Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:22, 22 January 2014

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341

IHaveAMastersDegree

IHaveAMastersDegree is topic-banned (per WP:TBAN) from everything that is both related to climate change and to a living person, for the duration of six months. Sandstein 21:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning IHaveAMastersDegree

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Darkness Shines (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBCC

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

15 January 2014 Adds the following to a BLP "Delingpole's conjecture became the basis for one of the most well-known global warming conspiracy thoeries and has been cited as an example of conspiracy theories in science that "target specific research can have serious consequences for public health and environmental policies" The source used does not mention Delingpole, this was a BLP violation.
17 January 2014 Source misrepresentation, I pointed this out on the article talk page, the quote in the source says he questions, not "asserts".
17 January 2014 Again misrepresenting the same source, as pointed out, it says he questions, not that "He doesn't believe"
17 January 2014 Calls a BLP a "conspiracy theorist", no citation given on the talk page to support it.

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

Warned on 31 December 2013 by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Sandstein:, why would an admin gave to check the source? I already did, but it is here in full. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Edit warring over the source misrepresentation. That is the third revert in a day BTW.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [1]

Discussion concerning IHaveAMastersDegree

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

Statement by IHaveAMastersDegree

Responses: 1) Delingpole is widely credited with having created the AGW "climategate" conspiracy theory. See for example, [2] I would be happy to add a citation to this source. 2) The source said that he *says* he questions. If he said he was a unicorn, that would not make him a unicorn. "Assert" is a synonym for "says." Please feel free to change the word "assert" to the word "says." 3) He says he questions, but I have not seen a citation to a source in which he is actually questioning. Presumably he believes what he says, so to be on the safe side I changed it to an actual quote from an actual source in which he says that anthropogenic global warming is "the invention of a cabal of activists." 4) See answer to point #1. If someone who is skeptical can be called a skeptic, and someone who denies can be called a denier, then presumably someone who creates conspiracy theories can be called a conspiracy theorist. All of these labels have been used without citation on the talk page, so I was simply adhering to an established convention. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it seems that all the concern has to do with reason #1 above. If I had also cited a source that specifically credits Dellingpole with having conceived the conspiracy theory would this have been a problem? The above cited source is titled "The Goal Is Power: The Global Warming Conspiracy." The first two sentences read, "In Watermelons, The Green Movement’s True Colors, British journalist/blogger James Delingpole promises to show that the man-made global warming is a fraud, one that has already cost billions of dollars and is a clear and present danger to our liberty and democratic traditions — and, ironically, to the environment itself. He largely accomplishes this task and, for the most part, does so without sounding hysterical or radical. ". Other editors have misrepresented and under-reported dellingpole's notability by claiming that he merely "doubts that global warming is man-made or catastrophic to the extent that is widely claimed." This claim is not supported by any of the sources they cited. I was trying to fix that and give credit to him for his much more notable contributions. My only failure was to neglect sufficient sources, but the statement I was trying to fix also had insufficient sources. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tillman

Despite advice and cautions from other editors, for example at Talk:James_Delingpole#Source_misrepresentation, new editor IHaveAMastersDegree continues to post dubious to unacceptable material to BLP articles in the Climate Change area. To date, from my observations of his contributions, which are almost exclusively edits to BLP articles, he appears to be doing more harm than good to the project. He doesn't seem to be learning the stringent requirements for BLP material.--Pete Tillman (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by dave souza

Synthesis is unacceptable, particularly in BLPs, but is also a requirement that has a learning curve. In press reporting of climate science, fringe views are commonly referred to as "climate skeptic" views: essentially this is jargon, but it is also a misuse of the word skepticism and in particular misrepresents fringe views as though they have "equal validity" with proper scientific skepticism and mainstream science. The issue has been discussed by the National Center for Science Education in a page Why Is It Called Denial? | NCSE, and by the historian Spencer Weart: Global warming: How skepticism became denial. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, but care is appropriate in language to achieve NPOV: if we follow the majority of sources, particularly in press reports, we risk giving undue weight to fringe ideas. I've not had time yet to examine this editor's edits closely, but feel that User:IHaveAMastersDegree has been making a genuine attempt to address a real failing in Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. The user undoubtedly has to learn exactly how to fully comply with BLP requirements, particularly on synthesis, before editing biographical articles, but has the potential to make good contributions to Wikipedia, including the general topic area of science and climate science. . . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning IHaveAMastersDegree

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

I have looked at the sources and yes, the report has merit. I propose a topic ban on all edits related to climate change, broadly construed, across all article spaces with the usual exceptions. Duration, however, is something that I am unsure of. 6 month? 12? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have two methods to deal with this: either TBAN on climate change as a whole, or a narrow restriction of BLP subjects related to climate change. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit which caused me the most concern was this one, which seems to establish Delingpole as the founder of a conspiracy theory. "Delingpole's conjecture became the basis for one of the most well-known global warming conspiracy theories". The source he provides, an article by Goertzel in EMBO Reports, does not mention Delingpole's name. A six month ban from the topic of Climate Change on all pages of Wikipedia seems best. The scope of WP:TBAN includes talk pages unless a different scope is chosen. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified that this AE was reopened due to the unblock of the subject. My view remains the same. For those who are new to the ARBCC troubles, there have been many BLP disputes about the articles on global-warming sceptics. The BLP complaints are not always convincing but this time they are. IHaveAMastersDegree looks to be systematically using SYNTH to make it seem that sceptics hold far-out views and make them appear less credible. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this warrants a closer look. As concerns diff 1, the cited source is only partially accessible online. Has an administrator been able to access it in full and verify that it does not mention James Delingpole? If so, I agree that the edit at issue violates the verifiability and BLP policies. As to diffs 2 to 4, I don't see these as serious enough to warrant sanctions on their own. Sandstein 08:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the same source is also available in full at [3], and it does not mention Delingpole. Considering that IHaveAMastersDegree's response does not indicate their understanding of the problem, a topic ban appears appropriate. Sandstein 10:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DS (or others), can you provide evidence that suggests this is an ongoing pattern rather than an isolated incident? Are you aware of similar edits to other articles (I'll look into it myself when I get chance, but if you have diffs to hand, they would be helpful)? If it's just this one article, a ban from the article and its talk page (and from mentioning Delingpole anywhere on Wikipedia) might be more appropriate, but I'm not averse to a broad topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked more closely at IHaveAMastersDegree's edits, and it appears he's dedicated to removing the term "sceptic" in relation to global warming. That in itself is not inherently disruptive, but I couldn't help but wonder whether the text he was substituting for "sceptic" was an attempt to discredit the article subjects (who all appear to be living people). I don't know a lot about global warming/climate change, so it's possible I misunderstood something, but it does look like (at the very least) IHaveAMastersDegree's edits lack the caution required when writing about living people. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @DS, thanks; I'd missed that. I think the case for a topic ban is quite compelling, given the edit warring on top of the other concerns. I'd have no qualms supporting a six-month topic ban. IHaveAMastersDegree: My advice would be to find something less controversial to do for six months, and use the time to familiarise myself with the standards expected of editors, especially with regard to living people and controversial topic areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - IHaveAMastersDegree: I think you've missed the point. The problem with your edits is not any one single edit, but a pattern in which it appears you are trying to discredit or demean those who do not believe that climate change is man-made; there's also the pattern of doing so across multiple biographies of living persons (where we have a moral duty, not to mention a requirement in site policy) to be especially careful, and the edit-warring to re-instate contested wording. Taken together, these all seem to suggest that you shouldn't be editing BLPs about such people. I'd listen to any argument you made to the contrary, but addressing this on the basis of individual edits is not sufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked the respondent because technical evidence proves they have previously operated the historical sock-puppeteer User:Bearguardian. AGK [•] 23:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AGK has subsequently reversed his block, and therefore this discussion should be resurrected since the situation is no longer moot. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above discussion, which establishes that IHaveAMastersDegree has made a derogatory claim in an article about a living person that is not supported by the source IHaveAMastersDegree cited as a reference, IHaveAMastersDegree is topic-banned (per WP:TBAN) from everything that is both related to climate change and to a living person, for the duration of six months. This does not prevent other administrators from imposing broader or additional sanctions if they believe this to be necessary. Sandstein 21:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Rainer P.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Rainer P. (talk · contribs) / Rainer P. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User imposing the sanction

The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of User imposing sanction

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite topic ban since November 16th 2012 from all articles and discussions related to Prem Rawat for persistent battleground behaviour [4]

I have informed The Blade of the Northern Light of this appeal.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rainer P.

I have been indefinitely topic-banned by The Blade of the Northern Lights, for “persistent battleground behaviour” but he provides no evidence or diffs to support that charge.

I have never engaged in “battleground behavior”. I regard my influence there as neutral, moderate and conciliatory. About the only comment about me on Prem Rawat talk notes “Rainer's attempt to pull this discussion back on track seems a move in a positive direction”.[5]

I have edited the Prem Rawat article less than 10 times in three years. I have made edits only with full consent from all editors after previous discussion on the talk page. My last edit to the article before being banned for “battleground behaviour” on November 16th 2012 was on October 19th 2012.[6]. My previous edit to the article was December 29th, 2011 to correct punctuation.[7]

Most of my edits have been to the Talk Page because I have extensive knowledge of the subject and want to help the article editors.[8] In the three weeks prior to being banned I made 10 edits to the talk page, most discussing choosing a picture for the article.

It is true that Prem Rawat articles sometimes resemble a battleground but I have not been involved in it. The main reason for that situation is the behaviour of one editor, Pat W, who has been warned for incivility and battleground behaviour nineteen times on his talk page.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Not to mention the countless times he has been asked to stop on the PR talk pages. [27]

I have never been warned or criticised in over three years of editing.

I have never been part of an Arbitration action. And so, as per Discretionary Sanctions, I should have received a warning before banning.[28][29]

I have never been banned or blocked or otherwise been subject to disciplinary actions.

I have looked at all my edits and I cannot see what I have done wrong.

Blade of the Northern Lights says the reason for the ban is “although Rainer P. didn't himself initiate many proposals on the talk page, I saw that he was showing up to support the other two with an extremely high level of frequency”.[30] I have made 500 edits in 18 months, hardly “an extremely high level of frequency” and an inspection of my edits show very few involved supporting one view or another. Silk Tork reviewed my edits and concluded “I've looked back at the contributions of Rainer P. (which are mainly to the talkpage of Prem Rawat) and I cannot find any problematic edits”. [31] Another independent editor said “Rainer was always mild mannered, polite, and conciliatory in his positions”.[32]

SUMMARY: I have an exemplary record at Wikipedia. I have never been blocked, banned or sanctioned in any way. No evidence was presented that shows me involved in “battleground behaviour” or incivility. No evidence was presented that show me editing in a POV or inappropriate way. In fact, no evidence of any sort justifies the ban. Please lift it.

PS: Are topic banned editors allowed to comment on this appeal?

Statement by Blade of the Northern Lights

It's taken me a while to refresh my memory of this. As I recall, Rainer P. was more marginally involved in the problematic editing there, and I'd be all right with a lifting of his topic ban at this point. I'm generally in support of second chances, and Rainer P.'s editing outside the topic gives me no cause for concern. Given the troubled history of the article it would be good for someone to keep an eye on things, but I don't see an inordinate risk in lifting this topic ban; if it does become a problem, that can be dealt with. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Rainer P.

Rainer P.: Editors who are topic-banned from the topic of Prem Rawat are not allowed to comment here. A few questions:

Is there a reason why you waited more than a year to appeal a sanction that you believe was inappropriate to begin with?
Why have you not addressed this appeal to the sanctioning admin first?
You have made almost no edits to Wikipedia since the sanction. Why? If the sanction is lifted, what kinds of edits do you intend to make? Sandstein 10:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition... but let me try and answer your questions.

ad 1) I did not really wait, but over a year has simply passed before my busy life gave me a break to get back to Wikipedia, and also the result of my last appeal in December 2012 was not really encouraging. Besides it shows I am not overzealous. I still think the ban was inappropriate to begin with, but I have no inclination to fight over this.

ad 2) I had no idea that appealing to Blade of the Northern Light were the first choice option. From the way he remained unimpressed by my legitimate reasoning during my first appeal, it did not occur to me, either.

ad 3) I guess, I am what you might call a Single Purpose Account. I joined .enWP at a time, when the article about Prem Rawat was dominated by a group of amazingly energetic detractors, whose declared goal was to not let any possibly favourable public information about the subject go unsmirched. The whole „battleground“-issue arose from that. I happen to have the education and the experience to be able to offer some expertise to the article. The Prem Rawat article has remained largely unedited since that ban. It can certainly be improved, but I would rather leave that to native English speakers. I would mainly like to keep the article updated on current or recent notable developements, which have not been covered since that „nuclear“ ban, which left no one to do so. I am ready and willing to observe Wiki-rules strictly, which my history confirms.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Rainer P.

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

Contrary to Rainer P.'s assertions, the sanction is not made invalid by the apparent lack of a prior warning. At the time the sanction was imposed, in November 2012, the remedy governing sanctions (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation) provided for article probation, a type of sanction that allows topic bans but does not require a prior warning. Only later, by motion of 20 December 2012, did the Committee apply standard discretionary sanctions (which do require a warning) to the topic area, while explicitly maintaining the existing sanctions.

The motion of 20 December 2012 was the result of an earlier appeal of this sanction by Rainer P. to the Arbitration Committee. The Committee did not accept or decline this appeal, but enacted the motion with the apparent intent to provide for a venue of appeal in this noticeboard (see, e.g., the comments by SilkTork, Roger Davies, Newyorkbrad and Courcelles). The appeal is therefore permissible and the sanction can be reviewed here.

On the merits, I'm waiting for a statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights, which should provide examples of the "persistent battleground behavior" given as the reason for the sanction. The case for imposing a ban is, at least, not immediately obvious from a cursory look at the appellant's edits. In response to the earlier appeal to the Arbitration Committee, The Blade of the Northern Lights said that Rainer P. had been "supporting" two other editors in "a pattern of editing that was slowly but surely slanting the article away from criticisms of Rawat". But The Blade of the Northern Lights did not say how, in their view, this constituted a violation of any applicable conduct rule, and they did not provide diffs of the edits they considered disruptive. I'd appreciate it if they would supply this information now. Sandstein 19:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since BoNL supports lifting TBAN, I recommend lifting TBAN, replace with logged DS notification. It's suitable since Rainer was previously sanctioned in this area, in my opinion. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was ready to post a detailed defence of Rainer P.'s actions (which I don't believe justified a topic ban then or justify keeping it in place now). However, since TBotNL is now saying that he has no objection to lifting the ban and giving Rainer a second chance, I agree that this would be the best approach. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both opinions above. Sandstein 05:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: Since the banning admin, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights, does not object to lifting the ban and nobody in this AE has objected either it is clear that consensus exists to lift Rainer P.'s ban. At the suggestion of User:Penwhale I'm logging a notice of the discretionary sanctions to Rainer P. in WP:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat. We are all hoping that the battleground editing on Prem Rawat does not resume. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

Revision as of 21:25, 21 January 2014 edit Sandstein (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 187,604 edits →IHaveAMastersDegree: closed again ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:22, 22 January 2014 edit undo EdJohnston (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators 71,049 edits →Result of the appeal by Rainer P.: Closing. The appeal is successful and Rainer P.'s ban from the topic of Prem Rawat is lifted Next edit →
Line 162:		Line 162:

	*I agree with both opinions above. <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> 05:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)		*I agree with both opinions above. <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> 05:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
			*'''Closing:''' Since the banning admin, [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights]], does not object to lifting the ban and nobody in this AE has objected either it is clear that consensus exists to lift Rainer P.'s ban. At the suggestion of [[User:Penwhale]] I'm logging a notice of the discretionary sanctions to Rainer P. in [[WP:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat]]. We are all hoping that the battleground editing on [[Prem Rawat]] does not resume. [[User:EdJohnston\|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston\|talk]]) 19:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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