usable for an attributed quote because the author is a fairly young scholar. The only consistent part of this argument is how it reflects his POV. A blog by an unnamed person at the IDF that has been cited by no-one and has an h-index of 0 that coincides with his own POV is fine to use. One by a published academic that has has over 100 citations to her work but that opposes his POV is not because her h-index is 5 and she is "fairly young".

Tendentious editing regarding tagging

Again, the only thing consistent about these actions is how they reflect on his POV. When his POV is presented no tag may be included absent a consensus for it (which is honestly kind of silly, if there were already a consensus then the article content would be adjusted), but when his POV is not given what he feels is its appropriate prominence the tag must remain absent a consensus to remove.

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, on 29 March 2019
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 8 April 2019
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 7 April 2019.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I understand this is a long complaint. I dont know how to demonstrate tendentious editing without exceeding 500 words as the act is defined by a long term pattern and not just one or two diffs. I also understand it deals with content, but I think the evidence demonstrates continued tendentious editing and not merely a content dispute. One cannot make opposing sides of the same argument and pretend that they are two individual content disputes. Either Icewhiz feels that blogs may not be used or that they may. Either Icewhiz feels that opinion pieces may not be used or they may. Either Icewhiz feels tags may not be removed without a consensus or they may. Icewhiz apparently feels all these things, it just depends on what POV is under discussion. That is, to my understanding, textbook tendentious editing.

Sir Joseph, I am not complaining that Icewhiz claimed Finkelstein is biased. I am complaining that he has made polar opposite arguments about sources when it suits his POV. This is not about opposing Finkelstein or supporting Tabenkin. It is about making opposing arguments where the only consistency is the POV being pushed. That behavior is, I think, called tendentious editing here, and it is prohibited on Wikipedia, especially so in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions. As WP:TE says, a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, so yes these diffs stretch back to show that pattern. nableezy - 17:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I've dated the diffs, however I dont think their age makes them stale. The very nature of WP:TE is that it requires showing a pattern. A pattern is something that occurs over time. How would one show a pattern over time without showing diffs from the past? nableezy - 18:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Icewhiz, I called this claim that this established a consensus a lie. Because it says "no consensus". Calling something that says "no consensus" "a consensus for language in this article" can best be described as what exactly? nableezy - 19:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The responses below just provide further evidence for tendentious editing. As Zero wrote below, nothing Icewhiz writes can be accepted at face value. I agree, he is a very smart person. He could be a fantastic editor. But he makes bogus arguments on a regular basis. He says Nableezy contrasts an expert in journalism commenting on the NYT imvestigation in Rouzan al-Najjar with a pianist/conductor/activist commenting on Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People. No, lets be clear on this. Ira Stoll is not an "expert in journalism". He was managing editor of a failed newspaper and an author of two books, neither on journalism. And the justification of receiving third party coverage was offered only later. When added, Icewhiz was on record opposing the use of op-eds even when published in reliable sources. But with one that supports his POV, Ira Stoll's column was published by a RS, the end. This is a constant issue when discussing issues with Icewhiz, he makes comments that are expected to be taken at face value and they cannot be because they are so often false. nableezy - 05:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Sandstein may be right and AE is not well suited to such a request. But, Sandstein, it is exactly a person who is not interested in the subject that should be looking at this. Just look at the bullets for tendentious editing regarding sources. Can an editor be acting in good faith when they both support the use of a blog by an unnamed person with an h-index of 0 and then reject the use of a blog by an established expert on the topic because her h-index is 5? Can an editor be acting in good faith when they remove op-eds by non-experts published in reliable sources because they are op-eds by non-experts and then also add op-eds by non-experts and respond that its fine because it was published by a reliable source? Ignore the content entirely. Can an editor in good faith make such opposing arguments? Or is it tendentious editing when their arguments flip depending on POV? nableezy - 14:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Icewhiz

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

Statement by Icewhiz

Due to the extreme length of the complaint, with diffs ranging back almost a year, I can not respond in 500 words and address each accusation here. I will note that in regards to the trim to Israeli occupation of the West Bank (which I discussed prior, after, and initiated Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#RfC: Article size that resulted in the article being trimmed in the end) - I already responded in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive245#Icewhiz - closed "Not actionable; content dispute". I can explain all my actions, though I will note I am not a robot and that my view of Wikipedia policy has evolved over time (e.g. today I am much less of an inclusionist in relation to a year ago). Admins - please point out which diffs I should respond to, if at all.

I do want to raise the immediate background to this complaint: Israeli permit system in the West Bank. Nableezy moved it from "system" to "regime", after 2.5 days of discussion (Talk:Israeli permit system in the West Bank#name), 02:06, 12 March 2019. After his move was challenged, he 14:56, 19 March 2019 move warred. Not only that - he opened an ANI against Wikieditor19920 who challenged him (closed no action, Oshwah moved the article through a few different titles - until it moved back to system). At ANI - Nableezy repeatedly called me "dishonest" (after I challenged his assertion that "regime" was the stable form of the title) - [10][11]. A subsequent Talk:Israeli permit system in the West Bank#Requested move 19 March 2019 closed with "system" remaining. Nableezy then decided, 21:57, 7 April 2019, to add a direct-quote to the lede from one (of the minority) of sources that uses "regime".

When I challenged this quote by Berda in the lede, that resulted in 2 out 3 sentences in the lede being sourced to Berda (sentence 2 already containing her definition - from a published source) - my edit summary wasn't just "BLOGS", it was "WP:BLOGS. No need for direct quote in lead.". I further expanded my argument on talk - diff - that presenting Berda twice in the lede, was UNDUE, and that there was no need to use unpublished work here (as published work is not lacking - including published work by Berda). I did not challenge Berda as a source overall - I challenged the direct quote, from an academic blog (as opposed to her published work), specifically in the lede.

In last few days (7-8 April), in the permit system talk page Nableezy has called me or my edits/arguments: "dishonest"/"deceitful"[12]. I requested him to strike these statements (as a personal attack) [13], which he refused. He continue to use language such as "lying"[14], "dishonest arguments"[15][16], "being dishonest",[17]. He did not strike "being dishonest" even after admitting "you are right".[18] (this in regards to this source,^[1] which uses "regimen" in a sub-title and in paragraph2 (further down there is a regime) and which we were quoting in the citation as "regimen").

In ~~less than~~ a span of 3 weeks - Nableezy has filed once in AN/I and once over here in AE against two different users on this article.Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Israel Has 101 Different Types of Permits Governing Palestinian Movement". Haaretz. 2011-12-23. Retrieved 2019-04-07. The most common permits are those allowing Palestinians to work in Israel, or in Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Over the decades, however, the permit regimen has grown into a vast, triple-digit bureaucracy.

