This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 70 | ← | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | → | Archive 80 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by
Rich
Farmbrough, 04:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
The previous arbitration case defined an automaton tool in principle 3.1
An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually.
A "remedy" was passed (Remedy 2)
Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia....
Presumably, since the drafting arbitrator had defined "automation tool", and since the initial complaint was that automation tools had been used in a way that caused issues disruption, by making multiple similar edits, automation tools is what is meant here. The actual wording is overboard and unenforceable.
For this reason I request that:
The text of the first sentence of remedy 2 be forthwith changed to:
Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation tool whatsoever on Wikipedia to make multiple similar edits.
A, hopefully unintended, side effect of is my inability to archive my talk page, (possibly) to create lists of articles for people to work on and make other perfectly innocuous changes. Therefore I request the following to be added to Remedy 2.
This shall not apply to pages in Rich Farmbrough's own User; And User talk: area.
I note that a similar request was turned down two years ago as being "too soon." I hope this no longer applies.
Motion 2 (which has been described by arbitrators as "draconian") was introduced in somewhat heated circumstances. I had mis-clicked on a tool I was using to compile lists and prepare text and made two "automated edits". Much ABF followed, together with many unfounded accusations and threats to bring out the ban-hammer. Nonetheless, the existing remedies were quite sufficient for a one-month block to be enacted. Given this the imposition of an additional editing restriction, especially one as broad reaching as this seems pointless.
Motion 2 has been subject to much abuse, resulting in a years block over an edit that added references to a page, but caused an error due to the wholly manual omission of a "/". It was even suggested that editing the page to insert the missing "/" constituted automated editing.
Neither this, nor the subsequent request for AE, nor any other complaint based on the Motion 2 have had anything to do with "making multiple similar edits" - the effect has been not to prevent disruption but to create disruption.
Moreover the Motion forbids such simple tasks as cutting and pasting, making even raising this request sanctioanble. I have given elsewhere examples of perfectly normal, not say essential, editing techniques which are banned by this Motion 2. I will repeat them here if requested.
So request 3 is:
Strike Motion 2
@ Beeblebrox. I think you confuse me with someone else. With the possible exception of the series of edits correcting the my own spelling error "Vertebrate zoology" to "Vertebrate Zoology", for which I apologized profusely and was blocked for a month two years ago, no-one has even suggested that I have done the type of multiple edits that allegedly caused disruption.
You might also want to look at some of the other parts of the case. For example this edit was considered a reason to remove my admin bit. And yet you can "sigh" in your edit summary with no consequences.
All I am trying to achieve here, is to restore sanity to the editing restrictions, not to remove them, however flawed they are. I can see no way these requested changes can harm the project, even if the manifest WP:ABF were justified.
I would really appreciate being treated in a courteous manner, and have the issues addressed, rather than coded and not so coded insults.
However, I will make an additional effort to move the dialogue forward: Suggest, please, an editing task which I could take on which would not violate Motion 2?
All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
@Newyorkbrad, most certainly. All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough, 12:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC).
@ Roger Davies It's not nice to say that there were problems with my bots. If you look at the workshop even my most vociferous critic said "His bot edits (Helpful Pixie Bot mainly) generally fall under a), both authorized and correct. "
There are no "findings" relating to errors in bot edits, or indeed to any errors.
All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough, 14:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC).
@ Beeblebrox I just read your comment again. I think that the point of the sanctions is supposed to be to protect the encyclopaedia. The idea that the sanctions themselves are important for their own sake is a very un-wiki idea. If the sanctions are only being perpetuated because it is believed that I have, will or want to break them, it is a bad case of the tail wagging the dog.
All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough, 14:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC).
Without wading into the details of Rich's motion I am hoping Arbcom can come up with a solution that will eliminate the need for constant supervision of Rich's situation, and reduce the frequency of trips to arbitration and arbitration enforcement pages. I think the original sanctions were intended to prevent disruption but if they have become an obstacle to Rich being a non-disruptive contributor and are frequently discussed at great length on arbitration and arbitration enforcement pages then I think it's time for a change. -- Pine ✉ 07:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Hasteur ( talk) at 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I seek clarification as to the extent of which the ban on automation extends. A request was made at Wikipedia:Bot requests seeking a bot operator to design a highly customized talk page archiving bot based on multiple rules and targeting. Based on this I seek clarification as to what line does a completely manual edit flip over to being automation when the edit triggers a automated response. Does a Rube Goldberg invention of triggered automation cross the line over what is considered automated? Hasteur ( talk) 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
This is pretty much what Femto Bot used to do, with corrections and minor upgrades. The committee seemed agreeable to having another editor run Femto Bot's code last time it was mentioned. This request is for a more robust version, notably it would be resistant to attempts by other users to manipulate it, and would be more scalable, being event driven rather scheduled. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 20:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
@AGK "I am actually thinking the automation restriction is utterly unenforceable" well, you shouldn't have voted for such stupid restrictions in the first place! Instead think about what is good for the encyclopaedia! All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 23:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
@ Worm That Turned - I created a custom bot because I needed it. I think others would had found it useful too, had I made it as robust as would have been required for a general purpose bot. Similar degrees of complexity apply to existing bots, for example they create and head up new archives as needed, and can provide some forms of indexing.
I used four general bots before switching to my own. Running my own allowed me to be more responsive to user concerns, by keeping unfinished business on the page, and clearing dealt with items quickly away.
In the request for permission to run Femto Bot, Sladen reported that a kind offer had been made to run the bot for me. There were no objections at the time. Funny how it's now seen as major problem. I however do not stop assuming good faith, where it is deserved, simply believing that people are not as "dispassionate" as they would like to claim, and are reacting emotionally. That is absolutely fine, and emotion is not out of place here. However I would urge people who wish do deliver judgements to try to separate the factual, the procedural and the intentional.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 06:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
I am sure that it strikes me as a poor use of our bot-coding editors' time and effort
—@Newyorkbrad I sincerely hope you are not saying this in any kind of official capacity. It appears as though you mean to dictate what people spend their time on. Hopefully, you instead simply meant this as an idle expression of bewilderment about something that you don't understand.
This appears to be something genuinely useful to certain people. Not to me; I obviously don't get the kind of talk page traffic that would necessitate this kind of thing. But if someone wants to build it what is the harm in RF outlining the specification? Surely his restrictions don't preclude him from suggesting automation tasks to others?
The idea that RF triggering this bot would be a violation of his restriction is completely absurd. The tool and its effects would be completely someone else's responsibility. His alleged carelessness and obstinate attitude (IIUC the root cause of his restrictions) would not be an issue here at all. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 23:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Salvio—"just use Cluebot III or some other bot like that" — Isn't that what he's trying to do? If someone makes the suggested bot, then it will be "some other bot like that"—what is the problem? What do you mean by "decline" in this context? ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
@Worm_That_Turned—you realize that this request wasn't filed by RF, right? I'm not sure what your point is in noting that this is the 6th one; I don't know why it was filed, but it wasn't RF's idea as far as I can tell. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 21:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
If the Committee wants to absolve itself of all credibility as a body willing and capable of resolving disputes to the benefit of the encyclopaedia it's going about it in the right way.
On the other hand the Committee could get their heads out of their posteriors and articulate what Rich's topic ban is actually intended to achieve, why that needs to be achieved, and how the restriction is intended to achieve that. Until such time as the community understand the purpose of the restriction (which these endless requests demonstrate it does not) it cannot reliably enforce it. You (the Committee) regularly ask admins to enforce the spirit of the rules, referencing the letter to determine that. In this case we cannot do that - the letter is ambiguous and the spirit changes depending on who asks and who answers.
If you aren't prepared to do your jobs in this regard, you can at least retain the basic decency to answer the simple, specific questions asked:
It has just occurred to me that if this is declined then we also need answers to other questions about what is an is not acceptable:
For each "no" answer, please explain why he should not be allowed to do that in terms of benefit to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
@ AGK: I'd like to hear what's wrong with Rich's conduct, 'cause I (and I think many others) see absolutely no issue with it. To suggest that we ought to ban him for it is utterly bewildering. — lfdder 00:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad: "... but I am sure that it strikes me as a poor use of our bot-coding editors' time and effort." - surely, we have 4 archiving bots, that has then already been a massive poor use of time and effort for the other 3 programmers who wrote one after the first. I find that belittling, Brad, bot operators are free to do whatever they want to use time and effort poorly on. The community, nor the Arbitration Committee, have no say about what has to be programmed for them.
Regarding the whole, if one of those 4 bots would have this way of working already, you would not have a problem with Rich using that. You do not have problems with Rich setting the user-options for one of those that already exist, making it operate every 3, 5 or 13 days. You have no objections against Rich asking another Bot Operator to repair typo's for him. You do not have problems with another bot operator having a bot delivering messages to Rich's talkpage (where he has/d to opt-in). You do not have problems with bots signing messages left on his talkpage. You do not have problems with other bots notifying him of 'problems' with his edits (BracketBot). You DO have problems with this?
And if now an independent bot-programmer comes and thinks 'I like this, I want this on my talkpage', uses his time poorly to write the bot, tests it, gets permission and runs it on his talkpage, and makes it available to the larger community, do you have a problem that Rich switches to that bot, or are you going to ban him immediately?
AGK is right, this is a badly designed, poorly worked out decision, resulting in poor use (and actually a massive waste) of our community's time. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
That said, I'm of the same opinion as NativeForeigner - Hasteur is a big boy, if he wants to code a bot to Rich's specifications - it's his responsibility to ensure it meets community guidelines. As such, he'll be the one who gets the come-uppence if anything goes wrong with the bot. Should he decide to do this, then I advise him to write it carefully himself and test it thoroughly.
Rich, I'm generally unimpressed that you took the tentative agreement by a few committee members to archive your talk page using existing bots as free rein to wander over to the bot request notice board and ask for a custom made bot. It's exactly that sort of behaviour that stops people from assuming good faith with your behaviour. WormTT( talk) 10:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Malke 2010 at 21:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a request to lift the topic ban on Tea Party movement. I abandoned the article in December 2010. After that I made rare talk page comments. One of the comments lead to my inclusion in the case. During the case, I participated in the moderated discussion and made positive contributions there. Before, during and after the case, I continued to write articles. The list is here, almost all of them on viruses. I've written 120 in 12 months.
