This topic was erroneously posted [1] at WP:ANI. Moving it here, requesting input. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Links added by: Jehochman Talk 13:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
It should be noted that when saying that the venue is inappropriate and closing this thread User:Jehochman seems to be ignoring what was said [2] by a member of the commetee:
If he is aware of this then I would invite him to tell us where does he think that the "consensus among administrators" for an appeal should be found if not here.-- Pokipsy76 ( talk) 07:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
HRCC ( talk) 15:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm going on definition of terrorism. It's pretty thoroughly thrashed out. If reverting to a favoured version is considered disruptive, then that makes two of us, Francis. Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 16:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Per this arbitration case Afrocentrism and Race of ancient Egyptians (the latter of which is now titled Ancient Egyptian race controversy) are on article probation. Big-dynamo ( talk · contribs) is flagrantly trolling the talk page at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, and has now descended to flaming and personal attacks, despite being aware of the probation (thanks to the template at the top) and having received a direct warning from me in my last post to the talk page. Please ban him from the article and its talk for a good while. I would do this myself but am "involved": the article itself is largely my handiwork. Thank you. Moreschi ( talk) 12:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 21:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
In this edit, Martinphi removes a reliable source by an extremely respected scientist ( Sean M. Carroll) that was added by me [4]. I believe that this is a violation of the restrictions imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. I will admit, I had forgotten about this rule, but was reminded it a few days ago [5] [6]. Therefore I will not revert Martinphi, but should there be some enforcement measure here?
ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Arbcom case: The Troubles.
Setanta747 is on probation from the above case, and is limited to one revert per article per week, which was imposed here. He has reverted twice on Category:Real Irish Republican Army to this version - first revert and second revert. He has also breached his probation on Template:IrishL reverting to this version - first revert and second revert. Domer48 'fenian' 07:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Please see [8], [9], and the talk page (all discussion, as far as I can tell, was moved to the bottom). The timing is odd. Usually I wouldn't revert content disputes per 1rr, but I saw the BLP page again and realised that in this case it would not just be 'okay', but expected. thx-- Asdfg 12345 12:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Lokyz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject since mid-December to a general civility "don't create a battleground" sanction (see the "Digwuren sanction" template and updated ArbCom ruling for details). Lokyz has already been blocked for incivility once (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive19#Lokyz), although that block was soon challenged - see report of Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars for some insights. Recently Lokyz - who certainly is aware of the need for civility - has launched a new and appalling personal attack against me: I hope you woudn't try to use AK memoirs as a source. I know the financial power of this organization veterans. Are you sponsored by them? I am highly offended with this slander of my motivations, and I hope appropriate sanctions will be used to prevent such harassment from taking place again.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
ArbCom case: Episodes and Characters 2
Per the above Arbitration, involved parties were instructed "...to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question."
Eusebeus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) redirected an article without apparent consensus in December of 2007. I found this article on the 15th of August, and restored it. Following that, Eusebeus consistently disregarded attempts at communication to explain why he was continuing to redirect the article in question, choosing instead to make claims of AfD and consensus in his edit summaries but would not provide said evidence, to the point of deleting communication attempts left at his talk page. He did not reply to any attempts at communication on any of the involved talk pages until after mediation was requested.
The mediator, East718, engaged the involved parties and asked if mediation was still required. Eusebeus did not reply, and redirected the article (and others in the same topic) after ceasing to respond to an ongoing mediation attempt. These redirections were once again reverted by an admin. An administrator was consulted, and recommended reporting this at this location for further inquiry, as it appears that this is a continuation of the behaviors that brought about the Arbcom case originally. Clarification is requested. Kinsloft ( talk) 16:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
User:ScienceApologist is subject to a
restriction which enjoins him to refrain from uncivil editing. It seems that he has been blocked for violating this restriction about
7 times already.
The background to this new incident is an AFD. This was closed today as a Keep but, ignoring this consensus, one of the minority viewpoint in the AFD discussion immediately started a motion to merge the article away. The discussion was but minutes old when User:ScienceApologist appeared and immediately edited the article which was to be kept, turning it into a redirect. He then pronounced it buried, describing it as a piece of shit. In so doing, it seems that he showed contempt for the AFD process, the Arbcom restriction, the fresh merge discussion and that he was triumphantly uncivil to boot. In the aftermath of a contested AFD, such intemperate and precipitate behaviour is not conducive to a reconciliation.
Note that the trail for this may be somewhat muddled now because another of the minority AFD viewpoint - User:Ronz has been making numerous moves and edits of the articles and talk pages in question, contrary to the consensus established in the AFD. I asked the closing admin, User:Sandstein, to intervene but his request for a pause for deliberation has been ignored.
I am a regular patroller of AFDs and don't recall seeing such a flagrant breach of the established consensus before. When an AFD does not go as one wishes, the correct procedure is DRV. But the main offence to consider here is User:ScienceApologist's renewed incivility and disruption.
Finally, please excuse me if I have not followed protocol exactly in this matter as I have not been here before and so am not certain of the correct process which is somewhat daunting. Thank you. Colonel Warden ( talk) 22:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
See his response on his own talk page too. Blocked 31 hours for disruption and incivility and 2 months ban from Falun Gong. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi. It'd be great if an uninvolved admin could check out the statements of Einsteindonut. This user says that CJCurrie "He has such an obvious anti-Israel agenda on Wikipedia" and links to a website attacking Currie. He says explicitly that he will ignore cautions, e.g. to focus on content not contributors. He readily accuses other editors of bad faith ("you inspiring an edit war") and act belligerently ("Since Shabazz essentially told me to get lost, I think I'm going to stick around and get LOUDER. Also, I'm going to get many more of my friends (with whom I do respect and with whom have NOBLE intentions) to start getting involved---because this is F'in ridiculous.") Also states that he does not AGF ("As far as "assume good faith" - I do not, especially when someone honors Malik Shabazz with their name....)
I have already cautioned people on the Talk page about the ArbCom discretionary sanctions for I-P articles and put a specific note on Einsteindonut's Talk page. I'd recommend a significantly firmer response and would like an uninvolved editor to intercede. Thanks very much. HG | Talk 02:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Case and section: DreamGuy 2: DreamGuy is subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
This last seems like an uncivil assumption of bad faith. Has he broken his edit restriction? (And if not, please somebody watch the page...) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
At least keep watch over this reverter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Oh my. I have just been trying to discuss a separate matter with DreamGuy, and as the user has failed to substantiate his edit summaries which I deem bad faith accusations, I came here to report it. I have looked at the above, and it is some bad faith edit summaries, but they are borderline. Take a look at this one: "comment... known meat puppet of Elonka's is major editor if the Essay created by Elonka and now voting here also in true tag teaming style - ironic, eh?" At User_talk:DreamGuy#meat_puppetry_accusation I asked the user to provide evidence of this meat puppetry accusation, but none has been forthcoming despite having quite clearly requested then, days to respond with diffs, and having been told on my user talk that "a community of editors (including a number of admins) have agreed that Fat Cigar is a meat puppet". If this is an open and shut case of meat puppetry, diffs should be easy to provide. Instead I am being given thinly veiled accusations of being a hot head, blind, irresponsible, etc. Without diffs that predate the accusation, there was no reason to attack Elonka and FatCigar in this way, and the arbcom remedies were intended to stop this rot. John Vandenberg ( chat) 04:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Boy, the accusations sure do fly all the time. Once again the people making them seem to be trying to use the ArbCom decision against me as some sort of excuse for assuming bad faith and so forth. These latest complaints are just more of the same over the top claims.
