Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:25, 23 July 2013

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 informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE 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, or is no longer an administrator; 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Neo.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Neo.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Qwyrxian (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Neo. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:ARBIP

Diffs and explanations of problem

User:Darkness Shines completely transformed the article 2002 Gujarat violence from one violating multiple policies (particularly, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP) into one that, while not perfect, was at least minimally compliant (see this sequence of edits). User:Neo. reverted, failing to even recognize DS's concerns, making an unfounded analogy. From that point forward (July 6), Neo and a few others began a series of "defenses" on the talk page, most of which failed to address policies, and in Neo.'s case, crossed over into tendentiousness.

The problem begins in Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#POV pushing by User:Darkness Shines, where Neo attempted to argue that WP:PRIMARY (including WP:BLPPRIMARY) don't apply here, despite the fact that they apply everywhere in Misplaced Pages (see . He goes further and says that academic sources are "academic crap" and "conspiracy theories" "written to make money". He continues to hold this position in Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#Edit request on 6 July 2013, in which he asserts that such violations are "minor problems" that Darkness Shines is using to divert admins. Later, Neo erroneously states that verified information may not be removed from an article.

On July 8, Neo added what he claimed was an RfC...but the phrasing was so extremely biased that I removed the tag and indicated that such a leading question was unacceptable.

On July 9, Neo stated that my and User:The Rahul Jain's only reason for being involved in the article was because of "prior disputes on Jainism articles"; actually, TRJ had a dispute with Neo., which I stepped into because, as with this article, Neo was attempting to keep an older version of articles that violated policies in spite of TRJ's improvements. My reason for involvement in this article was originally as an uninvolved admin responding to an edit request that I became aware of because it was discussed on a user talk page I watch. I've since explicitly stated that I consider myself WP:INVOLVED and am not taking admin actions on the article. Neo. repeated this claim on July 15.

On July 10, Neo. insinuated that RegentsPark, the previous protected admin who had protected a version resembling DS's preferred version to stop an edit war, and chose the current version as the WP:WRONGVERSION, would come back to the article again to intentionally choose DS's version to favor him.

On July 11, Neo. proposed a new change to the article, which quite obviously violated WP:NPOV, later, User:Maunus noticed (and I confirmed) that Neo was misrepresenting the sources, either through lack of comprehension or deliberate POV pushing (see Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#comments and Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#31 convicted, we know already).

During this whole shebang, Neo. filed two WP:ANI complaints. Both were dismissed as being at best a misrepresented content dispute and at worst "baseless" and WP:IDHT/WP:STICK. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#Admin Qwyrxian and WP:ANI#GANG on 2002 Gujarat violence. He also made similar accusations at the Noticeboard for India-related topics (see WT:INB#Wikiproject India and GANG), which included an accusation of tag-teaming, and was closed as not appropriate for the noticeboard.

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

1. Warned on July 9 by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)
2. User Talk:Neo.#Warning contains a series of edits by several admins about edit warring
3. Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) left the formal, templated warning on July 15

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Sandstein: The warning on July 9, left on the article's talk page, is sufficient to meet the warning requirements of sanctions; all that is requires is that editors be aware that sanctions are in place on an article, not that a personal, templated warning be left for that person specifically. There are certainly actionable diffs after the July 9 date; most notably the tendentiousness displayed in proposing and making editors waste time in arguing about a blatantly POV recommended change to the article. While article space problems are more "obvious" than talk page one's, WP:IDHT and WP:TE problems on talk pages can drive away good faith editors and be equally destructive to the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I was going to accept Sandstein's argument wrt the the warnings, as I have no problem with requiring strict adherence to rules. However, I'm worried that Neo's second statement itself is evidence that the problem has not gone away--rather, that the disruptive behavior is merely on hold while this discussion is open. To me, that statement still clearly shows errors in understanding of preferred editing behaviors, as well as still attributes unwarranted motives to myself and regentspark. So...perhaps a stern warning will do (along with some administrative watching of the talk page to ensure future behavior is acceptable)...but my experience with this type of POV pushing--so strong that the POV-pusher doesn't even realize that they're warping everything, including our policies, to try to make things conform to "the truth"--doesn't get better with time, or even with warnings. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification

Discussion concerning Neo.

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Neo.

This whole ArbCom concept is new to me. I use mobile. Please give at least 24 hours to study this concept and write my side. Until decision is made, I will not edit any article related to Gujarat, politics or religion. Thanks. neo (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC) It would take very long and very long post if I try to analyse every edit of all users. I may left out something but let me use Occam's razor and try to be short. I will talk about things happened before yesterday's edit by User:Utcursch.

The whole argument is about whether this 'Godhra train burning' section is presenting NPOV. And I don't see it. The section begins with "was reported to have been attacked and set alight by a crowd of Muslims". Then section goes on citing Banerjee report, Hazard center report, Citizen's tribunal report, independent observers and Ainslie Embree to tell reader that the fire was an accident and muslims got nothing to do with it. Shah-Nanavati report use 'conspiracy by locals' wording, not Muslims. But as it indicate Muslim involvement, DS has done WP:SYNTHESIS in next sentence to tell reader that Shah-Nanavati commission was partial and corrupt, attempt to destroy credibility of Shah-Nanavati report. So if a school child or new reader read this section, he/she would believe that the fire on train was an accident.