If the topic ban were lifted, I would continue on as I've been doing, focusing on virology and virology related topics, avoiding political articles and politicized articles. These seem to attract editors more interested in engaging in battle for battle's sake, and I've no interest in that. Occasionally, I do vandal patrol and I would continue with that, and the welcoming committee. I'd like to help expand WikiProject:Viruses, but that will have to wait until much later in the year as RL is very busy at the moment.
@ARBS: Can someone please explain to me why none of you seem to be reading anything I've written here? I'd like to know what does it take to get the topic ban lifted? What specifically do I have to do/demonstrate to get this ban lifted? Thanks.
Having reviewed the case Malke's main error was extending SYTH and OR to third party sources. We absolutely expect, and need, reliable third parties to perform SYNTH and OR.
As Killer Chihuahua commented "The environment is toxic." and I believe that given that environment one might, in retrospect, be more forgiving of confrontational behaviour.
I believe that if the committee is not minded to grant the request, there is scope for a progressive statement making it clear that editing articles on broadly Republican [Democrat] (did I get that right? - [no I didn't] ) issues is no longer within the scope of the topic ban as long as editing with respect to TP articles and TP sections of articles is avoided.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 23:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
@ AGK:
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 08:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC).
Malke 2010, can you please tell us what went so horribly wrong last time that it required that you be topic-banned and explain to us how you plan to avoid such problems in the future? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Malke 2010: This finding was passed by ArbCom without dissent, including support from several still-serving Arbitrators. Whether you agree with it or not, the Arbitrators who supported it are likely to believe it is true and other Arbitrators are likely to start from the same assumption. Whether you think it is fair or not, arguing that it was flawed is almost certain to get you nowhere. Strategically, demonstrating a balanced use of academic sources and avoiding incivility in areas of controversy (ie. not near the (I presume) largely uncontroversial virology area) are more likely approaches to being given a second chance than is arguing the case was wrongly decided with respect to you. Even if ArbCom is wrong (about which I take no position), the chances of them admitting it is very low, and fighting for a reversal of their finding has the potential to be seen as battleground behaviour. You may see the topic ban as a badge of shame, and so want it removed, but the way to achieve that is to demonstrate that the reasons given for it do not apply now and leaving aside the question of whether they ever applied... that is, in my opinion, your best chance for achieving relaxation and ultimately removal of your ban. You don't have to declare that the finding is correct, but you do need to accept that it will be the starting point in their thinking. EdChem ( talk) 08:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Ohc ¡digame! at 02:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
It has been more that 18 months since the case. Since then, I have performed tens of thousands of edits to align date formats, and have also made significant contributions to numerous articles, including developing many DYKs and several good articles. Arbcom can have faith that I can stay away from articles about the movement and from drama relating thereto. I am seeking to remove a topic ban not so that I can go back to editing articles on that sect. The ban no longer serves any purpose except to potentially prevent me from contributing to China articles to the fullest extent and to the best of my expertise and ability, and also to edit a page in my own userspace. In addition, it would be important for me to once again to restored to an editor of good standing. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
However, the problem is not only China articles where there is mention of Falun Gong persecution, but any article where The Epoch Times or Shen Yun are mentioned; any article where ET is quoted or cited is technically off-limits to me. As an example, I am currently working through Category:CS1 errors: dates yet I cannot correct the cs1 date error in Shen Yun. More specifically and problematically, there are Robocop admins prowling, and I can see myself blocked and/or have my ban extended for technical breaches by making even minor changes to apparently innocuous or unrelated articles such as List of newspapers in Australia and Korkoro. I trust that you can see how the breadth of the TBAN is a restraint for me.
I now seek to repair my reputation – and this is the most important reason for this appeal. But if it pleases Arbcom, I would add a voluntary undertaking not to edit any article directly connected with FLG. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this ban barely passed in the first place, getting through by just one vote. And there's a good reason: It was an exceedingly ill-founded ban. As two arbitrators pointed out, the evidence for Ohconfucius's POV-pushing was weak. Frankly, the rest of the committee erred in forgetting that editing with a POV is not necessarily pushing a POV; sometimes, adding a POV to an article is balancing the article. (Frankly, Wikipedia has a serious systemic bias problem with these articles because of the unwillingness of Western editors to consider an anti-FG stance for fear of being seen as pro-PRC, and ArbCom fell into this trap hook, line and sinker.) Either way, if no one can show evidence of recent problematic behaviour, this appeal should be granted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive and 1 who is recused, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
The Committee resolves that remedy 2 (Ohconfucius topic-banned) in the Falun Gong 2 arbitration case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on Ohconfucius should Ohconfucius fail to follow Wikipedia behavior and editing standards while editing in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should Ohconfucius be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. Such a reinstatement may be appealed via the normal process for appealing arbitration enforcement actions. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be repealed.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Anythingyouwant ( talk) at 22:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
This seems like an opportune time to request lifting a topic-ban imposed on me in 2011. ArbCom has just finished a case (gun control) in which my contributions were scrutinized, so making this request now seems timely given that I am fresh on your minds. I was “indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed”. During that case, I repeatedly made very clear to ArbCom that I objected to accusers going over the word-limits, and said that I would not exceed my word-limits to address accusations which exceeded the accuser's word limits, unless given permission by ArbCom to do so, and I was not given permission. I don’t know what your rules say now, but back then they said this:
“ | Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely...Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs....Please reduce your evidence submission to fit within the appropriate limits. | ” |
I made very clear my objections to violation of this rule, and my intention not to violate it. [1] [2] [3] [4]
As to the two accusations back then which I did not address for the reasons described above, they were mostly false. On the first, all I did was quote a book, not realizing that a later edition changed the quote, and I didn't object at all when I was corrected (I was even thanked for correcting a further error made by the person who corrected me). On the second accusation, I made a policy edit merely intended to clarify what the policy already said, it would not have advanced my position anymore than anyone else's even if it had been a new policy requirement, I said upfront that it related to an article I recently edited, and I did not refer to the policy at the article talk page until weeks later (long after other editors had discussed and modified my edit at the policy page, and without having had any intention to refer to the policy---which intention unfortunately cannot be proved).
Even if you regard these accusations and the remedy as legitimate (I don't), then perhaps you might think that several years is "indefinite" enough. I'd appreciate that. If you would like further diffs to substantiate any of this statement of mine, then just ask. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Malke 2010 and Writegeist, thanks for chiming in, I'm grateful that you've watchlisted this page. Arbitrators, I apologize for getting overtly angry about MastCell's accusation, which seems like the latest in an endless string from him. Shrinks say you shouldn't bottle up your feelings, but maybe it's best to do so when dealing with your committee. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Alrighty then, I withdraw this request. The topic-ban is now for life, because I have no intention of ever coming back here. The project is worse off for ArbCom's toleration of, and apparent reliance upon, malicious and hateful accusations. It is worse off for picking and choosing which policies and rules to enforce and against whom. Anyway, it's been interesting. Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Brad, you asked what Anythingyouwant would do differently if his sanction is lifted. His statement boils down to one word: nothing. He's still re-litigating the ArbCom abortion case, not to mention his push to include fetal images in the abortion article which began more than 7 years ago. His recent editing in other controversial areas doesn't inspire confidence; while he was not sanctioned in the gun control case, he didn't exactly cover himself in glory either, falsely accusing one case participant of being a Nazi apologist and nearly challenging another to a duel. What basis is there for lifting this sanction? MastCell Talk 03:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Re. comments by Anythingyouwant and AGK on the permissible length of evidence. The instruction at the Evidence page is clear: Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely. As Anythingyouwant rightly says, he complied with the instruction and his accusers didn't. (And was the rule-breaking evidence from his accusers refactored or removed?) Further, Anythingyouywant says he requested equal leeway and it was not granted. I.e. his disadvantage was not only known, it was actually enforced. So it concerns me to see AGK discount a cornerstone of Anything's submission with "named parties have a 1000 word limit on their evidence (not 500 words as claimed)." If AGK is presenting fiction as fact, I trust AGK will now strike the comments. Otherwise, I await AGK's supporting evidence. There's a strong whiff of kangaroo about an arbitration proceeding that's weighted against the accused by enforcing one written rule for the accused and another, unwritten and contradictory, for the accusers. Writegeist ( talk) 01:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Writegeist. And I can see why Anythingyouwant is feeling so frustrated. He's not being heard. The accusers should have had any of their evidence over the limit removed as would have been done to anyone else. Anythingyouwant kept to the limit and clearly pointed out where the others had not, yet nothing was done. That would make anyone angry and certainly leave them with a terrible frustrated sense that they'd not been given ample opportunity to defend themselves.
As for the diffs by MastCell, I don't see anything there that the other side wasn't doing. He wasn't topic banned from Gun control for a reason. I think that shows right there he's capable of editing the Abortion article again. As for any concern over his wanting to put photos into the article, he's stated he'd only do that with consensus. He doesn't seem to be saying he'd do as he pleased. There are many articles on Wikipedia with necessary photos that don't suit everyone including Anencephaly. An RfC on the question would easily resolve any issue.
I know you're all very busy with these cases and it's sometimes easier to just discount an editor when he gets angry, but as I'm sure you realize, if you ruled against everyone who got angry on Wikipedia we'd not have any editors. I think this is worth putting a kettle on and having a second look. Malke 2010 ( talk) 03:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Where a process has been used in an unequal manner, the claim that no change would have occurred had the process been handled equally - is weak. The argument that a person who raises this argument is ipso facto going to be found wrong is weaker. And the argument that the complainant was wrong about the 500 word limit is weakest yet. I have no idea on whether the sanction ought to be modified, all I know is the arguments made against it fail to convince me otherwise. Collect ( talk) 14:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Lightbreather ( talk) at 15:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Gaijin42 and Scalhotrod notified here [14] and here. [15]
Yesterday, Scalhotrod removed a "See also" link three times from the Gun politics in the U.S. article, as documented here: [16], [17] (scroll down), and [18]. Rather than then make a fourth revert, he unilaterally moved/renamed the article, as documented here: [19] (I reverted it and asked him to talk about it first, but he moved/renamed it again.)