As far as Pmanderson's complaint above, I can't for the life of me figure out what he means by "DreamGuy appeared out of nowhere, making exact reversions" -- the fact of the matter is that I have been on the article all along, watchlisting it, and looking at the edits over the past year by other editors and approving them. It was some new editor who came out of nowhere (new user account with limited history) and tried to move the whole article by copying and pasting the text to another article, and then Pmanderson came back after a more than year gap to revert back to *his* exact old version of the article, adding back the claims about the origin of the Chimera myth that are simply not the accepted beliefs of modern mythologists and authors. Pmanderson and this new editor, joined some other editor who is posting comments there as if he has been editing the article all along and that they had a consensus I was ignoring but has never edited it all at as far as I can see, seem to have immediately jumped to making personal attacks on myself, setting up a supposed consensus before discussing it. He also claims "He also moved it, apparently without discussion.", which is silly, as the article has been at that name for more than a year... it was someone else who came out of nowhere to move it with a copy and paste. Certainly that kind of odd behavior (false claims about consensus, who moved what, etc.) constitutes as bizarre actions, but it looks like he wants to try to exaggerate that statement into an attack of some sort. The bottom line is that Pmanderson is actually guilty of the reverting, making sweeping changes without attempts at establishing consensus, etc., and apparently decided to jump here to make a report hoping that people won't take any time to look into it and just assume that he's right.
John Vandenberg above is all upset that I pointed out that a brand new editor with no edit history showed up to strongly and aggressively support another editor in an RFC, and then continued on to support that same editor in edits to an essay and on her talk page during a recall attempt. A number of other editors have noticed this, including admins User:Jehochman in this edit (and others) and User:Bishonen in this edit directly supporting me against John's complaint). Those are just two I turned up rather quickly -- those are certainly not either of those two editors' first comments on the puppet account, nor are they the only editors who noticed it. They labeled Fat Cigar a sockpuppet, but I took the added extra step of assuming good faith and referred that user as a meatpuppet instead, as a sockpuppet would be deliberate attempts to deceive and a meatpuppet could be more innocent (a friend hopping in starting a new account thinking he is helping, or whatever), albeit still a major problem. John Vandenberg for some unknown reason decided to treat this as some huge offense and to go after me personally... his communication always focused on the ArbCom decision on me instead of the normal process of identifying and dealing with puppets.
The fact of the matter here is that ever since the ArbCom decision was made I have been hounded by people who constantly assume bad faith about my actions and, whenever any sort of disagreement comes up, use it as a club against me to attempt to get me to do what they want me to do instead of following what the decision was supposed to uphold: that everyone here should be civil and follow policies. This ArbCom decision was intended to promote better good faith dealings between editors, but instead all it did was put a target on my head with people who prefer to use it as a shortcut to prevailing in whatever conflict they have instead of trying to resolve that conflict by normal methods of communication and fair dealings. Nobody who disagrees with any edits I make even has to try to resolve anything anymore, they just treat me as a second class citizen they can either ignore or antagonize and then go run off to report me.
Frankly, the best thing ArbCom can do to improve editor cooperation is to unambiguously tell editors that just because I have an ArbCom sanction against me doesn't mean they get to ignore policies themselves whenever they are in any conflict that involves me. Pmanderson's complaint here is a transparent attempt to prevail in an edit conflict that he started up again a year later after failing to get consensus the first time around, and John Vandenberg seems to want to dispute what the other editors said about Fat Cigar's puppeting but for some reason chose me to go after. DreamGuy ( talk) 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
For the record, I do not know who Fat Cigar is, and it is categorically false for DreamGuy to imply that Fat Cigar is acting at my request, such as to say that Fat Cigar is a "known meatpuppet of Elonka's". [20] [21] This is yet another violation of DreamGuy's ArbCom sanctions, as he has recently been making many other false statements about me and others. [22] [23] [24] [25] I have cautioned him at his talkpage, [26] [27] but the cautions do not seem to be working, as he is continuing to make bizarre attacks. I therefore recommend a block in order to enforce the ArbCom sanctions. His block log is already quite long, [28] so at this point I would recommend a block of at least one week. -- El on ka 07:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
<- Arcayne, I agree with you that repeated bad behavior needs to be addressed. If DreamGuy is causing problems, and if past blocks have not been effective deterrent, perhaps a mentor would help. If that fails, stronger measures may be needed. Is there anybody who would be willing to mentor DreamGuy? DreamGuy, would you be willing to accept a mentor? Jehochman Talk 18:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
(Outdenting.) I'm looking—a little incredulously—at Elonka's remark to Jehochman above—"you have been told repeatedly, by multiple admins, to disengage from situations involving me, I strongly recommend that you follow that advice". Since the conversation (or, largely, monologue) has moved so far since then, I don't think anybody would notice a response from me to Elonka up there. I'm putting it here, I hope that's not confusing. Here goes:
Oh, that's appropriate, Elonka, to tell Jehochman to disengage from situations involving you. This is primarily a situation involving DreamGuy. You're on the extreme outer edge of it. For you to come here to deny knowledge of Fat Cigar is fine, naturally—I for one believe you—but issuing advice about what punishment you would "recommend" for your ancient adversary DreamGuy is not fine, and if you had better judgment, you wouldn't be doing it. You have a COI about DreamGuy. That's putting it mildly. Please disengage.
Bishonen |
talk 18:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC).
reply
<- I agree that a block is the appropriate response, that's what ArbCom gave us for a solution and I don't think we should be requiring admins to water that all down with offers for mentorship etc. Anyone wants to offer that on their own and then present the success of the offer here as mitigation, go for it. On the other hand, Elonka, an indef block is not supported by the ArbCom decision and would have to be independently warranted, which it certainly is not. I count two logged blocks. The max block continues to be one week, unless I'm reading things wrong.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
What's missing from this discussion as always is context. Dreamguy's WP:OWN comment came after PmAnderson baited DM on the talkpage about his "notorious intemperan[ce]", while the "POV-pushing" comment which Akhileus later reported came after this patronizing comment from him.
