User:Tiamut/history

Background
On October 29, 2009, User:Nableezy was topic-banned from editing in the Israel-Palestine arena for four months by User:AGK. Following a number of complaints regarding the severity of the sanction (archived here), AGK reduced the topic ban to one-month from talk pages and two months from articles, from the time the original sanction was announced.

On November 30, 2009, User:Canadian Monkey filed a request for clarification at Arbitration regarding edits made by User:Nickhh, User:Nishidani and User:Nableezy to an AfD on the article Jonathan Cook. By December 2, 2009, it was discovered that Canadian Monkey was a sockpuppet of User:NoCal100. Regardless, the complaint was commented on by a number of admins. On December 4, 2009, User:Tznkai suggested this was not the proper forum and that the issue be taken to WP:AE, with sockpuppeting to be handled at WP:SPI. Arbitrators commented on the issue between December 1 and December 12: six of them agreed that the Jonathan Cook AfD was an article that fell under the I-P area topic ban. No suggestions as to what kind of sanction, if any, should be placed on the concerned editors was issued.

On December 4, 2009, User:Cptnono filed a complaint at WP:AE regarding the edits made by Nableezy to the Jonathan Cook AfD here. A couple of the edits had been made less one day before his ban to talk pages had expired. On December 6, User:Tznkai declined to take any enforcement against Nableezy, though he issued a warning against edit-warring and suggested Nableezy stay far away from articles related to the ara of his topic ban until its conclusion.

On December 15, 2009, User:Epeefleche filed a complaint at WP:AE regarding the edits made by Nableezy to the Jonathan Cook AfD (the same ones discussed in the complaint filed by Cptnono that was closed without action), while also raising the issue of User:Nickhh and User:Nishidani's violations of their indefinite topic bans from the I-P arena (which were already reviewed by Arbitrators in the request for clarification filed by sockpuppet Canadian Monkey).

On December 29, 2009, User:Cptnono filed an other complaint at WP:AE, this time regarding alleged incivility by Nableezy at Talk:Gaza War. Note that this was the day when Nableezy topic ban from article editing expired, and he was able to edit freely at Wikipedia.

Sandstein gets involved
On January 1, 2010, Cptnono's complaint was closed without action by User:Sandstein, given that Nableezy had apologized to Cptnono and he had withdrawn the complaint. However, that same day, Sandstein closed the complaint filed by Epeefleche on December 15, by reinstating the two-month topic ban.

Sandstein's decision was protested quite vigorously by at least seven editors on his talk page. Nableezy initially tried to reason with Sandstein, providing diffs attesting to the fact that a previous complaint filed on the very same issue had already been dismissed by Tznkai and that he was in fact allowed to comment at AfDs at the talk he made his comments there (the two edits that preceded the end of his talk page topic ban had been to restore the comments of Nickhh and Nishidani, which he believed should not have been removed per WP:TALK). When Sandstein refused to reconsider, Nableezy was so upset that he asked to be blocked indefinitely and issued a legal threat so that Sandstein would do that. When Sandstein refused, Nableezy posted to WP:ANI requesting that he be blocked indefinitely for issuing legal threats. He was blocked by User:Chillum. He asked to be unbloked when he realized his IP was also autoblocked, which would affect about 3,000 people at his place of work. He was unblocked by User:Gwen Gale after he apologized for and retracted the threat.

Editors continued to complain at Sandstein's talk page regarding the renewal of the two-month topic ban. He continued to refuse to revisit the decision. On January 4, 2010, after Nableezy filed a sockpuppet complaint regarding User:NoCal100 and User:Lovely day350, he was blocked by USer:Sandstein for 24 hours for violating his topic ban. (!?!) Sandstein also added a note on Nableezy's talk page that the block may not be undone except through consensus at WP:AE. When two other editors (one an admin) asked Sandstein to disengage from future enforcement against Nableezy and had the case over to another admin that was uninvolved, he rejected that suggestion, more than once.

Still to add

 * still need to add more diffs, don't forget Sandstein's message that his 24-hour block could not be undone without going to AE.
 * missing information on Fastily's mocking comments and then his subsequent decline to unblock Nableezy following Sandstein's 24-hour block.
 * other things?
 * Diff showing where Nableezy was told he may edit AfDs.
 * How about renaming this page to Sandstein's ban of Nableezy?

Concerns raised by the decision

 * Sandstein's decision encourages forum-shopping. After User:Tznkai declined to take any action against Nableezy stemming from User:Cptnono's complaint regarding Nableezy's edits to the Jonathan Cook AfD here, Sandstein should have dismissed the complaint by User:Epeefleche here, or at least the part that dealt with Nableezy, since it was a repeat of what Cptnono had complained about. Nableezy was essentially tried twice for the same wiki crime (double jeopardy). Sandstein does not see this legal concept to be relevant to Wikipedia as expressed in his comment here. Judging things by Wiki standards, retrying the same case and coming to a different conclusion than another admin means Sandstein's actions give the appearance of wheel-warring, at least in spirit. User:John Z raised this concern with Sandstein, asking for his thoughts on that on his talk page here, but Sandstein has declined to answer that specific question.

I am also concerned by what I believe is the punitive and arbitrary nature of Sandstein's handling of Nableezy's case. Even after seven editors complained at his talk page regarding the renewal of the two-month topic ban, he continued to refuse to revisit the decision. On January 4, 2010, after Nableezy graciously intervened to ask others not to comment at his talk page anymore, Nableezy filed a sockpuppet complaint regarding User:NoCal100 and User:Lovely day350, and was blocked by User:Sandstein for 24 hours for violating his topic ban. (!?!) Sandstein also added a note on Nableezy's talk page that the block may not be undone except through consensus at WP:AE. When two other editors (one an admin) asked Sandstein to disengage from future enforcement against Nableezy and hand the case over to another admin that was uninvolved, he rejected that suggestion. Sandstein does not seem to care what other people think unless they agree with him.


 * Since Nableezy has been unbanned now, I would suggest closing this matter unless you have more complaints about Sandstein. Perhaps also blank this page, but you can keep it on your harddrive of course. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to digest what has happened before making any quick decisions. While I am thrilled that he finally relented, I am still concerned by the general tone of his comments on his talk page and in the appeal - in particular, his accusing me of only contacting people who share in "her and Nableezy's POV in content disputes in the area of conflict"  (a false, bad faith accusation which he did not correct even after I pointed out that it was wrong). I would further note that Sandstein's topic ban was likely going to be undone by another admin, given Tznaki's comments and the general drift expressed in multiple editors' comments there. He did not reverse his decision to be magnanimous. It was in his own self-interest. As far as I can tell, he does not think he did anything wrong. Certainly, there was nothing in his subsequent comments that concedes any error on his part. Like I said, I need some time to think about it.  T i a m u t talk 18:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)