To present other side of the story, i.e 'direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob', I proposed this edit. I am dealing with 4 users single handendly. DS says out of 6 sources, 3 are primary and 1 blog but refuses to tell which. Then he goes on to say that the "locals" word cover 'muslim mob' theory. So my edit is unnecessary. I pointed out to Maunus that 2002 HRW report is already used by DS in the article and 2012 HRW article still quote 2002 report. Now Maunus is giving strange argument that as HRW report is critical of post-Godhra violence, hence I can't use that report for Godhra incident and he accuse me of "misrepresentation". Qwyrxian was silent. I forced him to comment in this section. I am attrbuting to sources with direct quotes, but he also accused me of "misrepresentation". The Rahul Jain just occasionaly drops in to 'vote' in favor of DS and goes away without any comment on my proposed edit.

The team shows extreme disliking for news or any web sources and insist on 'academic' sources. But in 'Godhra train burning' section, out of 10 sources DS has used 4 news sources to support Banerjee report, Shah-Nanavati report, Citizen's tribunal report. When it comes to supporting their POV, they do use news and web sources, but oppose by others. They discard pre-2010 sources as old and outdated, but goes on using 2002 HRW report and 2003 USCIRF report to support their POV in the article.

Initially I assumed good faith in DS and believed that the 'attack by a muslim mob' theory don't exist in his 'academic book' sources. Hence I called those books as 'crap' because I believed that those books are not telling whole story about Godhra. But now I strongly suspect that DS, Maunus and Qwyrxian are cherry picking POV contents from academic sources and as most users don't have access to his academic sources, he is getting away with it. Yesterday User:Utcursch got hold of two books and said here that DS has clearly misrepresented Ainslie Embree. I strongly suspect that 'attack by a muslim mob' theory is also discussed in his academic sources but he is making readers believe that it doesn't exist in his book sources or all books talk about only 'accident' theory as real cause.

Such tendentious behaviour, gaming the system frustrate users and severely harm quality of wikipedia. I request ArbCom to take appropriate decision to stop their disruptive behaviour. Thank you. neo (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment by Neo.

I am giving Human Rights Watch, United States Department of State , European Parliament, Amnesty International , Social Science Research Council, United Nations Human Rights Council , TIME magazine , Wall Street Journal as sources. I am attributing quotes to sources. I am ready to bring more hundreds of sources. But the arguments like this by Maunus that "Sources talk about attacks against muslims after Godhra, hence I can not use those sources for Godhra incident to show attack by muslims on train" and on this argument attempt to reject all thousands of sources is outragious. Making a team, inserting non-neutral contents and then forbidding any user to include other side of the story, pulling down Rfc to gag my mouth, such things are very serious matter for the wikipedia. If Admins disagree, then better to block me. I can't stand this nonsense. neo (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Was I supposed to comment on the statement of Qwyrxian or was I supposed to make statement on the issue? neo (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Neo. on Qwyrxian's statement

Much before User:Darkness Shines started replacing article, I had told him to propose his changes on article talkpage. But DS ignored it and started replacing article. I objected and told him on article talkpage to self-revert. Div999 supported DS, while me, Solomon7968, Shii raised questions. But as DS went on replacing article, I reverted all his edits except this one concerning BLPPRIMARY. It is never restored till date but Qwyrxian keep talking about it again and again. On that false assumption he reverted my edit. Qw had no idea what DS is doing, when I pointed out he did second mass revert. If there was ever BLPPRIMARY in my revert removed by DS, Qw should give diff, otherwise he should stop raising this issue again and again which potentially misguide users.

• I stand by my argument that verified contents can not be removed without explaination.

• Qw should have pointed out which sources and contents in prev version of article violate WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Qw never did, he left that job for DS and DS also never did. In fact in his second comment on talkpage Qw suggested to DS to discuss changes section by section or take Rfc. I agreed. DS disagreed. Then Qw did U turn, declared himself editor and started asking me to show what is wrong in the draft article of DS I had no access to book sources of DS and was unable to comment on whole draft article of DS in short time. Qw had suggested Rfc to DS, but instead I went for Rfc. Qw removed Rfc tag accusing me of bad behaviour citing WP:AC/DS and saying that standards are extra high for this article. But he didn't know existence of this article until a "week ago". If he have no idea about subject of the article, why he allowed replacement of whole article? He claims standards are extra high but as he had no idea about existence of the article, he never checked whether contents of DS really exists in academic books. Qw says that he might have argued to block DS before. Why suddenly blind faith in DS to allow him to replace whole article which is under WP:AC/DS? * Qw has himself said that he was not aware of existence of article. He has also said on my talkpage that he came on this article after seeing my edit request on RegentsPark talkpage. Also it can be seen from article edit history that The Rahul Jain jumped in on this article only because of me and Qw.

• My doubt about RegentsPark-DS was not unfounded. Even after ANI discussion, he protected article which had disputed contents of DS. I have no reason to believe that RegentsPark won't do it again.

• Maunus has commented only about HRW and UN source. I asked in RSN whether HRW is reliable source and am I misrepresenting. I am not misrepresenting anything.

• It can be clearly established that Qw and Rahul Jain were not on '2002 Gujarat violence' and I had prior dispute with both related to Jainism articles. There are 4.4 million articles. Now how they suddenly jumped on '2002 Gujarat violence' to support another disputing pair of DS and Maunus is mystery. If this does not fit into definition of tag team, then I retract my accusation and apologize to all concerned. neo (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

I concur largely with Qwyrxian's analysis above so I'm not going to repeat all the diffs here but do wish to make a couple of points. Neo needs to be aware that the way Misplaced Pages works we collaborate on content. What that means is that sometimes editors may agree with each other while at other times they may disagree. However, in each instance of agreement or disagreement, the way forward is always through specific content suggestions and specific sources to back up those suggestions. Wholesale reverts with broad accusations of POV violations and/or tag teaming are not only not helpful but are also disruptive (cf. , ). Neo needs to realize that pointy RfCs, assumptions of bad faith, and large scale reverts are not the way toward becoming a useful editor on Misplaced Pages. --regentspark (comment) 15:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

@YK. Neo. reverts wholesale without discussion stuff he doesn't like (see my My two diffs above and also in Qw's statement); sees tag teaming and gangs working against him (see the edit summaries in his contributions. All signs of an editor who would rather see his or her version and nothing else. --regentspark (comment) 13:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Yogesh Khandke

(1) I agree with user:Sandstein that a content dispute has been brought to this venue, as evident from the arguments put forward by the nominator and the counter-arguments presented by Neo. (2) The revision history statistics of 2002 Gujarat violence indicate that there have been 3857 edits made by 1073 users, made over a period of almost 10 years. What kind of evidence does the nominator have in support of his claim that DS has completely transformed the article from one that had multiple issues to one that is compliant? (3) In a subject so subjective and controversial, the article would reflect the views of the consensus. Do DS's 128 edits made in 45 days, the third highest to the article, reflect respect to wp:CONSENSUS, where is the evidence that Neo's edits overturn that consensus? (4) So the nominator's claim that "There are certainly actionable diffs after the July 9 date; most notably the tendentiousness displayed in proposing and making editors waste time in arguing about a blatantly POV recommended change to the article." does not apply in Neo's case. Neo is prepared to discuss and act according to the rules as declared in his edit on "11:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)" in which he informs that he would refer the matter to DRN or RFC/U. (5) Neo is trying to discuss, he has less than 12 edits to 2002 Gujarat violence, DS has 128. RegentsParks needs to provide evidence why he considers Neo unwilling to collaborate. (6) I suggest to Neo that he ought not to use words/phrases like "nonsense" or "block me", he may consider looking at the path user:Mrt3366 had to take, he has to trust the system, there isn't anything personal against him. (7) I suggest that Neo shouldn't comment on the motivation of other editors in making edits, and not make personal comments about them. (8) There have been allegations by the nominator that edits made by Neo are actionable, evidence for the same simply indicates a content dispute, Neo has expressed willingness to set right any behavioural issues the community may find in his edits, he has demonstrated sound understanding of the principles of good editing by his statement that he would stay away from "sanction areas" pending his appeal. Administrative action on Misplaced Pages is "coercive and not punitive", I therefore do not see any reason to ban or block Neo, if any advice is necessary to be given to Neo, it may be given, Neo has demonstrated that he would take it to heart. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with user:Sitush's observations generally. However my linking to wp:CONSENSUS implies that the consensus is amongst compliant editors and not vandals or the like. Also if there is allusion to a systemic bias on his part, he has to present evidence to prove his claim. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• DS: What is the particular misrepresentation? Would you pl be specific? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• DS: There are 11 sources, you need to specify the one or two specific bad cases. Also these are content disputes? Is this the right venue? Don't we do this at DRN? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• DS: The Hindu story dt. 2005-01-23 mentions various controversies, those controversies have not been mentioned in the section, matters such as molesting a Muslim girl on the platform, accident and not sabotage. Perhaps we can have that in the section based on the Hindu story. However those speculations seem to have been overruled by the subsequent 31 convictions, 11 death sentences and 20 life terms, 63 acquittals. However this IBN source doesn't tell us that all were Muslims, we just have 4 Muslim (sounding) names. So the IBN source cannot be used for the "all Muslims" remarks. Was this IBN source related lacunae discussed on the talk page, did Neo justify this mis-representation? Please supply diff of discussion. I've checked four sources, two are used fine, there is no misrepresentation in the third, the fourth (IBN the one you didn't share) doesn't inform all were Muslims. Please supply diffs as above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

@Yogesh, you say that In a subject so subjective and controversial, the article would reflect the views of the consensus, referring to the number of people who have edited. Not so: there is a world of difference between people who contribute to articles and people who do so in a policy-compliant manner. I suspect that there are far more Indian contributors to Misplaced Pages than there are Pakistani contributors but, regardless of that, WP:CONSENSUS favours those who comply with policy and it is the formal definition of "consensus" here. If your argument or contribution does not comply with policy then it should have no bearing on the outcome.

Articles such as the one referred to in this instance are prone to often-extreme Hindu-Islam, India-Pakistan POV-pushing and friction. That POV issue is in large part why the sanctions whose enforcement is being requested here were introduced. I have no opinion on the request itself, having deliberately tried to keep a low profile and having no desire to get sucked into yet another aspect of the increasingly disruptive "Indo-Pak", Hindu-Muslim palaver that has been getting a higher and higher profile in all the wrong places over the last few months. From my own experience of Neo. elsewhere, it does not surprise me that the behaviour has ended up here, but beyond that I really do not want to get involved. - Sitush (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Darkness Shines

I have asked this question of Neo. and another editor on the talk page of the article this pertains to, as Yogesh Khandke is so sure of Neo. being neutral, tall me YK, is this within our NPOV policies? Are the sources used in that section, used correctly? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

@Yogesh Khandke: It is a simple question YK, is that section neutral? And is it an accurate reflection of the sources used in it? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@Yogesh Khandke: You have said in your first statement "What kind of evidence does the nominator have in support of his claim that DS has completely transformed the article from one that had multiple issues to one that is compliant?" Other than the BLPPRIMARY issues and PRIMARY issues I had fixed that section is an example of what the article looked like before I rewrote the most of it. You say "Neo is trying to discuss" But he was not, his first post about my changes were an accusation of POV pushing and a demand I self revert, even though he claimed above in his initial statement that he was "AGF" of myself. His second post on my changes were to call the sources "academic crap which make up stories long after the incident." and that these academics are " conspiracy theorists tends to screw straight forward cases and publish books to earn money", even though he says above he has no access to them, and not once did he ask for quotes or clarification on the sources. Does that sound like as you say, "Neo is trying to discuss"? So onto the section, and the question nobody seems willing to respond to. Is that section written in a neutral manner? A simple yes or no will suffice for that one. And as you seem unwilling to look at the sources here are a few from that section, are these sources used correctly and in line with out NPOV policy. This is the first source used in the section The second The third Darkness Shines (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Neo.

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

Neo., to clarify, this is not a hearing by the Arbitration Committee, but a request to administrators like me to take action under the Committee's delegated authority, see WP:AC/DS.

I don't readily see anything actionable in this submission, or to convince me that this is not mainly a content dispute. The warning allowing us to impose discretionary sanctions was issued on 15 July. Anything earlier is not actionable in the context of this forum in my view. And there is no later dated diff in the evidence submission. Additionally, writing poor-quality content (not that I say that this has necessarily happened here) or making mistaken arguments in discussions is not a violation of Misplaced Pages's conduct policies, and therefore not in and of itself sanctionable.

But writing non-neutral and unverifiable content is, as is engaging in personal attacks. Neo. should take care in the future to adhere to all important policies as outlined at WP:5P, and not make sweeping accusations of misconduct without adequate evidence. The countercomplaint by Neo. is too confused and insufficiently supported by evidence (in the form of explained diffs!) to be actionable at first glance.  Sandstein  21:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, the July 9 warning is not sufficient, because WP:AC/DS#Warnings requires that the warning include "a link to the decision authorizing sanctions", which that warning did not.  Sandstein  23:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Sandstein, but this objection is really an extreme form of rules-lawyering formalism. The warning contained a link to WP:Discretionary sanctions, which in itself documents an arbcom decision "authorizing sanctions", describing the nature of discretionary sanctions and listing, with links, all the individual arb cases. That is at least as authoritative and as informative (if not more) than a direct link to the original case page, and is more than enough to fulfill both the letter and – more importantly – the spirit of the formal rule. I haven't yet looked at all the evidence presented above, but I'm certainly not going to look at it with an artifical cutoff date of 15 July in mind, unless there is positive evidence that he has significantly improved his conduct after that date (as opposed to just accidentally not producing new egregious cases of misconduct). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you may do as you wish, but I prefer to err on the side of caution when determining whether enforcement authority exists. The problem is that WP:DS is not a decision authorizing sanctions; the individual case decisions do that.  Sandstein  18:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned that July 9th warning IS sufficient, so I agree with Future Perfect. Such a warning has been good enough historically. If there had been a talk page template that would have been enough (for me now and again has been historically). Given that the message on the talk page was directly to Neo, I see it serving the same purpose as a formalized warning.
  On a first look at the evidence there is either a WP:COMPETENCE or tendentiousness issue here with Neo. There have been enough administrative warnings here from multiple uninvolved sysops. And Neo has been casting aspersions wildly. Some sort of restriction is in order here, at least to point Neo in the right direction or to let him learn elsewhere (in other topics) how to behave on WP. I'd be considering a 1 month page ban. But I'm open to suggestion either to be more or less harsh--Cailil 22:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by AgadaUrbanit

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jiujitsuguy

BlackHades

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Ban from participating in AE except to defend myself, imposed at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136#Nishidani, logged at WP:ARBPIA#2013

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

I made a good faith AE complaint. I have never been warned (or even accused) of using AE improperly. I have a completely clean record. I think this sanction is disproportionate for a first offense (even when ignoring the lack of AGF). I would like the sanction lifted.

@Sandstein: The fact I made no mainspace edits since my ban doesn't allow you to "to ascertain whether the problems that caused the ban have since disappeared"? I haven't made any edits because I was somewhat upset that a good faith report I made at AE about something that has been bothering me and other Jewish editors for years, was dismissed out of hand by a single administrator over the weekend following the 4th of July. So I took a short wikibreak. Now you're trying to hold that against me as if it can be in any way relevant to this appeal? How exactly are mainspace edits relevant to a ban from AE?

As for understanding why I was sanctioned, I understand perfectly. You think I was not acting in good faith. The thing is, I was acting in good faith. If you had bothered to follow the diffs (which you admitted you only glanced at) you would have seen that except for the "chosen people" thing, in every case I told Nishidani that he was using offensive language and that if he continues I would eventually seek admin intervention. I apparently made a mistake regarding the willingness of the administration here to deal with this sort of thing (anyone remember the Jews and Money fiasco? Here's a little reminder. It took 4 threads at ANI to get this eventually taken care of. Imagine if the first complaint would have resulted in someone being banned. The chilling effect would have probably left that article in the encyclopedia). Anyway, I understand why I was sanctioned. Because an administrator did not assume good faith.

@bbb, I think someone can troll and bait Jews without necessarily being antisemitic. I hope I'm not exceeding the limits of my ban, but see for example this short discussion, which I included in my original complaint. Gratuitous off-topic "look what a bad Jew did" when talking to someone you think is Jewish doesn't necessarily mean you're an antisemite. It is textbook trolling though, designed to bait Jews.