What concerns me most about this report is that it appears there are still some folks who are prepared to use the most minor incidents to try and get rid of someone with whom they disagree. That is not what AE exists for, that is called gaming the system and it is surely behaviour that should not be encouraged. Instead of sanctioning Dreamguy, perhaps it's time we started considering sanctions against people who make frivolous reports like this as in my opinion they are far more disruptive—in terms of the time and energy wasted by the community—than anything the defendant has been accused of here. Gatoclass ( talk) 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
As a sitting arbitrator I prefer not to comment on threads on this board, because disputes here sometimes return to the Arbitration Committee and I then want to look at them with an open mind. However, I note that the challenged edits here are 6 days old, and DreamGuy has done little editing since then. Given that there is not a clear consensus for enforcement, it strikes me that this thread could best be closed as stale, with a general request for civility and decorum from all editors on the article in question. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
MBisanz has full protected this article for two weeks citing the "Footnooted Quotes" arbcom ruling. According to that ruling, the protection can only be overturned per consensus developed through discussion here on the Arbitration enforcement board. Thus I am creating this section for the discussion that is sure to come. Mike R ( talk) 15:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
It's very important that we get BLP articles right. History shows that when a major news story breaks, there is typically a frenzy of editing on the related article (e.g. the Virginia Tech shootings). This period is typically marked by short periods of full protection, longer periods of semi-protection, and lots of reverts. It's painful, but in the end it generates the right article. The problems with POV pushing can and should be resolved by strict use of the blocking policy. But extended full protection goes against our basic principle that content is created through public editing. In previous cases, articles generated by a writing frenzy have turned out well, and I am sure that Palin's article will as well. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Full protection is too much -- semi-protection should do the trick. My opinion. -- nemonoman ( talk) 15:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Absolutely protect We don't need to cowtow to wikilawyers when it comes to BLPs. rootology ( C)( T) 15:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I oppose this protection. A highly trafficked article whose subject is in the front pages of all newspapers world-wide, and about which new information is emerging cannot and should not be protected from editing. Vandals and BLP violations can be dealt with blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Right now, the page in question is getting millions of hits a day. So, how many is that in a second? How many seconds have BLP violations been there? This is like protecting the main page, it just needs to be done because we don't have the resources to deal with the volume. Chillum 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Protect IMHO, BLP violators are particularly vehement on this article. For whatever reason, this page seems to have become the locus of the modern culture war. Let's let it go for a few days with admins carrying the bucket of change requests back and forth from the talk page. Ronnotel ( talk) 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Support Full Protection For Two Weeks. The article spun out of control. Even while the article has been in fully implemented protection, there has been a very active process to edit the article based on reaching talk-page consensus, so the status quo (full protection for two weeks) will not be a hardship. For many hours before full protection was first implemented, the page was inundated with edit-warring, vandalism, and so much happening that no one could keep track of it. Giving things two weeks to settle down seems VERY highly appropriate. Until then, this will be the article "that anyone can edit" by reaching talk page consensus and persuading an admin that there is urgency. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Reduction to Semi (Non administrator) - Not having any user at all able to edit this article is resulting in a POV imbalance which is screwing it up. Registered Users only would at least mean that a balance can be restored to this work. Thor Malmjursson ( talk) 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose full protection Immediate reduction to semi. Should never have been fully protected in the first place. What could have been a shining moment has been lost. A novice editor to wikipedia should have realized that the sheer number of people editing this page meant that it would be protected from vandals or one political side's POV. By fully protecting it you've made it look like wikipedia doesn't believe in its own values. Freezing the page could also create the appearance of some impropriety, that a few biased administrators liked the page the way it was for a political reason and decided to keep it that way. The whole protection wheel war makes everyone think that wikipedia's administrators are incompetent, don't actually have faith that wikipedia will result in a high quality article the more people who edit it, or worse, are biased. Heads deserve to roll for this fiasco, but there obviously has been a major breakdown in policy.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 04:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Support full protection - Those that are worried that the article may not be up-to-date with breaking news need to remember that besides BLP issues, WP is not the same as Wikinews. Give new information a few days to filter through and be verified by multiple sources in the media and then is can be added through a editprotected request. -- MASEM 05:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply
From the discussion above I see no emerging consensus to keep the article fully-protected. Return to semi-protection seems to have support and it is consistent with other BLPs of nominees. The ArbCom proceedings are a separate process and has no bearing on the status of the protection of this article, which again, has no consensus to be kept protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply
My perception is that at least some of the difficulty in this case comes from the sheer volume of edits on a substantial article such as this one. Imagine if each subsection were a separate page: there would still be the same editing disputes, but each subpage would have a much smaller number of disputes. This would make the talk pages and the edit histories much more manageable, and reduce edit conflicts, with the indirect effect that it would be far easier to police any given page for policy violations, and somewhat easier to attain consensus. The downside would be that people would need to add a number of pages to their watchlists in order to see all of them; however, in such a high-traffic situation, a watchlist is a weak tool anyway.
This is doable. All we need to do is create subpages (such as Sarah Palin/Early life and education) and transclude them in the main page. The main page could include the section headings, to avoid the mediawiki bug when editing transcluded sections. The main page could be fully protected, and the subpages semiprotected. To avoid non-geek editor confusion, html/xml in the main page could be used to manually create working "view/edit source" and "talk" links to each section, and the same links could be included on the main talk page. When the main page is unprotected, the sections can be put back together on one page (by simply adding subst: to all the includes in one edit.). Homunq. ( talk) 14:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
(Same suggestion posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#modest_proposal_for_Sarah_Palin)
(Note: it may happen that this proposal gets support, but is still too radical to adopt in the context of an article which has been wheel-warred. If so, I would propose it for consideration by ArbCom as a possible mechanism when a similar situation arises in the future.)
Her traffic peaked at 2.5M hits per day on the 29th when she was nominated. It fell to 1.1M on the 30th and 550k on the 31st. "Normal" high-profile biographies, like Barack Obama, get ~25k hits per day in the absense of major breaking news. I realize some editors are burnt out already, but assuming her traffic will continue it's rapid decline, the attention paid to her article might be more normal by not long after the convention has ended. Since long-term protection is undesirable, I'd like to suggest that we stage it a few days at a time rather than weeks. The convention ends tonight, so how about an initial target of mid-day Saturday? We can of course extend it as necessary, but I don't like the idea that the default position should be two weeks (which is the current duration). Dragons flight ( talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I am still contending the need for protection. Rather to assume that there is consensus one way or another, lets wait to see what consensus emerges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
One question: We've gone through some pretty extensive (and contentious) discussions during the last week to reach where we are. Fortunately, most of the garbage can quickly be recognized at face value if it makes its way back on. Some of the more insidious stuff for which it took hours or days to reach consensus might come back, and we probably don't want to go through all those same debates (at least unless new material has emerged). In some cases, it wasn't the inclusion of a citation but the exclusion of relevant one that made the case for exclusion. Anyway, how do you track such things to preclude that eventuality? Fcreid ( talk) 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
<- Points taken by all above. I only hope the attention teh drahmaz has called to the article means that a larger number of responsible people will be watching it. I have a feeling this article is going to compete with Barack Obama and George W. Bush as a long-term target for miscreants. Kelly hi! 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I say "Let it Languish." There simply are too many people with zero editing experience or are POV warriors on this article. Every so often nonsense arguments are being raised for inclusion "it appeared in USA Today" or "here's the cite from the AP" -- in the false belief that there's an automatic inclusion rule for any fact that passes WP:V and to hell with WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Let the secondary sources do their job and broaden and deepen the biography of Sarah Palin and after a cooling off period let editors here prepare a summary biography, and let a consensus emerge among serious editors what merely has news value and what has encyclopedic value. patsw ( talk) 23:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
My server is busy crunching old data, but per request above, here are the page view stats for Sarah Palin for the last 4 days. henrik• talk 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Date | Views |
---|---|
September 1 | 571,157 |
September 2 | 733,338 |
September 3 | 554,531 |
September 4 | 752,864 |
September 5 | 453,353 |
September 6 | 207,665 |
It seems an admin has decided to ignore the arbcom ruling, and this discussion and just undo the protection of this page: [34]. Chillum 17:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I dunno if this is the right place to address this but now that the Sarah Palin page is on lockdown and admins have been caught edit warring, nothing is being edited, not even BLP violations that have reached a consensus. Any admin that wishes to help please see the talk page there. Thanks. -- 98.243.129.181 ( talk) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This massive change completely rewrote the Political positions section. Attempts that were already underway to achieve consensus on the talk page were utterly ignored and overriden by this edit. To me this is an act of rogue administration. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 21:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The changes might be written by Shakespeare himself, but doing it without participating in the consensus process is off-putting to non-admins (added)and thus deserves a reprimand(/added). I suggested a compromise: everyone, including admins, has to put up their non-minor changes for comment on the talk page. If they get generally positive comments, they can implement them *even if a consensus is not yet reached*. Same goes for user-proposed changes. Rinse, repeat: only you have to work towards compromise in some manner, you can't just propose reverting. In other words, All changes must go through the talk page, but lower the standard of consensus so the page is not totally frozen. Admins, implement proposed edits provisionally, EVEN IF YOU DO NOT FULLY AGREE, as long as they are good faith, not uncompromising reverts, and have ANY SIGNIFICANT reasoned support. Moreschi did not have consensus, but under this scheme would have quickly gotten enough support to go ahead. Zredsox, I really sympathize, why don't you propose edits (while keeping prose style)? And then, admins, you would have to actually implement those suggestions, and then make a counterproposal... good for the goose is good for the gander. Homunq ( talk) 22:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
It's not going to be effective to try to write an article via talk page discussion and editprotected requests. Consensus is forged from edits that converge on a final version. The talk page process discourages people from reading a change and saying "that's good enough, I'll leave it" - which is crucial for building a stable article. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Administrators Attention!
