MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 2d) to User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2009/December, User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/January. |
|||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
::::::::That seems absurd; there must be a work-around. Perhaps if he fails to provide a diff to the "arbitral" decision you could declare that decision immaterial.--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] ([[User talk:G-Dett|talk]]) 21:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
::::::::That seems absurd; there must be a work-around. Perhaps if he fails to provide a diff to the "arbitral" decision you could declare that decision immaterial.--[[User:G-Dett|G-Dett]] ([[User talk:G-Dett|talk]]) 21:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::I'm sorry, you've lost me here. What do you mean by this? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 21:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
:::::::::I'm sorry, you've lost me here. What do you mean by this? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 21:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
The comedy in accusing others of wikilawyering while saying you plan on arguing that the user has no standing to request an appeal aside, I think you will need to find another argument. [[WP:AE#Appeal by Nableezy]]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 20:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|||
== Re: ANI == |
== Re: ANI == |
Revision as of 20:46, 5 January 2010
Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:
- Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.
- Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.
- If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: [[example article]].
- If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
What a way to start the New Year!
Dear Sandstein,
First of all, happy New Year. I hope its a good one for you. The reason I am writing though is because I'm rather shocked at your reimposition of a two month topic ban on Nableezy on this, the first day of the new year, just a couple of days after his last topic ban ended. I don't think his edits to the Jonathan Cook AfD (over a month ago) deserve to be held against him now. And as you said yourself in your closing of the other complaint against him, there was nothing actionable in that complaint. Therefore, your decision comes off as rather punitive. Would you care to revisit? Or should I file a request for review somewhere? Can you direct me to where that can be done? Thank you. Tiamuttalk 19:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, and happy new year to you too. I do think Nableezy's repeated violation of the topic ban, even though it happened about a month ago, requires a restart of the ban, because he violated the topic ban in exactly the confrontative manner the ban was intended to prevent, i.e., by editwarring to reinsert the AfD comments of other banned editors (which also violated the policy prohibiting editing on behalf of banned users). Although the sanction was imposed relatively late (I was away from AE until today), the enforcement request was made in a timely manner. My closing of another complaint as not actionable has no bearing on the closure of the unrelated complaint at issue here. For these reasons, I decline to reconsider the sanction; it may be appealed as described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 20:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the New Year's wishes. I must disagree, however, with your assessment, which I believe fails to assume good faith. To Nableezy, the Jonathan Cook article was not clearly covered by the topic ban, which is the reason he was restoring those other editors' comments. Furthermore, his edits to restore the comments removed were in line the guidelines outlined at WP:TALK (i.e. that editors should generally avoid removing or altering the comments of other editors) and came one day before the end of his the expiration of his talk page ban. Two separate requests were opened, prior to the AE request that you closed, suggesting that his actions be reviewed. They were, and no action was taken by the admins who commented on those other requests. The idea that a third request could be filed on the same issue and one month later be closed with a renewal of his topic ban seem patently unfair (triple jeopardy?), and I said above, punitive.
- It is very disheartening actually, and not the way I would liked to welcome the new year myself. But you are free to your opinion and free not to respond further. I will take it up where you suggested when I calm down a bit. Tiamuttalk 21:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is immaterial whether or not Nableezy says that he believed that he did not violate the ban. Based on its plain language, he ought to have known that he did. Since nobody linked to these previous AE requests that you mention during the whole long time the request was open, I could not (and still cannot) take them into account. In any case, double jeopardy is a legal concept inapplicable to arbitration enforcement, which is not a legal proceeding. Sandstein 21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Sandstein, if you want a diff for AGK saying that AfD were to be treated as talk pages (from which I was banned for 1 month) here you go. Also, if you want to see the AE thread where my actions at the AfD were addressed, here you go. This topic ban is wholly without basis and I hope you reverse your decision. You also could have asked for the diffs before making a decision based on limited information. nableezy - 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Since nobody is omniscient, all human decisions are based on limited information. But as the editor subject to a AE request, it is your own responsability to submit any evidence in your favor in a timely manner. At any rate, the new evidence does not cause me to change my conclusion. Since enforcing admins act independently from one another, the previous thread in which Tznkai declined enforcement (but did not find that the complaint was unfounded) does not prevent me from coming to a different conclusion. Even assuming arguendo that the ban as applicable to AfDs ended one month after 21:02, 29 October 2009, at least your edits [1] and [2] were made prior to 21:02, 29 November 2009 and thus in violation of the ban. Sandstein 21:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I cannot believe you are imposing a two-month topic ban for those two edits which took place over a month ago and were already adjudicated as harmless by another admin. Your decision is more disruptive to Wikipedia than the alleged offense. Its stopped me from improving articles for the last couple of hours and it will stop Nableey from improving articles over the next two months. I don't know what your problem is Sandstein, but I think you should take a good long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if this is in Wikipedia's best interest, or your own. Tiamuttalk 21:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I reverted edits that I felt constituted vandalism and asked the users to go to AE with their complaints about Nick and Nishi instead of attempting to enforce arbitration decisions on their own. If you feel that is ban worthy so be it, but please indefinitely block my account right now (though turn off the autoblock, I have a shared ip at work). If you decline to block my account I will sue you all, (that line should give you reason for an indef block, NLT). nableezy - 22:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- We do not block people on their own request. I have provided you with instructions about how to appeal the sanction if you believe it was wrong. Sandstein 22:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I do not want to "appeal" the sanction, I want you to realize how ridicolous it is. And you are not blocking me on my own request, you would be blocking me for making a legal threat. But your life, Im outta here. nableezy - 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- You write:
- 'he violated the topic ban in exactly the confrontative manner the ban was intended to prevent, i.e., by editwarring to reinsert the AfD comments of other banned editors (which also violated the policy prohibiting editing on behalf of banned users).'
- Look I don't care whether this violates my permaban or not. I can't allow an outright fiction like this to pass unchallenged. The link tells us that
- 'Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying",'
- I made an intemperate post, and a follow up within a few minutes,and am willing to pay the penalty for it. It has been discussed, and I violated my permaban, as I admitted and apologized. A tremendous infraction of one lapse of judgement into 7 months of my permaban. But in reverting Gilabrand's erasure of my remark Nableezy in no way 'edited on my behalf' or 'at my direction'. You may not believe me, but I wished to erase the remark myself, but did not do so because, out of pure fucking scruple, I thought to do so would be seen, rightly so, as an attempt to erase the evidence for my own culpable behaviour. I know administering this place is like cleaning up in a lunatic asylum, and there's far too much for any one caretaker to look to, but Nableezy has never, never edited at my direction, and to insinuate this on the public record, with the authority invested in you, and with the reputation you have earned attached, means that, through my own oversight, Nableezy is now suspected of meatkpuppetry. Worse still, you saying this suggests to other eyes that one motive for your action was that you considered he acted as my (ugh!) 'meatpuppet'. I bitterly protest this, not only for Nableezy, but for myself. I may be whatever Arbcom or straying administrators think I am, but I have never used these tactics, as opposed to so many of those handles that have taken me, Nableezy, and many others to arbitration, and got their way.Nishidani (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I did not intend to imply that Nableezy edited at your direction, or that you are to blame for his edits. Sorry if it came across that way. But his re-insertion of your comments had the effect of circumventing your topic ban, which is disruptive. Sandstein 22:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, Sandstein, the disruption was by those editors who tried to remove the comments, instead of taking it to AE. Nableezy did the right thing, although he was technically in breach of his talk-page ban (by less than 24hrs). That does not merit the re-imposition of a full two-month topic ban (maybe a short nominal block at most). Your misjudgement here looks like it may have cost Wikipedia the services of a first-rate editor. --NSH001 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Whether any other editors also acted disruptively has no bearing on my assessment of Nableezy's actions. Everybody is judged only on their own merits. A block in this situation would have been punitive, but it is my judgment that a topic ban is much better suited for preventing continued similar disruption. If Nableezy retires from editing Wikipedia instead of appealing my sanction, that is regrettable, but it is his own decision. Sandstein 22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You keep talking as if Nableezy was being "disruptive", or is likely to "continue disruption". Just examine Nableezy's contribution history. He's careful, accurate, adheres closely to sources, and is bloody good at formatting articles. Look at the articles he's created or contributed to (Franz Baermann Steiner, Al-Azhar Mosque to take just two I'm familiar with). Can you not see what an outrageous, monstrous injustice this is? He made a minor, technical, infraction of the rules, that's all. Why the hell should anyone put up with being banned for doing the right thing? I strongly suggest you examine the evidence carefully, and think again. --NSH001 (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- The disruption lies in violating an arbitration-authorized topic ban (itself imposed for disruption) to edit war. I am sure he has many merits as an editor, and he is certainly not only disruptive, but that is not relevant in arbitration enforcement. Sandstein 23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You keep talking as if Nableezy was being "disruptive", or is likely to "continue disruption". Just examine Nableezy's contribution history. He's careful, accurate, adheres closely to sources, and is bloody good at formatting articles. Look at the articles he's created or contributed to (Franz Baermann Steiner, Al-Azhar Mosque to take just two I'm familiar with). Can you not see what an outrageous, monstrous injustice this is? He made a minor, technical, infraction of the rules, that's all. Why the hell should anyone put up with being banned for doing the right thing? I strongly suggest you examine the evidence carefully, and think again. --NSH001 (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Whether any other editors also acted disruptively has no bearing on my assessment of Nableezy's actions. Everybody is judged only on their own merits. A block in this situation would have been punitive, but it is my judgment that a topic ban is much better suited for preventing continued similar disruption. If Nableezy retires from editing Wikipedia instead of appealing my sanction, that is regrettable, but it is his own decision. Sandstein 22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- On the contrary, Sandstein, the disruption was by those editors who tried to remove the comments, instead of taking it to AE. Nableezy did the right thing, although he was technically in breach of his talk-page ban (by less than 24hrs). That does not merit the re-imposition of a full two-month topic ban (maybe a short nominal block at most). Your misjudgement here looks like it may have cost Wikipedia the services of a first-rate editor. --NSH001 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I did not intend to imply that Nableezy edited at your direction, or that you are to blame for his edits. Sorry if it came across that way. But his re-insertion of your comments had the effect of circumventing your topic ban, which is disruptive. Sandstein 22:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I made an intemperate post, and a follow up within a few minutes,and am willing to pay the penalty for it. It has been discussed, and I violated my permaban, as I admitted and apologized. A tremendous infraction of one lapse of judgement into 7 months of my permaban. But in reverting Gilabrand's erasure of my remark Nableezy in no way 'edited on my behalf' or 'at my direction'. You may not believe me, but I wished to erase the remark myself, but did not do so because, out of pure fucking scruple, I thought to do so would be seen, rightly so, as an attempt to erase the evidence for my own culpable behaviour. I know administering this place is like cleaning up in a lunatic asylum, and there's far too much for any one caretaker to look to, but Nableezy has never, never edited at my direction, and to insinuate this on the public record, with the authority invested in you, and with the reputation you have earned attached, means that, through my own oversight, Nableezy is now suspected of meatkpuppetry. Worse still, you saying this suggests to other eyes that one motive for your action was that you considered he acted as my (ugh!) 'meatpuppet'. I bitterly protest this, not only for Nableezy, but for myself. I may be whatever Arbcom or straying administrators think I am, but I have never used these tactics, as opposed to so many of those handles that have taken me, Nableezy, and many others to arbitration, and got their way.Nishidani (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is an open invitation for serious editors to be seriously disruptive, by mirroring the behaviour of the endless number of people who are more interesting in scrutinizing the minutiae of people they take to be their adversaries, in order to catch them out, and haul them before arbitration. I've always argued that one should never go to arbitration over etiquette, trivia, or even serious suspicions about sockpuppetry, but stand one's ground and argue. It's evil, and unmanly, and is screwing up a lot of potential good editing. I see that of several people I advised to take that stance, most have been driven off wiki, because they won't retaliate, and because arbitrators keep thinking that trivial lapses are serious evidence of 'troublesome' behaviour. Some of the most quarrelsome plaintiffs and cumbersomely POV weighted editors are still thriving. No one complains about them, or if they do, the complaints are just closed from tedium. You have a clear conscience, but the systemic bias is now patent. Nableezy, for the record, spent a considerable amount of time trying to needle me back to wikipedia, and his insistence, via throwing my way huge amounts of material I'd always desired to read but couldn't access via the net, eventually enticed me to go beyond the banned I/P area where I think my useful competence lies, to write up neglected areas where I once used to know quite a lot, on anthropology, for example. That's not on the record, but it showed how hard he worked to rope back someone who was disenchanted with the extraordinary arbitrariness of wiki's legal system, where you survive only if you spend more time wikilawyering than on studying up for article drafting. He asked for nothing in return, and in our exchanges there was little of a personal or political nature. You've lost him, and incidentally if inadvertently, made a wonderful new year for those who went for his jugular from woe to go. You say he may wriggle back if he begins to adopt the legalistic niggling, plaintiff mentality on which his adversaries thrive, and which serious editors deplore. Sandstein, there is such a thing as discretionary judgement, and commonsense. You have no read the drift. Or have you, and gone ahead regardless. Remember, your sanction against me 3 years ago was correct on 3 RR when I began. But the people who pushed for action were destructive sockpuppets, meatpuppets and tagteamers, all banned or disappeared. And I have to wear that on my page, while the fact that I edited for the good of the encyclopedia against a covey of disruptive warriors is lost from view. You did the right thing technically, but the result was I had to sit out a punishment for trying to keep reliable sources from being erased by two POV-warriors. In your view, rather than editing, I should have joined in the tactical battle, and gone for Zeq, and his allies. Nishidani (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, this is WP:TLDR. Could you be briefer? Sandstein 23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- No. But I do commend, and hope you will entertain the suggestion, a reading of Billy Budd within the year. It is far longer than my post, but makes my point more succinctly. I think it should be required reading for anyone who exercises administrative functions and who thinks with Goethe that duty is just the demands of the day (No doubt you too have it by mermory, but just in case: Was aber ist deine Pflicht? Die Forderung des Tages). With that, I too must now join my friend in permanent retirement from the extra I/P area as well. Nishidani (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you would probably violate your own restriction in continuing this discussion. Sandstein 00:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Disgusted
I am disgusted by your blatant bias. I suggest you read Lord Acton's dictum, and apply the lessons to yourself, and to Wikipedia's farcical "justice" system that succeeds in driving away the very best editors. --NSH001 (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- As with everyone else who's comented above. This issue - which involved the restoration of controversially deleted comments (yes, including some from me it would seem) from an AfD page - was the subject of multiple threads, where enforcement was declined, and you take it upon yourself to turn up two weeks later out of the blue to impose a ban? At the same time as demanding that the individual in question has to provide the evidence to show that there was no breach? No pal, if you want to impose draconian sanctions on people, it's up to you to demonstrate a substantive breach of any prior sanctions, rather than taking an accusation as read, and implicitly accusing Nableezy of lying when he asserted AfDs were excluded from his ban by demanding he show diffs, as you did initially. Look at the sanctions log, you bleated. I did. It specifically notes the amendment to exclude talk pages, which was, as Nableezy says, clarified as including AfD pages. --Nickhh (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- What does "bleated" mean? Sandstein 18:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sandstein, FYI: "bleated" is the past tense of a sad pathetic, complaining little noise made by a lamb. As opposed to "Mheeeeh" which is an angry noise made by the lamb's mother. Unless you feel yourself to be a lamb then I would imagine in this case it is merely a missed erronious spellchecker correction for "deleted." Glad to be of help. Giano 19:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- What does "bleated" mean? Sandstein 18:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I asked Nickhh, and would appreciate an explanation by him. Sandstein 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wishful thinking, Giano. Deleted doesn't really convert to bleated very easily. And deleted wouldn't make sense in the context. Looks like some people are just resorting to subtle name-calling because they've run out of other options. Good luck trying to argue logically in this discussion, Sandstein. It's falling on deaf ears. Breein1007 (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, Sandstein hasn't made any great effort to argue logically in this discussion. Sandstein has topic-banned Nableezy yesterday for edits he made to an AfD a month ago. Nableezy had previously pointed out that he had specifically requested advice from the relevant admin about whether his topic ban included AfDs, and was told that it didn't. Sandstein two weeks later replied that absent a diff proving that this exchange between Nableezy and his blocking admin took place, whatever advice he may have received is "immaterial," and without further ado topic-bans him. Nableezy within two hours says hold on, here's your diff, and sure enough, it shows exactly what Nableezy claimed and Sandstein doubted. Instead of apologizing for his mistake, Sandstein tries to bluster it out, telling Nableezy that "it is your own responsibility to submit any evidence in your favor in a timely manner." And then still refuses to reconsider his decision.
- Wishful thinking, Giano. Deleted doesn't really convert to bleated very easily. And deleted wouldn't make sense in the context. Looks like some people are just resorting to subtle name-calling because they've run out of other options. Good luck trying to argue logically in this discussion, Sandstein. It's falling on deaf ears. Breein1007 (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I asked Nickhh, and would appreciate an explanation by him. Sandstein 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's right: Sandstein is giving Nableezy a two-month topic ban for month-old edits, and has the audacity to lecture Nableezy about timeliness, because Nableezy took two hours to provide the diff that makes complete nonsense of Sandstein's reasoning.
- Hope this wasn't TLDR. And for ban-happy admins who've lost their minds as well as their dictionaries, "bluster" means to protest in an empty but noisy way so as to distract attention from the relevant point. It's not all that different from Nableezy meant by "bleat."--G-Dett (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Another request for reconsideration
Sandstein, it seems to me that you are topic banning Nableezy for two months, for making AfD edits which were arguably reverting vandalism, but arguably in contravention of a ban which was about to expire in a mere few hours, a ban whose imposition had been strongly disputed by several respected admins and even by "the other side". This overrode the judgment of earlier administrators who had dismissed complaints on the same facts. (You incorrectly say above that these earlier requests and decisions were not linked. What reason there could ever be for not be taking them into account is mystifying.) Is this not wheel-warring in spirit? Does this really seem to you to be an exercise of good judgment?
In my view you have tried with some success to be predictable and clear in your administrative actions. Such an aim can be taken too far. Applying rules mechanically here and arbitrary and ungrounded dismissal of strong arguments as "immaterial" seems to me to make this decision the opposite of what I believe you intend: capricious and tyrannical, and more disruptive to writing an encyclopedia than anything Nableezy has done.John Z (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you John Z, for saying what needs to be said in an eloquent and respectful fashion. I'm frankly too outraged (still) to have formulated so generously. Tiamuttalk 20:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am not topic-banning him just for violating a ban. I am topic-banning him for breaking a ban (whose validity is not subject to discussion here) in order to edit-war and for being completely unapologetic about it. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive. Had Nableezy acknowledged his ban violation and undone his edits as soon as possible, or even in the AE proceedings, my ban would not have happened. However, since he chooses to present himself as an innocent victim, I believe that the new ban is required to prevent continued confrontative behavior in the area of conflict.
- Of course, I (like any other person) may be mistaken about this. If so, there are appeals procedures which allow for a review and discussion of my decision. I believe I have now said all that can reasonably be said about this issue and will decline to answer further questions. Sandstein 21:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein, I understand you have discussed this at length above, but I have just read up on this, and am considering whether to file an appeal on Nableezy's behalf. I am hoping to get your thoughts on a couple of points before doing so, which strike me as why this may have touched such a raw nerve. First is simply the appearance that there was a misapprehension here which should have affected whether a sanction was imposed, but then hasn't. This appears to me in your suggestion that although Nickh and Nishidani technically violated the ban it would only be punitive to impose a sanction at this point due to the time elapsed, and due to the lack of more recent violations. However, you said that Nableezy was distinguished in that he was unapologetic, in claiming that AGK had already waived the applicability of the sanction to AfDs. We now know that Nableezy was correct in saying this. You point out that two of his edits were still a day early, and this seems to be correct. But what then is different from the other two cases? I do see one additional point, that Nableezy edit warred, unlike the others who were simply leaving comments. I think that is a fair point. Mitigating, on the other hand, is the fact that he was only a day before the expiration, and may well have made a mistake. Is this really immaterial, as you initially thought?
The second point relates to my thought that if you had made this decision a month ago, or two weeks ago, I do not think it would have brought this reaction. At this point it is more than a month after the incident, and more than two weeks after another administrator declined action while giving Nableezy strongly-worded advice for going forward. Whereas Nableezy had one day left on his sanction a month ago when this happened, you've now added another two months onto the end, starting a month after this happened. It seems that if we are trying to bring people into the fold of a certain kind of behavior, this is far enough removed from the incident where a negative result is predictable. Indeed, another request regarding Nableezy had just been withdrawn due to an apology,[3] which seemed to have resolved the current crises on a good note. Then we're back to punishing Nableezy for something from a month (and more than 500 edits) ago. I can try to make an appeal as you suggest; I'm afraid it will all be a bit unwieldy. I just wanted to raise these thoughts with you first to see if there was any wiggle room. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I think you have assessed the facts of the case pretty well. Before I spend yet more time arguing about this, though, I wonder if it makes any sense to discuss the merits of a sanction against an editor who has declared himself retired from Wikipedia. Sandstein 07:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fair question. My hope is that a calmer re-evaluation might encourage him and others to reconsider. I don't think his actions have been so problematic at all that we should welcome his retirement. Clearly he's frustrated, as are others, but maybe there is a gesture that could get things back in the right direction. Mackan79 (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I neither welcome nor regret his retirement (I am ignorant of his previous editing history), but if an editor retires altogether rather than edit within the restrictions of a fairly limited topic ban or even appeal it, this may be another indication that the topic ban was not a bad idea. At any rate, I'll not spend more time discussing what is an entirely moot question as long as the editor in question is retired from Wikipedia. Sandstein 07:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- That you can characterize Nableezy's retirement, which was due to the injustice of your decision, as further proof of the justice of your decision, speaks volumes as to the limits of your capacity for self-reflection. Or else, you are latching on to yet another excuse not to re-evaluate this massive blunder. In either case, it shows that you do not deserve your admin tools - at all. Tiamuttalk 09:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm. I find my reactions to Wikipedia a bit muted these days, but then I've always been something of a pragmatist. Clearly others get more invested. Taking that as your view, it doesn't seem especially likely that you might reconsider in any case, if he expressed a wish to continue editing. I think a break might be a good thing, but I also wanted to express what I think has partly gone wrong here. On the other side of this event, I think people forget that Wikipedia is what it is, that people are what they are, and you kind of may as well deal with what you get. All of that aside, I think considering this was a day before the sanction ended, and that you didn't realize this, it would be reasonable at least to shorten the duration. In fact by your analysis the talk page sanction that was violated was only for one month, and so should presumably not have resulted in a lengthening of longer than that. Is this not the case? I would appreciate a response, of course, but I won't press you any further. Mackan79 (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- My opinion, as explained above, is that a new topic ban is an appropriate and preventative response to the conduct at issue. Arbitral bans are the result of binding dispute resolution. Those who disobey them in order to disrupt Wikipedia, even a second before the ban's expiration, must be prepared to face severe consequences, in this case a reimposition of the original sanction. Of course, these matters are judgment calls. Another admin might have assessed the situation quite differently, as it seems Tznkai did in a previous request. Others may disagree with the timing or scope of my sanction, and that's fine. That's why there's an appeals process that allows for community discussion. If an appeal leads to admin consensus that another sanction or no sanction at all would be appropriate, that's fine with me. But since the editor has retired from Wikipedia, any discussion about the merits of the sanction would be, in my opinion, moot. Sandstein 18:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I neither welcome nor regret his retirement (I am ignorant of his previous editing history), but if an editor retires altogether rather than edit within the restrictions of a fairly limited topic ban or even appeal it, this may be another indication that the topic ban was not a bad idea. At any rate, I'll not spend more time discussing what is an entirely moot question as long as the editor in question is retired from Wikipedia. Sandstein 07:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fair question. My hope is that a calmer re-evaluation might encourage him and others to reconsider. I don't think his actions have been so problematic at all that we should welcome his retirement. Clearly he's frustrated, as are others, but maybe there is a gesture that could get things back in the right direction. Mackan79 (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Can't you see that the retirement template was placed in protest to your decision? I put one up too, so did Nishidani. You just don't get it. Nableezy was made to feel unwelcome here by your decision, because its arbitrary and punitive and patently unfair. Rather than doing the humane thing and conceding that you were wrong, you have consistently shifted the goalposts so as to rationalize to seven different people objecting to your decision, why it is justified. If an editor were editing an article page right now and was faced with opposition for their edits by seven other editors and refused to back down, we would say they were failing to abide by consensus and perhaps even that they were being tendentious. Why is this case any different? Does being admin grant you a superhuman exemption from responding to the concerns of your fellow editors? I don't think so. Please do the right thing. Please undo sanction so that Nableey can feel welcome here again and maybe he will come out of retirement and the damage you've done will be undone. Tiamuttalk 19:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- If Nableezy thinks that labeling himself retired is an appropriate way to protest my sanction, fine, but I am taking him at his word and consider him gone from Wikipedia, and his case thus closed. The continued and increasingly impolite requests by editors such as you, who seem to be closely associated (in the disputes surrounding the I-P conflict) with Nableezy do not impress me at all. If anything, you make me more disinclined to reexamine my decision with each of your repetitive messages. I have repeatedly told you, and will not tell you again, that the proper way to obtain the input of uninvolved administrators, who are the people I will listen to, is the appeals process as provided for in the arbitral decision. However, my position is that people who violate an arbitral ban to edit-war must be prepared to face severe consequences, no matter what their other merits are, and I would be surprised if many of my fellow administrators were to feel differently. Sandstein 19:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Can't you see that the retirement template was placed in protest to your decision? I put one up too, so did Nishidani. You just don't get it. Nableezy was made to feel unwelcome here by your decision, because its arbitrary and punitive and patently unfair. Rather than doing the humane thing and conceding that you were wrong, you have consistently shifted the goalposts so as to rationalize to seven different people objecting to your decision, why it is justified. If an editor were editing an article page right now and was faced with opposition for their edits by seven other editors and refused to back down, we would say they were failing to abide by consensus and perhaps even that they were being tendentious. Why is this case any different? Does being admin grant you a superhuman exemption from responding to the concerns of your fellow editors? I don't think so. Please do the right thing. Please undo sanction so that Nableey can feel welcome here again and maybe he will come out of retirement and the damage you've done will be undone. Tiamuttalk 19:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for leaving no doubt as to your view that Wikipedia is a caste system where the opinions of mere editors (or outcasts) are unworthy of your consideration. As you will only listen to your fellow Brahmins, there is no point in speaking to you any further. I only hope that some of them are more egalitarian, and do not share your view that some animals are more equal than others. Tiamuttalk 19:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- In the spirit of Karl Kraus
- disrupt (1)'to burst asunder'.(2)'to break into pieces, shatter.' (source:Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford 2nd.ed.1989, vol.IV, p.832 col.3.) I.e. Nableezy's two edits shattered wikipedia, or threatened to burst it asunder.Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's not very fair of you, Nishidani. Do you not then also agree that pretty much all other inappropriate edits on Wikipedia are similarly not "disruptive"? I mean, vandalism is classified as a disruptive edit, but really... does a user posting random crap on an article or arbitrarily blanking an article "shatter" Wikipedia? No, not at all. It's just a minor annoyance that will likely be corrected within minutes. It's easy to pick at words and find their definitions to try to trivialize others' arguments, but in the big picture, it really isn't an effective way to debate. Breein1007 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Kraus was into etymological fallacies? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's not very fair of you, Nishidani. Do you not then also agree that pretty much all other inappropriate edits on Wikipedia are similarly not "disruptive"? I mean, vandalism is classified as a disruptive edit, but really... does a user posting random crap on an article or arbitrarily blanking an article "shatter" Wikipedia? No, not at all. It's just a minor annoyance that will likely be corrected within minutes. It's easy to pick at words and find their definitions to try to trivialize others' arguments, but in the big picture, it really isn't an effective way to debate. Breein1007 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
No more drama please
This section, prior to this post, is 37 kB long, which makes it 36.5 kB too long. To anybody who is protesting this decision, I am sure there are many things that would be a more constructive use of your time. Sandstein, regarding my "legal threat", I apologize for that; out of frustration I did something stupid. I obviously feel that your sanction is ridiculous, so much so that I do not feel the need to explain why. You say I am unapologetic, you are damn right I am. I felt, and still feel, that edits removing or modifying others posts were vandalism and that highly involved users should not be attempting to enforce arbitration decisions. To each person I reverted I asked them to instead go to WP:AE so that an uninvolved admin may make a determination of whether Nick and Nishidani's comments were violations of their topic bans and what to do about them if they were. So yes, I am unapologetic. My "retirement" is not something that I did to "protest" the decision; dramatic gestures are not really my style. I just do not want to deal with this anymore. As far as I am concerned the issue is closed and would appreciate these being the final words wasted on the topic. Peace and happiness everybody. nableezy - 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Was about to let the whole thing drop ...
And then you did this. There is no way that Nableezy filing a sockpuppet report regarding User:Lovely day350 and User:Brewcrewer could be considered a violation of an Israel-Palestine topic ban, even if you are arguing that the two accused editors are single-purpose accounts. The edits of LovelyDay350 that Nableezy cites as evidence were made to Talk:Arab Christians (not witin the scope of the ban) and the 3RR noticeboard (also not within the scope of the topic ban). And even if the edits cited were within the topic area, a sockpuppet report is not disallowed by your sanction, which makes exceptions for dealing with vandalism, with sockpuppeting surely falls under.
Please immediately undo this block. I notice it was the first thing you did when you came back to editing today. You are exercising extremely poor judgement here Sandstein, and considering this block comes right after Nableezy's very generous statement above asking others to stop discussing his ban, you seem to adding fuel to fire in a way that is extremely disruptive and vindictive. What is the point exactly? Tiamuttalk 19:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is just routine ban enforcement. Vandalism is not sockpuppeting, and vice versa. The merits of the block have already been reviewed by an administrator. Nableezy is free to make more unblock requests. Sandstein 19:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Good answer! But just to clarify, if Nableezy decides to make an unblock request, given that the block itself was I-P related, won't the unblock request ipso facto also be I-P related and therefore a violation of his topic ban? The topic ban you just renewed for two months because of something he did a month ago?
- This is not "routine ban enforcement". Your topic ban did not specify that Nableezy was not allowed to file sockpuppet reports. If your intention was to include such a restriction is his ban, you should have warned him and explained this after he filed the report, rather than summarily blocking him.
- "The merits of the block have already been reviewed by an administrator," is a cop out statement and is highly misleading. You left a note saying the block could not be undone, except by achieving consensus at WP:AE, making it clear that no admin could just simply undo your action. User:Fastily declined to unblock after you left that note, and he warned Nableezy not to use the template again, threatening to cut off his talk page access if he did, so your claim that Nableezy is free to make more unblock requests is disingenuous. Furthermore, Fastily made a number of statements previously, basically accusing Nableezy of sockpuppeting, so I do not consider him an uninvolved admin as regards Nableezy [4], [5].
- Sandstein, this is your last chance to redeem yourself and prove that you are not out to get Nableezy. Please undo this block now. Tiamuttalk 19:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- You are not helping Nableezy with this wikilawyering. If he listens to you, I'd advise him to obey the topic ban and edit something entirely unrelated to the I-P conflict, which is probably something like 99.99% of our pages. A topic ban is a blanket prohibition from making any edits related even tangentially to the prohibited topic. It is not necessary to specify each and every possible sort of such edit in the topic ban description. Sandstein 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know why I thought it was possible to reason with you, given your earlier responses above. Fine Sandstein. I'm not sure how to go about appealing this. But regardless of whether it is appealed or not, or overturned or not, I am going to approach all the other editors who commented here about opening an User RfC on you. I think its time you learned that being an admin does not make you God. Have a nice day. Tiamuttalk 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you wish to appeal the topic ban, you should use the template {{Sanction appeal}} on WP:AE. If you do, I intend to argue that you, not being the sanctioned user, do not have standing to appeal, so you may wish to leave any appeal to Nableezy himself. Of course, it is quite possible that the community will still hear your appeal. Sandstein 21:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- And if Nableezy does the appealing per your suggestion, you can then block him for violating his topic ban! It's wonderful. It all makes such perfect sense.--G-Dett (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Of course not. The right to appeal is provided for by the arbitral decision, so it cannot be subject to a topic ban imposed under the authority of that same decision. Sandstein 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- And if Nableezy does the appealing per your suggestion, you can then block him for violating his topic ban! It's wonderful. It all makes such perfect sense.--G-Dett (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you wish to appeal the topic ban, you should use the template {{Sanction appeal}} on WP:AE. If you do, I intend to argue that you, not being the sanctioned user, do not have standing to appeal, so you may wish to leave any appeal to Nableezy himself. Of course, it is quite possible that the community will still hear your appeal. Sandstein 21:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know why I thought it was possible to reason with you, given your earlier responses above. Fine Sandstein. I'm not sure how to go about appealing this. But regardless of whether it is appealed or not, or overturned or not, I am going to approach all the other editors who commented here about opening an User RfC on you. I think its time you learned that being an admin does not make you God. Have a nice day. Tiamuttalk 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- You are not helping Nableezy with this wikilawyering. If he listens to you, I'd advise him to obey the topic ban and edit something entirely unrelated to the I-P conflict, which is probably something like 99.99% of our pages. A topic ban is a blanket prohibition from making any edits related even tangentially to the prohibited topic. It is not necessary to specify each and every possible sort of such edit in the topic ban description. Sandstein 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The comedy in accusing others of wikilawyering while saying you plan on arguing that the user has no standing to request an appeal aside, I think you will need to find another argument. WP:AE#Appeal by Nableezy. nableezy - 20:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: ANI
I'm so sorry about that, not sure how that happened (well, edit-conflict, but still...) – I'd have had no objection to you replacing it yourself, of course!! ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 11:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! Sandstein 20:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Acharya S
I notice you userfied Acharya S some time ago; the article returned to the main namespace under a different name, was moved, and is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (3rd nomination). I have been involved closely with this matter in the past. Since partisan editors are attracted to the topic, I'd be grateful for some administrative help with it. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- How can I help? I closed a previous AfD, but I have no recollection or knowledge of the topic as such. Sandstein 18:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah - the topic is a pseudonym of a writer on religious topics, and we have an "issue" with the recreated article: is it or is it not a biography? It was recreated under the title writings of D.M. Murdock; but was then moved to its present title. This author has released only a very small amount of biographical information to the public, so that considered as a "biography of a living person" it is almost impossible to verify facts. On the other hand we cannot decide on an adequate title. The article will probably survive AfD now, so the question is what is the best way to treat it in future. I have been having discussions with at least two editors involved in the recreation (one being User:Jclemens who had the version in userspace. There is an argument being put forward that I don't really understand or accept about the inclusion of biographical facts (almost all self-published) in the article. I was closely concerned with the ArbCom case centred on the article, ending in 2006, where the original poster User:ZAROVE was restricted from editing on the topic. To give the short version of the problem, this article was created as an attack page; my main concern is that it should not return to this status, but under the present title it would need to be watched constantly. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see, but I do not think that I would be suitable for watching it at the content level, since I have no knowledge of and no interest in the author or what seems to be her subject matter, Christ myth theory. But if you need an uninvolved admin to do admin stuff, such as in cases of BLP violations, I am of course available. Sandstein 19:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- My thanks. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
nableezy
Sandstein, don't you think this has gone far enough? At this point, it's beginning to look as though you have a vendetta against nableezy. Please uninvolve yourself from further interactions with him. An uninvolved administrator should handle any future violations. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, I concurr with Malik Shabazz. The Arbcom decision refers to "any uninvolved administrator" ([6]). By your last action you clearly discredited you as potentially uninvolved. I suggest you take distance with user:Nableezy. If he really infringes Arbcom decision, other administrators will have the opportunity to handle the case before the encyclopaedia is in danger. Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't intend to uninvolve myself from anything. Taking administrative actions with respect to users (in this case, responding to an AE request and then enforcing it with a brief block) does not constitute a conflict that would prevent me from taking subsequent administrative actions. See WP:UNINVOLVED for more information. Sandstein 21:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I read WP:UNINVOLVED. "[A]n administrator may wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as 'best practice' in some cases, although they are not required to. Or, they may wish to be absolutely sure that no concerns will 'stick', in certain exceptional cases." "[I]f there is doubt, or a personal motive may be substantively alleged, it may still be better to pass it to others where possible." As I wrote, this matter has started to look personal. Please recuse yourself from the situation. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I do not wish to. What personal motive of mine do you allege, and for which reason? Do I have any previous conflicts with Nableezy (I can't recall any)? You are of course free to disagree with my administrative actions (that's why we have appeal processes for them, as I keep reminding everybody) but so far all I have heard are unfounded assumptions of bad faith, which I am not inclined to take seriously. Sandstein 21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I read WP:UNINVOLVED. "[A]n administrator may wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as 'best practice' in some cases, although they are not required to. Or, they may wish to be absolutely sure that no concerns will 'stick', in certain exceptional cases." "[I]f there is doubt, or a personal motive may be substantively alleged, it may still be better to pass it to others where possible." As I wrote, this matter has started to look personal. Please recuse yourself from the situation. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't intend to uninvolve myself from anything. Taking administrative actions with respect to users (in this case, responding to an AE request and then enforcing it with a brief block) does not constitute a conflict that would prevent me from taking subsequent administrative actions. See WP:UNINVOLVED for more information. Sandstein 21:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations
For [7]. You must be the first person other than me to actually bother trying to read MN's diffs :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, very odd, this. Sandstein 22:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)