Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:16, 4 May 2012

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	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344

Matt Lewis

Matt Lewis and Van Speijk are warned of the Troubles discretionary sanctions. No other action. EdJohnston (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Matt Lewis

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RA (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:TROUBLES#Principles:

Disruption

3) The editing of users who disrupt Wikipedia by aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be restricted. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Harassment

4) Editors who severely harass other users may be banned.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions may also apply (Wikipedia:TROUBLES#Standard_discretionary_sanctions).

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

After a break of several months, Matt Lewis returned to WIkipedia, first contributing to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Muhammad images and then moving onto making sustained and aggressive comments against Irish editors across User talk:Canterbury Tail, Talk:Northern Ireland, User:Matt Lewis, Talk:Ireland and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles.

The thrust of the posts are that Irish editors ("nationalists") on Wikipedia are engaged in a semi-organised but deliberate scheme to undermine the (real-world) United Kingdom and to bring about its end through their contributions to Wikipedia. He thus feels strongly that it is incumbent upon those who oppose this to defend the national sovereignty of the United Kingdom from this threat. In a number of comments, I am singled out a particular ringleader of sorts in this conspiracy.

An example (one of the more lucid):

20:36, 17 April 2012 on User:Canterbury Tail:

..for me national sovereignty is an area that is simply bigger and more important than Wikipedia. Some things in life are. There are people out there who would say WP is subject to a kind of online terrorism - by which I mean misusing internet-based information areas to undermine the fabric of a state, in view of removing the state. It's not easily definable thing, but Wikipedia has been lax here, and could well pay a price for not being careful enough in its procedures.

My concern is at the sustained, aggressive and particularly sectarian nature of his posts. They have been in-coming for a week now without rest. Sometimes, they contain suggestions for improvements to articles, sometimes they are simply rants.

To date, reaction from other editors has been relatively calm and patient. However, I don't know how long that patience can last. Aside from the content of his posts, I am afraid that Matt's comments will spill over and incite the more hot-blooded editors and lead to the running pitch battles we have seen in the past.

Some examples:

02:29, 28 April 2012 on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles:

You either haven't read a single word I've written, or you're a slimeball, or you're troll. Either way, you'll scroll all this away to fight another day. As year after year after year you always do. You sad, sad, sad bunch of people. You major minor scoop of decadently committed people. You think I need a source to neolise the word "sovereign"? To conflate a little meaning to try and save a little space? To try and get an clear and obvious point across? There is simply no way in with you people - you would drive anyone to farce. Though in reality you all simply drive everyone away. These Troubled areas are like a Drive Out where the same C movie runs over forever.

21:52, 23 April 2012 — 02:19, 24 April 2012‎ on Talk:Northern Ireland:

This is the cabal to end all cabals - how did it get to this? Ghmyrtle - you should be utterly, utterly ashamed of yourself. And what have you all done with Canterbury Tale?
…
The problem is that you've 'balanced' sovereignty and COMMONUSE with people supposedly taking offence. Who exactly takes offence GHmytle - answer me that? Would it be nationalists perhaps? And you know damn well that this has been a war of attrition, with many people like myself happy for "country" here. It was here for a long, long time and you are all having to stick together to keep it from coming back.

13:46, 28 April 2012 on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles:

Northern Ireland should never be covered by IMOS - it's skewered the poltical context and given you people total control of it. Ireland still lays claim on NI, and this MOS clearly covers political areas (despite the endless bare-faced lie that it's island-only). It doesn't make any sense. NI is a British country, not an Irish one. It HAS to be part of a UK MOS. The calculated blurring of island/Ireland on Wikipedia makes this the single most corrupt area in the whole encyclopedia.

00:03, 27 April 2012 on User talk:Matt Lewis:

The Irish nationalists (and many have been at this for years and years) are experts at making every issue 'unionist vs nationalist', then demanding equal weight. It avoids all the policy issues, and is totally anti-sovereign too, but they will post day and night calling it a "no brainer" etc.
…
The nationalist editor RA has been even more effective since becoming an admin sadly it seems - I hoped it would go the other way (ie he would have to ease off a little), but he's been as single-minded as ever in his clearly lifelong pursuit. … Over the next couple of years every active nationalist in the UK is going to come to Wikipedia to push their river: there has to be solid guidelines or it will be mayhem.
…
Yes, the nationalists are instinctively organised - and consequently Wikipedia is a more beneficial place for them, as it is for all negative people it could be argued. Which makes focusing on adapting policy and guidelines the key. … If you lose this kind of thing, someone like RA will get a biased paragraph and a long moratorium into IMOS in two seconds flat. To a number of them it really will be like the war won.

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

Matt has been asked by one of the calmer editors to tone down his comments:

23:34, 23 April 2012 by Ghmyrtle (talk · contribs)

Other's have been more direct in giving their opinion on his posts. Examples:

22:27, 25 April 2012 by Fmph (talk · contribs)
22:34, 26 April 2012 by Bjmullan (talk · contribs)
08:44, 28 April 2012 by Bjmullan (talk · contribs)
08:51, 28 April 2012 by One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs)
12:36, 28 April 2012 by Domer48 (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

16:03, 29 April 2012

Discussion concerning Matt Lewis

Statement by Matt Lewis

Firstly, RA (Sony Youth to Grahamzilch, an undisclosed IP editor for a long period, then Rannpháirtí anaithnid, or 'RA') is not uninvolved here. It is simply not possible for him to be more involved. This has always been his primary editing area (often sole editing area), and he has always held a different position to mine. Unfortunately we have always disagreed on matters. I thought it was agreed at his Rfa that if he became an admin he'd leave this kind of area-measure to other people? In reality he seems to have stepped-up in terms of being effectively (from his position) involved. I would certainly be 'happier' if someone else had started this.

Actually (with perhaps a tiny bit of embarrassment) I'm happy for people to read my comments and judge accordingly - but please read them. The quotes of my comments above are selected snippets, people really need to read in full to judge properly. One thing I've never done (and can never do) is be bullied over holding a valid position, in whatever way that bullying may take place. I do not personally consider the UK/IRE nationality area to be a 'no go area', or one that's been correctly sealed-shut by credible 'compromises' (always compromises). I may appear rude at times but please bear in mind who I'm speaking to, or about. I am honestly never 'trolling' - I always have at least one strong point (typically a number of points) with a connected solution in mind. I am never 'tendentious' (ie in the sense of being 'biased') - although I admit I am a typical British citizen, who happens to also be Welshman from Wales (the large majority of us are happily British - though you wouldn't think it reading Wikipedia talk pages sometimes). Only on Wikipedia am I ever called or labelled a "Unionist"!

The only thing I would apologise about is the trouble GoodDay has got into, as (mentors aside) I should have warned him myself, instead of eventually engaging with him on my talk. The two below were clearly ready to get him into trouble - and GD you've really got to stay away. GoodDay certainly did not "provoke" me in any way into losing my temper a little at times - other's have done that (and myself I admit - I come back into Wikipedia, see this stuff at the top of my 1,000 plus watch-list, and just get fed up with the regressive changes to hours of positive work). As far as I am concerned the angry conversation at IMOS has run its course - and I'm sure it's the same for everyone else who participated in it. It's clearly all RFC/Vpump stuff, and this request for enforcement has come a little after the event regarding that.

The various issues between RA and myself are clearly personal, and have gone on for years - it's hard to be objective, but I was strongly against him being made an admin (I still can't see the reason that he was, other than that Wikipedia clearly needs them right now). We just don't see eye-to-eye in anything I'm afraid, and I have been upset with the way he's continued pushing so hard for various positions on Wikipedia since he got the 'bit'. Like others, I spent a huge amount of hours bringing stability to the UK "country" matter when RA was almost a lone voice against - gradually he has turned it around by virtue of never giving up (his mantra being "consensus can change" - and he's right). And such is life. Many people like myself have off-line lives to deal with of course, and I wasn't around when the huge amount work by so-many people was simply de-linked away at NI. Again, I can't see the policy behind it - despite what some say. Sources I have being shown in these areas do not weigh up. For example the Government No.10 website has been revamped (and they do from time to time, esp as govs change) - and "four countries of the UK" no longer appears on the home page. According to the same-olds who removed term from Northern Ireland, the No.10 website-change means the government has revised its position! As much as anything, it's all WP:Point. Sovereignty is the only thing that can settle these matters. The protection of various positions in this area (on all sides) really is something to behold.

'Area banning' me (as seems to be the idea reading Domer's and K-Hackney's comments - which have appeared below before I have even had a chance to write this) would imo remove one of the few people who has stood shoulder to shoulder with a (in real-world terms) relatively small group of people who have protected the same position on UK/IRE for years and years.

I do not believe the various 'compromises' to be policy-based, and wish (as I always have) that the UK, the Republic of Ireland, and the island of Ireland can be totally freed from the shackles of compromise and special exception on Wikipedia. I genuinely believe that proper adherence to the hierarchy of policies (COMMONAME has it's place for example - and it's not at the very top), and a new guideline paragraph or two, can solve every single issue that the Troubles covers. I honestly do. Before we know it we'll have the Scottish referendum on our hands - it will benefit Wikipedia hugely to sort this out beforehand. That is not a "conspiracy theory" - as we all know in the UK, it's just a plain fact. Wikipedia simply cannot allow the evenly-Weighting of nationalist vision with incumbent reality.

Would a 'topic ban' stop me from starting a UK MOS (freeing Northern Ireland from the hugely-restricting and supposedly-unpolitical Ireland IMOS)? I doubt it. I'm planning to do it, and it will be very useful in large number of areas outside of Irish matters. No vote on it first imo, allowing people who have already said they don't want it to line up again - I'll just do it, like with the various task forces I've set up in the past -- where Domer and Hackney did everything they could to stop me, claiming they would be 'anti consensus'. But what actually is consensus here? Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be an 'upstairs in the pub' numbers game in matters that are ultimately this important.

My language is sometimes strong - but the fact that countless admin and editors have said that they "simply do not got there" proves that it's a difficult area to navigate and get a fair point across. It's not because they are weak in any way - it's because they've got better things to do be disagreed with whatever they say. I'm not going to be held to blame for any 'bad atmosphere' (now or whenever) - I wasn't part of 99% of its life (unlike others here, who have been around for pretty-much all of it) and was not part of the TROUBLES ruling at all. In the past I've given God-knows how many hours of my time trying to be constructive, while others have simply repeated the same lines again and again. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that looking back at all my edits recently (even out of this area), they have been a bit high-pitched wherever I've been - so I do apologise in general for that. It's not ideal - I can't disagree with RA (or anyone else) on that. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Matt Lewis

Comment by One Night In Hackney

In addition to the diffs above, when replying to me Matt Lewis says "How about you stop making it your life's aim to abuse Wikipedia? This is not any "subject" - the UK is a sovereign state constantly under nationalistic pressures in these areas" (which is disagreed with by plenty of people at Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Proposed decision#Proposed Finding of Fact 2 for the record, and I'm sure the 1 FA, 4 GAa and countless DYKs all in the Troubles area speak for themselves about my "life's aim". Matt Lewis's conduct is just pure battleground, anyone who disagrees with him is part of some imaginary Irish nationalist conspiracy. I see no benefit in allowing his further participation in the topic area. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Domer48

I've attempted to put a break on the escalating abuse by reminding editors that these discussions are subject to active arbitration remedies and discretionary sanctions. As has been pointed to above, there is a clear battleground mentality coupled with a level of abuse of editors which is way above the norm. While the subject articles have been quite for awhile now (due to the blocking of a number of sock abusing editors) there is always the potential for a flare up. This editor could be just the catalyst that is needed. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike The editor is aware of the Troubles Arbcom and has commented on it.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Τασουλα

There is no excuse for User:Matt Lewis behavior and conduct...none what-so-ever. He's been warned plenty of times so there is no excuse and I feel the community has lost pateince. I've been observing what's been unfolding and it's a very sorry state of affairs indeed. If i were a new editor, thsi would certainly off-putting but that might be because I'm a little sensitive? Haha. I don't care what the Derry article is called, or how the new lede for NI is layed out (tough i admit I like it and don't see any POV-issues with it) but the conduct...urhhhhhg yuck, even to an uninvolved editor such as myself. (Ps, sorry fpr any spelling mistakes I'm on a tablet PC ;c) --Τασουλα (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shrike

Without making any comments about the user behavior he should have been warned about discretionary sanctions according to WP:AC/DS before applying sanctions to him.He of course could be blocked for incivility but that should not be AE block.--Shrike (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Van Speijk

I don't condone Matt's use of invective and his targeting of certain editors such as RA who, whatever else might be said of him, has always struck me as a fairly reasonable person (even though I don't agree with many of his views). However, uninvolved editors should be aware of a couple of background and underlying issues. Firstly, this complaint stems from Matt's comments at Northern Ireland. This article is about British sovereign territory but it is, by and large, "controlled" by editors whose allegiance is to the Irish Republic and so ensure its primary perspective is that of Ireland rather than the UK; this is a significant problem for Wikipedia. Secondly, regarding Derry/Londonderry, we have the quite scandalous situation that in this matter Wikipedia is in direct violation of its own core principle of WP:NPOV. Both terms can and are used in the wider world, but Wikipedia (or more precisely, its dominant editors in this matter) force a single usage for the city (Derry) and also for the county (Londonderry). This means that Wikipedia is pushing the POV that for the city, Derry is right. Few, if any, exceptions are permitted, and we have the situation of certain editors regularly trawling the entire project replacing any instances that don't adhere to this POV. It is against this deplorable background that Matt's frustration and anger has surfaced; and it's entirely understandable that it has. I urge caution in setting any sanctions here. Van Speijk (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: I wonder why, Cailil, you single me out for criticism and make no mention of any other user? Maybe it's because I've been severely critical of you in past. Interestingly, I levelled that previous criticism against you for the exact same reasons as are apparent here, namely singling me out for special admonishment. Van Speijk (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by bjmullan