Do not edit this page without consensus on the talk page or be prepared to be blocked. |
May I please chime in to make a humble observation and request.. I almost exclusively post anon and realise this gives me little wieght in providing a valid opinion but hear me out. In the past few days I've seen really good things and really bad things happen on the Palin page. Folks have been able to come to a consensus on several issues and admin have made changes accordingly, and folks have abused the talk page making edit reverts in the talk page. As it is, I'm shafted on several fronts, I cannot edit the article as anon and my word has little effect in talk as anon. That being said I like the rticle protected as it is and hope it stays this way. Good consensus (consensi?) are in develpoment, folks are talking and admin who abuse are being investigated. There will be quirks with all the activity when a few people stir up crap with thier vinditive POV or when admin abuse powers but those problems seem to be getting dealt with and in the meantime the article is actually looking quite nice. I praise the consistancy and tenacity of all the admin and editors who are now fully engaged in reaching agreements and emplore you all to consider that if this current state is working, let us keep it in the current state until months from now when 100's of people aren't trying to edit it everyday. Right now, it seems to be working and the article is growing ever closer to a "good artile" Thanks for reading. :) -- 98.243.129.181 ( talk) 02:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Can I just say sorry if I stirred up unnecessary ill-feeling. I am satistfied with the outcome. Thanks to Cenarium for arbitrating. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 23:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
We're super-full-protecting an article on a politician just named the vice-presidential candidate during the period just after her nomination to that role? Oh, yeah, that'll surely work, I mena, it's not like anything newsworthy will happen regarding her in those two weeks.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Maybe this would be a good time to expose stable revisions? ff m 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I'd like to ask that we consider dropping the protection level now back to semi-protection (and full protection from moves). I get the sense that the support for a continued full-protection is waning, and I'm starting a new section to get an idea of what the current feeling is. I'd also like to suggest that if we do drop it to semi-protection, it needs to stay that way for at least 72 hours, no matter what happens, to see how well we're able to revert any crap that gets added. If it turns out to be a disaster, then the people supporting full protection will have a strong argument for it. Thoughts? kmccoy (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
It's right now about 19:50 UTC. If the comments continue in this pattern (mostly in favor of semi-protection), I'd like to make the change at 24:00 UTC today, so in just over four hours. Does this seem reasonable? Dragons flight, I appreciate your concerns, but would you be willing to accept a slightly earlier semi-protection than you suggest? kmccoy (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
For the record, if anyone is viewing this discussion later or something, I reduced the protection of Sarah Palin to semi-protected edits and sysop-only moves as a result of this discussion. kmccoy (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Removal of personal attacks is common practice, and allows the attacker to leave it be and no harm done. Since the editor insisted, I reported him to AN/I, so it is also being discussed there. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The underlying problem is indeed Martinphi's messing with WP:NPOV as mentioned by Akhilleus, notably Martinphi's efforts towards expanding possibilities for the weight minority POVs may assume accross Wikipedia, thus shifting the balance of the NPOV policy. Martinphi uses disruption as a means to acquire that, which calls for a straight application of the remedies of the ArbCom case Martinphi was involved in. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I won't go further than this here, but edits undertaken very slowly in conjunction with several other editors over a matter of days with lots of discussion on the talk page cannot be called pushing or non-consensus of any kind. More abuse of AE for trying to get Martinphi. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I apologise if my comment chiding Martinphi was slightly rude. The backhhground is that a while ago Martinphi was editing WP:CIVIL in ways that let him better attack Scienceapologist. He was cited for it here: [ [39]] Here's the diff where he specifically stated that was his purpose in editing that policy. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 06:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
That diff says "I'm happy to go with the general consensus on the examples, whatever that consensus eventually turns out to be. Premature bold edits should be avoided. If I remember, the examples were in for quite a while (consensus), then one or two eidtors started to try and edit war them out."
Golly gee, awful. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Let me make clear that there was no POV pushing on NPOV, as the edits, done gradually over days, make clear. Accusations to the contrary not only have no basis in the actual edits, they do not take account of the process of the edits, which as suggested by an admin were very slow: when people started editing faster and on other than the main WEIGHT section we were working on, by consensus we stopped that editing (except a few copy edits by another editor), for the reason that we did not want anyone to be confused- we wanted to maintain consensus.
As for the accusations of POV pushing here, no one has stated what POV was pushed, nor how the edits promoted any POV. Nor do I believe they promoted any POV. Thus, the accusations are merely that. Any ban or sanction ought to be based on what we actually did (and I was not the only one editing the WEIGHT section, I did it along with other editors), not on mere numbers of accusers. So, they accuse me of POV pushing. They accuse me of editing against consensus, or without it. Is that so? No, it is not. Anyone who, like Tznakai, looks at my actual edits, will see this.
I will do as Tznkai says, and not directly make changes to policy for the next week. I will not refer to or communicate with Shoemaker for 24 hrs, unless he continues to refer to or attack me, in which case I will bring it to the attention of the Arbitrators, or whatever administrators I am advised are appropriate- but I will not confront him directly.
I would like to register my dismay that no one had more to say to Shoemaker for his poisoning of the well, and his incorrect accusation of sanction for POV pushing- a sanction which is most conspicuous by its absence, as that was the main charge brought in two ArbComs.
I recognize that Tznkai has had to walk a very fine line here, to be as fair as he felt possible in the face of so many attacks. I have seen quite a few admins react this way: confusion concerning the disconnect between the actual edits of mine and the vehemence of the attacks, resulting in an attempt to find a ground which is viable yet not unfair. Indeed, the ArbCom itself reacted this way. Tznakai obviously looked at my actual edits, which is all I ask of any neutral admin. So I thank Tznkai for doing the best he could under very difficult circumstances, when he found himself in the middle of a game of "get Martinphi" which has been going on for years now, and which only the steadfastness of the ArbCom has prevented from prevailing.
Thank you, Tznakai, I recognize how difficult this kind of thing is. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
→ Jossi engages in his well-known recipe of mischaracterising someone else's edit, concluding that it is a personal attack. Presenting this to this board for assessment. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 03:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply
When one person makes an accusation, check to be sure he himself is not the guilty one. Sometimes it is those whose case is weak who make the most clamour. Piers Anthony
There is not a single comment here that shows the arbitration case is relevant. So what the hell is it doing here? And if the answer to this question is some derivation of "Jossi sucks" or "People who hate Jossi suck" this will end poorly for that commentator.-- Tznkai ( talk) 06:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm relatively inexperienced in matters of Arbcom, but this [48] appears that it might be in violation of TTN's restrictions. I originally posted this at the incident board and was told that it belonged here instead. One of the members there suggested it might be frivilous, however the situation seems very similar to these [49] [50] which resulted in a one week ban. I realize his restriction expires soon, but if its a violation its a violation, so I thought I should still bring it up. 75.93.9.235 ( talk) 23:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This topic was erroneously posted [1] at WP:ANI. Moving it here, requesting input. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Links added by: Jehochman Talk 13:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
It should be noted that when saying that the venue is inappropriate and closing this thread User:Jehochman seems to be ignoring what was said [2] by a member of the commetee:
If he is aware of this then I would invite him to tell us where does he think that the "consensus among administrators" for an appeal should be found if not here.-- Pokipsy76 ( talk) 07:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
HRCC ( talk) 15:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm going on definition of terrorism. It's pretty thoroughly thrashed out. If reverting to a favoured version is considered disruptive, then that makes two of us, Francis. Lapsed Pacifist ( talk) 16:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Per this arbitration case Afrocentrism and Race of ancient Egyptians (the latter of which is now titled Ancient Egyptian race controversy) are on article probation. Big-dynamo ( talk · contribs) is flagrantly trolling the talk page at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, and has now descended to flaming and personal attacks, despite being aware of the probation (thanks to the template at the top) and having received a direct warning from me in my last post to the talk page. Please ban him from the article and its talk for a good while. I would do this myself but am "involved": the article itself is largely my handiwork. Thank you. Moreschi ( talk) 12:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 21:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply
In this edit, Martinphi removes a reliable source by an extremely respected scientist ( Sean M. Carroll) that was added by me [4]. I believe that this is a violation of the restrictions imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. I will admit, I had forgotten about this rule, but was reminded it a few days ago [5] [6]. Therefore I will not revert Martinphi, but should there be some enforcement measure here?
ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Arbcom case: The Troubles.
Setanta747 is on probation from the above case, and is limited to one revert per article per week, which was imposed here. He has reverted twice on Category:Real Irish Republican Army to this version - first revert and second revert. He has also breached his probation on Template:IrishL reverting to this version - first revert and second revert. Domer48 'fenian' 07:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Please see [8], [9], and the talk page (all discussion, as far as I can tell, was moved to the bottom). The timing is odd. Usually I wouldn't revert content disputes per 1rr, but I saw the BLP page again and realised that in this case it would not just be 'okay', but expected. thx-- Asdfg 12345 12:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Lokyz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject since mid-December to a general civility "don't create a battleground" sanction (see the "Digwuren sanction" template and updated ArbCom ruling for details). Lokyz has already been blocked for incivility once (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive19#Lokyz), although that block was soon challenged - see report of Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars for some insights. Recently Lokyz - who certainly is aware of the need for civility - has launched a new and appalling personal attack against me: I hope you woudn't try to use AK memoirs as a source. I know the financial power of this organization veterans. Are you sponsored by them? I am highly offended with this slander of my motivations, and I hope appropriate sanctions will be used to prevent such harassment from taking place again.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply
ArbCom case: Episodes and Characters 2
Per the above Arbitration, involved parties were instructed "...to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question."
Eusebeus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) redirected an article without apparent consensus in December of 2007. I found this article on the 15th of August, and restored it. Following that, Eusebeus consistently disregarded attempts at communication to explain why he was continuing to redirect the article in question, choosing instead to make claims of AfD and consensus in his edit summaries but would not provide said evidence, to the point of deleting communication attempts left at his talk page. He did not reply to any attempts at communication on any of the involved talk pages until after mediation was requested.
The mediator, East718, engaged the involved parties and asked if mediation was still required. Eusebeus did not reply, and redirected the article (and others in the same topic) after ceasing to respond to an ongoing mediation attempt. These redirections were once again reverted by an admin. An administrator was consulted, and recommended reporting this at this location for further inquiry, as it appears that this is a continuation of the behaviors that brought about the Arbcom case originally. Clarification is requested. Kinsloft ( talk) 16:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
User:ScienceApologist is subject to a
restriction which enjoins him to refrain from uncivil editing. It seems that he has been blocked for violating this restriction about
7 times already.
The background to this new incident is an AFD. This was closed today as a Keep but, ignoring this consensus, one of the minority viewpoint in the AFD discussion immediately started a motion to merge the article away. The discussion was but minutes old when User:ScienceApologist appeared and immediately edited the article which was to be kept, turning it into a redirect. He then pronounced it buried, describing it as a piece of shit. In so doing, it seems that he showed contempt for the AFD process, the Arbcom restriction, the fresh merge discussion and that he was triumphantly uncivil to boot. In the aftermath of a contested AFD, such intemperate and precipitate behaviour is not conducive to a reconciliation.
Note that the trail for this may be somewhat muddled now because another of the minority AFD viewpoint - User:Ronz has been making numerous moves and edits of the articles and talk pages in question, contrary to the consensus established in the AFD. I asked the closing admin, User:Sandstein, to intervene but his request for a pause for deliberation has been ignored.
I am a regular patroller of AFDs and don't recall seeing such a flagrant breach of the established consensus before. When an AFD does not go as one wishes, the correct procedure is DRV. But the main offence to consider here is User:ScienceApologist's renewed incivility and disruption.
Finally, please excuse me if I have not followed protocol exactly in this matter as I have not been here before and so am not certain of the correct process which is somewhat daunting. Thank you. Colonel Warden ( talk) 22:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
See his response on his own talk page too. Blocked 31 hours for disruption and incivility and 2 months ban from Falun Gong. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi. It'd be great if an uninvolved admin could check out the statements of Einsteindonut. This user says that CJCurrie "He has such an obvious anti-Israel agenda on Wikipedia" and links to a website attacking Currie. He says explicitly that he will ignore cautions, e.g. to focus on content not contributors. He readily accuses other editors of bad faith ("you inspiring an edit war") and act belligerently ("Since Shabazz essentially told me to get lost, I think I'm going to stick around and get LOUDER. Also, I'm going to get many more of my friends (with whom I do respect and with whom have NOBLE intentions) to start getting involved---because this is F'in ridiculous.") Also states that he does not AGF ("As far as "assume good faith" - I do not, especially when someone honors Malik Shabazz with their name....)
I have already cautioned people on the Talk page about the ArbCom discretionary sanctions for I-P articles and put a specific note on Einsteindonut's Talk page. I'd recommend a significantly firmer response and would like an uninvolved editor to intercede. Thanks very much. HG | Talk 02:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Case and section: DreamGuy 2: DreamGuy is subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
This last seems like an uncivil assumption of bad faith. Has he broken his edit restriction? (And if not, please somebody watch the page...) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
At least keep watch over this reverter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Oh my. I have just been trying to discuss a separate matter with DreamGuy, and as the user has failed to substantiate his edit summaries which I deem bad faith accusations, I came here to report it. I have looked at the above, and it is some bad faith edit summaries, but they are borderline. Take a look at this one: "comment... known meat puppet of Elonka's is major editor if the Essay created by Elonka and now voting here also in true tag teaming style - ironic, eh?" At User_talk:DreamGuy#meat_puppetry_accusation I asked the user to provide evidence of this meat puppetry accusation, but none has been forthcoming despite having quite clearly requested then, days to respond with diffs, and having been told on my user talk that "a community of editors (including a number of admins) have agreed that Fat Cigar is a meat puppet". If this is an open and shut case of meat puppetry, diffs should be easy to provide. Instead I am being given thinly veiled accusations of being a hot head, blind, irresponsible, etc. Without diffs that predate the accusation, there was no reason to attack Elonka and FatCigar in this way, and the arbcom remedies were intended to stop this rot. John Vandenberg ( chat) 04:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Boy, the accusations sure do fly all the time. Once again the people making them seem to be trying to use the ArbCom decision against me as some sort of excuse for assuming bad faith and so forth. These latest complaints are just more of the same over the top claims.