@Vanamonde93: - in regards to the first 4 bullets, note that the article was created on 3 June 2018 on a 1 June event. The article was heavily edited in those days, with various new news items added (a general NOTNEWS/RAPID issue). In regards to the 7 June 2018 - when I added this, it was not widely denounced - I summarized the sources I cited. Criticism developed later. In regards to 8 June 2018 - this was a revert per the General Prohobition of an IP (who removed a whole paragraph + allegedly). At the point this was made (7 days from the shooting, no definitive investigation) - while it was highly likely the shots came from the IDF, and some sources said this as fact - others did not. At that point in time, per BLPCRIME and erring in the side of caution, avoiding a definitive stmt in Wikivoice is inline with what we do with other crime/military articles. In regards to 11 June 2018 - contrary to Nableezy's assertion I left criticism in the very next sentence - "The Israeli military was widely criticized for its efforts in manipulating the video, with commentators drawing parallels to past instances of the IDF manipulating or otherwise faking evidence in the past.". There was also an issue in that some of the content was sourced to an article title (often edited for sensationalism) and not to its body. I thought that presenting what the IDF presented (in one sentence), followed by a sentence of how this was criticized would separate the exhbit by the IDF and criticism of the exhibit. Regarding 1 Jan 2019 - Stoll's criticism of the NYT piece (which we cover in depth - 4 paragraphs in a level2 header) was covered in a secondary manner by JTA. Nableezy agreed on the TP to use of Stoll via JTA - 8 Jan 2019. Nableezy contrasts an expert in journalism commenting on the NYT imvestigation in Rouzan al-Najjar with a pianist/conductor/activist commenting on Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People - for the basic law we have no shortage of critical (even very critical) opinions by experts in law - which we should favor over a non-expert. Inclusion of opinions can of course be debated - there isn't a hard and fast law for DUE/UNDUE - it is article dependent, and in this case the basic law is very different (a topic very well commented and studied - we have no shortage of sources and opinions). In all cases, I participated in the talk page and attempted to form a consensus. I could have done some things better, but I do want to stress that the article was in breaking-news turf in June 2018 - it started with videos and reports from the Palestinian side, followed by Israeli retorts, and only a few months later (e.g. the NYT choosing this incident for an in-depth reconstructive investigation) we had more definitive sources. I am not sure I would have made the same edits today back then (e.g. by avoiding NOTNEWS).Icewhiz (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I'm not saying I was perfect. I was reverting this IP edit with no edit summary, was acting inline with WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 in regards to an IP edit, and I was probably responding to the removal of the paragraph. In retrospect (having re-read NBCNews/AP again now) I should've added a citation that used other language, or used attribution - I admit to sloppy handling of the NBCNews citation - had this been contested on this basis (on the talk-page or in an edit rationale) - I probably would've discussed and/or rectified the citation issue. In terms of lead balance at that point in time - this Washington Post piece in the article at the time was using - "who witnesses say Israeli soldiers shot dead near the border fence on Friday." - and didn't directly say Israel in its voice. Our policy - WP:NPOV generally and WP:BLPCRIME specifically - has us being cautious with statements in our own voice. And I stress - this is all me thinking back of what I was thinking in June 2018 - based on sources available then.Icewhiz (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also - in regards to Nableezy's claim I did not revert per the General Prohibition on - this IP on 7 June - my subsequent edit was my very first edit to this article. I frankly probably did not look at the edit history at all when I made that edit at all. I probably got drawn to the article (4 days after creation) by news or it popping up an alert, and was looking at it for the first time which is not a situation in which I usually look at the editing history too much. After doing my edit - I probably watch-listed it. Icewhiz (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to "doctoring" vs. "editing" in June 2018 - I was responding directly to Zero himself who advocated (without citing any source) inclusion of "deliberate doctoring of the video" - 11:50, 12 June 2018. I opposed this - and what Zero fails to mention is that I described it as possibly "Deceptive editing". Unlike Zero - I cited sources for my assertion - namely a dictionary and the New York Times which used "tightly edited".13:06, 12 June 2018 Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to ‎ZScarpia's posting below on the mural and Corbyn - according to an official Labour spokesperson: it "used antisemitic imagery, which has no place in our society, and it is right that it was removed".[19] Coverage in mainstream RSes (as opposed to a Medium blog post and architectsforsocialhousing which were proposed as sources for a BLP, and to which I was responding) has quite often ignored the graffiti artist - e.g. Guardian1, Guardian2 which just name him and mention a Facebook post Corbyn responded to, or The Atlantic which doesn't even name the graffiti artist. Several policies (BLP, NPOV, and yes FRINGE) supports challenging content sourced from the architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk Wordpress blog (on a very well covered BLP, on an issue covered by mainstream RSes).Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani - WP:RSes refer to Uri Avnery (LIT Verlag book, YNET obit, Forward obit), Moked,(IDI, Haaretz), and Ta'ayush (e.g. this Ashgate book, PUP book, Routledge book) as radical left in Israel. Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

There is so much to say here, especially considering that many of the diffs are old, and that this is just a wall of text and trying to blast yet another opponent out of the sphere. I will just note one thing, Nableezy complains that Icewhiz says Finkelstein is biased, of course he's biased, indeed, the very first sentence of his article calls him an activist, "Norman Gary Finkelstein (/ˈfɪŋkəlˌsteɪn/; born December 8, 1953) is an American political scientist, activist, professor, and author." Any serious editor in the IP area would not use Finkelstein as an unbiased source. If you do take this matter seriously, I urge you to take it with a grain of salt. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To Nableezy, regardless, it's irrelevant, those edits were not in mainspace, they were in WP:RS, so I don't get the harm, that is where we do give editor a little leeway to offer why they feel sources are or aren't RS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again on Wikipedia someone is downplaying antisemitism. Shame. Damn shame. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add regarding ZScarpia's claim about the mural, it is antisemitic, not because it is displaying Jewish bankers, which is not a problem, it is antisemitic because it displaying Jewish bankers as in the opinion of Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt and contemporary local media, the "hook-nosed, repulsive-looking characters at the table" resembled imagery used by the Nazis, not sure why you left that out. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

I would like to issue a solemn appeal to reviewing administrators to study this report in depth and with special attention. Additionally, please allow some time for other editors to share their comments and opinions.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikieditor19920

Having interacted with both parties, I regard this as a frivolous and vindictive report. Nableezy almost exclusively edits within the ARBPIA area with a distinct edge. If any of Icewhiz's edits, collectively or individually, are considered to show a discernible bias actionable under WP:TE, then an evaluation of Nableezy's contributions by that same standard would have to lead to equivalent or more severe sanctions. Also, the diffs provided could be attributed to errors in judgment or reading sources; in other words, mistakes made in good-faith. Hardly a compelling basis.

I don't want to exceed my limit here, but Zero0000 should have disclosed in his statement below that he consulted with Nableezy about this report prior to its filing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stefka Bulgaria

I agree that too many diffs going back almost a year isn't helpful. Looking at Icewhiz's more recent edits, he seems to have been actively participating in TP discussions working with other editors in a level-headed manner. If there is a disagreement to the point a RfC/RSN/etc. is needed, then those would be more apt venues to explore. Other than that, I don't see a violation here by Icewhiz. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've known Icewhiz's editing for a while now, and though we have not always seen eye to eye on certain topics, I agree that he's "one of our best editors" here. If there are issues with the reliability of sources being used, RSN would be the appropriate forum. It takes two to tango, and eliminating the opposition via AE does seem vindictive. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Icewhiz is an intelligent and knowledgeable person who could easily be one of our best editors. Alas, he doesn't want to be. His transparent purpose in the I/P area is to defend the good name of Israel by means of endless pov-pushing combined with endless tendentious argument. My honest opinion is that Icewhiz is one of the worst editors to have ever appeared in the I/P area of the project.

I don't blame casual observers like Stefka for not seeing the problem at a glance. It takes longer experience to learn that nothing Icewhiz writes can be accepted without checking, and that "discussion" for him means writing anything, anything, that supports his pov.

Nableezy restricted himself to self-contradictions. I won't. Here Icewhiz argues that an anonymous blacklist is a reliable source, and follows up with "McCarthyite" does not mean inaccurate.. He is way too experienced to actually believe that, but the blacklist fits Icewhiz's personal pov. Here he quotes from a Hebrew court ruling without telling us that the very next sentences give contrary context. (Basically, the ruling said that the charges were very serious but the evidence for them was insufficiently compelling; Icewhiz brought just the first part.) These examples are not aberrations but just Icewhiz being Icewhiz.

Many of Icewhiz's talk page contributions can reasonably be called trolling. Nableezy's first case provides an example. Here he brings a dictionary definition of "doctored" to argue that a video which had purposefully been cut in order to change its meaning had not been doctored, even though the dictionary definition fits perfectly. I do not believe this was an argument in good faith; rather, Icewhiz' pov was in danger and he had to write something. Such lack of integrity is why the project would be better off without him. Zero^talk 03:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Calthinus: "Tendentiously cutting" is a form of doctoring. But that is not the point, since nobody ever tried to put the word "doctored" into the article. Icewhiz didn't want the article to mention the fact that the Israeli army had cut the end off a recording in order to smear (per several reliable sources) a medico they had just killed in cold blood. Since it is impossible to argue for such censorship on a policy basis, Icewhiz chose instead to sideline the discussion by bringing a dictionary definition for a word used only on the talk page. Zero^talk 07:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Icewhiz is still at it (above). The real issue was inclusion of the well-sourced fact that the video had been altered to change its impact and thereby smear its subject. Icewhiz didn't like that idea. The precise word to be used for the video manipulation was a side-show that Icewhiz used to deflect attention from the real issue. Even if he had to bring a dictionary definition that proves himself wrong. Zero^talk 14:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that I discussed this case with Nableezy before it was opened, though he didn't (I think) follow any of my suggestions. We discussed it quite openly (not a single email) and if there is any rule against that I'd like to hear about it. This problem has been brewing a long time and I've often wished I had the time and stamina to open such a case myself. Zero^talk 15:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Calthinus: It's a pity you entirely missed the point. I'm not going to repeat what I wrote already. This one incident is minor in isolation, but alas it is just one example of very many. Also, please read WP:AGF. It is a right that can be forfeited by misbehavior and this noticeboard is a place where evidence for that can be presented. Zero^talk 00:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC) To editor Calthinus: There was no disagreement over which word to use. That is your basic error in understanding. Zero^talk 00:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC) To editor Calthinus: You really don't get it. Icewhiz "disputed" the meaning of a word that nobody tried to use. That's not a disagreement over which word to use. Zero^talk 01:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calthinus

