Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344

ZScarpia

Latest comment: 3 years ago87 comments17 people in discussion

ZScarpia is warned against using subpar sources, anywhere on the project, to discuss living or recently deceased persons. Nableezy is cautioned to keep to their promise about moderating their tone. Will log. El_C 13:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Request concerning ZScarpia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hippeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: ZScarpia (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:ARBPIA4#ARBPIA General Sanctions (standard discretionary sanctions).

I looked into ZScarpia following a blog post by David Collier from 23 September 2021 that was brought to my attention. I disagree with Collier in general, and with much of the specific blog post, however I was concerned by Collier detailing how ZScarpia smeared him on a Wikipedia talk page using extremely dubious sources and I decided to probe deeper into this aspect. I have thoroughly vetted this particular claim by Collier, and uncovered additional and systematic use of this very dubious blog by ZScarpia. ZScarpia's posting of false smears against a living he is in a feud, in regards to Palestine/Israel, requires attention.

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

13:21, 28 August 2021 Accusing living person (David Collier) of "is also suspected of being associated with the GnasherJew "crew"[1][2][3][4]", using one source (Jewish News) that does not mention Collier at all and three sources that are beyond dubious and are known for antisemitism. This violates the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Source context:
1. https://dorseteye.com/i-give-you-david-collier/ The Dorset Eye, little known site other than being infamous for: this post which led to the suspension of a politician who shared this apparent murder threat. ([5][6] )
2. https://twitter.com/socialistvoice/status/1104051361447059456 - Twitter of SocialistVoice run by an individual expelled from Labour for his statements, which include language such as "Jewish companies" and "Jewish blood"[7] (in relation to Tesco and Marks & Spencer
3. https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-lies-and-deceit-of-david-collier.html Worst for last, blog post by Tony Greenstein who was expelled from Labour for anti-Semitism and for whom a high court determined that 'notorious antisemite' is not libel when used to describe him (Greenstein declared bankruptcy after being order to pay legal fees to the Campaign Against Antisemitism, after losing the case he filed and and appeal).
15:15, 4 September 2021 On a BLP talk page, posting links to The Electronic Intifada (red list at WP:RSP) and Tony Greenstein's blog which is even worse as a counter source to The Times.
09:35, 2 September 2021 (+another copy: 09:36, 2 September 2021) Posting material in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:NOTAFORUM.

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

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 25 August, 2021 also indicated awareness on talk page (Israel lobby in the United Kingdom) where he posted the BLP smear using Greenstein as a source (+here).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

ZScarpia indicated on 17:31, 28 August 2021 that Collier "is not a fan" of his.

ZScarpia has a long history of using Tony Greenstein as a source on Israel, Jews, and related biographies and organisations :

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive984#NOTFORUM at Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism, discussion of a NOTAFORUM post by ZScarpia on a Jewish organization and resisting removal, ZScarpia linked to Tony Greenstein's blog on azvsas.blogspot.
04:13, 18 May 2020 use of tonygreenstein.com (twice!) for info on living persons.
10:30, 7 May 2019 use of Tony Greenstein's blog on azvsas.blogspot
13:12, 9 March 2019 same
18:16, 24 July 2016 same, other article.

This list was compiled by searching for "azvsas.blogspot" and tonygreenstein.com in Wikipedia, ZScarpia is the sole user here posting these links recently.

ZScarpia use of a blog by a person whom the UK legal system upheld the descriptor 'notorious antisemite' was legitimate viewpoint for posting forumish talk page smears on Jewish persons is unbecoming conduct.--Hippeus (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

ARBPIA relevance (Selfstudier): Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom, Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, Talk:Jenny Tonge, Baroness Tonge, and Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism all have Arab-Israeli conflict templates. Talk:David Miller (sociologist) probably should have a notice too, and the posted link to Greenstein's blog is conflict related (title: "The Union of Jewish Students is not a Cuddly Group of Fragile Jewish Students – it is the Israeli State on Campus – Dedicated to Defaming Opponents of Israeli Apartheid"). The posts at Talk:Denis MacShane and Talk:All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism are a posting of a 45 page ruling in which Israel is mentioned 107 times, boycott 44 times (against Israel), and (anti)"semiti*" 87 times. All of these posts fall within ARBPIA.--Hippeus (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Deepfriedokra and El C: the short version is that David Collier on his website complained that he was being smeared by ZScarpia in this diff, in which ZScarpia stated that: Collier is "suspected of being associated with the GnasherJew "crew"". This assertion is sourced entirely to dubious sources (and a RS that does not mention Collier or GnasherJew), including Tony Greenstein's blog. ZScarpia has been using Greenstein's blog in other talk pages, and I document other BLPTALK issues towards ARBPIA figures on the other side of the divide.--Hippeus (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZScarpia&diff=prev&oldid=1046467703

Discussion concerning ZScarpia

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 ZScarpia

First, I'd like to acknowlege that I'm now aware of this case. A long list of allegations have been made and I'm wondering what word count restriction I face in responding to them?

I'm assuming that I won't be allowed the time it would personally take me to work up a decent response in one go. To break things down, I think the best approach would be to address a particular editor's statements in turn, starting, probably, as the statements are presented in list form, with Levivich's.

Just prior to raising this request, Hippeus went through a series of talkpages removing large chunks of my comments ([8][9][10][11][12]) in a manner which, I think, doesn't show his or her own editing in a good light. There was no attempt at discussion. A less belligerent editor might have actually have attempted to ask me what the purpose of my comments was before assuming that there was none. The deletions weren't signed, so there is no indication of who did the removals or when. My impression has been that comments should not be removed unless they very clearly break the rules, and even then, only if it serves to reduce disruption rather than increase it, yet the reasons supplied for, at least, the bulk of the removals have a pretty tenuous justification.

← ZScarpia 16:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

--- Levivich's Statement ---

(Comments I made about David Collier seem to be of most concern, so, perhaps saving everyone's time and hopefully without trying everybody's patience, I'll address Levivich's first three points on their own. An opportunity to comment before the request is closed would be appreciated.)

* Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom: The two talkpage sections involved: [13][14].

Prior to adding the first, 18 May 2020, comment I carried out Google searches to determine whether there was sufficient source evidence to state as a fact that Collier was part of the GnasherJew team or only that it was suspected. One source found was a Jewish News portmaneau webpage, whose lower part I read as describing Collier as a GnasherJew spokesman. I took the combination of a regular news source describing him thus along with other sources showing that it was believed that he was a member of the team, and why, as fairly watertight justification for describing him as part of the team on the talkpage. I could not find a way of providing a link for the lower part of the webpage separately. Using the original link I supplied now only causes the top section to be displayed. What I think was the lower part is now available, on its own, at this link. Embarrassingly, due to focussing on a small number of paragraphs, rather than the complete article, it now appears to me that my interpretation was wrong and therefore the justification for stating that Collier was an actual, rather than suspected, GnasherJew member much weakened. The misinterpretation was, clearly, a failure on my part. By the 28 Aug 2021 comment, I decided to use a form of words that was easily verifiable, by simple Google searches, as a true factual statement, so wrote: "he is also 'suspected of being associated with the GnasherJew 'crew'."

Levivich mentions that I removed the last part of the comment added on 15 June 2020, but omits when that occurred. That text was on the talkpage for 22 minutes altogether.

Levivitch stated: "This is Contentious material...poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, and it's repeated." Though, due to a failure of interpretation on my part, the statement that Collier was an actual GnasherJew member turns out to be poorly sourced, the statement that he was suspected to be a member is easily verifiable as factually true. In my interpretation of the rule, easily verifiable factually true statements are not 'controversial' (if the meaning of 'controversial' is interpretted as anything that might upset the sensibilities of any particular editor, the description would apply generally right across the whole ARBPIA topic area). Collier himself was personally referred to in a cited source which was taken as reliable until the current set of eSharp editors were persuaded to disown it, making him a legitimate subject in the article. I provided the material very much with the intention that it would, at some point, affect the article content. Levivich is taking too narrow a view of what "making content choices" means I think.

← ZScarpia 14:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Talk:Denis MacShane

I was very surprised by Rosguill's remark that my talkpage comment "seem(s) to truly be unrelated to content decisions." Levivich's argument is, I think, nonsense.

As set out in the my talkpage comment and touched on in the articles on each,[15][16] Denis MacShane and John Mann was, in the former case, and is, in the latter, a prominent UK Parliamentary supporter of Israel with roles on, among other bodies, the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism. As such, they acted as witnesses for the complainant in the Ronnie Fraser versus University and College Union (UCU) tribunal case, an attempt to counter boycott activity within the union which spectacularly backfired, with all 10 complaints dismissed and the judgement calling the case "an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means."[17][18][19][20] The case was fairly widely covered in the press (try Googling, for example, the search term "ronnie+fraser"+union) and has a chapter devoted to it in David Hirsh's book "Contemporary Left Antisemitism". The Parliamentary witnesses, MaShane and Mann, were strongly criticised[21][22] MacShane was "not surprised that the U.K.’s Employment Tribunal was incapable of grasping Fraser’s arguments," stating his "concern that (the) employment law judges were not people who were intellectually equipped to deal with the UCU’s action against Jews in the U.K. and in Israel."[23]

I think that there is a good case for including at least a small amount of detail about the case in the MacShane article, especially since his "antisemitism" activities are mentioned. My comment was an attempt to spark a discussion about including material and to help editors by providing a link to the judgement document itself and a full quotation from the section concerning MacShane and Mann.

Levivich called my comment not only "a BLPTALK violation, but also a WP:NOTAFORUM violation." BLPTALK concerns itself with contentious BLP material on talkpages. What the tribunal judges had to say is not in dispute and why a full quotation from the judgement should be considered contentious is not clear to me. WP:NOTAFORM states that talkpages should not be used for general, forumy discussions of the topic. The purpose of my comment was not to start such a conversation.

Levivich stated: "No editor is entitled to pick a quote out of some document and post it on an article talk page." The quote is of the complete part of a judgement mentioning MacShane which was mentioned in various sources. What exactly was the problem with posting it and what else, if anything, should I have included?

Levivich stated: "ZScarpia never edited this article, and this is the only post ZScarpia made to this talk page." So why exactly is that a point worth mentioning at AE?

Levivich stated: "This is using BLP talk pages as a forum to argue." Where exactly is the argument and why would you think that was my intention?

Hippeus deleted the entire comment citing NOTAFORUM, BLPPRIMARY and BLPTALK. Hippeus should justify his reasons or else restore my comment. I've commented on the application of NOTAFORUM and BLPTALK above.

← ZScarpia 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC) (Please ask me to stop if this has continued beyond the point of tedium)Reply

--- Inf-in MD's Statement---

As mentioned on the talkpage, contrary to what Inf-in MD claims, the person being referred is dead and so it's a bit dubious that WP:BLP applies. It was being claimed that the writer in question, from a blog of whose material was being inserted in the article, is "an ideal source for her perspective regardless as to whether one is Zionist or anti-Zionist." The quote shows that anti-Zionists would probably disagree. ← ZScarpia 17:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

--- El_C ---

@El C:: "I will stop using low quality sources for BLPs would have sufficed."

Above I made an admission that I screwed up by misinterpreting what was supposed to be the reliable source providing verification for the statement about David Collier. The situation wasn't helped by a number of things. Firstly, what was displayed after clicking on the link for that source, a Jewish News webpage, changed. Secondly, the other links I provided were interpreted as having been provided as reliable sources for verification purposes, which was not actually the case. They had, in fact, been supplied to provide further information and back up the Jewish News article. I am aware of the BLP requirement for verifiability and neutrality on any page, including talkpages. In the response to Rosguill's last comment I have been working on, I was going to deal with solutions to the confusion my talkpage comments have clearly produced, such as making clear what the purpose of the links I had provided were.