As far as Pmanderson's complaint above, I can't for the life of me figure out what he means by "DreamGuy appeared out of nowhere, making exact reversions" -- the fact of the matter is that I have been on the article all along, watchlisting it, and looking at the edits over the past year by other editors and approving them. It was some new editor who came out of nowhere (new user account with limited history) and tried to move the whole article by copying and pasting the text to another article, and then Pmanderson came back after a more than year gap to revert back to *his* exact old version of the article, adding back the claims about the origin of the Chimera myth that are simply not the accepted beliefs of modern mythologists and authors. Pmanderson and this new editor, joined some other editor who is posting comments there as if he has been editing the article all along and that they had a consensus I was ignoring but has never edited it all at as far as I can see, seem to have immediately jumped to making personal attacks on myself, setting up a supposed consensus before discussing it. He also claims "He also moved it, apparently without discussion.", which is silly, as the article has been at that name for more than a year... it was someone else who came out of nowhere to move it with a copy and paste. Certainly that kind of odd behavior (false claims about consensus, who moved what, etc.) constitutes as bizarre actions, but it looks like he wants to try to exaggerate that statement into an attack of some sort. The bottom line is that Pmanderson is actually guilty of the reverting, making sweeping changes without attempts at establishing consensus, etc., and apparently decided to jump here to make a report hoping that people won't take any time to look into it and just assume that he's right.
John Vandenberg above is all upset that I pointed out that a brand new editor with no edit history showed up to strongly and aggressively support another editor in an RFC, and then continued on to support that same editor in edits to an essay and on her talk page during a recall attempt. A number of other editors have noticed this, including admins User:Jehochman in this edit (and others) and User:Bishonen in this edit directly supporting me against John's complaint). Those are just two I turned up rather quickly -- those are certainly not either of those two editors' first comments on the puppet account, nor are they the only editors who noticed it. They labeled Fat Cigar a sockpuppet, but I took the added extra step of assuming good faith and referred that user as a meatpuppet instead, as a sockpuppet would be deliberate attempts to deceive and a meatpuppet could be more innocent (a friend hopping in starting a new account thinking he is helping, or whatever), albeit still a major problem. John Vandenberg for some unknown reason decided to treat this as some huge offense and to go after me personally... his communication always focused on the ArbCom decision on me instead of the normal process of identifying and dealing with puppets.
The fact of the matter here is that ever since the ArbCom decision was made I have been hounded by people who constantly assume bad faith about my actions and, whenever any sort of disagreement comes up, use it as a club against me to attempt to get me to do what they want me to do instead of following what the decision was supposed to uphold: that everyone here should be civil and follow policies. This ArbCom decision was intended to promote better good faith dealings between editors, but instead all it did was put a target on my head with people who prefer to use it as a shortcut to prevailing in whatever conflict they have instead of trying to resolve that conflict by normal methods of communication and fair dealings. Nobody who disagrees with any edits I make even has to try to resolve anything anymore, they just treat me as a second class citizen they can either ignore or antagonize and then go run off to report me.
Frankly, the best thing ArbCom can do to improve editor cooperation is to unambiguously tell editors that just because I have an ArbCom sanction against me doesn't mean they get to ignore policies themselves whenever they are in any conflict that involves me. Pmanderson's complaint here is a transparent attempt to prevail in an edit conflict that he started up again a year later after failing to get consensus the first time around, and John Vandenberg seems to want to dispute what the other editors said about Fat Cigar's puppeting but for some reason chose me to go after. DreamGuy ( talk) 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
For the record, I do not know who Fat Cigar is, and it is categorically false for DreamGuy to imply that Fat Cigar is acting at my request, such as to say that Fat Cigar is a "known meatpuppet of Elonka's". [20] [21] This is yet another violation of DreamGuy's ArbCom sanctions, as he has recently been making many other false statements about me and others. [22] [23] [24] [25] I have cautioned him at his talkpage, [26] [27] but the cautions do not seem to be working, as he is continuing to make bizarre attacks. I therefore recommend a block in order to enforce the ArbCom sanctions. His block log is already quite long, [28] so at this point I would recommend a block of at least one week. -- El on ka 07:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
<- Arcayne, I agree with you that repeated bad behavior needs to be addressed. If DreamGuy is causing problems, and if past blocks have not been effective deterrent, perhaps a mentor would help. If that fails, stronger measures may be needed. Is there anybody who would be willing to mentor DreamGuy? DreamGuy, would you be willing to accept a mentor? Jehochman Talk 18:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
(Outdenting.) I'm looking—a little incredulously—at Elonka's remark to Jehochman above—"you have been told repeatedly, by multiple admins, to disengage from situations involving me, I strongly recommend that you follow that advice". Since the conversation (or, largely, monologue) has moved so far since then, I don't think anybody would notice a response from me to Elonka up there. I'm putting it here, I hope that's not confusing. Here goes:
Oh, that's appropriate, Elonka, to tell Jehochman to disengage from situations involving you. This is primarily a situation involving DreamGuy. You're on the extreme outer edge of it. For you to come here to deny knowledge of Fat Cigar is fine, naturally—I for one believe you—but issuing advice about what punishment you would "recommend" for your ancient adversary DreamGuy is not fine, and if you had better judgment, you wouldn't be doing it. You have a COI about DreamGuy. That's putting it mildly. Please disengage.
Bishonen |
talk 18:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC).
reply
<- I agree that a block is the appropriate response, that's what ArbCom gave us for a solution and I don't think we should be requiring admins to water that all down with offers for mentorship etc. Anyone wants to offer that on their own and then present the success of the offer here as mitigation, go for it. On the other hand, Elonka, an indef block is not supported by the ArbCom decision and would have to be independently warranted, which it certainly is not. I count two logged blocks. The max block continues to be one week, unless I'm reading things wrong.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply
What's missing from this discussion as always is context. Dreamguy's WP:OWN comment came after PmAnderson baited DM on the talkpage about his "notorious intemperan[ce]", while the "POV-pushing" comment which Akhileus later reported came after this patronizing comment from him.