Having read both the comments by Matt and the only editor to support him I can only see editors with an us (and we are right) and them battlefield mentality. Wikipedia and Irish article in particular needs editors like that like I need a hole in my head. In recent days I have accused Matt of soap-boxing , battleground mentality and personal attacked on other editors. In addition to this he seems to think he has some sort of magic bullet called sovereignty which will solve all problems relating to NI articles. This is borne out by his statement: "and a new guideline paragraph or two, can solve every single issue that the Troubles covers". And by the way he honestly believes this! Perhaps Matt in your defence you could reveal this paragraph? Bjmullan (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All in good time Bjmullan - these things have to be presented properly or they get crushed by the same old people. I don't think you three and Van Speijk (who looking back, I said when he appeared is an obvious 'pro-British sockfarm' sockpuppet - just to show I'm not biased, I've always pointed out socks from all areas) - represent a platform for you to boast 'consensus' from. Also, I have a slight issue with CANVASS here. RA didn't properly inform me on my talk page, but informed the people I was disagreeing with via a general message on IMOS. I'd actually left the discussion by then, as we'd all said our piece. I haven't once edited any of the articles (just an attempt at modifying IMOS so it no longer calls the Derry/Londonderry 'compromise' an "NPOV position", which is just needlessly silly and wrong - it's just a compromise) - it's all been discussion in different places, stemming from a change at Northern Ireland you all new was unpopular and dramatic (so why do it?). This idea that the people who are now here have been "giving" to me (as presented in this rfe) is nonsense imo. I've been spoken to largely as I've been spoken to here. We are all experienced editors - I've not been hard with anyone new. Whatever the result of this is (even a block for troubles-whatever or civility) I would appreciate this not being too drawn out. It's kind of just carrying it on. Almost everyone present has spoken now anyway I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Users

Result concerning Matt Lewis

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

I don't see any formal notice under the rather new discretionary sanctions that have been authorized for WP:TROUBLES. But I suggest this request be kept open for a while to see if Matt Lewis will respond. Whatever he has to say here would be educational. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned Matt of the discretionary sanctions under WP:TROUBLES. Given his response, I think this can be closed now. EdJohnston (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Ed, the warning for Matt seems sufficient to me.
However I have concerns about the behaviour of others here - User:Van Speijk who has been warned already of community sanctions[1] in an adjoining topic area and told to stop casting aspersions about others. This falls outside WP:AE but is worth noting that this user has attempted to use this forum to soapbox and on investigation has been in breach of that community sanction[2][3][4] and the Troubles 1RR within the month[5][6].
Given these instances are older than 2 weeks I suggest we add Van Speijk to the list of notified users re WP:TROUBLES and sanction further breaches--Cailil ^talk 14:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Cailil here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warned Van Speijk here of the Troubles discretionary sanctions. Closing this AE request with warnings to Matt Lewis and Van Speijk but no other action. EdJohnston (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soosim

No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Soosim

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions

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

Disruptive behaviour on the NGO Monitor article.

11:46 22 April 2012 Reverted edit on grounds not consistent with the talk page discussion.
07:13, 29 April 2012 Moved material after having repeatedly failed to give grounds for doing so on the talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On the 20th of April I started a discussion on the talk page [7] in order to explore the issues surrounding a possible insertion of a piece of information about NGOM's funding. I suggested the insertion of a sentence and, on the 22nd, after discussing some objections, Soosim told me to go ahead with the edit 'with the qualifiers' [8]. I added in the sentence in the first diff above, including some additional contextual material thinking this was what Soosim wanted with his reference to 'qualifiers'. This edit was rapidly reverted on the grounds that 'jafi funding is already dealt with in this section'. This was somewhat frustrating given that this issue had not been raised as an objection on the talk page and was not really substantive with regard to the information I was trying to include.

In the ensuing discussion over the next five days Soosim made a number of suggestions that the information be included but at a different point in the article. However, he did not raise any actual arguments against my suggested placing. There is, as far as I can see, only one place in the article where the question of the relation of NGOM's funding to government arises and that is the point at which NGOM's own statement, denying that they receive funding from any government, is reported. This seems to me to be the correct place to deal with any other related claims about funding and government from other sources and moving the information I wanted to insert to anywhere else in the article removes the significance of that information. now, that is a content dispute and who is right or wrong on that is not really the issue here. The point is that, having been repeatedly invited to provide some policy or source grounds for me not making the edit, Soosim failed to do so. The closest he came was to say that the edit would be 'NPOV or UNDUE or whatever' [9]. I replied that he would need to be more precise than that and if he was unable to explain how my edit would be problematic I would have to assume that there was no real problem [10]. I waited two days for a response and when none came despite Soosim continuing to edit other pages, I made the change I had suggested. Two days later, without raising the issue on the talk page, Soosim moved my insertion to another paragraph where it is now essentially meaningless as it is separated from its context.

Having edited this page collaboratively with Soosim in the past, I'm happy to assume good faith but I would like to ask that he be warned that this behaviour is disruptive of the editing process. I would also note that it is more than a little frustrating when an editor seeks to prevent an edit but then doesn't keep an eye on the talk page and leaves the discussion hanging for days at a time; this makes editing feel like one is swimming through treacle (the discussion on this issue has already spanned 10 days now). After my last edit on the 22nd I waited for Soosim's response for three days (during which he continued to edit other pages) and eventually had to go to his talk page to remind him that there was a discussion going on. I then waited two days for a response to my comments on the 25th before actually making the edit. I have had similar difficulties in the past (see the activities and reception section at the top of the talk page) where live issues are just abandoned in the middle of a discussion and it is very difficult to move forward with the actual business of editing in such a context.

@Shrike

+972 wasn't really used for a statement of fact so much as a connection. JAFI is described as 'quasi-governmental' by just about all reliable sources I can find (BBC, Guardian, NYT, JPOST, Forward etc). What the +972 article does is use that widely accepted language in relation to NGOM's funding. Regardless of +972, it would be true to say that one of NGOM's major donors is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental body but to make this point in the context of NGOM's funding would be OR or synthesis if no source puts the two points together. +972 does bring the two points together but none of the facts of the matter are contentious. The quasi-governmental tag is widely accepted and the fact that JAFI is a major donor is stated by NGOM. So it's not quite right to say +972 is being relied on to establish a fact and nor is it correct to say that the fact in question is being stated in Wikipedia's voice. It is explicitly attributed to the writer at +972 (who is a professional journalist writing as a journalist). In any case, this is a discussion I would certainly be happy to have and was one that I flagged up in my initial post. But it's not really relevant to the case at hand (as far as I can see). BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Soosim

I think that if you are going to stand in the way of edits then you have an obligation to keep up with the discussions you have chosen to engage in. How long do you think it is reasonable for me to wait for your response each time? 3 days? 4? A week? You still haven't replied to some of my questions I asked on the NGOM talk page in January. I actively want to take your view into account but if you won't give it in a timely manner it makes collaboration very difficult. On the substantive issue, you still haven't explained why you object to the placement of the material where I have suggested. POV? If so, how? UNDUE? If so, why? You can't just say 'POV, UNDUE or whatever'; you have to have an actual, specific reason. In establishing consensus it is arguments that count and not numbers. As far as I can see you have provided no arguments on this point. In addition, you chose to make your edit without even rejoining the discussion on the talkpage and addressing the issues I had raised. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik

I did wonder whether it might come under that category but the issue for me is not the actual content dispute we are having. That can be resolved on the talk page. The problem is an editor ignoring the talk page discussions when making his edits, which I thought would fall under the rubric of actions disruptive of the editing process. I know it's not a particularly dramatic issue like a lot of those that end up here and nor is it based on rancor or hostility. However, I don't think that the lack of drama makes it any less relevant. Talk pages are for discussion. Repeatedly making contentious edits whilst there is a discussion going on and making the edits in such a way as to ignore the issues under discussion really gets in the way of editing. I'm now in a position where the temptation is just to revert Soosim but I would rather find another way round the problem than engaging in edit warring. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil

I think part of the problem may be that I have chosen to assume good faith in my presentation of the problem, so it doesn't come across as a big deal. A presentation of the same issues on the assumption of bad faith (the assumption that underlies almost all cases that come here) would look rather different and would, perhaps, be taken more seriously. Let me be clear: this is not a content dispute. I am not asking anyone to come down on any side of the content issue. Rather, the point is that an editor is making changes for which there is no consensus whilst ignoring discussions ongoing on the talk page; providing as his reasons for objecting to an edit that it would be 'POV or UNDUE or whatever' (!), and holding up the editing process by objecting to changes but then failing to properly engage with the process for discussing his objections. Is it really ok to prevent an edit simply by stating that it would be 'POV or UNDUE or whatever', which amounts to saying 'there is something wrong with it' but not saying what? Is it really ok to make changes that do not have consensus and that ignore the talk page discussions? Now, I could dress all this up in a more controversialised way and suggest that these are various obstructionist tactics being used to make editing very difficult in cases that clash with Soosim's POV. I could note that Soosim himself introduced the statement that NGOM receives no government funding and suggest that the motivation for this inclusion is so as to emphasise their independence and neutrality. I could suggest that he doesn't want the facts about their quasi-governmental source of funding placed next to that claim because that would ruin its effect. And I could point out that Soosim's attempts to keep the two pieces of data separate have not been consistent but have grasped at straws and that he has ended up enforcing his own position by simply making edits that bear little or no relation to the talk page discussion and that are certainly not based on consensus. Now, whether presented from the perspective of an assumption of good faith or bad faith, the underlying behaviour seems problematic, even if the first presentation looks less dramatic. It certainly seems to be in significant breach of the 'normal editing process' that is protected by the arbcom ruling (at least according to the remedies here [11]; I have been unable to find the new version of the text). The point is that whether these actions are done in good faith or bad faith they have the same deleterious effect on editing in that such 'tactics', if allowed, provide a powerful obstacle to collaborative and consensual editing because they completely undermine collaboration and ignore consensus.

@Ed - Fair enough. The consensus seems to be that this is actually a content dispute and I apologise for wasting everyone's time by coming to the wrong forum. I still have a problem in that I can't see what the dispute actually is, though. Having looked through the talk page would you be able to identify for me the grounds on which my edits were changed? This isn't meant to be a gotcha question - I just didn't think that it was acceptable to revert in this way, twice, against the objections of an editor, without the reason being based on policy or reliability concerns (my problem may stem from simply being wrong on this issue? is it actually ok to do this?) and I can't see any such justification being offered for the change. If you can see what it is, please let me know as I would like to avoid spending yet more days struggling with shadows when I try to get the content side of things resolved with an RfC. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

Discussion concerning Soosim

Statement by Soosim

BHB - sorry if i didn't look at the exact page you wanted me to during the 3-4 days i was editing other articles. i have over 400 articles on my watchlist and i really don't keep up with them all. now, specifically about what you write about. the key is in your sentence saying that you think there is only one place for that info to go in the article. and, obviously, i think there is another place (4 sentences ahead, in the same section). i gave reasons as to why it fits better there. you, obviously, disagree. so, why not ask other editors for opinions? i am sure that the active topic area editors like malik and sean and others will have a comment to make if you ask them. and, as usual, in my five years of editing wikipedia, i go along with the masses. sure, i like to stand up for what i believe in, but i do agree with consensus (as you very well know). therefore, not sure what more to say here on this type of 'enforcement' page. Soosim (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Soosim

I find that using low quality sources like 972mag.com that BHB is introduced in to the article[13] is troublesome .Except that it define itself as a "+972 is a blog-based web magazine" so it WP:SPS this source have clear agenda --Shrike (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, I'm not familiar with the article, but I don't see the violation of any ARBPIA sanction or remedy here. It looks like a content dispute. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Soosim

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

This looks like an over-escalation of a content issue, which needs ordinary dispute resolution rather than Arbcom Enforcement. I have to say I take a dim view of requests like this, however I'm willing to AGF in this instance that this particular request is a mistake and thus I recommend closing with no action--Cailil ^talk 10:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need for enforcement here. The discussion at Talk:NGO Monitor is hard to follow; it is not easy to get clear on what the respective positions are. If a dispute is important enough to be brought to AE then surely a WP:Request for comment is worth doing. The usage of the +972 article as a source might be submitted to WP:RSN for an opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

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

Request concerning Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction

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

08:26, 2 May 2012 Removed "Militants were launching rockets into Israel from the area, and Hamas was known to conduct operations..." along with other sourced material
11:11, 2 May 2012 Removed "Militants were launching rockets into Israel from the area, and Hamas was known to conduct operations..."

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

He was party in original case and he was banned as the result of it.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: In addition to violating 1rr, whether deliberate or unintentional, Nishidani was advised to revert his last edit by myself, ZScarpia, AnkhMorpork, and Ed Johnston who advised "unless you see a BLP violation against a named person or an obvious falsification of sources it seems like you should revert your own edit pending discussion." Nishidani has declined these requests, despite acknowledging his violation several times:1 2 He is an experienced editor that has previous blocks for edit-warring on I-P topics.His indefinite I-P ban was lifted by Arbitration committee in July 2011[14]

@Tim : I don't understand what "ludicrous" about asking harsh sanctions for person that refused to self revert and have returned from indefinite ban.Its not like someone reverted him again he was given full possibility to fix his mistake but refused too.--Shrike (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean:I don't think his presence is a good to the area.Here is few one example of violation of WP:NPA:

[15] accuse other editors here of "hasbara", of "toeing" an "Israeli political line"
[16] Accusing other editors having "ethnic WP:COI"and "acking the serenity to look at the question encyclopedically,"

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[17]

Discussion concerning Nishidani

Statement by Nishidani

Shrike is quite correct. It's no excuse that I didn't realize at the time that my two edits constituted an IR infraction. On a point of honour, I have refused the proferred option to revert the second edit because I don't want to spoil my record: I've never consciously introduced false or misleading material into wikipedia articles. No one who has discussed this on Ed Johnson or my page has challenged my view that the second edit removed a patent piece of fabricated material, but all suggest that I should restore it pro forma to show that I will abide by the rules. In the impasse between personal honour and obedience to a martinet reading of wikipedia culture, I prefer the first, and I respect the right of a plaintiff to get me suspended or banned. All you need determine is the severity of my violation, and the length of the sentence, then. I would ask that all editors, now that Shrike has had his day in court, leave it to the appropriate arbitrators to determine the sanction that is due, without wasting their time in a boring thread of defence or attack to mitigate or exaggerate the natural penalty. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morpork. Really? (We shouldn't be arguing this here, btw. I've admitted the IR infraction. Your construal of Luke's edit, like my analysis, is available at the relevant pages.)

:"Samouni family members did not deny that Hamas militants operated in the area. A family member said there was no active Hamas resistance in the immediate vicinity, although militants were firing rockets at Israel a little more than a mile away." The New York Times source.

:"Militants were launching rockets into Israel from the area," and Hamas was known to conduct operations in the vicinity.Luke's reduction.

What the Samounis did not deny does not translate into 'they affirmed'. Tzipi Livni defined all members of Hamas, officials, pen-pushers, police, army, teachers as terrorists, and therefore the POV Hamas militants does not distinguish between combatants and nondescript members of the organization. Because of this source failure, you cannot use 'Hamas militants' to imply the reference is to active members of the Hamas militias. Esp. because the source says they were over a mile away from the Zeitoun residence. The Israeli government and one researcher have maintained at times that they were not shooting at Hamas members at Zeitoun, but members of Islamic Jihad, another organization.

