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

Request concerning Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, especially the Decorum and Editors reminded paragraphs:

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

• "Remember my advice Debresser. Opinions count for zilch in editing"[1]
• "This is kindergarten level advice", "Do you understand this?"[2]
• "It is bad enough for Debresser to start reverting me when he had read neither the whole page nor knew of the relevant policy", "That is not how we do things here"[3]
• "Look up the word 'prevarication'"[4]
• "This is getting absurdly complicated, indeed stupid"[5]
• "You are not focusing on the specific problem raised in this section"[6]
• "You clearly are totally confused and are not examining with any attention the material provided for you by other editors", "virtually all serious sources", "the conflict you wish to erase or render all but invisible"[7]
• "Your arguments are meaningless because you do not bring sources and you do not reply to the specifics raised by myself"[8]
• "It's lazy to remove"[9]
• "You appear to know nothing of WP:NPOV"[10]
• "Don't be naïve", "You are wasting editorial time"[11]
• "You should drop your mission in your recent wiki life to provoke me and then make threats. Piss off" (sic) [12]
• "for fuck's sake"[13]
• "If you cannot think syllogistically, don't comment"[14]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive200#Nishidani A report at this forum, filed by me, where Nishidani received a warning that "If I see those names again with fresh examples, then the banhammer comes down." and a closing statement that said "All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case."

I'd add that I was at the time, and still am, unpleasantly surprised by the mildness of that warning regarding Nishidani, and the way it mentioned me in one breath with him, although the civility issue is clearly a one-sided problem of Nishidani.

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive212#Nishidani Another report at this forum, filed by another editor, where the civility issue was also raised.

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see above.
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see my recent warning on his talkpage.
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see above.
• The editor acknowledges participation in previous discussion on their talkpage, "a couple of dozens times, several cases this year alone",[15] a fact which speaks for itself.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has a habit of putting down his fellow editors, making denigrating comments about them, doubting their logical faculties, general competence and knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, using strong language (to say the least). This has been pointed out to him many times, and objected to, including by this forum. Nishidani continues this behavior unchanged. It is time the community put a stop to this behavior. All the more so since it is a likely possibility that Nishidani uses this style, consciously or unconsciously, to stifle opposition against his POV.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[16] May it be noted that this editor has requested me to not comment on his talkpage.[17] At the same time, I have stated that I have no problem with him posting on my talkpage.[18]

Replies of Debresser to comments by other editors and admins

@Black Kite One does not come to WP:AE because one disagrees with an editor. As Kingsindian has said correctly, the discussion from which most of these comments were culled, was resolved with general consensus. That however is not in itself a reason to not report violations that were made during the course of that discussion. In any case, I hardly participated in the discussion, which was mostly between Icewhiz and Nishidani and Kingindian. Also please note that a significant part of the comments was not even directed at me but at Icewhiz. I take offense to the bad faith assumption behind the suggestion that I reported Nishidani because I disagree with him. I reported him because he has a very, very long history of offending his opponents. A fact which is confirmed by the previous WP:AE decision. Even Nishidani's friend Huldra says she finds his comments inappropriate, and Icewhiz also calls his comments "incivility thrown my way", even if he was not offended by them. In addition, on a more genral note, most problematic behavior will naturally arise in conflict situations, and restricting the path to WP:AE because of that fact alone does not make sense and sets a dangerous precedent, opening the way for uncontrolled violations. If you hold, contrary to common sense and the warning issued to Nishindani at this very forum, that it is acceptable or even reasonable to systematically put down people you disagree with with insults to their intelligence, knowledge, and overall competence, say so, but suggesting to punish me for reporting a clear violation of basic and common sense ArbCom restrictions reminds me of the absurdities depicted in Kafka's The Trial. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani You seem to think that attack is the best defense. However, you forgot to mention that WP:ARBPIA3 was significantly altered just 5 days before I reported you on WP:ANI and neither of us was aware of that. It really is large of you to claim that I am "Utterly confused about the AE/ARCA ruling" when in your very next post here you ask for editors to explain to you something as simple as the meaning of a revert, saying "I would like a simple explanation of whether the 2 edits I count as reverts are so or not. I don't understand the rule, never will"! I already explained to you that this edit of mine can by no means be counted as a revert. In any case, please do not try to avoid the real issue here, that you are not going to stop insulting your fellow editors when they disagree with you, and that you don't care about warnings you receive, including given here at WP:AE regarding WP:ARBPIA. And since you are already trying to find violations, please look at this revert of yours, which at the time you made it was still a violation of the unaltered WP:ARBPIA3 per the "do not restore an undone edit without gaining prior consensus" rule. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C @Neutrality One can hardly compare my single uncivil edit, which was a direct reply to his incivility (as I said specifically), to Nishidani's systematic pattern of psychological warfare aimed to dissuade editors from disagreeing with him. Especially since he was told here on a previous occasion to stop that behavior, and he simply couldn't care less. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System It is good to see that all my friends have assembled here. :) I just wanted to react to something very interesting you mention, namely that pro-Palestine editors are targeted here. Please be aware that pro-Israel editors are targeted here even more often, as recent archives can show you. In general, the "we are the victims here" attitude is typical of both parties in any prolonged conflict, read Albert Ellis. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein Lol. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Nishidani

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

Statement by Nishidani

Background

• 15 July 2016 3 month topic ban for Debresser, In it he stated against the plaintiff Nableezy

I think it is about time WP:AE put a stop to attempts by Nableezy to discredit editors who disagree with his POV by posting bogus reports here.

• he tried to get it overturned and the appeal was declined.
• Debresser made a person appeal to Lord Roem, and got this reduced to a month
• He told a now banned editor that Nishidani likes to call people names, and is likely to be called to order for that soon enough.(12 August,2016)
• He served his month stating he was not ‘much repentant’.
• 27 September 2016 He went ahead, free of his 3 month topic ban, and took me to AE, unsuccessfully
• On 13 March 2017 jumping into another complaint by yet another editor against me, he repeated more or less what he repeats here.

The Present Instance

Debresser, the discussion at Jordan Valley (Middle East), you admit above, was ‘resolved with general consensus’. You also admit that you ‘hardly participated in the discussion, which was mostly between Icewhiz and Nishidani and Kingindian.’ I.e. as I have said to you for donkey’s ages, you don’t participate productively in consensus building.

Indeed, that whole discussion began because the page came to my attention when an IP removed material, in violation of ARBPIA30#500, and I restored, while adding a contribution. You immediately reverted that edit, saying, in a totally irrational edit summary, that I needed a consensus to edit that page. This was an amazing thing to say: i.e. that someone with 54,000 edits requires a consensus before editing an I/P page. Yes, this implication really pissed me off.

