arbitration enforcement action appeal by wookieinheat procedural notes the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 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 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 times that length 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