Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334

Archwayh

Archwayh (talk · contribs) is 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Archwayh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Politrukki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:08, 22 May 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

20 May In consecutive edits, and without obtaining consensus on the talk page, reinstates a series of edits [1] that were challenged [2].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 2 August 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Archwayh reinstated edits that were challenged – violating the "consensus required" restriction – and copied basically the same content to the lead.

The content is questionable at best and I assume that Archwayh did not read the cited source. The content includes fake quotes that don't appear in the source, "part of operations to compromise Donald Trump", "close ally and friend" and other original research, including The intercepted communications allegedly claimed that the goal of interference in the election was a White House that was pro-Kremlin and anti-European Union. [emphasis added]

Asked to self-revert [3]. They have not reacted in any way.

On April 4, in another article under ARBAPDS, they used personal attack in an edit summary [4], and doubled down on it [5].

They've marked their edits as "minor" and mark nearly all of their edits as "minor", even after they've been told to stop it: User_talk:Archwayh#Minor edits, User_talk:Archwayh#May 2017 Politrukki (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

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 JFG

Looks like a straightforward DS violation despite warnings. Whatever remedy ends up enacted, I would insist that this editor should stop marking their contributions as minor, because many people filter out minor edits in their watchlist or edit history. As noted by the OP, "minor edit" has a pretty restrictive meaning on Wikipedia. As soon as the meaning is changed, no matter how slightly, it's not minor. — JFG ^talk 16:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem: Will you consider adding a provision about being mindful of minor edits and edit comments to the remedy? (I just noticed Archwayh rarely adds edit summaries to his contributions.) — JFG ^talk 02:44, 25 May 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.

There's a consensus restriction on the article that shows up in an edit notice. This wasn't complied with. I'd like to hear from them first, but otherwise I'd propose a short topic ban. This individual incident, plus the personal attacks (or what are at least unhelpful barbs), along with the failure to respond to feedback, justify a sanction of some kind. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, JFG. He hasn't edited since my comment above, so I'm hoping he gives a statement. If he doesn't, or edits and doesn't contribute here, I'd impose the short TBAN proposal above. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith-264

Keith-264 is blocked 36-hours for their 1RR violation. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Keith-264

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: DrFleischman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Keith-264 (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: short-term block

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

03:46, 25 May 2017 First revert
03:50, 25 May 2017 Second revert
11:43, 25 May 2017 Blatant incivility and personalization of content dispute, refusal to answer questions asked in good faith

(The following edits may not be subject to DS but provide a bit of useful background. There is a much broader, persistent pattern of disruption but these are the most blatant standalone examples.)

12:34, 9 March 2017 personal attack, and threat of more
23:54, 10 March 2017 personal attack

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

(none)

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months on 25 April 2017, and see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Keith-264 has a lengthy history of similar disruptive conduct at Talk:RT (TV network), and has been warned about it numerous times, but this might be the first time he has subjected himself to DS. I'd also like to note that I have zero experience with WP:ARBPIA and little with AE, so my apologies in advance if I've done anything wrong. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Roem, this request concerns conduct, not content. Any time an initial comment on a discussion is met with an immediate and curt "of course you would think that" is stifling and disruptive and inhibits the consensus-building process. Having to deal with these sorts of content-free ad hominems through DR would be a waste of everyone's time, in my view. In any case, I added the 1RR vio a minute before you commented, so you probably missed it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

12:36, 25 May 2017

Discussion concerning Keith-264

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 Keith-264

I supported an edit by someone after it was removed and later found that a posse of editors who try to dictate the content of the article had made disparaging remarks and threats against me. Anyone who reviews the edit history of the article and comments on the talk page will see that I'm more sinned against than sinning. I submit a comment by one editor [7] as evidence of bad faith and request that anyone judging this matter takes care not to be used to harass by proxy. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pls also scrutinise edit comments for more evidence of incivility and bad faith and check previous rulings. Keith-264 (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations against me are a one-sided view of the history of the article and the talk page. I think that it would be quicker and fairer for the article and talk page to be reviewed by an outsider than play reciprocal complaint games with DrFleischman.Keith-264 (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Keith-264

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

I'd recommend one of the many methods for handling your content dispute. Don't get too heated and too personal. Otherwise, this single diff isn't enough for anything. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I commented before the extra diffs. That's a 1RR violation. The article as a whole isn't within the sanction area, but a section titled "Israel–Palestine conflict" definitely is. Would like to hear Keith-264's response to the new diffs, please. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've been given a chance to explain why you shouldn't be sanctioned for a 1RR violation and haven't offered anything. I'm going to close this with a short block for the 1RR violation and a reminder not to engage in personal attacks. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JGabbard

JGabbard (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all edits about, and all pages related to Seth Rich broadly construed for six months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning JGabbard

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sagecandor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Standard Discretionary sanctions.
User previously topic-banned ([8]) for behavior at article Murder of Seth Rich, now continuing same behavior.

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

24 May 2017 - Exact same behavior at exact same article Murder of Seth Rich that resulted in prior topic-ban, casting aspersions against SPECIFICO. Comment: "SPECIFICO has always been a minimalist and a deletionist on this article, and has been standing guard over it ever since it was just a few hours old. He never even wanted it to exist in the first place, so he really should have no say in its content. He is overruled, period."
24 May 2017 - Disruptive editing at page Murder of Seth Rich, reverts Volunteer Marek to add back non-information. Cleaned up and removed by Calton at [9].
27 May 2017 - Violation of reliable sources at page subject to WP:BLP and discretionary sanctions - at Murder of Seth Rich, adds source "Listverse.com", site that takes "list" submissions [10] from literally anyone [11]. Source removed by Rhododendrites as not reliable source [12].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

27 September 2011 - Blocked for 1RR violation on Planned Parenthood, by admin TParis.
27 August 2016 - Topic-banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, for six months, by admin Lord Roem. Prior AE thread at [13]. Topic ban was related to similar behavior at exact same article, namely, Murder of Seth Rich.

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

18 August 2016 - Discretionary sanctions alert notice, given by PinkAmpersand.
27 August 2016 - Prior topic-banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, for six months, by admin Lord Roem. Prior AE thread at [14]. Topic ban was related to similar behavior at exact same article, namely, Murder of Seth Rich.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have to say I agree with SPECIFICO. The prior sanction was for casting aspersions against SPECIFICO at article Murder of Seth Rich. This same exact behavior of casting aspersions is against exact same editor, at exact same article. Sagecandor (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown:More evidence, more diffs, same exact behavior, same exact article, against same exact user, after expiry of prior topic ban at same exact page:

Entrenchment in the conspiracy theories and appeal to ignore the parents of the murder victim: "The parents' request should be disregarded because it is unreasonable".

Advocacy to ignore Snopes.com as a fact-checking resource. "Snopes has been widely debunked and discredited as a reliable, objective fact-checking source, and should not be cited on WP" (and yet simultaneously advocates views of Kim DotCom, instead [15].)

More evidence of casting aspersions against the same exact user (SPECIFICO) for which he was previously sanctioned, after expiry of his prior topic ban: "SPECIFICO, Rich's murder obviously carries much more significance than just that of "a low-level staffer at some political project," especially to you, or you would not have spent the last seven months of your life obsessing over it.".

Sagecandor (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

20:15, 27 May 2017 - posted to user's talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning JGabbard

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 JGabbard

Following AE notification, I would have promptly self-reverted; however, that had already been done. Using Listverse as a reliable source was an error, and for that I apologize. My good faith intention was to augment (or replace) that reference with better sources (e.g., [16], [17], [18]), all highlighting basically the same thing, i.e., the overlooked gap between the shooting and Rich's death in the hospital some hours later. However, I did not have that opportunity. Although perhaps not widely reported, it is not a secret that first responders spoke with Mr. Rich, as well as police and also medical staff at the hospital. If D.C. police have freely acknowledged withholding such salient details (weapon,[19] victim's statements,[20] suspects, etc.) in the interest of the investigation, then it should not be improper to state the same in the article. The existence of unpublished facts which are known to authorities but not yet released, may be equally significant as that which is known, which is precious little. I do not see that as NON-information, but rather as intrinsically helpful information. I consider it unfair to classify a single restoration of such material to the text as disruptive editing, especially since I was not even its original poster. As to user SPECIFICO, I cast no aspersions in my cited statement of May 24, nor was that my intent at all; I merely provided a general and objective analysis of his editing history on the article to support my rationale why his opinion should be given less weight in a consensus discussion on the inclusion/deletion of the article's infobox. - JGabbard (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Responding to ping. I just saw JGabbard's edit summary about me at Murder of Seth Rich when I read his denial above. He is a longtime editor, he's been amply warned and sanctioned previously. His justification above is absurd on its face. JGabbard's comment in evidence contains no objective statements at all and not even diffs to support up his ad hominem. So here is an editor who is experienced, who (we may presume) knows not to make such complaints without diffs, not to do it on the article talk page, and who knows the reason any article is under DS is because Arbcom has determined that we need to be particularly careful about our conduct there. It's hard for me to believe Admins here would take JGabbard's defence seriously.

Every time a POV or PA editor gets off with a warning here at AE, countless other editors reduce their participation on Wikipedia to avoid the unpleasant and unproductive editing environments at these difficult articles. These articles are already tough enough to edit and improve. Bad behavior and lax enforcement are very costly to the Project. We've seen many productive editors walk away or reduce their participation rather than continue to work in a hostile environment. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JGabbard

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

The diffs above are more tame than when you were topic banned, but they don't suggest you've learned much about appropriate conduct in this topic area. The Murder of Seth Rich article is incredibly heated right now and passive aggressive remarks about other editors is unhelpful. That said, this isn't enough for me to say another ban is warranted, though I wouldn't be surprised if other admins propose one. I'd close with a warning. Keep in mind: repeat conduct usually earns one a lengthy/indef topic ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I still feel this is too thin for any topic-level sanction, considering it's just one diff of personalizing the dispute. That's no pattern. On the other hand, considering this is the same article where the issues were before, I'd only support something like the narrow restriction proposed by Dennis Brown below. If there's more evidence available that speaks to broader conduct issues, I'd like to see it. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, this wouldn't be enough to trigger a first time sanction, but this isn't the first time this editor has had a problem with this article. JGabbard does indeed seem rather invested, to the point that it affects their ability to work constructively with others. The problem isn't all politics, just this one topic. A more narrow topic ban, "anything relating to Seth Rich, broadly construed" might be worth considering. This would solve the problem more surgically without restricting them in other areas where they may be able to contribute constructively. I would support any length and recommend 6 months, same as last time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to get a third admin opinion, as this is a bit on the cusp. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

Nishidani is topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict for one month. Sandstein 13:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning 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"[21]
"This is kindergarten level advice", "Do you understand this?"[22]
"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"[23]
"Look up the word 'prevarication'"[24]
"This is getting absurdly complicated, indeed stupid"[25]
"You are not focusing on the specific problem raised in this section"[26]
"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"[27]
"Your arguments are meaningless because you do not bring sources and you do not reply to the specifics raised by myself"[28]
"It's lazy to remove"[29]
"You appear to know nothing of WP:NPOV"[30]
"Don't be naïve", "You are wasting editorial time"[31]
"You should drop your mission in your recent wiki life to provoke me and then make threats. ~~Piss off~~" (sic) [32]
"for fuck's sake"[33]
"If you cannot think syllogistically, don't comment"[34]

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",[35] 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

[36] May it be noted that this editor has requested me to not comment on his talkpage.[37] At the same time, I have stated that I have no problem with him posting on my talkpage.[38]

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:

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.
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.
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]

Gahgeer

Editor is now fully aware of restrictions. Assuming good faith and simply closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning 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

[39] Editing I/P article
[40] 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 [41]

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 [42] 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

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. [43] 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]

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

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

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards