Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:35, 12 January 2010

Requests for 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

ChildOfMidnight

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning ChildOfMidnight

User requesting enforcement: Sceptre ^(talk) 00:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ChildOfMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#ChildofMidnight and Scjessey restricted

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: [1] As COM was not mentioned in the amendment request (and Scjessey was) apart from a non-controversial statement explaining why I'm not adding him to the request, I believe that this is not exempt like the arbitration pages normally are from topic bans, and is, in spirit, similar to COM posting in an AN(I) thread about Scjessey and contravenes his restriction set down in the case.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): COM has been blocked three times for contravening his topic bans.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [2]

Discussion concerning ChildOfMidnight

Statement by ChildOfMidnight

Statement by Bigtimepeace

Just a quick comment here as I'm out the door. I don't think this should be acted on, though it was not improper to file the request for enforcement. ChildofMidnight was named (I think unnecessarily) in the Request for Amendment mentioned above. It was reasonable for him to respond at that point, though it is true he should not have mentioned Scjessey. In so doing the he was largely pointing to what ChildofMidnight perceived to be violations of the interaction restriction between Scjessey and C of M (which largely took place on my talk page). I don't think those comments were violations (see my statement here, especially paragraph three), but it's not unreasonable to for C of M to mention them if he saw a problem. The rub here is that there has been some recent discussion (going back to early December) about how to construe an interaction ban between two parties, and some of that discussion has led to accusations of violating the ban, etc. etc. In that context (which is a bit confusing, and admittedly somewhat ridiculous) I don't think sanctioning anyone is a good idea, though everyone involved should definitely drop the whole matter. A block of C of M really will not accomplish anything, particularly as the amendment request which led to this issue is now being withdrawn by the editor who proposed it. I can provide more detail about the situation later if needed but will be offline for the rest of the night. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scjessey

In the interests of trying to foster good relations and avoid further drama, I would prefer that no action be taken against ChildofMidnight for this. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning ChildOfMidnight

Result concerning ChildOfMidnight

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

At the request of the two editors above, (especially Scjessey, whose statement I commend), I will close this request as "no action taken." NW (Talk) 18:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to modify topic ban (User:Thomas Basboll)

Resolved

On December 8, a topic-ban against me that had been implemented under the 9/11 ArbCom ruling was suspended for a trial period of one-month. (See discussion archived here.) My original request had been to modify the ban: instead of being an indefinite ban it would become a two-year ban, to run out on April 21, 2010. I hadn't expected to return to editing so quickly, but I've tried to do some work that might indicate what sorts of thing I'd like to do if I returned. I'll leave it up to you to evaluate my editing and decide on the future status of the ban. Thanks for your time.--Thomas B (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this is an ArbCom sanction and ArbCom retain jurisdiction, you should raise this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment for a formal decision. Thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Will do.--Thomas B (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offliner

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedurally closing this thread; the action continues in the appeal below. Sandstein 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Offliner

User requesting enforcement: Sander Säde 10:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: All following edits violate WP:BLP, specifically adding highly dubious category not supported by neither article content nor sources.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): [3] Arbitration enforcement by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), later vacated as Offliner had not officially been warned under WP:DIGWUREN previously ([4])
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Extended topic ban from all BLP and Estonia-related articles

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Attempts by myself and others to resolve the issue without involving AE:

Offliner created category Category:Victims of Estonian political repression and added the category to three BLP articles - Mark Sirõk, Dmitri Linter and Johan Bäckman. There is no content whatsoever in any of those articles supporting the category as required by WP:BLP#Categories nor are there any sources whatsoever supporting it. Offliner has been repeatedly asked to provide sources ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]); so far he has not been able to do so and has only claimed that the inclusion of category is "clearly demonstrated" ([13], [14]).

As a background information - Mark Sirõk and Dmitri Linter organized a demonstration which became a looting and rioting (see Bronze Night). They were arrested under suspicion of organizing mass riots, but the court acquitted them of the charge and monetarily compensated the time they were arrested, as they were not responsible for the demonstration's becoming a riot - and peaceful demonstrations are obviously not forbidden. There have been no claims by them nor any other source that they were arrested for their political views.

Johan Bäckman has repeatedly calling to violently overthrow Estonian government. He attempted to come to Estonia without travel documents required to cross borders between Schengen countries, was detained (not arrested, like Offliner has repeatedly claimed) for a few hours and denied entry to the country under a brief entry prohibition (two weeks, if I remember correctly). No source has claimed he was "victimized" nor that he is a victim of "Estonian political repression".

Offliner has a history of BLP violations and tendentious editing of Estonia-related topics:

Mark Sirõk. Edit-warring to include BLP-violating material (health information sourced in a web forum!) and to remove well-sourced material: [15], [16], [17]
Kaitsepolitsei: Including and edit-warring to include criticism from non-valid sources (Johan Bäckman's blog and self-published book): [18], [19],

[20], [21], [22]

Creation of one-sided WP:POVFORK Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia, merged quickly to Human rights in Estonia after AfD.
Creation of draft in his userspace, which started "According to organization X, there is considerable glorification of the country's nazi past in Estonia, with parades of former SS-officers taking place in the capital Tallinn annually", an utter fabrication to a degree where it was seen as an attack page by an Estonian editor [23].

Response to Offliner

Please do not misrepresent BrownHairedGirl. She did not claim that removal of category from BLP articles during CfD discussion was inappropriate - in fact, she did the opposite, supporting removal of categories from articles that violate BLP principles, providing the articles are listed in CfD discussion and removal of category is clearly spelled out. And as I left a very clear notification to the CfD discussion prior to removing categories ([24]) and the articles are linked in the discussion...

You still haven't provided a single source supporting inclusion of those articles in the category, a policy which is very clearly spelled out in WP:BLP#Categories - and that despite close to ten requests to provide sources for your claims. Like you wrote below, you believe the inclusion of category to the articles is justified. Wikipedia does not work with beliefs, Wikipedia works with sources. Hence inclusion of this category to articles without single supporting source is a violation of core Wikipedia principles.

I fail to understand what has EEML has got to do with your policy violations? Also, you are (again) misrepresenting Arbitration Committee, as there are no FoF's related to "organizing campaigns aimed at getting rid of editors who had content disagreements with the group". Would you please stick to the truth at least on this page? --Sander Säde 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [25]

Discussion concerning Offliner

Statement by Offliner

User:Sander Säde emptied the category by removing it from all articles while the category was discussed at CfD.[26] This is inapproriate and forbidden under CfD policy: Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision.Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Therefore I reverted his removal.

As I have explained on the CfD, I believe the inclusion of the category in the three articles is justified. I definitely do not see a WP:BLP violation and neither did any of the other participants in the CfD. I have no objections to the category being deleted or removed from all articles if this is the consensus; I only reverted Sander Säde's removal because it is inapproriate during a CfD.~~as confirmed by admin User:BrownHairedGirl: [27].~~

I'd reluctantly also like to point out that User:Sander Säde was a member of the WP:EEML cabal, which according to ArbCom was responsible for organizing campaigns aimed at getting rid of editors who had content disagreements with the group. Offliner (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

I was alerted to this discussion by a note on my talk page.[28]

I have no knowledge of the dispute between these two editors other than what I have seen at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 31#Category:Victims_of_Estonian_political_repression, and no comment on the dispute other than in relation to my note on removing articles from a category while it is being discussed at CFD.[29].

Offliner is incorrect to claim that I said that "it is inappropriate during a CfD". What I actually said was "Per WP:BLPCAT, I will always support the removal of BLP articles from categories which are not supported by references."[30]

In the same comment I also noted that "However, doing so whilst a CFD discussion is underway has a major impact on the discussion, so any such removal should be clearly notified at the CFD, listing the articles removed and explaining the reason. Editors discussing the fate of a category need to know why it has suddenly been emptied, because without that information they cannot reach a meaningful decision. Unless the decategorised articles are listed at the discussion, the removal appears sneaky, even when the removal has been done in good faith."

However, User:Sander Säde's comment at CFD noting the removal of articles did not actually list the articles removed.[31] They had been listed elsewhere in the discussion, but it would have been clearer for all concerned if the note on their removal had explicitly listed them, which User:Sander Säde has now done in response to my comment.[32] None of the three edits removing the category from articles[33][34][35] has an edit summary explaining the reason for their removal, which would also have been helpful.

At this point, rather than a further argument about process, it seems to me that since Offliner supports the categorisation of these three articles as "Victims of Estonian political repression", Offliner should explain which references to reliable sources explicitly support this view, without WP:OR or WP:SYN. My understanding of the relevant guidelines and of the general principle that wikipedia relies on secondary sources is that it is insufficient for a reference to simply report events; what is needed is references to reliable sources which explicitly make the value judgement that the actions against each of these people did amount to political repression.