What Luke did was collapse distinct elements of the NYTs, elide the geographical difference by collapsing a mile into the immediate vicinity of the Samouni houses, and push the innuendo that Hamas was firing from near the Samouni's compound. Really, this is elementary English construal. It's obvious.

The NYTs distinction between the Samouni testimony (backed by the Goldstone report) that Hamas was not active in their immediate vicinity and the apparent editorial clause, 'militants were firing rockets at Israel' over a mile away were conflated and muddled to make out that in the area where the Samouni were killed, Hamas were 'firing rockets' into Israel. It stands out like dogs' balls, probably those of Blind Freddy and his mutt. Both Shrike and yourself admit Luke's edit was poor. The gravamen of your charge is that this is irrelevant. Fine, but don't now try to justify the poor edit I fixed according to sources. It was a lead sentence, and couldn't conserve the source's complete remarks. I've argued this exhaustively twice. If you follow my remarks to Luke's edits as he stalked me, you will find many examples showing that he makes wildly skewed inferences from what I write and has a poor command of English. He's not on trial here, so defending his edit is not appropriate, esp. since his WP:SYNTH was and remains, construed against the source, indefensible. All that need be done here is pass sentence on my infraction of a rule, okay? The article would have been written by now were it not for this endless pettifogging by editors who don't trust one to do an honest job of thorough recension of all relevant sources. The game appears to be to turn up as soon as someone like myself touches these articles, and make life difficult with bad edits, poor sourcing or sheer blague.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean. For me to hope that I might wriggle out of the consequences of my error by expecting that admin close an eye to the mechanical application of a rule, would be to avail myself of what Giorgio Agamben has analysed as a "state of exception". Since all my work in the I/P area is premised on the contrary, that state actors must be judged by universal rules, (this corresponds to WP:NPOV by neither scape-goating, say Israel or the US, nor holding to the idea that whenever their actions are described we must always allow for their exceptional status, beyond customary or international law), it follows that, if I infringe what is a fundamental rule, I should pay the consequences and not expect some special consideration.

In lieu of a gentlemanly agreement to close an eye - one cannot hold others to a norm one otherwise subscribes to in their regard - a sanction is clearly due.

Shrike wants a permaban. Frankly that is silly. It is wildly incommensurate with the, in retrospect, innocuous slip (pas trop de zèle, Talleyrand's witty wisdom, is what I momentarily forgot) I made to correct a bad edit. My original permaban was for 8 reverts over 45 days, mainly against someone later identified as a sockpuppet operating contemporaneously 2 accounts in order to form a tagteam duo and push for a devastatingly innovative POV policy over Judea & Samaria. I was permabanned, but the point I and a few others, with a 100 academic sources against zilch to back our interpretation, had argued for became policy. So the permaban was, retrospectively, fine by me because it had achieved something to the good of the encyclopedia, a sacrifice worth the penalty. I didn't complain, sat out the ban, and admin, as I trusted they would, eventually reconsidered without my whingeing for a restoration of my editing rights. Shrike's solution is a tad 'ballistic' or 'viral', a bit like being consigned to the 9th cerchio of Dante's inferno because you'd dropped a whimpy puff (innocuous fart) at a papal audience.

I've slipped up, I think twice, on 1R, an excellent rule, because I'm pretty poor on the interpretation of policy: I freely admit I'm not a policy wonk, and have never read any one page of the guidelines. I rely on impressions of gossip, and commonsense. Before I suspended myself for a month. On my page I was about to do the same here, but Kafka got in the way.

Luke, who I have frequently remonstrated with for stalking me, and not familiarizing himself with the niceties of the English language nor all the relevant material bearing on articles, suggests 2 weeks. A decent compromise would be a month from all articles. This costs me, since I've promised Truthkeeper to fix the Charles Dickens article, and I'm enjoying that. I'll apply this provisory sanction myself.

If that's not sufficient, per consensus, then it can be automatically extended by an admin. Okay?Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, No More Mr Nice Guy, but I can't resist the pun at your confusion of honour (τιμή) and ὕβρις, which no pagan like myself would conflate. The former was the basis for civilization, the latter a seed of its destruction. So, ἄτηboy!Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nishidani

As the editor who made the changes Nishidani reverted, I don't find his actions disruptive. I would say that AGF allows for the 1RR violation to slide. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AnkhMorpork: The revert was not a simple removal of a "patent piece of fabricated material". The statement "Militants were launching rockets into Israel from the area, and Hamas was known to conduct operations in the vicinity" was sourced to this NYT article which states:

"Samouni family members did not deny that Hamas militants operated in the area. A family member said there was no active Hamas resistance in the immediate vicinity, although militants were firing rockets at Israel a little more than a mile away."

Your revert reduced the source to "A Samouni family member said there was no active Hamas resistance in the immediate vicinity." You selectively presented content and you removed the Samouni family's acknowledgment that, "Hamas militants operated in the area" and the reference to "militants were firing rockets at Israel a little more than a mile away".