If I had to sum up a number of things I despise about wiki, this would be a poster case ... alas this hairball could never be condensed to fit on a poster, not least because half of the crap involved is essentially fluff that is likely totally inscrutable to anyone not balls deep in Israel-Palestine wiki bloodletting. Alas, if they were, they couldn't possibly be impartial. Here's one of many points that I think illustrate the issue here - the statement by Zero above. It takes totally out of context an argument about semantics (in this case, the word "doctored" -- indeed something can be "tendentiously cut" and not be doctored -- as the NYTimes perhaps more correctly put it [[20]]) and tries to turn it into some case of "trolling". But most people in good faith would see a simple disagreement... unless they already hated one side's guts. Zero admits Icewhiz "could easily be one of our best editors" -- well the one thing I agree on is that his life on wiki might be more enjoyable if he didn't feel he had to constantly deal with ARBPIA matters, but that is his choice. As much as I hate to say it, what Zero sees as Icewhiz being some sort of manipulative, tendentious editor who the project would be better without (even though he "could be" one of the best if he "wanted to" -- very odd thing to say if you're also saying we should get rid of him), I think most observers would simply see a guy who is trying to stand up for what he believes in, and simply has a disagreement with someone who doesn't seem to be properly differentiating misalignment of opinions with lack of good faith.--Calthinus (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 Is it a form of doctoring? Possibly depending on your definition, but doctoring is vague as it can also mean that other stuff was added. Hence tendentiously cut is a better and clearer description. You don't seem to get this, which is bizarre. Actually this statement by you -- "Since it is impossible to argue for such censorship on a policy basis, Icewhiz chose instead to sideline the discussion by bringing a dictionary definition for a word used only on the talk page" -- is frankly chilling in how frigid the lack of AGF is. I disagree with you about semantics too and I have no interest in that article -- am I unable to have an opinion about how readers will interpret a word unless I am hell-bent on "censorship"? Really, I think an admin like yourself (no less an admin of 14 years ) should be setting a much better behavioral example here than "if they disagree with me on how readers understand a word, it's actually about censorship" ...--Calthinus (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples in the media for usage of "doctored video" -- as we can see one is changed in speed [[21]], or changes in coloring etc [[22]] -- indeed the term is used in reference to deepfakes -- something that is far, far different than merely cutting a video. There is a clear difference in meaning as doctored is quite vague, whereas tendentiously cut is not. Well perhaps Icewhiz didn't have my exact take on it here, but the fact is that the point you were arguing was not obvious at all, and it is entirely unfair to assume any argument he makes that you disagree with is based on some ulterior motive to "censor" info.--Calthinus (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 nope it's you who is missing the point. The guy can disagree with which word should be used, and not be using this as some sort of devious disguise allegedly because, and I quote "it is impossible to argue for such censorship on a policy basis". What the actual definition of the word is, who is right, who is most logical, is immaterial, what matters is that there is room for good faith debate, and in this case there was even if you can't see it. --Calthinus (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 Perhaps you had a memory lapse and forgot to check you own diff right now, where Icewhiz clearly does dispute the accuracy of the term "doctored" : ["Presenting a short clip of a longer video (something that is done routinely by any media outlet) is not doctoring, but editing.' Such editing may be done with an intention to deceive, but it is not doctoring. Deceptive editing - omission - is distinctly different from doctoring which requires modifications to the video. The vast majority of media outlets are using "edited" to describe this clip, a very small minority is using the technically inaccurate "doctored".]. Please strike your latest response. --Calthinus (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero: ...okay, but this changes nothing? The argument here is not about the specifics about what happened. It's about your claim of talk page "trolling". And nothing you are saying is resuscitating this. He is allowed to have a viewpoint on the use of the word. You're allowed to feel "trolled" or whatever; what is not allowed is to level claims with zero evidence except non-AGF about his motives for saying whatever he feels on the matter on the talkpage. ZScarpia you're also missing the point entirely. It's not about who is "right" -- instead, it's about whether there is room for AGF debate on the matter.--Calthinus (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

I respectfully request the 500 word limit be enforced, as well as some reasonable measure of staleness (June 2018? Seriously?). Excessively long submissions prevent other editors (including admin) from participating, are unfair to the editor being reported, and to every other editor who has ever worked hard to reduce their AE posting down to 500 words. These standards should be applied equally to all editors. Thank you. Leviv ich 14:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal at AE for an editor to help another editor gather diffs in preparation of an AE report, and then comment on the report without disclosing that they helped prepare it? Leviv ich 15:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TracyMcClark

@Calthinus: No reader would ever see this specific word since this is not about adding the word "doctored" to the article but about some editor using it on the talk page. Not a single editor suggested to add the word to the article. You got fooled by Icewhiz as intended and since it's not your first response here it's clear that you got fooled (at least) twice by the Icewhiz.--TMCk (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia

This Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) article states that the IDF video of Rouzan al-Najjar was edited in such a way as to deceive. That is, it 'was' doctored.

One of the more over the top bits Icewhiz point-of-view pushing I've come across concerns the 'Freedom of Humanity' mural which featured in the current Labour Party Antisemitism controversy in the UK. It was alleged that the mural depicted antisemitic stereotypes and was therefore antisemitic. The artist defended it, giving the explanation that the figuress portrayed, rather than stereotypes, had been real-life bankers, most of whom were non-Jewish. In Icewhiz's opinion, stated on a variety of occasions, the artist's views are fringe and of no consequence. See the comment made here at 11:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC) for one example.

← ZScarpia 23:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus, 06:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC): "I think most observers would simply see a guy who is trying to stand up for what he believes in ...". Of course, the problem comes when an editor is so wedded to what he believes in that he fails to appreciate that it may only be a viewpoint. And sympathy would normally be conditioned on what beliefs were being stood up for. Didn't David Duke contribute here for a while? ← ZScarpia 00:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: please read what I wrote. It was alleged that the mural depicted "antisemitic stereotypes". The defence was that it depicted real people, most of whom were non-Jewish. ← ZScarpia 06:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

The endless conflict in this area is all between those who read sources and the article circumstances precisely, and those who refuse to grasp the clear-cut distinctions made, and engage in spinning. Just one egregious example from this thread alone:

Zero writes:The deliberate doctoring of the video by Israel is an important part of the story and must be presented in detail.

Icewhiz replies:Zero himself (who) advocated (without citing any source) inclusion of "deliberate doctoring of the video"

That the video in question was deliberately 'doctored'/'tampered with' to skew the facts is attested in numerous sources, and it matters not a jot which synonymous word you use. Zero did not advocate the use of the word 'doctored' without a source, (though it would have been easy to justify per the Jewish Weekly The Forward's source). He argued that the incident of tampering (which the article accepts, and which he happened to call doctoring) be thoroughly covered. In such persistent habits of distortion by shifting the goalposts to create a strawman argument and thread about what other editors write, turning observations into advocacy, lies the gravamen of the claim of tendentious editing.

No one should deny the right of people with an extreme nationalist perspective the right to edit wikipedia, though their place here is best secured by meticulous adherence to policy, rather than throwing sand in the eyes of other editors about what constitutes policy, from edit to edit. That Icewhiz has extremist views is shown by his remark here, in which he identified mainstream pacific centrist scholars of world distinction as on the fringes of the Israeli radical left. Avishai Margalit, David Dean Shulman, Baruch Kimmerling, Zeev Sternhell, Yehuda Elkana and their likes are, for Icecwhiz, not centre-left, not left-wing, not radical left, but dangerously beyond even extremist leftism, something like little red book waving deviationists from the official line. I have no problem with extremists, as long as they stick to the rules, rather than game them. Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are dodging the points, which are very important, Icewhiz. Leave aside the gross mischaracterization of what Zero argued. You also wrote:-

the article reflects only voices on the fringes of the Israeli radical left

I was asking you why you dismissed Avishai Margalit, David Dean Shulman, Baruch Kimmerling, Zeev Sternhell and Yehuda Elkana as fringe lunatics of the raving radical left.