I came very late to the discussion, which had grown quite bulky by the time I arrived. I'm still struggling to get to grips with it. I haven't read everything let alone absorbed it. The last couple of days were spent trying to figure out how best to go about responding and then actually write something. Probably like everybody in my position (and, overall I haven't had much practice at it), you do kind of expect people to wait to hear both sides before coming to conclusions. What pain I might have been saved if only I'd been home earlier or away longer!

← ZScarpia 21:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@El C:: "ZScarpia, doesn't feel like you're getting it. When it comes to advancing any sort of BLP assertions of note, those kind of sources are strictly prohibited (and their usage otherwise is strongly discouraged irrespectively)."

Thank you. That's clear and understandable. I'm sorry for the disruption and wasted time I caused. ← ZScarpia 00:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've now had more of a chance to fully get to grips with what was being said and to make sense of it. ← ZScarpia 12:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@El C:: I hope that striking out and substituting new text resolves any BLP problem. Please just delete the whole comment otherwise. ← ZScarpia 18:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

--- Rosguill ---

@Rosguill: Lest it look rude that I hadn't replied to your last comment, please know that I had been working on a response. One thing I'd like to mention which might help to explain some of the editing pecularities observed is that I have a personal rule not to directly edit the articles of people I don't like. ← ZScarpia 00:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Selfstudier

I'm a little confused as to how this fits into Arbpia? Is the complaint based on the material related only to the page Israel lobby in the United Kingdom? If so, what is the relevance of all the other material? It seems more like a blp complaint rather than Arbpia? Selfstudier (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification. The three diffs that you say violate Arbpia are in relation to Israel lobby in the United Kingdom, David Miller and Denis MacShane, the last does not have the Arbpia notice and the nature of the complaints re all three appears to be as blp violations rather than AI conflict related per se.

So there is a backstory. I can't see how trouble being caused by and for some irrelevant blogger has anything to do with Arbpia (Diff 1). There appear to be some content/sourcing issues + alleged blp vios but I can't see much else here, much ado about very little.Selfstudier (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

This case is special, resolved without any testimony from the defendant;)Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

"..the quality of the sources cited in talk page discussions" is an issue that I don't think anyone could reasonably disagree with although forumy stuff typically doesn't last very long on IP related talk pages. Reflecting on the initial complaint, I remain a little baffled where it has all come from to begin with, it almost reads as if Hippeus is acting for Collier ("...a blog post by David Collier from 23 September 2021 that was brought to my attention" and "...I have thoroughly vetted this particular claim by Collier") which would be a little unusual if that were the case. I guess what I am saying is that looked at in the round, I don't really think that Zscarpia has engaged in an intentionally unreasonable pattern of behavior and I wonder if this could not have been sorted out equably without involving this board.Selfstudier (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Per RSP, "There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." so the statement "group blog of poor quality and dubious reliability" would appear to be something of an exaggeration.Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Zero0000

David Collier is a blogger and activist who <redacted>. A typical article title is (admins: I revdelled this as it includes outing). Now ZScarpia quotes some sources that are "negative" (it is claimed) about Collier on a talk page. It should be observed that this case is practically a copy-paste of a portion of that article of Collier. Nearly the whole thing is there. To see the worth of this, Collier claims it is a "smear" to associate him with a twitter account "well-known for exposing antisemites" (Collier's words). Since Collier himself claims to be dedicated to exposing antisemites, exactly why is it a smear? It might be correct or incorrect, but claiming it is a smear is transparently a tendentious way to attack Zscarpia and nothing else. This case should be dismissed. Zero^talk 03:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Geshem Bracha claims "ZScarpia uses a blog post from Greenstein to defend David Irving’s credentials as a historian". Everyone can see that in fact ZScarpia is quoting verbatim from the judgement of the Irving-Lipstadt libel case, which is quite rightly considered a major indictment of Irving. ZScarpia has included all of this section of the judge's remarks as well as the negative caveat in the following section. It doesn't matter a damn where ZScarpia found the link to the trial judgement. Moreover, ZScarpia included more of the judgement than Greenstein quoted, so it is not true that ZScarpia just quoted from Greenstein. ZScarpia is perfectly entitled to choose which part of the trial judgement to quote. Altogether, this is a false charge and Geshen Bracha should withdrawn it. Zero^talk 08:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also, Geshem Bracha, the fact that Collier tells lies about me does not mean I have to shut up about him. Your "Nazis" comment is a severe and blatant violation of NPA. Zero^talk 07:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Geshem Bracha, I gave a source but I had to rev-del it as it includes outing. Admins here can look at what I rev-delled and see that my charge was eminently justified. Your "hint" that ZScarpia is a holocaust denier for quoting from a judge who concluded that Irving is a holocaust denier was simply outrageous. And the modified version of your "Nazis" attack is no better than the first version. I hope ZScarpia starts a case against you at AN/I to have you blocked. Zero^talk 08:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just to be clear, all of the diffs provided against ZScarpia are for talk pages. There is no rule against mentioning unreliable sources on talk pages. In particular, in the process of robustly assessing the reliability of sources (as we are all required to do) it is often useful to discuss sources of all kinds. Provided the unreliable sources don't get into articles, this is just normal editing. Zero^talk 09:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

More detail:
(1) "Collier tells lies about me" = without offering any evidence (because there is none), Collier falsely claims that nobody can challenge my edits because I will block them.
(2) "Insults and libels" = Collier accuses a considerable number of Wikipedia editors in good standing of being terrorism supporters and antisemites.
(3) "I revdelled this as it includes outing" = I didn't notice until after I identified the article that it includes outing; any administrator who asks me privately for a link will get one.
(4) The Irving-Lipstadt trial judgement is here. Greenstein quoted 13.7 and ZScarpia quoted 13.7 plus 13.8. The issue at hand was whether Irving has any value as a military historian, not whether he is a Holocaust denier and antisemite, and these are the pertinent sections. Incidentally, Greenstein says that Irving is "undoubtedly a neo-Nazi" so painting Greenstein as an Irving fan is simply wrong. Zero^talk 00:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Exactly why is it a BLP violation to suggest David Collier is associated with Gnasher Jew? Nobody seems to be addressing that basic point. It could be OR or a RS violation, but that doesn't belong here. By Collier's own description, the Gnasher Jew twitter account is "well-known for exposing antisemites". Collier's description of his own mission is to "expose lies and antisemitism". The two are almost the same. People are writing as if ZScarpia wrote that Collier murdered his mother, not just with being associated with a ideologically compatible activist. Zero^talk 02:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Geshen Bracha

Zero0000 and ZScarpia have a COI on Collier and shouldn’t be writing anything about him.

ZScarpia systemic use of Tony Greenstein is beyond the pale, this is a person described as a “notorious antisemite” and who was expelled from Labour for mocking the Holocaust term Final Solution.

I found ZScarpia using Greenstein in another instance: in this post from September 2020, ZScarpia uses a blog post from Greenstein to defend David Irving’s credentials as a historian. Irving is a well known Holocaust denier.

~~This is a straightforward Wikipedia:No Nazis situation,~~ an editor posting from Greenstein over and over again is not here to build an encyclopedia.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

GizzyCatBella, I did not write that. I meant that the No Nozi essay applies to ZScarpia's repeated use of the Greenstein blog. In particular, the last line of WP:BLOCKNAZIS: "editors who come here to push this fringe point of view in articles, under the guise of the neutral point of view policy, are typically blocked as POV pushers."Geshem Bracha (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Zero0000, ZScarpia linked to Greeenstein's blog post in his posting on Irving, in a manner that cherry picks sources on Irving.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Zero0000, your statement accusing Collier of trading in "insults and libels" is a serious personal attack, without sources, against Collier.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

ZScarpia posted, with a link to Greensrein's blog that has the quote, what is probably the only positive paragraph in the ruling against Irving. In the same discussion ZScarpia also introduced a Labour Against the Witchhunt video and Facebook post as sources.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Quoting beginning of ZScarpia's post: "Tony Greenstein, one of the goup responsible for organising the Campaign For Free Speech meetings, discusses them, including Norman Finkelstein's contributions, in a recent article on his blog ..." Use of Greenstein with double link to his blog is obvious. Linking to Greenstein's blog in a discussion about the "Opinion of David Irving" (section title) is perverse.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by GizzyCatBella

This is a straightforward Wikipedia:No Nazis situation..

Is Geshem Bracha accusing Zero0000 and ZScarpia of being Nazis!? Am I reading that correctly? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Shrike

The problem is not using unreliable sources on talk the problem is violation of WP:BLPTALK. We are not allowed to put negative statements without high quality WP:RS. --Shrike (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Its quite troublesome that Zscarpia don't acknowledge the problematic nature of his comments toward living person using subpar sources --Shrike (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Selfstudier: Do you really think that that Mondoweiss source meets our WP:BLP policy?--Shrike (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Nableezy: Do you think that our WP:BLP policy is garbage? Also your post contains WP:ASPERSIONS and such WP:NPA violation. Please stop you WP:BATTLE attitude there is no "adversaries" here --Shrike (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Rosguill, El C, and Deepfriedokra:Just to make it clear does Nableezy comments are acceptable? So it will be clear what kind of discourse are expected here at WP:AE. --Shrike (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I asked closure/additional input at WP:ANC --Shrike (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Rosguill: The problem that user use the same rhetoric on talk page too [24],[25]. It doesn't really matter if his accusation are true or not there is a place for such discussion I for example have my reservation too about some users but I keep it to myself. This area is already toxic such rhetoric doesn't help build Wikipedia. --Shrike (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Levivich

WP:BLPTALK says Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Here are instances where ZScarpia violated BLPTALK:

At Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom:

18 May 2020: ...David Collier, a member of the team behind the GnasherJew twitter feed [26][27][28][29][30][31], and Jonathan Hoffman [32][33], former vice-president of the Zionist Federation[34].
15 Dec 2020: David Collier, part of the GnasherJew conglomerate, is currently kicking off about Jane Jackman's eSharp article.[35][36] I do hope that Glasgow University refuses to fold and tells him where to go (back under whichever bridge he crawled out from underneath, I imagine) and what to do with himself.
- Note: ZScarpia removed the line "I do hope that..."
- An IP removed "part of the GnasherJew conglomerate" as a BLPVIO
28 Aug 2021: David Collier, who is mentioned in the article as one of the founders of Israel Coalition, writes a blog called Beyond the Great Divide (he is also suspected of being associated with the GnasherJew "crew"[37][38][39][40]).
This is Contentious material...poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, and it's repeated.

At Talk:Denis MacShane:

2 Sep 2021: The tribunal report had the following to say about the two MPs...[quote from the tribunal].
This isn't just a BLPTALK violation, but also a WP:NOTAFORUM violation. Zero writes above that ZScarpia is perfectly entitled to choose which part of the trial judgement to quote, but no, no editor is entitled to pick a quote out of some document and post it on an article talk page, especially if it's contentious and on a BLPTALK and, as BLPTALK says not related to making content choices.
This post had no relation to any content choices. Unless there are deleted edits I can't see, ZScarpia never edited this article, and this is the only post ZScarpia made to this talk page. The talk page had not been edited in over three months (June 1) prior to ZScarpia making this post. This is using BLP talk pages as a forum to argue.
The post was removed by Hippeus.

At Talk:David Miller (sociologist):

4 Sep 2021: By way of contrast to the views espoused by The Times...[link to Electronic Intifada, unreliable per WP:RSP, and a blog]
Unless there are deleted edits, ZScarpia never edited this article, and made no posts to the talk page except for this one. The last post in that thread was from three weeks' prior. Arguably, this post was related to making content choices insofar as it sought to rebut content in the mainspace article that was sourced to The Times, but in that case, ZScarpia should not be bringing unreliable sources into the discussion. It makes me nervous that someone in PIA would be rebutting The Times with Electronic Intifada and a blog.

From 2018: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive984#NOTFORUM at Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism, which is about ZScarpia violating NOTAFORUM by linking to unreliable sources in forum-y talk page posts. Two examples:

21 May 2018 was a restoration of comments ZScarpia had made in 2016 and 2017. Note it also links to Electronic Intifada and a blog.
12 July 2018: ... if the accusations made in the following blog piece turn out to be true ... is a sentence no editor should ever be typing out. I mean the last we want to be doing is linking to accusations about a living person in a blog piece.

So, this has been going on for some time now, and I think we need some assurance from ZScarpia that it won't happen again.

WP:BLPTALK also says: Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks.

Zero wrote above: David Collier is a blogger and activist who <redacted>. That was a personal attack against a BLP subject. Zero writes that Collier tells lies about me does not mean I have to shut up about him; actually, Zero does have to shut up about Collier on-wiki--Zero can write about Collier on some other website, not here. I have redacted the comment.

Zero wrote above: There is no rule against mentioning unreliable sources on talk pages. There is, it's BLPTALK, quoted above.

Zero wrote: I gave a source but I had to rev-del it as it includes outing. Admins here can look at what I rev-delled and see that my charge was eminently justified. WTF? An admin can't post outing, then revdel it, then tell fellow admins to go look at it so they can see it was justified. That's not how we submit private evidence. Levivich 19:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

We can't be using this website to trash BLP subjects, even if they trash us. It doesn't necessarily create COI, but we can't just respond in kind; we need to maintain our neutrality and objectivity, even if others don't. ~~I don't think any sanctions are required here but~~ let's all be clear about what's the right way and what's the wrong way to discuss BLP subjects on-wiki. Levivich 16:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Building an encyclopedia means summarizing reliable sources, and linking to or repeating sources that are yellow at RSP, blogs, or other unreliable sources, will not help us summarize reliable sources. What unreliable sources say is not relevant to a summary of reliable sources, and unreliable sources cannot verify anything because they are unreliable.
If you Google a person's name and they have a Wikipedia article, the article will be the first thing that comes up, or among the first. The article talk page is but one click away from that. So type a person's name into most browser search bars, and it's two clicks to the talk page. We all know this; that's why BLP policy exists. We don't want to link to unreliable sources or repeat what they say on such a prominent place as a BLP talk page, especially since it won't help us with our task of summarizing reliable sources. And it doesn't matter what the content in the unreliable sources is, it just matters that it's content from an unreliable source. Article talk pages should be the domain of only reliable sources. Levivich 01:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Rosguill: quite disheartening to hear you say within the worn bounds of civility defined by the other parties to this dispute. It should be the same bounds of civility for everyone. Particularly when the only parties to this dispute are one editor and three BLP subjects. And as a general comment, not just specific to Ros, the whole line of argument that it's ok to violate BLP if the BLP subject deserves it, or it's ok to violate WP:CIVIL if the other person deserves it... it makes me sad to read it, I think that kind of thinking falls short of how we should enforce our own policies as a community. Levivich 14:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

vocal supporters with barely a fig leaf of pretense as to what people's motives are Seriously Ros??? What are my motives? What are anyone's motives here? Christ on a cracker you just keep making it worse. Levivich 15:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Hemiauchenia

David Collier is a hyperpartisan pro-Israel blogger who has levelled numerous absurd hyperbolic accusations against Wikipedia, including that it is "At war with the Jews" [41], and is "the most active spreader of antisemitism on the planet" [42]. I don't think that any of their claims can be taken seriously. That said, BLP restrictions do apply, and I have no view on whether ZScarpia has violatem them with regards to David Collier. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Nableezy

The idea that because some living person is upset with the coverage of them on Wikipedia means that they get to disparage our editors and in so doing so veto who may discuss them is asinine. That a living person makes things up about an editor does not make it so that editor has a conflict of interest, and no Zero nor ZScarpia do not need to stop discussing said person. Yes they should use reliable sources when doing so, but somebody making bullshit claims on their blog about an editor does not make it so that this editor has a COI. That is beyond stupid and would allow any person to disqualify any editor they choose from editing their biography. The lockstep support for such an absurd report is also a bit concerning imo. nableezy - 15:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The claim on outing is likewise asinine. nableezy - 16:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The regularity in which editors on one side of a POV divide are coming here pushing such straight up garbage accusations is really more concerning than any part of this complaint. And the socks of banned users who regularly return to spare with their former adversaries. nableezy - 16:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

No Shrike, I dont believe anything I havent said. Did I say the BLP policy is garbage? Cus that question is as silly as the outing claim. As far as aspersions, no I am saying directly Inf-In-MD is a NoCal100 sock, and I am working on that SPI presently. And lol no adversaries here. You and 11Fox11 just happen to show up in support of bans of editors with a particular editing history, and in opposition of others. Silly me. nableezy - 17:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@El C:, sure, will cite diffs next time. But since you said you arent looking for them now, will just go back to working on that SPI. But I assure you, it is not a fire and forget accusation. I will be filing an SPI hopefully within the week. I think you mistook my "Jesus, that escalated quickly." That was a remark about how the sanctions on unrelated pages had escalated by ArbCom, not by you. I was surprised at the ruling that made ECP preferred for unrelated articles. That was the escalation (the clarification by ArbCom, not by you) I referred to. nableezy - 01:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

El C, I apologize for using "garbage accusations" about a user saying that it is an OUTING violation to connect somebody, not a Wikipedia editor, with a twitter account, again not a Wikipedia account. I will figure out another way of characterizing what I think fails even the most basic reading of the first sentence of WP:OUTING (where it says another editor's personal information). As far as the socking accusation, it was in reference to Inf-in MD, and I still promise that SPI is coming this week. nableezy - 14:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

El C, i said in the comment immediately following the sock comment it was directed at Inf-in MD. There wasnt any hunting necessary. The garbage comment I thought was a fairly obvious addition to the the claim on outing is likewise asinine. I apologize for using the word "garbage" since you seemed to take offense to it. But yes, I think the OUTING accusation in the section by 11Fox11 is of such low quality it qualifies. Ill try to find another wording for such a low quality attempt at banning an opponent in the future. nableezy - 15:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I will not again refer to Inf-in MD as a NoCal100 sock until an SPI is filed. nableezy - 15:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by 11Fox11

The use of Tony Greenstein's blog, whose blog posts were deemed offensive enough to result in a Labour expulsion, is not reasonable. ZScarpia has not backed down from using this blog in their comments here.

GnasherJew is an anonymous account (it was reinstated) so tying real people to the account is a form of outing, which is serious here given the amount of vitriol here directed at Jewish activists in the UK. Collier has denied being GnasherJew after ZScarpia's comments on Wikipedia.

Zero0000, Gnasher Jew and Collier probably disagree on any number of issues. Just because they both are counter-antisemitism activists does not mean they agree on all other issues. Liz Truss and Priti Patel would probably object to being mixed up even though they are both minsters from the same party. Saying somebody is somebody else is a smear. This is beyond the outing aspect. 11Fox11 (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@El C, Deepfriedokra, and Rosguill: GnasherJew is anonymous (sources above), is not tying identified real life persons to it a form of Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information (outing)? Can Wikipedia be used for outing of anonymous accounts on other platforms (in this case Twitter)? 11Fox11 (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Inf-in MD

Despite claiming he understands what he did wrong, I don't think ZScarpia actually does. Immediately after assuring us he's had time to reflect on this, he posted the following diaprging comments about a living person here. There's no link given, but it can easily be verified that this comes from Mondonoweiss, another group blog of poor quality and dubious reliability. [43] . User:Deepfriedokra recommendation of a BLP-ban seems reasonable. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Comment by GoodDay

FWIW, I wish the lad would remove the arrow pointing left from his signature. Kinda distracting. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ZScarpia

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

Am I the only one finding this complaint really challenging to parse? And I probably know a lot more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the average patrolling AE admin. First, who is David Collier? Not David Collier (political scientist) I gathered. So, @mishtal on Twatter and david-collier.com — okay. Personally, I've never had a Twatter or Fakebook account, and whereas Fakebook has always limited my browsing, as of like a month ago, Twatter is doing the same thing, too. Then there's the OP statements about how David Collier "is also suspected of being associated with the GnasherJew "crew" (bold is my emphasis) ←btw, who is being quoted? But this seems more than a mere "association" seeing as the SocialistVoice (non-RS) tweet cited says: Far-right extremist David Collier, who also tweets as Gnasher Jew, says ‘wherever the Palestinian flag flies antisemitism is present’. Yikes to that last part. Yet, contrasting with their (SV, I think): Jewish companies and Jewish blood — double yikes, with extra irony icing on top.

Anyway, anyone, like yours truly, not intimately familiar with the UK Labour party's anti-semitic -related (expressly so) expulsions and background, is going to be left scratching their heads here, I suspect. I get the sense that quite a bit of research is needed to figure out what's what. Because there's also David Irving, somehow, and a quote that may or may not belong to a judge (?). So confusing. I was gonna look at the revdel'd link, but it's been suppressed, so that's a secret now. I don't think ZScarpia's quoting of Ilan Pappé's Fakebook post where he describes of David Collier as a Zionist troll is a BLP violation on a talk page, but again, I, myself, am not in the position to verify that post, since Fakebook demands login (suck it, Fakebook!). Finally, the "worst for last" component RE: Tony Greenstein (whom I've never heard of before), seems... more than a bit disconcerting. Maybe I'm missing some key context there, though...? (Possible.)

ZScarpia, I will say this, however: while obviously we give a lot more leeway on talk pages wrt BLP, I don't understand why you're (seemingly) relying on unreliable blog sources and so on to such an extent. Aren't there reliable sources you're able to cite, instead? Possibly, though, the other camp is also using subpar sources in the same way and this simply hasn't been documented here yet. Who can tell. Regardless, myself, I've never been a fan of citing non-RS to get to the RS. It'd be best to just RS-it to begin with. Otherwise, I guess we'll see if another admin has an easier time decoding this request, as I'm still pretty stumped. P.S. Israel lobby in the United Kingdom wasn't on my watchlist, which does surprise me. El_C 17:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Hippeus: well, I'm definitely not liking seeing the often-shady Fakebook, Twatter and blogosphere ARBPIA WP:BATTLEGROUND'ing becoming pervasive on Wikipedia's ARBPIA topic area, be it on talk pages or anywhere else. I'd much prefer to get any and all of that filtered through RS. The less of these -spheres featured on the project directly, the better, as far as I'm concerned. El_C 18:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Hemiauchenia: I'm at war with myself. But I'm winning/losing, so inner peace achievement unlocked! El_C 00:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Rosguill — making it look easy, what else is new? El_C 02:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

New AE prez is also humble? Sickening. El_C 10:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Deepfriedokra. I'd have been fine with a warning, but ZScarpia's response is just too subpar, in its WP:NOTTHEM and WP:IDHT. I will stop using low quality sources for BLPs would have sufficed (and would been mercifully brief, to boot). ZScarpia's failure to communicate such a commitment on their part, frankly, surprises me. El_C 20:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

ZScarpia, doesn't feel like you're getting it. When it comes to advancing any sort of BLP assertions of note, those kind of sources are strictly prohibited (and their usage otherwise is strongly discouraged irrespectively). If that's a concept you're struggling with, which seems to be the case, a blanket BLP ban, as proposed by Deepfriedokra, seems like the logical next step (I'm sorry to say). El_C 22:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

ZScarpia, the convention actually would be to deem her a recently deceased person (died this year), thus, still covered by WP:BLP. El_C 17:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Nableezy: not that long ago, among other things, you provided assurances that you'd be moderating your tone a lot better, as a condition of continuing to edit the topic area. You did so facing imminent sanctions, which, I, as the admin who closed that AN/I thread, opted to forgo (unlike with your opponent), because of those assurances. A decision which I faced criticism for. So I'm letting you know that, to me, it looks like you're slipping back into those old unconstructive patterns. I doubt the community, or a quorum of uninvolved admins here at AE, or ArbCom itself, would be inclined to give you another pass if this becomes a thing again.