The previous edit may have been lacking, but not with the flagrant conspicuity with which you have characterised it. I am not assesing the relative merits of the two edits; instead I am stating that your did not remove an "obvious falsification of sources" which Ed Johnston allowed for, nor what you state was a "patent piece of fabricated material". Additionally your edit did not simply remove the previous material; it asserted a distinct POV amidst a content dispute that you were requested to revert but chose not to.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this AE request is closed with a sanction, can anyone suggest what it ought to be? EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think because of the history this should indefinite ban.Also his refusal to revert is troublesome people were sanctioned even after they reverted--Shrike (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite ban seems like a very odd thing to ask for. Nish hasn't done anything wrong apart from break a 1RR rule. That wouldn't have happened if Luke had stayed out of the topic area and you had opened a discussion instead of reverting. I struggle to see how Nish is the bad guy who needs to be removed from the topic area or how that would that benefit the topic area given his knowledge of the topic and policy. He is honest, he isn't a sockpuppet, he doesn't harass people, he is able to distinguish between right and wrong, he doesn't advocate on behalf of sockpuppets and do things like ask admins to reveal the confidential evidence used to identify them, he doesn't confuse the good guys, admins and editors doing their job to protect Wikipedia, with the bad guys, advocates, sockpuppets etc, he admitted the violation but wouldn't revert as a matter of principal. It's his choice to be constrained by principals and take the consequences but those consequences should at least be reasonable and designed to maximize the benefit to the project rather than harm the project. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I resent and deny the above suggestion of sockpuppetry (I've even been called a Jew, not that that's a bad thing), I agree that Nishidani's behavior isn't overly disruptive. Honestly, I love his sassy mouf. Two week I-P topic ban, not including talk pages. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but from my perspective your actions caused this (although I'm sure triggering a 1RR violation was not your intent) and it would have been better if they hadn't. I think it would be wrong for an editor to be sanctioned because of a sequence of events triggered by, how shall I phrase this, the actions of another editor when there is a significant difference in the degree to which the presence of each editor in the topic area complies with policy, a difference that directly impacts on the validity of any edits they make, hypothetically speaking. It would be wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you warned recently about instigating on AE boards that don't involve you? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you may be thinking of this User_talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive_7#Discretionary_sanctions_notification where I volunteered "not comment at AE reports anymore unless I file them or they are filed against me", a self-imposed restriction I lift when certain specific criteria I use to decide whether to involve myself in an issue are met, and I think, or at least hope, that I might be able to add some signal rather than noise to the discussion. This is a little off topic though because this section should be for presenting information that will help admins decide on the appropriate sanction for Nish's 1RR violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was refering to when Admin HJ Mitchell said, It's equally concerning that a group of editors, and Sean.hoyland in particular, would see an AE request against a third party as an appropriate venue to thrash out their personal differences. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and AE certainly isn't ...I've given Sean.hoyland a formal notification of the discretionary sanctions. Other editors should be aware that hijacking AE threads (especially those on third parties) for interpersonal disputes will lead to sanctions should it recur... and here you are turning a conversation about Nishidani into a finger-pointing party. Don't suck me into your no-fun parties. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every 1RR violation is "caused" by someone making an edit the violator didn't like.

Also, a reasonable sanction for an editor with a long history of blocks who violates 1RR and refuses to undo his edit as a "point of honour" (read: hubris), would be what exactly in your book? Pretend we're not talking about one of your buddies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a reasonable sanction would be for this case. I have an opinion about what an unreasonable sanction would be and why. That is what I've tried to explain here. Reasonable and unreasonable things happen everyday though. Life goes on. The garden still grows. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The garden still grows

The dough flows to Stanley Ho

Block for sas-mouf?, No!

Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Nish, I'm not confusing honor and hubris, you are. Luckily for you, it looks like a sympathetic admin is going to delay your downfall. Another day, another silly AE result. No wonder this place has the reputation it does. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nishidani

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

If we are sanctioning this 1RR violation, then to me an 24 hour block is the only reasonable sanction. The suggestion of indefinite topic ban is beyond ludicrous. The last non-overturned block in the supposedly "long history of blocks" of Nishidani was a 24-hour block from four and a half years ago, and since the topic ban was lifted almost a year ago, Nishidani has not been sanctioned under ARBPIA as far as I can tell.
Moreover, after looking at the edit and the cited NYT source, it is not clear to me that a sanction is appropriate at all. It's rather late here, though, so I'll leave that aspect of the matter for tomorrow. T. Canens (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2012 (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]

@@ Line 301: / Line 301: @@
 :::[[User:Luke 19 Verse 27|Luke 19 Verse 27]] ([[User talk:Luke 19 Verse 27|talk]]) 09:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
+@Nish, I'm not confusing honor and hubris, you are. Luckily for you, it looks like a sympathetic admin is going to delay your downfall. Another day, another silly AE result. No wonder this place has the reputation it does. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 18:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 ===Result concerning Nishidani===

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards