| Nishidani is topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict for one month. Sandstein 13:33, 1 June 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. Request concerning Nishidani
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.
[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) @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) @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) @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) @Sandstein Lol. Debresser ( talk) 18:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Discussion concerning NishidaniStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NishidaniBackground
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.
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)
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 List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017
At List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016
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)
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:
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)
Statement by KingsindianMost 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) Statement by HuldraReally, 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 "
Statement by IcewhizSince 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) Statement by Malik ShabazzI 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) Statement by Sir JosephThis 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)
Statement by Seraphim SystemI 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
Statement by No More Mr Nice GuySince Nishidani summoned me here by mentioning my name, I would like to make the following points:
No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 22:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Nishidani
|
| Archwayh ( talk · contribs) blocked one week. Topic ban extended to six months. -- NeilN talk to me 19:27, 2 June 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. Request concerning Archwayh
All listed edits are made in violation of topic-ban, see my comment below.
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
Discussion concerning ArchwayhStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ArchwayhStatement by SagecandorThis one seems pretty straightforward violation. Topic ban still in force [20], followed by edits [21] [22]. Sagecandor ( talk) 18:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by MelanieNIt looks like User:Lord Roem has blocked him for a week. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Archwayh
|
| Not actionable. Sandstein 22:22, 2 June 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. Request concerning Dbrote
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]
Discussion concerning DbroteStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DbroteA 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) Statement by (username)Result concerning Dbrote
|
| Not actionable at this venue as WP:ARBAP2 does not apply to this article. -- NeilN talk to me 04:09, 4 June 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. Request concerning DHeyward
Discussion concerning DHeywardStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DHeywardHow 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) But let's look at the ingenuous nature of this frivoulous complaint:
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) Statement by MrXAn 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.- Mr X 02:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Statement by ThryduulfI'm about to go to bed so I'll keep this brief.
Statement by KingsindianIt 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) Statement by PeterTheFourthDHeyward has been formally admonished by the arbitration committee for violations of WP:NPA in the past. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 03:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by DumuzidDHeyward 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)
Statement by (username)Result concerning DHeyward
|
| Al-Andalusi is banned from all edits and pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for a period of six months. GoldenRing ( talk) 08:51, 8 June 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. Request concerning Al-Andalusi
Discussion concerning Al-AndalusiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Al-AndalusiStatement by IcewhizMy 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: [45] - 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: [46] [47] (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: [48]. His response was to delete (without archiving I believe) the request from his talk page: [49]. 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) Statement by (username)Result concerning Al-Andalusi
|
| Topic ban lifted per consensus. -- NeilN talk to me 14:55, 8 June 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).
Statement by Md ietNow 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
Statement by EdJohnstonAs 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) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Md iet
Result of the appeal by Md iet
|
| Al-Andalusi is blocked for a week for violating their topic ban. Sandstein 09:56, 9 June 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. Request concerning Al-Andalusi
He got topic banned from all Palestine-Israel articles hardly a few hours ago, and he has violated the topic ban already by writing on the talk page regarding the same West Bank and Gaza Strip section. The talk sections concerns his edits [52] [53] where the same paragraph goes to mention First Intifada, and other one describes attacks on Israeli family by Palestinian as part of Israel-Palestine conflicts. Al-Andalusi also made personal attack on other editor "are you being dramatic here like the vinegar family?" [54] This comes after his acknowledgement of topic ban on his talk page. [55] Capitals00 ( talk) 00:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Al-AndalusiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Al-AndalusiNonsense. My comments came under talk sections concerning acid thrown within Gaza, and in no way are about the Palestine-Israel conflict. The 1st section "More than 18 attacks" describes acid attacks on Gaza residents, while the 2nd section "Hamas' reaction" describes Hamas torture allegations in Gaza. Now, if it is your belief that Gaza is part of Israel, and hence any discussion involving Gaza entails that I "violated" an alleged topic ban that I did not agree to, then that's an entirely different story. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 03:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by Uanfala
Statement by IcewhizCommenting as I was a side to this. Two quick notes: 1. Gaza, in the 80s (some of this actually pre-dates the first Intifada (1983), some during) was under Israeli civil and military control - Israel was in charge of law and order in the territory and for preventing attacks, preventing them, and dispensing justice. I personally, saw/see this as part of the I/P area and adhered to 1RR and other ARBPIA in all edits related to the West Bank and Gaza in Acid Throwing. (note that in a technical sense, Israel is still claimed by some (International bodies, Palestinians) of still being the occupying power in Gaza today (also after disengagement) - so it is possible that current Palestinian/Palestinian issues in Gaza are still I/P. In the 1980s - Israel was in actual full or almost full control). 2. But, I will want to note that Al-Andalusi was being constructive in some of his comments - and this was a discussion that was on-going parallel to the enforcement case (I believe the discussion started before the enforcement action). I agreed with some of his comments - and edited them in myself. He also stuck to the talk page. One of the mentioned diffs is a thanks for an edit. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Al-Andalusi
|
| 1RR restriction lifted. EdJohnston ( talk) 23:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm not a veteran of AE, but I believe this is not the usual type of AE request. WP:AC/DS was very recently amended to explicitly allow editors to request removal/modification of DS page restrictions at AE. I'd like to request the removal of restrictions on Carter Page. As far as I can tell that page has seen zero disruption from the start and was only subjected to DS restrictions preemptively on April 12 because the subject was associated with Donald Trump. However, Mr. Page had been in the news in connection with Trump for months before that with no disruption. In fact the article has been pretty darn sleepy. I see no basis for maintaining DS restrictions. In an abundance of caution I'm sending an AE notice to the imposing admin, who is on an indefinite wikibreak. They rejected my request to remove the restrictions. I hold nothing against them; I think their general approach to page restrictions is reasonable, but I just happen to disagree in some instances, and I hope a consensus of admins will agree with me. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 06:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Carter PageStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SagecandorAgree with EdJohnston. The restrictions should not be removed. Also agree with EdJohnston that it hopefully helps encourage more talk page discussion. The topic is subject to an active investigation ongoing and to be elaborated upon more in testimony upcoming later this week. That would lead to increased activity and likely increased controversy. As for the question posed by GoldenRing, the restrictions are not posing harm to the article and could hopefully only prove to encourage others to discuss proposals more with each other. Sagecandor ( talk) 20:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by SandsteinCommenting here because I have created the article and have on occasion continued to edit it. I have not observed editorial (mis)conduct that would warrant particular page-level sanctions, and would therefore favor removing them. Sandstein 10:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved administrators
|
| Appeal declined by a 4-0 vote. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:26, 10 June 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).
Statement by Al-AndalusiPasted here from User talk:Al-Andalusi on behalf of Al-Andalusi GoldenRing ( talk) 21:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC) I reject Sandstein's claims that I violated a topic ban. He claims that my edit is in violation because Hamas "is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict". However, the nature my talk page edit concerned an internal Palestinian event with regards to torturing Palestinians. To me, this is unrelated to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Secondly, Sandstein claims that I contributed to a talk page section titled "2014 Acid Attack in West Bank" and that my contribution was on how to cover acid attacks by Palestinians against Israelis. This is patently false and I ask that the reviewer of this unblock appeal to review my edit here. It comes under a section titled "More than 18 attacks" (which I created btw long before the topic ban), which concerns acid attacks carried out by Mujama al-Islamiya in Gaza in the 1980s, a local issue as far as I'm concerned. The talk page section titled "2014 Acid Attack in West Bank" that Capitals00 (originator of the enforcement request) and Sandstein claimed that I contributed to is somewhere else on the talk page Talk:Acid throwing#2014 Acid Attack in West Bank, where you won't find my alleged edit. It is a shame that Sandstein would take Capitals00's words at face value and not bother with verifying the claims. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 14:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by SandsteinI have commented further on this block on my talk page, and recommend declining the appeal. Sandstein 05:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000I think Al-Andalusi is skating on very thin ice here and that his two edits were asking for trouble. That said, Sandstein's justification is highly dubious, especially the part "Al-Andalusi mentions Hamas, which is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict". It is elementary that something that does not involve Israel also doesn't involve the Israel-Palestine conflict. Would we apply ARBPIA to, say, this article on Israeli food on the grounds that "Israel is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict"? Of course not. The rest of the justification seems to be that the edits concern text that is adjacent to text about the Arab-Israeli conflict. What sort of argument is that? Zero talk 03:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by Capitals00I would recommend obvious decline. Sandstein's justification was correct. Its like similar to saying that if a user is banned from India-Pakistan conflicts, they are not allowed to talk about Lashkar-e-Taiba as well. Al-Andalusi should instead edit something like Party of the Danes, that has to do nothing with Israel-Arab conflicts. Capitals00 ( talk) 03:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by DebresserThe violation was on a talkpage, and seems to have been based on an honest misunderstanding. It would have been enough to simply explain his mistake to Al-Andalusi, and no block would have been necessary. I recommend to retract whatever is left of the block, since block should not be punitive. Debresser ( talk) 18:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Al-AndalusiResult of the appeal by Al-Andalusi
|
| Cannot be processed in this form. Sandstein 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
| No action taken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:24, 14 June 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. Request concerning El_C
There was a Rfc on the Jewish diaspora talkpage. After it was closed, [70] there arose a difference of interpretation regarding in how far editors are at liberty to make changes to the version that was endorsed by the Rfc, based on the fact hat both the proposal that was accepted [71] as well as the closing statement of the Rfc [72] specifically mentioned that the accepted version was not binding verbatim and tweaks and other general improvements can be made. A minor edit war ensued, in the middle of which El_C decided to enact the Consensus required provision. [73] The version on the page at that moment was my version, so when it was changed, [74] I had all right to revert, which I did. [75] Only after that happened, El_C decided that the version he would like to see preserved for the time being is not my version, [76] and now he demands I revert and threatens me with sanction should I not revert my version. [77] [78] I explained on on the talkpage, that he can not demand I revert an edit which I was entitled to make according to the very same sanction he imposed, but he insists, and has at a matter of fact issued a ban for me for that article, [79], which I do not recognize, [80] since I consider it a mistake (I won't go as far as to call it abuse of admin privileges) As I see it, El_C is at liberty to revert my edit himself, if he is of the opinion that the other version is for whatever reason preferable to mine, but by all rules of Wikipedia, including the very consensus required provision he decided to enact, I was in my rights to made the edit I made and can not be sanctioned for that. I ask for your opinions, and, in case you agree with me, to explain this to El_C and annul the 72 hour article ban. Further discussion with admins and other editors by Debresser@GoldenRing @El_C If I were warned for general edit warring, which I wasn't, you might have a point. Even though in that case, I'd insist that Dailycare be sanctioned as well, since he reverted me just as many times as I reverted him. And frankly, I don't think that one revert on June 4, one on June 6, and one on June 10 (or Dailycare's reverts on June 5, June 9 and June 13) is enough reason to sanction an editor for edit warring. That is just not enough of an edit war. But the issue here is that I was sanctioned for violating a "no reverts without discussion" rule, that was incorrectly applied. Even El_C has already admitted on his talkpage that he now understands how he misrepresented that rule, so I suggest he officially takes back the invalid ban he enacted, and clarifies what restrictions precisely he want to put in place on that article. Debresser ( talk) 18:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Discussion concerning El_CStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by El_CReturning to the edit war version of March 13 again on June 10 violated "reverted material can't be reinstated without consensus." ( "Mass," "some"— RfC) El_C 17:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by Seraphim SystemI think Debresser should add evidence to his complaint showing that consensus supports his version, or this should be dismissed for lack of evidence. My read on the talk page is clear consensus against the language Debresser wants to include ("some historians"). Apparently, the definition of consensus Debresser is basing this complaint on is
Statement by SagecandorI'm not seeing evidence that El_C is involved here, merely assessing consensus of a discussion. Unfortunately, the edit history even only for the last 50 edits shows back-and-forth edit-warring by Debresser, going back to March 2017 [84]. Sagecandor ( talk) 17:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by DailycareThis complaint appears to revolve around the misconception that Debresser could obtain some advantage to "his version" by edit-warring it in the article, since that was the only reason it happened to be in when the CRP was put in place. The contrary is true, in fact, since edit-warring is penalized, not rewarded. As such, this complaint can be seen as one or more of frivolous, wikilawyering or disruptive in that he is seeking to continue his edit-war crusade in favour of a text ("some") that is trivially contrary to WP:NPOV. WP:BOOMERANG could be considered here. Debresser has recently received warnings on the 3RR board. -- Dailycare ( talk) 18:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by NableezyThis a straightforward attempt by Debresser to game the system and it should be rejected. The idea that he can force his version, not the RFC agreed upon version, into the article and then have the gall to demand consensus to change what never had consensus to begin with is at best mildly amusing and at worst a blatant attempt to play the rules against each other. A 72 hr ban here is the definition of a slap on the wrist, and it appears to have been too light a touch if anything. nableezy - 03:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning El_C
|
| Blocked one week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 16 June 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. Request concerning Ryanfoster99
See users talk page
Discussion concerning Ryanfoster99Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Ryanfoster99Statement by (username)Result concerning Ryanfoster99
|
| Blocked for two weeks and User:FreeatlastChitchat/sandbox deleted. GoldenRing ( talk) 19:07, 18 June 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. Request concerning FreeatlastChitchat
Clear violation of topic ban. D4iNa4 ( talk) 04:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchatStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FreeatlastChitchatStatement by RhoarkSome refs added to a sandbox page? seriously? Rhoark ( talk) 05:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by SagecandorHave to agree here with Dennis Brown and GoldenRing. Wouldn't normally think so for sandbox, but after the warning given by Lord Roem, makes sense in this particular case. Suggestion: Unless you want to talk with the user and make an allowance per {{ 2nd chance}}, to edit within userspace for express purpose of suggested improvements to articles for trial period, perhaps with a mentor or two. Sagecandor ( talk) 14:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by Seraphim SystemCan someone explain how adding refs to a sandbox page is disruptive? It seems a little unhealthy to file an AE complaint over something like this. Can the editor who filed the complaint explain why he felt it was necessary? Seraphim System ( talk) 14:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC) @ Dennis Brown: Thanks. Seraphim System ( talk) 17:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat
|
| Withdrawn by the submitter, Davidbena. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Nableezy
Discussion concerning nableezyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by nableezyStatement by KingsindianThe "consensus required" provision has been dropped in a more recent ARCA. The normal rules about WP:ONUS and edit-warring etc. still apply. In any case, consensus is usually achieved on the talk page, not at AE. I see no attempt at a talk page discussion. If you feel the earlier phrasing was better, create a section on the talkpage and make your argument there. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by Malik Shabazz( edit conflict) I recommend dismissing this complaint, perhaps with a warning to the complainant. He fails to cite a sanction or remedy he would like enforced, and he doesn't know the difference between a policy and a guideline. I don't see any problem with the diff he cites -- replacing a POV-pushing passive-voice account with one that uses the active voice to place blame where, according to the reliable sources, it belongs. "There was a struggle between X and Y, and a fire erupted" is almost always inferior to "X attacked Y and set fire to his fields" if that's what the sources say. — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Statement by SagecandorDiffs of previous relevant sanctions appears blank. Complaint gives one (1) diff. Probably not enough prior steps of dispute resolution taken here yet. Maybe try WP:Third opinion or WP:Request for comment. Sagecandor ( talk) 01:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning nableezy
|
| Nishidani is topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict for one month. Sandstein 13:33, 1 June 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. Request concerning Nishidani
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.
[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) @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) @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) @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) @Sandstein Lol. Debresser ( talk) 18:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Discussion concerning NishidaniStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NishidaniBackground
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.
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)
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 List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017
At List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016
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)
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:
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)
Statement by KingsindianMost 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) Statement by HuldraReally, 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 "
Statement by IcewhizSince 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) Statement by Malik ShabazzI 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) Statement by Sir JosephThis 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)
Statement by Seraphim SystemI 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
Statement by No More Mr Nice GuySince Nishidani summoned me here by mentioning my name, I would like to make the following points:
No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 22:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Nishidani
|
| Archwayh ( talk · contribs) blocked one week. Topic ban extended to six months. -- NeilN talk to me 19:27, 2 June 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. Request concerning Archwayh
All listed edits are made in violation of topic-ban, see my comment below.
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
Discussion concerning ArchwayhStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ArchwayhStatement by SagecandorThis one seems pretty straightforward violation. Topic ban still in force [20], followed by edits [21] [22]. Sagecandor ( talk) 18:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by MelanieNIt looks like User:Lord Roem has blocked him for a week. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Archwayh
|
| Not actionable. Sandstein 22:22, 2 June 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. Request concerning Dbrote
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]
Discussion concerning DbroteStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DbroteA 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) Statement by (username)Result concerning Dbrote
|
| Not actionable at this venue as WP:ARBAP2 does not apply to this article. -- NeilN talk to me 04:09, 4 June 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. Request concerning DHeyward
Discussion concerning DHeywardStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DHeywardHow 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) But let's look at the ingenuous nature of this frivoulous complaint:
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) Statement by MrXAn 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.- Mr X 02:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Statement by ThryduulfI'm about to go to bed so I'll keep this brief.
Statement by KingsindianIt 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) Statement by PeterTheFourthDHeyward has been formally admonished by the arbitration committee for violations of WP:NPA in the past. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 03:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by DumuzidDHeyward 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)
Statement by (username)Result concerning DHeyward
|
| Al-Andalusi is banned from all edits and pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for a period of six months. GoldenRing ( talk) 08:51, 8 June 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. Request concerning Al-Andalusi
Discussion concerning Al-AndalusiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Al-AndalusiStatement by IcewhizMy 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: [45] - 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: [46] [47] (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: [48]. His response was to delete (without archiving I believe) the request from his talk page: [49]. 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) Statement by (username)Result concerning Al-Andalusi
|
| Topic ban lifted per consensus. -- NeilN talk to me 14:55, 8 June 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).
Statement by Md ietNow 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
Statement by EdJohnstonAs 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) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Md iet
Result of the appeal by Md iet
|
| Al-Andalusi is blocked for a week for violating their topic ban. Sandstein 09:56, 9 June 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. Request concerning Al-Andalusi
He got topic banned from all Palestine-Israel articles hardly a few hours ago, and he has violated the topic ban already by writing on the talk page regarding the same West Bank and Gaza Strip section. The talk sections concerns his edits [52] [53] where the same paragraph goes to mention First Intifada, and other one describes attacks on Israeli family by Palestinian as part of Israel-Palestine conflicts. Al-Andalusi also made personal attack on other editor "are you being dramatic here like the vinegar family?" [54] This comes after his acknowledgement of topic ban on his talk page. [55] Capitals00 ( talk) 00:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Al-AndalusiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Al-AndalusiNonsense. My comments came under talk sections concerning acid thrown within Gaza, and in no way are about the Palestine-Israel conflict. The 1st section "More than 18 attacks" describes acid attacks on Gaza residents, while the 2nd section "Hamas' reaction" describes Hamas torture allegations in Gaza. Now, if it is your belief that Gaza is part of Israel, and hence any discussion involving Gaza entails that I "violated" an alleged topic ban that I did not agree to, then that's an entirely different story. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 03:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by Uanfala
Statement by IcewhizCommenting as I was a side to this. Two quick notes: 1. Gaza, in the 80s (some of this actually pre-dates the first Intifada (1983), some during) was under Israeli civil and military control - Israel was in charge of law and order in the territory and for preventing attacks, preventing them, and dispensing justice. I personally, saw/see this as part of the I/P area and adhered to 1RR and other ARBPIA in all edits related to the West Bank and Gaza in Acid Throwing. (note that in a technical sense, Israel is still claimed by some (International bodies, Palestinians) of still being the occupying power in Gaza today (also after disengagement) - so it is possible that current Palestinian/Palestinian issues in Gaza are still I/P. In the 1980s - Israel was in actual full or almost full control). 2. But, I will want to note that Al-Andalusi was being constructive in some of his comments - and this was a discussion that was on-going parallel to the enforcement case (I believe the discussion started before the enforcement action). I agreed with some of his comments - and edited them in myself. He also stuck to the talk page. One of the mentioned diffs is a thanks for an edit. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Al-Andalusi
|
| 1RR restriction lifted. EdJohnston ( talk) 23:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm not a veteran of AE, but I believe this is not the usual type of AE request. WP:AC/DS was very recently amended to explicitly allow editors to request removal/modification of DS page restrictions at AE. I'd like to request the removal of restrictions on Carter Page. As far as I can tell that page has seen zero disruption from the start and was only subjected to DS restrictions preemptively on April 12 because the subject was associated with Donald Trump. However, Mr. Page had been in the news in connection with Trump for months before that with no disruption. In fact the article has been pretty darn sleepy. I see no basis for maintaining DS restrictions. In an abundance of caution I'm sending an AE notice to the imposing admin, who is on an indefinite wikibreak. They rejected my request to remove the restrictions. I hold nothing against them; I think their general approach to page restrictions is reasonable, but I just happen to disagree in some instances, and I hope a consensus of admins will agree with me. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 06:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Carter PageStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SagecandorAgree with EdJohnston. The restrictions should not be removed. Also agree with EdJohnston that it hopefully helps encourage more talk page discussion. The topic is subject to an active investigation ongoing and to be elaborated upon more in testimony upcoming later this week. That would lead to increased activity and likely increased controversy. As for the question posed by GoldenRing, the restrictions are not posing harm to the article and could hopefully only prove to encourage others to discuss proposals more with each other. Sagecandor ( talk) 20:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by SandsteinCommenting here because I have created the article and have on occasion continued to edit it. I have not observed editorial (mis)conduct that would warrant particular page-level sanctions, and would therefore favor removing them. Sandstein 10:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved administrators
|
| Appeal declined by a 4-0 vote. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:26, 10 June 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).
Statement by Al-AndalusiPasted here from User talk:Al-Andalusi on behalf of Al-Andalusi GoldenRing ( talk) 21:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC) I reject Sandstein's claims that I violated a topic ban. He claims that my edit is in violation because Hamas "is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict". However, the nature my talk page edit concerned an internal Palestinian event with regards to torturing Palestinians. To me, this is unrelated to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Secondly, Sandstein claims that I contributed to a talk page section titled "2014 Acid Attack in West Bank" and that my contribution was on how to cover acid attacks by Palestinians against Israelis. This is patently false and I ask that the reviewer of this unblock appeal to review my edit here. It comes under a section titled "More than 18 attacks" (which I created btw long before the topic ban), which concerns acid attacks carried out by Mujama al-Islamiya in Gaza in the 1980s, a local issue as far as I'm concerned. The talk page section titled "2014 Acid Attack in West Bank" that Capitals00 (originator of the enforcement request) and Sandstein claimed that I contributed to is somewhere else on the talk page Talk:Acid throwing#2014 Acid Attack in West Bank, where you won't find my alleged edit. It is a shame that Sandstein would take Capitals00's words at face value and not bother with verifying the claims. Al-Andalusi ( talk) 14:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by SandsteinI have commented further on this block on my talk page, and recommend declining the appeal. Sandstein 05:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000I think Al-Andalusi is skating on very thin ice here and that his two edits were asking for trouble. That said, Sandstein's justification is highly dubious, especially the part "Al-Andalusi mentions Hamas, which is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict". It is elementary that something that does not involve Israel also doesn't involve the Israel-Palestine conflict. Would we apply ARBPIA to, say, this article on Israeli food on the grounds that "Israel is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict"? Of course not. The rest of the justification seems to be that the edits concern text that is adjacent to text about the Arab-Israeli conflict. What sort of argument is that? Zero talk 03:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by Capitals00I would recommend obvious decline. Sandstein's justification was correct. Its like similar to saying that if a user is banned from India-Pakistan conflicts, they are not allowed to talk about Lashkar-e-Taiba as well. Al-Andalusi should instead edit something like Party of the Danes, that has to do nothing with Israel-Arab conflicts. Capitals00 ( talk) 03:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by DebresserThe violation was on a talkpage, and seems to have been based on an honest misunderstanding. It would have been enough to simply explain his mistake to Al-Andalusi, and no block would have been necessary. I recommend to retract whatever is left of the block, since block should not be punitive. Debresser ( talk) 18:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Al-AndalusiResult of the appeal by Al-Andalusi
|
| Cannot be processed in this form. Sandstein 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
| No action taken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:24, 14 June 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. Request concerning El_C
There was a Rfc on the Jewish diaspora talkpage. After it was closed, [70] there arose a difference of interpretation regarding in how far editors are at liberty to make changes to the version that was endorsed by the Rfc, based on the fact hat both the proposal that was accepted [71] as well as the closing statement of the Rfc [72] specifically mentioned that the accepted version was not binding verbatim and tweaks and other general improvements can be made. A minor edit war ensued, in the middle of which El_C decided to enact the Consensus required provision. [73] The version on the page at that moment was my version, so when it was changed, [74] I had all right to revert, which I did. [75] Only after that happened, El_C decided that the version he would like to see preserved for the time being is not my version, [76] and now he demands I revert and threatens me with sanction should I not revert my version. [77] [78] I explained on on the talkpage, that he can not demand I revert an edit which I was entitled to make according to the very same sanction he imposed, but he insists, and has at a matter of fact issued a ban for me for that article, [79], which I do not recognize, [80] since I consider it a mistake (I won't go as far as to call it abuse of admin privileges) As I see it, El_C is at liberty to revert my edit himself, if he is of the opinion that the other version is for whatever reason preferable to mine, but by all rules of Wikipedia, including the very consensus required provision he decided to enact, I was in my rights to made the edit I made and can not be sanctioned for that. I ask for your opinions, and, in case you agree with me, to explain this to El_C and annul the 72 hour article ban. Further discussion with admins and other editors by Debresser@GoldenRing @El_C If I were warned for general edit warring, which I wasn't, you might have a point. Even though in that case, I'd insist that Dailycare be sanctioned as well, since he reverted me just as many times as I reverted him. And frankly, I don't think that one revert on June 4, one on June 6, and one on June 10 (or Dailycare's reverts on June 5, June 9 and June 13) is enough reason to sanction an editor for edit warring. That is just not enough of an edit war. But the issue here is that I was sanctioned for violating a "no reverts without discussion" rule, that was incorrectly applied. Even El_C has already admitted on his talkpage that he now understands how he misrepresented that rule, so I suggest he officially takes back the invalid ban he enacted, and clarifies what restrictions precisely he want to put in place on that article. Debresser ( talk) 18:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Discussion concerning El_CStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by El_CReturning to the edit war version of March 13 again on June 10 violated "reverted material can't be reinstated without consensus." ( "Mass," "some"— RfC) El_C 17:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by Seraphim SystemI think Debresser should add evidence to his complaint showing that consensus supports his version, or this should be dismissed for lack of evidence. My read on the talk page is clear consensus against the language Debresser wants to include ("some historians"). Apparently, the definition of consensus Debresser is basing this complaint on is
Statement by SagecandorI'm not seeing evidence that El_C is involved here, merely assessing consensus of a discussion. Unfortunately, the edit history even only for the last 50 edits shows back-and-forth edit-warring by Debresser, going back to March 2017 [84]. Sagecandor ( talk) 17:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by DailycareThis complaint appears to revolve around the misconception that Debresser could obtain some advantage to "his version" by edit-warring it in the article, since that was the only reason it happened to be in when the CRP was put in place. The contrary is true, in fact, since edit-warring is penalized, not rewarded. As such, this complaint can be seen as one or more of frivolous, wikilawyering or disruptive in that he is seeking to continue his edit-war crusade in favour of a text ("some") that is trivially contrary to WP:NPOV. WP:BOOMERANG could be considered here. Debresser has recently received warnings on the 3RR board. -- Dailycare ( talk) 18:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by NableezyThis a straightforward attempt by Debresser to game the system and it should be rejected. The idea that he can force his version, not the RFC agreed upon version, into the article and then have the gall to demand consensus to change what never had consensus to begin with is at best mildly amusing and at worst a blatant attempt to play the rules against each other. A 72 hr ban here is the definition of a slap on the wrist, and it appears to have been too light a touch if anything. nableezy - 03:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning El_C
|
| Blocked one week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 16 June 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. Request concerning Ryanfoster99
See users talk page
Discussion concerning Ryanfoster99Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Ryanfoster99Statement by (username)Result concerning Ryanfoster99
|
| Blocked for two weeks and User:FreeatlastChitchat/sandbox deleted. GoldenRing ( talk) 19:07, 18 June 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. Request concerning FreeatlastChitchat
Clear violation of topic ban. D4iNa4 ( talk) 04:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchatStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FreeatlastChitchatStatement by RhoarkSome refs added to a sandbox page? seriously? Rhoark ( talk) 05:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by SagecandorHave to agree here with Dennis Brown and GoldenRing. Wouldn't normally think so for sandbox, but after the warning given by Lord Roem, makes sense in this particular case. Suggestion: Unless you want to talk with the user and make an allowance per {{ 2nd chance}}, to edit within userspace for express purpose of suggested improvements to articles for trial period, perhaps with a mentor or two. Sagecandor ( talk) 14:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by Seraphim SystemCan someone explain how adding refs to a sandbox page is disruptive? It seems a little unhealthy to file an AE complaint over something like this. Can the editor who filed the complaint explain why he felt it was necessary? Seraphim System ( talk) 14:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC) @ Dennis Brown: Thanks. Seraphim System ( talk) 17:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat
|
| Withdrawn by the submitter, Davidbena. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Nableezy
Discussion concerning nableezyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by nableezyStatement by KingsindianThe "consensus required" provision has been dropped in a more recent ARCA. The normal rules about WP:ONUS and edit-warring etc. still apply. In any case, consensus is usually achieved on the talk page, not at AE. I see no attempt at a talk page discussion. If you feel the earlier phrasing was better, create a section on the talkpage and make your argument there. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by Malik Shabazz( edit conflict) I recommend dismissing this complaint, perhaps with a warning to the complainant. He fails to cite a sanction or remedy he would like enforced, and he doesn't know the difference between a policy and a guideline. I don't see any problem with the diff he cites -- replacing a POV-pushing passive-voice account with one that uses the active voice to place blame where, according to the reliable sources, it belongs. "There was a struggle between X and Y, and a fire erupted" is almost always inferior to "X attacked Y and set fire to his fields" if that's what the sources say. — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Statement by SagecandorDiffs of previous relevant sanctions appears blank. Complaint gives one (1) diff. Probably not enough prior steps of dispute resolution taken here yet. Maybe try WP:Third opinion or WP:Request for comment. Sagecandor ( talk) 01:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning nableezy
|