@Cailil & John Carter: If I'm banned from making AE complaints, "the behaviour that led to " would stop by definition, since I won't be allowed to repeat it because I'd be banned from making AE complaints.

@Ed: What does making neutral edits in the ARBPIA domain have to do with being banned from making AE complaints? I thought these things were supposed to be preventative, not punitive. My ARBPIA editing is not and has not been an issue here. Why are you trying to tie it into this ban?

@Seraphimblade: In the thread above this one the editor was not required to demonstrate positive editing or anything of the sort. That issue never came up.

@Ed: That's ridiculous. My complaint was only tangentially related to the ARBPIA topic and was about editor conduct. Anyway, I already have a "record of neutral edits in the ARBPIA area", almost 6000 of them over several years without even as much as a warning regarding neutrality or anything else. Nobody has shown I have some kind of pattern of misbehavior that I need to change. That's one of the reasons I made this appeal. A ban without any prior history of misbehavior is harsh and pretty uncommon. Now adding unrelated conditions to it has a strong smell of punishment rather than prevention. But whatever. Do what you want. I'm still trying to get over the fact that no less than 6 of you found the time to look into this pretty unimportant appeal, but only one of you could be bothered to look into a serious misconduct claim. Amazing. Now go ahead and throw the book at the troublemaker that makes noises you don't want to hear. Misplaced Pages's reputation is well earned.

@Cailil: Say what? I was responding to a falsification of something I said. That's "precisely what got banned"? Are you kidding me?

Statement by Sandstein

I disagree with the appellant that the ban from AE (with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic only) for making a frivolous AE request is disproportionate.

Discretionary sanctions in particular can be wide-ranging and severe, and requesting them for specious or abusive reasons (including, in this case, unfounded allegations or insinuations of antisemitism) has the effect of harassment or gaming the system. This is particularly so in the topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, where there are entrenched groups of editors each associated with a particular point of view who have been sniping at each other through various processes for, in some cases, years on end. AE must not become another weapon with which to pursue factional conflicts, but it must only be used to address genuine cases (or risks) of misconduct.

In addition, the appellant does not indicate in their appeal that they understand why they were sanctioned, what they would now do differently if once again allowed to participate here, or in which situation it would have been beneficial for Misplaced Pages or the AE process if they had been allowed to participate at AE.

Finally, they have made no mainspace edits and hardly any other edits since having been banned from AE on 6 July. This is not a good sign also, because it does not allow us to ascertain whether the problems that caused the ban have since disappeared.

For these reasons, I recommend to decline the appeal.  Sandstein  08:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This case is very similar to that of AgadaUrbanit above, also indef-banned by T.Canens from AE for a frivolous AE request. As in that case, I'd have no problem with lifting the ban if there are no problems with the appellant's editing for a lengthy period of time. But come to think of it, it doesn't really matter if the ban is lifted or shortened now, because in any case the appellant faces more serious sanctions if they contribute disruptively to this noticeboard again.  Sandstein  08:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

I am "involved" in the sense that I edit in the Israel/Palestine area and have had numerous content disagreements with NMMNG. I also argued against the AE case that NMMNG brought against Nishidani, that led to his AE ban. So I am not speaking as an ally of NMMNG when I say that I do not believe he was acting in bad faith. Biased, yes, mistaken, yes, bad faith, no. NMMNG should set a much higher threshold before accusing someone of antisemitism. Meanwhile, I suggest to administrators that they ignore the slanging match between NMMNG and Sandstein and bring the following compromise judgement: adjust the indefinite AE ban into a one-month ban, starting at the original date (July 6). Zero 05:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I did not accuse Nishidani of antisemitism. I accused him of Jew-baiting and trolling. That's not the same thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Pluto2012

(Nb: I am involved in the topic of the I-P articles and had some interactions with NMMNG that were not bad but long time ago...)

I tried to make NMMNG realize around 8 months ago that his involvment in contentious articles was not good for him : here.

He didn't follow the advice and recently expressed himself his "disgust" for wikipedia :

He has become a problem and his request against Nishidani is just an example. I fear that he will soon be totally banned if he doesn't cool down. Assuming his Good Faith (WP:AGF) or not is not the question today. He is currently no more here for the project because of some bitterness and he doesn't Assume Good Faith at all on his side.

I would suggest he takes a few weeks/months wikibreak and comes back with a better mood. He should consider the proposal. I think the community could leave this ban immediately to show/prove him that we think he could be very usefull for the project but with another mind. And if he understands the advice properly, he will not edits AE pages any more and self-ban from these...

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe the above was prompted by this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

My message 8 months ago was prompted by the fact I was convinced that you could be usefull to the encyclopedia as well as my suggestion to leave your ban. But I am still convinced you should take a long break or you will be definitely banned after creating big troubles. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Reading how NMMNG replies about the antisemitism issue and again attacks Nishidani, I think he is lost for the project and I suggest just to ban him from wikipedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

• 'I did not accuse Nishidani of antisemitism. I accused him of Jew-baiting and trolling'. I'd like for the record to know what the distinction is between antisemitism and Jew-baiting. To me, they are identical. the latter is a subset of the former. (b)I have no problems with accepting that NMMGG thought he was acting in good faith. The problem is, he has refused for some years to believe I edit in good faith, since his standard patter is that I am intellectually and morally dishonest. Protesting one is acting in good faith means that good faith has been challenged. NMMGG in the past constantly challenged my WP:AGF, while being convinced of his own. When NMMGG in his request persists in writing,'I apparently made a mistake regarding the willingness of the administration here to deal with this sort of thing (anyone remember the Jews and Money fiasco?)', he, in good faith, is persisting in saying arbitrators here turn a blind eye to my consistent offensiveness, which he defines as 'Jew-baiting' (antisemitism). He says he is still convinced he was punished for my fault, which AE is reluctant to see.
• 'Perhaps No More Mr Nice Guy was seeing something that didn't exist?' (A Quest For Knowledge).
• There's no smoke without fire? I suppose I'd better make a statement on my 'attitude'. When not editing a lot of other articles, I work in the I/P area, which only thickskinned people not prone to shell-shock and ready to shovel tedious shit half the time should attempt to do. I see my function there as ensuring what I found was lacking several years ago, an adequate care that both sides of a conflicted narrative are duly represented. I see things, yes, from a Palestinian perspective, one informed however by a deep reading of nationalism, antisemitism, and the murderous rhetoric and hysteria of the first half of the 20th century. That means that whatever I read of one particular people's plight and victimization and smearing in the past makes me look at any contemporary ethnic plight with the same sympathetic focus. I edit on Australian aborigines, the Barasana, the Tibetans, and other groups with exactly the same principles. No one in those areas, if you check the record, calls me a sinophobe, or a white-baiter. I strive to apply exactly the same intellectual, and if you like, or even if you dislike, ethical criteria in reading that conflict's reportage and literature. I don't accept double standards, here, or in life, though no one manages coherence in either with 100% consistency. This works out as being identified as either a rabid anti-Zionist, or an antisemite, because, in my perhaps mistaken conviction the Palestinian side is poorly reported except in academic sources, I do tithe my daily work to see that what happens on that side is mentioned on wikipedia, and my sources are the mainstream Israeli press or reliably published academic literature. Numerous editors, from User:Zeq, User:Jaakobou, User:Jiujitsuguy, User:Amoruso, User:NoCal100 to several others, and a great many socks, have found my presence intolerable and, some of them argued, antisemitic. So, perhaps they have a point, perhaps they see something I can't in my own attitude. My reply is, they all fail, NMMGG included, though he is a different kettle of fish, to look with the detachment they are so insistant in asking I adopt.
• Finally, I agree with Zero, with a caution. In this place, AE/AI/and using one's revert rights to help other editors, is not a healthy way to build an encyclopedia. One's bona fides here are not evinced in monitoring other editors primarily, but sitting down, over books, and culling information to craft articles, with informed neutrality. I'd like to see less hunting for what traces of my and other's bad faith he thinks he will find, and more evidence of actually working to expand articles significantly.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm only intruding here because the argument that I have it in for 'Jewish people' comes up fairly constantly in my regard, even recently by innuendoes based on a total distortion of what I edit (i.e. my major source there happens to be Peter Golden, the most brilliant, illumined and illuminating scholar in his field). Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

NMMGG. This is no place to rerun the complaint you made. But you keep persisting in repeating those diffs, which, I suggest, you drastically misread, and persist in misreading.

'I think someone can troll and bait Jews without necessarily being antisemitic.'

No.Absolutely not. Saying that is tantamount to Humpty-Dumpty usage (When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.) Neither in German, from which English borrowed the term (Judenhetze), nor in English can you, in good faith, assert that. It's absolutely counterintuitive. 'Jew-baiting' is 'active harrying or persecution of Jews.' (Oxford English Dictionary 2nd ed. 1989 vol.VIII, p'.229 col.2), which is, thus, the active mode of antisemitism. (T.S.Eliot was antisemitic in his early thought and poems, but generally (not always) polite in Jewish company). Though coined in 1883 (Geoffrey Hughes,Swearing: A Social History of Foul Language, Oaths and Profanity in English, ‎Penguin Books, 1998 p.221) came into popular use in English journalism roughly with Hitler's rise to power.

The diff you now bring back is quite simple.Ubikwit cited a remark I made at the earlier Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria#Involved_parties which he thought pertinent‎ to a section in the Jerusalem article dedicated to ‘Language issues, naming conventions’. Out of the blue, you shot back, with a crack about myself, (trolling?), namely:'All you have is making the word "Judea" verboten in any modern context,' and '. I'm sure you'll get Nishidani's full support' related to 'a somewhat different but not unrelated nature'. That's highly elusive innuendo. 'Verboten/Judea (homeland of the Jews)/Nishidani'. Just connect the dots. It happens to be false, since I approved 'Judean hills' as appropriate to the location of both Hebron (2007) and Jerusalem (2013) in the West Bank, and you certainly know that. Verboten alludes to Nazi practices. Well, I didn't run to mummy and complain to AE about malicious, gratuitous off-topic, insinuations, or your later crack that I was a 'Jew-baiter'. When you insult or throw such innuendoes my way, I have replied on the talk page, and brushed it off with a rejoinder. And so, when you trolled there with an inflammatory comment, I brushed it off, reminding you it was Christmas, (26 December) and replying sharply to your "verboten" jab with a reminder of what, precisely at that moment in time, happened to be forbidden in Nazareth by citing an article that appeared just two days earlier. (Jonathan Cook, 'Terror in a Christmas Tree,' at Counterpunch 24 December 2012)

You then leapt on that and raised further complaints, blaming me for citing what the rabbi said. That is you were trolling, and, from a neutral perspective, proved quite successful because I responded when I could have just ignored you. As Sandstein wrote in his original judgement, neither of us should make such exchanges. My excuse is, I don’t watch other editors, and nag their bona fides most of the time. I research and write articles. So, whatever, let's drop it. I originally said rather than a suspension you just needed to be warned not to pester me with insinuations and work articles. I still believe that, but if a compromise is needed, Zero's judgement strikes me as decent, and fair. Nishidani (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• • • NMMGG. Your original complaint was that a single arb, Sandstein, had made a hasty decision:

a good faith report I made at AE about something that has been bothering me and other Jewish editors for years, was dismissed out of hand by a single administrator over the weekend following the 4th of July.