For you explicitly branded them as ‘voices on the fringes of the Israeli radical left’, when, as any click on their wikibios and curricula will show, they are centrist Israeli pro-Zionist scholars and moderates. Your answer consisted in googling ‘"uri avnery" radical left ‘, for a person whom I did not mention above, for evidence he, of the 12 figures, mostly scholars, on that page fitted your caricature. Even that evidence is flawed, for you didn’t read beyond the words you sought to ‘prove’ at least one was a ‘radical leftist’ (and not ‘on the fringe of radical leftism, nota bene). The article does use that term on p.202, but adds, damagingly for its put-down of Avnery, (‘whose visions of a Middle east peace were unrealistic p.205) the following, which shows how meaningless such characterizations are-

What seems to us today a mainstream approach, officially accepted by prominent right-wing politicians such as Benjamin Netanyahu, seemed a position of the radical left alone not so long ago.’ p.207

Avnery's putative 'radical leftist' view in 1982 is now official mainstream policy in the 'mainstream Israel rightwing circles', a dead give-away for showing how silly this kind of political labeling and skewering is.

Your remark underlined that, in your POV , mainstream scholars and thinkers in Israel who are critical of the occupation are representative of ‘fringes of the Israeli radical left’. This means that anyone with a liberal concern for human rights is a fanatic. That betrays an extremist ethnonational intolerance of dissent in the ranks.

It is your position which is extremist. That is acceptable here. Editing tendentiously to press home that POV with a total disregard for coherent policy application is not. You have failed twice to answer directly a simple observation, and Vanamonde's queries have not been addressed cogently. Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Icewhiz

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

The first diff is from June 2018. I stopped reading there. Please date all diffs as per the template so we can see what's stale and what's not. Sandstein 18:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this request is unsuited to AE. If an issue can't be summarized in 500 words, that's an indication that it's more suited to a full case request, not a quick response by an individual admin. And as to the subject matter, AE is fine for dealing with obvious cases of tendentious editing, such as throwing ethnic slurs around. But here, making a determination of tendentious editing would likely require a hour or more of detailed study of numerous complicated content issues and the underlying sources, while distinguishing genuine conduct problems from good-faith content disputes, which is very difficult in this kind of case. Speaking only for myself, particularly as somebody uninterested in this topic area, this is not something I see myself doing in my spare time. This does not preclude others who think that this can be resolved more straightforwardly from taking whatever action they consider appropriate. Sandstein 19:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ARBCOM would look kindly on a request at this stage. More generally, new editors keep cropping up in troublesome areas; if we kicked any difficult case to ARBCOM, they would be snowed under very quickly. I haven't looked through all of the diffs here, just the first four bullet points. They are somewhat concerning. While they are quite old, nothing formally prevents us from applying discretionary sanctions for old behavior. The question really is what Icewhiz has to say about those diffs now. Icewhiz, I for one would like to hear a response to Nableezy's first four bullet points. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a specific point in your reply I'm none too happy about, Icewhiz. The general prohibition is all very well, but enforcing it to revert the removal of POV language is questionable. I'm not suggesting sanctions in that respect; it's a mistake several people have made, including myself. But it is a mistake. If you think the IP's edits were correct on the substance, the thing to do is to revert it and then perform the same edit yourself (this is also broadly true for dealing with the edits of socks that have made constructive edits). If you still think the IP's edits were wrong, we have a problem. I don't particularly care how that shooting was described, so long as the description was in line with RS. If you want to change it, you need sources supporting the change. Reverting in text that is not explicitly supported by the sources is a problem, especially in a topic such as this; and this is a problem with that edit of yours that you are not acknowledging in its entirety. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because no admin action with respect to Icewhiz appears to be forthcoming, and we are having angry and pointless content disputes above, I am closing this thread. I am also blocking Nishidani for a week and banning them from creating or making comments in WP:AE reports related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except if they are the editor against whom enforcement is requested. This is because, despite being warned, they are misusing Wikipedia as a battleground and casting aspersions on others by characterizing Icewhiz's conduct with such terms as "extremist ethnonational intolerance of dissent", and "extremist views", without appropriate evidence. That somebody agrees or disagrees, praises or dismisses certain thinkers (with whom neither I nor probably most people except devotees of this conflict are familiar) isn't appropriate evidence because it's a matter of opinion about opinions. Sandstein 14:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by David Tornheim

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" 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: David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – --David Tornheim (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of GMOs imposed here at WP:AE on July 2016. Also the appeal of that decision in July 2016 at WP:ARCA before the original case had closed. ([23], [24])

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

Notification of that administrator: Notified 09:40, 11 April 2019

Statement by David Tornheim

I am appealing my topic ban from GMO’s imposed in July 2016—almost three years ago. Of course, I have not made any edits in the area since then.

I was blocked a few days after the topic ban for this post on Jimbo’s page which links to GMO talk page comments. That is the only time I have ever been blocked.

The only other action by an admin against me in the nearly three years since I have been topic banned is this warning in an area unrelated to GMOs.

If my topic ban is lifted, I will help keep the area up to date with the most recent science using the best reliable sources.

I think my edit history speaks for itself that I have been a net positive for Wikipedia.

Recent and long-term interests:

Removing vandalism (using Huggle)
Articles for Deletion (WP:AfD)
Helping new editors who have fallen astray of the rules and are on the road to being blocked or banned--especially those who make the same mistakes I made when I was new
History -- I recently created an article on Richard Clough Anderson Sr. and fixed all the confusion between him and his son Richard Clough Anderson Jr.
Historic architecture
Geology
Politics

If this topic ban is lifted, I will be a productive and collegial editor in this topic area.

I have learned my lesson. Three years has been enough time for me to reflect on how to improve my editing behavior and mature as an editor. At the time I was topic banned, I was still a relative newbie with probably less than half of the edits I have now. I have since learned how to address conflict by working collaboratively. I recently spent a day at a Wiki-conference and met many real life editors, and this also helped me better understand Wikipedians, their interests, their personalities, and their priorities—something that is hard to really understand from simply editing on-line.

Thanks for your consideration. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to be perceived as combative, because my focus is being collaborative and collegial even when disagreeing with other editors.

@Seraphimblade:

Regarding "I ___________, and in the future I'll __________."

I will focus on content, not editors.

Posting the things I did at Jimbo’s page was a pretty bad idea. I am appalled and ashamed by the post I got blocked for on Jimbo’s page after the topic ban. I have no idea why I was naive enough to think that would not have consequences.

Without hesitation, I can categorically promise that I will not talk about GMOs on Jimbo’s page. Although I had thought of Jimbo’s page as a public forum, I do not intend to advertise any more RfCs on his page or mention other editors’ behavior. Again, I will focus on content, not editors. I rarely post at Jimbo's page and that is unlikely to change.

As I mentioned here and here, I will not advertise an RfC by paraphrasing it, I will use the exact words of the RfC.

By the end of March 2015, he was participating relatively routinely at ANI.…especially given that, by the time the topic ban was implemented, multiple warnings had already been given.

I think this illustrates that I was a newbie who did not fully understand the rules and Wikipedia norms, which was exactly why I got those warnings and the topic ban. I tell newbies not to participate at AN/I, unless accused. At that time, I posted way too often at AN/I, which was a mistake that has taken time to learn from. Now I rarely post there: It is better to work collaboratively and collegially.

This warning cited to justify the topic ban was because I was a newbie and did not understand WP:BLUDGEON. For a long time, I thought it was perfectly okay to disagree with numerous editors at an action. After reading WP:BLUDGEON, I know now that’s not acceptable, and I do not do that now. I have learned the value of brevity.

Those warnings were a learning process for me. Because I have learned from them, I have not been blocked since, and have only had the one recent warning.

Is there anything else you feel I did wrong that I have not owned up to for which you seek further assurances?