• I duly went to your page, noted that you had broken 1R (I did not run to AE), and asked you to revert yourself, while analysing the 3 specious reasons you gave for reverting me. In my view you consistently revert me from dislike, but that's neither here nor there.

• I might add that Debresser is one of several people who automatically reverts me almost on sight, and he never replies to my complaints that his removal has no rational or policy based motive.

• I had no feedback and so, after 2 days, I restored the irrationally (no known policy based objection) removed material

• Rather than complain to AE, as I told him I might, I went to the AN/I board, not to ‘denounce’ Debresser but simply requested clarification on his view that I had broken 1R (while in his view, reverting on that page twice in 24 hours was not a revert).
• For the record, Debresser did revert, altering restored text, or removing my addition, twice within 24 hours
• 1st revert 14:38, 21 May 2017‎
• 2nd revert 19:07, 21 May 2017

• Utterly confused about the AE/ARCA ruling, Debresser then posted on my page a threat to take me to AE for a non existent violation, as was clarified by Kingsindian (who however waived commenting on Debresser's 2 reverts within 24 hours). Had I a punitive or vindictive temper, I could easily have brought Debresser to AE. I refrained.

Many editors have complained about Debresser’s inability to contribute with analytic precision to these disputes. He reverts, doesn’t reply to remonstrations, and, in my regard consistently threatens to get me banned for incivility, which is frustration at the exhaustion of time caused by his revert powers, silence or vague stonewalling (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which was what admins noted when he got a 3 month topic ban in July last year). He should be told in very strong terms that a revert must be justified by a clear reference to an intelligible policy guideline, and that one is under an obligation to interact with editors one disagrees with, not just cause endless problems by insisting he, or whoever he supports, is right. Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is decided, I would like a simple explanation of whether the 2 edits I count as reverts are so or not. I don't understand the rule, never will. I am not pushing either for acting on them if they so prove to be. But they were the cause of my frustration. Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser really is pushing this. In raking over the traces, I noticed a revert he made (only him, and with a wholly subjective edit summary), which I meant to restore, because of an inadequate edit summary. I am reverted so often, that I can no longer really edit in the I/P area. My right has been taken away. As I say, I have long lists of diffs showing how consistently this is done. When I recall them, as here, I put the information back, esp. if it is impeccably sourced, cogent, to the point, and I can see no policy grounds for their erasure . Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, the article esp. the lead is basically, as anyone can see, an indictment, with all contextualization of the behavior regarding Palestinians erased. It is severely unbalanced. So I today restored statistics from Rashid Khalidi, an authority in the area, and Debresser immediately reverted me. Of the few edits (given other, very exhausting work on aboriginal tribes), which I have recently done in the I/P area, Debresser has intervened to revert them. I am a careful editor, and I think natural justice is being denied here. There is nothing in Debresser's complaint, except, on the basis of 2 reverts and a frivolous complaint here, a consideration of WP:Boomerang. Please don't tell me this is a content dispute. It is reverting a targeted editor on sight, and is behavioural. He was treated with leniency by Roem the last time round. I think that should be reconsidered, with at least a stiff warning not to WP:Hound editors. Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SJ, since you also appear to deny me a right to edit in the I/P area (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, to name just a few), your support of Debresser is utterly predictable, and not helpful in clarifying anything. I can't get the diff where you tell me to lay off the I/P area and just concentrate on aboriginal tribes. That was extremely offensive, if only because editors are ignoring their responsibility to ensure also that the other side is duly represented.Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein. I don’t have much time to waste on a defense, but proposing a 1 month ban wouldn’t change the de facto status quo. Your job's already been done for you, an effective partial permaban is already in place for me on the I/P, save for one article. Apparently administrators have missed this, or it doesn't interest them, but the gravamen of my frustration is that I have been informally banned from editing any I/P article except one, and even there I'm reverted frequently. Any action by arbitrators will only give a formal ARBCOM endorsement of an informal decision by fellow editors with one POV that, in the meantime, has already usurped administrative discretion on this issue. Let me illustrate. I have rarely, except for one article (List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017) edited in the IP area regularly since January. Of the 2,500+ edits since then, few relate to the I/P area. The very few edits I have undertaken in this area have about a 90% probability of suffering a revert from any one of several people, who in the meantime have reported me for a lack of 'decorum'. I'll just give a few examples (there are plenty more, but I can't afford too much time on this trivia):-

• At Sippenhaft I was reverted by SJ 9 January 2017

• At Al-Dawayima massacre reverted by User:Shrike, who erased a translation of the one Herbrew source as Undue(?!!). I restored it since the pretext was purely subjective. I was in turn reverted by SJ with a false edit summary. RSN has validated Mondoweiss for such things, and the consensus approved). I restored the text because RSN has not invalidated that source. This was again cancelled by User:Jonney2000 on 23 February 2017‎. I went to the RSN board and had my call endorsed. Shrike refused to accept the verdict, and insisted that I needed their their talk page consent. In sum, the 3 editors tagteamed revert just me. I used the talk page and RSN, got consensus, and they still refused to budge. This was pure stonewalling attrition uniquely in my regard. Their bluff was called by another editor who restored it, over their protests.

• At Michael Sfard User:Shrike reverted on 14 March 2017 an innocuous edit I made documenting that the parents of a human rights lawyer in Israel had survived the holocaust and been expelled from Poland per antisemitism. I went to the RSN board again over the silly meme Mondoweiss cannot be used, and they again ruled in my favour.
• At Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel User:Debresser reverted me on 10 April 2017

At List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017

• I was reverted by User:Plot Spoiler 9 May 2017‎ with a false edit summary, since twice this year the RSN board I appealed to endorsed the source he claimed was not RS.
• Reverted by User:Shrike on 9 March 2017‎

At List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016

• by SJ on 28 February 2017 saying the Gush Shalom page of an eminent Israeli Zionist and parliamentarian Uri Avnery is not RS for a point of Israeli law, everyone knows is true.
• by User:Bolter21 backing Shrike 28 February 2017 asserting that mention of an Israeli law sentencing stone throwers who haven’t hit anyone to 18 months in prison is a POV push.. I.e. any statement of an Israeli law regarding Palestinians is a POV push, I guess.
• Again at List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017 SJ

13 March 2017‎ reverts with a false edit summary), as he does on 20 March 2017‎; on the 29 March 2017 on 31 March 2017‎ and again by User:Bolter21 13 March 2017‎

At Jordan Valley (Middle East)

• I was reverted by Debresser 21 May 2017‎. The es suggests I uniquely need consensus to edit the article and he followed up false edit summary with threat to report me to AE here 23 May 2017‎:

At Archaeology of Israel

• Debresser reverts me 20 March 2017‎ by erasing the material from the lead, rather than putting it somewhere else. This was restored and put down the page by User:Poliocretes That meant Nishidani+Poliocretes were for inclusion against Debresser's holdout. Notwithstanding this Debresser immediately reverted Poliocretes again.I restored it because Debresser was alone in his opinion, and was immediately reverted by Debresser again, who on the talk page stated bizarrely 'A "consensus" of 2:1 is no consensus.’. His erasure of a detail concerning the Christian presence in ancient Israeli still stands, unfortunately. He won’t budge against the majority.
• At Marwan Barghouti I was again reverted by No More Mr Nice Guy on 10 May 2017 The editor made no effort to compromise, going from my full exposition of Barghouti's trial controversy, to a one line summary. The WP:BLP violation is all over the page.

