Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 334: | Line 334: | ||
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Al-Andalusi== |
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Al-Andalusi== |
||
{{hat|Appeal declined by a 4-0 vote. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 19:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small> |
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small> |
||
Line 374: | Line 374: | ||
*Decline. This is clearly within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict, widely construed. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 11:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC) |
*Decline. This is clearly within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict, widely construed. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 11:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC) |
||
*Decline. Within the scope of the topic ban, and Sandstein's block was reasonable. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 15:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC) |
*Decline. Within the scope of the topic ban, and Sandstein's block was reasonable. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 15:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
Revision as of 19:26, 10 June 2017
DHeyward
Not actionable at this venue as WP:ARBAP2 does not apply to this article. --NeilN talk to me 04:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning DHeyward
Discussion concerning DHeywardStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DHeywardHow is the london terror attack under American Politics? I'm not sure how one can edit war with a single copyedit and no reverts. And the page move wasn't against consensus, it was made, reverted and it's now on the ttalk page per BRD (I started that talk page discussion, BTW, after my move was reverted. There was noo edit war. - here's the diff). Sagecandor is being a busybody that needs to stop templating regulars and discuss rationally. I velieve he was just brought here for AP2 and maybe he needs a topic ban himself especially if it broadly covers London terror attacks. --DHeyward (talk) The extent of my edits to Mike Pence was replacing "also wrote of his condolences" to "offered his condolence." That's it. One edit. Not a revert. A copyedit that made it through after edit conflicts. The hysteria is large even by Wikipedia standards. --DHeyward (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC) But let's look at the ingenuous nature of this frivoulous complaint:
All of the sanctions he noted were reversed but he fails to note that. If ever there was a time for a boomerang... --DHeyward (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by MrXAn edit about the current U.S. vice president most certainly does fall under post-1932 politics. DHeyward's string of personal attacks, which continued even after being warned by an admin, are shameful.- MrX 02:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Statement by ThryduulfI'm about to go to bed so I'll keep this brief.
Statement by KingsindianIt would have been better if Sagecandor, instead of templating DHeyward, had simply told the latter what their problem was. It turns out that DHeyward copyedited a comment involving Mike Pence, and it was removed by someone else while they were copyediting it. A simple, courteous request would have settled the matter. Trouts all around. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourthDHeyward has been formally admonished by the arbitration committee for violations of WP:NPA in the past. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by DumuzidDHeyward and I have crossed paths once or twice. I don't think there's much on which we agree; I wouldn't be surprised if he has applied some colorful invective to me in the past -- though always, so far as I know, privately. All that being said, I find this complaint pretty thin gruel for all the reasons already stated. In addition, I don't find his "attacks" particularly troubling but for the overly vulgar way in which he expresses them. If it were up to me, I'd say there should be an admonishment to make more respectful word choices, but other than that, everyone should carry on. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning DHeyward
|
1RR restriction lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm not a veteran of AE, but I believe this is not the usual type of AE request. WP:AC/DS was very recently amended to explicitly allow editors to request removal/modification of DS page restrictions at AE. I'd like to request the removal of restrictions on Carter Page. As far as I can tell that page has seen zero disruption from the start and was only subjected to DS restrictions preemptively on April 12 because the subject was associated with Donald Trump. However, Mr. Page had been in the news in connection with Trump for months before that with no disruption. In fact the article has been pretty darn sleepy. I see no basis for maintaining DS restrictions. In an abundance of caution I'm sending an AE notice to the imposing admin, who is on an indefinite wikibreak. They rejected my request to remove the restrictions. I hold nothing against them; I think their general approach to page restrictions is reasonable, but I just happen to disagree in some instances, and I hope a consensus of admins will agree with me. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Carter PageStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SagecandorAgree with EdJohnston. The restrictions should not be removed. Also agree with EdJohnston that it hopefully helps encourage more talk page discussion. The topic is subject to an active investigation ongoing and to be elaborated upon more in testimony upcoming later this week. That would lead to increased activity and likely increased controversy. As for the question posed by GoldenRing, the restrictions are not posing harm to the article and could hopefully only prove to encourage others to discuss proposals more with each other. Sagecandor (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by SandsteinCommenting here because I have created the article and have on occasion continued to edit it. I have not observed editorial (mis)conduct that would warrant particular page-level sanctions, and would therefore favor removing them. Sandstein 10:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved administrators
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Md iet
Topic ban lifted per consensus. --NeilN talk to me 14:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Md ietNow I understand the importance of reliable sources and why it is required for a reliable encyclopedia like of Wikipedia. My earlier mistake was due to confusion that real facts are self qualified for inclusion with mere justification. No justifications are valid without valid proof. My editing after my unblock indicates the clear change. I think more than one year is sufficient period and method of contribution to Wikipedia during the period also need consideration to give me a chance for this appeal to contribute further to Wiki
Statement by EdJohnstonAs the banning admin, I am OK with lifting User:Md iet's topic ban from the Dawoodi Bohra. Before doing so I'll wait to see if any of the admins commenting below have concerns about Md iet's editing and want to keep the ban in place. The original dispute was about whether to declare a specific contender as the new head of the Dawoodi Bohra. That dispute is now mostly over since the rival candidate died. I haven't noticed any recent edits by Md iet that would cause concern, so the ban no longer seems necessary. I trust that Md iet will be aware that any changes about the Dawoodi Bohra have to be neutral and must not be promotional. The topic of female genital mutilation as practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra remains controversial and any changes should have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Md iet
Result of the appeal by Md iet
|
Al-Andalusi
Al-Andalusi is banned from all edits and pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for a period of six months. GoldenRing (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Al-Andalusi
Discussion concerning Al-AndalusiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Al-AndalusiStatement by IcewhizMy personal opinion, as a participant in "Acid Throwing" was that most of Al-Andalusi's editing wasn't helpful. I'd like to point out that he also committed a 1RR violation in these diffs: [20] - Revision as of 21:18, 2 June 2017 - blanket return of information. which was a 2nd revert in relation to piecemeal removal of the same items 8 hours earlier: [21] [22] (besides being against talk-page consensus, particularly "Suyuf al-Haq" (Swords of Righteousness) which was discussed at length) He was asked by me to self-revert: [23]. His response was to delete (without archiving I believe) the request from his talk page: [24]. This is material clearly under the I/P area - particularly the 2nd revert of an acid attack by a Palestinian on a Jewish family.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Al-Andalusi
|
Al-Andalusi
Al-Andalusi is blocked for a week for violating their topic ban. Sandstein 09:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Al-Andalusi
He got topic banned from all Palestine-Israel articles hardly a few hours ago, and he has violated the topic ban already by writing on the talk page regarding the same West Bank and Gaza Strip section. The talk sections concerns his edits[27][28] where the same paragraph goes to mention First Intifada, and other one describes attacks on Israeli family by Palestinian as part of Israel-Palestine conflicts. Al-Andalusi also made personal attack on other editor "are you being dramatic here like the vinegar family?"[29] This comes after his acknowledgement of topic ban on his talk page.[30] Capitals00 (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Al-AndalusiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Al-AndalusiNonsense. My comments came under talk sections concerning acid thrown within Gaza, and in no way are about the Palestine-Israel conflict. The 1st section "More than 18 attacks" describes acid attacks on Gaza residents, while the 2nd section "Hamas' reaction" describes Hamas torture allegations in Gaza. Now, if it is your belief that Gaza is part of Israel, and hence any discussion involving Gaza entails that I "violated" an alleged topic ban that I did not agree to, then that's an entirely different story. Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by Uanfala
Statement by IcewhizCommenting as I was a side to this. Two quick notes: 1. Gaza, in the 80s (some of this actually pre-dates the first Intifada (1983), some during) was under Israeli civil and military control - Israel was in charge of law and order in the territory and for preventing attacks, preventing them, and dispensing justice. I personally, saw/see this as part of the I/P area and adhered to 1RR and other ARBPIA in all edits related to the West Bank and Gaza in Acid Throwing. (note that in a technical sense, Israel is still claimed by some (International bodies, Palestinians) of still being the occupying power in Gaza today (also after disengagement) - so it is possible that current Palestinian/Palestinian issues in Gaza are still I/P. In the 1980s - Israel was in actual full or almost full control). 2. But, I will want to note that Al-Andalusi was being constructive in some of his comments - and this was a discussion that was on-going parallel to the enforcement case (I believe the discussion started before the enforcement action). I agreed with some of his comments - and edited them in myself. He also stuck to the talk page. One of the mentioned diffs is a thanks for an edit.Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Al-Andalusi
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Al-Andalusi
Appeal declined by a 4-0 vote. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Al-AndalusiPasted here from User talk:Al-Andalusi on behalf of Al-Andalusi GoldenRing (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC) I reject Sandstein's claims that I violated a topic ban. He claims that my edit is in violation because Hamas "is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict". However, the nature my talk page edit concerned an internal Palestinian event with regards to torturing Palestinians. To me, this is unrelated to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Secondly, Sandstein claims that I contributed to a talk page section titled "2014 Acid Attack in West Bank" and that my contribution was on how to cover acid attacks by Palestinians against Israelis. This is patently false and I ask that the reviewer of this unblock appeal to review my edit here. It comes under a section titled "More than 18 attacks" (which I created btw long before the topic ban), which concerns acid attacks carried out by Mujama al-Islamiya in Gaza in the 1980s, a local issue as far as I'm concerned. The talk page section titled "2014 Acid Attack in West Bank" that Capitals00 (originator of the enforcement request) and Sandstein claimed that I contributed to is somewhere else on the talk page Talk:Acid throwing#2014 Acid Attack in West Bank, where you won't find my alleged edit. It is a shame that Sandstein would take Capitals00's words at face value and not bother with verifying the claims. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by SandsteinI have commented further on this block on my talk page, and recommend declining the appeal. Sandstein 05:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000I think Al-Andalusi is skating on very thin ice here and that his two edits were asking for trouble. That said, Sandstein's justification is highly dubious, especially the part "Al-Andalusi mentions Hamas, which is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict". It is elementary that something that does not involve Israel also doesn't involve the Israel-Palestine conflict. Would we apply ARBPIA to, say, this article on Israeli food on the grounds that "Israel is an actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict"? Of course not. The rest of the justification seems to be that the edits concern text that is adjacent to text about the Arab-Israeli conflict. What sort of argument is that? Zerotalk 03:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by Capitals00I would recommend obvious decline. Sandstein's justification was correct. Its like similar to saying that if a user is banned from India-Pakistan conflicts, they are not allowed to talk about Lashkar-e-Taiba as well. Al-Andalusi should instead edit something like Party of the Danes, that has to do nothing with Israel-Arab conflicts. Capitals00 (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Statement by DebresserThe violation was on a talkpage, and seems to have been based on an honest misunderstanding. It would have been enough to simply explain his mistake to Al-Andalusi, and no block would have been necessary. I recommend to retract whatever is left of the block, since block should not be punitive. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Al-AndalusiResult of the appeal by Al-Andalusi
|