When you say something like: The regularity in which editors on one side of a POV divide are coming here pushing such straight up garbage accusations is really more concerning than any part of this complaint. And the socks of banned users who regularly return to spare with their former adversaries, and you do so as a fire-and-forget accusation. That's a problem. Not backing that up with evidence (which I'm not asking for at this very moment), that's a problem. If there's something in particular you wish admins to look into, be specific and cite diffs. Yes, there's partisanship in this and other contentious topic areas, but just adding more hostility to the conversation, that doesn't help anyone, yourself included. Good talk? Good talk. El_C 10:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

BTW, the "Good talk" is in reference to this Sept 22 discussion on my talk page. Which from my perspective as an admin active in ACDS, reveals a seeming impossibility to please. If I were brief, the chances that Nableezy would have been displeased about a lack of substance was high. Instead, I was substantive, but that brought a Well Jesus that clarification escalated things dramatically. So what do you do? Can't really avoid or evade this rock, hard place, between. I don't want to belabour this... chastisement, but I'd like to stress my own displeasure with what I'm seeing recently. Hopefully, it's something that may yet be corrected, but the number of corrections that'll be extended isn't infinite, is I suppose the bottom line. El_C 12:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Chalking it up to a misunderstanding, then, Nableezy. Not sure how I was to infer that, seeing as WP:ARBPIA4 wasn't an ARCA, but sure, struck. But, Rosguill, I don't understand why you think that sort of vague there's lots of socks, garbage, etc. (i.e. who? context to here?) is in-line with the civility expected for this topic area, but I very much disagree with you that this ought to be the discourse expected. Doesn't help anyone, and it certainly doesn't help for admins to give it a pass due to... reasons. It's doing the topic area a disservice.

No objection to logging a warning to ZScarpia, now that they finally (finally, Swarm, is the point) provided assurances against repeated (is the point2) use of subpar sources for BLPs (and now also acknowledging that recently-deceased persons are also covered by the BLP policy). So I'm okay with closing this complaint thusly. El_C 10:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Rosguill, I don't want to belabour this too much, but I read and re-read your "serious irony" point, and it's just not connecting for me. How does it help to express that about regulars of the other side ("garbage"), just declaratively and that's it (i.e. no substance)? How does it help to follow that up about "banned socks," etc., again, with zero substance (i.e. who/when?). To me, it's coming across as making the discussion feel negative with no benefits attached (i.e. inactionable, negativity for no discernable reason). Which hinders collaboration among good faith contributors on both sides of the POV divide. El_C 11:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Rosguill, again, I was criticized for TBAN'ing Nableezy's opponent but not themselves, even though consensus at AN could have gone either way. So, no, I don't want to see that kind of rhetoric coming from them, specifically. (It's unhelpful, in general.) I want ARBPIA to be spared that kind of tone and tenor as much as humanly possible, certainly from those given an imminent warning about this already. (See my log entries dated 19 March 2021.)

I gotta stay true to my commitment as the closer of that thread, if Nableezy doesn't stay true to theirs. So this is me warning them about keeping to that. And it doesn't really help when you approach this in relative isolation when I already mentioned the broader context here. El_C 15:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Nableezy: I'm not impressed with your "apology," because it qualifies for forever. Nor do I like playing guesswork or coaxing from you what you meant by "garbage" or who you were referring to as "banned socks." You promised (very adamantly, as I recall) to moderate your tone and I'm letting you know that you are falling short. Not sure what else there is to say. El_C 15:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Nableezy: maybe enough with these "apologies." I apologize for using the word "garbage" since you seemed to take offense to it. That rings hallow to me. I don't need you to apologize to me. I'm not offended. But I do need you to tone it down with the acerbic barbs. As for 11Fox11, I've already warned them in the complaint directly below this one (WP:AE#Selfstudier). Anyway, maybe try to genuinely reflect on what I'm conveying to you. That's what I want. El_C 15:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Unless there are objections, I'll be closing this complaint in a day or so with a logged warning to ZScarpia about subpar sources and BLP (logged at ARBPIA, however), and a caution to Nableezy about keeping to their promise (i.e. tone police thyself, please, no one likes it doing it). El_C 12:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@El C: Couldn't make heads or tails of it. Seemed to contradict itself. I will say 1) BLP content must be impeccably sourced. 2) Once challenged and removed, such content should not be added back without a consensus to do so. 3) We must not add negative BLP to a talk page while discussing it. You can use a dif to indicate what the challenged content is and discuss sourcing from there. I think BLP would be a more appropriate DS area to address these concerns. Much closer than this area. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Warn only and ask ZScarpia to become better acquainted with BLP. See my comment above. "I'm not sure I see the need for anything beyond warning about citing poor sources en masse in talk page discussion" .-- , echoinging Rosguill below. Well anywhere. To quote Levivich, "We can't be using this website to trash BLP subjects, even if they trash us. It doesn't necessarily create COI, but we can't just respond in kind; we need to maintain our neutrality and objectivity, even if others don't. I don't think any sanctions are required here but let's all be clear about what's the right way and what's the wrong way to discuss BLP subjects on-wiki." Special thanks to @Levivich: for making this intelligible and wrecking my Wikibreak. A gasp of surprise for @Zero0000:, who has been an admin since before I joined this project, and a suggestion they become better acquainted with BLP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@ZScarpia: It's really quite simple. Please stop editing about living people with poor quality sources. Please do not argue your way into more than a warning. More than a warning can be a topic ban of one sort or another, blocking from editing certain pages, or a block to prevent you from editing at all. I for one take WP:BLP violations very seriously. You have now been warned. Please heed the warning. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am now convinced that a topic ban on all WP:BLP's, in articles, talk pages, discussion boards, or anywhere else, broadly construed, is in order. ZScarpia has convinced me that they will not abide by the same rules as the rest of us are bound to in this regard. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Levivich: Bravo! Bravissimo! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

RE: Nableezy's "discourse". I would be perfectly happy to impose a TBAN on Nableezy. They know better. A block as a regular admin action would not be unreasonable. OK, a short block. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looking over the specific cases identified by Levivich, only the comments at Talk:Denis MacShane seem to truly be unrelated to content decisions. The other posts are a mix of proffering examples of pro-Israel activists being active in UK at Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom, and arguing for a semi-plausible (but not RS-backed) OR theory regarding David Collier's activities as they related to the discrediting of sources that were then being challenged on Wikipedia in the discussions where ZScarpia made the comments. Now, the over reliance on primary and otherwise unreliable sources is concerning, but am I correct in assessing that this only amounts to disruption insofar as off-Wikipedia commentators have complained about it being a smear campaign? And that the extent of the smear campaign is to state that Collier, a pro-Israel activist, did some pro-Israel activism and associated with other activists with similar goals? I'm not sure I see the need for anything beyond warning about citing poor sources en masse in talk page discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
El_C, it helps that I followed the Labour antisemitism debacle from afar, although now that I'm seeing it more up close I'm not regretting the former distance. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@ZScarpia:, regarding the comment at Talk:Denis MacShane, now having read your reasoning it makes more sense, but in isolation its relevance to the article's content was not clear. At this point I think we're departing from policies and guidelines and instead assessing unwritten customs and norms but trying to spark conversations on talk pages as a precursor to content changes is not a typical editing process on Wikipedia, so I don't think that it's surprising that editors are asserting that it is a violation of NOTFORUM (although leaving links to potentially useful but dense, paywalled or otherwise inaccessible texts for others to use is still a good practice in my book). I'll echo Deepfriedokra and note that at this point the main unresolved issue that I would hope to see you speak to is the quality of the sources cited in talk page discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Just noting that I'm still in favor of closing this with a warning. ZScarpia could have been quicker and less pro forma with their response re source quality, but given that they have now acknowledged that issue, and that the merits of opening this case in the first place were dubious (per my first comment), I think that anything more severe than a warning is unnecessary. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
As far as Nableezy's comment is concerned, a baseline assumption that socks abound for a topic like I/P isn't unreasonable: it is a topic that draws committed people who are not going to give up just because we show them the door once. Their comments in this discussion are well within the worn bounds of civility defined by the other parties to this dispute, and raking them over the coals for a technicality that occurred while they were making a complaint that pro-Palestine editors were being repeatedly grilled on trivial grounds is some serious irony. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
El C, Levivich I agree that salty rhetoric doesn't help anyone, I guess I just see it as more inevitable/understandable and don't think it merits belaboring this case. I read Nableezy's first comments as more of a general expression of frustration with the climate around I/P disputes on Wikipedia rather than targeted personal attacks, and in the context of a report whose original merits are dubious but which nonetheless has drawn out a retinue of vocal supporters with barely a fig leaf of pretense as to what people's motives are, I kinda get it. @Levivich, as far as everyone being treated the same is concerned, I was trying to express that right now I think we have rough parity of poor behavior (rough because it's a bit apples and oranges to compare the various kinds of behavior on display here), and that these standards are collectively and continuously set by people's actions. If this were happening on an article talk page I think that a more heavy handed response would be needed in order to get people back to editing constructively, but since the context for this is a report at AE, I think it's more productive to close the case, tell everyone to get back to work and remove the occasion for conflict. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
So if I'm boiling this down correctly, ZScarpia made a dubious accusation about a living person, and said living person saw it and claimed they were being "smeared". Per what is articulated above, the living person in question is biased against Wikipedia to a fairly extreme degree, believing the site is systemically antisemitic, and the "smear" in question is not actually insulting or negative to begin with. It's mostly a technicality about how the claim wasn't reliably sourced, which Scarpia concedes and says was a failure on his part. I don't see where ZScarpia's being so unreasonable, and I'm not sure what DFO is so worked up about. Maybe I'm missing something. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dabaqabad

Latest comment: 3 years ago28 comments7 people in discussion

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 Dabaqabad

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Apaugasma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#Horn of Africa (part of ARBHORN)

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

24 August 2021 Reverting without explaining at the talk page (reinstating unreliably sourced content)
10 September 2021 Reverting without explaining at the talk page
28 September 2021 Reverting without explaining at the talk page (reinstating unreliably sourced content)
10 October 2021 Reverting without explaining at the talk page (reinstating unreliably sourced content)
10 October 2021 Reverting without explaining at the talk page (removing sourced content)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

25 January 2021 Dabaqabad blocked for 48 hours (disruptive editing in ARBHORN area)
4 March 2021 ARBHORN DS editing restriction imposed
24 August 2021 Dabaqabad blocked for 1 week (violating ARBHORN DS restriction)

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After having been blocked on 25 January 2021 for disruptive editing in the ARBHORN area, Dabaqabad was placed under a special editing restriction by El C on 4 March 2021, reading you are to always follow a revert with an article talk page comment explaining it in any and all WP:ARBHORN topic area pages or edits (whatsoever). They were warned on 23 March 2021 for violating the restriction. On 16 August 2021, they got into an edit war in an ARBHORN-related article (obviously including reversion without engaging on the talk page). On 24 August 2021, I inquired on El C's talk page whether the editing restriction was still active, pointing out repeated violations [44] [45] [46] [47] [48], which lead El C to block Dabaqabad for one week.

Their very first edit after getting unblocked was already a violation of the restriction [49]. Like most of Dabaqabad's reverts that stay unexplained at the talk page, this was reverting vandalism/a test edit, so at the time I decided to just leave it be. However, looking at their last 100 edits, it becomes clear that Dabaqabad is violating the editing restriction imposed on them almost casually. It's also not always obvious vandalism, e.g. [50] [51] [52] [53]. However, it becomes really egregious at the point where they are reverting the addition of reliably sourced content [54] (perhaps undue, but per their restriction they should explain this at the talk), and especially when reverting the removal of unreliably sourced (mis)information [55] [56].

Dabaqabad has little understanding of what constitutes a reliable source (for a long read, see here), and combined with the uncommunicative attitude and the clear disregard for an existing editing restriction, I believe there is enough evidence that they are not compatible with the project of building an encyclopedia.

Since ScottishFinnishRadish mentioned it: I too was confused about this at first, but yes, the ARBHORN discretionary sanctions were extended after their initial trial period (see here).

Let me also note that restoring my revision here (as an 'alternative' to directly reverting the other user; the gaming here itself betrays that there's no lack of awareness) was indeed restoring misinformation (which I then removed 2 edits later): I don't mean to imply that it was necessarily in bad faith (misinformation is regardless of an intention to deceive), just that this should not happen. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@El C: common sense was precisely what I tried to rely on when determining that Dabaqabad's many violations of their restriction were as a rule reverting vandalism. The fact that I come here now is not a 'gotcha' attempt, it's just that undoing the removal of badly sourced information really is a problem. The King Saud University source used here is an unedited manuscript of the Futūḥ al-Ḥabasha ('The Conquest of Abyssinia'), written in 1534 and the main primary source used by scholars for the Ethiopian–Adal war. This is a wholly inappropriate source for Wikipedia editors to base interpretative and evaluative statements on.

I happen to be able to read that manuscript, and it doesn't call the Habr Magaadle clan leader Aḥmad Guray ibn Ḥusayn al-Ṣūmālī the "right-hand man" of Imam Ahmad: rather, the Habr Magaadle are only one in a whole series of Somali clans that are named there (pp. 14/17-15/18), and their leader only one in a whole series of clan leaders who joined their forces with the Imam. I'll admit I was wrong here in suspecting that the Aḥmad Guray ibn Ḥusayn mentioned was a fabrication, though the two Aḥmads (the clan leader and the Imam) have been conflated in later times (see here). Anyway, that's why we have to rely on secondary, scholarly sources.

Dabaqabad has frustrated an earlier attempt by me to remove unreliably sourced information like this [57], and frankly the Ishaaq bin Ahmed article is still full of misinformation because of it. This has got nothing to do with assuming bad faith or 'getting' at other editors: I just really believe that it would be a huge improvement to Wikipedia if we would ban users from editing articles of which they clearly have no understanding on how to reliably source it. We're too focused generally on dramatic conflicts (blocking or banning users only when they cross some drama-line), and not enough on simply and dryly determining who is capable of writing an encyclopedia and who is not. Your custom sanction was certainly inventive, but I think it missed the main point in that someone who bases their edits on personal preconceptions rather than on what reliable sources happen to say, just ought not to edit at all. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I know I'm over my word limit here, but let me make this short clarifying statement: I just think that the smiley with the Christmas hat

is really funny, and the most disarming among the available smileys. Erm, what I meant to say: what Dabaqabad is claiming below is basically that, because Somali Islamic hagiographies are being studied by respected scholars such as Alessandro Gori, we should be able to base WP articles on these hagiographies and present their contents as historical facts. It's a bit like arguing that because the Bible is extensively studied by respected scholars, we should be able to base WP articles on the Bible and present the contents of the Bible as fact. I very much respect Dabaqabad's energy and drive, but it's wholly directed at making WP present as facts what are essentially religio-nationalistic myths. It's such a pity that, because of the obscurity of the topic area, this is not more readily recognized. It's a classic case for a TBAN, really, but what is perhaps lacking is more editors who are familiar enough with the subject to see this. Thanks for trying to deal with this difficult issue anyway, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Wadamarow: that's interesting. Dabaqabad also misrepresented the same source you mention in another article [58] (cf. my correction). I weirdly assumed that one to be a good faith error, but the diff you brought up clearly shows they are really intent on puffing up the Isaaq clan numbers and misrepresenting their proportion in relation to other clans (according to the source, the Gadabuursi actually outnumber the Isaaq). I think we should be done here now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The problem on the Djibouti page was caused earlier by Dabaqabad here (putting the info on its head without any source). I think it speaks volumes that after we pointed it out on this page, Dabaqabad did nothing to fix that problem. I did it in their stead. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[59]

Discussion concerning Dabaqabad

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 ScottishFinnishRadish

I think these sanctions expired back in March. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well would you look at that. I've been under the assumption for some time now that they were expired. Thanks for the info. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Dabaqabad

Hello @Apaugasma:,

Most of these edits that I reverted were made by IP users or were unsourced, which I assumed would not warrant going to the talk page. I'm not on Wikipedia as often as I used to and am prone to forgetting the arbitration ruling sometimes (which is not acceptable at all), for which I am deeply sorry and will make sure to follow it as strictly as possible.

As for [60], I had explained earlier to him in [61] that the source he used, which was written in 1975 on behalf of the Ministry of Education of Somalia, at a time where Somalia was ruled by a clan-based military dictatorship, was not a valid source since the source twists the official narrative and contradicts many sources, including the very sources it cites. More on that there. On [62] I had reverted an edit that was clearly used out of context and which the source did not explicitly mention or back up. Again, I should have followed up with a message on the talk page. On [63] I had ironically restored your edit, and the source itself could be considered a primary source at worst (I did not originally add it in so I have no idea).

I'd also like to call on you to assume good faith as expected on Wikipedia. You calling my edits "misinformation" is not. I am here solely for the project of building an encyclopedia and improving Somali-related articles which have seen a lack of editors and therefore valuable information that many people can research and use (and which I have contributed to a lot). I have put a lot of time and effort into trying my best to improve a wide array of articles and if I make mistakes (which I inevitably do) then point it out for me so I can rectify them as soon as possible. Another thing I'd like to note is that all my sources I use are to the best of my knowledge reliable and might be misinterpreted as unreliable due to the foreign languages in which they are written in.

Many thanks, Dabaqabad (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Apaugasma: For the Ahmed Gurey reference, again that is not my text nor did I actually use that reference so I do not see why I should be under scrutiny for that. It's funny that you mentioned [64] since you had removed a lot of reliable sources and probably a third of the Ishaaq bin Ahmed page without reaching out first, claiming the sources cited were unreliable ([65], [66], [67])

I broke down each source one by one and explained where they came from and how they are reliable as can be seen on [68] however you rejected all of them in favour of IM Lewis, who (while being an expert in the wider Somali history genre) is not an expert at Somali genealogy and Islamic literary in the Horn of Africa and has had orientalist tendencies which we both agreed on per [69]. You flat out rejected all of these sources on the basis that IM Lewis had mentioned that certain recent hagiologies were myths (despite the fact that some of them were written decades before IM Lewis became active).

I tried to compromise with you (by proposing we include wording like "attributed" and "attested") but you rejected that as well with no basis whatsoever. This is despite the fact that many of the sources that were cited were either secondary sources by themselves (some are even published by Umm al-Qura University in Makkah, Saudi Arabia as well as in other universities) or referenced by credible scholars like Alessandro Gori in his book 'Studi sulla letteratura hagiografica islamica somala in lingua araba' (Studies on the Arabic Islamic Hagiographic literature in Somalia) [70]. The book also confirms most of, if not all the content that I had put in (including Sheikh Ishaaq's lineage [71], the origin of Ghurbani, the author of a manuscript that I cited as well as his credibility and independence [72] etc.)

Mind you, Alessandro Gori is an associate professor of the Arabic Language and Literature, his main field being the Islamic literary production of the Horn of Africa (especially Ethiopia and Somalia/Somaliland). That is literally his job, to document the manuscript tradition in the Muslim communities in north-eastern Africa (especially Ethiopia and Somalia/Somaliland). Since he can be identified as the foremost expert, he therefore takes precedence over IM Lewis, who is not an expert in that specific field as I mentioned earlier. Alessandro Gato has therefore also established that the sources that I had referenced in the Ishaaq bin Ahmed page have due weight. I can give you more detail on that later in the talk page.

Changing an entire page to suit the POV of one scholar and ignoring other sources on the basis that they are "primary" sources or are discredited by said scholar is something that I doubt is acceptable on Wikipedia. "Monopolizing" pages prevents useful and reliable information from being added on to the page which hinders Wikipedians from their goal; creating an encyclopedia. Then is the fact that like El_C mentioned, it feels like it's a "gotcha" moment (not accusing you or anything but just saying). I frankly don't see how this report has been done in good-faith in all honesty, and the fact that you claim that I base my edits on personal preconceptions rather than on what reliable sources say just slightly short of confirms that for me. My violations of the sanctions and the issue with sources (which is by itself nothing more than a mere disagreement between two users and not a rule violation) that you had brought forth are unrelated and cannot be tied together.

As for @El C:, I'm wondering: does the sanctions include IPs and non-established users (those who only have a few edits to their name)? It is a bit confusing to be frank.

Many thanks, Dabaqabad (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@El C: I assure everyone in here that, upon given a final last chance, and now that I have properly read up on the sanction that was imposed on me, that I'll 100% stick to it and declare all reverts that I do in the talk page and ping the editors whose edits I have reverted. I very much regret the previous sanction violations that I have committed and can assure everyone on here that they will not be repeated at all. I fully understand the rules and regulations of Wikipedia and I will make as much effort as I can to fully follow them. The few issues that I have regrettably caused aside, I have contributed a lot to Somali articles (including writing several well-sourced pages like the Somaliland War of Independence, 1922 Burao Tax Revolt not to mention towns and districts) and would more than love to contribute even more.

As for @Freetrashbox:, let me explain my reverts now;

1. For [73], the source itself never mentioned the fact that the Musa Arreh inhabited the town or that it is one of their home wells (home wells = inhabiting in this context). It is a well known fact that the Musa Arreh don't reside in the Sool region, in fact, the only subclan of the Habr Yunis that do reside there are the Sa'ad Yunis. Since Somalis are nomadic clans tend to venture far into other clans' home wells and territories to graze during the drought season, which explains the part you mentioned. The Musa Arreh primarily reside in the Togdheer and Sanaag regions as well as the Somali Region in Ethiopia (specifically the Gashamo woreda).

2. For [74] the BBC article mentions clashes between two clans in Adhi'adeye. While in the Somali context the clans are pretty obvious, in Wikipedia's context that is not the case and upon further inspection I could not find the clans mentioned there. I will be doing more research on that topic however and will be adding a credible reference to that.

3. As for [75] the fact that Abdirashid Duale is of the Sanbur clan is well-known among Somalis. I was looking for a credible source to confirm that fact however I forgot to reference it on that page. Will be doing more research and will add a credible reference to that as well.

As for @RegentsPark:, understood.

@Apaugasma: Funnily enough I actually thanked you on the correction you made on Djibouti, which would not have been the case had there been an intentional "puffing up" that you mentioned. The Isaaq figure was the only one that actually had a percentage mentioned, and I assumed they would be the second largest Somali clan however they are the fourth, per closer inspection. I'd like for you, however, to address the points I made regarding the Ishaaq bin Ahmed page.

As for @Wadamarow:,

1. The first two edits have already been explained per my reply to Apaugasma

2. Per [76], I had actually explained to you the fact that the Habr Awal did have a presence in eastern Awdal. Instead of refuting that claim properly you essentially "threatened" (how I perceived it) to add "Samaroon presence in Gabiley" by saying "So in the interest of fairness, if you wish to add your source here, I will reciprocate and add it in Wajaale and Gabiley pages, which I'm sure you won't have an issue with. Rest assured, I have numerous sources for Gabiley and Wajaale, so I wont have a problem adding them all. I look forward to your response." (which goes against a long-standing consensus made after a length discussion [77]) in some sort of tit-for-tat game, while also saying "[...]I won't have to rely on your source, I have my own". That link also proves that I reached out to you as well. I also removed the excessive amount of blockquotes in accordance with WP:QUOTEFARM.

3. As for [78], I was under the impression that the Isaaq-majority town of Tog Wajaale fell under the Awbarre woreda (and which you also claimed it did up until 4 years ago), but upon closer inspection again we both came to a mutual understanding. You then once again "threatened" to add the "Samaroon" presence in Wajaale ("I could easily edit your Wajaale part and include Samaroon and I have plenty of sources to back up my claims, however since I do not wish to enter an edit war I have thus far not done so. If you insist on including Habar Awal in Awbarre, then I will insist on the same for Wajaale.") based on a source that only mentioned a land dispute. All of this while failing to assume good-faith by accusing me of "tampering".

I don't get how you are bringing up past events that I got warned for and which were resolved time ago, it seems to me that this is some sort of "gotcha" moment. You're beating a dead horse. Dabaqabad (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Wadamarow: These accusations of partisan editing is unfounded. None of my edits that I have done so far breach any rules and do not contain any reverting (which I have strictly avoided since arbitration began and which therefore do not necessitate mentioning them in the talk pages). I HAD actually added sources. It is funny to me how your position has changed from that of me "not adding enough sources" to now me not adding sources at all. This, along with what I mentioned before, proves to me that you're not doing this out of good-faith but rather to get rid of an editor whom you disagree with. Dabaqabad (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Apaugasma: I'm not saying that the Ishaaq bin Ahmed page should be based upon only one source, nor did I ever imply that, but rather that the massive amount of information and reliable sources that you removed is not justifiable, especially now that I proved to you that they are backed by and sourced by a respectable scholar. While I do not believe in this notion that the Isaaqs are anything but Cushites, we do need to put in reliable information from reliable sources, especially in fields that are lacking. You're comparing apples with oranges when it comes to the comparison with the Bible, funnily enough there are actually many pages that are based on the Bible and other religious scripts (while of course containing other sources). That alone negates your point. Not to mention the fact that many pages are also based on hagiographies and other Arabic primary and secondary sources as well. The irony in all of this is the fact that you yourself was basing almost the entire article on the words of IM Lewis.

As for what you consider "religio-nationalist myths", that is how you personally see it. You cannot base your edits on your own personal opinions, your personal opinions should not affect your editing at all nor should they reflect them. If you want to, we can discuss a fair compromise for the article. I do prefer the wording used in the Ababda people article, where the article acknowledges both sides of the argument. That at least is much better than the article using wording like "probably legendary" and essentially claiming that the article is fake. Dabaqabad (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Apaugasma:. I assumed that it was already fixed given the fact that it was brought forth in the talk page. I will be fixing the edits that @Freetrashbox: addressed now. Dabaqabad (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Update: I removed the content I added on Abdirashid Duale after I failed to find a source to back it up [79], I'll be looking into that further as well. I'll also be looking into Dayaha as well. I saw that your edits on Adhi'adeye as well. @Freetrashbox: Dabaqabad (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Freetrashbox:,

I just added a few more sources that mention all five districts (see here). I hope that should be enough to confirm their existence. Dabaqabad (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Freetrashbox

Moved from the section above. El_C 12:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am glad that you [Dabaqabad] welcome pointers to your edits. I've asked a few questions about sources on your talk page in the past [80][81][82], but you don't seem to have noticed yet. I am waiting for the answers.--Freetrashbox (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

You should attach sources to all of your unsourced statements, including the three above. And all your statements against WP:BLP should be revoked immediately. These are also true in general, and since you often undo other people's edits on the grounds that they are "unsourced," you should adhere to them especially closely.--Freetrashbox (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Dabaqabad: I have checked your edit mentioned at 16:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC). Thank you. However, it is still not enough. For example, in your recent edit on Sanaag, you reverted an IP user's edit as "vandalism". However, the source you indicated mentions Garadag, but not El Afweyn. When comparing the edits of you and the IP user, the third party editor will not be able to judge which one is correct. I am not saying that your description is wrong. IP users are objecting to your edits. In such cases, it is always a good idea to indicate the source of the information to prevent conflicts. And avoid extreme words such as "vandalism" as much as possible.--Freetrashbox (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Dabaqabad: Thanks for the correction. But it is not the only place where sources of information are lacking. What I've shown is just a random extract from your recent edits.--Freetrashbox (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Wadamarow

Hi I would like to point out some previous violations committed by Dabaqabad.

1. In the most recent violations on the Djibouti pages which can be found here [[83]] and here [[84]]. Dabaqabad added a source to mask an edit that is not reflected in the actual source. The source which can be found here [[85]] does not state what is shown in the edit, this is tantamount to tampering with sources and in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Dabaqabad also made this edit without mentioning it on the Talk page.

2. In the Awdal Region page which can be found here [[86]], Dabaqabad also committed similar violations where he relentlessly made edits which weren't reflected in the sources and only stopped tampering when he was warned by another admin. He also deleted sourced edits by other users.

3. In another instance on the Somali Region page he also tried to make edits without the correct use of a reference and attempted to remove sourced edits. [[87]]

This repeated pattern of behavior, where Dabaqabad does not follow the Wiki guidelines has unfortunately reduced the accuracy of some of the content on these pages. I have refrained from editing the Djibouti page so as to not get into an edit war with him. However, in light of these repeated violations a topic ban would be in the best interests of all concerned editors on the HOA Region.

Regards Wadamarow (talk)

@Apaugasma: This isn't the first time it's happened either, on the Awdal page here [[88]] he removed sourced edits without reason and manipulated sources just as he did on the Djibouti pages. He also did the same on the Somali Region page here [[89]] this is despite being asked on the talk page to make sure he adds sources before editing.

Wadamarow (talk)

Result concerning Dabaqabad

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

Apaugasma, while I'm not liking parts of this complaint —what makes that King Saud University source unreliable? Almost seems like a gotcha attempt there— it is nonetheless disappointing to learn that Dabaqabad somehow forgot (forgot?) about their ARBHORN sanction, when all they seem to edit are ARBHORN pages. I'm finding that a bit difficult to reconcile, tbh.

As I mentioned on past occasions, this sanction was intended as a boon in lieu of a topic ban from all ARBHORN pages outright. Perhaps it ought to have been tightened to only include named accounts (that Dabaqabad could ping to a talk page) but exempting IPs unless their edits or explanations thereof are especially substantive. But I don't know how practical that would have been to enforce, what metric one would use to determine that, etc. Ideally, I'd like to count on common sense [That's it, that's the end of the sentence] Miss information, she be fierce!

Erm, sorry. Where was I? Right, the custom sanction. Likely, it was a mistake, structurally, as they often prove to be. Certainly, it seems like it was a mistake in the sense that Dabaqabad couldn't remember that it existed. Anyway, I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed, because I'm sort of drawing a blank atm (though it is late). El_C 03:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

RE: {{p|holidays}} — look, Apaugasma, I'm okay with putting up the Christmas lights in November (late November), but on Sept 1? Come on, give Santa a chance to rest. Double erm. Yeah, I'm not sure how one here at en is expected to infer that from the source or your previous explanations concerning it (possibly I missed it), whose Arabic text Googly does not offer to translate.

But beyond that, I'm having serious difficulties even remembering much of the context of the March 2021 events so as to tell what's what (or what was what then). I still might be open to a sanction that would allow Dabaqabad to continue editing ARBHORN pages in some limited capacity, as an alternative to a blanket (WP:BROADLY) ARBHORN WP:TBAN. But what that sanction might look like, I have no idea. If it even makes sense to not TBAN right now in light of Dabaqabad multiple failings to adhere to the sanction. El_C 12:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dabaqabad, I think it's bit late in the day to express confusion about a sanction which you just plain forgot existed, anyway. And before then, got blocked for violating. You've had so many months to seek clarifications. Not sure you realize this, but at this point, the likelihood that the current sanction will just be converted into a full ARBHORN topic ban is high.

So it's probably best to deal with the underlying problems: sourcing issues, unexplained reverts (still), and assuring us that you'd even remember the existence of a sanction which covers the only topic area you edit. Again, that especially, inspires little confidence you could be relied upon to stick to the plan (whatever it might be and however it is defined as). El_C 13:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

RegentsPark, right, I was thinking of blocking for a few weeks. Myself, though, I'd like to also get the long term sorted in this request. El_C 14:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Given how confusing all this is, the simplest solution is a block (whatever the appropriate escalation amount is) for clearly violating the restriction. @Dabaqabad: restrictions apply to all edits, whether they be IPs, new editors, or established editors. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@El C: Whatever you think appropriate works. On the face of it, the violations are few in number but, looking over their edits, it is clear that the Horn of Africa is their only interest. A topic ban might clarify things. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Comment by Deepfriedokra Thanks, El C for everything you bring to this discussion (well, all discussions) and for sorting the sortliness of this mess. @Dabaqabad: two things stand out. First and foremost-- this is an encyclopedia and the Horn of Africa is a "sticky wicket." As important as sourcing is in an encyclopedia, it's even more important in as contentious (in real life and on Wikipedia) an area as this one. Almost equally important anywhere, but particularly in this area, is the need to communicate clearly via edit summaries and talk pages. Lack of communication equates to miscommunication equates to someone getting the (maybe) wrong idea about what you are doing. And so here we are here now. I propose a six month TBAN of the subject area during which Dabaqabad can improve their skills at sourcing and communication. As onerous as this may sound, there are 6 x 10⁶ articles on Wikipedia that need improvement. While it may be discomfiting to move out of a chosen area, it is also an opportunity to grow and improve. While blocking would have the desired effect of stopping the disruption, it would not provide this opportunity. And we can always resort to blocking if the TBAN is insufficient. (There's a really great quote from a Jerry Pournelle story comes to mind that's too awkward to fit in here.) But yeah, Dabaqabad, we'd hate for it to come to that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Amanda A. Brant

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion

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 Amanda A. Brant

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality

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

15/10/2021 This talk-page edit demonstrates bias against ostensible ideological opponents, and against the subject of the BLP ("an exceedingly obscure philosopher")
15/10/2021 This talk-page contribution attempts to claim authority for her perspective over other perspectives, a stance that then strongly colours her article edits as well (see below)
16/10/2021 This talk-page contribution demonstrates the editor's penchant for imposing her own ideological views into the discussion: when asked (in connection with a previous post) "where did it declare itself a TERF group", the editor responds with her own deductions and analysis and attempts to delegitemise views and groups she evidently despises.
15/10/2021 This article edit removes material supported by a conventional RS source, on the basis of original research and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
13/10/2021 Edit that seems intended to get "transphobic fear mongering" into the article lead, highlighting a tendentious description.

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

The diffs above are a selection from a much broader range of talk-page contributions that demonstrate animus against the BLP subject and article edits that seem intended to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, at the expense of balance and encyclopedic tone. Given the toxicity of current discourse and the harassment experienced by the BLP subject (the police have advised her to install cctv at her home: [90]), we need a much more careful approach to contributions/editing on this particular article. In my view a logged warning is in order.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [91]

Discussion concerning Amanda A. Brant

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 Amanda A. Brant

Statement by Sideswipe9th

With respect to diffs 4 and 5, I believe they are an accurate representation of the sources used. The lead has been subject to much discussion over the last few days. Diffs 1-3 represent a difference of opinion between Nomoskedasticity and Amanda A. Brant, especially when it comes to choice of language but that is not unusual in this topic area.

I would like to point out that Nomoskedasticity seems to have taken umbrage with Amanda in this reply over choice of language, and is currently being antagonistic against Newimpartial both over in this discussion and on Nomoskedasticity's talk page where they seem to be trying to bait an ANI report against them.

Although I'm a relatively new editor, having reviewed the Gender and Sexuality remedy, I can't immediately see any behaviour from Amanda that strikes me as a breach. I would not recommend any action be taken against Amanda.

Statement by PaleoNeonate

I look at the diffs but don't interpret them the way they are presented. For instance a removal claimed to be for IDONTLIKEIT reasons was only an editorial. Another argument above is that people or groups should be described as what they claim (outside of gender or religious affiliation), when WP relies on descriptions by reliable independent sources... —Paleo Neonate – 21:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by XOR'easter

To echo PaleoNeonate's comment above, I find the diffs presented to be much less problematic than they were made out to be. Describing a philosopher as "exceedingly obscure" based on their citation count is no worse than what we do at the Academics and educators AfD's every day, for example. One might dispute the evaluation, but it's a fair position to hold. Diffs 2 and 3 are sensible objections to splitting terminological hairs. Likewise, the edit to the lede seems broadly in compliance with MOS:LEDE, giving key points from the text that follows. Doubtlessly it could have been written in a different way, but it's not beyond the pale by any means. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Crossroads

The edits above, and on the page in general, show a clear pattern of WP:Tendentious editing, WP:SOAPBOXing about the topic, and editing based on her own opinions; and I will present more diffs a little later today. For the record, this removal was not just an editorial; it also removed a letter from trans people who had supported Stock and which had been discussed in a normal article in that newspaper. It has since been restored with a reference to another newspaper that mentioned it. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Here are more diffs documenting this editor's problems with this article. Note that the editor has received the BLP DS notice as well. These are all at the same article in just the past few days.

Article:

[92] Puts "transphobic fear mongering" description in lead
[93] Uses wikilink to claim BLP supports the anti-gender movement, a false/OR claim not found in any of the sources
[94][95] Adds and re-adds statement from labor union about "transphobia" to lead - clearly tendentious cherry-picking
[96][97] Twice falsifies words of another BLP - claiming she called "criticism" disgraceful even though the source said "attacks"
[98] Tendentiously removes RS info about the death threats Stock faced
[99] Without consensus, re-inserts biased text in lead that is a one-sided summary of the article (this diff was mentioned by OP); later re-inserts a shortened version, again without consensus
[100] Tendentiously rewrites RS material to not mention number or status of signatories
[101] Waters down source based on own opinion

Talk page:

[102] BLP violation, asserts she (Stock) is "primarily known for anti-trans activism", without sources
[103] WP:ASPERSIONS on another editor ("many others") and attempts to discredit that editor
[104][105] Repeatedly and baselessly says Stock is an activist in the anti-gender movement, a claim not found in any RS
[106] Calls another BLP, trans woman Debbie Hayton, a "fringe figure" and "the world's only trans anti-trans activist", a clear BLP violation. Hayton also was definitely not the only trans person to support Stock, so that's a falsehood.
[107][108] Tendentiously and baselessly asserts that British mainstream media, generally reliable by Wikipedia consensus, are equivalent to the press in Orban's Hungary; also asserts reports in The Times are from an "anti-LGBT newspaper"

All the OP was asking for was a logged warning. Based on how much disruption there has been in such a short time, I'd be more inclined to favor a topic ban from Kathleen Stock, or from BLPs involved in transgender-related controversies. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC) added talk page diffs Crossroads ^-talk- 05:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Comment: I'm aware that people will try to nitpick some of the diffs shown. However, the point is to show a pattern, which is what WP:Tendentious editing is. And quite a few diffs can't be explained away. BLP does apply even when some editors don't like the person, and it is strict and applies to talk pages. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Newimpartial

I agree with the Admin suggestion that 1RR on Kathleen Stock would be more appropriate than any sanctions directed at Amanda A. Brant. Newimpartial (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

SMcCandlish If you don't recognize what you call TERF-advocacy editing on this and other related articles, that isn't because it isn't happening. It is. And if you are mistaking e.g. my own editing on the topic as "trans-activism" then you are misconstruing my own editing, and also perhaps underline your own tone-deafness in this topic area (to put it pretty mildly). Which makes your conclusions perhaps less plausible, if you misunderstand both the actors and the subject matter itself. For example, the Kathleen Stock article currently refers largely to The Times and The Telegraph who are sympathetic to the subject's POV, rather than adhering to more critical sources. Newimpartial (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Crossroads let's not CRYBLP, shall we? You describe your first Talk page bullet as a BLP violation, but what you quote the editor as saying, that Stock is "primarily known for anti-trans activism", is quite similar to the statement in the letter signed by many of the UK's philosophers, that Stock is best-known in recent years for her trans-exclusionary public and academic discourse on sex and gender ... and for advocating that trans women should be excluded from places like women’s locker rooms or shelters. Agreeing - on a Talk page - with a public statement by hundreds of the UK's practicing philosophers is unlikely to be a "BLP violation". And as far as your next bullet on ASPERSIONS goes, the pot really ought not be calling the kettle. Your final point, about baseless criticism of The Times and The Telegraph, ignores all the evidence presented on the Kathleen Stock talk page about both factual and editorial concerns with The Times and The Telegraph. Though your interpretarion of this "evidence" has made the partisan lean of your own editing on this topic clear, so I suppose your bullets served that purpose, at least. Newimpartial (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, BLP in general applies to Talk pages, but the BLP sourcing requirements do not apply to Talk pages, nor does MOS:LABEL. Newimpartial (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by SMcCandlish

Generally concur with Crossroads, other than diffs 4 and 5 might not be so problematic. This editor is clearly failing WP:NOT#ADVOCACY and WP:NPOV policies. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

HighInBC The nature of the problem at this and several other articles is that they are subject to waves of PoV-laden "trans-activism" editing, but very rarely any "TERF-advocacy" PoV from the other direction. Rather, neutrality-minded editors are stuck in the middle trying to produce proper encyclopedia material and taking it from both sides in theory, but pretty much only trans activism in practice. This is not a typical "one side wants X and the other side wants Y" situation, but "Wikipedia needs X, but one organized faction with off-site concerns to advance wants Y, while a less-organized faction with opposite off-site views to push here wants Z". No blanket 1RR should be put into place if it hampers the ability to get at and maintain a neutral X text. At any article like this presently dominated by one viewpoint, a 1RR just produces a WP:TAGTEAM that can always WP:WIN through attrition. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Comment by GoodDay

Looks more like a content dispute, rather the an editorial behaviour problem. Recommend not enforcing. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

I haven't reviewed all of Crossroads' diffs, but many seem like edits they don't like with the word "tendentious" tacked on. Taking the first diff as an example: the edit didn't just pull "transphobic fear mongering" out of nowhere. It's a direct quote from an open letter signed by about 600 philosophers. It's fair to debate whether that belongs in the lead; taking either position in that content dispute is not sanction-worthy. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Amanda A. Brant

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

This seems to be a topic where the sources themselves are highly divided on opinion. This also appears to be a content dispute about which sources should have how much representation. I am open to more evidence but I am currently leaning towards this being a normal editorial process and not a violation of discretionary sanctions. I do however think the article may benefit from a 1RR restriction to reduce attempts to implement consensus prematurely. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nableezy

Latest comment: 3 years ago17 comments11 people in discussion

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 Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Free1Soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4, COI editing of subject they are in ARBPIA feud with, threats of harrassment, Wikipedia:Fait accompli

I noticed Nableezy yesterday when I was going over AFDs related to Israel. I noticed they nominated Yoav Sarig in a disruptive manner (obvious notability) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoav Sarig. This nomination isn't normal disruption because I discovered from searching that Nableezy has a COI, a long feud, with the subject. Google: Nableezy Yoav Sarig, and you will see the COI yourself. Because of the disruption at Sarig, I looked at Nableezy's contributions and saw that he was engaging in mass-changes to long standing, stable, maps in several articles in or near the Golan.

Nableezy was continuing these changes even after he was challenged by a user (17:07) at Caesarea Philippi and a discussion was started (17:10) making similar changes to more articles to 8 additional articles ([109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116]) This continuation is a Wikipedia:Fait accompli problem.

In one case in these mass changes Nableezy introduced a hoax, as Hippos was not controlled by Syria before 1967, it was in Israeli territory (the Syrian army briefly controlled it after their invasion in 1948, but they were pushed back on the night between 17-18 July 1948).

I then reverted Nableezy's mass change to 17 articles. Nableezy immediately threatened me and instead of taking the threat back said: "Is it a threat? No, it is a promise".

I later discovered Nableezy posted nearly identical threats on other users pages:

13 October at Geshem Bracha
28 August at Inf-in MD.

Nableezy then reverted all of my reverts of their new map. I asked Nableezy to self-revert their 17 changes because I felt they broke 1RR. After some discussion Nableezy said they would self revert but then changed course saying they Have not found a single article where a map was added within the last year, making all of those edits. If any admin says those are reverts I will gladly self-revert.

This statement is false, while many of these maps are very long standing, a decade even, there are at least two articles in which the content was added within the last year:

Ed-Dikke synagogue: added 16 October 2020, Nableezy replaced map 17:12, 15 October 2021 and then made another revert on 17:32, 15 October 2021.
Lake Ram: added 3 November 2020, Nableezy replaced map on 17:05, 15 October 2021 and made another revert at 17:35, 15 October 2021

From their talk page, Nableezy recently broke 1RR also on Israel. On 14:59, 12 October 2021 they restored text similar to this reverted edit to a different location. They then reverted again on 17:53, 12 October 2021

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2021 warned twice in DS log in 2021, including last week
Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2012 topic banned in 2012
long block log related to ARBPIA

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): logged arbitration enforcement warning from 12 October

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [117]

Discussion concerning Nableezy

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 Nableezy

There should be a WP:BOOMERANG here. The above user followed me to an AFD and then to some 18 other pages to edit in opposition to me. See the timeline here. I was not threatening anybody, I simply reminded them of the golden rule, and it takes a level of self-confidence that astounds me to complain about a "threat" to hound after having already hounding me. Please note that the user edited the AFD prior to it being listed in the Israel related discussions (user edit 15:29, 15 October 2021, added to Israel list 15:56). The claim that the user was going through Israel-related deletions is as bogus as the rest of the report. He or she got there through hounding my contributions. And then continued to hound me across a range of other articles.

ProcrastinatingReader, I would characterize your editing at Sheikh Jarrah dispute in much the same manner, though since we still have rules on making accusations without evidence Ill just invite you to my talk page if youd like to discuss that further. If somebody would like me to answer some diffs of mine from there, sure.

As far as the report here, and the laughable claim of a "hoax", it seems somewhat dishonest not to note this edit less than an hour later. I replaced a non-NPOV map with a NPOV map. When checking through them later I saw that neither map fit. And I myself corrected it. And as I told the user earlier, if any admin says that my initial edits changing the maps were reverts and not edits I will gladly self-revert. But a user tendentiously hounding me across a range of articles with edit summaries that quite literally were simply WP:JDLI (prev better was all the discussion provided for the reverts) was not something I intended to give much attention to.

As far as the claim that I have some COI with Yoav Sarig, having written that the author of the article has a COI some 10 years ago is not a "grudge" or a COI, and that claim is as specious as the rest of the report and many of the comments below. And for the record, I have never once made any serious claim about Yoav Sarig anywhere. Saying that the person who wrote an article about you has a COI is not an attack on you. It may be a serious claim against the editor who created the article, but certainly not against the subject. As far as shows contempt to BRD, I am unaware of any requirement to demonstrate obeisance to WP:BRD. Which is not a requirement on Wikipedia or this topic area. And if people would just click the links they seem so confident in posting, they will see that it is indeed not a requirement on Wikipedia. As far as my language in that discussion, I don't think a general discussion about editing philosophies, even if touching on editing in the topic area, is really within the topic area, and we've generally been accepting of users speaking frankly with each other on their own user talk pages.

I dont believe I broke the 1RR at Israel. Selfstudier's edit was removed due to it not belonging in the lead. I added material to the body. And when that was reverted with a claim that ONUS had not been met for the lead I reverted. Once. nableezy - 00:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bishonen, I promise going forward that if a user hounds me that my warning to them will be that if they continue to do so I will be reporting it and asking for a block or ban. And not a do unto others as you would have them do unto you reminder. nableezy - 00:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, I don't think the 17 reverts are hounding, I think the going to the AFD and then the Talk:Caesarea Philippi, and then starting that series was hounding. You can oppose all my edits if you see one in a pattern, thats fair. But just getting there to begin with, in this instance, was hounding. nableezy - 04:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by BilledMammal

I was going to post a slightly different version of this on one of your user pages, having noticed the dispute after the discussion on El C's page, but it appears I was too slow.

First, in regards to Free1Soul: I would agree with Nableezy that there may be an issue of WP:HOUNDING here. Free1Soul justifies their activity by explaining that it was in response to what they saw as a disruptive filing, but I would consider searching through a users contribution log searching for general issues to be an overreaction in such a case, particularly where the two editors have interacted in the past and even more so when the two editors have a general difference of opinion in regards to a contentious area; I can see no good coming from such a search. My original suggestion was going to be that that Free1Soul avoids looking at Nableezy's contribution page, but given we are here, and how quick they were to declare an apparently good faith edit to be a "hoax", perhaps a one way interaction block would be in order, at least for a short time?

Second, in regards to Nableezy. The threat to hound Free1Soul, despite the extenuating circumstances, is in my opinion problematic; there are ways to deal with problematic behaviour, and resorting to problematic behaviour is not one of them. I would suggest to Nableezy that they withdraw that comment, and commit to using the proper channels to resolve these issues. I would also note that I would agree with Free1Soul that 1RR may have been breached here; Nableezy's initial edits to change the map removed the map that was previously there, making it, in my opinion, a reversion - though some of these initial reverts are 1RR exempt as the map was added by editors not permitted to edit the area under 30/500. With all that said, I can see how the question of whether they are reverts or not would be a little ambiguous in this case, so perhaps the appropriate remedy would be to self-revert now?

Apologies to all if I have done this incorrectly; I am unsure of the proper protocol here. BilledMammal (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Aquillion; I would agree in principle; if an editor has a specific idea of what they might find, then that is an acceptable reason to review another's contribution page but I don't believe that applied here. It could have, if they had spotted the edit on one of the article pages and thought it to be an edit that could have been applied broadly, but that was not the cited cause, which was general "disruption" where they had little idea of what they might find.

In general I would not consider this sufficient, and even more so in a contentious and highly charged area like this one. At the very least, I would suggest that Free1Soul be very careful when going on fishing trips on such a basis in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Nableezy's intital edits, changing the maps, definitely do not count as reverts. I get the need for extra caution in this topic area, but considering any bold change to be a revert would inhibit productive editing. 19:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Eggishorn

This appears to be a vexatious filing. The AfD nomination was very defensible in that the state of the article at the time of the nomination was one in which the sourcing was almost entirely to primary sources or passing mentions and the importance of the one academic prize mentioned was not clear. When the original author appeared to clarify the status, Nableezy withdrew their nomination and closed the AfD themselves, which can hardly be evidence of long-term enmity. The second diff also shows entirely reasonable behavior by Nableezy, in that the challenge to their edit was an appeal to personal expertise instead of actual sourcing. The series of edit edits next mentioned are not evidence of anything other than the OP hunting down edits to revert. There are no edit summaries that give any reason why the edits are incorrect. Calling the addition to a map of a pushpin a "Hoax" is truly mind-boggling. Even the "threat" is little more than what I'd expect many frustrated users to post. It is clear from the above that this is a poor attempt by an inexperienced editor with a particular POV to weaponize AE against a perceived opponent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by 11Fox11

The report above is badly formatted, however it raises three serious problems:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoav Sarig (COI), Nableezy has made very serious allegations against this person in a post outside of Wikipedia, he should not be editing the article or nominating it for deletion.
The Golan maps (Fait accompli / BRD / 1RR). I think it was reasonable for Free1Soul to revert this mass change across many articles, it is not hounding to examine an editor's contributions after they made a very problematic edit, as in the Yoav Sarig nomination. Nableezy probably broke 1RR, definitely did not follow BRD and flagrantly broke Wikipedia:Fait accompli. Nableezy was challenged on Caesarea Philippi by User:Arminden yet he continued repeating the same change to several other articles after the challenge (like [118] and [119]) and then also reverted Free1Soul (like [120] and [121]). The Hippos article is perhaps not a hoax, but is a very sloppy edit with a serious error. All these identical changes to other articles were made by Nableezy concurrent to the discussion at Talk:Caesarea Philippi#map which he was aware of.
The threats against multiple users. This is harassment and battleground, against: Inf-in MD, Geshem Bracha, Free1Soul. The language in their reply to Free1Soul: "Is it a threat? No, it is a promise. If you continue to follow me around I will either report it or return the favor" is what you'd expect at 3rd grade playground, not on Wikipedia.

This Nableezy post from two days ago shows contempt to BRD and is attacking another editor ("somebody who continues to make shit up").

In my opinion Nableezy engaging in similar threats against three separate users he disagrees with in the last couple of months is the most serious aspect here. 11Fox11 (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

Lacking the time to read this complaint in detail, several of the diffs do show nableezy increasing tension in the topic area, e.g. [122]. Anecdotally I recall nableezy's approch at Talk:Sheikh Jarrah controversy, which I'd categorise as rather disruptive (and some other editors felt the same). Earlier this year, the editor received a logged warning to significantly moderate their tone, noting that failure to do so is likely to result in imminent sanctions, followed by a logged caution[] to keep to their above promise.

The problems in this topic area aren't limited to nableezy, but their current approach to dispute resolution is imho a contributing factor to the toxicity in it. I think ArbCom should revisit this topic area and some of its most active participants (on both ideological sides) in a full case. But failing that, at some point resolving these AE reports is going to require action rather than warnings. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Aquillion

Unless the situation is very obvious, the initial place to raise COI isssues is WP:COIN, not WP:AE; and I definitely don't think that a single forum post seven years ago would qualify as sufficient to rush straight to AE (nor is it likely to be enough to convince WP:COIN, but that's at least the place to start.) I'm also skeptical about labeling the AFD nomination as disruptive - I think it was obviously a mistake, but there's a huge gap between a nomination being a bad call and being disruptive enough to require sanctions; sanctioning people simply for being wrong risks having a chilling effect that would discourage people from raising potentially-controversial issues that do need to be considered. Maybe if it was part of a pattern of obviously-unjustified nominations, but just one is silly. The same goes for some of the other issues - making a single mistake regarding an area with an extremely complicated history is obviously not sanctionable.

Likewise, 1RR issues are better handled at WP:3RRN since they are generally straightforward; if you think it's part of a bigger pattern, but there's a debate over whether it's actually a 1RR violation, it saves time for everyone if you take it to 3RRN first, settle that, then come to AE with that conclusion in hand. That said, I don't think it's reasonable to call what they did an 1RR violation (I have pointed out before that we need to settle the "any edit to existing material could be interpreted as a revert of someone or something" problem; with the 3RR it is not a big deal, but it is a serious problem on articles with 1RR restrictions.) That said just because they were allowed to do that doesn't mean they should have; revert-warring across 17 articles is not ideal, and ideally mass-edits should be discussed in advance if they're likely to be controversial. But it's not a "rush straight to AE" issue, either, and while you were likewise allowed to mass-revert a mass-edit across multiple articles for WP:BRD / WP:FAIT reasons, it would still have been better to discuss and settle it first to avoid situations like this.

Though I should point out (since nableezy has brought it up) that while I don't think they should have rushed to do it, I do not think free1Soul can reasonably be accused of WP:HOUNDing. As that policy says, correct use of an editor's history includes ... correcting related problems on multiple articles. You could argue over whether this is a problem, and extreme caution is required for that clause in ideologically-terse areas (because some people would consider another editor's entire contribution to a topic area a problem) but to avoid WP:FAIT, it is necessary that, when an editor makes essentially identical edits across a large number of articles, another editor is at least notionally permitted revert them across all those articles. --Aquillion (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by GizzyCatBella

Quote from Free1Soul filing above - I then reverted Nableezy's mass change to 17 articles

Singling out of one editor and follow them to 17 articles to revert their contribution is a key component of WP:HOUNDING. Are you aware of that Free1Soul?

Another quote from Free1Soul - In one case in these mass changes Nableezy introduced a hoax.

Hoax is a planned introduction of something made up to trick others into believing is true. How do you know that was Nablezny's intention Free1Soul?

I could go on with more problematic features written by the filer but don't have time for it right now. Nevertheless, I'll be surprised if this report goes anywhere since it seems to be an attempt to weaponize AE. However WP:BOOMERANG on the filer would not surprise me at all. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Geshem Bracha

@Euryalus and Bishonen:, after I reverted Nableezy on Chorazin they place this warning/threat on my talk page. They immediately, 1 minute later, demonstrated that they would carry out their threat by reverting me at Capernaum which they never edited before. This religious/archaeological site is located within Israel since its founding. Their statement on my page was not just words, it was followed by immediate action on their part on an article they never touched, it is impossible to see how they reached Capernaum without following me.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also, Nableezy placing Hippos in Syria as pointed out by OP is very wrong. He also removed Israel at Capernaum - and the country in which a site is located is important. This is a pattern of removing Israel from Israeli locations. I don't know how to describe this? Repeated errors? A hoax like OP? Denial? Whatever it is, it is wrong.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Euryalus:, I am not quick to use the hounding term, don't think I used this before today. But what am I to make of Nableezy writing "And also that WP:HOUNDING is prohibited. Though I am happy to return the favor if you like." at 13:10, followed by Nableezy reverting me at 13:11 on an article they never edited?--Geshem Bracha (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Result concerning Nableezy

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

I'm quite unimpressed by the OP's opposition research. To google "Nableezy Yoav Sarig" suggests an agenda, to put it mildly, and the description of Nableezy as having "a long feud with the subject" is absurd, as it implies that Nableezy has some real-life conflict with the subject. Is this based on a 2012 post at Wikipedia Review, which is the only thing that comes up when I myself google the suggested phrase? Nableezy's "long block log", which the OP mentions, is indeed quite long, but what goes unmentioned is that is has no entry later than 2011. (And the topic ban mentioned is from 2012.) The "threats" mentioned, on the other hand, are recent and are indeed not phrased in the best way — I agree with BilledMammal there — but neither are they exactly designed to frighten. AE is not a tool for taking out your opponents. My suggestion is a warning to the OP and no action against Nableezy. Thanks to Eggishorn, with whom I largely agree. Bishonen | tålk 20:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC).Reply
Agree with Bishonen and Eggishorn. OP, your argument is substantially weakened by the need to include ten year old off-wiki factoids and silly "hoax" claims. The "threat" claim isn't ideal but isn't blockable in context. If you have further relevant and current material then present it: otherwise I doubt this request will go far. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Geshem Bracha: and thanks for the ping. Can I recommend to you (and others) this wording from WP:HOUNDING: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) ... correcting related problems on multiple articles. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

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

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

[a]

[b]

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