Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

NadirAli (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:ARBPAK :

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

Since the removal of the topic ban, he has been a habitual edit warrior and engaged in disruptive editing. And now he is page move warring on Iron Age in India[1][2], he even reverted the page move of an admin, despite on going discussion.[3]

1. Edit warring from 30 April[4][5][6][7]
2. Edit warring from May - June [8][9]
3. 27 April and 5 May[10][11][12][13]
4. From 5 June[14][15][16]

Blocked for violating 1RR rule on 9 June on Rape during the Kashmir conflict.[17] Capitals00 (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: yes Faizan and Tyler Durden have been blocked as sockmasters, but Kautilya3 isn't and he was also reverting NadirAli in 2 of these edit warring incidents.[18][19] Have you checked the recent page move war today and the block for violating 1RR on 9 June? Capitals00 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Currently topic banned from uploading images.[20] Blocked indefinitely once for violating it.

Was site-banned by Arbcom in 2007[21] after the case that resulted in Arbcom sanctions on India, Pakistan, Afghanistan. He got topic banned upon the removal of the site ban in 2014,[22] and this topic ban was removed later.[23]

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

[24] 4 April.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[25]

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.

The IP involved consulted a selective group of editors, which is very suspicious behavior and a form of canvassing. [26] [27] When he couldn't win consensus, he pinged the selective group of users, despite being told by to stop. He was also reverted by another user on the same page [28], until he was reverted by me but continued to edit war and then this report against me was filed. His edit summaries are also suspicious and his comment and attempts to ping there tells a lot [29]. Seeing all that, and his experience in editing, I can almost guarantee he's a banned user.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to my topic ban on image uploading, I have also made an effort to remove copyrighted material placed by various users. These actions in addition to many useful uploads and linking from commons (eg. Mythology, Droid (robot) amongst many others) balance out the allegations that I'm a persistent violator of WP:COPYRIGHT, at least in my view [30][31][32]--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the ancient abrcom case, I don't think it matters much as it was a long time ago. But should it be discussed, the case was filed within minutes of me and a departed user who opened an ANI report against the administrator. [33]. This administrator had a history of selectively blocking users on India-Pakistan disputes, and abusive edit warring, including using his rollback tools to evade the 3RR. This was confirmed by Fowler&fowler on that arbcom and documented at Wikipedia: Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar-2 by the very users he previously supported. In that case, the same arbcom de-sysopped the administrator but awkwardly backed him on the India-Pakistan arbcom case, despite that very same reason being the main cause of the case.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been three years since I returned to Wikipedia and my main intention of returning was fixing up pages that seemed inactive/outdated and creating new articles (i have created around 40 pages and still have more to create.) My recommendation is that the IP range be kept under observation and all it's edits on India-Pakistan pages (including the pages he incited edit wars and canvassed on) be semi-protected as well as the users he openly confessed to being affiliated with be strictly warned.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I was honestly unaware that the article was under arbcom sanctions, until I saw the talk page. Ever since my block, I have abandoned that article all together.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems I'm going to need to take longer time off Wikipedia as I have more serious commitments in life and cannot afford to be in these messes.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Marevallous Spider-Man

Note to administrators: I have never come into contact with this user before. Based on his above proposals, he seems unfamiliar with my editing history. I seldomly edit pages tagged under the two Wikipeojects he mentioned above. They are not in my areas of interest. Unless of course, they overlap with Pakistan. That is mostly to balance out WP:NPOV and accuracy. Besides that, I do not edit pages under those WikiProjects. They are not typically in my areas of interest. My own editing history proves it's been ages since I edited anything on a major Indian state, city or biography of notable Indians, unless again there are overlaps with Pakistan. The last major Indian article I edited to my memory, tagged exclusively under WP:INDIA was at Border Security Force. That edit was more out of my interest in law enforcement than my interest with India. If I remember correctly, it was spacing out the article, an edit I doubt anyone, even those opposing me would contest or disagree with.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to EEMIV

User:EEMIV is a user who has a history of disruptive editing on science fiction pages. [34] His conduct has been an annoyance to numerous users un-related to me (including numerous edit wars) and long before he encountered me or any of my involvement in his previous disputes. The two examples are just of many [35][36]. This user and I had several disputes on a few science fiction pages. One primary example was on the article about The Force, where he removed two bodies of quotes that I worked hard to add onto the article. He did this more than once, at least twice. Judging that it was not something worth arguing or fighting over (despite them being good quality and relevant to the subject), I let him have his way.

Another example was how he reverted me on this article, despite that my edit seems more accurate based on the image and article I linked it to. [37]. Again, I judged that it was not something worth arguing over, so I let it go. But every time that I do revert him or resist his reversions, he automatically accuses me of "ownership". He even sent me a message with the titles containing the words "antagonism and ownership" and cited my 2007 ban. I responded to his accusations word by word in a calm and civilized manner.

Another dispute that him and I had on The Force article was a section I created called "Scientific and parascientific perspectives on the Force", using the fifth chapter of the book The Science of Star Wars as my source. Within days, the section was re-worded and revised to the point that not only was information incomplete and lacking, but it was also inconsistent with the source it was citing.

After several attempts to fix it, I was only reverted. We argued over this on the talk page as well as his talk page (scroll further below) [38], but he refused to compromise and enjoyed the backing of at least two other users. This is also despite none of them having access to the source, while at the time I had hard copy of The Science of Star Wars. Seeing that the section was completely degraded (especially it's inconsistency with the source it was citing) and his stubbornness to let me fix it and with a 3 to 1 ratio of consensus, I boldly decided the article is better off without that section all together. If it's in that terrible state, it might as well go. I even clarified this in my edit summary [39]. User:EEMIV immediately reverted it within a short time and left this edit summary [40]. But right here on Technology in Star Wars, he takes a complete 180 degree turn, arguing that a statement in the lasers section was inconsistent with the source it was citing and needs to be removed [41]. Note that I did not resist changes to that. I made a few edits to the section and if I remember correctly, I placed a {better source needed} template. But his self-contradictive approach gives me the impression that he is more concerned with his personal liking of content rather than following WP:RS.

After onwards, I started getting the impression that he was is lurking about my talk page as well as shadowing my edits. He also appears keen to find common grounds against me. One example was when I had gotten into a short disagreement with another user over the redirect of a mostly empty article I created without consensus and also by the fact that it has plenty of coverage to be added. The user sent me a message on it. At the time, the top of my page contained EEMIV's old message on alleged antagonism and ownership. The opposing user added a second edit in the same message and used those same two words for an edit summary I had put while reverting the redirect. EEMIV almost instantly appeared on that users talk page with this comment, even though he was never involved in that small dispute [42]. I gave him this warning [43].

Even afterwards, I was still under the suspicion that he watches over my talk page. I had noticed that when he would appear on voting/discussion pages that I would receive notifications for, but saw no sign of them his talk page. I can't provide all the diffs for that, but here's one example. I received a notification on December sixth about a discussion and vote over a redirect. I suspected EEMIV would vote there. Despite not having received the same notification on his talk page, he was right there, even before I was [44]. Also on that very same day, I made an edit on Category: Star Wars and within hours he appeared there to revert me, despite never having edited that page ever before. I even mentioned this in my edit summary. [45]. Ever since then, he has left me alone.

But his sudden appearance at this case, despite not having interacted with me over a period of months, confirms my suspicions that he still shadows my talk page, waiting for the right time to settle a score with me. Even though I have given up (at least for now) on trying to fix that section on The Force article for months and even despite his self-conviction of my supposed "ownership" practice. To me it looks more like a case of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:GRUDGE on his part by posting here, despite never having been involved in any India-Pakistan disputes ever before. His talk page history shows no sign of any such involvement, but plenty of angry responses from users he has aggravated and edit warred on more occasions than I have, but cunningly dodged getting blocked. I could provide plenty of diffs for this, but for now I think i've made my point.

I don't see why a future discussion on user conduct should exclude him, nor comments by interested users that he has managed to anger and disrupt.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lankiveil, I have posted a couple of responses. Please take them into account for any evaluation. Thank you.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NadirAli has been blocked for various reasons in past decade. Editors don't have time to assume good faith with his disruptive edits. I request this editor be indefinitely topic banned from all articles of WP:INDIA and WP:HINDU.

My experience with NadirAli is outside the scope of the arbitration issue at hand. However, the often tendentious and occasionally disruptive editing reported above is consistent with how NadirAli has engaged at times with the Star Wars wikiproject. He has expressed an interest in, and a few times has been responsive to, feedback. However, there's a long streak of WP:IDHT when it comes to content disagreements and interpreting sourcing polices. I'd considered an RfC a few months ago when things were particularly challenging, and I wonder whether a discussion about the editor's behavior in a broader venue, and not limited to this particular corner of the project, would be appropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both GoldenRing and Lankiveil that the evidence presented is a bit stale. Maybe a warning, maybe. But to act at this particular page with this particular process for diff links a month old, seems too much for here. Sagecandor (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a few interactions with NadirAli before, and although he's a well-meaning editor sometimes makes good edits, from what I've seen so far (and I want to stress that this is a small sample of his edits), there's a bit too much of CIR issues for him to be a net positive. For example, when it was briefly pointed out to him that he shouldn't introduce American spelling into Indian articles [46], then instead of getting the point (or following up the link to MOS:ENGVAR), he insisted he was doing the right thing even after the gist of ENGVAR had to be digested for him several times by other editors [47] [48] [49].

In another instance, he removed an authoritatively sourced text from an article [50] because he didn't like a certain word used. He did bring it up on the talk page [51], but when I replied to him explaining he was misunderstanding the meaning of the text [52], he didn't reply and when the text was eventually restored to the article he reverted it [53] missing the fact that his own thread on the talk page had received replies and insisting he should have been pinged [54].

Altogether these aren't major "transgressions", but the topic area is one in which we already have to deal with a high number of incompetent or disruptive newbie editors, and an experienced user adding to this maintenance burden is not helpful. NadirAli can be a good editor if he tries to set aside his national bias, learns to take greater care when editing, makes sure he reads and understands what other editors have written to him on his talk page, and starts being willing to admit that he might occasionally be wrong. – Uanfala 07:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm feeling like this is going to take a while to get a handle on. But at a first cut I note that all of the edit-warring diffs reported except those on 5 June are complicated by the fact the other editors involved have both since been indeffed for sock puppetry. GoldenRing (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And while I'm not a fan of the edit-warring style on show here, a lot of these diffs are feeling a bit stale. But I don't have time to have a detailed look through recent history this evening. GoldenRing (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Capitals00: Yes, I saw that he was blocked for 1RR; the point of that is that he has been blocked for it. How many times would you like him sanctioned for the same transgression? Any admin who acted on that now would be open to accusations of over-riding another admin's AE action - it can't be done.
    • As for the move-warring late last week, ([55], [56], [57]) again I'm not a fan of the style. But it takes two editors to make a move war and they were at least involved in the accompanying talk page discussion (the page has been move-protected since). The edit summaries are a bit on the snarky, ABF side, but I'm still not really seeing the case for the requested indef topic ban. I'll leave this open for other admins to have their say, but my instinct is to close it with a strongly-worded warning and keep an eye on the situation. GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also of the view that a lot of this evidence is pretty stale. I'm not sure that edit warring months ago justifies a response now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

AHeneen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Rambling Man (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/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited :

If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve."

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

• 19 June
• 21 May This also needs to be placed in context: at the time of this comment on the DYK nom, the "WT:Citing sources" discussion had wrapped up (only one more comment was made there before the discussion was archived) and just an hour after I replied to the comment below ("I note you haven't answered a single one of my question...") asking what questions weren't answered and reiterating that the citations are permissible. Rather than follow up at WT:Citing sources, TRM returns to the DYK nom to bludgeon his views against the URLs rather than follow up in the conversation.

• 18 May This reply was to the preceding comment I made about how to understand legal citations and how my edits conform to the Bluebook citation style (the main legal citation style in the US). Throughout the thread, the overarching issue was whether the URL formatting was permissible under WP:CITEVAR/WP:CITESTYLE, but here TRM demands use of "regular Wikipedia style" citations because of a dislike of the entire formatting of the citations beyond just the URLs. Again, bludgeoning his dislike of the citation style after it was pointed out that they're within WP policy.

• 28 June
• 28 June
• 22 June
• 24 June
• Another editor stepped into the conversation urging civility, to which TRM replied: 25 June
• 26 June
• 26 June
• 26 June
• 27 June
• 27 June
• 27 June
• After closing a discussion he was involved in (with the summary "Included per consensus."), there was this exchange:

• Another editor commented "Although I think he should be included, I can't say I see a consensus." then "... and you shouldn't close a discussion you participated in."
• TRM deleted those two comments with the edit summary "focus on important things please"
• Then 3 min later re-added Arthur Rubin's comments plus the reply "If you care, re-open the discussion, otherwise it's more heat than light." with the edit summary "actually, word of advice". This was followed by the following exchange of comments:

• AR: "reopening, then, as clearly an improper closure. Still no consensus, even as to what is being discussed."
• TRM

• 2 July
• 2 July

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. AE Blocked in March 2017 for violating the same remedy (Block reduced from 1 month to 1 week on appeal)
2. Blocked for 48 hours on 7 July for violating interaction ban with George Ho from same ARBCOM case

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notification diff

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.

• @AHeneen: I haven't reviewed the details of your evidence, but your statement is monstrously long. Please prune it. Vanamonde (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, per Vanamonde. I realise that you're trying to include context, but it would be a lot easier if you snipped it right down to the diffs that you claim directly show "The Rambling Man insulting and/or belittling other editors." At a cursory reading, I can only see the argument with Arthur Rubin that even remotely approaches that, but I may be missing other needles in this haystack. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I still don't see anything in the non-TLDR version that is sanctionable. In fact, it's even worse - there's now a section entitled "In the following edits from Talk:2017, TRM is making insulting and belittling remarks about other editors" which contains numerous diffs which criticise projects, article contents and Wikipedia procedures. IMO this is a pointless AE listing and should be closed ASAP. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that a 32,684-byte wall of text must contain something showing less than ideal behavior from TRM, but I just searched Template:Did you know nominations/Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. for TRM's comments and read them. They are fine, particularly when read in context. The only problem seen at that page is that AHeneen likes a very special way of formatting references and is pugnaciously declining all advice. I also checked a couple of the diffs mentioned regarding WT:Citing sources. A collaborative editor would take "I note you haven't answered a single one of my questions yet" as a suggestion that answering the questions would be desirable, while another kind of editor would post 32,684 bytes at WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding. Someone please administer a boomerang for wasting the time of AE admins and everyone reading this interminable non-actionable nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two situations where a wall of text might be appropriate. One is where you are defending yourself and the initial case looks bad, therefore it is necessary to expand on and contextualise diffs which might lead someone to the wrong conclusion. The other is where others specifically invite you (whether you are filing or responding) to elaborate on specific points – i.e. you've given them enough in your initial statement to believe it warrants further investigation, but not enough for them to actually investigate. This filing very clearly violates both of those principles and seems designed to be an attritional and scattergun complaint. It should thus be dismissed out of hand. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly be considered to be a Wiki-friend of TRM -- we have clashed a number of times -- but I see absolutely nothing in the edits presented which indicate that he has violated his restriction. The comments are sharp, yes, but they are all about the editor's editing, and not directed toward the person behind the editing. I would suggest that admins might consider admonishing the OP for bringing a baseless (and overly long) complaint to AE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not one comment there is belittling or insulting in any way, shape or form, Heated somewhat? .. Yeah sure but no insulting or belittling, This is a classic case of the OP having a grudge and are doing everything they can to boot TRM off the project, Bullshit request is bullshit. –Davey2010^Talk 19:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I despair. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree that while heated and contentious, none of the comments appear to me to be belittling or insulting at least as I understand those words to mean. I am amazed at the number of people who monitor TRM's comments and are ready to jump on whatever might seem the least bit 'belittling' to them. Don't people have better things to do here? 331dot (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What benefit is this serving exactly? What a complete waste of time. The OP needs to be kicked into touch and told to go away and grow up. Cassianto^Talk 20:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too late for the filer to request closing? From what I'm seeing, this should not have been opened and I don't see any good coming of this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think him a detriment to the project, and he is clearly bullying, I haven't found a clear violation of this restriction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRM is prohibited from insulting and belittling other editors, he is not prohibited from criticizing other users' edits. A disagreement with TRM over content appearing on the Main Page is not a valid reason to come here. The filer needs to grow a thicker skin. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I can't speak for other admin, but there is no way I'm going to go through over 4000 words of complaint, which is over 8x the amount of words that should be in a complaint, per the top of this page. Please trim it down and I suggest simply removing minor issues and just sticking to what actually matters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also not going to hear this complaint at its current length, which seems to be using massive volume to distract from the fact that, from my spot check of the diffs, I haven't found any substance to the complaint. Attacking your contribution for not being up to standards is what Wikipedians are supposed to do. In each of the previous complaints regarding TRM's restriction, they've been about him commenting on the editor's suspected motives or intelligence. If that's happened here, my spot check of the diffs doesn't show it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• After a glance at the first few edits, I don't see how they attack or belittle others; their criticism is directed at content, not contributors. AHeneen, please reduce your (already shortened) complaint to a few actionable diffs and explain for each how it violates the restriction. If admin action is considered by others, it should not be taken until after 05:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC), when The Rambling Man's current block expires and they are able to reply here.  Sandstein  19:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Winsocker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 :

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

1. [58] Edits on I/P conflict and removal of sourced material
2. [59] Edits of I/P conflict and disruptive edit by its nature
3. [60] Edits on I/P conflict and sourcing criticism of organisation to its own twitter without any WP:RS
4. [61] Edits for gaming the system for 500 edits threshold for example [62]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

[63]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user was warned multiple times not to edit I/P area by various users [64] first he disregarded warnings but then he decided to game the system and make many minor edits to meet the threshold except the technical violation his edits by themselves disruptive changing anti-Semitic to anti-Jew deleting sourced material he didn't like and so on.--Shrike (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

I've been under fire for mostly changing "Palestinian territories" to "Palestine" which is absurd. It seem's that when I edited the college's in Palestine to include the "State of Palestine", it apparently falls under the Arab-Israeli Conflict (I was given no warning when editing those Palestinian university pages). I feel this is a huge restriction on something that has nothing to do on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I really only understood the "Arab-Israeli" conflict message to be wary of editing only things that have to do with the conflict and that is how it should be enforced. Location's that just happen in Palestine should not get this restriction as it puts a blockade on improving those page's to begin with. (Especially if they are 'stub' pages)

The next proof he uses is me changing "anti-Semitic" to "anti-Jew. Firstly, the definition of "Semitic" is "a subfamily of Afroasiatic languages that includes Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, and Phoenician." [see here]. As you can see, the word "Semitic" covers mostly groups from the middle east, while the word "anti-Semitic" usually means "Anti-Jew" in North America, we must keep in mind for our users in Europe & Asia, and more importantly, the Middle East where the definition is taught differently. This is a more accurate version.

The third statement was a edit against the UN Watch, I did realize there was no "criticism" despite the group coming under fire from it. The organization does lean more of a pro-Israel lobbyist group but I do realize this should have edit better.

Lastly, the user say's I was trying to "game" the system. It is not very hard to go through random article's and try to slightly improve it better. What is worse is that GiantSnowman had to go and RV all of them without at least warning me first. "Gaming" the system mean's to gain something in a way it was not intended but nothing I did was out of scope of what Wikipedia allows you to do.

Many, many times, I have asked users to talk about issues in a talk page to handle problems and 0 people have done that, especially since the entire reason of a talk page is to go over issues instead of countless RV's. I have even explain my RV's.

It seem's that the user's i am talking to are taking action before discussion which is unhealthy since we get to no terms of reason. Winsocker (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On top of gaming the system and other violations, I am troubled by this editor's seeming inability to understand what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is. She or he makes edits almost exclusively to articles about Palestine and Israel, yet asks "What did I edit that was part of the Arab Israeli conflict?". See User talk:Sir Joseph#You said I recently edited an Arab-Israeli conflict... as well. I think it's very disturbing that a partisan editor isn't aware that she or he is editing in a conflict area. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winsocker, you are mistaken about the meaning of the word "antisemitism". It has nothing to do with people who speak Semitic languages. It has, and always has had, one meaning, and that is Jew-hatred. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MShabazz 1. You say, "It has nothing to do with people who speak Semitic languages." which is false. "Semitic" means that you COME from these areas, not that you speak it. You can be arab yet unable to speak arabic. 2. "It has, and always has had, one meaning, and that is Jew-hatred." - This is where your location involves. You may be from the US which is what people call it but someone from Asia or the Middle East do not call it like that. It is even worse if they use a translator to try to translate the statement because while we read it in one way, they read it in another. Be mindful of where your reader's may be located and try to be almost exact & clear as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winsocker (talk • contribs) 13:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Winsocker, but you are completely wrong. On so many levels. The word "antisemitism" has nothing to do with "semitic" languages and it never has. The English-language word "antisemitism" doesn't have different meanings on different continents. You seem to be fond of dictionaries. As Objective3000 suggested, why don't you look up "antisemitism" and see what it says? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from any other violation, I think this editor needs to be blocked until they learn when to use - and not to use - apostrophes. RolandR (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside to Winsocker. You cannot always determine the meaning of a word from its parts. The OED defines anti-Semitism as: “Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews.” Objective3000 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm certainly pretty uncomfortable with the string of 150-or-so edits on July 9 that mostly amount to reformatting infobox sources with no or little effect on the rendered article. I'm inclined to treat this as ECP-gaming and just remove the extended confirmed userright, but would like some input from others before doing so. GoldenRing (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the consensus here, I've removed the extended confirmed userright. I don't have time to dig in a lot of detail into this user's edits just now, so won't take an opinion on whether further action is warranted, though what I've done probably amounts almost to a de facto topic ban from Arab-Israeli subjects. GoldenRing (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with removing it until this user takes note of our rules and expectations. Jonathunder (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with removing the extended-confirmed user right. A condition for restoring it should be his understanding of which matters are connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thinking that 'Palestinian territories' could be harmlessly replaced with 'Palestine' shows he is not there yet. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal, particularly in light of OR claims as in the 3rd provided diff. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• We are seeing a lot of gaming of ExtConf lately. My opinion is that the removal should be an AE sanction, and it should have a minimum time limit before it can be appealed here, in addition to the other terms already mentioned. 6 months seems reasonable to me. I think we need to send a clear message that if you game the system, there are consequences, so it is better to just earn the bit properly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more I dig into his contribs, the less comfortable I am with him editing anywhere related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Not a judgement of his character, but he clearly doesn't understand the ramifications of his edits. Things like not understanding people's reaction to changing Palestinian territory to State of Palestine, is just the tip of the ice burg. I wish I could give a time limit, but I can't and would support anything up to and including indef. Hate to be a hard ass about it, but he gamed the system to get access to an area he has proven he is genuinely not competent in, showing his intention is to become yet more active and cause more problems. That isn't fair to the rest of the editors who understand the politics involved and already have to struggle to keep things NPOV there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dennis Brown: By AE sanction do you mean something applied at AE by consensus or something applied by an individual admin (based on discretion)? An ArbCom remedy forbids the latter. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the heads up, you are absolutely correct, now that ECP is community based. Virtually all actions here are unilateral, even if we all agree, so a time limit would require consensus, which I would support any length. At this point, it is taken away already, so its less a concern. After looking at his contribs, I think a topic ban is more urgent anyway. It isn't about malice (I don't think) as much as competence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This does look like an editor who lacks the basic competence required to edit in this very sensitive area. Insisting that "antisemitic" means something other than what everybody else thinks it does is just one sign of this. I recommend an indefinite A/I conflict topic ban until they demonstrate their competence with a record of high-quality contributions in another topic area.  Sandstein  19:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:BU Rob13: The editor was alerted to ARBPIA on 21 June and all the diffs presented above are *after* his notification. So it seems to me any admin could issue a topic ban. I would support an indefinite ban, with the right of appeal in six monrhs. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree that a topic ban is warranted. As to the scope, I would go broader and ban from all Middle East-related topics, as this editor appears to be unable to tell whether an article is related to the A/I conflict or not. T. Canens (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point, and I would support that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might be useful, but within the scope of WP:ARBPIA we can at most impose a topic ban with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the whole Middle East. Closing accordingly. If the editor doesn't get it, blocks will have to follow.  Sandstein  09:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support an indefinite TBAN on the A/I conflict with appeal possible after six months of productive and clueful editing elsewhere, but I too am concerned about this user's competence in working out what subjects fall into the scope of the A/I conflict. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• A few comments on my understanding of the technicalities here:
  • The DS under which a topic ban would be imposed cover the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the Middle East in general. While maybe you could justify a tban covering ME topics with the other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project language of the DS policy, it's not generally done, I think.
  • I don't follow the discussion above about time limits - any administrator can take "other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project" so long as the offending behaviour is within the scope of DS, and that logically includes taking away the extended-confirmed userright for either a fixed period or indefinitely. The policy doesn't explicitly allow this, but it at least implicitly says so when it says, "enforcing administrators are not authorised ... to require the removal of user rights that cannot be granted by an administrator or to restrict their usage" - that is, they are authorised to remove user rights than can be granted by an administrator, such as extended-confirmed.
  • I don't think we can deny someone the right of appeal as part of an AE action, at least not until appeals become disruptive. If they want to lodge an appeal here, at ARCA or at AN, they are free to do so. If we're going to put this sort of limit, I'd phrase it as 'reconsideration after six months' - the intent is that they can appeal on the merits of the sanction itself immediately, but if they want it reconsidered on the grounds of a demonstrated improved track record then they need to wait at least six months.
  • Reading the way the discussion above is going, someone could always just indef them as NOTHERE as a non-AE action. GoldenRing (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur.  Sandstein  09:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]