--David Tornheim (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Past editing:

Regarding updating the science: This is the kind of edit where I added an updated scientific review article. It is still in the article. How is such an update "disruptive"?

Meanwhile, issues concerning obsolete studies in a similar article that are non-WP:MEDRS, non-WP:MEDDATE compliant have languished for 7 months ([25],[26]). Glyphosate-based herbicides repeatedly references this obsolete 16 year-old report (and this 22 year-old report) which has been superseded by this 2011 report commissioned for the same agency. There are not enough editors left in GMOs to make the correction. Are GMOs and pesticides somehow exempt from our sourcing rules? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

A couple of things concern me about this request. The first is a lack of specifics. Learned lessons about what? Won't do what again? If this appeal is intended to be based upon understanding what went wrong and undertaking not to have it happen again, I would want to see specifics as to "I ___________, and in the future I'll (not do that and/or __________ instead)."

The second is the recent (~5 months ago) warning for canvassing on Jimbo's talk page. That's very reminiscent of the behavior that led to the topic ban to begin with; indeed, inappropriate use of that page was brought up at the AE request that led to the topic ban. Also, I quite honestly find the characterization of these incidents as "relative newbie" mistakes to be rather misleading. David Tornheim's first edits were in 2008, and while there were several long (sometimes years long) breaks in between editing periods then, his first editing as a routine practice began on 10 February 2015, in the GMO topic area. By the end of March 2015, he was participating relatively routinely at ANI. So to claim that he was a clueless newbie in July of 2016 is, I think, rather difficult to swallow (especially given that, by the time the topic ban was implemented, multiple warnings had already been given; this was not a bolt from the blue). I also find the point by Kingofaces43 to be well in order. This wasn't a case of an editor one time losing their cool and engaging in an edit war or throwing around aspersions, it was a long period of disruption despite repeated warnings to stop. If it weren't for the recent canvassing incident, I might be inclined to say the ban can be easily reinstated, but given that I really question what those lessons learned were and would be inclined to decline the request. I wouldn't necessarily feel that way indefinitely, and it's certainly not to say that the contributions in other areas aren't appreciated as they certainly are, but I'm not convinced that rejoining the GMO area is the right way to go at this point in time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

As the one who filed the initial AE, I do have some significant concerns here. The main ones being why David would want to edit in this topic again at this time and if they're truly addressing the core behavior that caused the problem here.

If you read through the AE and evidence throughout it, their behavior had been stirring up other editors for quite some time, leading to multiple editors being sanctioned for partaking in WP:ASPERSIONS. That is a principle I outlined more in the AE that we had to pass specific to GMO/pesticide topics.[27] David's topic-ban largely finally settled down the topic for years, so there should be a very high bar for saying that preventative measure isn't needed anymore. We've been having troubles with other editors at recent AEs with similar issues, so there is a high risk of the topic being disrupted even more if that behavior starts again in even the slightest. Their last warning on canvassing, reminiscent of their previous behavior seen in the GMO/pesticide topic, was also about five months ago, not three years as David put it.

The other area is that David frequently tried to insert WP:FRINGE material claiming there wasn't a scientific consensus on GMO safety, etc. claiming RS's said so. [28] Normally, topic-bans in fringe areas are there to prevent the rest of the community's time from being sucked up, and as admins mentioned at the AE (especially MastCell), our time had already been significantly taken up with David's actions that were more expansive than the acute issues at that AE.

For both of those things, I don't see anything specific in their response clearly showing the battleground behavior with related aspersions or the fringe advocacy would really stop. It's saying they did ok in other areas, but there's obviously a catch-22 in that you can't know how an editor off their ban will behave until they are back in the topic. That should also be weighed with how serious the behavior was towards disrupting the topic as a whole and how easily the topic can be disrupted again. While there is technically room to appeal, that is significantly narrowed when it looks to admins like David is better off sticking to their new topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aircorn

I watch, or try to watch, every GMO related page (I don't include pesticides as GMO) and can not recall any edits in this area from David since his topic ban. I actually didn't mind David too much when he was editing outside the GMO safety kerfuffle as I found them reasonably easy to work with, especially giving our conflicting views. In fact I kinda liked that he didn't just entrench himself in the GMOs are safe/dangerous debate like so many others. I even thought we may have worked well together on Genetic engineering in fiction at one point. It has been a pretty stable area recently (outside of Roundup which I don't personally consider part of the GMO suite) and we have finally got some decent articles up. It would be a shame to go back to the old ways of having to argue every point incessantly and they unfortunately carry a bit of baggage from before in this regard. However, we have the safety stuff bound by possibly the highest form of consensus here so there is little harm of that blowing up again.

I am not a fan of forcing editors to grovel on past mistakes, but I would like to know more specifics on what they actually want to edit within these articles. I will help keep the area up to date with the most recent science using the best reliable sources is the only real indication and while that sounds good it can be problematic. Recent science are not always the best sources to use, especially if they are primary studies and contradict other more established ones. In many ways this was one of the catalysts of the safety drama and something David, although he was not alone in this, had problems with.

Three years is a long time in Wikipedia. If they have been editing productively in other areas then I personally would not be against giving them a second chance. AIRcorn (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hijiri88

I don't see any good reason to remove this ban. David violated it almost immediately violated it while essentially denying he was subject to it, was blocked, then left the project for a while. He came back and started taking a "let the world burn" attitude to administrative procedures, apparently as "revenge" for his own TBAN, and even started hounding the users he blamed for his TBAN, like Jytdog, and even random bystanders, like MPants. If it weren't for his perhaps sometimes good content edits, I'd be actively pushing for his restriction to be extended to a siteban, since I honestly can't figure out how such an uncollaborative editor has managed to survive here as long as he has. We certainly shouldn't be rewarding his behaviour by lifting what restrictions he already has. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the repeated blatant canvassing and IDHT regarding the same, and harassment of those who called him out about it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: The question should really be whether it stopped disruption on the part of David Tornheim and caused him to reflect on his behaviour; I'm seeing little by way of self-reflection or apology in the above for any of David's misbehaviour since his ban, and so he really shouldn't be rewarded for this behaviour by having his one editing restriction repealed. He also hasn't explained his skirting the bounds of the ban last summer, including his repeated hounding of the editors he blames for his ban right down to their being indef-blocked for completely unrelated reasons (note that he kept beating that dead horse until one minute before the editor was blocked). The fact that he was only directly blocked once is not evidence that he's been respecting the spirit of his ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

I agree with Aircorn - 3 yrs...seriously. Did it truly stop disruption? No, it did not. It's a controversial topic. I say give him a chance. What harm is there in giving someone a chance? What happened to AGF? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (editor)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by David Tornheim

Result of the appeal by David Tornheim

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

Decline appeal per Seraphimblade. There's a fine line between "The sanction is working at preventing disruption" and "The sanction no longer serves a purpose because disruption is unlikely to occur again." Right now, I think we're at "the sanction is working at preventing disruption", and I don't see a reason to make lift it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer

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 BullRangifer

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: BullRangifer (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 :

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

4/12/19 Asserts with no evidence that Attorney General Bill Barr lied to congress lied to congress to "please his boss". WP:BLPTALK
4/12/19 Makes the same claim about Barr again and suggest that block/bans are necessary for those who disagree. Also, says Barr "just riled up Trump's base, the ones who believe this and other conspiracy theories, and who now come here to misuse Wikipedia to push their political agenda." WP:BLPTALK
4/12/19 Tells an established editor that he should be topic-banned and is pushing fringe beliefs. WP:PERSONALATTACK
4/12/19 Suggests that regular editors are pushing conspiracy theories, need topic bans, and are incompetent without providing evidence. WP:PERSONALATTACK
4/12/19 WP:HOUNDs an other editor, demanding that respond to him immediately and again suggests Barr is a conspiracy theorist.
3/27/19 Calls Barr's ""impartiality" is a farce" and that "his impartiality is not evident or to be expected." WP:BLPTALK

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

7/20/18 Received a warning for personal attacks on another Donald Trump related page.
3/13/19 Received yet another warning for personal attacks on a Donald Trump related page.

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

Received DS alert 1/24/19 [29]
The above warnings have occurred in the past 12 months.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

BullRangifer routinely labels editors he disagrees with (particularly any that speak favorably about Donald Trump) as fringe and conspiracy theorists and tells them they need to be topic-banned. This type of behavior is extremely disruptive and he has been warned repeatedly. Furthermore, he has also suggested (without evidence) that Attorney General Bill Barr lied to congress about spying that may have occurred during the 2016 elections just to please his boss (Donald Trump)and to "riled up Trump's base, the ones who believe this and other conspiracy theories, and who now come here to misuse Wikipedia to push their political agenda." Besides a BLP violation, this is the type of blog-style rhetoric that we do not need here. Given his WP:POLEMIC essay [30], WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and disregard of previous warnings (see above), I strongly recommend that some type of action is taken this time (not just another warnings).--Rusf10 (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein:- I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in my original filing. The suggestion that Bill Barr's statement to congress "I believe spying did occur" was made only to please his boss is an obvious WP:BLPTALK violation. Lying to congress is a crime and to suggest that Bill Barr did this without any proof should not be tolerated. Telling other editors that they are "pushing fringe beliefs" and should be topic-banned amounts to WP:PERSONALATTACKs. I also added an additional diff.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion:The evidence you presented against me is absurd. By your own admission, these are at most minor violations. And I would say most of them, don't even rise to that level. Do you honestly think there is something wrong with using the phrase "muddying the waters" or telling someone they are making a strawman's argument is a problem? These are just alternate ways of telling someone they are bringing something irrelevant into the discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Phmoreno:You are correct, BullRangifer's behavior is unacceptable and so is Volunteer Marek's. I purposely ignored his Wikipedia:Wikilawyering below, knowing that it contained many misrepresentations (which you did a good job of pointing out). I didn't even bother to look into his allegation against you, which he did not support with diffs. He accused me of not providing any evidence, yet I did. @Volunteer Marek: where is your evidence against Phmoreno? Provide diffs, otherwise your statement below constitutes a personal attack and WP:ASPERSIONS--Rusf10 (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: first of all, I am NOT your buddy. Second, with the exception of the first diff, you just provided them now and there are still other claims you made that you still ahve not provided diffs for, so do not accuse me of lying and then think that everyone else here is too stupid to realize. Now that you actually provided diffs: 1. [31] there is no consensus on using the Epoch Times as a relaible source as per WP:RSP2. [32] misrepresentation, the editor did not call Phmoreno fringe, but was asking for sources to avoid the appearance of WP:FRINGE 3. [33] quoting Devin Nunes, am I missing something here?--Rusf10 (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[34]

Discussion concerning BullRangifer

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 BullRangifer

Statement by Volunteer Marek

This is some gross misrepresentations by Rusf10. Let's see

"Asserts with no evidence that Attorney General Bill Barr lied to congress " - FALSE, what BR said is that Barr's words were "uncertain, off-hand, without evidence, spoken to please his boss, and he's pulled back on what he said", all of which can and is supported by sources on the related article's talk page.
" suggest that block/bans are necessary for those who disagree" FALSE, there's not a damn thing in that diff that mentions blocking or banning anyone. And regarding BR's comment about those "who now come here to misuse Wikipedia to push their political agenda.", what's wrong with it? The title of the freakin' discussion thread this is referring to is "Meatpuppetry at Spygate from r/The_Donald" (with plenty of evidence provided by User:Starship.paint to show that there is indeed a coordinated effort going on to disrupt Wikipedia in order to push a political agenda)
Tells an established editor that he should be topic-banned and is pushing fringe beliefs." Uhh, because it's true? User:Phmoreno has tried for awhile now to insert unreliable fringe and conspiracy sources into these Wikipedia articles. Like something called theconservativetreehouse [35] or a conspiracy book by some guy from Alex Jones's Infowars show [36] [37] (I apologize ahead of time for those links) [38] [39]. [40]. Here is Phmoreno referring to reliable, mainstream sources as " fake news propaganda" and asserting that we need to "tell what really happened" (i.e. push a nutty conspiracy theory on our readers) Here is another editor observing that Phmoreno is trying to push WP:FRINGE beliefs [41] (User:Darknipples at bottom of section) Here is Phmoreno claiming that there has been a "failed coup d'etat" against Trump [42]. I mean, if that isn't fringe wacky shit, I don't know what is. In this section when asked to provide sources for his fringe assertions, Phmoreno first replies "I don't have time", then provides this garbage. Just looks through that websites front page and tell me that someone who takes this shit seriously has any business editing articles on American politics. Etc. There's more examples of this WP:NOTHERE kind of behavior from Phmoreno that can be easily provided (let me know)
Ditto
Yeah... pointing out that we follow policies on Wikipedia is NOT WP:HOUNDING. But you know what might be? Filing bad faithed dishonest WP:AE requests.

Rusf10 makes the accusation that "BullRangifer routinely labels editors he disagrees with (particularly any that speak favorably about Donald Trump) as fringe and conspiracy theorists". No. BR does point it out when some editors try to use conspiracy theorists or fringe sources on Wikipedia. But that's the fault of the people who try to pull this stuff, not BRs. He does NOT "label editors he disagrees with" in GENERAL in such terms, neither routinely or otherwise. Rusf10 has not provided ANY evidence to support that false accusations so this constitutes a personal attack and WP:ASPERSIONS

This is WP:BOOMERANG worthy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Phmoreno - the diff you link to is a different diff that Rusf10 linked to that I was discussing. So your "Actually" is kind of... false.

It is also utterly dishonest of you to claim that I said John Solomon is "garbage". I called THIS SOURCE YOU TRIED TO USE "garbage". Because it is. As is obvious with even a cursory glance at the article in question or the main website of whatever that is [43]. Please retract your false statement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And dude, your whole "I will do a presentation" thing sounds like a freakin' super creepy threat. That alone should get you sanctioned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Rusf10, buddy. If you actually read my comment you'll note that it is chuck full of "evidence". There's a diff or link for everything. So stop pretending otherwise. You're not fooling anyone, people can read you know. You say "he did not support with diffs". Here is a diff I provided. Here is a diff I provided. Here is a link I provided to a relevant discussion ([44]). Here is a a link I provided to a relevant discussion ([45]). EVERYTHING I said was diff'd and supported. So stop lying. People can read.

And I did NOT accuse you of "not providing evidence". Buddy. I accused you of providing FALSE evidence. As in claiming a diff says one thing, when it actually says another. For example - again - you claim that in this diff BR accuses Burr of "lying". He does not. He says something else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that after I pointed out that Phmoreno was making false claims about what I said he changed his wording to make it look like I was the one misrepresenting him. Not struck it. Changed it straight up. He's been around for a very long time, so he knows that that kind of thing is sketchy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

The groundless nature of Rusf10's request is detailed above, but I'll point out that Rusf10 himself has unclean hands in this topic area, perhaps to the point of WP:BOOMERANG. A few combative diffs from the past month:

Accuses someone of muddying the waters, twice, for raising concerns over meatpuppetry. 4/11/2019 4/11/2019 (Note that the page now has 300/50 protection due to obvious meatpuppetry that was, in fact, occurring during that discussion; see discussion here.)
Calls someone's summary of a source a strawman's argument. 3/25/2019.
And the crusade against Fox News continues... 3/24/2019
Again, you are so blinded by your own bias, you have no idea what you are talking about. 3/23/2019.
On BullRangifer's talk page: I would be very careful with trying to promote conspiracy theories about why Roger Ailes created Fox News or what his intentions were. That's a BLP violation and consider yourself warned. 3/22/2019, in relation to [46]. First, Ailes died nearly two years ago (putting him at the very limit of what BLP might be considered to apply to, even in far more extreme cases than this). Second, this aspect of his biography is well-established and extensively discussed in reliable sources; while it may not have universal support, it's not something that could be a WP:BLP violation. Threatening someone with BLP over it almost two years after Ailes' death is therefore an unambiguous abuse of process. He coupled this with a BLP sanctions warning; while such notices don't imply wrongdoing, it is hard to accept that Rusf10 thought that an editor as experienced as BullRangifer was unfamiliar with BLP or its sanctions - in other words, he was abusing process and notices to try and intimidate an editor.
Please don't patronize me. 3/18/2019
Your response is the exactly the reaction I expected. 3/18/2019
If you're going to call me out, at least do so by name. 3/18/2019 Note that the editor was not, as far as I can tell, calling him out in any way.

Individually some of these are minor, but this is over the course of less than a month (and he wasn't hugely prolific in that time period); together they show an WP:UNCIVIL, combative style, a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to the topic area, a refusal to WP:AGF, and a desire to abuse process in an effort to intimidate or remove editors he disagrees with - especially BullRangifer in particular. --Aquillion (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Phmoreno

I agree with what Rusf10 presented.

In my upcoming lecture on propaganda and ideological subversion I will show the audience a screen projection of a Wikipedia Talk page on one of these anti-Trump articles and give examples of the standard tactics these propagandists use: attack the sources as being unreliable or not permitted when primary (both usually not supported by Wikipedia policy), slant the narrative by prohibiting anything that contradicts the left wing talking points and finally attacking editors who try to write something truthful. I will also show how contrary narratives are labeled as "conspiracy theories" or "fringe" or "far-right fringe", phrases which BullRanger uses with great frequency. (BullRanger will be one of the editors I will highlight.) After I gather feedback I will turn my presentation into an article and have it posted on a website that gets several million daily views.

In response to VolunteerMarek:

2. Marek takes issue with Rusf10: "suggest that block/bans are necessary for those who disagree" FALSE. Actually, the diff 4/12/19 states :* You're still calling RS "fake news"? That should earn you a topic ban for working against our RS policy. That repeated claim is evidence you are NOTHERE to follow our policies, but to push your fringe beliefs based on unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC) I was calling the article "fake news", not the sources (although there is a recent article listing 32 false claims by MS media on Trump topics); however, BullRanger needs to read the reliable sources policy. Notice BullRanger: attacks the sources, mis-states WP:RS, threatens me with a topic ban, labels my views "fringe beliefs".[reply]

3.1 Attacks my sources. Also fails to mention numerous times that I have cited The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal andThe Hill(John Solomon).

3.2 VolunteerMarek bends the truth about my statement by saying " Phmoreno first replies "I don't have time", then provides this garbage". I did post a reference and here is what I actually said:

I do not have time to post them all.^[1]

3.3(~~Calls John Solomon article "garbage"~~. The article is about something Solomon wrote. Solomon is considered to be the leading reporter on this story.

In summary, editors like BullRanger have destroyed the credibility of Wikipedia Trump related articles. This has been pointed out numerous times on the Talk pages. The only good thing I can say is that this is such bad propaganda that it is recognized as such by any half informed or sensible reader.Phmoreno (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ "FBI email chain may provide most damning evidence of FISA abuses yet". Foxnews.com. 2019-03-25. Retrieved 2019-04-12.

Statement by Geogene

Phmoreno just made a threat [47] that should result in an immediate indefinite block, under the same principle as WP:NLT (chilling speech). Geogene (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

Masem, would you please move your comments out of the 'Results concerning...' section per the italicized instructions. You are involved in the recent disputes on the article.- Mr X 🖋 12:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, you are involved. In fact, you initiated a content dispute over the title of the page, giving your (incorrect, evidence-free) opinion that "This page must be moved back to "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" to avoid the immediate BLP problem, as well as to meet the conciseness needed for disambiguation terms, and in case anyone that gets here thinking this is the NFL one, a hatnote is sufficient to point them to the right direction."[48] It doesn't matter how you arrived at the page, or that you "made no other discussion regarding content" (you have frequently weighed in on content disputes related to Donald Trump). You initiated a content dispute and now you are attempting to adjudicate a conduct dispute about participants in the content dispute. You can't do that. Is it going to be necessary to request clarification from Arbcom on this? By the way, this is not first time that I have protested about you violating WP:INVOLVED and ignoring the instructions on this page: This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators..- Mr X 🖋 14:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, try harder. I have shown seven diffs of his direct involvement with the content. The evidence is crystal clear, but we can let Arbcom explain to the community why admins are allowed to flaunt policy and Arbcom procedures when it suits their content preferences.- Mr X 🖋 19:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

(The following content was moved out of the uninvolved admin section. I still strongly disagree that in this specific content dispute I am involved for discussing the question of the article title, but rather not divert the discussion from the matter raised at AE --Masem (t) 20:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

- Agree that there's no action either way, outside that all users are showing BATTLEGROUND behavior in regards to sourcing. We're not going to use sources that clearly fail RS, but at the same time, there is room to discuss the nature of how the RSes are reporting on the matter with regards to WP:YESPOV. Sticking to either of these points is inflaming the other view. Neither side is showing any compromise. Recommend TROUTs around, but caution that another flairup would likely require action across the board. (Comment: I have participated in a discussion related to the title of the Spygate page but make no claims or comments about this specific content dispute, so consider myself uninvolved to that point.) --Masem (t) 22:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - - To response to Mr. X above, I reiterate the point here: I do not consider myself involved in this specific content dispute: the only contribution on the page I did was when I saw the page title (as "Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory)" appear at the edit warring noticeboard, and expressed concern that the page needed to be renamed to something shorter to meet naming policy and avoid the potential BLP. I'm also writing this response before I go to responde to a ping that named me regarding a name change on that page. I have made no other discussion regarding content and certainly not around the specific disputed area here. --Masem (t) 14:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I think only diff #3 by BullRangifer [49] maybe a little problematic, simply as criticizing another contributor on article talk page. However, that contributor was recently indefinitely blocked [50]. All other comments by BullRangifer were either about content or comments on the WP:ANI which serves to discuss the behavior by other contributors. Therefore, I do not think any sanctions against BullRangifer would be appropriate here (agree with Sandstein). On the other hand, this is clearly a battleground request (the 3rd one) by the filer. Therefore, some sanctions against Rusf10 could be appropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

This whole AP2 fiasco has gotten way out of hand. The bias is obvious. It's sad to see our admins being pressured into making decisions they don't want to make but are forced to in order to keep the peace. It's no longer about maintaining NPOV for the sake of the project - it's a war between the left and the right unlike anything I've ever seen before in my lifetime, and I've been around a long time. Masem has been one of the most neutral and above-board admins I've seen since I became a WP editor, and he has not always decided in my favor. I've always believed that Sandstein was one of the few pragmatists we have left, and I've followed his decisions; all were based on what he believed was fair and reasonable. I like BullRangifer as a person and considered him a wikifriend but he has gone overboard and needs to be reeled-in. It's not just him - this obsession or hatred for Trump is tearing us apart, and it has to stop. Volunteer Marek is unrelenting, yet rarely are we seeing any decisive actions taken against them - the few times I've seen were shortlived. Glaring evidence has been presented but I already know what's going to happen - some of it already has, and it's sad because it hurts the project in the long term. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BullRangifer

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

I would take no action because the request does not explain how these edits violate any applicable conduct policy - except for one allegation of "hounding", but a single edit cannot constitute evidence of this. Sandstein 21:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (my response moved to above section --Masem (t) 20:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  - I would still take no action. It is true that editorializing and politicking on a talk page is inappropriate. Talk pages exist to discuss source-based changes to articles, not to speculate about the motives, etc., of political actors (WP:NOTFORUM). But that does not rise to the level of requiring sanctions, unless it happens to such a degree that it disrupts useful discussion. This has not been alleged here. I also do not think that criticizing a prominent national politician (who, as a public figure, must expect all sorts of criticism) on a talk page violates BLPTALK to a degree requiring sanctions, even though, as mentioned, it is inappropriate. Likewise, I agree that editors must not attack one another. But they may tell others that their conduct is at odds with Wikipedia's values, as BullRangifer did when the now-blocked Phmoreno made blanket dismissals of reliable sources as "fake news propaganda". To the extent that BullRangifer may have been too confrontative, I think that they did not do so to a degree that warrants sanctions. Sandstein 13:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I indefinitely blocked User:Phmoreno per User:Geogene. Phmoreno knows about NLT blocks and the chilling effect they have and his edit above and in his sandbox[51] have the same effect and are unacceptable. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard not to see this report as a continuation of [52] and [53]. This is the third time in a year that Rusf10 has filed AE requests against Bullrangifer, and each time Bullrangifer gets criticized for making overly personal comments and Rusf10 gets criticized for filing contentious reports against ideological opponents. Since both sides have been warned multiple times about this (See here for Rusf10 being warned explicitly about WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and assuming bad faith) I have on my own initiative placed some limited discretionary sanctions on each editor, tailored to specific problems I see in their behavior. (Auto-boomerang for Rusf10 and No personal comments on article talk pages for Bullrangifer) I would also not oppose a boomerang here against Rusf10.
Responding to MrX above, I don't see that as evidence of Masem's involvement, and I don't think that Masem has taken an unreasonable position here. ~Awilley (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this approach, broadly speaking; both editors should disengage from this confrontation. I myself would not have used this kind of sanction which needs continued enforcement and supervision; but that's your decision. Unless other admins intend to take action, I think this can be closed now. Sandstein 20:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to keep an eye on things. Also to be fair to Bullrangifer, asking BR to disengage from "this confrontation" implies that they were engaging in a confrontation with Rusf10, which I can't see was the case. BR's comments, at least the ones linked here, seem to have been mostly directed at User:Phmoreno and meatpuppets from r/The_Donald, not at Rusf10; and BR hasn't made any comments here at all. You can't get much more disengaged than that. ~Awilley (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galathadael ‎