As a wider point, I would like to note my only other comment in that CFD debate, in which I expressed a concern that the whole series of categories under Category:Victims of political repression are too subjective to be viable.[36] It seems to me this particular dispute is an inevitable consequence of wikipedia's use of this group of subjective categories, and I am surprised that these categories do not appear to have generated many more similar disputes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Offliner

Result concerning Offliner

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

User:Offliner is placed on a 1RR restriction for 6 months, with the additional condition that the user is also required to discuss all reverts. henrik•talk 13:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appeal by Offliner

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Appealing user: Offliner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Offliner (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 1R restriction

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction: Henrik (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Henrik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor: [37]

Statement by Offliner

I was given a 1R restriction by User:Henrik for making only 2 reverts in 24h in 3 different articles. I have done very little reverting since July 2009 (after I changed my habits), and practically none during the last two months. My recent contributions have been positive and a result of hard work. I believe these reverts are my only actions in recent months that could be regarded as controversial.

After I had created Category:Victims of Estonian political repression, User:Sander Säde (with whom I've had content disputes in the past) immediately nominated it at CfD[38] and, at the same time, removed it from all articles.[39][40][41][42][43][44]

Why I think the sanction is unjustified

I reverted Sander Säde's 2 removals because my interpretation of the WP:CFD policy was that removing the category from articles is forbidden while the category under CfD. (...please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision...)[45]

Sander Säde then submitted an WP:AE report about me, souping it up with some old (pre-July 2009) diffs which I think are irrelevant to this case and also misrepresentations. I do not believe that this report was made in good faith, taking into account that Sander Säde was a member of the WP:EEML, which is known to have organized noticeboard campaigns aimed at getting rid of the group's content opponents.

There are indications that admin Henrik made his decision in haste (only 3 hours after the request was filed), without checking all the facts. For example, he claims that User:Sander Säde discussed his reverts on the article talk pages[46], which is simply not true. The only post regarding the category on the talk pages is from User:Termer.[47][48][49] (Neither did Sander Säde give any edit summaries in his reverts, marking them as minor edits.)[50][51][52][53][54][55] Henrik also says that he doesn't "see any attempts to engage in discussion" from me, and that I made the reverts without discussion.[56] But this is again, simply not true. I commented on the category at the CfD, which I thought was the correct place for such discussion: [57].

Admission of mistake

I thought that the inclusion of the category in the three articles (Johan Bäckman, Mark Sirõk and Dmitri Linter) was justified based on the article content (all three were arrested in Estonia for political reasons.)

However, after thinking this over and seeing the comments at the CfD, I now believe that adding this category to these articles was a mistake, because many sources do not explicitly say that they were victims of political repression (which I now think should be a requirement for the categorization.)

I now support removing this category from these articles and I also support deleting the category since the removal would make it underpopulated. I have changed my vote at the CfD accordingly.[58]

I feel that getting a 1R restriction for making two errors (mistakenly believing that adding the category to the 3 articles was justified, and misinterpreting the CfD policy), especially with no recent background of edit warring, is extremely harsh.

Promises

I will promise not to create categories on politically controversial subjects in the future and be very careful when adding categories to such articles. I will also promise to avoid edit warring and to follow a voluntary 1RR from now on.

I'm not asking for the 1R sanction to be lifted because I want to edit war, but because I think the sanction is unjustified and because I'm concerned about the effect it will have on my reputation.

Following Sandstein's good advice, I'm going to withdraw the appeal. Offliner (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Henrik

This user was very nearly restricted (1 revert per week, indefinitely) half a year ago[59] for the exact same thing: edit warring over contentious categories, a restriction only vacated on a technicality and apparent exhaustion[60]. And in October [61] and again now ([62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70] - as linked above) this user does the exact same thing again, which unfortunately, combined with a general tendency towards battlefield behavior and tendentious editing meant that I considered restrictions necessary (though granted; there are others, on both sides, which are likely worse in this aspect). As 1RR and discussing reverts is only standard good practice for contentious areas, I consider it a fairly lightweight and limited restriction.

I'm glad that User:Offliner admits his mistake and promises to have learnt from it, but as this is one continuously troublesome topic area, I think a formal restriction will have a better chance of not being forgotten in the heat of the moment. henrik•talk 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the appeal by Offliner

I don't really have an opinion about Offliner's 1R, however not so long ago I was slapped with a 1R by admin Future Perfect after I didn't even reverted more than once, I made 2 single reverts one of each I self-reverted after i was notified it was a wrong revert. Unlike Offliner I also I don't have a history of edit warring. If Offliner's restriction is lifted it goes without saying that I expect mine to be lifted too, almost by default. Dr. Loosmark 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Loosmark: Your restriction has already been discussed and confirmed [71]. I fail to see how you yet again bringing it up helps the project. Varsovian (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sander Säde (ec)

Just... sigh. A lot of - shall we put it mildly - misrepresentations by Offliner.

Offliner brings up EEML once again, without explaining what it has to do with his breaking a core Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP). And "WP:EEML, which is known to have organized noticeboard campaigns aimed at getting rid of the group's content opponents" - strangely, Arbitration Committee did not find such thing in their very thorough investigation. No one but myself, Offliner and BrownHairedGirl posted to the AE request.

I did not "at the same time, removed it from all articles", I removed the category three days after I had requested Offliner to provide sources ([72]), and Offliner was unable to come up with a single source supporting the addition of category to BLP articles, as it is very clearly spelled out in WP:BLP#Categories. And I notified that I am removing the categories in CfD discussion, before removing them ([73]). After his first reverts I posted a very clear request for sources to his talk page ([74]), which went completely unanswered, same as Termer's posts to article talk pages.

As for not giving edit summaries - indeed, I used HotCat (default settings) to remove categories. I did not know until Offliner brought it up here (linking them twice for some reason in his appeal) that HotCat marks the edits as minor. I had no intentions of sneakily removing the categories; if I would have wanted to do that, then it would have been rather silly to announce it in CfD beforehand, which is monitored by far more people than those articles.

"irrelevant to this case and also misrepresentations" - no, they're definitely not misrepresentations. Or are you claiming that you didn't edit war to include health information sourced to web forum (!) to BLP while at the same time removing well-sourced "uncomfortable" material - and that you also included and edit-warred to add criticism from non-valid sources (Johan Bäckman's personal blog and self-published book) to Kaitsepolitsei? They were relevant to the case in hand to show your prior BLP violations and highly tendentious editing of Estonia-related topics.

And for the third time Offliner claims that Johan Bäckman was arrested, which also isn't true. He was briefly detained (he didn't have travel documents) and denied entry to the country. He was never arrested. Other two were not arrested for "political reasons", as Offliner believes, despite being unable to come up with a single source supporting that view - they were arrested under suspicion of organizing mass riots, but the court acquitted them of the charge.

And finally, I believe Henrik's decision came with consideration of Offliner's prior blocks - he has been blocked twice for edit warring. I have no comments on merit of this restriction but I think it is fairly mild and would not be an issue unless an editor plans to continue revert-warring. In fact, I think I will adopt it myself - only one revert in a day unless I am dealing with obvious vandalism - and requirement to discuss reverts is something that should be more pronounced in Wikipedia policies.

--Sander Säde 20:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sandstein

Henrik's reasoning is persuasive, and I do recall Offliner's username from numerous previous AE cases dealing with Eastern Europe. But his admissions of mistakes and promises to observe a voluntary 1R restriction are also very encouraging. My recommendation to Offliner is to withdraw this appeal at this time, but to re-approach Henrik after a month or two of trouble-free editing. Henrik might be inclined to lift the formal restriction at this time, and if he does not, a new appeal might fall on more receptive ears. Sandstein 21:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Four Deuces

I do not see how Offliner's actions can be seen as being outside the ordinary. Here is what happened in all three articles. (For disclosure, Offliner asked my opinion of this matter.)

Offliner created a category and populated it with three articles.
Sander Säde nominated the category for deletion
Sander Säde removed the articles from the category with the notation: (Removed category Victims of Estonian political repression (using HotCat)).
Offliner restored the category with the notation: (rv - restore valid cat. per article content)
Sander Säde posted to Offliner's talk page not to add unsourced categories
Sander Säde removed the articles from the category with the notation: (Removed category Victims of Estonian political repression (using HotCat))
Offliner restored the category with the notation: (rv disruptive removal of a valid cat during a CfD by Sander Säde)
Termer then set up a discussion thread.[75]

Essentially Offliner twice restored (with edit summaries) his edits that had been removed without explanation in the edit summaries or any discussion thread having been set up on the talk page. At some point Offliner should have used the talk page and dispute resolution but it is not obvious when this should have been done.

Henrik wrote the following to justify his decision:

Alright, I'll explain my reasoning and also why I did not give User:Sander Säde a corresponding restriction in this case.

You made six reverts, two to each article. I don't see any attempts to engage in discussion, or substantiate the claims with sourcing. Reverting the same user 6 times without discussion amounts to actionable edit warring. A reason Sander Säde did not get a corresponding restriction is that he posted discussion requests here and on the talk pages.

