Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Contents


Requests for arbitration

Magioladitis 2

Initiated by ~ Rob13Talk at 04:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by BU Rob13

I think there's no choice but to kick this back to the Arbitration Committee for review. In March, the first case closed with two restrictions, one involving cosmetic editing and another involving unblocking Yobot. It also closed with a reminder to avoid undesirable editing patterns. In late March/early April, another case request was filed due to improper talk page deletions. It was declined. Both Mkdw and Ks0stm described that case request as "strike two", and the Committee generally agreed that misuse of administrative tools had occurred.

Since then, the community has lost patience with Magioladitis. In response to the bludgeoning of discussions attempting to remove or completely alter WP:COSMETICBOT, the community enacted a topic ban on discussing COSMETICBOT with narrow exceptions. In response to making high-speed bot-like edits from his main account while a Yobot bot task was pending approval, the community enacted a second topic ban on semi-automated or automated editing outside an approved bot task. The latter topic ban was based on a pattern of editing exactly described by the Committee's reminder in the previous case; underlying editing patterns have not changed.

Magioladitis has already been blocked once for violating his first topic ban due to edits here after multiple warnings. Further, he's gamed the ban by creating an information page defining "cosmetic edits" as he sees fit, claiming this is not technically a violation of the ban because he's prohibited only from discussing COSMETICBOT, not creating information pages.

I'm coming here with the question of whether the pattern of conduct since the previous case is compatible with adminship. It is unprecedented for an administrator to be given two topic bans and a block for violating a ban within three weeks. Add on the ArbCom restrictions just four months ago and I think we're unambiguously within WP:ADMINCOND territory. The community cannot make a decision to desysop under current policy. ArbCom is the proper venue to evaluate this.

Replies to Hammersoft, not important to accepting/declining case
@Hammersoft: I'm happy to change the name that I've filed under if you can propose a better name. What else do you name a case solely about a single administrator? "The case in which an unnamed administrator annoys the hell out of the community"? We do need a descriptive title, and I struggle to think of one that is succinct and fits other than the name of the person the case is solely about. (Also, your review implies correlation, not causation. I can easily tell a different story without causation. Cases are only named after specific individuals when the conduct of those individuals is severe and has few mitigating factors based on the conduct of others. Therefore, they're more likely to be sanctioned due to the underlying conduct that caused the naming.) ~ Rob13Talk 17:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Hammersoft: I know you weren't implying wrongdoing; I'm just a bit perplexed about which practice you'd consider better. July 2017 Case 3 isn't descriptive, and so it's not a good name that can be referred to in conversation. I also just don't think the name of the case matters for anchoring. Whether or not we name it as such, this is a case that has started with an accusation of wrongdoing on Magioladitis' part and a request that he be desysopped. If you're concerned about anchoring, that is the anchored point whether or not the name of the case is Magioladitis. It's hard to imagine any system that could eliminate a case starting with an accusation of wrongdoing or a request for sanction. ~ Rob13Talk 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Hammersoft: I have to disagree with the "it takes two to tango" business. If you want to name two parties in this dispute, one is Magioladitis and the other is the community at large. This is evidenced by the fact that the community has repeatedly imposed sanctions, etc. I struggle to say the community is a party to any dispute, though, because per WP:CONSENSUS, the community is more-or-less automatically "right" under our policies. Further, I don't really even see this as resolving a dispute; the community is attempting to resolve the dispute via sanctions, and ArbCom shouldn't intrude in those sanctions until they demonstrably fail (per Arbitration policy). Rather, ArbCom is (or is not, depending on whether the case is accepted) undertaking a review of a specific editor's administrative status because that's something the community cannot do. ~ Rob13Talk 13:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
In response to Magioladitis' section; I've started discussions to revoke approval from bots making cosmetic edits. This was clean-up from when Magioladitis was a BAG member and approved cosmetic-only bot edits with no consensus (including for the friends he's self-identified below). I always approach the bot operator first, attempting to find a mutually agreeable way forward. In all instances where I've started a discussion querying whether a bot approval should be revoked, the community has agreed with me and revoked the approval. In contrast, Magioladitis has tried multiple times to request my bots be reviewed due to minor bugs normal for any operator without any discussion with me beforehand. Every time, the community has disagreed with Magioladitis. The latest ended with a warning to stop using process to harass me. One of the former actions is enforcing policy while the other is blatant harassment. I trust the Committee can determine which is which.

Statement by Magioladitis

It's clear that we have a ongoing drama. I am started an effort to disengage from that the last days. Recall that the main discussion started from the fact that edits that in general are considered benefitial should or should not be done in a systematic way. After the ArbCom I focused of finding a way to do these edits with the less disruption for the community and after that community reformed COSMETICBOT to better reflet community consensus. Any conflicts have not at all affected the readers and a small fraction of admins have in fact participated in the ongoing discussions.

I think the last ArbCom left some things in a gray area exactly because the general belief is that some edits should be done one way or another and we hav to fnd a way to cooperate in a friendly enviroment.

After the ArbCom resulted RU Rob 13 was certainly unhappy from that because from day 0 they wanted blood. They did not act only against me but went after the tasks I have approved as BAG member, the people I work as team (Bgwhite, Ladsgroup, et al.). Instead of seeking a compromise between two different good faith approaches, they kept critism sometimes even without checking. I don't think that the fact that Bgwhite has not responded to any messages after BU Rob 13 started trying to communicate him is unrelated. Rob has in the past proposed and other reasons why I have to lose my admin rights. Sometimes it feels like the reason is only the excuse and not the main problem. It was clear I was to ask for "interaction zero" with Rob and even ask to examine if their actions led to weaking the project by discrouarging people. I feel like they got here first only to name the discussion after my name and not after them.

Here we have a gradial escalation of unneccessary drama. My edits have reduced, better rules have been set, I started the procedure to ask permission for certain edits and I have opened BRFAs for the various tasks. The ongoing drama has made the BRFA uncomfortable to re-allow general fixes that, recall, was a given thing for six (6) years.

I don't think the ongoing drama affected me as admin. I keep helping with the best way I can. Escalating a discussion about minor, and still positive edits, to an admin drama, I don't think it's benefitial to Wikipedia and to the Wikimedia Movement. We already lost a highly active admin (Bgwhite) from that.

There is no reason to regret to start this case. It's been months since the last time we really discussed this and it would be good to evaluate the various aspects proposed. how they got implemeted, how both sides used the results of the ArbCom and who really promoted drama. Everything was planned anyway: [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Proposed_decision|"See you in three months"] (Rob, 10 February 2017)

Comment Rob has already written more words than the allowed space. Please do not allow any further comments. Rob keeps rewritting and commenting using this page as a forum.

Statement by fellow bot operator and admin Beetstra

I start to see a pattern here regarding bot operators, this is certainly not the first bot operator that is here for exactly the same type of reasons. Maybe it is time that the community starts to get their act together, I cannot imagine that on the few operators of high-volume, mainspace-editing bots (even when comparing to the number of admins, but especially comparing to the number of editors), we are already at the third (at least) bot operator (& admin) that runs into the same type of problems: not listening to 'the will of the community'. I'll add to this that this is more a case of BOTCOND than of ADMINCOND (though I can see an underlying relation between these). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: "Its not the communities fault for not being clear.": thank you for agreeing with me that the community is not being clear, I hope that the Arbitrators will take that message home. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: The personal attack (and not the first one in your statement) is noted. But seen that we are now at least at the third case about bot operators, and those three bot operators are certainly not the only ones who have had comments about their bot's edits. There are many (technically) cosmetic edits that are not treated as cosmetic, and there are many edits that are technically not cosmetic which are nonetheless treated as such. That is where both bot operators ánd editors keep confusing things. Moreover there is confusion over bot-approved tasks (some regarding technically cosmetic edits) which need additional manual edits (or semi-automated edits) where the community falls over the fact that they are not performed on a true bot account which adds to the confusion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem

The ANI discussion archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive958#User:Magioladitis high speed editing is worth reviewing. Magioladitis' use of AWB has been problematic at times, and use of that tool cannot be revoked while Magioladitis remains a sysop, though the ANI thread implemented a ban when it was closed 10 days ago. That discussion included the following comments from Iridescent (emphasis in original):

  • "If Magioladitis hadn't been an admin, he'd at the very least have been stripped of the AWB permission and almost certainly be community banned from the project by now; he should be counting himself lucky that he hasn't been community banned, not constantly trying to argue that the problem is everybody else, not him."
  • "As a WP:PERM veteran, I can say unequivocally that if I saw someone with his competence issues using AWB I'd remove the bit in a heartbeat, so his continued use of the tool is purely an artefact of his legacy admin status."

Magioladitis' AWB access and sysop status need to be considered if a case is accepted. My own comments in that ANI discussion noted that rapid edits were made that were unhelpful. This edit moved a colon that should have been removed (a manual correction of an AWB-editing error noted in the ANI thread). This edit changed "titwle" to "tiwle" (an error immediately corrected in the subsequent edit, Magioladitis' third edit to blue mud dauber in that minute). Magioladitis commented to me at ANI that I "could help though," at the time I was making these substantive reference improvements to the article. I interpreted this comment as defensive, but also felt it was unhelpful and was disappointed that Magioladitis did not more directly address his implicit comment on the usefulness of my own contribution to the ANI discussion and the article. Magioladitis feels targeted, I am sure, but needs to do better at working collaboratively and cooperatively and not responding with WP:IDHT. EdChem (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Further comment: Magioladitis has come to my user talk page to discuss some of the above, and we have had a good discussion after which I believe that each of us have a better understanding. I have a much better impression of Magioladitis' skills for dispute resolution and admin accountability from this interaction, and so observe that his behaviour in the ANI thread is worth considering against this much more positive example. The discussion is at User talk:EdChem#Your comment on my editing. EdChem (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OccultZone

Magioladitis needs to be desysopped. I can speak about the interaction I had with him and he violated WP:INVOLVED a number of times, despite heavy involvement.[2] He removed my user rights[3] after I got banned and when I asked him to restore he never responded[4], before that he acted like an uninvolved administrator on one WP:ARE complaint that concerned me,[5] I did notified him about WP:INVOLVED but he denied it and provided a nonsensical reason.[6] What is more bothersome is that he never edited that entire ARE noticeboard ever before or ever again.[7] Yes, he carried out gross WP:WIKIHOUNDING all the time that made things far worse. Other than that, he hasn't been good at identifying what is a manual or bot edit, he has misrepresented my manual edits as bot edits. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Glrx

Something seems very off about this request.

To most reasonable editors, converting "ISBN 123456789x" to {{ISBN|123456789x}} to produce "ISBN 123456789x" is a cosmetic edit because it does not change the appearance or the linking properties of the viewed HTML. In my world, Magioladitis should not be touching such an edit. Neither should the bots.

Xaosflux denied Magioladitis's request for a magic link bot task: "Task denied due to lack of established community consensus for a job of this size." 3 February 2017 Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 27

But the OPs have certified that the edit is not cosmetic.

MediaWiki is going to turn off the ISBN magic link sometime in the future, so to keep the linking property, a discussion ending 19 March 2017 decided to replace the magic link with a template.[8] (The discussion did not say do it immediately; it just wanted to keep the magic link functionality.)

That the change-magic-link-to-template passed convinced BU Rob 13 that the change was not cosmetic: "I'm perhaps the BAG member that takes the strongest stance against cosmetic-only bot edits, but there was just no grounds to deny the task on the basis of COSMETICBOT."[9] BU Rob 13 did the BAG approval that unleashed the cosmetic edits without requiring a recent substantial edit before making the change.[10] ({{ISBN}} is used on 148,000+ pages.)

Consequently, BU Rob 13, Primefac, xaosflux, and others believe the ISBN edits are not cosmetic.

Primebot and Magic links bot start making edits.

Magioladitis then uses the magic-link-edit is not cosmetic to justify running AWB to make the ISBN edit; he also does a bunch of minor edits that are allowed when other changes are made (aka, general fixes).

The AWB edits prompt xaosflux to take Magioladitis to ANI. Xaosflux labels the edits "insubstative". From the discussion on that page, xaosflux would permit such edits if they set the bot flag. Xaosflux believes everybody's watchlist should "hide bots". That is not the default, and Phab:T11790 (hide bot edits masks vandalism) has not been fixed: see 2010(!) comments by Rich Farmbrough, 2016 comments by Opabinia regalis, and 2017 comments by Doc James. Magioladitis is not a bot, so I don't see why he should have to set the bot flag. Policy WP:BOTDEF and WP:BOTFLAG.

Magioladitis offers a further defense that his edits are fixing ISBN magic links that are not handled by the Primebot regex. That suggests to me that Magioladitis should be checking each modified magic link. That means the bot flag should not be set and AWB would be appropriate.

I have trouble with all the players here. My reading is xaosflux complained at ANI because his "hide bots" flag could not hide Magioladitis' edits. As a result, Magioladitis has been banned from using AWB. The ban is confusing; it sounds like a two-month ban, but it is really an indefinite ban that allows Magioladitis to appeal the ban to the community after two months: "so giving a firm 2 month ban and leaving the community with the option to lift the ban or continue it as they see fit after that time." Decisions should be final; it should be a two month ban that expires or an indef; it should not be ban for 2 months and revisit.

Now BU Rob 13 has filed for review by the arbitrators.

I think Magioladitis has been an obstinate and difficult guy, but in this instance the prosecution is unfair. For the bot task to be approved, the edit must not be cosmetic, but the OPs are claiming that when Magioladitis does the edit, then it is cosmetic. There's a bigger backstory here.

Glrx (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Hammersoft

Per the instructions at the top of this page, it is for statements on the subject of accepting or declining a case request. IMO this is all good, interesting discussion but this is not the place for it. Feel free to revive this discussion somewhere more appropriate. GoldenRing (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


I am uninvolved in this case in all respects.

Since ArbCom has still refused to respond as a group nor make a change to their naming conventions, I will state the following once again. The issue of anchoring is quite serious. The very name of this case has already set the table against Magioladitis, even before the case is officially accepted. Studies in science have shown that it is very difficult to avoid this bias, even when you are aware of it. ArbCom, being comprised of humans, is extremely susceptible to it as well.

This case from the very beginning was setup for Magioladitis to fail. The first edit to establish the request, while well meaning and in good faith, established the name and guarantees that if the case is accepted, it will not go well for Magioladitis.

I did a study on this once on cases spanning three years and 31 ArbCom cases where parties where named in the title. For those editors who are named in the title of a case, they are 9.5 times more likely to receive sanctions than non-title named parties. Not one single title named party escaped sanctions of any kind. In essence here, Magioladitis is guaranteed to be sanctioned, no matter how good of a defense he puts up. In no sense will he get a "fair trial" here. This is wrong.

There are some people who know how this works, and if they are title named in a case know better than to respond. Responding is pointless as they are guaranteed to be sanctioned, and anything they say will just add fuel to the fire. This is why we've seen so many cases where people get "case flu" and are suddenly not able to be around. I don't blame them. Similarly, on the other side, this issue also means that in disputes that are likely to be accepted, it is far, far better for a person to race to make the request before the other side of the dispute. If they can get the case named after the person on the other side of the dispute, they face a lot less chance of facing sanctions themselves.

I haven't reviewed the basis of this case. I do note that Magioladitis has been an editor for 11 years, and an administrator for 9 years. He has made 900 thousand edits to this project. Naming this case after him effectively throws him under the bus, and cavalierly disregards the immense amount of work he has done to this project.

ArbCom, you can and MUST do better than this. Stop sweeping this issue under the rug. Pay attention and DO something about it. Stop naming cases after involved people. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @BU Rob13: I'm speaking more to the abstract than to this particular case, though this case is an excellent example. I do not mean to imply and I certainly apologize if you interpreted that I ascribe any malfeasance on your part in naming the case. I don't. You're following common practice. It's that common practice that needs to change. While causation vs. correlation would certainly have an differential effect, the cognitive bias issues that underlay these cases dramatically tilt the table, as science has shown. To the issue of the name itself; I could see a common practice where someone bringing a case could start off by saying "Case request by User:so-and-so", and a clerk thereafter shortly renames it to a name based on a date; for example in this case it might be "July 2017 Case 3". That would be neutral and would avoid the cognitive bias. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mkdw: Proposing it there would have no effect on this case. You know as well as I do that such a debate would take forever. This case is here, now, regarding a very long term editor who has enormous contributions to the project who is about to be shat upon by a system rigged against him. ArbCom can do better and must. Also, I doubt there is a case where there isn't a title named party who was the locus. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned that the arbitrators perhaps are not understanding the issue at the heart of this. My feeble attempts at explaining aren't perhaps conveying the issue well. When someone brings a case to ArbCom, there is obviously a dispute. It is rare that there is just one person who has gone pickles-stuck-in-your ears crazy and the only issue at hand is that person. As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango. There is a dispute worthy of ArbCom's attention precisely because neither side of the issue has been able to convince the other of the veracity of their position and both feel they have a defensible position. So, to craft this idea that somehow we have just _once_ loci of a dispute is false on the face of it. Even in this case, we already have a predisposition to view this case as about Magioladitis. It isn't. Understand; the issue is the dispute, not Magioladitis. There are parties to the dispute, and the dispute hasn't resolved through other means. ArbCom isn't tasked with reviewing Magioladitis here. ArbCom is tasked with solving the dispute. As soon as you name the dispute for one party or the other, you guarantee the case is already biased. This has already happened in this case, and Arbs comments reflect this bias already. Yet, we have people responding to this case indicating it's not as clear cut as it might seem. Thanks to the naming of the case, we are already focusing on Magioladitis rather than the dispute itself. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Xaosflux

Reply to Glrx:

  • Regarding Yobot 27's BRFA: At that time there had not been a community discussion for which solution to use here on enwiki - that closure was certainly without prejudice for such support emerging at a later time.
  • My ANI filing was a request to review if that specific batch of high-speed, unflagged editing was broadly considered as disruptive as I suspected it was - the closure supported that this was undesirable.
  • Regarding your statement, Xaosflux believes everybody's watchlist should "hide bots": I don't recall ever saying that-please provide a link. I have stated that "hide bots" is an available option that editors may choose to use, and that they are prevented from controlling this choice if a bot assertion is not made with an edit.
xaosflux Talk 20:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Hchc2009

BU Rob13 has asked the Arbitration Committee whether Magioladitis's "pattern of conduct since the previous case is compatible with adminship". Some of the relevant policy states that "occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However...consistent or egregious poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status." I expressed a range of concerns about Magioladitis's behaviour in late 2016, outlined here. Those concerns included, in my personal opinion, Magioladitis's poor judgement in assessing consensus, which is essential for the administrator role. I also have growing doubts about the way he responds to the wider editorial community. Most recently, his personal account has been blocked in July 2017 (for violating a community topic ban), in December 2016 (block evasion), twice in January 2016 (including for violating unblock conditions), and in November 2015 (repeatedly violating AWB rules), together with two recent community topic bans. His response to the latest episode included attempts to "game the system" and simply trying to ignore the intervening administrator: these feel increasingly typical. Our policy states that administrators "who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community" may have their access to the administrative tools removed, and I believe that we are now at this juncture in this case. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID

To quote Beestra: "I start to see a pattern here regarding bot operators, this is certainly not the first bot operator that is here for exactly the same type of reasons. Maybe it is time that the community starts to get their act together" and "we are already at the third (at least) bot operator (& admin) that runs into the same type of problems: not listening to 'the will of the community'."

This indicates that maybe the Bot operators (or at least the ones who keep running bots on large jobs making inconsequential edits - as most other bots tend not to cause any issues) need to get their act together, not the community.

Seriously, how any bot operator can be unaware of how the community feels about BOTs given the Rich Farmbrough and Betacommand 1, 2 and 3 cases - well they must have been living under a rock.

If as a bot operator, you end up continuously wasting community time its obvious what is going to happen. Redacted Frankly before making a bot request, the above cases should be mandatory reading. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I have edited your comments in my capacity as clerk. GoldenRing (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

The committee punted the policy decisions back to the community to be ratified. The discussions for policy were encumbered by partisan attempts to filibuster any decisions that would make actions harder for specific individuals. Restrictions were put in place, were gamed and edge poked to find out exactly where the red-line is for getting sanctioned. Edits were proposed by restricted users in an attempt to game around the restrictions. A firm "Do not make or propose any edits that could be percieved as cosmetic/trivial for no less than 6 months" restriction needs to be put in to place as the community's patience is exhausted and people are starting to react more on the grounds of the editor over the proposed changes. This does mean that some good changes are getting lost because of who is doing them. If an edit truly needs to happen then it will happen independently of the named user and any prompting that the named user may invoke. Hasteur (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Justlettersandnumbers

Since the recent ANI discussion was at least partly prompted by complaints I had made to Magioladitis on his talk-page, I feel that I should comment here. My thoughts:

  • As I said at ANI, I know and never doubt that Magioladitis wants to improve our encyclopaedia
  • I don't see that there was any misuse of admin privileges, powers or tools in the behaviour I was complaining about (clogging my watchlist by manually making AWB edits that two bots were already working on)
  • I'm concerned, perplexed and disappointed at Magioladitis's apparently reckless failure to pay attention to what other editors want (and troubled by his readiness to argue over the detail of the words they have used to express those wants)
  • If that lack of readiness to listen to others is incompatible with admin status – and I simply don't know whether it is or not – then this case should be opened
  • I still hope that Magioladitis will be able to change his ways, and to convince the community that he has changed them, before that or any other further action becomes necessary.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by User:Robert McClenon

It is terribly sad that things have come to this point and that this second case request is here. I wasn’t following the initial controversy that led to the first ArbCom case in which Magioladitis was cautioned about his use of bots. However, the more recent controversies have been ones that are simply in the face of editors. I don’t know why Magioladitis, after more than ten years of productive editing as an editor, as a bot operator, and as an administrator, and after having limits defined, has been pushing the envelope within the past six months. However, Magioladitis doesn’t seem to be the same editor (or administrator or bot operator) as he has been. Magioladitis simply appears to have lost the capability to use judgment and discretion. I don’t know whether he needs medical or psychological help, and would urge him to get an evaluation. However, Wikipedia is an electronic workplace, and, just like a physical workplace, has to take appropriate action when someone is no longer able to contribute constructively.

In particular, it appears that the judgment of Magioladitis is no longer compatible with his status as an administrator or a bot operator. If an editor other than an administrator showed the sort of misjudgment that Magioladitis has, administrators would be discussing the length of blocks. If an administrator shows this sort of misjudgment (and he didn’t until recently), ArbCom needs to deal with him, because his conduct is inconsistent with administrator status. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Magioladitis 2: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <10/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Accept I have been watching some of these discussions unfolding over the past week. I believe we have comprehensively come to a point whereby the community has exhausted a considerable amount of time attempting to resolve or remedy the situation. While I understand the recent block was contentious, there is a responsibility to at least look at WP:ADMINACCT and WP:ADMINCOND. Mkdw talk 04:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    @Hammersoft: I would propose this be discussed at WT:ACN. We've had two cases this year, one of which was named Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific. Any discussion should ask the question whether there are other factors that require consideration. For example, I would estimate cases not named after individuals are significantly more likely seeking resolutions regarding topics or procedures; cases named after individuals are usually, more often than not, about conduct. I'd be curious to see a comparisons between all cases where a single individual editor's conduct was the locus of the dispute, but where case titles were named after the editor or not. Mkdw talk 20:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Comments moved
  • @Beetstra: Actually, your comment perfectly demonstrates my point on why discussing a procedural issue during a case will interfere with one another and may potentially sabotage the case by distracting it. My comment above in no way was speaking to this case and I was responding directly to comments made by Hammersoft about their study on bias. If comments about that discussion and the case cannot be separated, then case and point. Mkdw talk 20:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    @Beetstra: My familiarity with this case comes from the last one and not because of the case title. I would not be opposed to renaming the case COSMETICBOT if the case was accepted. During the last case, the community was encouraged to review common fixes and COSMETICBOT. The Arbitration Committee already recognized this was a major problem as the policies were in conflict with either the community practice or were simply unclear. ArbCom does not decide matters of policy, which is why the community was encouraged to remedy these policy issues. Evaluating whether clear instruction has now been provided, I would hope, continues to remain a critical factor if and when the issue of conduct comes up, which it certainly will by way of the case request, other comments, and the previous recent attempts at dispute resolution. Mkdw talk 21:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    It's important to note that 'accepting the case' is not the same thing as 'accepting the viewpoint of the filing party'. I'm not sure why that's being assumed. Many of the broad issues being brought up are arguments that have already been brought up and responded to by all parties involved; an additional re-summary for the sake of procedure does not change whether some of us are already familiar with the situation; it was abundantly clear that this case was inevitably going to be heading our way. Mkdw talk 19:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    I'll be deferring to the evidence and workshop phase to determine what the focus of this case will be, which may very well be editor conduct or something other. The case already has a significant history and I deem that aspect to be by far the greatest contributing factors to the decision to accept the case. A case request is not the place where the decisions or scope should be determined.` Mkdw talk 22:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Accept. With his latest swings and misses, Magioladitis has struck out many times over, and I have a suspicion that his batting average has dropped well below the Mendoza line, so to speak. More than happy to examine this under WP:ADMINCOND. Also will note that I'm particularly disgruntled with what at first glance appear to be attempts by Magioladitis to game the system. Ks0stm (TCGE) 05:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Magioladitis: While you were complaining about the length of BU Rob13's statement, he reduced his below 500 words while your statement has ballooned to 61 words over the limit as of my writing this. Ks0stm (TCGE) 03:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we need to hear from Magioladitis first, but there does seem to be an awful lot of community time being spent on this that shouldn't be necessary. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Beetstra, that wasn't really the point of my post - I actually intended not to continue the momentum toward the net-4 threshold, and to highlight the specific issue I hoped Magioladitis would address in his statement.

      As for the idea that Magioladitis is being railroaded: I wrote the original PD in the Magioladitis case, which focused heavily on recommending that the community work out clearer parameters for what would be considered a "cosmetic" edit, and included a quite mild remedy for Magioladitis himself. Events after the PD was posted, including Magioladitis' own response and feedback from others following the case, led to a somewhat stronger remedy. It's hard to read that trajectory as being the result of some kind of bias against him or desire to throw him under the bus. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

    • BU Rob13 Assuming you mean the RfC in May, yes, Headbomb pointed it out and I added a note on the case page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    • "Arbcom is too speedy" is not a complaint that comes up much ;) In addition to the point GW makes below, there's also the fact that the background to this case is already familiar to most of us, since the previous case was recent and we were aware of the community restrictions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Speaking of cognitive biases... I dunno, Beetstra, some people here seem to be hearing what they expect to hear more than what's really said. We are familiar with the facts of this case, because the current committee has already reviewed this matter in depth. That is materially different than, for example, the War of the Pacific case (about which I knew nothing whatsoever before it appeared on our pages), or the common situation in which the current committee is asked at ARCA to "clarify" a decision made five years ago. (Nowhere else on Wikipedia do I feel more like an example of the Peter Principle in action... ;) And if you need examples of named parties who weren't sanctioned, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man should do nicely. Conversely, the most seemingly-prejudicial case name in the recent past was "Vested Contributors" (later AE2), which of course does not name any editors. A look through some of the rejected requests of the past couple of years - I suggest in particular the recent Godsy/Legacypac request and last year's request naming Fram - should tell you just exactly how effective it is to file early for the sake of getting to frame the case. Hammersoft's analysis would be more convincing if cases were randomly assigned to the name-by-user or name-by-topic condition, but as stated it overlooks prior probability.

      Aaaanyway, I am going to go ahead and accept this one, and strongly recommend that any further commentary about case names and procedures, real or alleged cognitive biases, and other matters not related to this specific request move to WT:ACN. If you believe there is useful broader context to provide for this case - e.g. that Magioladitis does or doesn't have a higher error rate than other editors doing similar work, or that there are specific and identifiable problems with cases about bots, or whatever, it's looking like the evidence page of this case will be the best venue for those topics. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Accept. I hope that we get a statement from Magioladitis soon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hammersoft: I'm not sure I buy the idea that a case titled "Magioladitis" to review the actions of Magioladitis is liable to bias the case any more than a case titled "Px4AX7WDxfEQM5h" to review the actions of Magioladitis would. Regardless, I think you're probably better off bringing this up in a broader forum than individual ArbCom cases, since these statements will shortly be archived or moved (depending on whether the case is accepted) and won't be in a great place for continued discussion either way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Beetstra: I genuinely have no idea what your reply means. If you're worried about word limits and you want to start a discussion about something not directly related to this case request, feel free to leave a message on my talk page or at WT:ACN. If it is directly related, I'd really appreciate if you could rephrase the comment directed to me, because I'm not sure what you're saying. If you don't think it's possible to do so within the word limits, you can request an extension. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Beetstra: Regarding your points directed at Opabinia regalis: BU Rob13 left a notification about the ArbCom case immediately after he filed it at 04:23, 16 July 2017. Magioladitis next edited at 08:00, 16 July 2017, then archived the notice about the case on his talk page at 08:06, 16 July 2017. Only Mkdw, Ks0stm, and Opabinia regalis commented on the case request between those two times. I hear your point that (however that is a slippery slope: 2 accepts in an hour, if the timing of a filing party is right, you could easily have 10 accepts by the time a named party wakes up). There is no reason that ALL of you can't wait 24 hours after all named parties have put opening statements (and give it a max of 72 hours since opening of the case). However, you'll see that there were only two accepts in the period before Magioladitis became active. We have certainly had cases involving users who have retired or otherwise become inactive, but I certainly don't know of any recently where so many votes to accept a case were cast while a party was simply asleep. I would like to think we work that fast, but I don't think that's right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Only in death: Please keep your comments and edit summaries civil. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Accept I been watching this on and off and believe that we are at the point where the Committee needs to become involved to examine the suitability of Magioladitis to continue holding the admin bit. Specifically, WP:ADMINACCT and WP:ADMINCOND are key areas of concern for me. Hchc2009's statement and the quotes from Iridescent (in EdChem's statement) are convincing for me. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Accept I'm sorry that it's come to this, but I don't see any other way of resolving the issues than to accept this case. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Accept --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Accept DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Accept regretfully per Doug. Keilana (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Accept per preceding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Requests for clarification and amendment

Motions

Requests for enforcement


Neuwert

Neuwert blocked for 48 hours for 1RR violation. GoldenRing (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Neuwert

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Casprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Neuwert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 02:31, 12 July 2017 First revert
  2. 02:43, 12 July 2017 ( Second revert. Violation of 1rr
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANeuwert&type=revision&diff=790143053&oldid=790120780
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

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

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


Discussion concerning Neuwert

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

Statement by Neuwert

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

Statement by Sagecandor

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Neuwert

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

Volunteer Marek

Not actionable.  Sandstein  07:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
James J. Lambden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 05:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 22:19, 11 July 2017 Restores challenged edit without talk page consensus
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months: December 13 2016
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on: July 10 2017
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on: June 22 2017
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

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


Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

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

Statement by Volunteer Marek

There was an addition of this material on July 4th, although as Sagecandor notes it was in the article before, and it was removed without discussion and consensus. Regardless, it was not removed until July 9th. Three editors - User:Grayfell, User:ValarianB and myself expressed support for the inclusion which shows that consensus was indeed in favor of it. The removal was done by red-linked, brand new, throw away account and in fact, the article was protected against vandalism [11]. Please note the stated reason for protection. It is NOT "edit warring". It is "persistent vandalism". The text was restored by Grayfell and ValarianB. Several other established users, such as User:MrX, made intervening edits and did not object to the text. And this being a controversial article, a piece of text remaining in for five days pretty much makes it "status quo". The only person objecting at the time was Dervougilla who claimed, somewhat strangely, that this was not in line with WP:MOS. Additionally another user, Power~enwiki also expressed support for inclusion.

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

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

There's another piece of bad faithed manipulation in Lambden's presentation of the timeline. He might have pinged me at 22:26 while I made another edit at 22:27. But that's essentially at the same time. I didn't see Lambden's ping until about 5:09 when I returned to editing [12] (had to make dinner and stuff in the meantime). So his suggestion that I was even aware of his stupid threats to take me to AE - which is really at that his contribution to the discussion consists of - is false. I wasn't. I had shit to do. By the time I cam back the edit had been reverted anyway. But hey, Lambden just couldn't let it go, he couldn't pass up an opportunity to file an AE report however spurious it may be.

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

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

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

Statement by Sagecandor

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

Agree with GoldenRing [13] and Sandstein [14], regarding the lack of basis for the nature of the restriction here. Further, agree with analysis by Dennis Brown that there is no actionable issue at this point in time, and as a content dispute and not an AE issue, further discussion is merited, at the article's talk page [15]. Sagecandor (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

LesVegas

No AE action taken. This matter can be reported to WP:ANI if desired, which is the place in which to request enforcement of community sanctions.  Sandstein  14:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning LesVegas

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 23:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
LesVegas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 14 June 2017 obviously lobbying an editor about the acupuncture article (see Special:Contributions/Arthur_Long)
  2. I asked them to self revert the TBAN violation (see below). See this section of their talk page for their denial that this is a TBAN violation (contradicting the block they received for doing the same thing in January - see below)
  3. 15 June 2017 Change to their Arthur Long comments (not really) after I notified them above
  4. 12 July 2017 Again, obviously lobbying an editor about the acupuncture article (see Special:Contributions/Playalake)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 17 December 2016 TBAN from acupuncture via this thread at ANI
  2. 6 January 2017 blocked for 60 hours for doing the same thing described above, as described in this diff


If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. (diff)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

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

The edits are blatantly egging on editors who are SPA and are blatantly only editing WP to advocate for acupuncture (and are heading for TBANs themselves). LesVegas has not left similar comments at any other kind of editor's talk page. TBANs are broadly construed and standing on the sidelines cheering on people who are doing what you can no longer do, is a violation. User:Sandstein, for you to not be able to see this is rather surprising, to say the least. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
AE is for dealing with disruption in areas where people do this kind of thing. The TBAN is squarely in that area, regardless of from where it arose. I am sure that LesVegas is rolling around on the floor laughing as folks debate the fine points of whether this is really welcoming people. Whatever. You all should act or not and close this, rather than continuing the giggles for LV. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Look, the diffs are petty trolling. Trolling but petty. If you all find them not actionable, then so be it. But please, no hyperlegal claims about venue. Dennis Brown, in another discussion you and I had, you wrote It is frustrating to see people try to nail down every single detail in policy because it makes it harder to admin....If you don't want admin to have any discretion, get bots to do our jobs. All this rules and outlines and process hurts enforcement. The TBAN is in the field of the DS; bringing it here makes both issues available, and any admin could take action under either; this is just a forum to bring it that is uncluttered. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not asking for anything to be modified. Shall I quote the close of the ANI thread: Due to issues with civil POV pushing and edit-warring, there is community consensus for a topic ban. LasVegas is indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to Acupuncture, broadly construed. As a side note to the administrators here, Acupuncture is a topic area with active Arbitration remedies, including discretionary sanctions. A community topic ban is perfectly fine, but this could have probably been handled by any uninvolved administrator via the discretionary sanctions You really think applying the entirely standard (and giving -- ahem - broad discretion to admins) "broadly construed" as encompassing this sort of petty trolling is "amending the ban"? Or that applying DS for such obvious (if petty) triolling with their feet as absolutely close as possible to the topic, is counter to the spirit of the TBAN or otherwise somehow harms the community? This is ... Monty Python esque silliness. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning LesVegas

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

Statement by LesVegas

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sagecandor

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

I note that LesVegas proudly displays the Graham's hierarchy of disagreement image [16] on their userpage [17]. Unfortunately, the focus of their choice of response, here, appears to stem from the 2nd-to-last-level of that very hierarchy, including the choice of edit summary in the edit, itself: DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad

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

Statement by Kingsindian

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

Statement by Johnuniq

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by (Roxy the dog)

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

Statement by Kingofaces43

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

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

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

Statement by Beyond My Ken

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning LesVegas

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I see nothing actionable. The diffs make no reference to acupuncture and were not made on a page related to acupuncture.  Sandstein  05:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In my view, interacting with acupuncture SPAs is not a violation of the acupuncture topic ban, insofar as the interactions themselves are not about acupuncture. See WP:TBAN. If no admins disagree, I'll close this request.  Sandstein  07:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not only do I not disagree, the TBAN that's supposedly been violated is a community sanction, not one imposed under arbitration, making this the wrong forum. If I saw any merit in the complaint, I'd do something anyway under ordinary admin discretion; but the type of complaint made here would turn every TBAN into an effective IBAN with every editor who took a strong interest in the topic. I just can't see it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Jytdog seems to have missed differentiating betwen community sanctions and arbcom sanctions. The correct thing to do would have been to either approach BU Rob13, who implemented the ban, or (groan) take it to ANI. That said, I don't think these technicalities need stop any admin from evaluating and acting on the complaint.
I'm far from impressed by LesVegas' response. Their question "I'm not allowed to say "Welcome to Wikipedia!" if that editor happens to have edited on a topic that I can't edit on?" (my italics) is self-serving and insincere. (Yes, yes, assume good faith, but note also that AGF is not a suicide pact.) There was obviously no "happens to" about it, especially as the newbies LesVegas offered advise to had edited nothing but acupuncture, and in a tendentious, forum-y way. And LV's posts weren't merely welcomes, they were invitations to e-mail. Looking at their contribs certainly suggests that they have no interest in editing Wikipedia as such, but are here solely to promote their POV on acupucture. That's very close to not being here to create an encyclopedia IMO. However, this is probably the wrong time to bring out the sledgehammer. Bishonen | talk 11:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC).
I kind of get that, but where do you draw the line around this sort of thing? Do we really want to get into the business of policing who editors with TBANs welcome to Wikipedia? GoldenRing (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Policing who they welcome? No, we shouldn't make a business of that. Jytdog's report wasn't really about "welcoming". (It's a bit like editors who use the "thanks" function to taunt an opponent, mutatis mutandis: that's not really about thanking.) If they're being disingenuous about their manner of, and motives for, welcoming, as in this case, I'm going to say "I see you", even if I don't write them a ticket. Both they and I may hopefully even remember about it next time they try to skirt their ban. Bishonen | talk 14:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC).
  • For starters, the Tban is not an AE issued tban, so it should be at ANI instead of here. That doesn't prevent us from taking action, but this is not the preferred venue and we certainly can opt to give instructions to take it elswhere. Secondly, if this was ANI, I would not take action based on this evidence. If BU Rob13 previously blocked for this [18] (which is more detailed but similar to the current complaint), then I'm at a loss how this is a tban violation. Perhaps he can explain; maybe I'm missing some finer point, maybe the block was for a different diff than provided, I don't know. LesVegas is stating he was banned in an area but doesn't mention it. I can see how that is disruptive considering how it was done, but not a violation of the tban. The tban does not mention that he can't say he is tbanned [19], and no tban SHOULD prohibit someone from saying they are tbanned in an area. An editor has to be able to say "I can't talk about that subject, I am topic banned from it" if they approached by another editor, for instance. I also don't think we can police email unless it is a claim of abusive email. I see no authority in the admin bit that lets us do that. Welcoming new editors might look like skirting the ban, but we aren't mind readers and we don't have the authority to expand or modify the tban, which is very narrow in scope and community imposed. I suggest we close this without prejudice to it being moved to the proper venue. If I saw it there, I would still recommend no action be taken, btw, but that decision should be made there, or by the filing party here, who could choose to just not refile it at ANI. Dennis Brown - 14:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Jytdog, the problem is that you are asking enforcement of a community ban, not an AE ban. at AE. If it was an AE ban, we could modify it or change it any way we felt was necessary (within Arb limits). Any of us, unilaterally. With a community ban, we absolutely can not do that, and usually you need to a consensus at AN/ANI to modify. So we have to enforce the ban "as is", and I see this as grey area. I DO see a problem, but I find it hard to press the button and own the action in a borderline case like this. That doesn't stop another admin, and I did ping the admin who blocked him before. Taking it to the community allows for clarification of the ban, adding to it, etc. Most of the time, if this is the wrong venue but the case is cut and dry (vandalism, socking, disruptive editing) then we just sanction as non-AE and move on, but this isn't so obvious, at least not to me. Dennis Brown - 22:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • They were not blocked for mentioning their topic ban; they were blocked for messaging an editor related to the topic they're banned from. Everything in their message that I blocked for (petition, etc) had to do with acupuncture. An edit does not have to explicitly mention acupuncture to be about acupuncture, and we should not draw such a distinction to prevent gaming. The intent of the community was clearly to remove this editor entirely from the topic area, not for them to continue lobbying from the sidelines and via emails. If that's all the editor is doing, I'd recommend indeffing them with talk page access and email access revoked. Welcoming editors who share their POV, giving them advice about conflicts they've had related to the topic, and telling those editors to email them for more? We all know what's going on there. ~ Rob13Talk 19:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    • WP:AE is still the wrong place to do it, and I would say that this case should probably go to a community discussion, if anywhere. Dennis Brown - 21:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm basically agreeing with Dennis here. I can see the problem, but it's not one where I'm comfortable pulling the trigger on my own discretion. To me, this is enough of an edge case — unusual enough as a TBAN violation — that I'd want to see sort of consensus for action. So if someone feels willing to exercise their discretion over this, risking the consequences, then they should carry on. Otherwise, action is going to need broader discussion than is going to happen at AE. GoldenRing (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by User:Hyper9

Appeal declined. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
Hyper9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Hyper9 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Sanction being appealed User talk:Hyper9#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban This user (User:SpacemanSpiff) with administrative powers has applied sanctions on my WP account. Opaque warnings served on 16th June - User talk:Hyper9#Discretionary sanctions alert and on 1st July - User talk:Hyper9#Final warning
Administrator imposing the sanction 
SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
Notified. here

Statement by User:Hyper9

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

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

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

Statement by User:SpacemanSpiff

  • Firstly, I have explained the issues clearly as have other admins Doug Weller and RegentsPark who are both involved in the discussions at Talk:Chera dynasty. The problem is that Hyper9 clearly exhibits a WP:IDHT attitude here and keeps repeating the same thing again and again and people stop responding as it's already been addressed, if it's not WP:IDHT then it's a case of being unable to understand discussions or how the encyclopaedia works, in which case the sanction is too light. The user has been refusing to follow proper process of DR and continues to edit war, so I'm hoping that the limited topic ban will allow the user to edit other areas and learn the processes, policies, and guidelines of the encyclopaedia. Also, the allegation of WP:INVOLVED is nothing more than rubbish. THis isn't a case of two parties here, but multiple editors in good standing (and who edit this area) including Doug Weller, RegentsPark and Cpt.a.haddock have continued to engage with the editor. The problem started at Malayalam where the user was trying to push a particular school of though [20] and there was a back and forth between this user and Cpt.a.haddock, then the refusal to go through DR, though the user participated in DR afterwards. The DRN case closed with a resolution somewhat similar to the original state of the article with the addition of "it's a matter of dispute".

A similar situation is going on at Chera dynasty where there was an edit war between Hyper9 and Cpt.a.haddock. MelanieN protected the page and warned them both. Subsequently Doug Weller and RegentsPark joined the two editors in the discussions and edited the article based on that, but were consistently reverted by Hyper9 -- [21], [22], [23], [24]. All this has to be taken in the context of the talk page discussions and if one reads Talk:Chera_dynasty#Cheras_as_Malayalam_or_Tamil_speakers and other posts further down from there, consensus is that this is WP:SYNTHESIS and doesn't belong, but Hyper9 has evaluated consensus for themselves that there's no synthesis and refuses to acknowledge that the other opinions hold (and the constant reverts on the article) and repeatedly says the same thing, which the others have stopped responding to as there's nothing new there.

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

  • Addendum: I forgot to include the refusal to participate in a DR for Chera dynasty, per the diff provided by Haddock below --[25]. —SpacemanSpiff 11:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Cpt.a.haddock

  • I am one of the editors involved in this fracas. IMO, Hyper9 is a tendentious editor with a warped view of how Wikipedia or, for that matter, how scholarship works. He is yet to grasp the concepts of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NPOV or more fundamentally, the idea that Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour.
In addition to the points made by SpacemanSpiff, I'd like to point out that after Hyper9's general disappointment with the DRN resolution on Malayalam, he refused to go through any moderated dispute resolution process for Chera dynasty and the second DRN which I'd opened, expired unanswered.
There have also been a number of personal attacks: "mindless editing", "whose name you can't even spell", etc. The latter attack was after RegentsPark informed Hyper9 that the consensus was against him and to self-revert. The revert never came.
I believe the topic-ban will help Hyper9 understand both how to behave and how to collaborate.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by User:Hyper9

Result of the appeal by User:Hyper9

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

Playalake

Indef blocked as a standard admin action for not being here to build an encyclopedia, then CU linked as a sockpuppet. All non-AE actions, not logged. Closing as no AE action is needed. Dennis Brown - 00:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Playalake

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 14:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Playalake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions:
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 15:00, 4 January 2017 1st edit here; a talk page comment: he Change.org petition lists the many problems with this article. I come here and see you editors locking discussion about it. Now NICE is being accused of being problematic. NICE is made of scientists who the NHS takes recommendations from. If you editors want to be on the opposite side of scientific officials, and pretend to have a scientifically backed article, shame on you..
  2. 4 January 2017 opening 2nd thread after first one was closed. You editors prefer to censor questions than answer them. I won't bring up other websites, but my questions remain unanswered. How did Wikipedia cover NICE before they updated? And why is everyone here quick to update based on NICE, but not care to update many Cochrane Reviews?
  3. 4 January 2017 Response on their talk page, when I tried to explain what article Talk pages are for: You locked my questions then you deleted them. Everything I saw on the Change.org petition is correct. Not only do Wikipedia editors censor studies beneficial to acupuncture, you also censor discussion on talk pages. You tell me to add what I believe is correct to the article but there is no edit button for me to make changes. This is obvious. Only select editors like you with an obvious censorship problem edit the article, nobody else is allowed to edit. Shame.
  4. 6 January 2017 Thank you for this. These editors are very bad and you give good advice. I will set up my email.. This was Playalake's response to LesVegas' terrible initial welcome message (diff).
  5. 14 July 2017 Reverting an edit, with edit note: why does Wikipedia remove all positive statements on acupuncture? This is exactly what change.org accuses you of. Now you do it? Unbelievable
  6. 15 July 2017 reverting, with edit note RACIST EDITS! On talk page admits it's being removed because Wikipedia says if authors are Taiwanese then they are not following scientific proofs! RACISM!
Oh for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 


If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above and diff. 18 January 2017
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Playalake

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

Statement by Playalake

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Playalake

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • A glance at Playalake's contributions show that they are a WP:GREATWRONGS WP:SPA here only to promote their point of view, and in a highly confrontative manner. Without admin objections, I intend to block them indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE as a normal admin action, which probably obviates the need for AE sanctions.  Sandstein  14:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with an indef block. The editor is practically waving a flag with WP:NOTHERE on it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I was just about to either block or topic ban this account the other day after I saw the edits made yesterday to this article and talk 1, 2, 3. This disruption wouldn't be tolerated on any article let alone an article under AC/DS... I agree that an indefinite block is justified here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Checkuser needed. We have had more problems with Acupuncture as of late, and this SPA is raising some serious red flags. Otherwise, I agree with with Sandstein's solution, but I think a Checkuser should at least look at this and decide if the CU tools would be beneficial and justified here. Dennis Brown - 18:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, Playalake is now indeffed. Waiting for checkuser response before closing this.  Sandstein  19:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • clock In progress I'm assuming I'm checking Playalake, not comparing the user to any other user/account. If I'm wrong, someone please ping me and let me know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Debresser

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

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

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

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


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

Request concerning Debresser

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 23:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Decorum :

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

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 21:47, 12 July 2017 I suggest naming a period Hellenistic period
  2. 21:52, 12 July 2017 Nishidani agrees
  3. 16:26, 13 July 2017 Debresser writes: "I would have no problem with that suggestion, but only if there would be some more input from editors who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish camp."
  4. 16:35, 13 July 2017 Nishidani writes: "I'd appreciate you striking out your remark above about 'editors who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish camp.' Contextually this says the two other editors here discussing this issue are in an 'anti-Jewish camp', i.e. their contributions are being read as motivated by anti-Semitic hostilities."
  5. 16:42, 13 July 2017 Debresser strikes: who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish camp
  6. 16:13, 14 July 2017 Debresser restores: "but only if there would be some more input from editors who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish/Israeli camp."


Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 3 April 2017 last block


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


Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

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

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


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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Debresser

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

Statement by Debresser

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by Debresser

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Seraphim System

I can't see a lot that helps us resolve this here. GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

It would have been better to say that my understanding of the evidence taken as a whole is that Debresser's approach to this was not conducive to collaborative editing. I also very much do not think that striking out anti-Jewish and replacing it with anti-Jewish/Israeli was helpful, since the content dispute is about what language to adopt for a periodization question, adding anti-Israeli here could be interpreted as an escalation. I don't believe the editor was unaware of how this was received, because this was the response when it was brought to his attention: [26]. I don't really find the explanation that "POV considerations" are excluded from WP:NPA acceptable. I will add that these disputes should be resolved based on current academic sources, and not religious "truth" or religious literary traditions.

I would note that AGF runs both ways. As Debresser notes here [27] Hellenistic Period covers a shorter period, and allows for more precision, and it is also used more by academic sources. This comment POV attempts of editors to remove all mention of things Jewish from articles as much as possible escalated to an out right personal attack ("anti-jewish") for editors who are trying to introduce academic precision and update articles to reflect current scholarship. I disagree with characterizations that this is a "minor" issue. There are significant advantages to being as precise about dating as we can be [28]. Representing a religious/nationalist POV is not a factor that should be given equal weight in these discussions, and to accuse those who disagree of being anti-Jewish/Israeli is way over the line. It would not be tolerated in any other topic area (including Turkish history, Ottoman history, Chinese history, American history...) To me, this incident is part of a pattern that is not conducive to improving the encyclopedia based on academic sources, that accurately summarize the available, current scholarship for readers, students, professors and others who make use of this encyclopedia. It certainly does not help to assume that editors trying to make this improvements are motivated by nefarious intentions. Seraphim System (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @No More Mr Nice Guy: I think this is an important point so I want to respond to it. I reviewed both of the sources Huldra used in her copyedit. The NY Times source says ritual baths were found in private dwellings, but it does not identify a source for this statement. More importantly, it contradicts the Haaretz source, which identifies the director of the dig (Debbi Sklar-Parnas) as the source for the statement that no ritual baths were found. This pretty clearly shows the problems that arise when non-academic sources are cherry-picked for statements that do no clearly identify a source. I would also note that this "The main indication that the settlement was a Jewish one is the assemblage of stone vessels found there. Such vessels, for food storage and serving, were only used by Jews because they were believed not to transmit impurity. Archaeologists believe stone basins discovered at the site were used to hold ashes from the destroyed Temple" is a direct copy/paste from the article, and Huldra was correct to remove it (and she should have removed the entire thing, not only that one sentence.) Seraphim System (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@No More Mr Nice Guy: I'm not sure what those edits are supposed to show, other then an unwillingness to respond productively to an issue that you raised about another editor. It seems WP:BATTLEGROUND to dig up ancient edits which are not even peripherally related to what is being discussed here. What exactly are edits adding Sabra and Shatila to the lede of Ariel Sharon, or a long list of references in a discussion about eunuch slave trade on the Harem article supposed to show? The slave trade was kept in the article by Eperoton after I stopped working on the article, btw. I suppose you think it's somehow significant that I added a quote about Zionism from Mein Kampf to an article about Zionism. I didn't really fight over this quote, but when I added it, I didn't even know what WP:OR was, El_C told me, and it was removed for WP:OR not for any nefarious reason that your post strongly implies (and somehow connecting it to a post about Sabra and Shatilla, which the MacBride Commission said was genocide, makes it difficult to extract anything of significance from the random diffs you just posted)- I'm still not 100% sure it is OR - I think inferences can be drawn from it without secondary source analysis, but I didn't really go looking for secondary sources to try to add it back in, and it still isn't very high on my to do list. I still think the claim that Eichmann was a "major organiser" of the Holocaust needs a citation, and I have since found citations for this in law review articles. This seems like an obvious point, but sometimes we don't remember that it was disputed at the time. Eichmann, compared to others who were punished much more lightly then he was, does not really stand out - especially as some of those people (there were many) were found guilty of directly committing significant atrocities, but were punished very leniently. Hannah Arendt goes through a lot of them, and instead of bludgeoning others will ill-informed accusations, I would suggest reading her work carefully and making up your own mind. But these discussions would be more suitable for article talk pages (that is, if they weren't ancient and stale) Seraphim System (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Another note about the Eichmann article, I made exactly two adds: The first was to make sure that Rafi Eitan's own recent public comments about Mengele/Eichmann were represented in the section about Eichmann's capture, and the second was to add the following quote from Arendt: "this case was built on what the Jews had suffered, not on what Eichmann had done." When I added the citation needed tag, I was still completely new and did not really know about FA criteria. I was satisfied with resolving this by adding the quote from Arendt, because I think her view is significant enough that it should be (briefly) represented in the article. So, again, I don't really appreciate the sarcastic comment about WP:RS, I think my edits did improve the articles I was working on. Maybe we can get back on track with the current discussion now? Seraphim System (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Statement by Power~enwiki

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

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

User:No More Mr Nice Guy has taken offense to my reversion of one of his edits here that was clearly in violation of Arbitration rules and had already been reverted once. [29] Power~enwiki (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

I can't see how this helps us to resolve this GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Statement by Nishidani

  • (1) I started to work on the article on Shuafat. Debresser immediately took my presence there as evidence I was angling to clash with him. Apart from the needless WP:AGF violation imputing to me that I was seeking a pretext to attack him, the assertion is demonstrably counterfactual. Since 2008, I have edited the Shuafat page 23 times whereas Debresser has made just 6 edits since May 2016. Likewise I have made 67 edits to the talk page (42.14% of the total) and Debresser only appeared there after I advanced a proposal. If one must make an inference it would be that, upset by my return, Debresser followed me to that page and sought a confrontation, accusing me of seeking one. He repeats this in his first reply above, accusing me of doing what I think he did, 'escalating' things. Indeed.
  • (2)I went to the Archaeology of Israel page. There was an old problem there. 2 editors, myself and User:Poliocretes were in favour of mentioning a third of the artifacts dug up in that field annually are Christian. Debresser alone has reverted all efforts to add the item. To resolve this old problem, I set up an RfC for external comment. I noted – it is verifiable on the talk page – that despite 2 editors being in favour and only Debresser opposed – he kept reverting it off the page. Hence my request for external imput. Debresser’s reaction was to personalize this,also here andhere by citing a statement regarding the edit on this by User:GoldenRing at AE which earned me a suspension, as if that remark evened opinion to 2/2. I put up an RfC to resolve a conflict, and Debresser kept on referring to that AE suspension, as if it invalidated my proposal, and the RfC.
  • (3) Soon after, as I tried to keep the argument focused, Debresser expressed diffidence about my whole outlook as an editor by insinuating I and the other editor were anti-semitic. That is one strong implication of referring to an 'anti-Jewish camp' on that page. It cannot refer to anyone else.
  • This was duly retractedat my request, signifying D realized it was inappropriate. A day later however, disconcertingly, he retracted his retraction here andfinissed it with a variation adding anti-Israeli as a further innuendo. For the record the article on Antisemitism uses the word ‘anti-Jewish’ as synonymous with anti-semitic.
  • To sum up, Debresser, challenging my return, followed me to Shuafat and falsified the source I used while messing up the text and (2) started baiting me about my putative 'anti-Jewish' attitude, admitted it should be retracted, then reinserted the offending words, and added 'anti-israel' as well, and refused to budge on the issue when asked to cancel the offensive language. It is, in both cases I believe, evidence of the WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT approach identified by Lord Roem a year ago. Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
'anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli are regularly conflated by both sides of the Arab-Israeli dispute.
@GoldenRing.This is wildly inaccurate. You are saying those who are critical of Israel's policies regarding Palestinians confuse 'anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist, and anti-israeli'. That is not their language at all. To the contrary serious critics are pertinaciously exact in distinguishing Jews, Zionism, and Israel, whereas their opponents conflate them.
I'd like some explanation as to why being defamed as hostile to Jews and to Israel is a piffling offense. Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sandstein. I have difficulty in seeing how a denial a given source has two words, when anyone clicking on the page can see that the source repeats those two words twice, is a content dispute. Debresser can dispute the content of the article. Disputing the known, independently verifiably content of the source page is not a content dispute. It is falsifying the evidence. In the old days, editors were banned at sight for doing that.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Icewhiz. Please focus. The material you cited confirms that conflating 'anti Jewish', 'Anti-Zionist' and 'anti-Israel' is what one side, pro-Israeli, does. GoldenRing was making a different claim, that both sides do this. As all close readers of the topic know, this is not correct. It is a highly political and rhetorical stratagem to conflate criticism of Israeli policies (not Israel) with being anti-Jewish and/or anti-Israeli and/or even anti-Zionist (I can name off the cuff many Jewish Zionists who are critical of those policies. Please don't add to the initial confusion.Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
NMMGG. Your ideas about anti-Zionism don't jell with the evidence at Anti-Zionism or better still Timeline of anti-Zionism. It has a long and very intricate history within modern Jewish thought, and violently 'dismantling' Israel has nothing to do with its maincurrents. Just to clarify since there's a lot of confusion around here on terminology.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
As to a bunch of editors trying to disconnect 'ancient Jewish heritage from today's Jews', don't blame editors for trying to keep Wikipedia updated on contemporary scholarship, in Israel or elsewhere, by Jewish and non-Jewish scholars. No one I know here who might be put in that dock cites anything but the technical literature, which, unfortunately is generally ignored in the public sphere, and therefore, to those unfamiliar with, can seem disconcerting.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
NMMGG. Since you apparently (a) have dozens of examples of how a 'group' of editors secretly remove and meddle with texts (suddenly this secret is revealed) (b) and you anticipate that your interpretation of what I might say regarding any one example will take it as mere 'spin', it is pointless answering, except in these terms: if you look at the last thousand edits of any of that 'group', you will find an extremely high percentage of the edits are reffed and linked to academic publications. If you look at what other editors -the revert and tweak school- are doing, this use of high RS plummets. But this is wasting AE time. I have stated my views sufficiently.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

I confirmed that Nishidani's claim of "source falsification" is correct. Debresser changed the meaning of Nishidani's edit five minutes after Nishidani made it, using edit summary 'The source does not say "no longer", just states a different opinion'. The source ([30]) uses "no longer" twice in the first paragraph, and it unequivocally sums up current knowledge, overturning an earlier finding from 1993 that was based on "general information". Describing that merely as a "different opinion" is highly misleading, and summarizing the source as "Others do not consider" falsifies what the source said. Standard procedure would be for Debresser to ask at WP:RSN about the reliablity of the source, a scholarly overview published in 2013 by Brill Publishers and written by Professor Rachel Hachlili from the Zinman Institute of Archaeology at the University of Haifa. Moreover, Talk:Shuafat#False edit summary shows unacceptable aggression from Debresser. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Not helping us to resolve this GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

GoldenRing, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Only one "side" of the dispute regularly conflates criticism of Israel or its policies or actions with antisemitism. If you don't believe "anti-Jewish" is the same as antisemitic, I recommend you read an encyclopedia article about antisemitism or consult a dictionary. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

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

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

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

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

Statement by Icewhiz

This is a distraction GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Conflation of anti-Israel or anti-zionism with anti-semitism is a widely asserted claim. Various books (e.g. [31] [32] [33] [34]), and even the president of France today - Macron: Anti-Zionism Is a Reinvented Form of anti-Semitism, Jule 16 2017. Conflating the two is a legitimate political viewpoint. The specific content dispute regarded redacting ancient Jewish (more than 2,000 years ago) history of a modern location in the land of Israel - which would be hard to label as anti-Israel or anti-Zionist as Israel did not exist back then. It seems Debresser's use of anti-Jewish was intended to label this action of redacting ancient Jewish history (which was not Zionist or Israeli) - an action not limited to the Shuafat article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

This isn't helping GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Statement by Beyond My Ken

This is a distraction GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

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

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

This is a distraction - and please don't take the opportunity to drag up ancient history GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

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

@Seraphim System, thanks for the ping. It reminded me I wanted to address your "a pattern that is not conducive to improving the encyclopedia based on academic sources" above with these few examples of your edits (just the tip of the iceberg): [35] [36] [37] [38]. That's some high quality improvement of the encyclopedia using academic sources right there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by K.e.coffman

I don't think this adds anything GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Debresser

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The request is actionable. In calling another editor "anti-Jewish", which means the same as "anti-semitic", Debresser has personally attacked them, without providing, even when challenged here, appropriate evidence for such a charge. In addition, by insisting here that they meant to accuse the other editor of a political bias against Israel (for which they also do not provide evidence), they conflate opposition to Israel and opposition to Jews. Editors must comment on content, not on the contributor (WP:NPA). Such conduct is not acceptable, particular in this sensitive topic area. Considering Debresser's long list of blocks in this topic area, and a previous topic ban in July 2016, I intend to impose an indefinite topic ban. - As to the "source falsification" issue, the discussion at Talk:Shuafat#False edit summary indicates that this is probably more of a content dispute than a conduct issue, but there also Debresser uses a dismissive, aggressive tone ("be quiet for a while!"), which is also entirely inappropriate for a collegial, collaborative scholarly project such as ours.  Sandstein  12:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm more inclined to believe Debresser's explanation - anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli are regularly conflated by both sides of the Arab-Israeli dispute. It does still represent a beach of NPA - the comment is on editors and not on edits - but I don't think it necessarily amounts to the same as "anti-semitic". I'm still thinking about what is an appropriate response; the history is long, but the offense, to me, seems relatively minor. GoldenRing (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would also remind editors commenting here that they are expected to assume good faith and edit collaboratively and constructively, even at AE. Recasting the evidence in your own words with the worst possible interpretation is a transparent assumption of bad faith and does not help your cause. GoldenRing (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned by the fact that Debresser wrote "All I did was notice, that her stance on the Israeli-Palestine conflict is such which shows her to be on the Palestine side of these political matters" as an explanation for calling an editor "anti-Jewish/Israel", as if this were a zero-sum game between two sharply delineated parties. Such black-and-white thinking (no matter which side is black) is not only far from a useful characterisation of the conflict, it also makes it very hard to edit cooperatively with editors who do not share his position exactly. For me, this suggest a (temporary) topic ban. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is actionable. While this topic area is rife with poor behavior on all sides (which Debresser is not innocent of), I'm inclined to believe the statement that Jew, Zionist and Israeli are often conflated. It is a personal attack, for sure, but I don't think an NPA block is warranted. This topic area is an inherently polarizing one, and accusing somebody of being against one partisan side is poor behavior, but hardly an uncommon offense in these parts. If we sanction for this case, we should also sanction the majority of contributors to the topic area for making similar accusations at one point of another. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • We have an "casting aspersions" restriction around the ethnicity/nationality of editors, including using their own self-declared status in arguments around the Kashmir conflict, enacted here after discussion -- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive196#TripWire. Something like that could be implemented here too. I believe it's helped in that area and could be beneficial here too. In this particular case I share Stephan Schulz' opinion. —SpacemanSpiff 03:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sandstein. This is actionable. It is more than reasonable to assume (given editing history) that Debresser understands the whole meaning of the term "anti-Jewish". You would have to be completely ignorant of 20th century history to not understand it. Accusing someone of being anti-Semitic (which is an equivalent term) without evidence, is a bright line, even in this disputed territory. Given the opportunity to strike it, they did at first, then ante'd up, parsing slightly, but confirming their original comment was fully intended. I think an indefinite topic ban is appropriate. Per some other comments, if this sort of comment hasn't been properly policed in the past, it is high time it was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Debresser

Appeal is declined. Dennis Brown - 15:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Debresser (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Topc ban from IP-related articles, see section above
Administrator imposing the sanction 
GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
[39]

Statement by Debresser

I would like to see this sanction lifted for six reasons: 1. The main reason for the topic ban was "Seeking input from a wider group of editors is good; classifying the input of those already involved based on their perceived politics or ethnicity is not."[40] When an article relates to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and all editors commenting are members of WP:WikiProject Palestine, then it makes imminent sense to ask for input from editors who are members of WP:WikiProject Israel, and forbidding to do so is neither in the best interest of creating good articles, nor is it fair. 2. The admins who stressed that I had previously written "anti-Jewish" have not sufficiently paid attention to the fact, that I struck that later and replaced it by "anti-Jewish/Israeli", which is clearly and only a political distinction, since the conflict is between Jewish Israelis and Arab Palestinians. See the "Jewish Israelis"? Therefore, Sandstein is mistaken when he says I called another editor "anti-Jewish", because I struck that, and rightfully so. Likewise Peacemaker67 is wrong when he says that the later edit is "confirming their original comment was fully intended". How can he even say that, when I have explicitly stated and explained so many time the precise opposite. 3. The reporting editor came with unclean hands, since she herself was reported just a few days before for hiding POV edits in the IP-area behind misleading edit summaries, and has herself violated 1RR in the IP-area just today: [41][42], for which she should be sanctioned herself. Or is the unclean hands doctrine not applicable on Wikipedia? 4. None of the admins related to my accusation that Huldra was just trying to get back to me for my report of her (as mentioned above), and she and Nishidani are just trying to get back to me for having Nishidani topic banned for one month (see Nishidani's talkpage, where he keep extensive records regarding my edits). 5. I think that the decision in the WP:AE case was made too early, within less than 48 hours. I think that more admins would have added their input, with some likely agreeing with the point of view of The Wordsmith, that this is not actionable. I myself would have reacted to comments by admins, and possibly been able to make them change their mind. Pressures from real life have prevented me from going online regularly, but less than 48 hours is not enough to fully discuss issues which, as the admins section itself clearly shows, are not unequivocal. 6. From the notification on my talkpage, I understand that my edit was perceived as WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Although I do understand where that comes from, please also see my edit in context. Huldra's edits, like [43] and [44], are systematically trying to remove anything related to Jewish history from as many Israel and Palestine-related articles as possible. In view of such blatant POV-violations, how can one not acquire somewhat of a battleground attitude? And again, I think Huldra should be sanctioned for her editing. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity I was at the time of that edit not aware of the ban. As you can see, I made that edit a few minutes before I noticed the notification on my talkpage and replied to it. In addition, if I had added a category, that would have been POV-pushing, but adding a See also is not. See also the stated rationale in the edit summary. Debresser (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing

I'm just off to bed, but here are some quick notes:

  • Putting other editors into camps based on their politics, ethnicity, nationality, religion or whatever and refusing to accept consensus until particular factions are represented in a discussion is simply battleground behavior and this is what convinced me to sanction Debresser.
  • I don't think that the behavior of others justifies battleground behavior, and IIRC WP:BATTLEGROUND spends some words making that point. However, I do find the behavior of others involved here troubling and I did consider other sanctions as well. In particular, I find the insistence that "anti-Jewish/anti-Israeli" necessarily means anti-semitic, after Debresser has repeatedly explained exactly what he meant, troubling, and I see here more repetitions of the same. Debresser has apologized for giving the impression that he meant anti-semitic, clarified that he did not and explained what he did mean. What he did mean it's still a policy violation, but IMO it should be left at that. Debresser's diffs presented here are a mixture; one replacing "Arab" with "Muslim" seems to me unambiguously misrepresenting a source, however arguing from two relatively benign diffs that someone is "systematically trying to remove anything related to Jewish history from as many Israel and Palestine-related articles as possible" is drawing a very long bow. If anyone feels inclined to hand out additional sanctions out of all this, they should not consider my close an impediment.
  • Regarding the timing, I thought the report need closing as it was descending into considerably more heat than light.
  • Regarding the input of other admins, while it's true that one admin argued for no action, is also true that another argued for an indefinite topic-ban. I remain opposed to an indefinite ban; I don't think the offense warrants it. Frankly, if this was a first offense, I would probably have let it go, too. It is not. I therefore also remain opposed to no action. GoldenRing (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

  • I have never objected to anyone asking any for more input from any Wikiproject, anyone reading my AE report will see that.
  • My report was because off one word Debresser used about me, and one word only: "anti-Jewish", and using that together with "anti-Jewish/Israeli" does not make it better. "Anti-Jewish" is another word for "anti-Semitic", i.e., a racist.
  • Debresser and I, like many old timers in the IP area, have a long history. (e.g. [45]), but I am not here in order to make AE reports, Im here to write history of the places in Israel/Palestine. If Debresser, or anyone else, thinks my edits here are sanctionable, then please start a separate AE report, otherwise I will not spend time on it.
  • Debresser: you are so wrong if you think that my report was some kind of revenge report. I would have reported anyone who called me "anti-Jewish". Anyone. Huldra (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • To Goldenring: my replacing "Arab" with "Muslim" ..that is according to source. When I first started editing here, the only data available for the Village Statistics, 1945 was Hadawi. 2 or 3 years ago the original data was made available, through http://web.nli.org.il. (See references below.) Now, Hadawi joined "Muslim" and "Christian" into one group, called "Arab". Whenever I update a village article now, I add the original 1945 data, which specify whether the "Arabs" are "Muslim", or "Christian", or (more common): a mixture of both, Huldra (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • As for that "anti-Jewish/anti-Israeli" not necessarily means anti-semitic, that is only a view from "one side of the divide." This is well known in the IP area. It is a bit as if I called an African American man for "boy", and then assured everyone that I had absolutely no insulting intention in doing so, Huldra (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


Statement by Nishidani

I had no intention of commenting here, but seeing the following obliges me to:

I do find the behavior of others involved here troubling and I did consider other sanctions as well. I find the insistence that "anti-Jewish/anti-Israeli" necessarily means anti-semitic, after Debresser has repeatedly explained exactly what he meant, troubling,

This contextually suggests that I for one, in asserting that '"anti-Jewish/anti-Israeli" necessarily means anti-semitic', displayed 'troubling behavior.'

There are 2 points here.

  • (a)You are perfectly within your rights to think this, but it implies both User:Sandstein here and User:Peacemaker67 here exhibited 'troubling behaviour', for they said exactly what several editors argued regarding this usage. I'm sure that was not your intent, but it is a clear implication. Arbs and editors are not separate classes when it comes to 'behaviour'.
  • (b) All editors and admins are entitled to respect even if they do not accept another editor's specific claims though repeated. Repetition is not proof. Claims are one thing, evidence another. Personal explanations of what one means by a word don't prevail over established usage (I'm a philologist, and this is known as the Humpty Dumpty view of semiotics) If we introduce a rule of evidence saying that anyone who repeats what (s)he says (s)he meant to mean must be believed (on pain of doubters being considered liable to sanction if they remain sceptical), then arbitration would be automatically rendered otiose.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
ps.It was claimed I was a member of WP:WikiProject Palestine. I'm not. I've never in my life joined any association, group or collective, on principle. I have a peer-reviewed published record for criticism of the very idea of collective identity, and that is why any insinuation I am against an ethnic or national group troubles me, and having these incessant innuendoes thrown my way on Wikipedia appals me. Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Debresser

Result of the appeal by Debresser

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • To be fair, I will try to cover these point by point. Your first point is irrelevant, as you were not sanctioned because you sought a larger audience. It was how you did so that caused the problem. The quote you use was not used in the closing of the case. Your second point isn't convincing as an argument to reverse the sanction. Admin are free to interpret your actions using their best judgement, and the fact that you wrote something that you later had to strike tells me that any admin who saw a problem was being reasonable. As for your third and fourth points, see WP:NOTTHEM, which talks about blocks, but the concept is still valid here. As for point 5, let me explain something that is understandably misunderstood about this board: WP:AE is not WP:ANI. There is no requirement for consensus, there is no minimum time. Admin are free to sanction without considering any opinions by anyone. When an admin sanctions at WP:AE, it is not due to consensus. it is a unilateral action, even if they often choose to listen to others before taking action. That portion of your fifth point is without merit. As for Wordsmith's point, I actually agree with him that we have to be careful to not over-sanction because most of the players in the Arab/Israel area have a bias and it takes a lot of give and take to produce neutrality. Had this been an indef topic ban, I might be convinced, but it isn't. The purpose of the sanction is two fold: first, to allow editors who aren't causing problems to edit without distraction (it isn't just about the problem editor, you see), and secondly, to provide an incentive to problem editors to not cause problems in the future. This makes it preventative. That said, a two month topic ban is not extraordinarily long, particularly for someone who has been sanctioned for various infractions, more than a few times in the past. After reviewing your claims and the evidence available, the actions taken by GoldenRing appear to be based on the merits and are clearly within administrative discretion. I would choose to decline this appeal due a lack of merit. Dennis Brown - 21:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would decline the appeal and would have imposed an indefinite topic ban for the reasons given in my comments in the enforcement request; and this should be considered as a result of this meritless appeal. That Debresser insists that they did not write "anti-Jewish" and that this does not mean "antisemitic" is disconcerting and another indication that this editor is not suited to editing this topic area. Debresser ignores that calling another editor anti-whatever personalizes a dispute that is supposed to be about content, and is itself grounds for sanctions, whatever the "whatever" may be. The complaints against others are irrelevant here, see WP:NOTTHEM. (There is no "unclean hands" defense in enforcement practice: that defense is used in civil lawsuits, whereas this is not a legal proceeding and if it were, it would be a criminal or administrative one, not a civil one. We are enforcing conduct rules for the benefit of the community, not for the benefit of any individuals.)  Sandstein  21:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
    Since you participated in the admin discussion, not sure you would be uninvolved for the sake of review, although I don't disagree with your logic. Dennis Brown - 21:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Admins who have dealt with a matter only in an administrative capacity, as I have here in commenting on the original request, are not involved. See WP:INVOLVED.  Sandstein  05:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think Sandstein pretty much nails my position on this. GoldenRing's actions were within discretion (as I belatedly wrote in the original case, I would have supported an indefinite ban), and I don't think this appeal has merit, and should be declined. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline. The comment, however intended, shows clear signs of an unfortunate battleground mentality. Further, although I would be willing to assume AGF that Debresser misspoke and meant "anti-Israeli", not "anti-Jewish", I note that he did not then: (a) apologise promptly; and (b) correct the latter to the former. Instead the amendment was to "anti-Jewish/Israeli", which I don't think makes it much better. It seems to me to needlessly maintain the originally problematic term in combination. Unless I have missed something, Huldra has still not received an apology for a post which she interpreted - and in my opinion reasonably interpreted - as an accusation of racism directed against her personally. The sanction appears a proportionate one in the circumstances. WJBscribe (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)