Blocked indef as a normal admin action. Sandstein 20:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Galathadael ‎

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Galathadael ‎ (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/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#May_2014 :

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

12 April Makes unsourced, unsupported claim that a living person is a "spy... sent in by the Obama administration" to infiltrate the Trump campaign
12 April Reinserts material after being warned to review the Biographies of Living Persons policy
12 April Again reinserts the material after being warned.
12 April Reinserts material yet again after being reverted and warned by another editor.

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, here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Brand-new user immediately jumped into unsupported conspiracy-mongering attacks on a living person despite being warned to review policy and avoid such behavior. Seems pretty clear-cut. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is now just literally repeating the BLP violation here. Claiming that Halper was "sent in by the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign" is, at best, a conspiracy theory. Making unsupported negative claims about a living person is an actionable BLP violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: here

Discussion concerning Galathadael

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 Galathadael

Are you serious? You're reporting me? Who's the living person I'm attacking? Stefan Halper was sent in by the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign. That is a fact. You don't get to just report me and try to shut me up just because you disagree with me. If anything's clear-cut, is that something needs to be done about you editing my comments. Galathadael (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rusf10

Technically, it is correct to say that Stefan Halper spied on Trump Campaign members. Of course, to be clear just because he was spying does not mean he did anything wrong or illegal. He was sent by the FBI which at the time was part of the Obama Administration. Here's a source [54] We could also use the term informant, here's a piece in an rs that discusses the use of the term spy being applied to Halper [55]. Basically both terms are interchangable, but one sounds more serious than the other. Regardless, since this can be documented to an RS, there's no BLP violation. Frivolous request.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Just wanted to point out Volunteer Marek's edit summary which I believe is a WP:PERSONALATTACK [56] which says "jfc, how many times have we been through this same song and dance? With Peter Strzok, with Seth Rich with another dozen articles that were subject to these external attacks with goofy administrators enabling and ass kissing the trolls until it got completely ridiculous. Stop wasting our time"--Rusf10 (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dumuzid

While the general allegation here is true, that Mr. Halper indeed had some kind of intelligence gathering role with regard to people associated with the Trump campaign, in such incendiary areas it pays to be specific with one's language. I think "gather intelligence" or some such is preferable to spying, and I think "people associated with the campaign" is preferable to "the Trump campaign" or (as I have sometimes seen it) "Trump." But those are really fairly minor quibbles, I think. For me, the real problem is reference to having been "sent in by the Obama administration." For all I know, this may be true. But all I see in the RSes is references to the FBI. While technically you could call this part of the "administration," I think it gives the impression that elected officials or high-level political appointees outside the Department of Justice were involved. That, at this point, violates BLP for me pretty glaringly. After all that, I think there's a reasonable area for compromise here. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

User:Masem, a statement that " Stefan Halper was sent in by the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign" is most certainly a WP:BLP violation, especially if no sources are provided to back it up. And sorry but your #3 is nothing but Whataboutism, or as we like to call it on Wikipedia WP:OTHERSTUFF. You also don't actually provide any evidence that this is indeed true. But at the end of the day, if someone violates BLP with regard to some Trump official or something, that does not make it ok to violate BLP for other people and you should deal with that OTHER case.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article is semi-protected, and if you're worried about battleground on the talk page, well, gee, maybe that has something to do with the fact that there has been a large influx of SPA accounts, coordinated and "called to action" off Wiki on a troll subreddit. And most of these accounts look a lot like the subject of this report. So if you are really concerned about it, perhaps directing your energies - by, like, say, semi-protecting the talk page - towards the source of the problem, would be more appropriate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

Masem, would you please move your comments out of the 'Results concerning...' section per the italicized instructions. You are involved in the recent disputes on the article.- Mr X 🖋 12:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, you are involved. In fact, you initiated a content dispute over the title of the page, giving your (incorrect, evidence-free) opinion that "This page must be moved back to "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" to avoid the immediate BLP problem, as well as to meet the conciseness needed for disambiguation terms, and in case anyone that gets here thinking this is the NFL one, a hatnote is sufficient to point them to the right direction."[57] It doesn't matter how you arrived at the page, or that you "made no other discussion regarding content" (you have frequently weighed in on content disputes related to Donald Trump). You initiated a content dispute and now you are attempting to adjudicate a conduct dispute about participants in the content dispute. You can't do that. Is it going to be necessary to request clarification from Arbcom on this? By the way, this is not first time that I have protested about you violating WP:INVOLVED and ignoring the instructions on this page: This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators..- Mr X 🖋 14:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

Sandstein everyone is a "single purpose account" during their first few edits. This guy made an account yesterday, and probably has no idea what AE is. How is an indef the appropriate first step? Unbelievable. It is not difficult to go to Stefan Halper's article and read about exactly what he did. Here's a handy article that summarizes it well. No BLP violation. Harper also ran a spying campaign during the 1980 presidential election. If the shoe fits... Mr Ernie (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statment by Masem

(The following content was moved out of the uninvolved admin section. I still strongly disagree that in this specific content dispute I am involved for discussing the question of the article title, but rather not divert the discussion from the matter raised at AE --Masem (t) 20:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Given 1) the rough state of the media discussing this person and this claim that certainly makes the claim contestable but not novel and still the subject of debate in the media, and 2) that there's other places on the same talk page where the same claim is made but no action has been asked against these, and 3) this is far from the same hyberbole that often comes up about discussions of BLPs related to Trump or other right-wing figures in the AP2 area which no one typically raises any concern of, this feels like a unactionable case. 100% absolutely that if this was in mainspace, that would be a problem without full consensus, but not on a talk page. (Tempted to say we need to TNT and lock down this article as it seems impossible to get any type of non-battleground behavior happening on this in real-time news coverage.) --Masem (t) 02:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - - To response to Mr. X above (and repeated from previous notice), I reiterate the point here: I do not consider myself involved in this specific content dispute: the only contribution on the page I did was when I saw the page title (as "Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory)" appear at the edit warring noticeboard, and expressed concern that the page needed to be renamed to something shorter to meet naming policy and avoid the potential BLP. I'm also writing this response before I go to responde to a ping that named me regarding a name change on that page. I have made no other discussion regarding content and certainly not around the specific disputed area here. --Masem (t) 14:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Galathadael

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

(Response moved to section above --Masem (t) 20:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
- This is somewhat of a mirror image to the complaint regarding BullRangifer above as concerns the WP:BLPTALK issue. I generally agree with Masem above that, as a matter of discretionary sanctions, this is a bit below the threshold for sanctions. However, there is a material difference to the case above: Galathadael ‎is a single-purpose account, and every single one of their 11 edits so far is dedicated to one thing: edit-warring to promote the view (without citing reliable sources) that a particular living person committed serious misconduct. We do not need editors like this. I am indefinitely blocking Galathadael ‎per WP:NOTHERE as a normal admin action. Sandstein 13:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[3] "Israel Has 101 Different Types of Permits Governing Palestinian Movement". Haaretz. 2011-12-23. Retrieved 2019-04-07. The most common permits are those allowing Palestinians to work in Israel, or in Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Over the decades, however, the permit regimen has grown into a vast, triple-digit bureaucracy.

[4] "FBI email chain may provide most damning evidence of FISA abuses yet". Foxnews.com. 2019-03-25. Retrieved 2019-04-12.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[1]

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