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion is also not a policy page, and the guidelines there don't amount to policy. The request for sourcing was reasonable, and the BLP concerns are not patently unreasonable (thus meriting discussion), both which give User:Sander Säde policy based justification for his actions based in WP:V and WP:BLP respectively. The burden on people wanting material in biographies is always on the one inserting it. henrik•talk 15:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[76]

In fact, Sander Säde did not post any discussion on the talk page and nothing was posted there until Offliner's final edit. Neither Sander Säde nor Termer had raised the BLP concerns. Since the purpose of the BLP policy is to protect subjects against unfounded claims, there was no violation of the spirit here. Furthermore, Sander Säde posting to Offliner's page was not inviting of discussion:

Please stop adding unsourced categories like you've done repeatedly. This is an online encyclopedia, not a vehicle of propaganda, and adding highly questionable categories based on your prejudices is not acceptable. Nothing in these articles warrants the category; unless you can come up with solid, reliable sources claiming that those people are victims of Estonian political repression, your actions can be considered vandalism. And I mean actual sources - not personal blogs, but court cases and academic journals. Until you have such sources, please stop. --Sander Säde 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, it is not normal to add sources to categories. The policy is: "...the case for each category must be made clear by the article text. Articles must state the facts that support each category tag, and these facts must be sourced". The articles clearly state that two of the subjects were unsuccessfully prosecuted for actions at a demonstration while the third was denied entry to Estonia. The dispute really is not whether sources exist in the article, but whether they rise to the level necessary to include them under the category.

I think that this matter should have been treated as a content dispute.

The Four Deuces (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sander Säde has written to me with the following comments:

Ah, I see that Offliner has asked you to comment before you did - good, it saves me from starting a new section.

In your comment, you miss the fact that I posted to CfD discussion prior removing the categories - and that happened three days after I had asked to provide sources for Offliner's claims (he has now admitted that no such sources exist). I also pointed out BLP concerns in the CfD; as Offliner replied to the post he obviously saw it. And it would be rather silly to claim that Offliner did not realize the three articles were BLP's and hence covered by WP:BLP, a policy that is well known to him.

You also claim the articles say "two of the subjects were unsuccessfully prosecuted for actions at a demonstration while the third was denied entry to Estonia.". That is not true, they were not prosecuted for actions at a demonstration - as stated in the articles, they were arrested on charges of organizing mass riots, something that is illegal everywhere in the world. In case of Bäckman, it seems that both you and Offliner assume that it is acceptable to incite violence against a democratically elected government. Try to imagine if you would openly and repeatedly call to kill Obama - would you be surprised if you are not allowed to enter USA? And if you would try to do so without travel documents (like Bäckman did), would you be only detained for a couple of hours, then released and not allowed to enter the country for two weeks like Bäckman was?

In short, I ask you to fix the errors in your comment.

--Sander Säde 09:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[77]

Regarding BLP, although Sander Säde did mention in the CfD application that the articles were BLP, there was no discussion of the significance of BLP until after Offliner's second reversion:

Sander Saeda: Seeing your biography under derogatory category can result in court action against Wikipedia....

Offliner: I fail to see the BLP violation...

I note that despite Henrik's concern about BLP violations he did not revert Offliner's edit and Sander Säde did not use the article talk pages or any other method of dispute resolution other than the CfD to notify other editors of the supposed BLP violation.

While I do not "assume that it is acceptable to incite violence against a democratically elected government", I can see that some people might believe that the charges against them were false, especially considering that the prosecution was unable to prove their case.

The Four Deuces (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Biophys

Some diffs of interest can be found here. Biophys (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Offliner

Offliner has withdrawn his appeal. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appeal by Nableezy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Appealing user: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: 2 month topic ban from I/P conflict articles and block for violating that ban by filing a CU request

Editor who imposed the sanction: Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that editor: [78]

Statement by Nableezy

Executive summary

As requested: Sandstein topic-bans me for 2 months as a result of edits to the Jonathan Cook AfD. After being informed that nearly all of my edits to the AfD came after the conclusion of my talk page ban, which AGK clarified as including AfDs, Sandstein raises the issue with the two edits I made prior to that ban concluding which were reversions of other users removing Nickhh and Nishidani's comments. Later he blocks me for editing a CU request regarding a suspected sock of NoCal100 on the basis that the suspected sockpuppetry took place in the I/P conflict so the SPI is off-limits. I am appealing both actions.

And Tznaki, before this topic ban was placed both the article and the talk page ban had expired

Full summary

Sandstein imposed a 4 2 month topic ban as a result of this AE thread that centered around edits made to an AfD about Jonathan Cook. In that complaint I wrote that AGK had clarified the scope of my topic ban and that AfDs were to be treated as article talk pages, from which I was banned from one month starting 21:02 October 29, [79]. I also wrote that my actions at the AfD had previously been discussed in another AE thread, (here), which Tznaki had declined action as a result of AGK's clarification. Epeefleche, who had been actively campaigning for disciplinary action in that thread, opens another thread about the same AfD but also including Nickhh and Nishidani in the request for enforcement. Having just dealt with this issue I said that AGK had already clarified that my topic ban on AfDs was for 1 month and that a previous AE thread had already been opened, and closed, about my actions at the AfD. As the result was still fresh, it did not occur to me that diffs were needed, especially given that Tznaki had closed the earlier thread and had commented in the new one. Tznaki's comments in the new thread included In this case, Nableezy is not sanctioned under Westbank Judea-Samaria, and no action will be taken against him under this request.

Sandstein, 2 weeks after the thread had any comment, comes to AE and closes the thread, saying that in my case By editing the I-P-related AfD, he violated the I-P topic ban imposed as a discretionary sanction in effect at the time. He is also unapologetic, asserting that "AGK has clarified that my topic ban does not include AfDs and my actions here have already been addressed in an earlier AE thread", but providing no diffs to support these assertions, which makes them immaterial. What matters is the sanctions log, which clearly states that the ban applies to "all pages within subject areas relating to this arbitration case", which includes AfDs.

Within two hours I provided Sandstein the diff and prior AE thread that he had said was "immaterial". Sandstein then adjusts his position on why the topic ban is justified by raising 2 diffs of edits I had made to the AfD in the 24 hours prior to my talk page ban expiring. Those two edits are [80] and [81]. As to these two edits, as they are now used to justify a two month ban a month after they occurred: yes, they are technical violation of my topic ban. The reason for reverting those edits was that I felt, and still feel, that highly involved users should not be attempting to enforce arbitration decisions, there is a reason that task is left to uninvolved admins. I asked both users who I had reverted to instead go to WP:AE if they felt that Nick and Nishidani were violating their topic ban and let an uninvolved admin make that determination and decide how to enforce the decision instead of unilaterally deciding that they had in fact violated the topic ban and removing the comments. One of those users, Mr. Hicks The III, has since been shown to be a sockpuppet of the banned user NoCal100. I felt, and still feel, that my reversions were essentially reverting vandalism as the other users were removing or modifying other peoples comments. I purposely did not comment about the AfD itself until after my talk page ban had expired.

After placing the topic ban, Sandstein blocks me for violating that ban by making edits to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100 (edits that have since been endorsed by a CU clerk as meriting a CU). Sandstein maintains that as these edits were about sockpuppetry in the I/P area that my topic ban precludes me making such edits. Now forgetting for a second that he could have just told me that instead of blocking me, these edits are in no way related to the I/P conflict. I do not discuss the conflict at all in those edits. Sandstein cites a recent request for clarification as proof that such edits fall within the scope of the topic ban. The only thing that I see that could possibly lead to that interpretation is Vassyana's comments that shifting discussion to another venue is a violation. But I did not shift any discussion, I did not discuss the actual conflict anywhere. I requested an unblock asking for any reasonable person to show how those edits were related to the I/P conflict. Sandstein replies that as an arbitration enforcement action the block may only be overturned by coming here, which as I was blocked I was obviously unable to do, and the reviewing admin threatened to remove my talk page access for "abuse" of the template, apparently for having the audacity to post one single unblock request. As I still feel that my block log contains a block that was wholly without basis I request that a note be made in the log that the block was improper.

I request that the topic ban be either revoked or drastically shortened as my edits after those two listed above were not in violation of my topic ban. If it is felt that those two edits merit an additional topic ban I feel that ~~four~~ two months is far too long for two edits made over a month ago.

Note

If somebody wishes to start a separate section on an unrelated topic please do so, but I ask that we not clutter this one up with arguments. This section is to address specific things and topics unrelated are topics that distract. nableezy - 00:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

The topic ban I imposed lasts for two months, not four ([82], [83]). But then I suppose we would not be here if Nableezy were in the habit of paying attention to the sanctions that apply to him, though he is to be commended for finally going about this the proper way and making an appeal for community consideration. (Edit, 22:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC): This has now in part been amended to read 2 months; the original appeal referred to a 4 months ban.)

The reason for the topic ban is noted at the AE thread. The matter has been discussed at great length, and frequently impolitely, at User talk:Sandstein#What a way to start the New Year!, so I'll not repeat here what I said in these threads. In view of Nableezy's unapologetic and generally confrontative attitude to his infringement of the original topic ban ([84]), and considering that he infringed the new topic ban from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within three days of it being imposed ([85]) instead of making an appeal (a request for lifting the resulting enforcement block was declined, if a bit curtly, by another admin), I recommend that this appeal be declined and the ban maintained, both to disencourage Nableezy and other editors from infringing arbitration sanctions and to prevent disruption in the area of conflict.

Of course, I am also fine with whatever consensus develops here at AE to modify or lift the ban, if administrators who may be more acquainted with the underlying dispute(s) than I deem it appropriate. One might ask, however, why an editor who labels himself as retired, which he maintains is meant seriously and not as a gesture of protest ([86]) has any interest in filing an appeal against a topic ban. Sandstein 21:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: it might be of interest to whoever determines the outcome of this appeal to evaluate whether the notifications by Tiamut (talk · contribs), beginning on 21:22, 5 January 2010, may be an attempt at votestacking insofar as they appear to be addressed to editors who seem to share her and Nableezy's point of view in content disputes in the area of conflict, except for Epeefleche. Sandstein 23:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the appeal by Nableezy

I don't really understand the ins and outs of this, but I don't think the details matter at this point. I appeal to Sandstein to lift whatever blocks or topic bans are in place against Nableezy. He's a good editor who tries hard to be neutral, which includes making edits that I'm pretty sure he doesn't personally agree with. I don't have diffs to hand, and wouldn't know how to find them, but I've seen him do it several times.

The first topic ban came about because he was reverting too much on the 2009 Gaza War article, but he was trying to insert the alternative name for it, "Gaza massacre," which was well-sourced as an alternative, and while too much reverting for any reason is never good, content-wise he was in the right. A warning would have been better than a topic ban at that point. Had that ban not been imposed, his edits to the Cook AfD would have been unproblematic and this one wouldn't have been imposed, or violated, or whatever has happened since.

It would be good if Sandstein would bring a halt to Nableezy's slide into frustration and retirement by simply lifting whatever remains of the topic ban and asking Nableezy to be more careful in future. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found one diff of the kind of thing I mean. I removed from the infobox at Modi'in Illit, an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, that it was in Judea and Samaria, because I see it as POV to use that term when the majority term is the West Bank. I am guessing that Nableezy would largely agree with me. He nevertheless reverted me, [87] because the issue had been discussed elsewhere, and a consensus had apparently been reached to use Judea and Samaria in that context, because it's the formal Israeli name for that district. He stuck with that consensus, regardless of his personal views. I realize this is only one diff, but it's typical of my experience of editing with Nableezy that he seeks to follow the policies. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I have been able to figure out Nableezy's description of the events is correct, and I think the appeal should be heard. I think the admin who warned Nableezy about abusing the unblock template misunderstood something, probably an honest mistake. I am about as uninvolved as it gets and I have never edited much in the Israel-Palestine area. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if Nableezy would provide an executive summary, but I am concerned with which the frequency of which Nableezy has ended up on AE on shaky ground. The last time I checked, aside from the ban on point, Nableezy was topic banned from articles only. Have I missed something?--Tznkai (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai, this is one of those situations where the first sanction was arguably mistaken, and led to the second, which led to the third, in an escalating series of misunderstandings and frustrated responses. Fresh eyes on the whole situation are what's needed at this point. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, Tznkai, several of these cases involving Nableezy were repeat referrals of this same matter concerning the afd page.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Epeefleche.

If this is as Slim suggests, about character and editing, without diffs, I'll simply say my impression of Nableezy is polar opposite of that described by Slim directly above. I've found Nableezy to be tendentious and disruptive, exhibit a strong POV, not have much respect for WP topic bans, skirt his own topic ban, and enable topic ban violations by others. His behavior, even after being topic banned, is a strong sign that he doesn't feel a need to pay much attention to what the arbs and others have had to say about his behavior. That behavior is a time-suck from positive editing efforts by others. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the ban extension here was already appropriate for reasons discussed at length at the AE. As were the points being made here all over again. Sandstein did a commendable job in his close, IMHO.

I'm concerned w/the apparent vote-stacking here. Tiamut contacted 20 other editors, none of whom from what I can tell have expressed the view that Nableezy acted inappropriately. At the pace of one-to-two-a-minute. He appears to have stopped notifying people for a five minute period. I then at that point (not having been notified, but with an eye on the appeals page) make a comment here, and only then--five minutes after I've already commented--am I helpfully noticed by him that "since" I filed the complaint he "thought [I] might want to know that Nableezy has decided to file an appeal." (Nor does he notice anyone else after me--I'm last on his list, though he did toss in a throw-away notice to another editor before contacting me). The suggestion of vote-stacking is worrisome.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tiamut

I am deeply concerned by Sandstein's decision to reinstate the topic ban. First, because it encourages forum-shopping. After User:Tznkai declined to take any action against Nableezy stemming from User:Cptnono's complaint regarding Nableezy's edits to the Jonathan Cook AfD here, Sandstein should have dismissed the complaint by User:Epeefleche here, or at least the part that dealt with Nableezy, since it was a repeat of what Cptnono had complained about. Nableezy was essentially tried twice for the same wiki crime (double jeopardy). Sandstein does not see this legal concept to be relevant to Wikipedia as expressed in his comment here. Judging things purely by Wiki standards, however, retrying the same case and coming to a different conclusion than another admin means Sandstein's actions give the appearance of wheel-warring, at least in spirit. User:John Z raised this concern with Sandstein, asking for his thoughts on that on his talk page here, but Sandstein has declined to answer that specific question. Tiamut^talk 22:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Sandstein's concern re:votestacking (also raised by Cptnono and Epeefleche, the only two editors to so far agree with his decision, both of whom filed the double jeopardy complaints against Nableezy) - I told Sandstein that I would be contacting every editor who commented on his talk page about Nableezy's topic ban and subsequent block here so as to file an appeal or open an RfC. He did not dissuade me from doing so. True to my word, I contacted everyone who commented, even User:Breein1007 and User:No More Mr Nice Guy (both of whom did not express support for Nableezy, but rather argued with others who posted there). I then also decided to contact every editor who commented on Nableezy's talk page, expressing their concern about what had happened. Upon further reflection, I decided to contact User:Epeefleche as he filed the report that led to Nableezy being sanctioned. I did not contact Cptnono, even though he also filed a complaint, since he erased my last two talk page comments to him with the edit summary putting this behind, and asking for a block next time. I took those to mean I should not discuss this issue with him on his talk page any further. Tiamut^talk 23:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Sandstein, its not my fault that out of the eleven people who commented on your talk page about this decision, nine found it to be ill-advised. Tiamut^talk 23:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Your statement that I only contacted people who share Nableezy and my point of view (which is not exactly the same by the way) in the I-P editing arena is demonstrably false. Besides the three editors listed above (Epeefleche, No More Mr Nice Guy, and Breein1007), I also contacted IronDuke and Nsaum75, who commented below (who are on the "I" side, if any), and Apoc24, Malik Shabazz, among other editors, who do not belong to a side, as far as I know. Please refrain from assuming bad faith about those critiquing your decision. Tiamut^talk 00:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

I note that Sandstein's comment is dripping with sarcasm and condescension. I tried to discuss the matter with her/him civilly yesterday, and Sandstein insisted she/he had no personal motive. See User talk:Sandstein#nableezy. After today's little show, it's hard to accept that argument.

I can't fathom Sandstein's logic in imposing a two-month topic ban on a month-stale complaint. When Sandstein was shown that her/his knowledge of the facts was incomplete, instead of reconsidering the topic ban, Sandstein replied, "it is your own responsability [sic] to submit any evidence in your favor in a timely manner." [88]

It's time for Sandstein to act like a grown-up and admit that she/he made a mistake. Since Sandstein seems to have taken this matter as a personal affront, it's time for a truly uninvolved administrator to take a look. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The complaints against Tiamut of canvassing are much ado about nothing. Most of the people she contacted left messages on Sandstein's Talk page yesterday and probably had it on their watchlists. Tiamut's messages were all left after nableezy notified Sandstein that he had made this appeal, [89] and probably were unnecessary for most of us. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Peter Cohen

I consider Sandstein's actions to be ill-judged. Nableezy's actions on the AfD page had already been dealt with here. It is therefore a case of double jeopardy for him to be punished for the same actions. Sandstein has claimed in this post that double jeopardy does not apply on Wikipedia. But some things very like it do: WP:WHEELWAR and WP:FORUMSHOP. In this case another admin had made a decision. Nableezy's enemies then decided to ask the other parent. Then, rather than discuss the original closing admin's decision, Sandstein has decided to go off on his own and aggressively defended his decision by blocking Nableezy when Nableezy has reported a likely sock of a well-known troublemaker. It is not a good idea to reward forum shoppers by letting them get what they want. I think this is a situation when several people, not just Nableezy and Sandstein the apparent subjects of this appeal, need to take a metaphorical teabreak and calm down with all actions being rolled back.