What concerns me most about this report is that it appears there are still some folks who are prepared to use the most minor incidents to try and get rid of someone with whom they disagree. That is not what AE exists for, that is called gaming the system and it is surely behaviour that should not be encouraged. Instead of sanctioning Dreamguy, perhaps it's time we started considering sanctions against people who make frivolous reports like this as in my opinion they are far more disruptive—in terms of the time and energy wasted by the community—than anything the defendant has been accused of here. Gatoclass ( talk) 02:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
As a sitting arbitrator I prefer not to comment on threads on this board, because disputes here sometimes return to the Arbitration Committee and I then want to look at them with an open mind. However, I note that the challenged edits here are 6 days old, and DreamGuy has done little editing since then. Given that there is not a clear consensus for enforcement, it strikes me that this thread could best be closed as stale, with a general request for civility and decorum from all editors on the article in question. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
MBisanz has full protected this article for two weeks citing the "Footnooted Quotes" arbcom ruling. According to that ruling, the protection can only be overturned per consensus developed through discussion here on the Arbitration enforcement board. Thus I am creating this section for the discussion that is sure to come. Mike R ( talk) 15:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
It's very important that we get BLP articles right. History shows that when a major news story breaks, there is typically a frenzy of editing on the related article (e.g. the Virginia Tech shootings). This period is typically marked by short periods of full protection, longer periods of semi-protection, and lots of reverts. It's painful, but in the end it generates the right article. The problems with POV pushing can and should be resolved by strict use of the blocking policy. But extended full protection goes against our basic principle that content is created through public editing. In previous cases, articles generated by a writing frenzy have turned out well, and I am sure that Palin's article will as well. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Full protection is too much -- semi-protection should do the trick. My opinion. -- nemonoman ( talk) 15:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Absolutely protect We don't need to cowtow to wikilawyers when it comes to BLPs. rootology ( C)( T) 15:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I oppose this protection. A highly trafficked article whose subject is in the front pages of all newspapers world-wide, and about which new information is emerging cannot and should not be protected from editing. Vandals and BLP violations can be dealt with blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Right now, the page in question is getting millions of hits a day. So, how many is that in a second? How many seconds have BLP violations been there? This is like protecting the main page, it just needs to be done because we don't have the resources to deal with the volume. Chillum 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Protect IMHO, BLP violators are particularly vehement on this article. For whatever reason, this page seems to have become the locus of the modern culture war. Let's let it go for a few days with admins carrying the bucket of change requests back and forth from the talk page. Ronnotel ( talk) 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Support Full Protection For Two Weeks. The article spun out of control. Even while the article has been in fully implemented protection, there has been a very active process to edit the article based on reaching talk-page consensus, so the status quo (full protection for two weeks) will not be a hardship. For many hours before full protection was first implemented, the page was inundated with edit-warring, vandalism, and so much happening that no one could keep track of it. Giving things two weeks to settle down seems VERY highly appropriate. Until then, this will be the article "that anyone can edit" by reaching talk page consensus and persuading an admin that there is urgency. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Reduction to Semi (Non administrator) - Not having any user at all able to edit this article is resulting in a POV imbalance which is screwing it up. Registered Users only would at least mean that a balance can be restored to this work. Thor Malmjursson ( talk) 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose full protection Immediate reduction to semi. Should never have been fully protected in the first place. What could have been a shining moment has been lost. A novice editor to wikipedia should have realized that the sheer number of people editing this page meant that it would be protected from vandals or one political side's POV. By fully protecting it you've made it look like wikipedia doesn't believe in its own values. Freezing the page could also create the appearance of some impropriety, that a few biased administrators liked the page the way it was for a political reason and decided to keep it that way. The whole protection wheel war makes everyone think that wikipedia's administrators are incompetent, don't actually have faith that wikipedia will result in a high quality article the more people who edit it, or worse, are biased. Heads deserve to roll for this fiasco, but there obviously has been a major breakdown in policy.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 04:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Support full protection - Those that are worried that the article may not be up-to-date with breaking news need to remember that besides BLP issues, WP is not the same as Wikinews. Give new information a few days to filter through and be verified by multiple sources in the media and then is can be added through a editprotected request. -- MASEM 05:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply
From the discussion above I see no emerging consensus to keep the article fully-protected. Return to semi-protection seems to have support and it is consistent with other BLPs of nominees. The ArbCom proceedings are a separate process and has no bearing on the status of the protection of this article, which again, has no consensus to be kept protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply
My perception is that at least some of the difficulty in this case comes from the sheer volume of edits on a substantial article such as this one. Imagine if each subsection were a separate page: there would still be the same editing disputes, but each subpage would have a much smaller number of disputes. This would make the talk pages and the edit histories much more manageable, and reduce edit conflicts, with the indirect effect that it would be far easier to police any given page for policy violations, and somewhat easier to attain consensus. The downside would be that people would need to add a number of pages to their watchlists in order to see all of them; however, in such a high-traffic situation, a watchlist is a weak tool anyway.
This is doable. All we need to do is create subpages (such as Sarah Palin/Early life and education) and transclude them in the main page. The main page could include the section headings, to avoid the mediawiki bug when editing transcluded sections. The main page could be fully protected, and the subpages semiprotected. To avoid non-geek editor confusion, html/xml in the main page could be used to manually create working "view/edit source" and "talk" links to each section, and the same links could be included on the main talk page. When the main page is unprotected, the sections can be put back together on one page (by simply adding subst: to all the includes in one edit.). Homunq. ( talk) 14:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
(Same suggestion posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#modest_proposal_for_Sarah_Palin)
(Note: it may happen that this proposal gets support, but is still too radical to adopt in the context of an article which has been wheel-warred. If so, I would propose it for consideration by ArbCom as a possible mechanism when a similar situation arises in the future.)
Her traffic peaked at 2.5M hits per day on the 29th when she was nominated. It fell to 1.1M on the 30th and 550k on the 31st. "Normal" high-profile biographies, like Barack Obama, get ~25k hits per day in the absense of major breaking news. I realize some editors are burnt out already, but assuming her traffic will continue it's rapid decline, the attention paid to her article might be more normal by not long after the convention has ended. Since long-term protection is undesirable, I'd like to suggest that we stage it a few days at a time rather than weeks. The convention ends tonight, so how about an initial target of mid-day Saturday? We can of course extend it as necessary, but I don't like the idea that the default position should be two weeks (which is the current duration). Dragons flight ( talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I am still contending the need for protection. Rather to assume that there is consensus one way or another, lets wait to see what consensus emerges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
One question: We've gone through some pretty extensive (and contentious) discussions during the last week to reach where we are. Fortunately, most of the garbage can quickly be recognized at face value if it makes its way back on. Some of the more insidious stuff for which it took hours or days to reach consensus might come back, and we probably don't want to go through all those same debates (at least unless new material has emerged). In some cases, it wasn't the inclusion of a citation but the exclusion of relevant one that made the case for exclusion. Anyway, how do you track such things to preclude that eventuality? Fcreid ( talk) 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
<- Points taken by all above. I only hope the attention teh drahmaz has called to the article means that a larger number of responsible people will be watching it. I have a feeling this article is going to compete with Barack Obama and George W. Bush as a long-term target for miscreants. Kelly hi! 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I say "Let it Languish." There simply are too many people with zero editing experience or are POV warriors on this article. Every so often nonsense arguments are being raised for inclusion "it appeared in USA Today" or "here's the cite from the AP" -- in the false belief that there's an automatic inclusion rule for any fact that passes WP:V and to hell with WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Let the secondary sources do their job and broaden and deepen the biography of Sarah Palin and after a cooling off period let editors here prepare a summary biography, and let a consensus emerge among serious editors what merely has news value and what has encyclopedic value. patsw ( talk) 23:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
My server is busy crunching old data, but per request above, here are the page view stats for Sarah Palin for the last 4 days. henrik• talk 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Date | Views |
---|---|
September 1 | 571,157 |
September 2 | 733,338 |
September 3 | 554,531 |
September 4 | 752,864 |
September 5 | 453,353 |
September 6 | 207,665 |
It seems an admin has decided to ignore the arbcom ruling, and this discussion and just undo the protection of this page: [34]. Chillum 17:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I dunno if this is the right place to address this but now that the Sarah Palin page is on lockdown and admins have been caught edit warring, nothing is being edited, not even BLP violations that have reached a consensus. Any admin that wishes to help please see the talk page there. Thanks. -- 98.243.129.181 ( talk) 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
This massive change completely rewrote the Political positions section. Attempts that were already underway to achieve consensus on the talk page were utterly ignored and overriden by this edit. To me this is an act of rogue administration. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 21:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The changes might be written by Shakespeare himself, but doing it without participating in the consensus process is off-putting to non-admins (added)and thus deserves a reprimand(/added). I suggested a compromise: everyone, including admins, has to put up their non-minor changes for comment on the talk page. If they get generally positive comments, they can implement them *even if a consensus is not yet reached*. Same goes for user-proposed changes. Rinse, repeat: only you have to work towards compromise in some manner, you can't just propose reverting. In other words, All changes must go through the talk page, but lower the standard of consensus so the page is not totally frozen. Admins, implement proposed edits provisionally, EVEN IF YOU DO NOT FULLY AGREE, as long as they are good faith, not uncompromising reverts, and have ANY SIGNIFICANT reasoned support. Moreschi did not have consensus, but under this scheme would have quickly gotten enough support to go ahead. Zredsox, I really sympathize, why don't you propose edits (while keeping prose style)? And then, admins, you would have to actually implement those suggestions, and then make a counterproposal... good for the goose is good for the gander. Homunq ( talk) 22:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
It's not going to be effective to try to write an article via talk page discussion and editprotected requests. Consensus is forged from edits that converge on a final version. The talk page process discourages people from reading a change and saying "that's good enough, I'll leave it" - which is crucial for building a stable article. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Administrators Attention!