To this one might add that this year at least I have been reported several times basically by the people who keep reverting me. I remember 3:

• (1)on 20 April (by User:Cyrus the Penner an obvious sockpuppet)
• (2)13 March 2017 by SJ (piddling, but a 24 hour suspension, I took on the chin)
• ([3) 27 May, this case by Debresser

I know the response already, i.e.these are content disputes. No. Several of those revert stories are utterly farcical (Michael Sfard,Archaeology of Israel,Al-Dawayima massacre,etc) and any neutral review could not but conclude that the reverts were factitious forms of targeting an editor, while ensuring that relevant material one dislikes is kept off the encyclopedia. When no other editor has this degree of reversion imposed on him on the few articles he still touches in the area, it means either after 54,000 edits I am incompetent, or, uniquely, some idiosyncratic POV warrior who throws the caution he exercises on all other articles (where I am never reverted) to the wind, or . . .there is a consistent pattern on editorial enmity over my presence there, by several editors who, with one exception (Bolter21) have never thought that the I/P area must be governed by WP:NPOV, and that they must ensure both sides are duly represented. In any case, I'll make it easy for you guys. I'll retire from Wikipedia. If you can't see even an inkling of something wrong (I readily admit I find a lot of this mechanical revert behavior outrageous stonewalling ), also on the plaintiffs' side, then it is pointless using what time I have to contribute anywhere here.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing I do appreciate you, for one, actually looked at 'my evidence (a consistent resolute revert behavior in my regard goes back to September last year by several editors, but as I said, I have better things to do with my readerly life than drag up the full diff history. Someone who is curious might note that I have been dragged to AE/AI over 11 years at least two dozens times, and the cases have been almost invariably dismissed as piffling. The only thing I would advise you to do is read my view of that permaban. I didn't protest at the time, but did make a note on how odd the evidence was just for the record. It is continually cited against me, while no one remembers much of the 'evidence' regarded conflicts with known (and only later recognized as) sockpuppets. Sensible people who work in this 'toxic area' (which admins know little about, understandably: life is short, and it's too bloody troublesome to keep an eye on) have far more tacit knowledge of the gaming that is normal there, only they don't waste time using forums to get at perceived 'enemies'. In any case, since, in a repetition of that odd judgement, ARBCOM will, it seems, not take seriously my grounded belief that several editors have effectively permabanned me from productively contributing to even a handful of I/P articles by repeated frivolous reverts to 'tie me up' on the talk pages until I secure a consensus they never concede, and indeed will enact a 1 month topic ban, I feel I have no option than to permanently withhold my contributions to Wikipedia at large. My premise that I am permabanned there is arguable, of course. But I know that, even after the month or so, were I to return there, the same inflexible reverting of my sparse contributions will continue, with the confidence that since no one else can see what I complain of, I can be provoked until another 'episode' gives some the opportunity to haul me back here for a permaban. I'm not going to work with that hanging over my head. This is of course, a technical victory, after 11 years of repeated pressure, to remove me from the I/P area. Those who have successfully achieved this can pride themselves on ensuring thereby that Wikipedia won't have the 420 articles remaining, of the 600 I planned on each Aboriginal tribe in Australia on this encyclopedia. That is not a threat: it is my only option in protesting at the extraordinary view that punitive sanctions for remonstrative language at stonewallers are far more important to the construction of an encyclopedia that ensuring that minimal conditions of fairness and equity to produce close and careful scholarly work in every area of Wikipedia. I can see you all have some reasons for executing this judgement - it's the way this place works - so, while writing the above, I intend no remonstrance. We live in different mental universes, that is all, and I have no right to presume that my sense that the application of these laws is far too subjective and erratic is the only possible view. Regards to all, and best wishes, personally. This is final, except for a link to the decision on my page. Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just notice NMMGG, the great article content underperformer with a mission to rid Wikipedia of 'anti-Semites' (Ha! if he only knew my real history!) like me, saying my remark above is a ritual. It isn't, but I am not going to argue the point. Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

Most of the comments above have little or no relation to the main complaint. Also, many of the comments go both ways: the second "kindergarten" diff was a reply to Debresser's comment to Nishidani to stop being a "patronizing dick", in response to the first diff. I don't know, but this comment by Debresser might count as "denigrating" editors.

For context, please read the discussion at Talk:Jordan_Valley_(Middle_East)#Jordan_Valley. The main problem is that the term "Jordan Valley" is ambiguous, having at least three meanings. After a very long discussion, we were able to get a consensus on the scope of the article. As I say on Debresser's user talkpage, the overall discussion was focused on content. All participants brought various sources to the discussion, we argued, and finally got consensus. I call that a success we can build on. I don't know why Debresser chose to bring this complaint here when the discussion was ultimately fruitful. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Really, Debresser, really?? Is this the best you can come up with? Though I wouldn't mind seeing Nishidani using a bit fewer "for fuck's sake" or "Piss off" ...with the diffs Debresser have brought here he is trying to make a tempest in a teacup. Seriously. (We are editing in the IP area, where things tend to get a bit ...rough. (I was promised to be boiled alive couple of days ago on commons.) I would like to give Debresser the advice "Grow up!" ...but I guess he will consider that a violation of "Decorum", too.) Huldra (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, you are misrepresenting my views. I never called Nishidanis comments "inappropriate". Btw, just a couple of days ago, someone called me "a racist" on my user page, something I find extremely insulting. But that doesn't mean that I go crying off to the AE board to have the editor sanctioned because of it...Huldra (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Since I was a side to some of these diffs in Talk:Jordan_Valley_(Middle_East)#Jordan_Valley and Talk:Jordan_Valley_(Middle_East)#Demolitions and evictions in the West Bank - NPOV and UNDUE- I will throw in my 2-cents. I for one, was not offended by incivility thrown my way, I have a thick skin. I was however flummoxed by the initial suggestion to redefine the Jordan Valley as being contained in the West Bank - which was patently absurd (by any definition of the Jordan Valley) - though understandable if one has a knowing of the area only via the very narrow Palestinian human-rights context. I was frustrated by the approx. 27 retorts (to which mostly I responded, I hope civilly) to the refutation of the initial claim and that only approx. a third the Jordan Valley is in the West Bank - something that is quite visible on several maps (which led to whether a map is an accepted source argument). This was a long back and forth on an extremely simple geographical fact, which shouldn't have been that long.Icewhiz (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

I have nothing to add about the complaint against Nishidani, but I think Black Kite's suggestion that Debresser be restricted is inappropriate at this point. I don't believe he has a particularly bad record of bringing meritless complaints here against editors with whom he disagrees. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

This is not the first, nor second, and most likely not third as well, time Nishidani has been brought here or to ANI for civility issues. He is extremely condescending and nasty to editors and really doesn't help make this a pleasant atmosphere for collaboration. He has been warned about this and there does come a point where something has to happen. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani's most recent edit of his just proves that he is unable to edit here without personalizing the dispute. (it's also very sneaky, as I'm sure many people will not look at those diffs, and you just post diffs of reversions (which everyone has), you also post duplicates, and you also post diffs of other users. Very sneaky indeed) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphim System

I don't think there is any denying that editors who are perceived to have a "pro-Palestine" or "anti-Israel" POV are, essentially, targeted in the ARBPIA area. If you ask me, edit summaries to the effect of "reverting POV pushing edit" or "reverting because of editors POV" are also personal comments—but this is usually not considered disruptive or actionable. However, in effect, it is extremely disruptive and it is damaging to NPOV. I don't think it is good to respond with personal comments, but I also understand the immense frustration that stems from the battleground mentality of editors in this area, and the seeming helplessness of admins to contain it. In the highlighted diffs, I see personal attacks that run both ways - I don't think an editor should file a complaint about personal attacks after calling someone a "patronizing dick", which was Debressers response to Nishidanis comment that "Opinions count for zilch in editing. We are obliged to use sources." (not a personal attack). After the "patronizing dick" comment Nishidani replied "This is kindergarten level advice". — Debresser has been cautioned in the past about escalating situations through the very bad behavior that he accuses others of—this seems to be yet another example of what is routine behavior on his part. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: It's only a problem when editors are prevented from legitimately adding sourced balancing content to articles because of other editors POV, and thus routinely an endemicly subjected to personal attacks and non-policy based arguments that amount to "So and so can't edit because their POV is different from mine" - that is not how NPOV in articles works. The article content in ARBPIA is inarguably biased, so when you say "Pro-Israel editors are targeted" it sounds like you are whining that some editors are trying to maintain NPOV standards in articles on a topic where you think you should be given special treatment because it's only POV-pushing when other people do it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

Since Nishidani summoned me here by mentioning my name, I would like to make the following points:

1. Calling someone a liar ("Look up the word 'prevarication'") or incapable of rational thought ("If you cannot think syllogistically, don't comment") are obvious personal attacks. Rather than saying they aren't, you guys should stick to the traditional "he might not have behaved perfectly but we can use our discretion to let him off the hook", for appearances' sake.
2. Nishidani has been warned about the way he treats other editors multiple times. Most importantly note Xeno's comment here. Some of us warned about his behavior when his original ARBPIA topic ban was removed. This was supposed to be the forum where that was dealt with.
3. Nishidani regularly says he's quitting Wikipedia or putting himself under self-imposed topic bans. Those things never materialize.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nishidani

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

• As far as i can see, practically none of those diffs (most of which are taken out of context of the full diff) rise to the level of AE enforcement; indeed, most of them seem reasonable in the circumstances of the relevant dispute. It is probably time that some sort of restriction is placed on Debresser with regard to bringing people with whom he disagrees with to AE. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I clarify; I am not suggesting banning Debresser from bringing cases here (I would have said "ban" instead of "restriction"), but perhaps it would be wise for him - except in very obvious cases - to check with another experienced editor or admin before doing so? The same issue has been occurring at WP:ANI, as well. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree about the "most of them seem[ing] reasonable"—some are not, and that goes for both parties. The more contentious a topic is, the more we have to insist on moderate language and maintaining decorum, precisely because a topic is heated. I'm tired of contentious topics turning into a toxic editing environment due to editors not being able to restrain themselves. So, no, not par for the course. But, that also goes for explaining reverts in cogent and comprehensive way, and frustration born from failing that. *** That said, I agree that there's nothing actionable here as far as Arbitration Enforcement. As for the latest ARCA ruling, I have edited the pagenotice to reflect the latest Arbitration Committee motion, so there should be no confusion there from now on. El_C 11:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would urge Nishidani to reconsider leaving Wikipedia over this. There's more to this project than ARBPIA, where burnout is, indeed, staggeringly high. El_C 18:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree (mostly) with Black Kite. Reading through the diffs (and following them to the context) they are not of the level required for enforcement. Collectively, however, I can see that they can be frustrating and not unworthy of an AE complaint and I don't think this should be used to restrict Debresser from filing AE requests. (I also think El C's edit to the ruling is better - less ambiguity is a good thing). --regentspark (comment) 16:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I do think these edits are actionable because they personalize disputes rather than focusing on the content (and Nishidani's response is more of the same, disregarding WP:NOTTHEM). The "Piss off" is a personal attack even though it was submitted already struck through. I would topic-ban Nishidani for a month to give them the opportunity to focus on less stressful topics. As to the reverting rules according to the ARBPIA123456etc. rulings, they have become so complicated that I've given up on trying to understand or apply them, and so won't even try here.  Sandstein  07:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree fully with Black Kite, i.e. with both his posts above. How is "Piss off" a personal attack? Bishonen | talk 19:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• I would say "Piss off" is not a personal attack, but is uncivil (a broader category than personal attacks, but no less disruptive to encyclopedia-building). The condescending remarks are alarming. It seems clear to me that both parties, however, have been uncivil here (i.e., comment telling another user to stop being a "patronizing dick" followed by "kindergarten" diff). Ordinarily, I would close this with an admonition to all parties editing in the (contentious) area to be civil, avoid condescending remarks, and keep discussion narrowly focused on specific content. But that exact thing happened at AE previously (Oct. 7, 2016 close by The Wordsmith: "All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case. Parties are urged to spend some time reflecting inwardly on their own conduct, and whether it is truly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. No further action is taken at this time. The parties are advised to chill."). Not sure on outcome. Neutrality^talk 19:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Taken as a pattern, I do believe Nishidani's civility problem is indeed a problem that needs to address. I don't see it brought up in this particular complaint, but this was brought up on my talkpage fairly recently. Things like "from your nationalist perspective" and "the usual Israeli POV pushers deny mention of the fact" is further evidence that he's unduly personalizing things. Had the diff not already been six weeks old at that point, I would have issued a block or ban. However, while none of these are individually bad enough to warrant a block or ban, when taken as a whole I firmly believe that both Nishidani and the ARBPIA topic area would be better off if he didn't participate for a while. When I gave that warning I did mean it, and Nishidani's conduct since then has reaffirmed that stricter measures are needed here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• While the diffs given do have to be taken in their context, I'm not convinced that an editor who comments, "you weren't making a point. You were evincing an intrusive illiteracy in logic," is dedicated to collegial editing. And digging through the diffs and the history, my concerns only grow. Stepping back from the detailed behaviour involved, we have an editor who is trying, apparently with perfectly earnest sincerity, to argue that the geographical feature known as the Jordan Valley is somehow different to the valley containing the river Jordan.
• The history is important here, too. Debresser didn't mention it in this report, but Nishidani was indefinitely topic-banned from PI articles for "repeated and extensive edit-warring, as well as incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith." Given the intervening time it was probably right for Debresser not to bring it up, but I think admins need to be aware of it when assessing the outcome here. The restriction was lifted in 2011 to see if it was still needed or not - and the evidence presented here seems to suggest that perhaps Nishidani has slipped back into old ways. Given this history, a one-month tban strikes me as somewhat on the light side, though I also don't think we're at the stage of re-imposing the indefinite ban.
• I'm a little concerned by the evidence given by Nishidani, but a spot check leaves me unconvinced that they are the innocent victim here. Nishidani regards several of the cited reverts as "utterly farcical", but I have to admit all of the reverted edits are ones I'd have a problem with. For instance, this edit at Archaeology of Israel takes a very high-level overview of the field of study, itself stretching over six centuries and studying a period of three millenia, and adds that A third of the 40,000 objects recovered annually from archaeological digs in Israel testify to Christian realities in the area. This sort of random statistic seems out of place anywhere in the article but in the lead it sticks out like a sore thumb; it smacks of an editor who has come across a statistic and decided he must be able to crowbar it into Wikipedia somewhere. This edit to Michael Sfard is perhaps not the BLP violation some argued it to be, but it also seems to me to be verging on hagiography. I would have at least asked why it should be included. The third example again seems to be not necessarily a policy violation but editorially questionable. GoldenRing (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Taking into considerations the admin opinions above, I am closing this with a one-month topic ban for Nishidani for the reasons given above.  Sandstein  13:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 Gahgeer

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 :

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

1. [19] Editing I/P article
2. [20] Editing I/P aricle

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)

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [21]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user not meet the criteria for editing the I/P article it was explained to him and he was given an alert about the sanctions and yet he seems to edit the articles anyhow.It seems that per this thread [22] he will continue to edit the articles--Shrike (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Gahgeer

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 Gahgeer

Statement by Gahgeer

I really find it strange that there are calls for blocking me because I corrected a subjective description of a commander on a disambiguation page (Red Prince).

My edit on that page was simply removing the word "[sic] Terrorist" and replacing it with a commander, a description that was taken from the figure's own Wiki page. I find it strange that this edit stayed there for several months, until I became more active recently (specifically after I made comments on the Talk page of Dalal Mughrabi) in which I pointed to complete false information that was inserted by editing. This is when one user started hounding me and reversed that edit.

All my edits were not subjective and merely I either corrected wrong information, provided more content. In some cases, my suggestion resulted in complete overhaul of articles that were otherwise based on fake information. See examples here:

Arab Peace Initiative: I corrected a major blunder which attributed the Israeli decision to a completely wrong prime minister.

United States foreign aid: Corrected a gross misrepresentation of the US aid to the Palestinian Authority (and discussed it on the Talk page too)

Dill: Corrected the Arabic translation of the word Dill.

Honor killing: Updated the Palestine section with information on recently passed law.

Palestinian Preventive Security: Updated and corrected the information on this page from trusted sources.

Francis E. Meloy Jr.: Updated information on CIA findings from recent leaks.

Draft: Jihad al-Wazir: Researched and created a profile of this person based on a request on Wikiproject Palestine (it is still a draft).

To say that my personal page constitutes a basis for blocking is utter oppression. What is even worse is to make a motion for blocking me because I corrected a disambiguation page that was not protected and was placed as part of the protection rule only by the biased editor who reported me. The protection rules was meant to save articles from vandalism. My record on Wikipedia is everything but that as shown above.

I also find it honestly sad that as someone who began to dedicate more time to Wikipedia is being hounded and punished just like this. Wikipedia should welcome new users not bully them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gahgeer (talk • contribs) 10:30, 31 May, 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN I have no problem with that rule whatsoever evident by how I discussed changes on Talk: Dalal Mughrabi and Talk: Palestine Liberation Organization. My concern that I was accused of violating the rule when it was not clear it applied to a disambiguation page (and even now, the revert in my opinion shows a completely subjective treatment of the topic but I digress). I have no problem complying with the rule (because I have been doing so in the first place). I'd like to turn this page over and move on. Gahgeer (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question by jd2718

Does the arbitration decision allow editors to revert Gahgeer's edits on sight? I'm a bit surprised by the automatic reverts. Jd2718 (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gahgeer

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

• Gahgeer first edited in 2008, although he is not remotely close to the 500 limit. Still, this is a bit of a different circumstance. His user page makes his bias pretty clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at his talk page, it is possible he really didn't understand. The page wasn't extprot until after his edit. It isn't an intuitive policy, so I'm willing to give a little benefit of the doubt, but only a little. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left a note on their talk page encouraging them to come here. They edit so little, they might not even notice a block, so I'm more focused on making sure it doesn't happen again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • EdJohnston, what do you do about someone who arguably didn't know about them? In good faith, I can see that potential. I agree the reply didn't help, but the restriction isn't intuitive and really we should be applying the extprot to all articles that clearly apply, and being a little understanding in cases where the editor doesn't know because it is easy to do for a new editor (or in this case, old but infrequent editor). I'm a bit stuck here as to what we should do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree there has been a lack of willingness to listen. I can forgive a bit of this, being upset he was dragged to AE about a editing an article that wasn't protected, but that doesn't take you far and I agree at some point you should be wise enough to say "I didn't know, weird rule, I won't break it again.". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on his positive response to NeilN's question, I'm happy to just leave this as a warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jd2718, that is a good question and I'm not aware of a perfect answer, but it would seem so since that editor was not supposed to be editing that article. Reverting is restoring the article as if the infraction didn't take place. Other (500/30 qualified) editors are welcome to add back the material, as the infraction isn't about the content, it is about the user not qualifying to insert it. It would be an editorial decision, not related to the Arb restriction. This assumes the material doesn't violate other Arb restrictions on PI articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I get what EdJohnston is saying, but this is a de facto ban on editing, so the reverting doesn't bother me. It isn't required, but as I understand it, it is allowed. I'm happy to be pointed to an actual ruling, and maybe that is a topic for WP:ARCA so we don't have any confusion about it in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I am afraid the user should be blocked since they were very clear they are not interested in stopping editing the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Great, thanks Dennis. Let us wait a bit.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Gahgeer has left a response above which doesn't inspire confidence. The options that remain for us seem to be block, ban or final warning, They made no response at all regarding the concern that led to this AE, about disobeying the 500-edit restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis: Once a discussion has begun with the editor, we should expect them to start paying attention. So whatever rules he didn't know previously is not so relevant. He has shown he is willing to answer here, but not to address the concern. Originally I was going to say 'Final warning not to edit ARBPIA before 500 edits' but everything he has said so far (including what is on his user page) suggests he is unlikely to listen. He can show he is listening by addressing the concern. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jd2718: Arbcom calls the 500-edit limit a 'general prohibition'. They are not employing the word 'ban'. If they did, it would be correct to assume that WP:BANREVERT applies. In general, I would not personally revert a prohibited edit unless I thought it was a bad idea. Assuming I was working as a regular content editor. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've asked a direct question. [23] Let's see if we get a direct answer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend this be closed noting that Gahgeer will adhere to WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 Dbrote

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 :

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

1. [24] Making RFC comment on I/P discussion
2. [25] Restoring the RFC comment
3. Date Explanation
4. Date Explanation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't ask any sanctions against the user only ECP protection of the RFC.This is similar to this case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive209#Islington Bloor]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[26]

Discussion concerning Dbrote

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 Dbrote

A request for comment was made on the talk page of McMahon–Hussein Correspondence. I provided what I believe to be a constructive, non-disruptive comment on that talk page. Shrike argues that this violates WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 states that "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." My account has fewer than 500 edits, so I fall under the general prohibition. However, an exception to the general prohibition exists: "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." My comment falls within that exception. I used the talk page of McMahon–Hussein Correspondence to post a constructive, non-disruptive comment. My action was proper and no enforcement is necessary or appropriate.

Shrike points to a subsequent sentence contained within the exception that states "This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc." I was not involved in "other" internal project discussions. I made a comment to a Talk page, which is explicitly listed as one of the two permitted internal project discussions. This cannot constitute an "other" internal project discussion due to its explicit inclusion. The word "other" (as opposed to a term such as "notwithstanding" or "nonetheless") implies that the subset of internal discussions which fall outside of the exception are those not previously stated (i.e., it explains that the boundary goes no further than explicitly spelled out in the exception; it does not impose limits or restrictions on the previously stated exception). The exception to the exception is inapplicable.

Shrike points to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive209#Islington Bloor as a similar case. Ignoring the personal attacks/etc. portion of the ruling, I believe that enforcement action to be wrongly decided for the reasons I've discussed above. Dbrote (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dbrote

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

• This is a case of Arbcom sending mixed, contradictory messages. On one hand, Dbrote is right. The present remedy explicitly allows non-ECP accounts to non-disruptively post on article talk pages. It does not list RFCs among "internal project discussions" - a strange omission if they considered a RFC to be an internal project discussion. On the other hand, Arbcom has repeatedly said that one of the main purposes of the mandatory 30/500 was to eliminate the sock and meat puppetry in this area. Allowing non-ECP editors to influence the outcome of a RFC seems a rather large loophole to leave open. Common sense (at least mine) says this loophole should be closed but Arbcom should clarify or expand what is an internal project discussion. No action should be taken against Dbrote. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur. Refer to ARCA. El_C 20:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that this is not actionable. In the Bloor case, I blocked for personal attacks, not illicit editing. Closed without action.  Sandstein  22:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 Archwayh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Politrukki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Enforcement : WP:ARBAPDS

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

All listed edits are made in violation of topic-ban, see my comment below.

1. 11:10, 2 June 2017 (article Donald Trump–Russia dossier)
2. 11:30, 2 June 2017 (article Donald Trump–Russia dossier)
3. 11:50, 2 June 2017 (article Donald Trump–Russia dossier)
4. 11:14, 2 June 2017 (article Links between Trump associates and Russian officials)
5. 11:14, 2 June 2017 (article Links between Trump associates and Russian officials)
6. 11:17, 2 June 2017 (AFD for Links between Trump associates and Russian officials)
7. 11:19, 2 June 2017 (AFD for Links between Trump associates and Russian officials)
8. 11:36, 2 June 2017 (article Christopher Steele)
9. 11:24, 2 June 2017 (article Robert Mueller)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 25 May 2017 – Topic-banned from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people for one month. Still in force.

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 25 May 2017 by Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Just one week ago, Archwayh was topic-banned from American politics for one month. They have since made several edits in violation of the topic-ban. Donald Trump–Russia dossier has en edit notice which clearly shows that the page is under discretionary sanctions. Edits to other pages such as Christopher Steele and Robert Mueller are obviously related to U.S. politics, specifically Donald Trump.

Moreover, enforcing administrator reminded Archwayh to "not mark edits as 'minor' if they're making substantive changes to an article", yet still they consistently mark their edits as "minor". I don't know what to think of this. Politrukki (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[27]

Discussion concerning Archwayh

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 Archwayh

Statement by Sagecandor

This one seems pretty straightforward violation. Topic ban still in force [28], followed by edits [29] [30]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MelanieN

It looks like User:Lord Roem has blocked him for a week. --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Archwayh

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

• This is a pretty flagrant violation. I want to hear from Archwayh, but I'm thinking we may need to block and extend the topic ban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord Roem has already blocked for one week, a term that fits exactly into my line of thinking. Now the question is whether or not the ban should be extended, which I would support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking 3 months, but that isn't far off, so I would say that is a reasonable extension and support both actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and extended it as well. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 DHeyward

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sagecandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBBLP and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 (user disruption involving Vice President of the United States Mike Pence, among other issues.) : Standard discretionary sanctions WP:AC/DS.

---> Summary: Edit-warring, disruption, ignoring consensus, ignoring talk page discussion, violating WP:NPA, violating guide.decor.

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

1. 23:57, 3 June 2017 - page moving against consensus, during ongoing talk page discussion. User ignored the discussion [31].
2. 00:44, 4 June 2017 - edit-warring against consensus with zero talk page participation. Talk page consensus was against this, with Thryduulf, MrX, and Wesley Wolf in consensus. User ignored the discussion. [32].
3. 00:53, 4 June 2017 - edit summary: "And you're being idiotic"
4. 00:58, 4 June 2017 - edit summary: "oh fuck off you busybody numbskull"
5. 01:00, 4 June 2017 - this time visible on talk page during previously constructive discussion immediately above on page: "there are a number of busybody numbskills"
6. 01:42, 4 June 2017 - Violation of guide.decor, casting aspersions, in this AE request itself. "Sagecandor is being a busybody"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 18 January 2015 - Violations of WP:BLP related to WP:GS/GG sanctions. Blocked by admin HJ Mitchell.
2. 7 November 2015 - Violations of Arbitration decision. Blocked by HJ Mitchell.

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

• 1 October 2015 - related to WP:BLPs, given by Cwobeel.
• 2 September 2016 - related to American Politics 2, given by NeilN.
• 4 June 2017 - related to American Politics 2, given by Sagecandor.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• @Masem:Can the above issues and diffs be dealt with somehow? What about the violations? How best to address them? Sagecandor (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Masem:I'm citing both WP:ARBBLP and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Unfortunately, I feel that the multiple issues of: Edit-warring, disruption, ignoring consensus, ignoring talk page discussion, violating WP:NPA, violating guide.decor -- make it much too complex to resolve efficiently at ANI. Bringing here as this is more efficient. Relates to both BLP, AmPol, as well as WP:AC/DS and guide.decor. Sagecandor (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[33]. Posted notice to user's talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning DHeyward

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 DHeyward

How is the london terror attack under American Politics? I'm not sure how one can edit war with a single copyedit and no reverts. And the page move wasn't against consensus, it was made, reverted and it's now on the ttalk page per BRD (I started that talk page discussion, BTW, after my move was reverted. There was noo edit war. - here's the diff). Sagecandor is being a busybody that needs to stop templating regulars and discuss rationally. I velieve he was just brought here for AP2 and maybe he needs a topic ban himself especially if it broadly covers London terror attacks. --DHeyward (talk)

The extent of my edits to Mike Pence was replacing "also wrote of his condolences" to "offered his condolence." That's it. One edit. Not a revert. A copyedit that made it through after edit conflicts. The hysteria is large even by Wikipedia standards. --DHeyward (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But let's look at the ingenuous nature of this frivoulous complaint:

1. 23:57, 3 June 2017 - page moving against consensus, during ongoing talk page discussion. User ignored the discussion [34].

• Not quite. That discusssion happened even before the move from "incident" to "attack". Consensus already had changed. RS's had changed as well. My edit was bold and undiscussed. I started the discussion for my edit. This seems to be a deliberate ommission of facts.

1. 00:44, 4 June 2017 - edit-warring against consensus with zero talk page participation. Talk page consensus was against this, with Thryduulf, MrX, and Wesley Wolf in consensus. User ignored the discussion. [35].

• I ignored nothing except that wording that I saw was awkward. It wasn't a revert, it was a copyedit from "also wrote of his condolences" to "offered his condolence.". My only edit to Mike Pence. Sagecandor and others were in an edit war, I made a copyedit to a reversion that was unwieldy. I made a similar copyedit to Trump that was not reverted or part of Sagecandor's edit war but in the same section [36].

All of the sanctions he noted were reversed but he fails to note that. If ever there was a time for a boomerang... --DHeyward (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

An edit about the current U.S. vice president most certainly does fall under post-1932 politics. DHeyward's string of personal attacks, which continued even after being warned by an admin, are shameful.- MrX 02:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masem I never said anything about 1RR. One of the reasons we have discretionary sanctions for post-1932 politics is because of editors who are unwilling or unable to conduct themselves civilly while they are attempting to promote certain political points of views, irrespective of the main subject of the article. In this case, Pence platitudes and OMG terrorists!- MrX 02:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I'm about to go to bed so I'll keep this brief.

• Even though some of this relates to Mike Pence agreeing with Trump's comments which related the events in London to US domestic political issues, this does not bring it within the scope of the American Politics DS area. It's worth noting here that I was on ArbCom when the DS was authorised for this topic area.
• The personal attacks by DHeyward do merit action being taken, but not at this venue.
• I haven't looked in detail at the edit warring claims or DH's response to them so I offer no opinion of them at this time. Thryduulf (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

It would have been better if Sagecandor, instead of templating DHeyward, had simply told the latter what their problem was. It turns out that DHeyward copyedited a comment involving Mike Pence, and it was removed by someone else while they were copyediting it. A simple, courteous request would have settled the matter.

Trouts all around. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth

DHeyward has been formally admonished by the arbitration committee for violations of WP:NPA in the past. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dumuzid

DHeyward and I have crossed paths once or twice. I don't think there's much on which we agree; I wouldn't be surprised if he has applied some colorful invective to me in the past -- though always, so far as I know, privately. All that being said, I find this complaint pretty thin gruel for all the reasons already stated. In addition, I don't find his "attacks" particularly troubling but for the overly vulgar way in which he expresses them. If it were up to me, I'd say there should be an admonishment to make more respectful word choices, but other than that, everyone should carry on. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DHeyward

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

• Only noting that I agree that this seems way outside the American Politics DS; and that I do think it is highly premature to add the word "terror" to the title when there has yet to be a motive. Trouts needed, this seems frivolous and a content dispute that can be treated by regular admin actions and not an AE requirement. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sagecandor: Standard Edit Warring? ANI? I agree moving a page while there's an active discussion and continually moving is a problem, just not one that falls within the AmPol DS. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sagecandor: You have provided diffs that only appear to be tied to the London attacks that happened today which is clearly outside American Politics, and currently has no BLP issues (no names have been named). Anything DHeyward has been previous sanctioned under doesn't factor into those diffs. But this still is behavior that should not be happening under general edit warring principles, and that would be an issue to raise at either WP:ANI or WP:AN3. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also the comments DHeyward made against you aren't BLP issues, but they may be issues under WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA , which becomes an ANI issue. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MrX: Adding (and not readding after it was removed) the condolences of the VP on an article that otherwise falls outside US politics is neither something that falls into Am Politics, nor is a DS volitional since there was no 1RR on that specific addition. All the other diffs are edit warring while consensus was being developed and/or close NPAs, but not DSes. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will disagree that just because there are some responses by American politicians on an event that has zero to do with the US that that suddenly makes the article fall under the DS; that's a very slippery slope to call nearly any article that happens to mention Trump even if it doesn't deal with any politics whatsoever fall under the DS. I do agree overall there's broad issues with many editors on that page pushing the terrorism angle far too early (this is why WP:NOT#NEWS/WP:DEADLINE/WP:RECENTISM needs to be upheld), and it would be inappropriate to call only one editor out for this. I do agree there's behavior from DHyeyward that probably needs a look at under normal editing expectations, but nothing needed a DS to enforce. --MASEM (t) 02:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Md iet (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of Dawoodi Bohra, imposed at