Just for the record, I note that Epeecleche was one who asked the other parent on this very matter with this thread that postdates the first thread on the same matter I mention above. It strikes me that rather than being an innocent victim of "time-sucking", he seems to have sucked it out of admins on this very board. Repeated frivolous referals of Nableezy here can mislead people into thinking that that user is the problem when several others are contributing too--Peter cohen (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to note, just in case is not apparent to others, that I was not aware at the time of imposing the sanction that the same conduct by Nableezy had been the subject of a previous, archived AE request by another editor, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52#nableezy. In that earlier request, Tznkai declined to take enforcement action. That decision is in no way prejudicial to my decision to act on the later request, though I would of course have taken it into account had it been mentioned and linked by any editor in the later request. Sandstein 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, the case was not linked, but had you read your fellow admin's comments in that case carefully [90], you would have noticed the following: "Third, we do not relitigate, retry, or reargue cases. We do not expand, or minimize remedies unless they explicitly invite us to do so. While we may accept or deny requests to enforce on our own discretion, we are not in the buisness of arbitrating ourselves. In this case, Nableezy is not sanctioned under Westbank Judea-Samaria, and no action will be taken against him under this request. You can see me comments in an above section for what will or will not bring sanctions down on his head."
- That comment should have prompted you to look for the "above section", which by the time you decided to come along, had long been archived. You could have asked Tznkai what he was referring to exactly. Instead, without probing further, you made your ill-advised decision. And when people pointed out to you that you had effectively retried the same case twice, you refused to back down and you still refuse to acknowledge that perhaps you may have been wrong/hasty. This is a huge problem in my opinion. You need to learn to be more receptive to the views of your fellow admins and editors. You also need to learn that no one is infallible, and that when you make a mistake you should own up to it. Tiamut^talk 23:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Replying to Sandstain not Tiamut.) Fair enough. But once the matter was mentioned, I think that you should have been aware of WP:OTHERPARENT and reconsidered your decision in the light of that, consulting Tznkai in the process.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - All: The earlier case and disposition by Tznkai was mentioned and linked in this case - in Epeefleche's background statement [91] : "and at a concurrent WP:AE on the same facts, which took place as the arbitrators were taking the above position, enforcement was declined.[92] ".John Z (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, now I see it too. I overlooked that - sorry - presumably because I assumed, obviously in error, that Nableezy himself would raise any circumstances in his favor such as a previous AE request. Had I noticed it in time, I would probably have deferred to Tznkai's judgment in the previous request. However, by now, given Nableezy's erratic and confrontative conduct after my sanction, including a "retirement" that appears not to be serious, legal threats to induce an indef block (albeit apologized for later) and breaking the sanction, I do not think that simply lifting it would benefit Wikipedia. I am amenable, though, to EdJohnston's suggestion to reduce it to one month; that might suffice to get the point across that topic bans are not to be infringed under any circumstances and to cool Nableezy down somewhat. Sandstein 07:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you are now saying, in effect, is that you wouldn't have banned him if you'd known about the prior case, but since he got pissed about it, you think it should stand? Sorry, but one cannot legitimize a ban on the basis that the user overreacted when it was applied. If that is your only remaining rationale, I think you should just do the right thing and withdraw the ban altogether. We don't do "cool down" bans at this project either BTW, you should know that. Gatoclass (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this business of the legal threat is unfair. Nableezy wrote: "If you feel that is ban worthy so be it, but please indefinitely block my account right now ... If you decline to block my account I will sue you all, (that line should give you reason for an indef block, NLT)." [93] That's not a legal threat. It's satire. Yet he was blocked for it by Chillum, and had to apologize, giving rise to the new meme that he had withdrawn a legal threat, when in fact he hadn't made one in the first place. It's clear from this alone that we're dealing with a series of misunderstandings here, each one triggering the next, so that Nableezy now has this pile of claims and counterclaims he's expected to explain clearly before he can be unblocked, which in turns give rise to the impression that there's no smoke without fire.

What is needed now is for the topic ban to be lifted completely, and Nableezy to be advised not to revert too often and to be extra-polite to everyone. End of story. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 13:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cptnono

I don't think any appeal would stand a chance if Sandstein would have put in his decision that it was based on continuous edit warring, incivility, and just generally stirring up trouble. He didn't though. He based his decision on what appeared to be a disregard for the sanction at the Cook AfD. Nableezy did break his sanction several times after it was reduced from 4 to 2 months but this wasn't one of them. Sandstein mentioned that Nableezy's assertions that AGK said it was OK could not be considered because there was no proof. Instead of saying that there are "Too many stupid people here. Bye" and calling Sandstein 's decision retarded, he should have shown the -->diffs<-- from AGK's page. Nableezy has had his ban reduced once and hasn't exactly changed as this recent event shows. If this appeal is successful, I hope that it is another reminder to not edit war and to try to be a little more civil.

I am also concerned with the consensus possible with this appeal and the upcoming RfC on Sandstein. Due to a mainly targeted campaign with one-sided wording by Tiamut ("Nableezy/Sandstein" messages), there are many eyes on this that I fear are not being completely objective (might be completely unintentional). Many people see the above decision as "shameful" and "piss poor" but others who are less vocal see some reasoning behind it. Hopefully, everyone can keep an eye out for themselves and there won't be any problem.Cptnono (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up, Nableezy said that he did show him the above diff. I don't recall seeing it so I stand corrected.Cptnono (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Here is the diff in question. It was posted two and half hours before Nableezy's posted those other comments, which while regrettable, were obviously posted in frustration over this wholly unjust decision. Tiamut^talk 23:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy should have filed an appeal with it instead of letting it sit (more than likely unnoticed with all the back and forth) and not overreacted. It happens and live and learn though.

And please don't misrepresent the situation as you did a couple sections above, Tiamut. You restoring material from other editors and increasingly combative tone led to me giving you the required notice. Also, I have much more to say about what I think is at the very least potential canvasing but I'm not sure if this is the proper venue and it detracts from the primary discussion.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, I provided the diffs to your edit summaries so anyone can see what was at stake. My intention was not to misrepresent anything, only to explain why I did not contact you. Tiamut^talk 00:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was your intent. In fact, I'm not even allowed to comment on what I feel might be other editors' intentions with my sanction. Just like the potential canvassing, it is more of a result of how you went about it not why you did it. As both Nableezy and I have mentioned up above, this is straying away from the main point of this appeal. and I am happy to stay on topic: Did the Sandstein have sufficient reason to close it as he did?Cptnono (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nsaum75

Firstly, for the record, Nableezy and I usually edit from opposing viewpoints; however I feel compelled to comment based on my concerns that the actions taken against him may be incorrect with regard to the recent block. While I think both sides could have handled this situation using a more civil tone with less "attitude" (which may have kept things from escalating to this point) I am concerned and confused by Sandstein's application of the IP ban/sanctions and subsequent block in response to Nableezy's CU request. I might (and it would be a weak might) understand the sanctions/ban-based block if Nableezy had a history of initiating frivolous SPI/CU requests with the intent of creating disruption at IP articles; however from a quick review of Nableezy's past SPI requests, that does not appear to be the case. In fact, the last few SPIs that Nableezy took part in have been successful in exposing sockpuppets of repeat offenders. If Wikipedia is going to start allowing IP sanctions & bans to be applied to administrative and clerical functions, it sets a dangerous precedent and creates a whole new interpretation of the IP discretionary sanctions -- an interpretation that may not have been the intent of the original arbiters of the case. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 00:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by IronDuke

Let me say first off that I’m commenting with a bit of a bias here: I have worked with Nableezy on several articles in a highly productive manner, and have come away with, generally, highly positive feelings about his editing style. I hope he won’t mind if I say I put him squarely on the P side of the ledger in the I-P debate, but unlike some on the P side, he is actually willing to compromise and debate productively without stonewalling.

I think the purpose of this ban – of any ban, really – is or at least should be to protect Wikipedia from disruption and bad/unstable articles. And, while some completely justifiable bans do cause disruptions, they are sometimes necessary. I’m not sure I see how this one is, however. Was this ban, therefore, a case of horrible rouge admin shenanigans? No. But it’s better for the topic area if it were lifted, IMO. And if notice need be given to Nableezy to mend his ways (and I’m not convinced it need be), surely this experience will recommend caution in the future. IronDuke 00:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

Since Tiamut insists on dragging me into this, I'd like to make the following points:

I did not comment on Nableezy's ban. Anywhere.
Tiamut practically admits on my talk page that she contacted me to avoid being accused of canvassing.
Of the nine people who commented on Sandstein's page and found the decision to be "ill-advised", there's one I've never seen editing on Nableezy's "side" on IP articles. Several are in fact on very friendly terms with him, as their talkpages show. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No More Mr Nice Guy, as I explained to you on your talk page in this section, "You may not understand that in order to avoid being accused of canvassing, it is my responsibility to inform to all interested parties (all those who commented at Sandstein's page and Nableezy's of any intended initiative. I did not think you would support such an initiative, but you have the right to know about it, so that you can oppose, if that is what you wish to do." I'm glad to see that you took me up on that offer. Tiamut^talk 00:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you said. And I'm saying I did not comment on Nableezy's ban and thus am not an interested party (at least I wasn't until you wrote my name here). Your notification is a (pretty transparent) attempt at avoiding accusations of canvassing. The same can be said about your contacting User:Breein1007. He didn't comment on the ban either. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as I said to you on your talk page: "You responded to another editor's comments regarding Nableezy's ban on that page. If I misunderstood, and you do not want to be informed/involved in the discussions to follow, then you can simply disregard this message." Clearly, you have chosen to respond to the message. However, the subject under discussion here is Nableey's appeal of Sandstein's sanction. If you have nothing to say about that, then I suggest you cease commenting here, and open a separate section for a review of my actions, should you feel that to be necessary. Tiamut^talk 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JGGardiner

I have to say that I'm not very knowledgable about procedure but that is what compels me to comment here. I'm certainly in no position to question Sandstein's conduct but I think there may be a systemic problem here. It seems to me that Nableezy was punished for misunderstanding the extent of his initial ban. I think that's unfair. The ban should be explained explicitly, if not exhaustively and a reasonable misunderstanding shouldn't result in punishment of the editor. I was troubled when I read this comment from Sandstein: "It is immaterial whether or not Nableezy says that he believed that he did not violate the ban. Based on its plain language, he ought to have known that he did."[94]

Sure, one could argue that Nableezy did know but to say that he should be punished even if he did not know seems remarkable to me. It is absolutely unjust. Like I said, I'm just an unsophisticated editor with a small edit count and I have no ability to second guess an admin. like Sandstein. I'm sure his comments reflect policy or precedent -- stare decisis or whatever. But why would we ever need to be so Draconian and inflexible? I could understand if this was an army barracks where punishment needed to be swift and severe to deter others. But the last time I checked, admitedly it was some time ago, this was an online collaborative writing project. For fun.

There was a difference of opinion about some of the terms of the ban. Frankly that's the fault of those who wrote it, not those who were subject to it. But whatever, we should work out the ambiguity and move on. And even if something had to be said immediately, then it should be said. Nableezy wasn't selling crack to children on the Sesame Street article. A warning would have been sufficient. Maybe that's not the rule but that's what the rule should be. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I should add that I saw SlimVirgin's comment about Nableezy being a good editor and Mr. Nice Guy's comment about messages coming from editors who were friendly with Nableezy. As well as Jaakobou's below. So I thought I might address them all. I didn't send any of those messages but I am an editor who is friendly with Nableezy, because he started it. We met at the Gaza War talk page and disagreed over this very issue, the "massacre" thing, last year. You can see the diff from my second ever message to him: "Thanks again for all of your patience and consideration of my concerns. It makes that talk page a little less scary to know there are actually good users who are willing to actually talk things out."[95] We worked on a compromise edit that'd I'd like to think was the basis for the eventual inclusion. But at the time Nableezy was the only willing to listen and compromise. Besides, you know, me. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and Query by Jaakobou: No More Mr Nice Guy is right about the nearly uniform POV of those who commented on Sandstein's page and found the decision to be "ill-advised". It's a given that if any pro-Palestinian editor is up for sanction, then, for example, Tiamut and Nishidani will show up protesting that they are, in fact, incredibly good editors, who have been dealt with unjustly. It's also no surprise that Tiamut appealed to the admin Gatoclass, who shares that same POV, and can be relied on to nix any DYK that seems even slightly pro-Israel. Nableezy was given more than a fair chance by the reduction of his recent sanction from 4 months to 1 month talkpage ban and a 2 month article space ban (I promoted at the time a reduction to 2 weeks and 1RR hoping it was enough to persuade improvement[96]). From my perspective, Nableezy and Tiamut started a tag-team edit-war -- Hamas/Israel related -- a mere 57 minutes after Nableezy's reduced 2 month ban ended[97] and made strange talkpage assertions, making up that Hamas supposedly supports a bi-national state alongside the Jews (and adding this into the article[98]). There is a basic merit to allow banned editors the option of raising sockpuppetry concerns but it feels as though there's more than just that going on. There's editwarring, incivility and a fuck all attitude[99] with likeminded editors rooting from the sidelines and shouting at the referees when they don't like the play. Nableezy has some upside as well. don't get me wrong, but I'd like to know if he had made or is willing to make any comment or action to suggest that he plans to correct his errors that result in this type of drama?
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I'm expecting a lot of response to this, for sure, none of it positive. Still, it's all the truth. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'll get one from me, since I think you put this in perfect perspective. You can find all the usual suspects here at AGK's page appealing (no, complaining about) the initial ban which was based on months' worth of edit-warring (in which I participated, which should be brought up, and for which I am still subject to a ban). After AGK made the decision to ban Nableezy based on his reading and best judgment of the situation (and which some of us considered not unreasonable, but we did not swarm AGK's page urging him to keep the ban in place). First step should one of their group be sanctioned is for the forces to come in and sing praises. If this does not work then to point fingers at others in the opposite camp. Then comes the bitching and personal attacks. AGK made his judgment in good faith and in good faith reconsidered it, cutting the initial article ban in half and the talk page ban by three/quarters. But talk about a fuck-all attitude? Here's is Tiamut on AGK's reconsideration: "Sorry AGK, but your reconsideration is simply not good enough" and "While you may pride yourself on being somehwat lenient, the impression your decisions have given me are that you are biased." and here "you should admit your decision was a piss poor one" and accuses him of "rather weak reasoning" She goes on to accuse him of bias, poor judgment and lack of evenhandedness. Finally she ends with this: "Where can voice my opposition to your bid to be arbitrator by the way? It is very dangerous for someone like you to have that power in our community, and I strongly oppose." Just Outrageous! Stellarkid (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fear they will now turn this into a referendum on Sandstein, rather than with respect to this decision, right or wrong. Even if wrong, there has been an issue over I think Sandstein felt that we are all enough of adults to know what the I-P ban does and does not include, and if we need clarification we should go to the banning admin or ask for clarification. Stellarkid (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gatoclass

As I said to Tiamut earlier, I can see some merit in both sides of this debate. On the one hand, Nableezy clearly violated his topic ban at the AfD, then exacerbated the error by edit warring on the same page - the very offence for which he was originally sanctioned by AGK. He then followed up not long thereafter by making a series of personal attacks against Cptnono on another page - attacks for which he later apologized, but which might have been considered sanctionable in themselves. He also edited I-P pages in technical violation of his ban, albeit to remove vandalism. His response when confronted with these infractions has generally been defiant rather than conciliatory.

In that regard, I think one can see how Sandstein came to the conclusion that a renewal of the sanction would be appropriate. Quite frankly, were I not an "involved" admin in the I-P area, I may have come to a similar conclusion.

On the other hand, I think AGK's initial sanction was overzealous - a four month topic ban, reduced to two on appeal, for an apparently isolated instance of edit warring. I'm inclined to the view that so-called edit warring is too heavily policed on this project in general, but I think two months for a single episode is excessive even by prevailing standards.

Secondly, it seems that Nableezy was subject to double jeopardy in that his edit warring at the AfD had already been processed by Tznkai in a previous AE request. And while arbcom quickly confirmed that ARBPIA applies to AfD pages, I think it's clear that there was at least a degree of uncertainty amongst the participants at that page before the arbcom confirmation.

Finally, Sandstein's sanction came more than a month after the original offence, after Nableezy's original ban had expired and he had apparently returned to productive editing. The question then arises as to what benefit there is from imposing a sanction so belatedly. I think it's a fairly well established principle around here by now that one doesn't generally apply blocks and bans when the misconduct has ceased, unless there's evidence of an ongoing pattern of misbehaviour.

So I do think there are reasonable grounds for appeal. On the other hand, I think it's also important to set clear standards, and my impression of Sandstein's contributions over time is that he makes a genuine effort to do so. Part of the problem with AE, I think, is that different admins have differing standards, and that outcomes can consequently look very arbitrary. I've long been of the opinion that there is simply not enough guidance for AE admins when it comes to a consideration of appropriate sanctions, any ... measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project is really not very helpful. Perhaps it's time we started thinking about some sort of graduated regime of sanctions for set offences?

Other than that, like nsaum above I too am concerned with the apparent extension of ARBPIA into the realm of Checkuser requests, and I think there are grounds for a Request for Clarification on that issue. Gatoclass (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by EdJohnston

For the record, I voted in the Jonathan Cook AfD. Here are some issues that should matter to admins:

Nableezy was still under a topic ban at the time he was editing the Cook AfD. As confirmed by Arbcom in their clarification, Nableezy's editing of an AfD was ruled out by his topic ban in the I/P area. His argument that he was reverting vandalism in the AfD, since he was restoring comments deleted by others on grounds of ban violations, is not ~~credible~~ persuasive.
Nableezy's conduct in the AfD was reviewed by Tznkai in an AE complaint that he closed in early December with no action. This might have appeared to be a verdict that no further consequences would happen to Nableezy due to his AfD editing.
Epeefleche made a new AE complaint on 15 December also complaining about Nableezy's AfD editing, and not mentioning the previous AE case that had been closed by Tznkai. The other participants did not mention the case either.
On 1 January, Sandstein closed Epeefleche's case with a two-month renewal of Nableezy's topic ban. It appears that Sandstein was not aware of Tznkai's earlier ruling, but in a comment cited above, he indicates that he still thinks his action is correct.
Later, Sandstein issued a short block of Nableezy for editing an SPI request about someone who'd been working on I/P articles. Since this is presumed to be a violation of the ban, given Arbcom's very wide interpretation of it, I don't see any reason for the closer of this AE to do anything about the block, which has expired anyway. This SPI issue came *after* Sandstein's January 1 ruling so didn't form any part of his reasoning on that.

My conclusion is that Sandstein's action of 1 January is technically justified. He was not obliged to take Tznkai's previous ruling into account. Nonetheless I suggest that the closer of this AE should reduce the two-month ban to one month, applying to both articles and talk pages. The ban should be interpreted to rule out mention of any I/P articles or editors, anywhere in Wikipedia, including AfDs, admin noticeboards and sock complaints. If any new socking issues come up, Nableezy can write to an admin's talk page to get advice on how to proceed. EdJohnston (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CasualObserver’48

From a distance, I have been watching some of what has been going around, starting with my vote at the Cook AfD; I now note that it has grown and come around to AE-appeal. It seems like a topic-ban has grown to a ban-ban, with insufficient consideration of AGF regarding the original topic scope. Although peripherally related, an AfD should rightly be considered a whole new ball of wax beyond just I/P, it is basic to how Wiki works. I also regard the decision being appealed to have been ill-considered; I support Nableezy's appeal. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sm8900

Gaaahh, this is complicated. I usually try to be more insightful in my comments, but this is a little beyond me. I didn't expect it to get so complicated. I don't think Nableezy should have gotten a ban though. I say that as someone who is often on the other side of various issues from him. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Nableezy

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

Accusations of POV bias are unwelcome.

I have zero interest in these things, and I furthermore, consider them disruptive. I highly recommend everyone carefully go through their statements and decide if what they have to say is truly on point. We are here to discuss whether Sandstien's decision was correct in the first place, and relatedly, whether there is an independent reason to lift the ban.--Tznkai (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have exhausted any useful contributions to this discussion, and from the above, it appears the only admins here intending or capable to act on this request are myself and Sandstein, and due to the unique procedural history here, that seems like a wheelwar waiting to happen.

If I have read the above correctly, we have a couple of major problems. The first is Nableezy's topic ban by AGK was a bit confusing. When the original thread came up I confirmed with AGK that he did not intend to exclude Nableezy from AfD discussions. (As a side note, Nableezy was never sanctioned under West Bank). The second one is the confusing signals from multiple admins functioning in a strange (and possibly defective) environment and that issue there is no clear answer or one likley to come. The third and most important, is that Nableezy did not - as it would have behooved him to - link specifically to the past clarifications or insist that AGK or myself update the sanction logs. Unlike most courts of law that I am aware of however, we do not, for better or worse, have published rules of procedure and trained advocates to navigate them. I think it is unfair and unwise to punish sanctioned editors for providing a procedurally defective defense at the time an issue came up, especially in light of what has been brought up now.

In light of the information in the above thread, I do not intend to enforce Nableezy's ban, discourage other admins from enforcing it, and I highly recommend to Sandstein that it be modified.--Tznkai (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. In view of the tenor of the discussion above, and because the matter is now becoming too confusing for most outsiders to follow and usefully comment on, the ban is hereby lifted in the hope that Nableezy will not engage in any conduct that will require its reimposition. I will log this on the case page. Sandstein 18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abd

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Abd

User requesting enforcement: William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Abd_editing_restriction_.28existing_disputes.29

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

[100] Abd involving himself in an AFD in which he has no interest, and turning that into policy discussions
[101] Ditto, plus expansion of the dispute to harassment

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

N/A

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Abd to be told to engage in productive edits to articles rather than unproductive dispute-mongering

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Copied here from "requests for clarification" per arb request.

GR raises an interesting point, or possibly wikilawyer, depending on your POV. Is AFD a "poll"? Arbcomm's sanction is regrettably vague on this point. Is a "poll" something with the word "poll" in it's name? I would so argue. Furthermore, AFD isn't a vote, so I don't think it is a poll. Well, this is a point that the arbs will have to clarify - they wrote the text, presumably they know what they meant.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [102]

Discussion concerning Abd

Statement by Abd

Well, first WMC filed a RfAr/Clarification over this silly "dispute," then, since he was asked why he didn't file an AE request, he's apparently gone and done that. My editing restriction allows me to respond to polls. I'm not clear what "interest" in an article means. Am I required to have been an active editor of an article to respond to an AfD poll? That would be a strange interpretation of the restriction. I was aware of the article and the concerted effort to delete it from the second AfD, when I was blocked. In any case, I appreciate guidance from neutral administrators, and the issue of whether or not this was a violation was already asked of ArbComm. I certainly don't think so, nor do I think it even close, or I'd not have done it. I suggest we wait for an answer from ArbComm, but the sanction was quite clear, at least in this respect. It's been modified, the version cited by WMC is obsolete, so here it is in all its revised glory:

"Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls."[103]

If ArbComm intended for me to avoid commenting in AfDs, surely allowing me to "vote or comment at polls" was a strange way to do it. I think not. On the other hand, any uninvolved admin could issue me a warning pending clarification from ArbComm, if the admin thinks the edit was out of bounds. WMC, highly involved -- he lost his admin bit over insisting on his right to block me whenever he pleased -- should not be the one to "guide" enforcement by dredging up every imagined offense, or even real but harmless ones, and wasting everyone's time. What WMC has been doing is harassment. He even tried to reopen the last AE request, after it was closed by the one who filed it. I'm hoping ArbComm will address that, and suggest to WMC that perhaps he shouldn't track my every move, not that I mind being visible. --Abd (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re WMC's diff showing a claim of harassment. He fails to note that shortly after writing that, the editor who had commented on my Talk page apologized, and I struck the claim. The only tendentious debate coming up here is from WMC and Mathsci, who somehow seem to discover every edit of mine practically immediately and make maximum fuss from it. Yes, AfD policy was discussed there. AfD comments, in fact, are supposed to refer to policy and guidelines, it's part of the process. Excessive? That's arguable. But is it necessary to argue it? Here? I wasn't prohibited from "excessive discussion of policy" in a discussion where I'm allowed to participate. Not yet, anyway! --Abd (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the usual cast of characters shows up here, from the RfAr: all parties have now commented, plus Mathsci, who would have been a party if he and WMC hadn't edit warred his name out while the clerks sucked their thumbs. WMC making hostile edits to the filing of a case naming him? Really? But that was then, this is now.

I have not violated my sanction, the whole point of bans is to be clear, and unclear bans lead to more disruption. The ban clearly permits an AfD comment, not requiring that I be an 'originating party' for that, and my comment did not create any major disruption itself, compared to an RfAr/Clarification and AE request filed, both the same day. If I made an inappropriate AfD comment, then it would be an ordinary offense, and subject to ordinary process, not AE. There is no ongoing dispute from me over the AfD, I simply saw some problems there and commented as I have commented countless times in the past without problems. Mathsci brings up a host of issues that would take many words to address, and if people are tired of seeing my responses, perhaps they should stop provoking them, or stop allowing others to provoke them gratuitously. Mathsci is not some innocent editor, uninvolved, he was admonished in the subject RfAr for less than what he's been doing lately. 'Nuff said.

Ah, one more comment: my RfAr/Clarification was successful. The restriction was clarified. Isn't that the purpose of an RfAr/Clarification? Apparently not to those who think of this place as a battlefield. They have some idea, apparently, of winning a game by getting your "enemies" blocked. I'll say this: that's not my game, at all. --Abd (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Abd

Comment by GoRight

It should be noted that this matter was previously raised at [104]~~, which WMC curiously forgot to mention,~~ and that the discussion there has not been closed. --GoRight (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC) I somehow missed the stricken part on my initial reading of the request.[reply]

The text of Abd's sanction, as recently amended by Arbcom, currently reads:

"Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls."

Emphasis is mine. An AfD is clearly a poll and as such he is specifically ALLOWED to participate per the sanctions. This request and the one mentioned above are both frivolous and vexatious and WMC should be instructed that repeatedly raising such matters might lead to blocks. --GoRight (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Enric Naval

The problem is not that he comments into a AfD to provide sources or give his opinion on the article. The problem is that Abd enters a controversial AfD raising procedural objections and saying that deleting the article "wastes or even insults the work of all those who contributed" [105]. And he does this without making any comment on the merit of the article itself or its sources, aka he is commenting on editors and not on its contributions. That is the problem: he was inserting himself into the dispute about the article and the AfD, as opposed to simply commenting about the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mathsci

Abd still seems to be testing the limits of his editing restrictions. His edits to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Tylman_(3rd_nomination), and related edits on his talk page, go considerably beyond a simple vote and comments on the article in question. Offliner (talk · contribs) mentioned that Abd had joined the EEML in his ArbCom evidence. It appears that Abd probably found out about this slightly obscure EE-related AfD off-wiki (cf his editing history). Abd seems to be deliberately seeking out problematic areas on WP, first when he attempted to involve himself in the unsuccessful climate change RfAr and now in this AfD related to EE issues. [106] The manner in which he has done so seems to be against the spirit of his editing restrictions, even if technically it might not be regarded as an infringement. In the end, however, I would have to agree with MastCell below that no enforcement is required here and, whatever the special circumstances, this matter should be allowed to drop. Mathsci (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MastCell

I have to agree with GoRight here, inasmuch as I can't see how Abd's editing restriction was intended, in letter or spirit, to prevent him from commenting on AfDs (except cold-fusion-related ones). One could certainly question the constructiveness of his comment, but if we banned people for making inflammatory comments at AfD, you'd be able to hear a pin drop over there. I don't think the intent of the restriction was to bar Abd from participating in AfDs across the board; it was focused on abuse of dispute resolution, and AfD isn't part of dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 23:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ikip

"He would be allowed to vote or comment at polls." What in world is a poll? A petition? It seems like some clarification is needed.

Once again, I have no idea what Abd was trying to say. I am deeply disappointed that a mentor was not assigned to Abd, thus the section Abd refers to was changed, and the mentor section removed, this would have solved the problem, as Abd could have asked his mentor first whether posting on AFDs was okay.

RE: "AFD isn't a vote" Officially yes. But this is another one of wikipedia's legal fictions. One of many. About a year ago I found out this was once called WP:Votes for Deletion. When it changed names it magically was no longer a vote.

Clarification is needed on what a poll is.

Mr. Connolley did not mention this next edit: "editor apologized, "reference" comment struck" where Abd strikes the comment.[107]

MastCell: "if we banned people for making inflammatory comments at AfD, you'd be able to hear a pin drop over there." ha ha.

Comment by Loosmark

This is probably one of the silliest arbitration requests I have ever seen. "Abd involving himself in an AFD in which he has no interest" oh my god, unbelievable!!! everybody else who voted there has a demonstrated super interest in that page save for Abd!!! -irony mode off- Seriously this request should be scrapped and the editor who started advised to stop wasting everybody's time. Dr. Loosmark 01:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Abd

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

I should be sleeping, but I have enough time to do a bit of restriction interpretation using my uninvolved-administrator-voice. Skip to the three sentence summary if you don't want to be bored to death.

3.2) Abd is prohibited from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s). This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution. He would be allowed to vote or comment at polls.

3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.

The spirit of the above quoted restrictions seems to be "don't get involved in fights or arguments you're not involved in." With an exception carved out for "vote or comment at polls." I further quote from the workshop page:

MYOB = Mind Your Own Business? I agree in principle, but is this actually in any Wikipedia policy or guidleine and should it be? Or does it only apply to some people? I suppose the opposite of WP:MYOB (redlink left to be filled in if anyone thinks it is worth it) is WP:OWN. For example, what if Abd expressed an interest in giving third opinions following requests at WP:3O? Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - To answer Carch, no it isn't part of policy. I'd say he could vote at "comment/support/oppose" sections, and for the sake of simplicity and unambiguity, I'd leave 3O off limits for the time being. Yeah I think this one is good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I imagine the polls so mentioned include things like the recent Arbcom elections, constitutional conventions and straw polls, and perhaps even XfD debates. These polls by their nature invite comment from all, though preferably ones that are pithy, insightful, topical. This invitation does not however allow Abd to engage in the disputes of others using XfD as a medium - (s)he is banned from using all on-wiki media in that way. Similarly, Abd is not allowed to do any number of bad ideas, even as an originating party to a dispute, if these bad ideas are covered by other policies.

Abd's behavior on the XfD is suboptimal. It is passive aggressive ("I further become suspicious when a nominator or single editor argues tendentiously against every keep vote, but that, too, is irrelevant as to keep/delete."), argumentative and a bit patronizing ("Who originally created an article is completely irrelevant to the notability of the subject, and any !vote based on that argument should be deprecated."), but in this (s)he hardly stands alone at XfD. Where Abd does stand unique however, is that (s)he has been specifically prohibited from minding the business of others, an indicator that there is something about the way Abd makes arguments that is defective. Abd would be best served by the rule "unless there is an objectively compelling reason to speak, stay silent." As it stands, I do not believe Abd's behavior rises to the point that invokes sanctions.

As a separate issue, the word "harass" should be used with considerable care. I too am guilty of using the term in a more casual manner, but I've learned that there are certain buzzwords that carry extra baggage around here. Likewise, I am intolerant of re litigation and of AE complaints servings as vehicles for potshots at the committee, clerks, administrators, and random passerbyes in general. The only person who I really accept invective against is myself (which is not to suggest open season, as other admins may block you even if I won't).

The summary: the remedy allows participation at XfDs that does not otherwise constitute prohibited behavior. Abd has not engaged in the prohibited behavior. Abd is advised to back off anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[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]

@@ Line 536: / Line 536: @@
 ===Result concerning Abd===
 :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
+I should be sleeping, but I have enough time to do a bit of restriction interpretation using my uninvolved-administrator-voice. Skip to the three sentence summary if you don't want to be bored to death.
+<blockquote>
+.2) Abd is prohibited from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s). This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution. He would be allowed to vote or comment at polls.
+<p>
+.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.
+</blockquote>
+The spirit of the above quoted restrictions seems to be "don't get involved in fights or arguments you're not involved in." With an exception carved out for "vote or comment at polls." I further quote from the workshop page:
+<blockquote>
+MYOB = Mind Your Own Business? I agree in principle, but is this actually in any Wikipedia policy or guidleine and should it be? Or does it only apply to some people? I suppose the opposite of WP:MYOB (redlink left to be filled in if anyone thinks it is worth it) is WP:OWN. For example, what if Abd expressed an interest in giving third opinions following requests at WP:3O? Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
+<p>
+Support - To answer Carch, no it isn't part of policy. I'd say he could vote at "comment/support/oppose" sections, and for the sake of simplicity and unambiguity, I'd leave 3O off limits for the time being. Yeah I think this one is good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
+</blockquote>
+I imagine the polls so mentioned include things like the recent Arbcom elections, constitutional conventions and straw polls, and perhaps even XfD debates. These polls by their nature invite comment from all, though preferably ones that are pithy, insightful, topical. This invitation does not however allow Abd to engage in the disputes of others using XfD as a medium - (s)he is banned from using all on-wiki media in that way. Similarly, Abd is not allowed to do any number of bad ideas, even as an originating party to a dispute, if these bad ideas are covered by other policies.
+Abd's behavior on the XfD is suboptimal. It is passive aggressive ("I further become suspicious when a nominator or single editor argues tendentiously against every keep vote, but that, too, is irrelevant as to keep/delete."), argumentative and a bit patronizing ("Who originally created an article is completely irrelevant to the notability of the subject, and any !vote based on that argument should be deprecated."), but in this (s)he hardly stands alone at XfD. Where Abd does stand unique however, is that (s)he has been specifically prohibited from minding the business of others, an indicator that there is something about the way Abd makes arguments that is defective. Abd would be best served by the rule "unless there is an objectively compelling reason to speak, stay silent." As it stands, I do not believe Abd's behavior rises to the point that invokes sanctions.
+As a separate issue, the word "harass" should be used with considerable care. I too am guilty of using the term in a more casual manner, but I've learned that there are certain buzzwords that carry extra baggage around here. Likewise, I am intolerant of re litigation and of AE complaints servings as vehicles for potshots at the committee, clerks, administrators, and random passerbyes in general. The only person who I really accept invective against is myself (which is not to suggest open season, as other admins may block you even if I won't).
+The summary: the remedy allows participation at XfDs that does not otherwise constitute prohibited behavior. Abd has not engaged in the prohibited behavior. Abd is advised to back off anyway.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 07:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 <!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
 <!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.-->