Now that several have reviewed the record, you complain that there is something odd that no less than six of them have commented.

I'm still trying to get over the fact that no less than 6 of you found the time to look into this pretty unimportant appeal,

One can't have it both ways, and protest insufficient and excessive attention simultaneously. I would add that several have backed sanctions against me in the past, and I take that fact alone as evidence that they deal with me and yourself on the strength of their independent readings of the evidence, on each specific occasion. If anything, wider admin input is probably an index of collegial care to ensure that an appellant has not been done an injustice (I sincerely hope, as I said, that the sanction, if passed, significantly shortens the 'indefinite' ban to a matter of a month or so. I think adversarial pertinacity in checking edits against source, something you do well, a positive value, so long as the point is limited to to article improvement and contruction). Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't protesting excessive attention to this appeal. The attention this appeal is getting is normal. Once again you (deliberately?) read something I quite clearly didn't mean into what I wrote. And since you bring up the history of the admins posting here, I'll point out that John Carter was asking you a favor on your talk page less than an hour before he came here and commented. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, don't keep insinuating. JC knows that for the last month, in his dispute with User:Ignocrates over the Gospel of the Ebionites I came out in strong defence of the latter's work, against John's scepticism, and have not wavered on that, as you can see on the FAR page and my talk page. And I think the last time I was hauled to court, Carter's judgement suggested I was at least partially at fault. If anything discomforts or annoys me in wikipedia it is trying to see around corners, or under the rug, without looking, and reflex support or challenges along partisan lines. I've said it before, the cliché happens to be true:amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. Nishidani (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

With regard to a change in behaviour, I'd appreciate a reduction in the constant sarcasm and general belligerence. An attempt to moderate exagerrations and misrepresentations made would be nice too.     ←   ZScarpia   21:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

I recall the RfE filed by No More Mr Nice Guy. At the time, I did not post a comment because the evidence presented was too subtle to make an accurate assessment of the RfE. Perhaps No More Mr Nice Guy was seeing something that didn't exist? Honestly, I don't know. But I do know that sometimes there are conduct issues that are genuinely legitimate but are difficult to discern by someone without lengthy experience with the dispute. And so No More Mr Nice Guy was banned from WP:ARBPIA-related AE discussions. But perhaps AE saw something that didn't exist? Again, I honestly don't know. But I do know that Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Misplaced Pages and it should not be discounted without good evidence. Unless someone can provide good evidence why No More Mr Nice Guy's good faith should be doubted, I recommend lifting the restriction. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: While I don't agree that a ban should have been made in the first place, a three month ban seems more reasonable to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: I, too, am troubled by this comment. You're not assuming good faith, and appear to be personalizing the dispute by commenting on the contributor, rather than the contribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Yogesh Khandke

• My opinion is that the Nice Guy had good reason to bring the appeal to wp:ae, esp when Purim was called a celebration of genocide, but since he isn't contesting the ban itself, I opine he should come back after more edits under his belt. This appeal is too early, not in terms of time but in terms of activity, I dont think sitting out a ban is a good idea. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• I don't agree that conclusive evidence was present for user:Sandstein to state that "including, in this case, unfounded allegations or insinuations of antisemitism" were made. His remarks above are severe, I request him to AGF. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am contesting the ban itself. Also, how would my activities in other areas be relevant here? This ban is about AE and is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. More edits elsewhere should have nothing to do with it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nice guy I think wp:ae protocol needs users to edit in their own sections, please take your argument there. Also attacking Sandstein personally for having you banned is not going to help you. Also please use as few and as formal - neutral words as possible. I think you had reason to be hurt by the comments, not frivolous as Sandstein suggests, but I'm just one no-admin opinion. In the mean time doing a lot of work on the project would demonstrate that you aren't a SPA, it would show that your contributions are valuable etc and imo help you here. Having said all that unless I am wrong, you are banned from wp:ae, which is a infinitesimally small part of Misplaced Pages, why should that stop you from editing other areas? Yogesh Khandke (talk)

Result of the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

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

• I think that time-limiting the sanction would be more proportionate, as this would serve a more appropriate educational and preventative purpose for No More Mr Nice Guy. Bans are not generally intended as punitive. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'm a bit troubled by some of NMMNG's contentious responses in this appeal (e.g., attempting to distinguish Jew-baiting from antisemitism). That said, I think an indefinite ban is more than is necessary to prevent further disruption. I think one month is too short, though. I suggest reducing the ban to three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Disagree with shortening the ban to 1 month. The purpose of this ban is clear. The reasoning for it is sound. The length of time is at the imposing sysop's discretion - it's not AE's job to tweak sanctions imposed under AC/DS (unless there is a major issue like there being no basis for the ban or poor reasoning or change in teh appellant's behaviour). If NMMNG wants the ban lifted all he has to do is show that the behaviour that led to it has stopped. I'd recommend declining this request without adjusting the ban length but I'd be open to a new appeal in 2-3 months time that shows a change in behaviour/attitude--Cailil 14:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Have to agree with Cailil here. The length of time imposed is pretty much up to the discretion of the sysop who imposes it. Having said that, there is like he said reasonable cause to say that at some point in the future, maybe 2-3 months, maybe 6 months, whatever, after the editor has demonstrated a significant change in his behavior, the "indefinite" ban could be appealed then. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• In a thread not too far above this one, we see an indefinite ban of nearly the same nature being lifted with little fuss, after the topic-banned editor demonstrated by positive editing that it was no longer needed. "Indefinite" doesn't mean permanent, it just means not of a fixed duration. I'd be reluctant to change the timing of the ban without either reason to believe the original ban was grossly disproportionate or inappropriate, or evidence that the editor affected has now improved their editing habits to the point it is no longer needed. I do not see either of those cases here and would recommend against such a change. Seraphimblade 14:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Sandstein didn't make an obvious error when he issued User:No More Mr Nice Guy's original ban from posting at AE. I'm not inclined to second-guess the terms of the ban or its duration. If Sandstein wants to shorten the ban, that would be fine. In any case NMMNG is free to make further appeals of his ban in the future. He is at present not topic banned from ARBPIA and showing that he can make neutral edits in that domain would work in his favor. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@NMMNG: You were banned from AE for what appeared to be a lack of judgment: "the request is disruptive in that it accuses an editor of serious and ethically tainting misconduct, namely antisemitism, on specious grounds." Your feelings about the ARBPIA topic were so partisan that you couldn't see when you were out of line yourself. A record of neutral edits in the ARBPIA area might allow others to feel more confident that you won't make messes in the future at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

NMMNG - this kind of comment at AE is precisely what got you banned. If you don't stop this you will incur further and escalating sanctions. Step back--Cailil 12:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Unless there is substantial objection from uninvolved sysops I'll be closing this as declined within 24 hours--Cailil 12:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

DragonTiger23

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning DragonTiger23

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC

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

Topic ban violations:

1. 22 July 2013 Violation of his/her topic ban
2. 22 July 2013 Violation of his/her topic ban
3. 22 July 2013 Violation of topic ban after being warned

...many more in one day. Please check contributions.

Disruptive editing:

1. 22 July 2013 Quotes from same diff:

• "Later an unrelated Armenian out of sheer hate, falsely accused me,..."
• "I do not care for their blind childish hate."
• He refers to Misplaced Pages users as "Greek users" and "Armenians" Typical WP:Battleground terminology based of ethnic profiling and segregation

1. 22 July 2013 Quotes from same diff:

• "The person who filed that accusation User:Proudbolsahye at the admins is himself obsessed of atrocity mongering against the Turkish state and people,..."
• "Alexikoua is basically a hardcore denier of massacres committed against Turks"
• Again refers to various Misplaced Pages users as "Turkish users" Once again, WP:Battleground terminology

1. 22 July 2013: Sent Alexikoua (talk · contribs) to WP:ANI without a warning because he removed the content he added in violation. As admins here may know already, Alexikoua acted in good faith and in accordance of Misplaced Pages:BANBLOCKDIFF. I also found the nomination containing harsh language towards Alexikoua claiming that he's "behaving like he has a vendetta" and accusing him of edits that happened a month or so ago.

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

1. Warned on 22 July 2013 by Kansas Bear (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 22 July 2013 by Alexikoua (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user has been topic banned and a notice of his topic ban was given by admin EdJohnston (talk · contribs) on his talk page with specific instructions stating, "you are topic banned for three months from Greece or Greeks, ancient or modern, on all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk." Even after he was warned violating the topic ban, he continued and in one edit, deleted the warning. He has clearly violated his ban but I might also want to add that he caused a lot of disruption in a matter of hours as mentioned above. Much of the disruptive edits are almost identical to the same ones that got him his topic ban in the first place. Therefore, I request that DragonTiger23 be blocked and his time span of his topic ban increase from 3 months to whatever the admins deem necessary.

@Kansas Bear. This is not about whether his contributions are useful or disruptive, this is about his conduct and violations. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning DragonTiger23

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by DragonTiger23

Statement by Kansas Bear

I would ask that DragonTiger not be indefinitely topic banned on the condition that he refrains from aggressive battleground-like conduct. As User:Someone not using his real name stated, "Looking at the AE report that got DragonTiger23 sanctioned, it seems he often makes useful, valid content contributions...". He is not the only editor that believes DragonTiger makes useful, valid content contributions, I believe this as well, even though he and I have clashed on a number of occasions. But, Misplaced Pages is not about cooperating with people who agree with us, its about working together to build an encyclopedia with people who don't agree with us.

Also, I personally do not consider the link listed above as a "warning" issued to DragonTiger, more like a reminder of his topic ban. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DragonTiger23

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

A clear topic ban violation and continued aggressive battleground-like conduct. I recommend extending the topic ban's duration to indefinite and imposing a one-week enforcement block.  Sandstein  07:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree on the clear violation and extension of the topic ban, and also note that this editor has been blocked recently for a week already for edit warring and other misconduct. I would agree to a week this time, with a reminder that any subsequent violations are likely to result in a significantly longer or indefinite block. Seraphimblade 08:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• As this is a pretty unambiguous violation, unless any uninvolved admin objects, I will close this request with a 1-week block and extension to indefinite of the topic ban. Seraphimblade 14:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)