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 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
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 Lightmouse ( talk) at 12:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Proposed amendment:
The Lightmouse non-bot account and the related bot account (Lightbot) have been dealing with units of measurement for years and have played a part in significantly improving the accessibility, consistency and more functional linking of units of measurement that we now see on Wikipedia. Lightbot is currently authorised by BAG to edit feet and miles and there's an application to extend the scope to include inches. The workload of BAG is such that weeks have passed without a decision.
BAG and Lightmouse are in the unenviable position of having to debate code scope prior to testing rather than after. It means that non-bot automated edits must be elevated to bot status or remain undone.
Could I suggest that clause 7.1 be removed? This would reduce the administrative burden related to improving units of measure, which is a huge and ongoing task for Wikipedia. I believe it will be to the betterment of the project.
The resumption of "MOS Warrior" tactics is not an acceptable outcome here. The manual of style is a true guideline that merely offers guidance, not a set of rules to be enforced using automation. Resumption of widespread and automated "MOS enforcement" will cause a lot of unnecessary conflict. The local consensus at MOS talk pages is often not reflected on a global scale, especially when it comes to units, which are often governed by different conventions in different fields of endeavor.
I remain unconvinced that Lightmouse understands that automation should only be used for truly non-controversial tasks. The correctness of a particular style is not important, what is important is whether the task is truly non-controversial.
The latest amendment was generous, and should not be expanded upon at this time. Gigs ( talk) 17:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed by the direction this case is going. It seems to me that no one at ArbCom is really bothered by Lightmouse having made at least 4853 semi-automated edits from his own account, at speeds of up to 15 edits a minute (faster than we expect bots to go) and without BAG approval (all of this is neatly listed at this page) despite being under a sanction which clearly stated he was to take no semi or fully automated edits from any account except his bot account, and even then to only do so with BAG approval. I fail to understand the point of ArbCom making sanctions if they are not then going to enforce them, and thus far the only "enforcement" I've seen is further relaxing of the sanctions, which I don't feel was done in an entirely open manner (I don't feel the most recent amendment really took into account this request, which was closed as stale). Personally I feel the action which needs to be taken in this case is further restricting and enforcement, rather than simply looking the other way. - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}
{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 aprock ( talk) at 21:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
List of any editors already sanctioned, and confirmation that all have been notified of the motion to amend:
There seems to be some confusion about what edits fall under Administration Enforcement for the Race and Intelligence discretionary sanctions. From R/I Arbitration Remedies:Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles. The open question is how to interpret "closely related".
At the current AE Miradre/2 discussion, the behavior being discussed centers around the article Race and crime. Race and crime mentions IQ/intelligence seven times, and Race and intelligence is listed in the "See also" section of the article.
Several editors feel that the content and edits about race and intelligence (e.g. [4], [5], [6]) to Race and crime should be covered by arbitration enforcement. On the other hand, at least one administrator (Sandstein), is taking the not unreasonable view that this article is not covered by discretionary sanctions.
Clarification request: Does "closely related" apply only to what articles should be about, or does it also apply to the actual content within articles which may not otherwise be considered closely related?
I've no opinion about whether the AE case is actionable on the merits, as I've examined it so far only with respect of the scope of the remedy that is to be enforced. Sandstein 21:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Second Sandstein's suggestion. Just make it "race and related topics", as in this particular case - and most likely many future ones - the problems aren't just limited to Race and crime and Race and intelligence but also Social interpretation of race, Immigration and crime, Ethnic nepotism and many other articles, all orbiting in one way or another the topic of race. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that it makes little sense to phrase the remedy as having to do with certain articles, but rather with certain topics. The topics is "race and intelligence" but this topic can be partially treated in many articles that are not yet tagged with "Race and intelligence controversy" because nobody (but Miradre) have noticed that this topic has any relation to the R&I topic yet. If the restrictions should be limited to articles within the category then any user would be able to create new articles without including them in the category and repeat all the same problems that lead to the R&I Arbcase with impunity. That seems unreasonable. The discretionary restrictions should touch the topic whether it is treated in an article that is explicitly linked to the arbcase or not. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The issue to me is we are experiencing spill over from the initial WP:ARBR&I scope. I am going to talk about the scenario without naming names here to show that this is problem with the scope. I am not going to name name because that would that its limited to single editor and single scenario but represents a flaw in ability to enforce the core values of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR to ensure Encyclopedic Content.
An editor who is using legitimate sources to and portraying them in way unintended by the authors of the sources. The Article Race and Crime seemingly represents something well outside the WP:ARBR&I boundaries. The assertion is put into the article that Black are responsible for disproportionment amount of crime in Western Justice systems. No one dispute that Black are convicted of most crimes in America/UK and a fair number of european justice systems Justice system. The article as written by this individual presented very main stream data of Crime and prison statistics. This seemingly valid content has place in an encyclopedia under articles like Minorities and Crime.
The editor then presents fringe sources that suggest Race/Genetics/Intlectual abilitlities all play a role that makes blacks more prone to crime. Then says the view have been met with "criticism" but leaves it at that.
The editor is taken to AE where Admin who is taking a strict interpretation of the Ruling that states "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles."
Clearly in this scenario and all future scenarios AE admins need to have the tools to prevent spill over of WP:ARBR&I material into articles where such material is placed.
I thank the committee for their time and hope they will understand the scenario is not limited to this Editor and this Admin made in the request for clarification. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 22:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
IQ correlates with lot of things. Similarly, race can be interpreted very broadly. Obviously the main articles about the controversy falls under the arbitration remedies. But I think one can introduce IQ as a factor in many race articles. