"

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by WookieInHeat

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, 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).

 Appealing user   –   

 Sanction being appealed  - Blocked for 48 hours for: ""Personal attacks or harassment: NPA and ARBPIA violation - accused editor of supporting terrorism"" - Discussion of sanctions at WP:AE

 Administrator imposing the sanction  

 Notification of that administrator  The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by WookieInHeat

Georgewilliamherbert's reason for blocking me relied solely upon the idea that i personally attacked Nableezy by accusing him of ""supporting terrorism"". from an absolutist POV, nowhere in any edit was the word ""terrorism"" even mentioned. my observation that nableezy's political POV on wikipedia aligns with the political goals of hamas was by no means meant as a personal attack, nor to insinuate the more abstract idea of nableezy's support for terrorism. my primary intention was to highlight nableezy's possible WP:COI with the subject while he was pushing to have negative information about it removed. my main point here is that i find george's reasoning for my block to have been rather arbitrary and ambiguous.also, the duration of the blocks handed out seems somewhat irrational. nableezy, a user with a lengthy history of often thinly veiled and sometimes outright personal attacks not to mention numerous complaints about their civility, was given only a token block of three hours for a direct personal attack . whereas i have no significant or pertinent history of incivility and was blocked for 16 times that length (48 hours) for what some have misconstrued as a personal attack based on the wholly fabricated idea that i called someone a ""terrorism supporter"". not to mention nableezy plainly knew that his blatant personal attack would result in a ban, where i went to some length to clarify that my comment was not a personal attack. also, i did not respond when nableezy attacked me directly, and i was the first user to drop the argument and bring the discussion back to the topic at hand .i really cannot stress enought the fact that i never accused nableezy of ""supporting terrorism"", not only did i never directly say this, it was never even implied by my comments. thus it would seem my block was based entirely on a misconception of what was meant when i said ""nableezy displays his affinity for the palestinian cause, and by association hamas""  implying this was actually instead intended to say ""nableezy displays his affinity for the palestinian cause, and by association terrorism"". this is simply not the case, and frankly i am somewhat offended myself at george's insinuation that i would arbitrarily class