Within hours of these edits, this discussion was posted on Scal's talk page by Gaijin42. [20] I don't know what the Wiki-term is for this, but it seems like coaching to me. It's not specifically about gun control, but it's related to material Scal had been warring with me over off-and-on for five days. Is this kind of behavior OK?
I provided a direct quote to a policy/guideline. Something I do for many users, including Lightbreather, for which she has specifically thanked me for. [22] including her mentioning my helping her with policy multiple times during the ArbCom case. In this case, I did not edit any page or talk page of gun control, and did not discus any edits, arguments, or editors involved.
I had planned on asking for a clarification of the topic ban myself, but was going to wait for things to calm down first User:Gaijin42/GunControlArbClarification Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above)
I found the move frustrating, because it was clearly the type of edit that people would like to discuss first. But there was no discussion and it seemed to be a somewhat heated move that was directly in response [24]. I admit my knee jerk reaction was to move the article back and start a discussion but I found I lack privileges to move over redirects. In hind sight that probably saved me from a heated edit. But the unlevel playing field also adds to the frustration. But I too find the coaching (or appearance thereof) concerning. Thenub314 ( talk) 16:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree completely with Beeblebrox's comment. Gaijin42, a lot of admins came to your defense and asked that you not be site-banned. I also supported you. It's disappointing that you are persisting with this. My best advice is for you to take everything associated with this topic off your watchlist. Find some other topic area on Wikipedia and start improving that area. Getting involved with something else will make a difference.
The following edits were made after five arbiters here advised the editor not to test the limits their topic ban,
I am at a loss to understand how the editor could possibly think that editing the Stand-your-ground law article would not be a gross violation of their topic ban. — ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 07:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I have blocked Gaijin42 for two days for breaching the topic ban with these edits which blatantly relate to the interaction of gun control and the stand-your-ground law. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
After discussing it further with Gaijin42 on their talk page (which is worthwhile reading for the arbs as it explains Gaijin42's confusion), just clarifying that the block was based on the first edit to stand-your-ground law. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I note that most of the comments in the 'Arbitrator views and discussion' section pre-date the above statement by Callanecc concerning a further clear violation of the topic ban. Accordingly, I ask that those ArbCom members who have not yet done so reconsider their position, in the light of this evidence. It seems to me self-evident that #Gaijin42 is unwilling to comply with the topic ban (the edit being clearly within "the social, historical and political context of [firearms] regulation") and accordingly must face the sanctions that were made clear to him when it was imposed - namely, that he be indefinitely site-banned from the English Language Wikipedia. His assertion that he was asking for the scope of the topic ban to be clarified prior to making the edit can hardly justify his actions - if he didn't understand the scope, the onus was clearly on him to get clarification first, not to make an edit, in the hope that it was out-of-scope. This was not the action of a person acting in good faith. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I have several comments to make about this issue. First, this "clarification request" is in my opinion the result of WP:Wikihounding by User Lightbreather as indicated by her comment here. Second, I personally fail to see how an article related to self-defense is anything but tangentially gun related as best. The last way I would characterize Gaijin's actual edits to this article as a "gross violation" of his topic ban (see list above). I disagree with the Andy's extremely broad application of the banned subject. The article in question is far more about legal and civil rights issues than "guns". Gaijin has asked repeatedly for this exact clarification. Third, the accuser (Lightbreather) in this case has begun to openly allude to her bias or viewpoint towards gun related articles and the associated editors here and here. In the absence of the topic blocked editors, this User gone on what I would describe as a " gun related article binge" that is leading myself and others to question the neutrality of the edits. This has been observed by one User here along with an outright accusation of WP:OWNERSHIP activity here. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 19:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
So if I understand this process correctly, the offense comes down to this edit:
...which initially broke the topic ban and subsequent edits were just "fuel for the fire". The evaluation of the offense is because more often than not, the occurrence or application of a self-defense law like Stand Your Ground (I assume attributed to the article sources) involves a firearm and that is why the block was assigned. Is this a fair and accurate assessment?
I'm not trying to be flippant and please do not read any sarcastic tone into my comment and question. I would like to earn Admin status someday and I sincerely wish to understand how these proceedings function. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 18:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Fæ ( talk) at 12:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The restrictions were stated as:
I would like the committee to remove the restrictions. They are so broad that they remain blight major barrier to my return to productive work as a Wikipedian editor, my future employment as a Wikipedian in Residence, and ensure I cannot create proposals for, nor take a lead in, future Wikipedia projects.
Failing removal, replacing with a narrow and well-specified restriction that is relevant to the original complaint in 2011 (which never went to dispute resolution as it was resolved amicably with the other editor), would prove far less damaging, such as restricted from adding external links on BLP articles to sites featuring sexually graphic material, excluding external links to germane non-profit/charity archives with educational medical or political material, such as the Wellcome Digital Library, British Library or similar respected archive or museum. However even this seems excessive, when there are sufficient members of the Wikipedia community closely following my edits to ensure that any problematic link would be rapidly challenged and widely discussed for consensus.
The previous discussion confirmed that members of Arbcom are not of one mind on how to read the restrictions, leaving them interpreted as broadly as technically possible. This stops editing where there would be any way of interpreting the topic relating to sexuality, women's rights, or of LGBT cultural interest. Specific examples included:
Specific projects that these restrictions have made impossible, damaging content improvement for Wikipedia:
In January it was suggested that I create new BLPs to demonstrate my competence (I improved several hundred before the Arbcom case). I have created the following articles in the last couple of months, mostly on living women:
Two of these, along with my photograph, were featured on Signpost as part of promoting Wikipedia's improvement during Women's History Month.
I believe the broad restriction was partly in place out of concern for my welfare. My interactions on controversial LGBT topics, LGBT safety rating for Wikimania bids and Ticket:2014033110012549, show that I can handle difficult discussion on LGBT topics and BLPs without inflaming debate.
Fae's statement implies that the committee decision is affecting his real-life employment. This does not mean the ban was unjustified, and I am not impressed he would claim otherwise (or by the tone of his statement in general). As this subtextual martyrdom is the same sort of conduct that led to Fae's ban in the first place, I question whether he has reformed. AGK [•] 07:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The Committee is explicitly required to act in the best interests of the English Wikipedia - it is not in their remit to consider how their decisions may or may not affect someone's personal life. In my opinion, this amendment request should succeed or fail solely on the basis of whether the Committee believes that removing or relaxing Fæ's restrictions will be a good or bad thing for the Encyclopaedia. Whichever they decide though, it is important that the reasoning is explained so that all parties may understand why that decision was reached. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess input from the Committee other interested people about questions 2 and 3 might be useful to. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Partly per Seraphimblade, I don't think that this is very well worded motion as it is not easy to interpret. I think it would be clearer to replace the second restriction, "topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed", with something like
(I realise that these options differ in whether the single year 1000 AD is allowed or not allowed, but unless Fæ indicates otherwise I highly doubt this will be significant). Thryduulf ( talk) 07:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The question that ArbCom needs to address is how they are to manage restrictions on editors. If the intention is that certain editors are to carry restrictions forever, then be honest and say so. It is cruel to offer false hope and the editor affected at least can make a decision on whether they wish to continue editing at all under those restrictions or whether they will channel their energies into something else.
On the other hand, if Arbcom believes that no-one is irredeemable, then it would make sense to encourage whatever processes of rehabilitation are considered suitable. For infinitely banned users we have the standard offer, but I am unaware of any similar guidance for indefinitely restricted users. Were I in your position, I would be looking for clearly defined milestones that a user could aim toward in order to show that they no longer need restrictions to be able to edit productively and without undue conflict. If you are serious about bringing editors back into 'normal' editing, then you ought to be marking out timescales and expectations for targets that restricted editors could achieve to demonstrate their progress. Simply leaving them without any direction and having to guess how to demonstrate their progress is just not good enough. If that's too much work for ArbCom - and heaven knows your workload is heavy enough - then find some reliable way of delegating the tutoring of restricted editors back into full editorship. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Has Fae ever fully disclosed every single one of his sock accounts to the Committee as he was required to do? If so, please tell us that he has so the community can let that matter drop. Cla68 ( talk) 01:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The text of the original decision, with which I strongly disagreed, nonetheless finds only that "Fæ has added poor quality material to biographies of living people and, on one occasion, added a highly inappropriate link." So far as I understand, the link referred to is one which related a film "Superhead" to the person who comes up if you search that term on Google. I have to ask: why is such an anemic finding as this used to place Fae in what sounds like a very special category of people who are viewed as unrehabilitable? The repeated use of the term "at the moment" below seems out of place for a two year old case. How many years is does a moment last? Also, Arbcom has failed to explain how any editor is supposed to know when WP:WELLKNOWN does not really apply to information which is well known. So far as I know, no one has actually written any policy against providing information about porn stars, yet the clear lesson here is that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy competitor to Google on this sort of information.
The message I infer from this is that ArbCom believes it has to take a realistic view toward political issues, which includes such necessities as ensuring that articles about famous people don't include unpleasant information about them. Truth must take a backseat to power, and a part of that is that it is essential never to say it openly. Nonetheless, even assuming this unalterable reality, it's not clear why Fae has to take the brunt of it. And is there any reason why ArbCom would need to restrict Fae's editing about academic sexuality? Surely the prohibition could be limited to BLPs of sexual performers, while permitting him to do good work with BLPs of researchers doing sexuality studies or people advocating on LGBT issues, etc., without preventing anyone from keeping their unmentionables unmentioned.
Wikipedia's treatment of one of its best admins and prolific editors, which ignored and worked hand in glove with a cyberbullying campaign off-site, is appalling. Even so, it doesn't matter that much. Wikipedia remains firmly on a downward course in editing and readership and I fear the end may not be that far off. I hope that Fae will find a way to get involved in a successor prepared to take up the cause after Wikipedia's final foundering. Wnt ( talk) 05:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to take this opportunity to publicly distance myself from a statement I made in 2012 following ArbCom's decision to ban Fæ from editing Wikipedia. In retrospect, I would say that I found him to be very aggressive towards other users at times, and that he handled criticism rather poorly. But the parts where I said that I have "absolutely no confidence in Fæ's honour, or his integrity", and that he will "never regain even a modicum of the trust necessary to be welcomed back here"? I don't stand by those statements today at all. I suppose I was responding more out of emotion than anything, and was upset by his attempt to subvert the committee through requesting a WMF official to intercede (at least, that's how it was presented). However, looking back, I believe he was on a downward spiral at the time. We all go through hard times where we say things we really shouldn't have. It's also unfair to cast all of the blame on him; he was the victim of a sustained campaign of harassment, after all.