Do not edit this page without consensus on the talk page or be prepared to be blocked. |
May I please chime in to make a humble observation and request.. I almost exclusively post anon and realise this gives me little wieght in providing a valid opinion but hear me out. In the past few days I've seen really good things and really bad things happen on the Palin page. Folks have been able to come to a consensus on several issues and admin have made changes accordingly, and folks have abused the talk page making edit reverts in the talk page. As it is, I'm shafted on several fronts, I cannot edit the article as anon and my word has little effect in talk as anon. That being said I like the rticle protected as it is and hope it stays this way. Good consensus (consensi?) are in develpoment, folks are talking and admin who abuse are being investigated. There will be quirks with all the activity when a few people stir up crap with thier vinditive POV or when admin abuse powers but those problems seem to be getting dealt with and in the meantime the article is actually looking quite nice. I praise the consistancy and tenacity of all the admin and editors who are now fully engaged in reaching agreements and emplore you all to consider that if this current state is working, let us keep it in the current state until months from now when 100's of people aren't trying to edit it everyday. Right now, it seems to be working and the article is growing ever closer to a "good artile" Thanks for reading. :) -- 98.243.129.181 ( talk) 02:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Can I just say sorry if I stirred up unnecessary ill-feeling. I am satistfied with the outcome. Thanks to Cenarium for arbitrating. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 23:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
We're super-full-protecting an article on a politician just named the vice-presidential candidate during the period just after her nomination to that role? Oh, yeah, that'll surely work, I mena, it's not like anything newsworthy will happen regarding her in those two weeks.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
reply
Maybe this would be a good time to expose stable revisions? ff m 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I'd like to ask that we consider dropping the protection level now back to semi-protection (and full protection from moves). I get the sense that the support for a continued full-protection is waning, and I'm starting a new section to get an idea of what the current feeling is. I'd also like to suggest that if we do drop it to semi-protection, it needs to stay that way for at least 72 hours, no matter what happens, to see how well we're able to revert any crap that gets added. If it turns out to be a disaster, then the people supporting full protection will have a strong argument for it. Thoughts? kmccoy (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
It's right now about 19:50 UTC. If the comments continue in this pattern (mostly in favor of semi-protection), I'd like to make the change at 24:00 UTC today, so in just over four hours. Does this seem reasonable? Dragons flight, I appreciate your concerns, but would you be willing to accept a slightly earlier semi-protection than you suggest? kmccoy (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC) reply
For the record, if anyone is viewing this discussion later or something, I reduced the protection of Sarah Palin to semi-protected edits and sysop-only moves as a result of this discussion. kmccoy (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Removal of personal attacks is common practice, and allows the attacker to leave it be and no harm done. Since the editor insisted, I reported him to AN/I, so it is also being discussed there. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The underlying problem is indeed Martinphi's messing with WP:NPOV as mentioned by Akhilleus, notably Martinphi's efforts towards expanding possibilities for the weight minority POVs may assume accross Wikipedia, thus shifting the balance of the NPOV policy. Martinphi uses disruption as a means to acquire that, which calls for a straight application of the remedies of the ArbCom case Martinphi was involved in. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I won't go further than this here, but edits undertaken very slowly in conjunction with several other editors over a matter of days with lots of discussion on the talk page cannot be called pushing or non-consensus of any kind. More abuse of AE for trying to get Martinphi. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I apologise if my comment chiding Martinphi was slightly rude. The backhhground is that a while ago Martinphi was editing WP:CIVIL in ways that let him better attack Scienceapologist. He was cited for it here: [ [39]] Here's the diff where he specifically stated that was his purpose in editing that policy. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 06:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
That diff says "I'm happy to go with the general consensus on the examples, whatever that consensus eventually turns out to be. Premature bold edits should be avoided. If I remember, the examples were in for quite a while (consensus), then one or two eidtors started to try and edit war them out."
Golly gee, awful. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Let me make clear that there was no POV pushing on NPOV, as the edits, done gradually over days, make clear. Accusations to the contrary not only have no basis in the actual edits, they do not take account of the process of the edits, which as suggested by an admin were very slow: when people started editing faster and on other than the main WEIGHT section we were working on, by consensus we stopped that editing (except a few copy edits by another editor), for the reason that we did not want anyone to be confused- we wanted to maintain consensus.
As for the accusations of POV pushing here, no one has stated what POV was pushed, nor how the edits promoted any POV. Nor do I believe they promoted any POV. Thus, the accusations are merely that. Any ban or sanction ought to be based on what we actually did (and I was not the only one editing the WEIGHT section, I did it along with other editors), not on mere numbers of accusers. So, they accuse me of POV pushing. They accuse me of editing against consensus, or without it. Is that so? No, it is not. Anyone who, like Tznakai, looks at my actual edits, will see this.
I will do as Tznkai says, and not directly make changes to policy for the next week. I will not refer to or communicate with Shoemaker for 24 hrs, unless he continues to refer to or attack me, in which case I will bring it to the attention of the Arbitrators, or whatever administrators I am advised are appropriate- but I will not confront him directly.
I would like to register my dismay that no one had more to say to Shoemaker for his poisoning of the well, and his incorrect accusation of sanction for POV pushing- a sanction which is most conspicuous by its absence, as that was the main charge brought in two ArbComs.
I recognize that Tznkai has had to walk a very fine line here, to be as fair as he felt possible in the face of so many attacks. I have seen quite a few admins react this way: confusion concerning the disconnect between the actual edits of mine and the vehemence of the attacks, resulting in an attempt to find a ground which is viable yet not unfair. Indeed, the ArbCom itself reacted this way. Tznakai obviously looked at my actual edits, which is all I ask of any neutral admin. So I thank Tznkai for doing the best he could under very difficult circumstances, when he found himself in the middle of a game of "get Martinphi" which has been going on for years now, and which only the steadfastness of the ArbCom has prevented from prevailing.
Thank you, Tznakai, I recognize how difficult this kind of thing is. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply
→ Jossi engages in his well-known recipe of mischaracterising someone else's edit, concluding that it is a personal attack. Presenting this to this board for assessment. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 03:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply
When one person makes an accusation, check to be sure he himself is not the guilty one. Sometimes it is those whose case is weak who make the most clamour. Piers Anthony
There is not a single comment here that shows the arbitration case is relevant. So what the hell is it doing here? And if the answer to this question is some derivation of "Jossi sucks" or "People who hate Jossi suck" this will end poorly for that commentator.-- Tznkai ( talk) 06:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm relatively inexperienced in matters of Arbcom, but this [48] appears that it might be in violation of TTN's restrictions. I originally posted this at the incident board and was told that it belonged here instead. One of the members there suggested it might be frivilous, however the situation seems very similar to these [49] [50] which resulted in a one week ban. I realize his restriction expires soon, but if its a violation its a violation, so I thought I should still bring it up. 75.93.9.235 ( talk) 23:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply