User:HughD/sandbox

Request reconsideration of enforcement action[edit]

replyto|Ricky81682|label1=Rick, 08:41, 28 August 2015 you kindly asked for a few days to reconsider your recent discretionary sanction enforcement action. Your notification offered two bases for the discretionary sanction enforcement action:

...you chose to represent this as "a recommendation to step back" from said article which you stated as part of another Arbitration Enforcement Request against another editor (something which I do not find remotely amusing or cute). Misleading others by pretending that you were in some way, shape or form stepping back from the dispute, so that you look better as part of this enforcement tit-for-tat game is not appropriate.
Please assume good faith, the recent report at WP:AE was not tit for tat, it was not a game, it was a good faith effort to be part of the solution, a sincere request for a review of some behavior, aimed at addressing what in my best judgement was a real problem in the project areas of the Tea Party movement and American politics cases. The report was declined, but the facts of the reported behavior were not contested. I deeply sympathize with your completely understandable mounting frustration regarding frivolous, pointed, retaliatory noticeboard reports directed at administrators of our project, such as recently directed at you and others; this was not that.
I did not include the ban in the initial statement of the report at WP:AE because I did not know it was relevant. I was not prompted by the request submission form to summarize my recent history. I did not explain the delay in filing the report in the initial statement because I did not know there was a delay that needed explaining. I did not know of the statute of limitations. I did not understand "stale." There was no intent to conceal. This was my second AE report.
17:33, 23 August 2015 George asked why the delay, and within hours 23:11, 23 August 2015 the reported user jumped in with the answer, "Hugh was banned," before I could answer. 23:47, 23 August 2015 another @editor: jumped in, confirming the answer with a diff and pinging George who originally had the question. By the time I saw the question the next day, I had nothing to add to the previous answers. 09:44, 24 August 2015 I quipped "I was asked to step back" after the ban was clearly and prominently in the record, knowing no one would take me literally. No one did. No one was deceived. There was no intent to deceive. There was no deception.
As a sidecar, as you know, it is literally true that you did ask me to step back:
...Take two weeks off in full from this issue. These two weeks...will give you a rest from the daily routine of that page and hopefully everything can be better evaluated with a little space...
but deliberately understating the situation for comic effect was stupid in that I should know by now everything I do will be interpreted in the worst possible light.
...the fact that you would welcome a user with the username User:Kochtruth and encourage this behavior without a second thought is enough.
It is not enough. Yes, at User_talk:Kochtruth I used twinkle to welcomed a new user called User:Kochtruth. I welcome a lot of new users. I welcome every new user I can, every new user I encounter that has not already been welcomed. Check my edit history. I guess I sort of noticed the user name was one that would not last, but I saw no threat to our project that warranted bringing up the bad news about his unfortunate choice of moniker on the guy's first day with us.
Yes, I interacted with a user called User:Kochtruth to thank him for his initial contribution. I thank all new users for their initial contribution, if I can, that is, if it is not outright harmful; don't you? Here the initial contribution was rough but obviously good faith, well-intention, referenced however poorly, and genuinely helpful in addressing a subtopic seriously under-represented in our article with respect to copious reliable sources.
Yes, I interacted with a user called User:Kochtruth to recommend fleshing out the initial contribution with secondary and tertiary references; good advice, advice that I stand by, and by the way a plan that is being implemented as we speak, and I would like to help.
No policy or guideline requires anyone to report a new user with a bad name within 24 hours. No member of our community has every been sanctioned for not reporting a bad user name. No member of our community has every been sanctioned for merely interacting with a new editor who was later asked to change their user name. Another editor interacted with a user called User:Kochtruth at article talk Talk:Koch Industries as well during his brief career as an editor, please see. No one reported the user name. Are we both subject to discretionary sanction enforcement?

In summary, please assume good faith; there was no violation of policy, guideline, or general or discretionary sanctions. Thank you for your kind reconsideration.

Enforcing administrator failed to "specifying the misconduct for which the sanction has been issued" as required by WP:ACDS#7.4, no specific behavior cited beyond a wave of the hands in the direction of two ANI filings, no policy or guideline cited, as if the two ANI filings alone, in the same week, justified the sanction, independent of the determination.

Enforcing administrator failed to "explain their enforcement actions" as required by WP:ACDS#6.1, dismissing legitimate requests for explanations under threat of administrative retribution:

The prior discussions are self-evident and I don't find it necessary to explain the concerns any further. It is self-evident and insulting to our collective intelligence if you want act like it's unclear what the various ANI discussions are referring to. If you want to continue to argue (even about the topic ban itself), it may be raised to a block and an extended topic ban.

Enforcing administrator filed to "elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE" "prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial" as advised by WP:ACDS#7.3.

Enforcing administrator failed to include appeal process in topic ban notification. as required by WP:ACDS#7.4.