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

Request concerning Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction

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

1. 08:26, 2 May 2012 Removed "Militants were launching rockets into Israel from the area, and Hamas was known to conduct operations..." along with other sourced material
2. 11:11, 2 May 2012 Removed "Militants were launching rockets into Israel from the area, and Hamas was known to conduct operations..."

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In addition to violating 1rr, whether deliberate or unintentional, Nishidani was advised to revert his last edit by myself, ZScarpia, AnkhMorpork, and Ed Johnston who advised "unless you see a BLP violation against a named person or an obvious falsification of sources it seems like you should revert your own edit pending discussion." Nishidani has declined these requests, despite acknowledging his violation several times:12 He is an experienced editor that has previous blocks for edit-warring on I-P topics.His indefinite I-P ban was lifted by Arbitration committee in July 2011[1]

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning Nishidani

Statement by Nishidani

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'looks like a sympathetic admin is going to delay your downfall.' Well, well. Proverbs, 16:18 לפני־שבר גאון ולפני כשלון גבה רוח׃ How enchanting an allusion! We were supposed to be thinking in Greek terms, hybris etc. but of course Daniel Boyarin does argue that 'Judaism is from the very beginning a Hellenistic form of culture' (Border lines: the partition of Judaeo-Christianity, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004 p.82). Your remark suggests that my 'downfall' is inevitable, that it is "in the works". Well, after 6 years in the I/P area, I've had the odd inkling that getting me nableesied is a priority for some folks. You could be right. Luck (not Luke), what the Greeks calls Τύχη, is not on my side: as another proverb says: 'If it wuz rainen c**ts, I'd cop an arsehole.' I do think you chaps overdramatize a bit, and if it happens, I'll go off with an appropriate song, though no doubt "geschmückt wie ein Pfingstochse" (Walter Burkert, Homo Necans, p.8, from memory) But your Teiresian prognostication could be just wishful thinking. Good luck. A lot of effort has been put into this, most recently with the euphuistic good cop/illiterate bad cop gamesmanship playing at my heels as I'm sleuthed and sweetened up for the kill. Whatever, just as I won't on principle blame the admins if I'm cast into eternal silence, I don't think you guys should blame them if they happen, on this or any other occasion, to read things differently.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR wrap-up. So, please decide(and put an end to these pathetic agony columns. It is acutely embarrasing to have to always descend to defend one's behaviour here, like some dum con at the bar before his death sentence is pronounced. My behaviour on wikipedia is on the articles I have written, which in this area, (unlike all those who complain of my obnoxiousness and 'frightful' presence), have covered empathetically the cultures of both peoples in the I/P area, and not in this piddling bickering over commas).

The two self-bans of August 7 and December I registered in high visibility on my talk page are now added to the list, (I could have just notified my talk page quietly of my intention if I wished to be devious) so that an attempt to sanction or punish myself for unwitting errors no one fussed about become further damning evidence for some congenital behavioural problem that trumps the evidence of many articles actually completed to a close approximination to WP:NPOV. It's rather peculiar that an attempt to be fastidiously ethical at one's own expense is now cogent evidence for a lack of proper respect for wikipedia requiring severe administrative oversight.

I’ll deal only with one, the first, Ezra Nawi. This is how it looked. It stood at 6k, and intense talkpage discussionfocused on his conviction some decades ago for statutory rape. One editor there was even so prepossessed by the sexual issue he provided extensive ‘evidence’ in the Gaelic Wikipedia. It was shoddily written, mired in innuendo, and crudely conflicted, with a lot of negative IP vandalism and had stagnated for 2 years in that sorry state. Editors on both sides fought over whether this incident should be showcased (the ‘pro-Israeli editors tendency’), or hidden (‘the pro-Palestinian tendency’) as a WP:BLP violation. It was, worst of all, full of errors which even a rapid glance at readily available articles showed. People battling there seemed not to be reading for anything more than the sex angle. I disagreed with both. I thought the statutory rape issue needed to be addressed. I also thought that the failure to document the major part of his life, his activism, meant that editing in the former, while ignoring the latter, would violate WP:Undue. I built it to 52 k . It took 352 edits , most of them in just two short sessions, amounting to about a week’s work, interrupted by my ban, to do that.

When I stepped in I noticed and removed one of two CATs introduced by Off2riorob here and here, for the simple reason that the CAT (Category:Israeli sex offenders|Israeli sex offenders) seemed invented uniquely for Nawi, and only to exacerbate the problematic atmosphere on that page, since it has no one else in it (and still doesn’t), and there were many existing CATs for sex offenders where several Israelis were listed. The issue was resolved amicably. It was an IR revert. No trouble was raised over this, no threat given, as you can see here (where the 'offended' editor told me, after I decided to suspend myself, to 'stop beating (myself) up' (a nice double entendre!) and here (where User:Hertz1888, perhaps the most level-headed editor on 'the other side' even gently remonstrated with me over what he thought was an excessive, perhaps wholly unnecessary self-suspension).

It’s somewhat odd that an endeavour to set an example (for my 'side', btw) by punishing oneself for what were oversights in an intense period of editing, should be taken as proof that I am, to the contrary, someone who should be permabanned. Or that somehow I suffer from some moral flaw, called hybris, that will spell my doom as a contributor to Wikipedia.

I will never quite get a handle on the martinet tendency in Wikipedia’s I/P culture, and its Pecksniffishness at certain moments, its inability to determine whether the overriding criterion for judging the utility of editors should focus on their capacity for article creation and development, or their ability be ever present without doing anything of substance, while showing an impeccable knowledge of the laws, or engaging in a relentless war, full of tripwires, entrapments, and sleuthing, where most articles in the I/P area are kept in virtual stagnation because every edit there is obsessively watched, and any error lends itself to opportunistic attempts to eliminate an adversary (and this has not been restricted to one side)

Most who complain of other editors do not appear to think that the disgracefully undeveloped nature of most of these articles should require committed wikipedians to renounce the pleasure of just challenging every other edit by an adversary, and actually read comprehensively up on each article’s content, and move the article significantly ahead. It mostly cannot be done, because, as with Justin Martyr, or Pogrom, as soon as you touch the article, it is swarmed from the outset, and nothing, neither policy on RS or dozens of academic books, will change the intransigence that holds articles hostage to a skewed and POV-maimed minimalism. Like it or not, there are three POVs to be represented. The academic consensus of reliable sources, Israeli POV(s) and Palestinian POV(s). I prefer the first, though I have no trouble in admitting that I tend to see most contemporary events in terms of how an informed Palestinian would see them.

I said 'Nableezied' because the game here is to get that log record incrementally stacked with infractions, even if trivial, so that at a certain point, the impression for adminstrators’ eyes unfamiliar with how stacked, stalked and gamed this area tends to be, and the way it operates can't be judged from diffs, cannot but be that this or that person is damaging the place. The impression is gradually created by these endless appeals to A/E, that those targeted are making it hard for the decent, absolutely NPOV- committed majority to keep active here, and are obstructing people whose clean records as often as not testify to the fact that they don’t do much except control, monitor, revert or add a petty POV line to this or that article. 'There's no smoke without fire,' as the cadger said, after botting a half-pack and asking for a light.

This said, as I remarked at the outset, I made a IR error correcting a gravely distorted POV edit when I should have waited 24 hours, and since rules and rules, I deserve a sanction, perhaps one that will be long enough for the particular hounder of the piece to tire of his attempts to track me to every page and raise ridiculous inferences at every move I make, or of his endeavours for ‘conversation’ on my talk page. If he’s fallen for a schadenfreundlich love-hate relationship, and I'm the object of her orectic yearning, he should cathect that emotional afflatus elsewhere on the web. I’m quite ugly, and happily married, and am bored by his cheeky flirtations.

I can see that all this fuss and counter fuss embarrasses admins, who above all are obliged to make a call that stays above the fray, and reads as neither pending to one side or another. I have no problem with whatever sanction is deemed appropriate, and apologize for the inconvenience. But, this kind of situation is, in the real world, farcical, and only exists because wikipedia's I/P culture and its games are not, mostly, what they appear to be. Nishidani (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A final word for Jiujitsuguy. You appeal for 'equality of treatment'. Of course. But. The ARBPIA 2009 decision took out 5 editors from one side, and 2 from the other, and immediately in the aftermath, the position adopted by the 5 was recognized to be the one consonant with one of the 5 pillars, WP:NPOV. It is now policy. Even if the administrators had no way of knowing what we peons on the ground knew (but informal knowledge cannot influence judgements at their level, quite correctly), that User:NoCal100 and User:Canadian Monkey were either a strategically coordinated tagteam or the same person, the formal 3 to 5 verdict, was not, in terms of the numerical imbalance in editors here, quite 'impartial' in a mathematical sense. A few others who actively intervened against us in that deliberation also turned out to be (well, a few of us were pretty sure before and during deliberations) chronic sockpuppets (User:Tundrabuggy). There were no sockpuppets on the side that had the highest casualties in that decision. The systemic bias here you allude to is what any statistical analysis of participation rates will show, and not otherwise. That's not your side's fault, nor the arbitrators fault. The blame lies with a people who allow themselves to be represented here either by people deeply attached to the state that occupies their country or by lunatics like myself, who allow their time to be tithed in what is otherwise an absolutely futile attempt to achieve some balance in the way their realities are depicted on a major encyclopedia, in a world where the major journalistic, as opposed to academic, sources are as Mearsheimer and Walt (2007:168-196) describe them. It's technically impossible to alter this bias (and people like myself accept it as just a fact of wikilife) which favours your side, but you really shouldn't pass your realities off as hard-done by.Nishidani (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NSH001 For the record I did mention this to Shrike as we discussed my edit, here, expecting that he would not accept it as a justification. Now that you mention it, though, he may have a technical point. If I had had that in mind as I did the edit, I would be justified in adducing it, because you should only ignore all rules, a sensible thing but only in exceptional cases, by saying that is your motive in the immediate edit summary, not afterwards. The simple fact is that on the three occasions since 2007 when I've tripped on the 1RR wire, I did so out of dumb ignorance of the niceties of wikilaw regarding that. I'm empirical, not a lawyer, and reflexly think of Rv edits as reverting the whole of an edit. Even my age is no excuse to be dumb. And I should pull my finger out. I didn't, and perhaps it's fair that someone assists, and uses it to poke my eye over this. I think I'll see better in the future if they do. Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Flo, one last point. You write:

I propose a one month I/P topic ban, including talk pages, instead of the self-imposed 1 month article ban.

I meant by my recent self-notification 'all articles on wikipedia', my practice being to ban myself from wikipedia for a month, if I slip up, as I did after the Ezra Nawi instance in Aug 2011, and this is how I interpreted my self-ban immediately, as you may verify if you check my contribs from May 3 four days ago, -I haven't touched the encyclopedia since, except for hanging round here and on my page like a bad smell to respond until a decision is made. (The December selfban was looser in practice, and I actually violated it, because unless a ban is total, one tends to forget and slip from talk pages to the odd article). I'll stick to the first kind of comprehensive self-ban anyway since it covers areas one edits with joy rather than out of a masochistic sense of duty, whatever the outcome, and if the official community ban re the 1/P area turns out to be longer, I'll come back to non-I/P articles like Dickens and Murasaki Shikibu after the month I've set myself has expired. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Boris. I am certainly 'the main source of the drama' for inadvertently making an error. I am not the main source of the AE drama, simply because I offered 'blood', reported myself, declared we should not waste admins time, and that I would sanction myself by a total abstention from wikipedia for a month almost immediately, which wasn't, apparently, enough. (It's forgotten that Shrike, the reporter, reverted back to what he then admitted was a bad edit, and then reported me). People have forgotten commonsense in the I/P area. At Jacob Israel de Haan, very late in the day, I had User:SwaRajSwaDesh reported for repeatedly reverting against all remonstration, the only time I have used this device of reporting someone to AE (Nableezy did it because I don't know how to). On my talk page, the gentleman talked this over with me and we clarified matters. I had the report here immediately quashed, before it could even be discussed. I don't believe AE should ever be used unless there is a very serious danger to articles. If, however, someone, on the most piffling of excuses, esp. jumps at a quibble to deprive me of a right to collaborate on this encyclopedia, I'll bloody well defend myself, even if I have to talk the leg off a chair, and the brain over its boredom threshold, till the chooks come home. Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nishidani

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

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

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

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

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

You are actually saying you approve of that smelly bit of weasel-worded POV? "A Samouni family member said there was no active Hamas resistance in the immediate vicinity" DOES NOT mean "the Samouni family's acknowledgment that Hamas militants operated in the area". It means the exact opposite, which is why it is worded to appear otherwise. That sort of weasel-worded text is characteristic of the worst sort of journalism and if Nisjidani removed it, he/she isto be praised, not sanctioned. Also, "immediate vicinity" is not "over a mile away", "immediate vicinity" is ones own back yard. Meowy 20:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please point to where I "approve of" the previous edit.
2. You state that "A Samouni family member said there was no active Hamas resistance..." is not an acknowledgment that militants operated in the area, and that the "immediate vicinity" is not "over a mile away". This is correct, and I believe those edits were based on parts of the source that you chose not to quote: "Samouni family members did not deny that Hamas militants operated in the area."Ankh.Morpork 21:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classic journalist weasel-wording and slights of hand: "Samouni family members did not deny that Hamas militants operated in the area". Samouni family members also did not deny that they took regular trips to the moon where they ate their fill of cheese. The wording "Samouni family members did not deny that Hamas militants operated in the area" actually means that either "Samouni family members were not asked about whether Hamas militants operated in the area" or "Samouni family members did not reply when asked about whether Hamas militants operated in the area". If these Samouni family members were actually asked about whether Hamas militants operated in the area" the quote would have either said "Samouni family members said that Hamas militants operated in the area" or "Samouni family members said that Hamas militants had not operated in the area". Meowy 01:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The garden still grows

The dough flows to Stanley Ho

Block for sas-mouf?, No!

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

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

@Nish, your downfall is inevitable not because it's "in the works" but because of your behavior. I'm sure you consider editors making edits you don't like "entrapment" in the same way you think it's your job to pedantically correct the grammar mistakes of your interlocutors. Neither is true. The only thing "nableezied" here is an admin trying to let you off the hook for something other editors with your history would get a lengthy ban in a heartbeat. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

I am requesting that another administrator review this AE and render an opinion independent from the one noted by T. Canes. I realize that T. Canes, as the first admin to comment wants to set the tenor and direction of this case. There was a brightline violation of 1R. The subject editor acknowledged the violation but still refused to revert, making the violation that much more egregious. Moreover, the subject editor had been previously indefinitely topic banned. One would assume that he would be more circumspect in his actions rather than showing blatant disregard for the rules. Do the rules only apply to one side?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For thy Gods of Administration are perfect beings, but wrathful, and will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger if thou continueth to doubt that perfection, JJG ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors associated with a particular POV have been indeff’d for a lot less. See this from T. Canes own mouth; I favor a WP:ARBRB-style indefinite topic ban myself, as I've explained above in another thread, and this seems to be particularly appropriate for editors who have been topic banned several times and still can't stay out of trouble. And then there is this from T. canes; Without looking at the edits, I'm not a big fan of two article bans. That someone needs to be banned from two distinct articles suggest that we would be better off simply banning them from the topic. If we are going to sanction editors, we should sanction them equally. The impression that I and many others are getting is that certain admins are not applying the rules in a consistent manner. That is to say that one side is being treated more harshly (a lot more harshly) than the other.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@floquenbeam: I would have no problem with that sanction (one-month topic ban) but for the fact that as noted above, editors associated with a particular POV have been indef'd for a lot less. Moreover, does the fact that an editor stands on "principle" warrant leniency. All I want is for the rules to be applied consistently to both sides.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @floquenbeam: You are correct. Generally speaking, a one-month topic ban is not a lenient sanction. However, given the level of mischief and passion in the I-P topic area, admins who adjudicate these boards generally display intolerance for shenanigans and issue rather harsh sanctions for even minor infractions, ranging from a three-month topic ban at the low end, to an indef. This is especially true if the editor who is the subject of the AE has a recidivist history, which is the case here.

  I’d like to point out one more issue concerning a past AE involving Wikifan12345. In that AE Wikifan12345 was charged with violating 1R for removing a tag. Wikifan acknowledged wrong-doing and self-reverted about an hour after committing the offense. Not surprisingly, T. Canens who is drawn to I-P enforcement actions like moth to flame and almost always imposes or advocates the imposition of very harsh sanctions against those he identifies with the “Israel camp,” advocated an indefinite topic ban for Wikifan. Whether wikifan deserved to be topic banned for a 1R violation is a separate issue. I highlight the case due to its similarities and differences with the instant case. Both cases involve violations of 1R. There are two major differences however. Wikifan acknowledged wrong-doing and self-reverted. Nishidani refused to self-revert, even though he acknowledged the offense. Wikifan had NEVER been indefinitely topic banned, Nishidani has. Why then is Wikifan issued an indefinite topic ban while Nishidani is given a comparative slap on the wrist?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ZScarpia

@Jiujitsuguy - Which cases are you referring to when you claim that "editors associated with a particular POV have been indef'd for a lot less?" If one of them was Shuki's, would you like me to list all the reasons why your claim is ridiculous in relation to it?     ←   ZScarpia   22:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Jiujitsuguy's raising of a previous AE case involving Wikifan (I'll try to be as brief as I can), some facts for the record:

• Here are the results returned by doing a search in the AE archives for the text Wikifan12345.
• The case referred to by Jiujitsuguy is this one. It was brought by JimSukwutput on 6 September 2011.
• That case followed a month after another brought against Wikifan for a 1RR violation, that violation occurring the day after the end of an eight-month topic ban. That case ended with a warning being issued to Wikifan by Tim: This falls rather neatly into the grey area of xRR rules. I'm of the view that we do have a 1RR violation here (i.e., the first edit is a revert), but that the situation is sufficiently ambiguous that only a warning is required.
• In the case referred to by Jiujitsuy, Tim's verdict followed Ed's. Ed recommended a new topic ban, to last a year: The subject of today's dispute is Gaza flotilla raid, an obvious hot-button article. (Wikifan seems to have no instinct for self-preservation if he's actually trying to stay out of trouble). Wikifan12345 has been blocked seven times before and banned from ARBPIA twice, once for six months and once for eight months. The last ban ran out on 2 August, and this is his second appearance at AE since then. in the August 6 AE one editor suggested that his topic ban be extended, but that AE was closed with only a warning for the 1RR violation. Since we are back here again another 1RR violation a month later, I recommend that a new topic ban be imposed for one year. Consider perusing the discussions on the editor's talk page since August 6. Try to count all the I/P articles where he's been in a dispute.
• In full, Tim's verdict was: I let the last AE thread off with a warning, but I was quite clear there that there was an 1RR violation in that thread too. Apparently the message failed to sink in. I favor a WP:ARBRB-style indefinite topic ban myself, as I've explained above in another thread, and this seems to be particularly appropriate for editors who have been topic banned several times and still can't stay out of trouble. In the alternative, I concur with EdJohnston's proposed topic ban.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zero0000

It is so unpleasant to see N's editing opponents circling around throwing mud in the hope of being rid of someone who stands in the way of their POV-pushing. There are barely any of them whose editing behavior is not 10 times worse than N's, even if they are more adroit at staying technically within the rules like 1RR. The fact of this case is that N is a good editor who broke 1RR. He should get a short block like anyone should expect when they break 1RR. The rest is hot air. Zero^talk 05:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by NSH001

WP:IAR --NSH001 (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BorisG

This enormous thread about a trivial 1RR infringement highlights how a project aimed at building an encyclopedia mutates into a mudtrhrowing contest. I am sure wikipedians who created the AE process had the best intentions (stop disriuption, follow due process etc) in mind but the result is anything but. Everyone who wastes bandwidth here needs to take a sober look at themselves. Including our esteme demigods, who could have avoided drama by swiftly imposing a short term sanction without much fuss. And sadly our main protagonist is the main source of the drama with his principled position and, worse still, his tldr comments. I know tldr is not sanctionable, but I don't think it helps build an encyclopedia - regardless of the eloquence of the comments. - BorisG (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nishidani

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

• If we are sanctioning this 1RR violation, then to me an 24 hour block is the only reasonable sanction. The suggestion of indefinite topic ban is beyond ludicrous. The last non-overturned block in the supposedly "long history of blocks" of Nishidani was a 24-hour block from four and a half years ago, and since the topic ban was lifted almost a year ago, Nishidani has not been sanctioned under ARBPIA as far as I can tell.

  Moreover, after looking at the edit and the cited NYT source, it is not clear to me that a sanction is appropriate at all. It's rather late here, though, so I'll leave that aspect of the matter for tomorrow. T. Canens (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • JJG, way to quote stuff out of context. Your first quote is from a September 2011 AE thread of someone who had been topic banned for eight months on 2 December 2010. That was, in other words, two months one month after the topic ban expired. Moreover there was an earlier AE thread on another 1RR violation after the topic ban, which was closed with only a warning. Nishidani was topic banned in 2009, and his topic ban was lifted in July 2011, ten months ago. The two situation are hardly similar.

    The second quote concerns someone who was already under an article ban; in response to an AE thread a ban from a different article is suggested. I wrote that if a second article ban is warranted then it's better to do a full topic ban instead, a view that I still hold today. How that is relevant to the case at hand is beyond me, since Nishidani is not article-banned at all, as far as I know.

    Bright-line rules are fine and all, but they need to be tempered by discretion or they are prone to gaming, and each incident needs to be evaluated on their own, taking into account the totality of circumstances. Unwarranted similarities are equally as bad as unwarranted disparities. T. Canens (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mostly agree with T. Canens. This may be a minor infraction, but not a reason for a lot of drama or long-term sanctions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think most of this is either stipulated to by the parties or in my opinion really crystal clear:
  • Definitely a 1RR violation.
  • Being right is not a defense for 1RR (not saying he necessarily is, just that even if he thinks he is, it isn't a defense).
  • I can respect Nishidani's refusal to revert if he believes it would actively introduce a falsehood into the article; however, it means that someone else who disagrees about whether it's a falsehood and is following the rules is taken advantage of. Because of this, I don't think turning a blind eye is warranted.
  • An occasional misstep is not grounds for over-reaction.
  • It appears that he did something similar in August 2011 and December 2011, after the topic ban repeal, and self-imposed, respectively, a 1 month "block" and a 1 month article ban (which didn't actually seem to be followed completely). So, while he may not have been recently sanctioned under ARBPIA, this isn't the first time since the topic ban repeal that this has happened.
  • It would be a shame, for all of us, if Nishidani didn't help Truthkeeper with Charles Dickens, where there is no reason to believe any problems will occur.

Thus, I propose a one month I/P topic ban, including talk pages, instead of the self-imposed 1 month article ban. I was tempted to make it a one month IP article-only topic ban, allowing talk page participation, but at the risk of sounding like a self-important jerk, I think this ought to sting a little bit. As a reminder that this is a habit which he should make a serious effort not to return to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jujitsuguy: I don't consider a 1-month topic ban leniency; if you read what I wrote, I consider refusing to self-revert on principle a reason not to turn a blind eye to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I missed the August and December episodes. Hmm...while being right is not a defense to xRR, it is something we can consider in mitigation. Looking at the edits and source again, I think N. has a fairly decent argument that L.'s edit did not accurately represent the source, but I think the whole thing is fuzzy enough that reasonable editors can disagree, and I'm not really sure that N.'s version is an appropriate summary either. Taking into account the history of 1RR violations since the topic ban was lifted, I agree that some sort of sanction is in order. Since this would be the third 1RR violation, if we are blocking then a week is probably appropriate, considering the usual escalating blocks sequence. Alternatively, I can also go with your one-month topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to give your suggestion a try here; let's see if that doesn't work. If not, then a week-long block would be the next step. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Caucasian Albania article

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Grandmaster 09:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant article

Caucasian Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would like to request an amendment to the remedy that was imposed on this article more than a year ago: [5]. I don't mind the first part of the remedy, which places the article on 1RR, but the second part I believe should be canceled. In my opinion, the sanctions imposed on Caucasian Albania clearly did not work. The situation in Caucasian Albania was in general similar to what was going on in Nagorno-Karabakh, where the new accounts waged an edit war, and which was placed on a different article level sanction: [6] The edit warring on both articles was started by User:Xebulon and his socks User:Vandorenfm and User:Gorzaim, as well as some other sock accounts. At that time Sandstein imposed a sanction that read: All editors with Armenia/Azerbaijan-related sanctions are banned from editing this article and its talk page. For the purposes of this ban, these editors are all who have at any time been the subject of remedies, blocks or other sanctions logged on the case pages WP:ARBAA or WP:ARBAA2, irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force or whether they were imposed by the Arbitration Committee or by administrators. But since all long time editors in AA area were at some point under some sort of sanctions, this pretty much opened the doors for sock and meatpuppetry, since new accounts were not under any prior sanctions. The result is that the article reflects the views of the sockmaster, who was free to make any edits he wished, and established editors could not remove even unreferenced WP:OR claims. At the moment I cannot remove even obvious WP:OR statements introduced by the banned user: [7] Note that the line "Whether Arranian is related to Caucasian Albanian languages cannot be determined" is not supported by any source and contradicts the sources quoted in the article, but I had to roll myself back due to sanctions: [8] This is why the article about Caucasian Albania is in such a poor condition now. I believe what triggered the remedy in question were WP:AE requests by the sock account, who even managed to place an established user on a 1 year topic ban: [9] Note the complaint of the sock: The immediate concern is his editing of the article on Caucasian Albania, where User:Twilight Chill continues waging an edit war against 5 (five) other unrelated editors (Aram-van, Gorzaim, Vandorenfm, MarshallBagramyan, Xebulon). 4 of 5 accounts that he mentioned turned out later to be socks (User:Aram-van, User:Gorzaim, User:Vandorenfm, and User:Xebulon). Another request was filed on me: [10], and also on the sock itself: [11] I understand that admins at the time had no proof of sockpuppetry and assuming good faith believed that the editors filing complaints were genuine newcomers (even though some admins noted that the account filing complaint was suspicious), but considering that those accounts turned out later to be socks, I think the remedy needs to be reviewed. Therefore I think rather than banning everyone who has been under sanctions at some point in time (I myself was last sanctioned 5 years ago, and since then have no history of blocks, bans or any other sanctions), it would be better if established editors were treated on an individual basis. Many of the established editors have plenty of useful contributions in various areas, and excluding them from editing this article because of the old mistakes in my opinion is not fair. The immediate result of this remedy is that while most of the established users are excluded from editing, the sock accounts get unfair advantage and can freely make any controversial edits to this quite a contentious article in AA area. I believe at the moment it is enough to keep Caucasian Albania on 1RR per day for everyone who wishes to edit it. Grandmaster 09:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should have used {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template. I can resubmit, if needed. Grandmaster 10:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, thanks for providing your input. There are presently no disputes going on that article, so WP:DR is not useful here. I just see no reason why me or any other established editor should not be able to edit this article, if he was sanctioned at some point in time. I think it is wrong that a user is excluded from editing process just because he was placed on a revert restriction 5 years ago. Grandmaster 19:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that this request does not concern only me personally, it pretty much concerns most experienced editors in AA area, because I don't think there are any who were not placed under sanctions at some point in time. With this remedy, they are all banned from editing this article, regardless if they actually did anything wrong there or not. If we compare this remedy with the 500 edit limit recently imposed on Nagorno-Karabakh, the latter does not ban the new accounts from actually editing the article, it only places them on 1RR until they gain a certain number of edits. The sanction on Caucasian Albania indef bans everybody who has been sanctioned from editing the article, without giving them any chance to make any contribution to it. This leaves the article to the new accounts, many of whom as it turned out were the socks of the banned users, and started the edit wars that led to this sanction. I don't think this helps to improve the quality of this article. Grandmaster 05:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list of socks who edit warred on this article at the time the remedy was imposed: Aram-van (talk · contribs), Xebulon (talk · contribs), Gorzaim (talk · contribs), Vandorenfm (talk · contribs), Bars77 (talk · contribs), Rjbronn (talk · contribs) (the list may not be complete). The remedy did not address the sock activity in this article. I believe this was because at the time there was no solid proof of sockery. But in the light of what we know now, I think the amendment is necessary. Grandmaster 05:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of involved parties

Sandstein: [12], Caucasian Albania: [13]

Discussion concerning Caucasian Albania article

Statement by Sandstein

I do not find this request convincing. If there is indeed problematic editing of this article on the part of others, it is not clear how removing my sanction would prevent or counteract that. The appropriate reaction would instead be to initiate normal dispute resolution proceedings, beginning with user talk page discussions and ending with eventual SPI or AE requests against the editors responsible for any disruption. The request does not show that any dispute resolution has been attempted. Also, on the basis of this request, it is not clear that the article is at all affected by detrimental editing. The request refers to a single edit to the article, uncited but allegedly undone at [14], which it considers original research. That may or may not be so, but the addition is at any rate not disruptive on its face such that it warrants administrative attention; if it is detrimental it can be amended by editors who are not subject to my sanction, which are all but a handful of Wikipedians. On these grounds, I decline the appeal insofar as it is addressed to me as the administrator who imposed the sanction.

That said, as I'm not active in arbitration enforcement, I haven't followed this article (or topic area) for a while. Therefore I have no objection to my sanction being changed or amended as any other uninvolved administrator may deem appropriate.  Sandstein  13:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Caucasian Albania article

I had taken a "sabbatical", so to say, for quite some time and am not very familiar with the changes and activities here since then. But although the applicant might not have been sanctioned for 5 years, as he says, on the English WP, less than 2 years ago he was sanctioned on the Russian WP for being a part of a large group of off-wiki-organised editors' group acting in favour of A side including organised for/anti voting for Admins etc. Though, correct me if I am wrong, Grandmaster.

Considering the severity of activities, as I would judge it, it might be useful to take this fact into consideration when reading the editor's words of appeal. Thanks. Aregakn (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aregakn - this is not about Grandmaster, this is about a neverending and unproductive edit restriction that is being applied to a single article. I wonder why such an outrageous editing restriction has been unchallenged for so long. That Grandmaster has been hung by the same noose he has often helped tie around the necks of others may give a quiet satisifaction, but is not a reason to support the noose and those who like pulling on it. Meowy 16:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meowy - I see where you are coming from but no, Aregakn's point is of more merit at the moment. However, if Grandmaster's ability to game the system is finally checked, your idea will have a solid more ground. The noose can be relaxed for others but since it was Gransmaster who caused the sanction in the first place, he and Brandmeister should be kept out of it. Zimmarod (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that can't happen. The restriction is not directed specifically at one editor and is not directed at all at the content of edits. It is just a pointless blanket ban affecting just about anyone with any history of editing in this area from editing this particular article from now until the end of time or Wikipedia (whichever comes first). I imagine Sandstein might like to have a legacy that lasts that long - but that isn't a reason to make this edit restriction that legacy! Meowy 20:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many things can happen since it is discretionary sanctions area. Limiting the ability of edit-warring users to battleground on specific articles while opening the article to other users is a doable thing. Cheers. Zimmarod (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second Grandmaster's opinion. Some time ago I realized that the current restriction is quite harsh, generally because it actually freezes good-faith editing in breach of WP:AGF so that the article is constantly waiting for improvement by uninvolved users only. The current sanction also creates an unfair situation, where any autoconfirmed sock or meat can edit the article freely, while many established users can't. Brandmeister^talk 15:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with both Aregakn and Sandstein. When I took a look at the Caucasian Albania article's talk pages and why there was an article-wide sanction, it turned out that the sanction was placed by Sandstein to prevent Grandmaster and "old" accounts associated with him (his associate Brandmeister) to continue edit war, in which the Grandmaster-Brandmeister duo were bombarding their opponents with racist comments about the origin of sources used in the article. Exactly the same picture today in the Nagorno-Karabakh article, where Grandmaster is currently in a suspended stage of edit war. As hinted by Aregakn, the Grandmaster is a suspicious edit warring account that cultivated a farm of meatpuppets in ruwiki. Brandmaster was his meatpuppet, and it is unsurprising that he was meatpuppetting for Grandmaster everywhere Grandmaster is launching an edit war. Actually the talk pages show that Brandmeister was actually topic banned as a result of his racism for battlegrounding in Caucasian Albania. Nagorno-Karabakh and Caucasian Albania are both prime examples. I see this request as a cynical effort to re-open the can of worms in the Caucasian Albania article and extend the still simmering dispute in Nagorno-Karabakh to other related topics. This appeal is a good opportunity to cast a more somber look at Grandmaster as a meatpuppeteer and edit war abuser and restrict his and his meatpuppeting farm's ability to game the system. Zimmarod (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this: while this discussion continues, Grandmaster is deleting links to online texts by reputable academics [15] where his interpretation of Caucasian Albania is criticized. Is this vandalism? Again, I doubt Grandmaster filed this request in good faith. Zimmarod (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Caucasian Albania article

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

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).

• This is in essence an appeal of the original sanction and therefore subject to the rules governing AE appeals. Please notify Sandstein (talk · contribs) of this request, and also leave a note at the article talk page. T. Canens (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Grandmaster 10:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to this request. Though the original sanction may have had some positive effects at the time of its imposition, I see no reason to extend it indefinitely. More importantly, I think there is an issue of natural justice here; someone who has made a mistake in the past that was at the time considered worthy of only a limited sanction, should surely not be permanently penalized because of that mistake. Also, the sanction penalizes the most minor offenders in the same way as the most severe, which again seems an inappropriate outcome. Additionally, when one considers that even those subject to an indefinite ban are entitled to appeal after six months or a year, it seems incongruous to have a sanction for which there is, effectively, no appeal. And why single out this one article for such special treatment? Finally, while I note that Sandstein suggests that other dispute resolution mechanisms have not been attempted to resolve any outstanding issues with the article, it isn't clear to me how any user disqualified from editing the article or its talk page could initiate such a process. In any case, after more than a year under this sanction, I think it's probably time to try relaxing the existing sanction to the usual 1RR for contentious topics. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Longevitydude

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Canadian Paul 04:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive85#Closing, specifically the explicit prohibition on off-wiki canvassing (an extension from the longevity arbitration case)

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

1. [90] Link to off-wiki canvassing for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts (2nd nomination) on the World's Oldest People forum, a site specifically mentioned in the linked sanction. (Screenshots can be provided if necessary for any user unable to access the forum or if the post is subsequently deleted).

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

1. Notification of extension of sanctions from User:Itsmejudith.
2. User talk:Longevitydude#Nomination of Jan Goossenaerts for deletion. My attempts at resolving the issue without resorting to Arbitration Enforcement.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Longevitydude was a party in the aforementioned longevity arbitration case whose sanctions and remedies were extended to include an explicit prohibition on off-wiki canvassing to influence the processes of the Wikipedia community, particularly the World's Oldest People Forum. Longevitydude violated this and I brought it up on his talk page in an attempt to reach a resolution to the problem without having to resort to Arbitration Enforcement. During the course of the discussion, however, the user refused to take responsibility for his actions, pledge not to continue them, or even address the issue when even an ersatz promise would have been sufficient to end the matter. Longevitydude had opportunities to work through this issue amicably, but chose to be flippant rather than address the problem and commit to a remedy, therefore showing no desire to cease the inappropriate behavior in the future. I am therefore of the opinion that only Arbitration Enforcement will prevent further violation of these sanctions and disruption of deletion processes.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[91]. Will also notify User:Itsmejudith, out of courtesy for having mentioned her above.

Discussion concerning Longevitydude

Statement by Longevitydude

Comments by others about the request concerning Longevitydude

I've had a bit of correspondence with Canadian Paul off-wiki about this, and I can confirm the thread's existence. I will also say that although Longevitydude is the one who started the thread, it was another person who encouraged people to go and vote keep against the injustice of deletion. I wouldn't be worried about it if the 1st AfD wasn't such a gigantic mess; this second AfD isn't nearly as bad, but it does have some of the same problems the first one did. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Longevitydude

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