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Md iet

Now I understand the importance of reliable sources and why it is required for a reliable encyclopedia like of Wikipedia. My earlier mistake was due to confusion that real facts are self qualified for inclusion with mere justification. No justifications are valid without valid proof. My editing after my unblock indicates the clear change. I think more than one year is sufficient period and method of contribution to Wikipedia during the period also need consideration to give me a chance for this appeal to contribute further to Wiki

I agree with view of EdJohnston. In fact why FGM only, all the controversial edition to be better resolved at talk page itself.--Md iet (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

As the banning admin, I am OK with lifting User:Md iet's topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra. Before doing so I'll wait to see if any of the admins commenting below have concerns about Md iet's editing and want to keep the ban in place. The original dispute was about whether to declare a specific contender as the new head of the Dawoodi Bohra. That dispute is now mostly over since the rival candidate died. I haven't noticed any recent edits by Md iet that would cause concern, so the ban no longer seems necessary. I trust that Md iet will be aware that any changes about the Dawoodi Bohra have to be neutral and must not be promotional. The topic of female genital mutilation as practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra remains controversial and any changes should have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Md iet

• I would agree with GoldenRing and say it could be lifted after this length of time. Can always be re-imposed, hopefully not necessary, if needed, at a later date. If re-imposed later, maybe the user could retain ability to comment about it on talk pages, so as to still be able to participate and suggest drafts on sub-pages, etc. Sagecandor (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support entirely lifting the topic ban: I have never edited these articles or had any interaction with Md iet. But I have seen his editing on different articles such as India and I appreciate the attitude of Md iet, that he has shown significant improvement in his editing. He knows now when to continue the discussion and when to drop it. Capitals00 (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Md iet

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

• I'm suggest to denying this request. Md iet, you should first ask the admin (EdJohnston) who imposed the sanction on you. (Regardless, you do need to notify them of this appeal and you don't appear to have done that.)--regentspark (comment) 07:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @RegentsPark: to be fair, the ban notice instructs him to appeal here, not consult the banning admin. As far as I can tell, this user was indeffed about two and a half years ago. They were unblocked under the standard offer about sixteen months ago, retaining a topic ban from Dawoodi Bohra. Eight months ago that topic ban was relaxed by EdJohnston to allow involvement on talk pages but not the article itself. As far as I can tell (at least judging by their user talk) no disruption has resulted from any of this gradual re-admittance to the community. I'd like to hear User:EdJohnston's opinion first, but I'd be wiling to see the ban removed. It can always be reimposed, but it doesn't seem likely to me that removing it will lead to disruption. GoldenRing (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• GoldenRing, generally speaking, the ban imposing admin is better able to evaluate whether it should be lifted or not and we should encourage users to appeal to them first and come here only if they feel they are being treated unfairly or not getting a response (this is also the recommended, though not mandatory, process - re the instructions above). Though, of course, you are correct that they don't have to go back to the sanctioning admin, we should encourage users to use this board only when necessary. In this case it seems particularly unnecessary when the sanctioning admin has already shown an inclination to modify the sanctions. (But, sure, at this point we might as well wait for Ed.) --regentspark (comment) 14:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @RegentsPark: Sure, I'm all for avoiding the boards where possible. Just saying that the ban notice doesn't say, "Go to the sanctioning admin," it says come here, so it's understandable that that's what he's done, if not optimal. @EdJohnston: as there's been no further objection here, I think the ban should be lifted. GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as per EdJohnston, above, who imposed the ban. Md iet appears to understand, and has been back here in good standing for quite some time now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 Al-Andalusi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Al-Andalusi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles :

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

• Frequent habit of edit warring.

Palestinian right of return

19:48, 19 March 2017‎ got reverted[37]

[20:46, 19 March 2017 got reverted[38]

16:34, 21 March 2017‎ got reverted[39]

• Edit warred over Israel-Palestine conflict related content on Acid throwing, until page was protected:-

22:20, 16 March 2017

21:17, 29 May 2017‎

14:41, 30 May 2017

14:59, 2 June 2017‎

21:18, 2 June 2017‎

• His edits were reverted by 4 different editors, and he still believes that they all need his "consensus" to revert him.

• He claimed The Jerusalem Post to be an opinion piece,[40] after he saw that no one supported his claim that Jpost is an opinion piece, he resorted to personal attacks and WP:FILIBUSTER on talk page:-

"Capitals00 is a liar who appears to have a personal vendetta", "Capitals00 is ignorant of WP:BRD" [41]

"So the entire, Arab press and all Arab residents in Palestine are blind, and only the Jewish media is capable of authenticity"..."only a moron would lump them all together"[42]

"whether blanket reverting idiots like Capitals00 and OccultZone, who have been entirely absent from this debate on the talk pages"[43]

• WP:POV pushing doesn't end here. He wants to give same weight to Hamas as much as Amnesty International.[44][45] (WP:UNDUE)

• Making non-neutral talk-header in violation of WP:TALKNEW[46] despite being blocked and admonished for exact same kind of talk headers before.[47]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

3 blocks for edit warring last year[48]

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

8 November 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I could bring more diffs of misconduct, but they many of them don't fall under the Israel-Palestine conflict and they are older than 8 November (last sanctions reminder), when he was more active as editor. Capitals00 (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[49]

Discussion concerning Al-Andalusi

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 Al-Andalusi

Statement by Icewhiz

My personal opinion, as a participant in "Acid Throwing" was that most of Al-Andalusi's editing wasn't helpful.

I'd like to point out that he also committed a 1RR violation in these diffs: [50] - Revision as of 21:18, 2 June 2017 - blanket return of information. which was a 2nd revert in relation to piecemeal removal of the same items 8 hours earlier: [51] [52] (besides being against talk-page consensus, particularly "Suyuf al-Haq" (Swords of Righteousness) which was discussed at length)

He was asked by me to self-revert: [53]. His response was to delete (without archiving I believe) the request from his talk page: [54].

This is material clearly under the I/P area - particularly the 2nd revert of an acid attack by a Palestinian on a Jewish family.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Al-Andalusi

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