Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:21, 12 October 2016 editThe Wordsmith (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators15,541 edits →Result concerning Simert Ove: cmt← Previous edit Revision as of 17:12, 12 October 2016 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,232 edits →Simert Ove: Closing. Two editors blocked 24 hours. EC protection applied to Israel ShahakNext edit →
Line 545: Line 545:


==Simert Ove== ==Simert Ove==
{{hat|1=Two editors blocked for 1RR violation; EC protection applied to ] by another admin. No other action. ] (]) 17:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


===Request concerning Simert Ove=== ===Request concerning Simert Ove===
Line 606: Line 606:
*A reading of the article should explain why it has been marked with the ARBPIA template on its talk page. I would recommend 24-hour blocks for both {{user|Chas. Caltrop}} and {{user|Simert Ove}} for 1RR violation. The 1RR notice has been on the talk page for more than a year. The issue of new editors trying to edit an ARBPIA article has been handled by . ] (]) 21:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC) *A reading of the article should explain why it has been marked with the ARBPIA template on its talk page. I would recommend 24-hour blocks for both {{user|Chas. Caltrop}} and {{user|Simert Ove}} for 1RR violation. The 1RR notice has been on the talk page for more than a year. The issue of new editors trying to edit an ARBPIA article has been handled by . ] (]) 21:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
*I would also be inclined to close this with a simple 24-hour block for both users. I'll leave it open a little longer in case of further comments. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 14:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC) *I would also be inclined to close this with a simple 24-hour block for both users. I'll leave it open a little longer in case of further comments. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 14:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==Kamel Tebaast== ==Kamel Tebaast==

Revision as of 17:12, 12 October 2016

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.


Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages'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
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    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 informationShortcuts

    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:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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, or is no longer an administrator; 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. 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:

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

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

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

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346347

    ה-זפר

    ה-זפר (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions covered under WP:ARBPIA, broadly construed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning ה-זפר

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    ה-זפר (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
    • pov pushing
    • vioaltion of npov


    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Revision as of 19:19, 15 September 2016
    2. Revision as of 21:55, 16 September 2016
    3. Revision as of 18:21, 18 September 2016
    4. Revision as of 18:50, 18 September 2016
    5. Revision as of 16:49, 22 September 2016
    6. Revision as of 03:04, 23 September 2016
    7. Revision as of 21:49, 23 September 2016 "the edit was neutral and enhancement of the article head. discussion net required."

    In the edits above he puts Hebrew before Arabic in the infobox and main article text, changes the map to an Israel north east map removes "occupied" by Israel in infobox and changes it to "control", adds Israel time zone.

    I warned him at his talkpage and he continued to edit war and violate the 1rr after:

    He has not made one single post at the talkpage, he is just resorting to edit warring. I asked him to please discuss at talkpage and get consensus and he just continued to edit war: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint


    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A4%D7%A8&type=revision&diff=740892709&oldid=740860033


    Discussion concerning ה-זפר

    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 ה-זפר

    Statement by Debresser

    This editor is damn annoying, but that isn't specific to his editing in the IP-conflict field. I think that it would be more beneficial for this project if WP:AE would explain to him the essentials of community editing one last time, and put him on probation. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Malik Shabazz

    My experience with ה-זפר has largely been limited to the article about Israel, but I find that the editor rarely uses edit summaries or the talk page, and inappropriately marks most edits minor. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 01:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning ה-זפר

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • In addition to the two blatant 1RR violations after a warning specifically about it (), I'm quite spectacularly unimpressed by the attitude shown in these edits: ("the edit was neutral and enhancement of the article head. discussion net required."), and ("Enhanced the head. Added currently administrated by. My edit is not disputed. I'm just adding current administration status. "). For clarity's sake, ה-זפר: If someone disagrees with or reverts your edits, they are in dispute and discussion absolutely is required. This type of aggressive, dismissive attitude has no place in a sensitive area like ARBPIA, and I'd support a lengthy topic ban for both that and the blatant 1RR violations and general edit warring. Seraphimblade 10:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The editor in question has clearly chosen not to comment here, given their continued editing. I'm unimpressed with what seems like ongoing contempt for the normal editing processes of Misplaced Pages, which includes discussion. Barring any further explanation from this user, I think a lengthy topic ban is necessary. I'll hold this open for a few more days waiting for comment. The Wordsmith 15:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree that the user shows clear signs of m:MPOV. Given the lack of substantive response to challenge, a topic ban is inevitable. I suggest this be indefinite, since I doubt that time will fix the problem. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

    Nishidani

    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. The Wordsmith 13:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Nishidani

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    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
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles :

    Specifically Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Decorum and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions.

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 28.9.16 Personal attack in the claim that I am "drifting", in the claim that I argue "from self-esteem". WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT claim that my objections are not policy/guideline-based.

    He acted precisely in the same manner the last time we disagreed on the talkpage of an IP-conflict related article, Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Gilbert_Achcar, with blatant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. The insults were at other pages during that same time.

    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)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    Further comments

    @Kingsindian Content dispute? This post is about incivility in a very specific and sensitive area, where there exist clear standards of behavior, that have been violated. This post is about tendentious editing. When an editor asks for a policy/guideline even after it has been provided again and again, and does so on various talkpages, to create the false impression as though those who disagree with him refuse to reply to his "legitimate" request, and thereby show them as though illegitimate, that is extremely disruptive behavior. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

    @Nableezy If all you see in this post is a complaint about the words "drifting", then you are either trying to deliberately mislead editors here, or you are completely unfit to edit articles in the IP-conflict area. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

    @All I find it telling that editors with a well know POV try to make it look as though this post is about some triviality. This post is about a very smart editor, who knows how to hide his blatant POV and tendentious editing behind a mask of adherence to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, but is guilty of minor but systematic transgressions for years now, and it is about time he is called to answer for that. This WP:AE post is about what just a small example of that behavior, which I hope suffices to get him warned or temporarily topic banned, and my hope and expectation is that Nishidani will see it as a warning and mend his ways. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

    @Nishidani Why do you say I represent the Israeli point of view? (and many more edits that prove I am a good editor, who does not let his personal opinions stand in the way of good editing) Debresser (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

    @The Wordsmith If all you saw in my report is 1 mildly standoffish comment, then I suggest you read it again. Shame on you. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

    @AnotherNewAccount Nice collection. In my post I only wrote about his insults to me, not other editors, and even there you found another good example I had already forgotten about, since this way of denigrating talk has become expected from Nishidani. The only correction I would like to make to your post is minor, that I didn't "boil over", rather calmly reached the decision to post here in an attempt to finally stop Nishidani's POV pushing. I am glad to see my take on Nishidani's editing is shared by other editors. Debresser (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

    @Ijon Tichy You are falling in Nishidani's trap too. I don't have to quote the policy page to quote policy! If I say something is not reliably sourced, do I have to provide a link to WP:RS? If I say something is not relevant, e.g., do you really need a link to a policy page, or is it evident that information should be relevant? Debresser (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Nishidani 1. A suggestive question is not a reliable source, even if the person who asked it would be a reliable source if he made a clear statement. One of the two uninvolved editors who replied at WP:RS/N said so specifically. 2. With only two uninvolved editors replying at WP:RS/N and one of them saying "In short, it is not encyclopedic." and the other "The only question I see is if his comments *should* be included. Which would be an NPOV issue. Personally I favour inclusion but there might be a slight BLP issue", how did Nableezy, or anybody else for that matter, reach the conclusion that the WP:RS/N was in your favor? That is delusional! It is precisely this type of behavior - deliberately misrepresenting consensus, and other types of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior - that I think warrants that Nishidani be sanctioned. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

    @The Wordsmith I see no reason to make this about anybody but Nishidani, whose behavior has been most polarizing and uncivil. I think the clear conclusion of all the material brought here is that Nishidani, and he alone, should be admonished to be civil and to respect the opinions of other editors. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Nishidani

    This is vexatiously piddling, and coming quickly in the wake of Debresser's earlier problems here (arguing without regard to policy), doesn’t look like he has absorbed the lesson. Indeed, above in the indictment, he expressly shows that he has not accepted that verdict by directly referring to my behavior at Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Gilbert_Achcar and citing as evidence a diffwhere I pleaded with him to drop the chat and argue from policy. He was sanctioned for refusing to listen.

    This is essentially a clash over whether the same interpretation of the rules should be applied to events regarding Israeli victims of terrorism, and Palestinian victims of terrorism, regardless of the ethnicity involved. I insist that editors are obliged by WP:NPOV to adopt the same criterion everywhere. Several Israeli victim pages include the names of the injured. No one objects. When I added the names of Palestinians maimed in an Israeli terrorist attack, Debresser suddenly objected. After 14 years of wikipedia, that one can still hairsplit and argue the point to exhaustive attrition on very simple policy guidelines in the I/P area is a further sign that it is totally dysfunctional. The seriousness of commitment can be generally judged by a simple glance at the edit history of each editor: who is actually constructing an article, and whose edit record consists mainly in raising objections to the addition of content, by revert and then by engaging in extenuating wikilawyering on the talk page. Since I have interests I in both areas I am never obstructed if I go and write up, say, to cite a recent example, Elio Toaff, I can triple the content in a day, undisturbed: if I touch the I/P area I am drawn into absurd melodramas over the simplest edits, which are contested, reverted or challenged at sight.

    Regarding the specific complaint. Debresser in opening a thread to challenge my addition made an insinuation about my motives. I made the briefest of responses to this WP:AGF violation, and asked that one focus on policy, as did the other editor. Debresser’s comments here, here, here, here, and and here, are void of policy considerations. This is exactly the substance of the complaint made at the earlier arbitration case regarding him. He keeps talking past requests for policy justifications for his position, trusting in his opinions or suspicions. Having started the thread motivating his challenge by a personal insinuation against me, he ended it by protesting I had not observed WP:NPA, and jumped at an opportunity to report me.

    When I asked him for the nth time to respond by policy his answer was I am applying good editing rules to this article

    It is this that I referred to in the diff he adduces. In my judgment, his repeatedly ignoring requests to cite a policy ground for his objection, and, when asked to focus, simply replying ‘I am applying good editing rules to the article,’ sounds to be like an argument from self-esteem. To answer a request for a policy reason with the riposte:’I am a sound editor’ is to privilege a confidence in one’s own personal judgment over logic, policy and the reasoned objections another editor might raise. I.e. self-esteem gets the better of a neutral rule-based system of collaboration.Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

    As to Debresser's link to the warning on my page by Lord Roem, I responded here, and I think my record since will show I have hewed closely to that advice.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Kingsindian. All reports are based on 'content disputes'. The difference is, is the dispute being handled by respect for the rules, i.e. policy, or not. If an editor, as Debresser in the Mahmoud Abbas case, and, I believe here, refuses to cite policy when repeatedly requested to do so, it is no longer a content dispute, but a behavioural issue. He had 3 months for that, which he leveraged back to a month. Fine, that was fair. I'm bewildered as to why he would try to get back at me on such trivial evidence for insisting he just begin, after 90,000 edits and a sanction, to adopt solid policy grounds to oppose edits. I should add that I do not want a sanction: I'd like to see Debresser simply warned strongly to take to heart the advice he was given when he was sanctioned. Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    Debresser by this and this, you are suggesting I am such a subtly devious editor I get away with pushing a blatant POV, and that my recourse to policy is just a ‘mask’.
    I take care, among other things, to try and see to it that the Palestinian side of the conflict is fairly represented just as numerous editors (like yourself) edit the Israeli side of the conflict to ensure fairness. I don't see the latter as being 'blatant' because they represent a POV. That's their job and it is perfectly respectable. The only thing is that both perspectives must accept that there are 2 points of view to be described, not one. WP:NPOV is obtained by balancing POVs, not by erasing one of them as ‘blatant’. If you think our interaction is to be governed by a suspicion, as you declared recently that my contributions are to be read as ‘inspired by’ this ‘blatant’ POV, then anything I attempt to register is subject to challenge, not on policy grounds, but by reference to my putative bias. Were that principle adopted, no one would be allowed to edit the I/P area. All policy reasons can be dismissed as a ‘mask’, which, effectively, may throw light on why you ignore repeated calls to cite policy. If it’s a ‘mask’, policy for you becomes meaningless or a pretext: it need not be addressed because your diffidence about the editor’s supposed ulterior motives is enough for you to oppose this or that edit. That way of thinking creates obvious problems here.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    The premise of the load of diffs AnotherNewAccount provides is that one should not discuss in detail proposed edits on the talk page. One of the deepest problems here is the profound unfamiliarity of many editors with the history of this area. Time and again, one is dragged into detailed explanations about the most trivial issues because many editors appear to not have familiarized themselves with the technical or scholarly literature. Indeed, offense is taken if one tries to set down facts or authoritative interpretations on a talk page, and they are airily dismissed as WP:SOAP. I thought collegiality meant consensus building through ample discussion. Nope. Shut up. If a group of editors assert that:'The Golan Hights is within Israel', one sets out the documentation. If they wikilawyer it, and are reminded that this view is that adopted, singularly, by the ruling Likud party and is authoritatively endorsed by the Likud Prime Minister, they feel insulted. My point was, by all means defend an 'Israeli official POV', but do not try to enter as a fact a specific party position with the complex constellation of Israeli politics. It is a running complaint since 2010 by members of either Likud or Yisrael Beiteinu, which is part of the present coalition, that Misplaced Pages maps of Israel do not show the Golan Heights, and that funding and courses are in place to get young students to register on Misplaced Pages and change the maps.
    In any case, this is the 10th or 11th time I've been dragged into AE over 6 years, a venue I myself have used with great austerity, only once, against a sockmaster who represented an Israeli pro-settler NGO, and was permabanned. It seems to be a popular pastime. I don't know if the point is to wage a war of attrition to get me to retire in exhaustion, or swing a permaban. Speculation is pointless. Once more, all I can say is that if any diff above, checked in context, seems to suggest my behavior is problematical, then I'm quite willing to respond to any administrative challenge.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    As to hasbara, it is not a put down term by Israel's enemies. It is what the Israeli Likud-lead government funds since 2013, providing scholarships to students willing to 'defend Israel' by writing on social media, such as Misplaced Pages.It is endorsed by Binjamin Netanyahu.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    Kamel Tebaast. Could you please refrain from confusing what is developing into a complex complaint. Taking me to task for putatively 'intellectualizing' Ariel Sharon' (?) by my having mentioned the facts established concerning his career ((duly documented on the pages you link) is extremely obscure and serves no evidential basis. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    Debresser. I can't let you get away with your latest assertion you know policy. This is the record you allude to.
    *(1) I am not disputing that Gilbert Achcar is a reliable source 13:04, 24 July 2016
    *(2) How does a question, even a suggestive one, turn into a reliable source? 14:08, 24 July
    I.e. In response to repeated requests by 2 editors to clarify what you meant by 'Reliable Source' you said Gilbert Achcar, one of the world's foremost authorities on the Arabs and the Holocaust, was reliable, but not if if his quote contains a question. Then you said he wasn't reliable. You then repeated that your objections are policy based, refusing again to speak policy.
    There is no other descriptive word for the above than WP:STONEWALLING/WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT
    Even blind Freddy and his dog, sniffing at the RS/N discussion, should be able to twig that Debresser's response is farcical. Such are the rewards for trying to get some useful information into an encyclopedia anyone can edit (stuff out of).Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    (A suggestive question is not a reliable source)
    This repeated statement only proves you have no familiarity with WP:RS. A reliable source is what is acceptable for articles. Whether a recognized RS can be cited for an opinion is answered (yes, with inline attribution, at WP:OPINION), on that page. Whether such an opinion, when it contains an observation modulated as a rhetorical question (your point) can be quoted, is covered nowhere in wiki policy. That is your opinion, and is nowhere underwritten by wikipedia guidelines. We are supposed to be rule-governed here, to stop subjective opinion or bias from disrupting editing.
    I still persist, despite all evidence to the contrary, in believing (perhaps it is one of my irrational(counter-factual) beliefs) that rationality, and things like simple addition, have some function in the world and its workplaces. This is not a content dispute. It is about the ability to read accurately both policy and sources, and evaluate them with detachment.
    Nableezy and Nishidani were for inclusion. Debresser was for exclusion (2/1)
    Third party input was asked for by Nableezy at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
    The question posed was: is Gilbert Achcar RS?
    Grammar's Li'l Helper said he would not answer that specific request, but noted one could question whether the quote, being an opinion, was relevant to the page.
    Only in death does duty end wrote ‘Achcar is undoubtedly an expert in the field in which he is commenting. So he satisfies the 'RS' part for the purposes of inclusion.’ He too asked whether it ‘should’ be included.
    This means, as to its RS status, Grammar's Li'l Helper would not comment; and Only in death does duty end said it qualified. Neither replied to clarifications, meaning one external editor said that Nableezy and myself were correct in claiming Achcar is RS (3/1). You had a 3/1 verdict that Achcar was RS: 2 opinions wondered whether it should be included, but didn’t say it couldn’t. You refused to accept that verdict. Your own opinion, without any policy grounding, was that it must not be included. If you read the whole page Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli or pro-Israeli opinion is quoted saying Abbas is Israel’s best partner for peace (Efraim Sneh); Abbas is Israel’s strategic asset (most Israeli insiders); Abbas is profoundly corrupt (Elliott Abrams, Jonathan Schanzer); that Jewish groups suspect his writings show Holocaust denial. What your editwarring did was challenge, citing as a guideline WP:BRD, which is not a wiki policy, an overview opinion by one of the most deeply informed scholars in this specific field (not a politician or partisan as the others) dealing with the contradiction in Israel’s policy regarding figures like Mahmoud Abbas. Reaction? Stop! Any source pointing out a contradiction regarding Israel's attitude to Abbas is intolerable, and one must stonewall to exhaustion until one gets rid of it. Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
    I don’t mind being held up to higher standards than people who complain about me are, I don’t report them, they know they’re free to say with impunity that I spout ‘pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook; that I have an 'obsession to demonize Israel while promoting a Palestinian nationalist agenda, that in my writing this innocuous analogy an editor can lash out smearing me as someone who pushes the Israel-nazi analogy, a useful idiot or, as NMMGG (just after using this kind of language to interlocutors) says I provoke by introducing ‘gratuitous analogies’ (meaning Israel=Nazis). I find it odd that this multiple crossfire, often envenomed, what I put up with on a daily basis for years as I plug away actually creating articles, is all immaterial. If Debresser's complaint has substance, by all means feel free to apply a sanction, no problem. But apply the same yardstick to all the other diffs made by those supporting that indictment. Nishidani (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    I'm fine which what seems to be the closing verdict below, and undertake to try and pull my socks up. Just one thing that should be cleared up. I don't like this repeated insinuation hanging over me like a dark cloud: Scarpia is correct I made no analogy between Israel and Nazi Germany. I made an analogy between two soldiers killing themselves in close combat on their home territory, one Jewish Russian, one Hamas Palestinian. That does not mean I have some 'personal admiration for Hamas' methods'. To the contrary. Military men think differently than tabloids - I grew up listening to men who fought in 5 wars. They would have thought of such analogies as the IDF's former chief of staff, Benny Gantz does:'There were some Hamas actions during Operation Protective Edge which, had they been committed by the IDF, we would have dragged brigades to the Western Wall for a thanksgiving prayer and praised them "that whole night".' That is another of my dreaded analogies. They are the foundations of NPOV. Detachment, realism, reading in depth beyond the tabloid spin, neutrality, so that the reading public can see all sides of the picture. Encyclopedias are not comic books. They are supposed to illuminate comprehensively, not comfort one side by caricature. Now, can we all get back to editing?Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

    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 Kingsindian

    Content dispute. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

    What does the mass of diffs in AnotherNewAccount have to do with the original request? Are people simply allowed to randomly throw mud against the wall hoping something will stick?

    The discussion at Talk:Israel#Map_of_Israel is about borders of the map of Israel. One position, which was the original one, is to show Israel's boundaries under international law, namely the Green Line. The problem is that Israel does not consider these the legal boundaries and claims some territories outside these lines. Some random drive-by editor removed the map saying that the Golan Heights isn't included in the map, so it's invalid. This led to an interminable, and so far inconclusive discussion, though we seem to be close.

    Nishidani's points, contrary to AnotherNewAccount's characterization, are about the content and take the position of international law. There is a contrary argument which some people make on the talkpage: whatever the status of international law, one should at least show territories over which Israel has "de-facto control". The details are very thorny; see the comment I made here.

    Now, because of repeated edit-warring, some people, including me, have made several compromise proposals, which people can read on the talkpage. As far as I know, Nishidani agrees with my proposal.

    This absurd diff dump by AnotherNewAccount, who has never participated on the talkpage, is silly. As I pointed out here, AnotherNewAccount considers what other people write to be "childish rubbish", and talk pages to be "lunatic asylums", so this is not surprising. I'm sure this approach is very civil and constructive. It's easy to snipe from afar with no consequences for doing so.

    Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Nableezy

    Jesus christ, somebody says youre drifting and thats a "personal attack" that requires coming to AE?

    Statement by AnotherNewAccount

    Debresser clearly filed this in frustration after several run-ins with Nishidani of late. I haven't been here the last few days, but up until then I was observing Nishidani's conduct on Talk:Israel, which included some extremely insulting putdowns of several editors including Debresser, despite being asked several times to stop. Also stonewalling, soapboxing, and tendentious nitpicking over precise details to justify the retention of a map that clearly failed to reflect the reality of complete Israeli control of the Golan Heights - which he refused to accept for ideological reasons.

    • Pretty much his first comment in the discussion was a POV-push, apparently Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights was "snapping off territory gained in war" while Russia's annexation of Crimea was merely "resumption of its 2 centuries+ sovereignty".
    • Bad faith characterization of other editors' reasonings.
    • Implication of the invalidity of a forming consensus (that the article's map should show, in light green, the disputed area of the Golan Heights, which Israel has controlled and ruled unimpeded for almost fifty years) as he considered it formed by merely an "ad hoc majority of people strongly attached to Israel". (Incidently, his later attempt to get "neutral input" over on WikiProject Maps was slapped down when a genuinely neutral editor all-but sided with the "unfavorable" view.)
    • First partisan reference to the idea that this disfavored view is "Likud" in nature. (Note: Likud is a right-wing Israeli political party, and the current ruling party in Israel.)
    • General stonewalling.
    • Accuses other editors of "Likudization via imaginative maps".
    • Assuming good faith, I think Nishidani was being facetious here, but this was a tendentious suggestion that mischaracterized the other editor's intention
    • First condecending putdown, against Bolter21. Nitpicking over the exact details of "annexation". General high-handed attitude.
    • I hardly know know where to begin with this tendentious reply.
    1. Spectacularly rude putdown against Sir Joseph, declaring his intention to ignore him because this reasonings are just "throwoffs from rote learning from bad textbooks" and "this is all meme replication from school textbooks or middlebrow newspapers."
    2. Trite dismissal in "...everything you say is impressionistic", followed by one of his irrelevant anecdotes.
    3. Bad faith mischaracterization of opponents' editing as "...a Likud venture...". The filer Debresser politely expressed his frustration with Nishidani constantly calling the opposing view "Likud".
    • Reply to Debresser. More inappropriate Likud/Netanyahu references. Nishidani uses erudite-but-vague language here but I think he's essentially accusing other editors of parroting the Likud party line.
    • "I guess the next move for the ethnonationalization here will be to map the West Bank as an integral part of Israel." - another bad faith mischaracterization of opposing editors' intentions.
    • Insulting putdown against filer Debresser, and was immediately asked to stop.
    • Soapbox. In particular, "You keep harping on the hasbara theme..." (the term "hasbara" is used as a term of distain to imply the opposing editor is promoting propaganda).
    • Issues a rambling reply that Sir Joseph's points come "directly from the standard 'how to reply' talking points lists", followed by another of his wordy offtopic rambles.

    Collating the above has taken much of the evening, so I can understand if Debresser didn't have the will to do it himself. Judging by the diff submitted above, Nishidani is continuing with the problematic talk page attitude towards Debresser after he was asked to stop. I think Debresser has boiled over, and justifiably so. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Kamel Tebaast

    Thank you, AnotherNewAccount, for teaching me a new policy: WP:SOAP. In case your fine examples weren't enough to move Nishidani into the semi-finals, here are a few more:

    • : Nishidani's SOAP that led No More Mr Nice Guy to remove unwarranted material and ask Nishidani if he could "kindly cut out the SOAP?"; and TheTimesAreAChanging to refer to Nishidani's rant as "mostly pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook (complete with Nishidani's trademark comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany, which is obviously necessary".
    • : Illustrating a typical Nishidani SOAP, in one edit, as to whether Yasser Arafat should be referred to as a terrorist, Nishidani managed to slide in an ad hominem attack on me, that I "lack detachment and wish to skewer the subject of the article"; discounted that he could use straw man tactics; intellectualized Ariel Sharon's stature (notwithstanding that he killed Arabs, was the architect of the 1982 Lebanon War, responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacre); and culminated with a hypothesis that "We hsve a fair statement of Arafat's ambiguity in his lead, we have a one-sided hypothesis of Ariel Sharon in his lead."
    • (If you need more, just go up above to AE Sean.holyland) KamelTebaast 05:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by ZScarpia

    The curious thing about AnotherNewAccount's rather impressive-looking charge sheet is that you would have expected him to lead with the strongest part of his case, yet examination of the first diff actually tends to highlight as problematic the behaviour of Kamel Tebaast, who has commented above, rather than that of Nishidani. The comment Nishidani makes is innocuous and factual. Kamel Tebaast comes the closest to making a personal attack, which is what this incident is nominally about, with what could be called a honeyed insult. If anyone there is pushing a point-of-view it is also him.
    Things crumble further with the second diff, where AnotherNewAccount's description misrepresents Nishidani's comment.
    International law is very clear that the Golan Heights is Syrian, not Israeli, territory. The third diff shows a group of editors trying to claim that that clear legal position is only a point of view. Again, the effect of the diff is to highlight the behaviour of editors other than Nishidani as problematic.
    And so on ...
        ←   ZScarpia   23:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

    @No More Mr Nice Guy: "I can supply dozens of diffs if necessary." Exactly a month ago, on the 3rd of September 2016, a ban preventing No More Mr Nice Guy from commenting on AE discussions was removed. The ban was imposed on the the 6th of July 2013 for raising an AE incident in which he accused "an editor of serious and ethically tainting misconduct, namely antisemitism, on specious grounds." That editor was Nishidani. The incident was the final one of a series raised by No More Mr Nice Guy in which, on various pretexts, he unsuccesfully tried to have Nishidani banned. It's to be hoped that the "dozens of diffs" threatened by No More Mr Nice Guy aren't just going to reiterate his previous complaints, especially given how recent the removal of No More Mr Nice Guy's ban was.
    Given that this incident is nominally about personal attacks, its again curious that another editor trying to have Nishidani sanctioned supplies a diff which highlights an instance of an insult being issued by a 'friendly' editor, in this case one calling Nishidani a "useful idiot" in an edit comment.
        ←   ZScarpia   21:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

    @No More Mr Nice Guy: "Perhaps IjonTichy above can explain how gratuitous Nazi analogies like the one KT shows above ... ." I doubt that the example given, this, is really what most people would understand by the term "Nazi analogy." As for being provocative, hatting another user's comment wouldn't be the least in a list of methods used to achieve that end.     ←   ZScarpia   21:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

    Innaccuracies in No More Mr Nice Guy's latest comment:

    • "An editor stating his personal admiration for Hamas' methods": in the diff given, Nishidani doesn't express any such admiration.
    • "Making an analogy between those and how some Jews behaved during the Holocaust": the story of Eliazer Papernik, a Jewish Soviet soldier who died during an attack on the Germans (specifically, he was a member of an NKVD platoon), is not well described as being about "how some Jews behaved during the Holocaust", not being directly Holocaust-related.

        ←   ZScarpia   23:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Ijon Tichy

    In general editors should refrain from analyzing the personality or character traits of fellow editors. It was not a good idea for Nishidani to make a remark regarding Debresser's self-esteem. That remark did not help the discussion. It would have been sufficient for Nishidani to request that Debresser provide a clear policy justification when Debresser makes a controversial or a contested edit (Debresser appeared to brush-off Nishidani's repeated requests that Debresser provide policy justifications for his edits). We assume good faith in each other and we trust that Debresser (or any editor) must have a good reason when he makes a controversial or a contested edit, but we are required, by WP policy, to verify that the edit is policy-compliant. Thus, it is incumbent upon Debresser, that when an editor asks him for a policy justification, that he not answer with something to the effect of 'trust me, I know what I'm doing.' (We are all required to trust, but we are also required to verify.) In the future, if Debresser can't provide that justification, then it is better that he refrain from making the controversial or contested edit until that time when he can provide it and discuss it on the article talk page.
    Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

    I think the editors who provided diffs about Nishidani's behavior (Kamel Tebaast and AnotherNewAccount) have presented the diffs in good faith. However, it is impossible to fairly and objectively analyze the diffs without giving careful consideration to the full and unique context of each diff. Once the (typically complex, nuanced, specific, and unique) context is fully and carefully considered, it appears that in almost all cases Nishidani was entirely correct in saying or doing the things he said or did, and that in the remaining small number of cases he was as close to being correct as can be reasonably expected when editing in a highly controversial and contested topic area (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) with many sub-topics that are very complicated, broad, deep, messy, and intricate. The I/P area is one of the most difficult and most challenging topic areas to edit in WP.
    Another factor that exacerbates the already-considerable difficulty is the fact that the data over the last several years show that the I/P area tends to attract people who often don't bother to read the high-quality sources that Nishidani provides, or they read them too quickly and superficially, or they read them carefully but they don't understand the nuances or intricacies involved, or people who don't have a genuine interest in history in general. Or they don't understand - or refuse to understand - the discussions that Nishidani provides . The data additionally show that the topic area also tends to attract numerous meatpuppets, sockpuppets, posters who make death threats, anonymous blankers and reverters, ranters flooding one's email with vicious slurs, people who are gaming the system, or people who are using the WP I-P conflict topic area as a battleground, or as a vehicle for propaganda. Nishidani's overall track record over the last several years, including the last several weeks, in this highly challenging and difficult topic area, has been excellent. Nishidani is not perfect and there are some minor areas where his behavior could be improved (as I have alluded to above), but his contributions are strictly based on source-based reasoning and on full adherence to NPOV and NOR, and he strongly insists that others likewise limit themselves to making only policy-compliant contributions; and he also does a great job, overall, in dealing with many difficult or disruptive editors.
    Ijon Tichy (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    Debresser, I think Nishidani should not have commented about your self esteem. I also think Nishidani should refrain from offering any further analysis of your personality or character or emotional/ psychological makeup, because it's not constructive to article-building efforts. May I also ask that you refrain from escalating the situation --- please don't make any further allegations that Nishidani has laid a 'trap' or any similar words that may be seen as personal attacks or violations of AGF. Because, again, this does not contribute to article-development efforts. May I recommend that both you and Nishidani read WP: Don't escalate. Regards, Ijon Tichy (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
    Here is my reasoning for reverting NMMNG's edit where NMMNG hatted a comment by Nishidani on the talk-page of Hamas regarding a Jewish Soviet soldier who committed suicide while taking out as many Nazi soldiers as possible.
    Throughout the last 3,000 years of Jewish history, there were numerous cases of brave Jewish soldiers killing themselves while trying to take out as many enemy soldiers that invaded or occupied the Jewish soldier's homeland. Even the Jewish bible describes at least one such case. Courageous Jewish soldiers committed suicide while attempting to kill as many as possible ancient Greek soldiers, ancient Roman soldiers, and many other enemies of the Jewish people in many wars over the last three millenia, including among other examples, in relatively more recent times, Nazi and Nazi-allied soldiers (e.g. in the Eastern front, in the Jewish ghettos in Europe, in the forests, mountains, cities and underground tunnels in Germany, France, Holland, Italy etc), British Mandate soldiers in Palestine, Egyptian and Syrian soldiers in the first few days of the Yom Kippur War in 1973 (when Arab soldiers surprised and temporarily overwhelmed Israeli defenders), etc.
    It is important that Misplaced Pages articles discuss these Jewish soldiers with the utmost respect and dignity. Working together as a WP community, we need to discuss, build consensus and decide which terms, exactly, we are going to use to describe these Jewish soldiers on WP. And, in compliance with NPOV, we must use the same exact terms to describe Muslim (including but not limited to e.g. Hamas), Christian, Buddhist, Hindu (etc) soldiers who committed suicide while attempting to take out their enemy/ invading soldiers.
    Ijon Tichy (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

    Perhaps IjonTichy above can explain how gratuitous Nazi analogies like the one KT shows above, (which I hatted and Ijon restored and is now responsible for) and stories about Nishidani's escapades in the nude are necessary for improving articles? Because Nishidani makes these analogies, which only serve to provoke, and tells little personal anecdotes, which only waste everyone's time, very often indeed. I can supply dozens of diffs if necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

    @ZScarpia, hatting is one of the things WP:TPO suggests for off-topic stuff, which is a generous description for an editor stating his personal admiration for Hamas' methods, and making an analogy between those and how some Jews behaved during the Holocaust. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Rhoark

    I've read through the diffs from AnotherNewAccount. Only the last two seem to be anything other than ordinary content disputes, and those two seem to have been provoked by other editors straying first into aspersions. Rhoark (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Sir Joseph

    I just want to add that I agree with ANA and Debresser. Nishidani hides his actions with extreme verbosity. He is extremely condescending to others and if you dare disagree with him you can bet you will get labeled as a mere child like, not smart enough to understand his texts.

    Result concerning Nishidani

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Seriously? A single diff of being mildly standoffish is now a personal attack worthy of asking for a topic ban? If that's the worst behavior going on in the IP topic area, we should probably just tell Arbcom we don't need DS anymore. This has all the hallmarks of a vexatious filing. Debresser, if I'm mistaken please tell me why and why there should not be a WP:BOOMERANG here. The Wordsmith 14:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    @AnotherNewAccount: See, THAT is a request with some meat in it. Its going to take some time for me to look into that evidence, so please bear with me for a day or two while I evaluate it. The Wordsmith 23:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    Okay. After reviewing everything that y'all have posted, its clear that a lot of participants here have behaved in an extremely poor manner for a while now. We have two choices, then: I can either hand out bans like candy to everyone here who has earned one (quite a few of you), or I can close this with a general warning. You go back to editing your articles, and I keep track of the people I would have sanctioned. If I see those names again with fresh examples, then the banhammer comes down. I think the latter option is best for everybody here. The Wordsmith 22:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

    MShabazz

    No action taken at this time. The Wordsmith 22:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning MShabazz

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    MShabazz (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
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION :

    WP:1RR; WP:GAMING; WP:EDITWAR

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 2016-09-23T20:53:03 MShabazz REVERT 1.1 MShabazz raised COPYVIO issue, however, aside from that, he also: 1) deleted RS quote directly from the Tennessee resolution condemning BDS; 2) deleted RS quote from Tennessee resolution reaffirming support for Israel; 3) deleted RS anti-BDS/pro-Israel quotes from Governor Andrew Cuomo regarding NY’s anti-BDS resolution.
    2. 2016-09-23T20:54:23 MShabazz REVERT 1.2 MShabazz 1) deleted RS Jon Bon Jovi anti-BDS/pro-Israel quote; 2) deleted RS Howard Stern anti-BDS/pro-Israel quote
    3. 2016-09-23T20:55:43 MShabazz REVERT 1.3 MShabazz deleted RS Alan Dershowitz’s 10 points why BDS is immoral.
    4. 2016-09-23T20:56:37 MShabazz REVERT 1.4 MShabazz 1) deleted the RS quantifier that the UAW is "one of the largest unions in the U.S."; 2) deleted RS quote by the UAW executive committee.
    5. 2016-09-24T12:30:35 GHcool reverted M.Shabazz
    6. 2016-09-25T00:27:11 MShabazz REVERT 2.0 Just outside 27 hours.
    7. 2016-09-25T02:02:48 Kamel Tebaast reverted MShabazz
    8. 2016-09-25T04:33:30 MShabazz REVERT 3.0 Four hours after second revert; approximately 31 hours after first revert.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    Unaware

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them
    • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    MShabazz made three reverts in the BDS article under WP:1RR. His first edit alluded to two COPYVIOs. Those edits were questionable, at best, not "clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy". Regardless, this is not whether or not those edits were WP:COPYVIOs, but whether MShabazz's subsequent reverts violated the 1RR. Does MShabazz, or any editor, have carte blanche to revert at will in a 1RR-protected article while using WP:COPYVIO as a safety net? For the sake of argument, let's assume that both edits were in fact COPYVIOs. MShabazz gamed the system by creating an umbrella with WP:COPYVIO, thus enabling him to delete properly sourced text while violating the WP:1RR in order to push his anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian nationalism POV.

    MShabazz's reverts were clear, and once he was reverted twice, it was he who should have tried to gain consensus in Talk, not those who reverted him. MShabazz used buzzwords like "cleaning fluff", but his cleaning was obviously and pointedly removing only from the Opposition to BDS section. There were many quotes and quantifiers that MShabazz passed over in his zeal to cut fluff from everything pro-Israel. A few examples:

    1. MShabazz "cut the fluff" from the quantifier that the UAW is "one of the largest unions in the U.S.", but he did not cut the fluff that the UK's National Union of Teachers is "the largest teacher's union in the EU" or that the Confédération des syndicats nationaux represents "325,000 in nearly 2,000 unions"
    2. He "cut the fluff" by taking out Governor Cuomo's quote and the Tennessee legislature's anti-BDS quotes, but he left in the African National Congress' pro-BDS quote.

    Even assuming that both edits were WP:COPYVIO, MShabazz still made many POV-pushing reverts, specifically deleting RS quotes from Bon Jovi, Howard Stern, Gov. Cuomo, the Tennessee anti-BDS legislation, and all of Alan Dershowitz's 10 reasons that BDS is immoral.

    If MShabazz was truly concerned about COPYVIOs, then he could have reverted only those edits and not violated the 1RR. He didn't. He added his cut and paste objections with all of his other controversial edits that two editors reverted, then he arrogantly reverted a THIRD time, just four hours following his second revert.

    Following is input by two uninvolved editors who knew nothing about the background or participants, but only based on a hypothetical question regarding WP:1RR and WP:COPYVIO:

    The only clearly stated exception is in WP:3RR, and my opinion (as just another editor) is that the exception only applies to the actual copyrighted content (with possibly some minimal margin around the edges to facilitate a clean excision). Removing other substantial good faith edits in addition to the copyvio seems like something best avoided to me, in general. This advice is provided "as is" and any express or implied warranties are disclaimed.
    "...Of course, that exception only applies to the copyrighted material itself."

    MShabazz should be sanctioned for gaming the system, two reverts just after the 24-hour period, and a third revert just four hours later, totaling three reverts in about 30 hours. KamelTebaast 15:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    • @Nableezy: Per MShabazz, the possible COPYVIO was not Dershowitz, but only what was stated previously. But again, the COPYVIO is not the issue. And thank you for your clarity: "Malik should not have reverted the rest of the edit, claiming the revert exception means he should limit the revert to what is excepted..." KamelTebaast 16:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. My 500th edit celebration is old news. Too bad you missed my 1,000 edit party!
    2. Yes, since MShabazz was schooling me on COPYVIOs, I wanted to learn from the master himself. And whaddaya know, I found MShabazz's edits with equal or more copying and pasting than the ones he cited as COPYVIOs. Can't blame an editor for wanting to learn.
    3. Isn't Nableezy past his word limit, yet? KamelTebaast 20:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Debresser: With much respect to you, I disagree completely with your comment that MShabazz's reverts "of material that violated WP:COPYVIO" may have been "unintended". It seems clear that you did not review his reverts or his aggressive attitude that laced his summaries. Or MShabazz's sarcastic edit here. For an ex-admin with more than 100,000 edits who lives by reverting primarily pro-Israel editors (with less than 30/500), his were not "good faith mistakes". Giving MShabazz a warning is laughable. He should be severely sanctioned. KamelTebaast 20:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Debresser: You filed a complaint above for Nishididani being uncivil by, among other things, saying to stop "drifting", but MShabazz calling me a "genius" is not sarcastic? And that I'm "cancer on Misplaced Pages" is a compliment? Please, speak to his three reverts OUTSIDE of the COPYVIOs. KamelTebaast 02:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Copyright violations?
      • Malik Shabazz: In 2002, Prime Minister Said Musa of Belize asked Shabazz to serve as Ambassador-at-Large to represent Belize internationally in perpetuity.
      • Source: In 2002, he appointed her as the Ambassador-at-Large representing the country of Belize internationally and in perpetuity.
    Is there much difference between the edits below, as pointed out by MShabazz as being COPYVIOs, and his edit above from the Attallah Shabazz page? KamelTebaast 00:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Admins, please note: I knew the attacks against me would be fierce. But I had little idea...I wasn't even prepared... and I'm actually stunned, that the usual suspects would not utter one word in defense of MShabazz's 1RR violation, other than attacking me. As I already discussed, begin with the assumption that my edits were COPYVIOs. That does not negate any of MShabazz's many violations. KamelTebaast 01:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Wordsmith: This "reeks" of partisan bias at the highest level. Pointedly, discrimination against anything pro-Israel. This complaint is NOT connected in any manner to the prior complaint; it should not be unilaterally entombed. If the "1RR issue is technically correct", then you should technically sanction MShabazz.
    MShabazz expands great effort threatening others and even taunting editors to file complaints against him. Here are just a few examples (one, ironically, concerning 1RR and COPYVIO!!!):
    On this very issue MShabazz who violated the 1RR threatened user:GHcool
    "If either of you two geniuses would like to try your novel interpretation of 1RR at WP:ANEW or WP:AE, please be my guest."
    "...report me or kindly shut the fuck up."
    "keep up the POV pushing and you'll get a one-way trip to WP:AE"
    MShabazz got exactly what he asked for.
    With regard to your statement connecting to Nishidani's irrelevant argument that there have been a lot of great contributions, do you really want to open that can? This isn't about the positive. Stop the Wikiwashing! This is about MShabazz clearly and "technically" violating the 1RR. He should be sanctioned.
    Because of Shabbat / Shabbos / Sabbath, I won't be able to respond for another day. KamelTebaast 22:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Nishidani: @Zero0000: @Kingsindian: @IjonTichyIjonTichy: Thank you for joining the chorus of obfuscators. That each of you made this a POV issue rather than writing one word regarding Malik Shabazz's policy violation strengthens the complaint.

    • @Lankiveil: Most everyone who weighed in on the 1RR (opposed to obfuscating the issue) actually concurred that only COPYVIO content can be reverted. Even Wordsmith wrote: "The 1RR issue is technically correct..." Maybe the wall of text "appears" to be a settling of scores, but the 1RR violation should not be negated. KamelTebaast 01:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notification


    Discussion concerning MShabazz

    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 MShabazz

    I will prepare a more complete response later, when I have access to my computer (I'm currently editing on my phone). For all his bluster, Kemal Tebaast is belly-aching because (1) he copied and pasted two paragraphs from his sources and got caught (no, I'm not referring to the excessive quotation of the sources, but copying and pasting unattributed text) and (2) I pay closer attention to new additions to an article than material that's already there. Diffs and links to follow. — MShabazz /Stalk 16:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    • Copyright violations
      • Kamel Tebaast: In April 2015, with bi-partisan support, the Tennessee General Assembly became the first state in the United States to pass a resolution condemning BDS.
      • Source: With strong bi-partisan support, the Tennessee General Assembly has passed a resolution condemning the boycott, disinvestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and the worldwide increase in anti-Semitism.
      • Kamel Tebaast: In June 2016, New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, ordered his agencies to divest themselves of companies and organizations aligned with the "Palestinian-backed boycott movement against Israel".
      • Source: Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York ordered agencies under his control on Sunday to divest themselves of companies and organizations aligned with a Palestinian-backed boycott movement against Israel.
      • These are in addition to his excessive quotation. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 00:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

    I recommend that this nonsense be closed quickly with a WP:BOOMERANG against the filer, who has been harassing me. I removed nothing of any substance from Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, and he cannot claim I did. He is casting aspersions, making baseless (and untrue) accusations about my political views, and this is the second time in two months he has made an unfounded complaint against me on this page. Enough is enough. He is a cancer on Misplaced Pages, and the sooner he is removed the better. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 00:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Sir Joseph

    I don't have any evidence in this case so I can't comment on this specific case, but Malik Shabazz and his alternate account is one of the reasons why I am starting to stay away from the IP area. He needs to be warned to be less aggressive and less of a WP:OWN. His usual first line of conversation is to threaten AE or AN/I action. He is extremely uncivil and it does need to stop.

    Statement by Masem

    Only commenting on the COPYVIO aspect: I don't see the removal as being within COPYVIO - text is quoted and attributed to a proper inline source. There may be issues with the amount of text used which falls under other policy considerations, as well as editoral consensus if the quoted material adds that much to the article, but none of those reasons would fall under a 1RR exemption. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Nableezy, there is a difference between what COPYVIO calls for - which is primarily of unattributed text is used directly and which should be removed on sight - compared to WP:COPYQUOTE - which does warn about took much "fair use" copytaking and requires a more careful discourse but does not require immediate removal barring blatent problems (100% copy-taking for example). COPYVIO allows for 1RR exemptions, COPYQUOTE doesn't (this is because COPYQUOTE issues can be smoothed out readily with editorial consensus). I do agree that restoring information removed under a wrongly applied COPYVIO edit summary is also not an exemption to 1RR (eg if MShabazz first removed and Kamel restored, any further action on the text in question by either would violate 1RR, and instead talk page discussion should occur). --MASEM (t) 16:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Nableezy

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

    Something should really be done about "editors" who restore things that are specifically prohibited by Misplaced Pages policy (copyright violations, BLP violations). WP:COPYVIO: Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warning may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. @Masem: the amount of material copied is what potentially makes it a copyright violation. And even if it is not a copyright violation, there was clearly a good faith concern about it being so, and that should stop people from simply restoring it, as here. The material from Alan Dershowitz in a copyrighted publication (Haaretz) has nearly one fifth of its content copied here word for word. Attribution does not in any way alleviate that issue. Now Malik should not have reverted the rest of the edit, claiming the revert exception means he should limit the revert to what is excepted, but Kamel Tebaast routinely disregards prohibitions on restoring material that open Misplaced Pages up to legal action. And that should be dealt with. Not to mention the generally low quality and blatant POV-pushing in his or her edits, but that can be discussed another time. nableezy - 16:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    It actually is the issue that Malik raised in his edit summary, and you, with your typical belligerence, ignored to restore. That should be sanctioned. nableezy - 17:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    Yes, he should not have reverted everything else, even if your reverts were improper. A warning to limit revert rule exceptions to what is excepted could be issued in my view. You on the other hand, your edits in this topic area have been uniformly bad. They have been POV-pushes so extreme that they should make most editors ashamed at an encyclopedia article containing such nonsense, they have restored copyright violations, and in your short time here you have become one of the more annoying wikilawyers. I just havent had the time or inclination to go through all of the things that should cause an administrator serious about having encyclopedia articles that adhere to the core policies of this website to topic ban you. This little bit of bad faith exercise however may have changed my mind on the inclination part of it. nableezy - 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Masem: I am not a lawyer and will, and have, step aside on the topic of what is or is not a copyright violation to the experts on that topic that we have here (Moonriddengirl being one). But WP:COPYVIO says this: However, copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Misplaced Pages's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism. Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Misplaced Pages's redistributability, but also create legal issues. The amount copied in the diff that Malik removed was not a "brief quotation", all of the material was copyrighted, and at the very least he raised a good faith concern on the material being a copyright violation. He should have raised that issue on various noticeboards, but when somebody gives a good faith concern about whether or not material can legally be hosted on our webpages that should end the reverts to include it until it established that it is not a copyright violation. Kamel Tebaast focused on oh I havent reverted in 24 hours and he has so I can push this back into the article and he cant stop me, despite a good faith objection of a copyright violation. That shouldnt go unanswered. nableezy - 18:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    And here is an example of bad faith editing. Kamel Tebaast complains about being reverted on copying 20% of a copyrighted source and then restores it. So what does Kamel Tebaast do? Hound Malik to a a page with one minor edit by anybody not the person he is in a conflict with to try to turn the tables on Malik. That is exactly the type of bad faith lawyering Kamel Tebaast has been involved in throughout his or her short stint since celebrating their 500th edit that allowed them to edit in this topic area. These are not the editors that create NPOV, RS based encyclopedia articles. nableezy - 19:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    I collapsed the rest of the section because Kamel Tebaast's last statement should really be examined. There have been a number of accounts that have recently made clear their objective to make articles here "pro-Israel". Not "NPOV", but "pro-Israel". Anything that does not adhere to a fairly right-wing Israeli viewpoint is "anti-Israel". And to be completely blunt, there are nearly no "pro-Palestinian" editors in the way that there are "pro-Israel" ones. There very much are editors that do not edit with a "pro-Israel" POV, and I count myself as one of them, but if we are being fair here those editors' POV is an international one if anything. One that reflects an international consensus, among states and reliable sources, on certain topics, eg that the West Bank is occupied Palestinian territory, that the Golan Heights is in Syria, that an Israeli settlement is an Israeli settlement and not simply an Israeli town. Editors such as Kamel will take including these super-majority views in articles as evidence of "supporting Palestinian nationalism and attack anything pro-Israel". No, Im sorry, but thats bs. The opposing POV to Kamel's quite clear one is one that would edit that Tel Aviv is in occupied Palestine. We have editors that will in the narrative voice of Misplaced Pages include things cited to the views of extremist settler groups. We have nothing like that on the opposing side. Nobody will take a statement from some Hamas official and include it as anything other than a Hamas official, but to the editors like Kamel that itself is "attacking anything pro-Israel". These editors are not here to create an encyclopedia. They are here to turn these pages in to propaganda. They make their intention as clear as day to anybody willing to pay even the littlest bit of attention. And yall should really do something about it. Kamel Tebaast has repeatedly announced his intention to propagandize on these pages, loudly and clearly. If ever there were a more blatant example of somebody waving a WP:NOTHERE sign I surely have not seen it. He or she is here to antagonize editors he or she identifies as "anti-Israel" and to slant articles to a "pro-Israel" POV. nableezy - 23:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Debresser

    I just want to raise the possibility that the removal of additional material, exceeding the revert of material that violated WP:COPYVIO, was unintended. Sometimes a revert catches too much. No need to slam him with (another) WP:AE for such minor things, which can easily be seen as good faith mistakes. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Kamel Tebaast I see no "aggressive attitude" from Malik, and his so-called "sarcastic" commentary was not only sarcastic but also correct per standing Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I did see that he admitted to removing "fluff and bloat", which is something I can only appreciate. All in all I stand by my opinion that Malik's edits were good faith improvements. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Kablammo

    Attribution does not correct a copyright violation. Where material is quoted verbatim, it must be clear from the text that the words are those of another. Without quote marks or similar indicia that the text is the words of another, verbatim or near-verbatim text is a copyright violation, and should be removed. And the editor who inserted the text should be the one to separate the copyrighted material from the rest of the edit. Kablammo (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Nishidani

    The recent surge in reports here is troublesome. We are supposed to be constructing articles, not bickering. Shabazz recently gave us a neat page on Attallah Shabazz; Nableezy brought the Al-Azhar Mosque up to GA quality etc. It's about time, I think, that one begin to look into the contribs of plaintiffs, while assessing these complaints, to see whether they have a constructive interest in building Misplaced Pages, or are just here on a mission, or for entertainment, or drama, whatever. No one can work quietly on if every edit is contested by swarming, and everything one does is parsed for a fatal whiff of sanctionable error, ending up in arbitration every other day. Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    KT. As to your notification to me to respond to your post accusing me of teaming up with the 'obfuscators', no reply.
    NMMGG. There are actually quite a few editors on all sides who get things done whatever our differences, and don't just sit on pages carping to exhaustion, trying to extract more and more 'concessions' after two reasonable compromises have been made on one word. Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    And making just one more attack list of my putative endemic malpractices as an editor is again the umpteenth use of a talk page to sneer at or disniss my bona fides. Document it or drop it. It might help if you examined your contribs for the last 3 years to see if you are actually doing anything constructive here, other than reverting and bickering.Nishidani (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    Nothing any of us say, NMMGG, is 'the truth' in absolute terms. WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:Due, WP:SYNTH are waved and flagged over most contested edits, a discussion emerges, the niceties examined. No one has papal infallibility here, neither you nor I, since discussion shows how labile many of our otherwise competent judgements can be when subject to wider external review. If as you have repeatedly been saying for at least four years, all of my editing in the I/P is personally informed by intellectual dishonesty and, though I can't recall the diff, you think one of your purposes here is to keep me 'honest' then those editors who do not find my editing particularly problematical are either intellectually dishonest by association or are being duped by me. Remember, 99% of the reverts of my edits are made exclusively here, and, since my procedure is overwhelmingly to introduce academic citations that pass the highest RS high bar, the problem may not my editing, fallible as it may be at times, but distaste for what those sources state.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you for the other diff, NMMGG. I would underwrite every word I wrote there. I derive my knowledge of the Middle East from Israeli or diaspora scholarship, predominantly. Nothing I say on a talk page, has not been more eloquently or eruditely put than what I find in those sources, and, if citing it means some in here, unfamiliar with this tradition of scholarship, taunt me as an anti-Semite (a goy who hates Jews) then it's a paradox, but one I can live with. Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Zero0000

    Unfortunately, Nableezy's description of the state of editing in the I/P area is quite correct. Zero 00:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Kingsindian

    I concur with Nableezy's statement. And I am not totally happy with TheWordsmith's comment in the last case about "civility". The problem is not "incivility", the problem is (some) people trying to push POV in an unreasonable manner. Everyone has a POV, but some are willing to be fair about the actual facts of the matter, while others are simply there to push propaganda.

    In my view, a lot of what goes on in this area is unavoidable. Long, interminable political discussion inevitably leads to (some) bad faith and incivility. I get angry at even my friends and relatives during discussions involving religion and politics; internet discussion with strangers are even worse. People who are committed to improving the encyclopedia manage to find a way in spite of this. The way to handle it from the outside is to look at the totality of the discussion and see whether the parties are making a good faith and knowledgeable effort at a solution which remains close to the facts. Incivility is a red herring.

    I think Misplaced Pages's civility policy is broken in general. Nobody is opposed to civility in general, the issue is how it is used to take out opponents. But that's a rant for another time and venue. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

    Malik should strike the "cancer" comment. Kamel Tebaast in wrong on everything else. The issue is not WP:1RR because content which is removed on a good-faith basis of copyvio is exempt from 1RR. There should ideally be some discussion on the talk page and some rephrasing to fix it. The insistence of Kamel Tebaast to see everything through a "pro-Israel/anti-Israel" lens is the main problem. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Ijon Tichy

    Regretfully, Nableezy's statement is very accurate. Ijon Tichy (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

    Also regretfully, Nishidani's statements are correct. Ijon Tichy (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    I agree with Malik Shabazz that this is a case of Boomerang against Kamel Tabaast (KT). In my view, a (short-term, temporary) topic ban on KT would be good for the project, as well as good for KT's future prospects on WP (given that KT is a relative newcomer to the project).
    I think Malik is a great editor who works tirelessly to ensure that content, contributed by Malik himself and others, always complies with WP policies. I strongly support Malik in his good work. However, in my view describing KT as 'cancer' is far too strong, and Malik should strike it out - from my perspective it appears to be a PA on KT, and does not help in moving the discussion forward towards a resolution. Ijon Tichy (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

    I'm really enjoying the group of like minded editors congratulating themselves on their neutrality while lamenting the POV pushing of the people they disagree with. The lack of introspection could be amusing, if I didn't think they were serious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Nishidani, unfortunately everything I said in that diff you posted is true, and I'd be happy to document it if the need arises. On that very page you deliberately misquoted policy as you were wikilawyering to keep UNDUE material in the article. I know you are very proud of the fact you write content, and think that should give you special status. Unfortunately you are very much emotionally invested in the topics you write about, and regularly violate NPOV. For this encyclopedia to be neutral, it needs editors to find where neutrality is violated. That's what I like to do. It's allowed. Get over it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Nishidani, thanks for reminding me that you think that "editors like tend to be opposed as goyim beyond the pale". I completely forgot about that little gem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning MShabazz

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • The 1RR issue is technically correct, but we shouldn't be restoring a potential copyvio anyway until there has been discussion about whether it is or is not a violation. This reeks of people attempting to have their ideological opponents sanctioned (like most ARBPIA requests seem to be). That doesn't make me happy. Since this request was filed before I closed the one above as a warning to all parties, I'd be inclined to roll it into that warning. I'll leave this case open for a few days to solicit additional input, but I'm not inclined to take strong action here. As some have pointed out, a lot of you have great contributions to the project. I strongly advise you to continue contributing and stop trying to have each other banned. The Wordsmith 20:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I haven't read this entire wall of text, but the WP:3RR policy makes an allowance for additional reverts to "Removal of clear copyright violations". If the text in question was a copyvio that was being restored to the article, there is no real problem here. This whole report to me appears to be an ideologically motivated settling of scores, which is not what this place is for. Lankiveil 13:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC).

    Marteau

    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 Marteau

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Marteau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBBLP and WP:ARBAP2:
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. This is just a link to the history of the Alicia Machado talk page. A lot of material got rev-del because it was deeply offensive and a BLP violation. Marteau's comment at 01:03, 1 October 2016‎ was rev del'ed. Marteau received a BLP and DS notification soon after
    2. October 3 Here Marteau proposes that we change "it was reported she gained too much weigh and rumors began to circulate", which was bad enough, to "it was reported that she swelled to more than 160 pound". Trying to write that someone "swelled" rather than "gained weight" is a pretty obvious attempt to attack the person in violation of BLP. Yes, the word "swelled" is used in the source but is done to CRITICIZE that kind of language. Trying to use that to back up BLP-violating language is disingenuous and dishonest.
    3. October 5 Here Marteau is trying to use a non-reliable trashy source to attack the subject of this BLP by insulting her intelligence (The headline of the tabloid is "Venezuela's former Miss Universe Alicia Machado has a blond moment".

    The above were done while the article was under full protection, so these are violations on the talk page. BLP also applies to talk pages. The diffs also show that Marteau's primary interest in the article is to use it as a vehicle for attacking the subject.

    1. October 7 Here, after full protection expired Marteau puts in the BLP violating text, which gives WP:UNDUE weight to trivial information. Marteau also placed stuff about Machado shutting down twitter due to abuse in the "Personal life" section.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    Note that Marteau was given a DS/BLP sanction notice back in April by User:Cwobeel . So the BLP notification received for the Machado article, from User:Callannecc was actually his second one. This means two things. First, when he was posting this stuff to the Machado page he was already aware of BLP and the relevant discretionary sanctions, but did it anyway. Second, while I understand that DS notifications are suppose to be only notifications and not actual warnings, usually they're given out when somebody's being up to no good. The fact that he was notified twice of BLP DS means that this isn't the first time someone had problems with Marteau's BLP editing.

    Also, on this one, your mileage might vary, but Marteau's also received a DS notification for Gamergate issues

    (Note that I left a message at User:Alison's talk page, since she was the one who rev-del'ed a good chunk of the talk page, about this matter )

    I would also like to suggest that in addition to whatever sanctions are placed on Marteau (a topic ban from this article seems like a minimum), the article itself be restored to full protection.

    Note User:Paul Keller commenting below is a sock puppet of permanently banned User:Lokalkosmopolit (Lokal got perma banned for harassing myself and another user, which is also why his sock is here - for more of the same). I filed the relevant SPI.

    And checkuser confirmed .Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    See above:
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Marteau

    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 Marteau

    Marek has been fighting with passion the inclusion of the instance where Alica Machado confused countries on Twitter, then suffered vicious attacks, leading to her quitting Twitter. Marek has called this at various times "trivial", "deeply offensive", "junk", "nonsense", undue weight, and a BLP violation. This incident is widely cited by numerous reliable sources and is certainly notable. That editors are compelled to fight Marek repeatedly on such issues in this, and other, articles related to political figures and issues wastes untold numbers of hours editors could be using to improve the encyclopedia.

    Marek has been making the rounds on various pages about how I changed "gained too much weight" (which did not appear in the sources) to "swelled" (which is the exact term used by the Washington Post). Marek claims the Post used this term as criticism of such language, but such an intent is not present in the source. I dropped the matter instantly and made nothing further of its removal, however, Marek just goes on and on and ON about how egregious my using the verbiage the Post used was, attempting to use it as a cudgel of some sort.

    He then complains I was "trying to use a non-reliable trashy source to attack the subject of this BLP by insulting her intelligence" in a talk page comment. All I have to say is I have never used anything but impeccable sources in the article space, and that sometimes I let my proverbial hair down in talk pages, to my detriment perhaps. I will say, however, that I immediately thought better of it and self reverted this comment eight minutes after the fact with no prompting from anyone.

    That he attempts to smear me with the fact that I have received Gamergate notices and such. Such notices are given out like candy to editors who edit such articles. And coming from someone with 12 entries on his block log, directed to someone with none on his log for 10+ years here, such an attempt to cast aspersions on me in such a way is pathetic in its grasping.

    A boomerang, however, might be in order. I count at least seven reverts by Marek on the Machado article within the past 24 hours. To be honest, I have no stomach for pursuing a 3RR violation, for I am sure Marek will claim BLP exceptions and such, and I am not in a fighting or vindictive mood. Combine that with a general battleground mentality on the Machado article (and other political articles) his snark, his insults, and his pattern of tendention, he's certainly well past due for line 13 to be added to the already 12 lines in his block log. Marteau (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Paul Keller

    Edits by Marteau were all fully in line with policy. The Twitter controversy was widely handled in the media. What is concerning is the filing party's spree of revert warring in the article today , , . It is part of VM's wider campaign of a) entering as much negative information to articles concerning Trump as possible; b) while equally removing all information disadvantagous for the Clinton side from other articles. . This has been going on for quite some time. --Paul Keller (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC) - Striking comment from confirmed sockpuppet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by The Wordsmith

    As a point of order, I edit election-related articles so I'm considering myself WP:INVOLVED here. As such, I'm recused from this request. The Wordsmith 20:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by James J. Lambden

    In almost every political article our editing intersects Marek's turned the article into a battleground. This is simply a continuation.

    Recent examples:

    Both instances involved blatant misrepresentation.

    Another example comes from a 3RR report against Marek only 3 days ago. I comment that previous reports against him "show a number of established, apparently non-partisan editors concerned about behavior." He responds: "they show nothing of the kind", forcing me to link the actual comments:

    It's either that he's forgotten the number of cautions from administrators (in which case he shouldn't be editing sensitive articles) or he hasn't and was aware the claim "they show nothing of the kind" was untrue when he made it (in which case again he shouldn't be editing sensitive articles.)

    As I said in that same request: How many different editors have to complain and how many reports showing the same behavior across multiple articles have to be submitted before an admin takes action? This disruption is long-term and ongoing. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by NPalgan2

    Agree with James J Lambden. Some highlights of my recent interactions with Volunteer Marek: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Alicia_Machado#.22Trump.27s_racism.22 "La Reforma is not a reliable source” (if Marek had done any research at all he’d have seen that it is a major and respectable Mexican newspaper, he had not made a good faith attempt to determine reliability) https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alicia_Machado&diff=743065729&oldid=743065372 Here Marek claims without any evidence that El Nuevo Herald and Publimetro Colombia are not RSs just because he doesn’t want the quotes included. Any research would have shown the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy#blatant_synthesis Here Marek notes correctly that the article abstract does not directly name Clinton (presumably for legal reasons). I admit, until we found a second source (vox.com) directly tying the article to Clinton there was a synth issue. But once again it’s difficult to see how Marek could have read the abstract and not seen that it was about clinton (it very obviously mentions the precise period October 11, 1978, through July 31, 1979), but he still makes loud and insulting accusations of bad faith towards the editors who had been discussing whether to include article further up the talk page. He continues claiming SYNTH on the talk page and on the BLPN for days after the vox article has been brought to his attention.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Alicia_Machado#Uh.2C_what.3F Here I added two sources noting Trump’s non-denial, then found a third NYTimes source noting Trump’s spokeswoman issued a denial. Dr. Fleischmann condensed this. Then Marek shows up, and has another ‘accidental’ failure to notice the NYTimes denial and becomes abusive towards me . https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Alicia_Machado#New_BLP_violations more insults. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy#using_NR_as_RS Marek plays dumb when his inconsistent standards for RS in BLPs are noted. lower down he again becomes insulting.

    Statement by (Username)

    Result concerning Marteau

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

    Simert Ove

    Two editors blocked for 1RR violation; EC protection applied to Israel Shahak by another admin. No other action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    Request concerning Simert Ove

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Simert Ove (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
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 03:14, 6 October 2016 New editor not permitted to edit this article
    2. 01:02, 7 October 2016 New editor not permitted to edit this article
    3. 05:23, 9 October 2016 New editor not permitted to edit this article
    4. 22:20, 9 October 2016 New editor not permitted to edit this article
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Despite a notification about the discretionary sanctions, this editor persists in edit-warring to make a POV addition to an article on a controversial person. Edit summaries and knowledge of Misplaced Pages suggest very strongly that this is not actually a new account but a sock (possibly of a blocked user).

    In response to Ryk72, when attempting to edit this page a big arbitration notice appears, setting out who is allowed to edit the page. It could hardly be more obvious! In addition, anyone editing in this area will know immediately that Israel Shahak was a contentious character, and that dispute over his writings is inexorably linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict. It should also be obvious that Simert Ove is not a new editor, but a (probably block-evading) sock of someone already involved in editing here.
    The merits of edits by Chas. Caltrop are not at issue here. Whether they are good or bad can be discussed in the article talk page; but this editor is permitted to edit here, and Simert Ove's repeated claim to the contrary is untrue. Simert Ove is an edit-warring editor excluded from this page, likely a sock of a blocked user, and shows no sign of stopping this disruptive behaviour. RolandR (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Simert Ove

    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 Simert Ove

    Despite your selective bias, Chas. Caltrop (talk) is not allowed to edit those articles either, let alone violating NPOV policy every time.--Simert Ove (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Malik Shabazz

    On 9 October, Simert Ove reverted three times at Israel Shahak — an article she/he is not permitted to edit at all. Request a block or protection of the article to prevent ongoing and future disruption. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 03:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Ryk72

    Overall, this request is better handled by requesting page protection at WP:RFPP than by reporting users editing in good faith to this noticeboard.

    On initial inspection, it is not immediately obvious that the biographical article Israel Shahak is covered by the WP:ARBPIA ruling. It is immediately obvious that there has been no Talk page discussion of the significant changes made to that article by Chas. Caltrop, and that their edits appear troubling. See: Example 1 which re-reverts to include changes that fail WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV & WP:LABEL at even a cursory inspection. - Ryk72 05:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    @RolandR: There is an excellent technical implementation of Extended Confirmed Protection (500/30), which provides the best method for ensuring compliance with the ARBPIA ruling. Editors were better to avail themselves of it than file requests about individual editors here. This is not an indictment on this filing; rather a recommendation for improved resolution of future issues. I note that Malik Shabazz has made such a request, thank them for it, and note that ECP has been implemented.
    Edit notices are largely not worth the pixels they are printed on; their service mostly in providing evidence of malfeasance in the absence of their being followed; the vast majority of editors scroll down to the edit box and carry on blithely.
    As to the edits of Chas. Caltrop on that page: if any editor is more concerned about another editor's edit count, and compliance with ARBPIA, than they are concerned to ensure compliance with core content policy, NPOV, then they should have a long, hard look at themselves. - Ryk72 13:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Debresser

    I completely agree with Ryk72. This can be handled in a simpler way. WP:AE should be a last resort. Debresser (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Simert Ove

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

    Kamel Tebaast

    Editor indefinitely blocked and indefinitely topic banned from PIA. The Wordsmith 22:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Kamel Tebaast

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Kamel Tebaast (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
    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 19:12, 10 October 2016 See below
    2. 19:17, 10 October 2016 See below
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    30 day topic ban on 13 August 2016

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Opened an enforcement request still on this page
    • Given a topic ban by Lord Roem on 13 August 2016
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I wrote above in the enforcement request that Kamel Tebaast opened about how this user has been waving a WP:NOTHERE flag since they got here. This example should make that crystal clear. In a dispute about a comparison between the Hamas charter and the Likud part platform (Hamas being a Palestinian group and Likud an Israeli political party), Kamel Tebaast has flagrantly disrupted Misplaced Pages in an attempt to prove a point (I say attempt because the two things are so dissimilar in terms of sourcing). He or she has vandalized the article on Bill Clinton to include his or her own view that a law signed by Clinton is similar to what the Nazis did and then bragged about it on the Hamas talk page. Maybe that will get yalls attention here. This is a violation of the standard discretionary sanctions included in WP:ARBPIA, specifically the requirements that editors adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages and comply with all applicable policies and guidelines. I have been here a long time, and I have never seen a more blatant example of bad faith editing among anything other than an IP or throw-away account.

    NMMNG, you should read those sources. The ACLU paper mentions the words Nazi and Germany once, no where does it come anywhere close to saying a US president signed a Nazi like law. Im trying to find where the second source supposedly supports that and am not seeing it. And, oh by the way, neither of those were in the edit he made. Kamel Tebaast wrote in an encyclopedia article that a US president signed a law that was similar to what the Nazis did. He did it out of spite. He violated two arbitration cases doing so. How surprising that like minded editors in one of those topics are defending that. nableezy - 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    Look at the edit and the sources cited. He cited the law, and he cited a US Holocaust Museum page on the Nazi party, one that never mentions the law or Clinton. KI is responding to the after the fact justification, a justification that is completely hollow. Look at the edit made, and look at why it was made. It was specifically in response to the Likud Hamas comparison, and it shows a blatant disregard for both our policies here and basic common sense. nableezy - 21:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified


    Discussion concerning Kamel Tebaast

    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 Kamel Tebaast

    No vandalism. No bragging. Simply a well-sourced legitimate edit. KamelTebaast 16:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    One of my sources is a think that connects between the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and post WWI (and modern-day) Germany. Here is an ACLU post that explicitly connects the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and Nazi Germany. Here is a Boston University paper that connects between some points in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and "Germany and other Nazi-occupied territories prior to WWII". I am truly baffled that (1) someone wants to ban me for a legitimately sourced edit that, at most, should have been discussed in Talk; and (2) topic ban me in a topic area that doesn't even include the article in question. This seems rather punitive. KamelTebaast 19:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Nableezy, your characterization that my edit implied that Clinton "signed a Nazi like law" is inflammatory, misleading, and disingenuous--similar to your complaint that it was vandalism. One point in that bill was similar to one of the points of the 1932 Nazi platform. I'll respond to the others after Yom Kippur. KamelTebaast 22:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Kingsindian

    I think Kamel Tebaast is not long for this world. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    I thought Kamel Tebaast was trying for a suicide by admin, but apparently they are seriously defending the edit. So let me help them on their way.

    It's not clear to me how this source originally cited by Kamel Tebaast supports the statement that the 1996 act is similar to the one in the 1932 Nazi platform. Indeed, the only reference to the 1996 act I found in the entire document is this: Every state in the United States legally bars non-citizens from voting in national or state elections. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed into law by President Clinton, made it a crime for any non-citizen to vote in a federal election. Indeed, the association of voting with citizenship is such settled doctrine in American political culture that it is part of the only major nationwide civics test given to American students.

    The two other sources which Kamel Tebaast mentions above are post-September 11, 2001; which argue against creating a National ID system in such a political atmosphere. For instance, here is the only allusion to Nazi Germany I could find in the ACLU source: A national ID system would violate the freedom Americans take the most for granted and the one that most defines our liberty: the right to be left alone. Unlike workers in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, apartheid South Africa, and Castro's Cuba, no American need fear the demand, "Papers, please." Note that the same document by the ACLU notes that the national ID card provision was rejected in the 1996 act: Most dramatically, in 1996 the House of Representatives rejected national ID cards during the consideration of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (HR 2202, 104th Congress).

    The Boston University law journal does say that there are some aspects of the 1996 act -- but not only that act, it lists 4 other acts in conjuction, (p. 1) -- which move towards a national ID system. This national ID system is dangerous according to the author and he brings up Nazi Germany in this context. The paper even mentions the Social Security act in this context (p. 20) Again, there is nothing comparing the 1996 act to the 1932 Nazi platform.

    It looks to me like Kamel Tebaast has simply Googled "1996 immigration act Nazi" and dumped it all here. Even if the sources cited supported the text added (which they don't), the phrasing is so ridiculous that it would automatically fail WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:SYNTH and WP:POINT at the very least. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Debresser

    I think this should be closed summarily. Enough reporting each other back and forth! As to the two edits that were reported here: the article edit is sourced, and the talkpage post is worded neutrally (no bragging, which is the subjective way Nishidani prefers to read that talkpage post). Debresser (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    No More Mr Nice Guy

    The ACLU and an academic paper made the same point KT should be topic banned for putting (sourced) in an article? How remarkable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Nableezy, I don't necessarily think it was a great edit (mostly because I think it should have been attributed rather than stated as fact), but if KI needs 4-5 paragraphs just to explain why the edit is wrong, that would seem like a content dispute. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Shrike

    Kingsindian of course right but that edit is not in WP:ARBPIA area--Shrike (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    Result concerning Kamel Tebaast

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions Add topic