So the question is, should we consider relaxing the restrictions at this time? I think there needs to be a demonstrated understanding of what constitutes a reliable third-party source, and how important it is that the citations used in an article assert precisely what they are referencing. This threshold is obviously amplified for BLPs. If Fæ can show that he has learned from his past mistakes, then it would serve no real purpose to keep the topic ban in place. For now, I think it would be best if he took the time to develop a better track record of conscientious article writing, and then return here in October-November to submit a second appeal. Once he has shown a greater understanding of his past issues, I would support lifting the active sanctions against him. Kurtis (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
There are 4.5m+ articles on Wikipedia. Fewer than 1% of those involve the restrictions that Fae is barred from, yet many of those are amongst the most controversial and prone to problematic content. Fae - via his current, and previous accounts - has previously proved that he cannot be trusted to edit BLPs in this area (nor, indeed, to deal with relevant images in those areas), so I don't see any reason for Wikipedia to expose itself (again) to possible problems with no upside whatsoever. Black Kite ( talk) 18:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Now, I'm open to a relaxation, but not a removal at the moment. I will need to think about what relaxation would be appropriate - and would be interested in hearing from other committee members to see if one is even worth proposing. WormTT( talk) 07:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
On top of this, you've implied that you are restricted from areas that you don't appear to be. Suffrage, for example, is about gender, not sexuality - and if you cannot tell the difference between those terms, you should not be working in either area. LGBT cultural outreach should not require you to be editing the BLPs. If you are leading by example, there are many non-BLP LGBT articles. The Assyrian statue you checked with us that it was outside the scope of the restriction, we agreed. There wasn't confusion there, no Arbs suggested it was a problem.
@ Cla68: per this, Fae needed to pass the committee a list of his accounts prior to being unbanned. I, for one, was satisfied with his disclosures and consider the matter resolved. WormTT( talk) 12:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive and 2 who are recused, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Proposed:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Lightbreather ( talk) at 00:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
N/A
In the past week I have been attacked and harassed by two IP address users who have been blocked:
and another one appears to be started up:
The purpose, I believe is to try to bait me and/or discourage me from editing. This could be a problem for other editors of gun-control related pages, too - pro-gun or gun-control. This could cut down on trips to admin boards. I've never requested an AR amendment before, and I am not working on my computer, so please forgive me if I mess it up. Lightbreather ( talk) 00:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) at 08:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The Scientology topic is currently covered by both article probation and discretionary sanctions which allow a much greater latitude to deal with disruptive behaviour. I'm requesting that the Committee vacate the article probation provision in preference to the discretionary sanctions. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I can see no real reason for the article to have redundant sanctions to the broader topic, and can't see any reason for the redundancy, with perhaps the one proviso that if for whatever reason the remaining sanctions get lifted, perhaps having the article probation restored or at least consideration of such restoration. John Carter ( talk) 19:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Remedy 7 of the COFS arbitration case is vacated with immediate effect. Any extant enforcement actions taken under the remedy remain in force, and shall be treated as if they were imposed under standard discretionary sanctions authorized by remedy 4.1 of the Scientology case.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by ~ Adjwilley ( talk) at 06:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I recently stumbled across a dispute centered around Chiropractic, and became aware that the article and subject area are under discretionary sanctions under the Pseudoscience case. My question is: how does the pseudoscience case apply to alternative medicine generally? Where do alt-med (and chiropractic specifically) fall on the spectrum of "obvious pseudoscience", "generally considered pseduoscience", "questionable science", and "alternative theoretical formulations" that is outlined in the case? The case file doesn't seem to mention alternative medicine specifically, but apparently discretionary sanctions are being issued in the area, which is why I am asking for clarification. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 06:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Chiropractic is covered because it has has pseudoscientific elements. And it's doubly covered because the sanctions were expanded to cover fringe science, and chiropractic is fringe medicine (fringe medicine being a subset of fringe science). The arbitration case doesn't need to mention alternative medicine.
Sourced proof:
A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) (this source is already in the article!)-- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@Neuraxis. These two sources talk about the current state of chiropractic. They are not "used in a historical context". -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
If a topic is reliably-sourced as being a Pseudoscience / fringe science, then it should be under discretionary sanctions. The Arbcom only needs to clarify that.
The rest are content disputes, using reliable sources to establish / deny the pseudoscience in each separate article. Arbcom shouldn't decide content disputes in a given article, unless the community has shown that it can't solve the matter. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Enric has decided to cherry pick a sentence, used in a historical context. This is a common tactic. However, it ignores the fundamental question: Are manual and manipulative therapy for MSK conditions pseudoscientific and fringe? This impacts chiropractic since it is the largest purveyor of manipulative services, but also impacts on osteopathic medicine, physical therapy who also use manipulation as a means of relieving MSK pain. So, the findings here apply equally to all health professions who use manipulative therapy as a clinical intervention for dealing with MSK pain. While I do agree that the non-musculoskeletal use of manipulative therapies isn't mainstream, given that its only 10% of practice this should not be disproportionately weighed against the fact that 90% of manipulative treatment is directly towards spinal/MSK issues. Given that the mainstream of the chiropractic profession has evolved with a common identity focusing on conservative spine care, the notion that chiropractic practice (and spinal manipulation by extension) is 100% pseudoscientific does not reflect the current reality. This ongoing discussion [30] specifically discusses this very topic and is relevant here. Lastly, we need use a global focus and not just a US-centric POV.
This list is by no means exhaustive, but rather a starting point to show evidence that scientific practice and research is not uncommon, but reflects the mainstream of the profession currently. Regards, Neuraxis ( talk) 18:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I don't even see why this is a question. Chiropractic practices are firmly rooted in pseudoscience. That some small subset of their treatments have beneficial effects doesn't mean that the foundation is solid, it's simply an an example of the "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" principle. The same reasoning applies to the various alternative medicines.
In a very real sense, these are more important topics than the more esoteric pseudosciences. No one is going to hurt themselves because they believe in cold fusion. They can hurt themselves by forgoing legitimate medical treatment in favour of quackery.— Kww( talk) 16:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a not unreasonable question regarding the definition of pseudoscience for our purposes, and it might help to have some clear lines of demarkation on this point. One possibility is to go by what people involved in the field of pseudoscience consider pseudoscience. Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles is a list I generated some time ago based on articles included in one Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, and I find that one of its longer articles specifically is about chiropractic, which would I think be a reasonable indicator of how that particular topic might qualify. I also would believe that, in all likelihood, anything with a separate article or section in that source or other reference-type overview works on pseudoscience would probably qualify under the sanctions. But there is a very big gray area of where pseudoscience, parapsychology, paranormal and occult do and do not overlap, and it might be beneficial if we could have some sort of specific indicator of where the topics do and do not overlap here. So, for instance, some "occult"-ish topics make some sort of claims to being "scientific" in some way, like maybe Taoism's registers, which are effectively theological equivalents of the Tennessee Blue Book and the Official Manual State of Missouri, among others, might qualify as "pseudoscientific" or might not. Other potential gray areas of possible overlap exist between these topics as well. John Carter ( talk) 18:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Reply to Adjwilley's Reply to Kww, Enric Naval:
Reply to Neuraxis:
Reply to Newyorkbrad
Reply to Thryduulf
Reply to Neuraxis
Reply to John Carter
Reply to Neuraxis
The discretionary sanctions apply to "articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted". I understand this to include pages related to any topic that has been discussed in reliable sources as constituting or being related to pseudoscience and fringe science, or which is described in its Wikipedia article or categories as such (including, in either case, situations where the classification as pseudoscience or fringe science is disputed). What the terms pseudoscience and fringe science mean is described in their articles. On this basis, each case would need to be examined individually. I don't think that the entirety of the topics grouped under alternative medicine are within the scope of the sanctions, because our article about this topic says that alternative medicine is defined as being "not based on evidence gathered using the scientific method", which can be understood to mean that it is thought to be outside of the concept of science altogether. For instance, practices such as faith healing do not claim to be and are not normally discussed as scientific practices, and the scientific study of their practice is normally ordinary science (theology, sociology etc.) rather than a fringe science itself. However, I imagine that there are many "alternative" medicinal practices which are discussed in terms of their scientific validity, and these can fall within the scope of the sanctions under the conditions described above.
Also, as a practical matter, the enforcement log shows that editors have in the past been sanctioned in relation to the alternative medicine topics chiropractic, homeopathy (both many times), mucoid plaque and orthomolecular medicine. Past practice, therefore, indicates that administrators have readily accepted these topics as being subject to discretionary sanctions. However, the majority of sanctions seem to focus on issues related to cosmology, energy (cold fusion, etc.) and the ideas of one Rupert Sheldrake, rather than on alternative medicine. Sandstein 16:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the most productive use of people's time here is not to determine whether Chiropractic is within the scope or not, but rather to work out how to determine whether Topic X is within the scope or not. The suggestion of "if a reliable source about pseudoscience considers it pseudoscientific then it is within the scope" seems like a good starting point for that discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Kww: That is indeed my point, but I'm really not interested in which topics actually fall under the classification or not, nor which of those are actually pseudoscience because that doesn't matter. I aim only to provide a test that can be applied to any dispute to determine whether it is eligible for DS under the provisions of this case or not. As Newyorkbrd points out, whether something is actually pseudoscience or not can be a matter of opinion, so it seems best to make the categorisation "things that are called pseudoscience" rather than "things that are pseudoscience" so that the actual status becomes irrelevant and people can get on with settling the dispute at hand rather than arguing about something else as well. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
See diff. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
Pseudoscience}}
.
T. Canens (
talk) 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 70 | ← | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | → | Archive 80 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by
Rich
Farmbrough, 04:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
The previous arbitration case defined an automaton tool in principle 3.1
An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually.
A "remedy" was passed (Remedy 2)
Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia....
Presumably, since the drafting arbitrator had defined "automation tool", and since the initial complaint was that automation tools had been used in a way that caused issues disruption, by making multiple similar edits, automation tools is what is meant here. The actual wording is overboard and unenforceable.
For this reason I request that:
The text of the first sentence of remedy 2 be forthwith changed to:
Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation tool whatsoever on Wikipedia to make multiple similar edits.
A, hopefully unintended, side effect of is my inability to archive my talk page, (possibly) to create lists of articles for people to work on and make other perfectly innocuous changes. Therefore I request the following to be added to Remedy 2.
This shall not apply to pages in Rich Farmbrough's own User; And User talk: area.
I note that a similar request was turned down two years ago as being "too soon." I hope this no longer applies.
Motion 2 (which has been described by arbitrators as "draconian") was introduced in somewhat heated circumstances. I had mis-clicked on a tool I was using to compile lists and prepare text and made two "automated edits". Much ABF followed, together with many unfounded accusations and threats to bring out the ban-hammer. Nonetheless, the existing remedies were quite sufficient for a one-month block to be enacted. Given this the imposition of an additional editing restriction, especially one as broad reaching as this seems pointless.
Motion 2 has been subject to much abuse, resulting in a years block over an edit that added references to a page, but caused an error due to the wholly manual omission of a "/". It was even suggested that editing the page to insert the missing "/" constituted automated editing.
Neither this, nor the subsequent request for AE, nor any other complaint based on the Motion 2 have had anything to do with "making multiple similar edits" - the effect has been not to prevent disruption but to create disruption.
Moreover the Motion forbids such simple tasks as cutting and pasting, making even raising this request sanctioanble. I have given elsewhere examples of perfectly normal, not say essential, editing techniques which are banned by this Motion 2. I will repeat them here if requested.
So request 3 is:
Strike Motion 2
@ Beeblebrox. I think you confuse me with someone else. With the possible exception of the series of edits correcting the my own spelling error "Vertebrate zoology" to "Vertebrate Zoology", for which I apologized profusely and was blocked for a month two years ago, no-one has even suggested that I have done the type of multiple edits that allegedly caused disruption.
You might also want to look at some of the other parts of the case. For example this edit was considered a reason to remove my admin bit. And yet you can "sigh" in your edit summary with no consequences.
All I am trying to achieve here, is to restore sanity to the editing restrictions, not to remove them, however flawed they are. I can see no way these requested changes can harm the project, even if the manifest WP:ABF were justified.
I would really appreciate being treated in a courteous manner, and have the issues addressed, rather than coded and not so coded insults.
However, I will make an additional effort to move the dialogue forward: Suggest, please, an editing task which I could take on which would not violate Motion 2?
All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough, 21:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
@Newyorkbrad, most certainly. All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough, 12:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC).
@ Roger Davies It's not nice to say that there were problems with my bots. If you look at the workshop even my most vociferous critic said "His bot edits (Helpful Pixie Bot mainly) generally fall under a), both authorized and correct. "
There are no "findings" relating to errors in bot edits, or indeed to any errors.
All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough, 14:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC).
@ Beeblebrox I just read your comment again. I think that the point of the sanctions is supposed to be to protect the encyclopaedia. The idea that the sanctions themselves are important for their own sake is a very un-wiki idea. If the sanctions are only being perpetuated because it is believed that I have, will or want to break them, it is a bad case of the tail wagging the dog.
All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough, 14:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC).
Without wading into the details of Rich's motion I am hoping Arbcom can come up with a solution that will eliminate the need for constant supervision of Rich's situation, and reduce the frequency of trips to arbitration and arbitration enforcement pages. I think the original sanctions were intended to prevent disruption but if they have become an obstacle to Rich being a non-disruptive contributor and are frequently discussed at great length on arbitration and arbitration enforcement pages then I think it's time for a change. -- Pine ✉ 07:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Hasteur ( talk) at 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I seek clarification as to the extent of which the ban on automation extends. A request was made at Wikipedia:Bot requests seeking a bot operator to design a highly customized talk page archiving bot based on multiple rules and targeting. Based on this I seek clarification as to what line does a completely manual edit flip over to being automation when the edit triggers a automated response. Does a Rube Goldberg invention of triggered automation cross the line over what is considered automated? Hasteur ( talk) 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
This is pretty much what Femto Bot used to do, with corrections and minor upgrades. The committee seemed agreeable to having another editor run Femto Bot's code last time it was mentioned. This request is for a more robust version, notably it would be resistant to attempts by other users to manipulate it, and would be more scalable, being event driven rather scheduled. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 20:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
@AGK "I am actually thinking the automation restriction is utterly unenforceable" well, you shouldn't have voted for such stupid restrictions in the first place! Instead think about what is good for the encyclopaedia! All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 23:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
@ Worm That Turned - I created a custom bot because I needed it. I think others would had found it useful too, had I made it as robust as would have been required for a general purpose bot. Similar degrees of complexity apply to existing bots, for example they create and head up new archives as needed, and can provide some forms of indexing.
I used four general bots before switching to my own. Running my own allowed me to be more responsive to user concerns, by keeping unfinished business on the page, and clearing dealt with items quickly away.
In the request for permission to run Femto Bot, Sladen reported that a kind offer had been made to run the bot for me. There were no objections at the time. Funny how it's now seen as major problem. I however do not stop assuming good faith, where it is deserved, simply believing that people are not as "dispassionate" as they would like to claim, and are reacting emotionally. That is absolutely fine, and emotion is not out of place here. However I would urge people who wish do deliver judgements to try to separate the factual, the procedural and the intentional.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 06:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
I am sure that it strikes me as a poor use of our bot-coding editors' time and effort
—@Newyorkbrad I sincerely hope you are not saying this in any kind of official capacity. It appears as though you mean to dictate what people spend their time on. Hopefully, you instead simply meant this as an idle expression of bewilderment about something that you don't understand.
This appears to be something genuinely useful to certain people. Not to me; I obviously don't get the kind of talk page traffic that would necessitate this kind of thing. But if someone wants to build it what is the harm in RF outlining the specification? Surely his restrictions don't preclude him from suggesting automation tasks to others?
The idea that RF triggering this bot would be a violation of his restriction is completely absurd. The tool and its effects would be completely someone else's responsibility. His alleged carelessness and obstinate attitude (IIUC the root cause of his restrictions) would not be an issue here at all. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 23:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Salvio—"just use Cluebot III or some other bot like that" — Isn't that what he's trying to do? If someone makes the suggested bot, then it will be "some other bot like that"—what is the problem? What do you mean by "decline" in this context? ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
@Worm_That_Turned—you realize that this request wasn't filed by RF, right? I'm not sure what your point is in noting that this is the 6th one; I don't know why it was filed, but it wasn't RF's idea as far as I can tell. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 21:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
If the Committee wants to absolve itself of all credibility as a body willing and capable of resolving disputes to the benefit of the encyclopaedia it's going about it in the right way.
On the other hand the Committee could get their heads out of their posteriors and articulate what Rich's topic ban is actually intended to achieve, why that needs to be achieved, and how the restriction is intended to achieve that. Until such time as the community understand the purpose of the restriction (which these endless requests demonstrate it does not) it cannot reliably enforce it. You (the Committee) regularly ask admins to enforce the spirit of the rules, referencing the letter to determine that. In this case we cannot do that - the letter is ambiguous and the spirit changes depending on who asks and who answers.
If you aren't prepared to do your jobs in this regard, you can at least retain the basic decency to answer the simple, specific questions asked:
It has just occurred to me that if this is declined then we also need answers to other questions about what is an is not acceptable:
For each "no" answer, please explain why he should not be allowed to do that in terms of benefit to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
@ AGK: I'd like to hear what's wrong with Rich's conduct, 'cause I (and I think many others) see absolutely no issue with it. To suggest that we ought to ban him for it is utterly bewildering. — lfdder 00:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad: "... but I am sure that it strikes me as a poor use of our bot-coding editors' time and effort." - surely, we have 4 archiving bots, that has then already been a massive poor use of time and effort for the other 3 programmers who wrote one after the first. I find that belittling, Brad, bot operators are free to do whatever they want to use time and effort poorly on. The community, nor the Arbitration Committee, have no say about what has to be programmed for them.
Regarding the whole, if one of those 4 bots would have this way of working already, you would not have a problem with Rich using that. You do not have problems with Rich setting the user-options for one of those that already exist, making it operate every 3, 5 or 13 days. You have no objections against Rich asking another Bot Operator to repair typo's for him. You do not have problems with another bot operator having a bot delivering messages to Rich's talkpage (where he has/d to opt-in). You do not have problems with bots signing messages left on his talkpage. You do not have problems with other bots notifying him of 'problems' with his edits (BracketBot). You DO have problems with this?
And if now an independent bot-programmer comes and thinks 'I like this, I want this on my talkpage', uses his time poorly to write the bot, tests it, gets permission and runs it on his talkpage, and makes it available to the larger community, do you have a problem that Rich switches to that bot, or are you going to ban him immediately?
AGK is right, this is a badly designed, poorly worked out decision, resulting in poor use (and actually a massive waste) of our community's time. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
That said, I'm of the same opinion as NativeForeigner - Hasteur is a big boy, if he wants to code a bot to Rich's specifications - it's his responsibility to ensure it meets community guidelines. As such, he'll be the one who gets the come-uppence if anything goes wrong with the bot. Should he decide to do this, then I advise him to write it carefully himself and test it thoroughly.
Rich, I'm generally unimpressed that you took the tentative agreement by a few committee members to archive your talk page using existing bots as free rein to wander over to the bot request notice board and ask for a custom made bot. It's exactly that sort of behaviour that stops people from assuming good faith with your behaviour. WormTT( talk) 10:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Malke 2010 at 21:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a request to lift the topic ban on Tea Party movement. I abandoned the article in December 2010. After that I made rare talk page comments. One of the comments lead to my inclusion in the case. During the case, I participated in the moderated discussion and made positive contributions there. Before, during and after the case, I continued to write articles. The list is here, almost all of them on viruses. I've written 120 in 12 months.
If the topic ban were lifted, I would continue on as I've been doing, focusing on virology and virology related topics, avoiding political articles and politicized articles. These seem to attract editors more interested in engaging in battle for battle's sake, and I've no interest in that. Occasionally, I do vandal patrol and I would continue with that, and the welcoming committee. I'd like to help expand WikiProject:Viruses, but that will have to wait until much later in the year as RL is very busy at the moment.
@ARBS: Can someone please explain to me why none of you seem to be reading anything I've written here? I'd like to know what does it take to get the topic ban lifted? What specifically do I have to do/demonstrate to get this ban lifted? Thanks.
Having reviewed the case Malke's main error was extending SYTH and OR to third party sources. We absolutely expect, and need, reliable third parties to perform SYNTH and OR.
As Killer Chihuahua commented "The environment is toxic." and I believe that given that environment one might, in retrospect, be more forgiving of confrontational behaviour.
I believe that if the committee is not minded to grant the request, there is scope for a progressive statement making it clear that editing articles on broadly Republican [Democrat] (did I get that right? - [no I didn't] ) issues is no longer within the scope of the topic ban as long as editing with respect to TP articles and TP sections of articles is avoided.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 23:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
@ AGK:
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 08:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC).
Malke 2010, can you please tell us what went so horribly wrong last time that it required that you be topic-banned and explain to us how you plan to avoid such problems in the future? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Malke 2010: This finding was passed by ArbCom without dissent, including support from several still-serving Arbitrators. Whether you agree with it or not, the Arbitrators who supported it are likely to believe it is true and other Arbitrators are likely to start from the same assumption. Whether you think it is fair or not, arguing that it was flawed is almost certain to get you nowhere. Strategically, demonstrating a balanced use of academic sources and avoiding incivility in areas of controversy (ie. not near the (I presume) largely uncontroversial virology area) are more likely approaches to being given a second chance than is arguing the case was wrongly decided with respect to you. Even if ArbCom is wrong (about which I take no position), the chances of them admitting it is very low, and fighting for a reversal of their finding has the potential to be seen as battleground behaviour. You may see the topic ban as a badge of shame, and so want it removed, but the way to achieve that is to demonstrate that the reasons given for it do not apply now and leaving aside the question of whether they ever applied... that is, in my opinion, your best chance for achieving relaxation and ultimately removal of your ban. You don't have to declare that the finding is correct, but you do need to accept that it will be the starting point in their thinking. EdChem ( talk) 08:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Ohc ¡digame! at 02:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
It has been more that 18 months since the case. Since then, I have performed tens of thousands of edits to align date formats, and have also made significant contributions to numerous articles, including developing many DYKs and several good articles. Arbcom can have faith that I can stay away from articles about the movement and from drama relating thereto. I am seeking to remove a topic ban not so that I can go back to editing articles on that sect. The ban no longer serves any purpose except to potentially prevent me from contributing to China articles to the fullest extent and to the best of my expertise and ability, and also to edit a page in my own userspace. In addition, it would be important for me to once again to restored to an editor of good standing. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
However, the problem is not only China articles where there is mention of Falun Gong persecution, but any article where The Epoch Times or Shen Yun are mentioned; any article where ET is quoted or cited is technically off-limits to me. As an example, I am currently working through Category:CS1 errors: dates yet I cannot correct the cs1 date error in Shen Yun. More specifically and problematically, there are Robocop admins prowling, and I can see myself blocked and/or have my ban extended for technical breaches by making even minor changes to apparently innocuous or unrelated articles such as List of newspapers in Australia and Korkoro. I trust that you can see how the breadth of the TBAN is a restraint for me.
I now seek to repair my reputation – and this is the most important reason for this appeal. But if it pleases Arbcom, I would add a voluntary undertaking not to edit any article directly connected with FLG. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this ban barely passed in the first place, getting through by just one vote. And there's a good reason: It was an exceedingly ill-founded ban. As two arbitrators pointed out, the evidence for Ohconfucius's POV-pushing was weak. Frankly, the rest of the committee erred in forgetting that editing with a POV is not necessarily pushing a POV; sometimes, adding a POV to an article is balancing the article. (Frankly, Wikipedia has a serious systemic bias problem with these articles because of the unwillingness of Western editors to consider an anti-FG stance for fear of being seen as pro-PRC, and ArbCom fell into this trap hook, line and sinker.) Either way, if no one can show evidence of recent problematic behaviour, this appeal should be granted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive and 1 who is recused, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
The Committee resolves that remedy 2 (Ohconfucius topic-banned) in the Falun Gong 2 arbitration case is suspended for the period of one year from the date of passage of this motion. During the period of suspension, any uninvolved administrator may, as an arbitration enforcement action, reinstate the topic ban on Ohconfucius should Ohconfucius fail to follow Wikipedia behavior and editing standards while editing in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. In addition, the topic ban will be reinstated should Ohconfucius be validly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for misconduct in the topic area covered by the suspended restriction. Such a reinstatement may be appealed via the normal process for appealing arbitration enforcement actions. After one year from the date of passage of this motion, if the ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will be repealed.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Anythingyouwant ( talk) at 22:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
This seems like an opportune time to request lifting a topic-ban imposed on me in 2011. ArbCom has just finished a case (gun control) in which my contributions were scrutinized, so making this request now seems timely given that I am fresh on your minds. I was “indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed”. During that case, I repeatedly made very clear to ArbCom that I objected to accusers going over the word-limits, and said that I would not exceed my word-limits to address accusations which exceeded the accuser's word limits, unless given permission by ArbCom to do so, and I was not given permission. I don’t know what your rules say now, but back then they said this:
“ | Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely...Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs....Please reduce your evidence submission to fit within the appropriate limits. | ” |
I made very clear my objections to violation of this rule, and my intention not to violate it. [1] [2] [3] [4]
As to the two accusations back then which I did not address for the reasons described above, they were mostly false. On the first, all I did was quote a book, not realizing that a later edition changed the quote, and I didn't object at all when I was corrected (I was even thanked for correcting a further error made by the person who corrected me). On the second accusation, I made a policy edit merely intended to clarify what the policy already said, it would not have advanced my position anymore than anyone else's even if it had been a new policy requirement, I said upfront that it related to an article I recently edited, and I did not refer to the policy at the article talk page until weeks later (long after other editors had discussed and modified my edit at the policy page, and without having had any intention to refer to the policy---which intention unfortunately cannot be proved).
Even if you regard these accusations and the remedy as legitimate (I don't), then perhaps you might think that several years is "indefinite" enough. I'd appreciate that. If you would like further diffs to substantiate any of this statement of mine, then just ask. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Malke 2010 and Writegeist, thanks for chiming in, I'm grateful that you've watchlisted this page. Arbitrators, I apologize for getting overtly angry about MastCell's accusation, which seems like the latest in an endless string from him. Shrinks say you shouldn't bottle up your feelings, but maybe it's best to do so when dealing with your committee. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Alrighty then, I withdraw this request. The topic-ban is now for life, because I have no intention of ever coming back here. The project is worse off for ArbCom's toleration of, and apparent reliance upon, malicious and hateful accusations. It is worse off for picking and choosing which policies and rules to enforce and against whom. Anyway, it's been interesting. Cheers. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Brad, you asked what Anythingyouwant would do differently if his sanction is lifted. His statement boils down to one word: nothing. He's still re-litigating the ArbCom abortion case, not to mention his push to include fetal images in the abortion article which began more than 7 years ago. His recent editing in other controversial areas doesn't inspire confidence; while he was not sanctioned in the gun control case, he didn't exactly cover himself in glory either, falsely accusing one case participant of being a Nazi apologist and nearly challenging another to a duel. What basis is there for lifting this sanction? MastCell Talk 03:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Re. comments by Anythingyouwant and AGK on the permissible length of evidence. The instruction at the Evidence page is clear: Keep your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely. As Anythingyouwant rightly says, he complied with the instruction and his accusers didn't. (And was the rule-breaking evidence from his accusers refactored or removed?) Further, Anythingyouywant says he requested equal leeway and it was not granted. I.e. his disadvantage was not only known, it was actually enforced. So it concerns me to see AGK discount a cornerstone of Anything's submission with "named parties have a 1000 word limit on their evidence (not 500 words as claimed)." If AGK is presenting fiction as fact, I trust AGK will now strike the comments. Otherwise, I await AGK's supporting evidence. There's a strong whiff of kangaroo about an arbitration proceeding that's weighted against the accused by enforcing one written rule for the accused and another, unwritten and contradictory, for the accusers. Writegeist ( talk) 01:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Writegeist. And I can see why Anythingyouwant is feeling so frustrated. He's not being heard. The accusers should have had any of their evidence over the limit removed as would have been done to anyone else. Anythingyouwant kept to the limit and clearly pointed out where the others had not, yet nothing was done. That would make anyone angry and certainly leave them with a terrible frustrated sense that they'd not been given ample opportunity to defend themselves.
As for the diffs by MastCell, I don't see anything there that the other side wasn't doing. He wasn't topic banned from Gun control for a reason. I think that shows right there he's capable of editing the Abortion article again. As for any concern over his wanting to put photos into the article, he's stated he'd only do that with consensus. He doesn't seem to be saying he'd do as he pleased. There are many articles on Wikipedia with necessary photos that don't suit everyone including Anencephaly. An RfC on the question would easily resolve any issue.
I know you're all very busy with these cases and it's sometimes easier to just discount an editor when he gets angry, but as I'm sure you realize, if you ruled against everyone who got angry on Wikipedia we'd not have any editors. I think this is worth putting a kettle on and having a second look. Malke 2010 ( talk) 03:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Where a process has been used in an unequal manner, the claim that no change would have occurred had the process been handled equally - is weak. The argument that a person who raises this argument is ipso facto going to be found wrong is weaker. And the argument that the complainant was wrong about the 500 word limit is weakest yet. I have no idea on whether the sanction ought to be modified, all I know is the arguments made against it fail to convince me otherwise. Collect ( talk) 14:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Lightbreather ( talk) at 15:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Gaijin42 and Scalhotrod notified here [14] and here. [15]
Yesterday, Scalhotrod removed a "See also" link three times from the Gun politics in the U.S. article, as documented here: [16], [17] (scroll down), and [18]. Rather than then make a fourth revert, he unilaterally moved/renamed the article, as documented here: [19] (I reverted it and asked him to talk about it first, but he moved/renamed it again.)
Within hours of these edits, this discussion was posted on Scal's talk page by Gaijin42. [20] I don't know what the Wiki-term is for this, but it seems like coaching to me. It's not specifically about gun control, but it's related to material Scal had been warring with me over off-and-on for five days. Is this kind of behavior OK?
I provided a direct quote to a policy/guideline. Something I do for many users, including Lightbreather, for which she has specifically thanked me for. [22] including her mentioning my helping her with policy multiple times during the ArbCom case. In this case, I did not edit any page or talk page of gun control, and did not discus any edits, arguments, or editors involved.
I had planned on asking for a clarification of the topic ban myself, but was going to wait for things to calm down first User:Gaijin42/GunControlArbClarification Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above)
I found the move frustrating, because it was clearly the type of edit that people would like to discuss first. But there was no discussion and it seemed to be a somewhat heated move that was directly in response [24]. I admit my knee jerk reaction was to move the article back and start a discussion but I found I lack privileges to move over redirects. In hind sight that probably saved me from a heated edit. But the unlevel playing field also adds to the frustration. But I too find the coaching (or appearance thereof) concerning. Thenub314 ( talk) 16:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree completely with Beeblebrox's comment. Gaijin42, a lot of admins came to your defense and asked that you not be site-banned. I also supported you. It's disappointing that you are persisting with this. My best advice is for you to take everything associated with this topic off your watchlist. Find some other topic area on Wikipedia and start improving that area. Getting involved with something else will make a difference.
The following edits were made after five arbiters here advised the editor not to test the limits their topic ban,
I am at a loss to understand how the editor could possibly think that editing the Stand-your-ground law article would not be a gross violation of their topic ban. — ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 07:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I have blocked Gaijin42 for two days for breaching the topic ban with these edits which blatantly relate to the interaction of gun control and the stand-your-ground law. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
After discussing it further with Gaijin42 on their talk page (which is worthwhile reading for the arbs as it explains Gaijin42's confusion), just clarifying that the block was based on the first edit to stand-your-ground law. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I note that most of the comments in the 'Arbitrator views and discussion' section pre-date the above statement by Callanecc concerning a further clear violation of the topic ban. Accordingly, I ask that those ArbCom members who have not yet done so reconsider their position, in the light of this evidence. It seems to me self-evident that #Gaijin42 is unwilling to comply with the topic ban (the edit being clearly within "the social, historical and political context of [firearms] regulation") and accordingly must face the sanctions that were made clear to him when it was imposed - namely, that he be indefinitely site-banned from the English Language Wikipedia. His assertion that he was asking for the scope of the topic ban to be clarified prior to making the edit can hardly justify his actions - if he didn't understand the scope, the onus was clearly on him to get clarification first, not to make an edit, in the hope that it was out-of-scope. This was not the action of a person acting in good faith. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I have several comments to make about this issue. First, this "clarification request" is in my opinion the result of WP:Wikihounding by User Lightbreather as indicated by her comment here. Second, I personally fail to see how an article related to self-defense is anything but tangentially gun related as best. The last way I would characterize Gaijin's actual edits to this article as a "gross violation" of his topic ban (see list above). I disagree with the Andy's extremely broad application of the banned subject. The article in question is far more about legal and civil rights issues than "guns". Gaijin has asked repeatedly for this exact clarification. Third, the accuser (Lightbreather) in this case has begun to openly allude to her bias or viewpoint towards gun related articles and the associated editors here and here. In the absence of the topic blocked editors, this User gone on what I would describe as a " gun related article binge" that is leading myself and others to question the neutrality of the edits. This has been observed by one User here along with an outright accusation of WP:OWNERSHIP activity here. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 19:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
So if I understand this process correctly, the offense comes down to this edit:
...which initially broke the topic ban and subsequent edits were just "fuel for the fire". The evaluation of the offense is because more often than not, the occurrence or application of a self-defense law like Stand Your Ground (I assume attributed to the article sources) involves a firearm and that is why the block was assigned. Is this a fair and accurate assessment?
I'm not trying to be flippant and please do not read any sarcastic tone into my comment and question. I would like to earn Admin status someday and I sincerely wish to understand how these proceedings function. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 18:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Fæ ( talk) at 12:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The restrictions were stated as:
I would like the committee to remove the restrictions. They are so broad that they remain blight major barrier to my return to productive work as a Wikipedian editor, my future employment as a Wikipedian in Residence, and ensure I cannot create proposals for, nor take a lead in, future Wikipedia projects.
Failing removal, replacing with a narrow and well-specified restriction that is relevant to the original complaint in 2011 (which never went to dispute resolution as it was resolved amicably with the other editor), would prove far less damaging, such as restricted from adding external links on BLP articles to sites featuring sexually graphic material, excluding external links to germane non-profit/charity archives with educational medical or political material, such as the Wellcome Digital Library, British Library or similar respected archive or museum. However even this seems excessive, when there are sufficient members of the Wikipedia community closely following my edits to ensure that any problematic link would be rapidly challenged and widely discussed for consensus.
The previous discussion confirmed that members of Arbcom are not of one mind on how to read the restrictions, leaving them interpreted as broadly as technically possible. This stops editing where there would be any way of interpreting the topic relating to sexuality, women's rights, or of LGBT cultural interest. Specific examples included:
Specific projects that these restrictions have made impossible, damaging content improvement for Wikipedia:
In January it was suggested that I create new BLPs to demonstrate my competence (I improved several hundred before the Arbcom case). I have created the following articles in the last couple of months, mostly on living women:
Two of these, along with my photograph, were featured on Signpost as part of promoting Wikipedia's improvement during Women's History Month.
I believe the broad restriction was partly in place out of concern for my welfare. My interactions on controversial LGBT topics, LGBT safety rating for Wikimania bids and Ticket:2014033110012549, show that I can handle difficult discussion on LGBT topics and BLPs without inflaming debate.
Fae's statement implies that the committee decision is affecting his real-life employment. This does not mean the ban was unjustified, and I am not impressed he would claim otherwise (or by the tone of his statement in general). As this subtextual martyrdom is the same sort of conduct that led to Fae's ban in the first place, I question whether he has reformed. AGK [•] 07:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The Committee is explicitly required to act in the best interests of the English Wikipedia - it is not in their remit to consider how their decisions may or may not affect someone's personal life. In my opinion, this amendment request should succeed or fail solely on the basis of whether the Committee believes that removing or relaxing Fæ's restrictions will be a good or bad thing for the Encyclopaedia. Whichever they decide though, it is important that the reasoning is explained so that all parties may understand why that decision was reached. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess input from the Committee other interested people about questions 2 and 3 might be useful to. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Partly per Seraphimblade, I don't think that this is very well worded motion as it is not easy to interpret. I think it would be clearer to replace the second restriction, "topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed", with something like
(I realise that these options differ in whether the single year 1000 AD is allowed or not allowed, but unless Fæ indicates otherwise I highly doubt this will be significant). Thryduulf ( talk) 07:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The question that ArbCom needs to address is how they are to manage restrictions on editors. If the intention is that certain editors are to carry restrictions forever, then be honest and say so. It is cruel to offer false hope and the editor affected at least can make a decision on whether they wish to continue editing at all under those restrictions or whether they will channel their energies into something else.
On the other hand, if Arbcom believes that no-one is irredeemable, then it would make sense to encourage whatever processes of rehabilitation are considered suitable. For infinitely banned users we have the standard offer, but I am unaware of any similar guidance for indefinitely restricted users. Were I in your position, I would be looking for clearly defined milestones that a user could aim toward in order to show that they no longer need restrictions to be able to edit productively and without undue conflict. If you are serious about bringing editors back into 'normal' editing, then you ought to be marking out timescales and expectations for targets that restricted editors could achieve to demonstrate their progress. Simply leaving them without any direction and having to guess how to demonstrate their progress is just not good enough. If that's too much work for ArbCom - and heaven knows your workload is heavy enough - then find some reliable way of delegating the tutoring of restricted editors back into full editorship. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Has Fae ever fully disclosed every single one of his sock accounts to the Committee as he was required to do? If so, please tell us that he has so the community can let that matter drop. Cla68 ( talk) 01:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The text of the original decision, with which I strongly disagreed, nonetheless finds only that "Fæ has added poor quality material to biographies of living people and, on one occasion, added a highly inappropriate link." So far as I understand, the link referred to is one which related a film "Superhead" to the person who comes up if you search that term on Google. I have to ask: why is such an anemic finding as this used to place Fae in what sounds like a very special category of people who are viewed as unrehabilitable? The repeated use of the term "at the moment" below seems out of place for a two year old case. How many years is does a moment last? Also, Arbcom has failed to explain how any editor is supposed to know when WP:WELLKNOWN does not really apply to information which is well known. So far as I know, no one has actually written any policy against providing information about porn stars, yet the clear lesson here is that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy competitor to Google on this sort of information.
The message I infer from this is that ArbCom believes it has to take a realistic view toward political issues, which includes such necessities as ensuring that articles about famous people don't include unpleasant information about them. Truth must take a backseat to power, and a part of that is that it is essential never to say it openly. Nonetheless, even assuming this unalterable reality, it's not clear why Fae has to take the brunt of it. And is there any reason why ArbCom would need to restrict Fae's editing about academic sexuality? Surely the prohibition could be limited to BLPs of sexual performers, while permitting him to do good work with BLPs of researchers doing sexuality studies or people advocating on LGBT issues, etc., without preventing anyone from keeping their unmentionables unmentioned.
Wikipedia's treatment of one of its best admins and prolific editors, which ignored and worked hand in glove with a cyberbullying campaign off-site, is appalling. Even so, it doesn't matter that much. Wikipedia remains firmly on a downward course in editing and readership and I fear the end may not be that far off. I hope that Fae will find a way to get involved in a successor prepared to take up the cause after Wikipedia's final foundering. Wnt ( talk) 05:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to take this opportunity to publicly distance myself from a statement I made in 2012 following ArbCom's decision to ban Fæ from editing Wikipedia. In retrospect, I would say that I found him to be very aggressive towards other users at times, and that he handled criticism rather poorly. But the parts where I said that I have "absolutely no confidence in Fæ's honour, or his integrity", and that he will "never regain even a modicum of the trust necessary to be welcomed back here"? I don't stand by those statements today at all. I suppose I was responding more out of emotion than anything, and was upset by his attempt to subvert the committee through requesting a WMF official to intercede (at least, that's how it was presented). However, looking back, I believe he was on a downward spiral at the time. We all go through hard times where we say things we really shouldn't have. It's also unfair to cast all of the blame on him; he was the victim of a sustained campaign of harassment, after all.
So the question is, should we consider relaxing the restrictions at this time? I think there needs to be a demonstrated understanding of what constitutes a reliable third-party source, and how important it is that the citations used in an article assert precisely what they are referencing. This threshold is obviously amplified for BLPs. If Fæ can show that he has learned from his past mistakes, then it would serve no real purpose to keep the topic ban in place. For now, I think it would be best if he took the time to develop a better track record of conscientious article writing, and then return here in October-November to submit a second appeal. Once he has shown a greater understanding of his past issues, I would support lifting the active sanctions against him. Kurtis (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
There are 4.5m+ articles on Wikipedia. Fewer than 1% of those involve the restrictions that Fae is barred from, yet many of those are amongst the most controversial and prone to problematic content. Fae - via his current, and previous accounts - has previously proved that he cannot be trusted to edit BLPs in this area (nor, indeed, to deal with relevant images in those areas), so I don't see any reason for Wikipedia to expose itself (again) to possible problems with no upside whatsoever. Black Kite ( talk) 18:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Now, I'm open to a relaxation, but not a removal at the moment. I will need to think about what relaxation would be appropriate - and would be interested in hearing from other committee members to see if one is even worth proposing. WormTT( talk) 07:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
On top of this, you've implied that you are restricted from areas that you don't appear to be. Suffrage, for example, is about gender, not sexuality - and if you cannot tell the difference between those terms, you should not be working in either area. LGBT cultural outreach should not require you to be editing the BLPs. If you are leading by example, there are many non-BLP LGBT articles. The Assyrian statue you checked with us that it was outside the scope of the restriction, we agreed. There wasn't confusion there, no Arbs suggested it was a problem.
@ Cla68: per this, Fae needed to pass the committee a list of his accounts prior to being unbanned. I, for one, was satisfied with his disclosures and consider the matter resolved. WormTT( talk) 12:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive and 2 who are recused, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Proposed:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Lightbreather ( talk) at 00:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
N/A
In the past week I have been attacked and harassed by two IP address users who have been blocked:
and another one appears to be started up:
The purpose, I believe is to try to bait me and/or discourage me from editing. This could be a problem for other editors of gun-control related pages, too - pro-gun or gun-control. This could cut down on trips to admin boards. I've never requested an AR amendment before, and I am not working on my computer, so please forgive me if I mess it up. Lightbreather ( talk) 00:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) at 08:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The Scientology topic is currently covered by both article probation and discretionary sanctions which allow a much greater latitude to deal with disruptive behaviour. I'm requesting that the Committee vacate the article probation provision in preference to the discretionary sanctions. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I can see no real reason for the article to have redundant sanctions to the broader topic, and can't see any reason for the redundancy, with perhaps the one proviso that if for whatever reason the remaining sanctions get lifted, perhaps having the article probation restored or at least consideration of such restoration. John Carter ( talk) 19:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Remedy 7 of the COFS arbitration case is vacated with immediate effect. Any extant enforcement actions taken under the remedy remain in force, and shall be treated as if they were imposed under standard discretionary sanctions authorized by remedy 4.1 of the Scientology case.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by ~ Adjwilley ( talk) at 06:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I recently stumbled across a dispute centered around Chiropractic, and became aware that the article and subject area are under discretionary sanctions under the Pseudoscience case. My question is: how does the pseudoscience case apply to alternative medicine generally? Where do alt-med (and chiropractic specifically) fall on the spectrum of "obvious pseudoscience", "generally considered pseduoscience", "questionable science", and "alternative theoretical formulations" that is outlined in the case? The case file doesn't seem to mention alternative medicine specifically, but apparently discretionary sanctions are being issued in the area, which is why I am asking for clarification. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 06:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Chiropractic is covered because it has has pseudoscientific elements. And it's doubly covered because the sanctions were expanded to cover fringe science, and chiropractic is fringe medicine (fringe medicine being a subset of fringe science). The arbitration case doesn't need to mention alternative medicine.
Sourced proof:
A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) (this source is already in the article!)-- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@Neuraxis. These two sources talk about the current state of chiropractic. They are not "used in a historical context". -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
If a topic is reliably-sourced as being a Pseudoscience / fringe science, then it should be under discretionary sanctions. The Arbcom only needs to clarify that.
The rest are content disputes, using reliable sources to establish / deny the pseudoscience in each separate article. Arbcom shouldn't decide content disputes in a given article, unless the community has shown that it can't solve the matter. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Enric has decided to cherry pick a sentence, used in a historical context. This is a common tactic. However, it ignores the fundamental question: Are manual and manipulative therapy for MSK conditions pseudoscientific and fringe? This impacts chiropractic since it is the largest purveyor of manipulative services, but also impacts on osteopathic medicine, physical therapy who also use manipulation as a means of relieving MSK pain. So, the findings here apply equally to all health professions who use manipulative therapy as a clinical intervention for dealing with MSK pain. While I do agree that the non-musculoskeletal use of manipulative therapies isn't mainstream, given that its only 10% of practice this should not be disproportionately weighed against the fact that 90% of manipulative treatment is directly towards spinal/MSK issues. Given that the mainstream of the chiropractic profession has evolved with a common identity focusing on conservative spine care, the notion that chiropractic practice (and spinal manipulation by extension) is 100% pseudoscientific does not reflect the current reality. This ongoing discussion [30] specifically discusses this very topic and is relevant here. Lastly, we need use a global focus and not just a US-centric POV.
This list is by no means exhaustive, but rather a starting point to show evidence that scientific practice and research is not uncommon, but reflects the mainstream of the profession currently. Regards, Neuraxis ( talk) 18:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I don't even see why this is a question. Chiropractic practices are firmly rooted in pseudoscience. That some small subset of their treatments have beneficial effects doesn't mean that the foundation is solid, it's simply an an example of the "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" principle. The same reasoning applies to the various alternative medicines.
In a very real sense, these are more important topics than the more esoteric pseudosciences. No one is going to hurt themselves because they believe in cold fusion. They can hurt themselves by forgoing legitimate medical treatment in favour of quackery.— Kww( talk) 16:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a not unreasonable question regarding the definition of pseudoscience for our purposes, and it might help to have some clear lines of demarkation on this point. One possibility is to go by what people involved in the field of pseudoscience consider pseudoscience. Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles is a list I generated some time ago based on articles included in one Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, and I find that one of its longer articles specifically is about chiropractic, which would I think be a reasonable indicator of how that particular topic might qualify. I also would believe that, in all likelihood, anything with a separate article or section in that source or other reference-type overview works on pseudoscience would probably qualify under the sanctions. But there is a very big gray area of where pseudoscience, parapsychology, paranormal and occult do and do not overlap, and it might be beneficial if we could have some sort of specific indicator of where the topics do and do not overlap here. So, for instance, some "occult"-ish topics make some sort of claims to being "scientific" in some way, like maybe Taoism's registers, which are effectively theological equivalents of the Tennessee Blue Book and the Official Manual State of Missouri, among others, might qualify as "pseudoscientific" or might not. Other potential gray areas of possible overlap exist between these topics as well. John Carter ( talk) 18:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Reply to Adjwilley's Reply to Kww, Enric Naval:
Reply to Neuraxis:
Reply to Newyorkbrad
Reply to Thryduulf
Reply to Neuraxis
Reply to John Carter
Reply to Neuraxis
The discretionary sanctions apply to "articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted". I understand this to include pages related to any topic that has been discussed in reliable sources as constituting or being related to pseudoscience and fringe science, or which is described in its Wikipedia article or categories as such (including, in either case, situations where the classification as pseudoscience or fringe science is disputed). What the terms pseudoscience and fringe science mean is described in their articles. On this basis, each case would need to be examined individually. I don't think that the entirety of the topics grouped under alternative medicine are within the scope of the sanctions, because our article about this topic says that alternative medicine is defined as being "not based on evidence gathered using the scientific method", which can be understood to mean that it is thought to be outside of the concept of science altogether. For instance, practices such as faith healing do not claim to be and are not normally discussed as scientific practices, and the scientific study of their practice is normally ordinary science (theology, sociology etc.) rather than a fringe science itself. However, I imagine that there are many "alternative" medicinal practices which are discussed in terms of their scientific validity, and these can fall within the scope of the sanctions under the conditions described above.
Also, as a practical matter, the enforcement log shows that editors have in the past been sanctioned in relation to the alternative medicine topics chiropractic, homeopathy (both many times), mucoid plaque and orthomolecular medicine. Past practice, therefore, indicates that administrators have readily accepted these topics as being subject to discretionary sanctions. However, the majority of sanctions seem to focus on issues related to cosmology, energy (cold fusion, etc.) and the ideas of one Rupert Sheldrake, rather than on alternative medicine. Sandstein 16:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the most productive use of people's time here is not to determine whether Chiropractic is within the scope or not, but rather to work out how to determine whether Topic X is within the scope or not. The suggestion of "if a reliable source about pseudoscience considers it pseudoscientific then it is within the scope" seems like a good starting point for that discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Kww: That is indeed my point, but I'm really not interested in which topics actually fall under the classification or not, nor which of those are actually pseudoscience because that doesn't matter. I aim only to provide a test that can be applied to any dispute to determine whether it is eligible for DS under the provisions of this case or not. As Newyorkbrd points out, whether something is actually pseudoscience or not can be a matter of opinion, so it seems best to make the categorisation "things that are called pseudoscience" rather than "things that are pseudoscience" so that the actual status becomes irrelevant and people can get on with settling the dispute at hand rather than arguing about something else as well. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
See diff. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
Pseudoscience}}
.
T. Canens (
talk) 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)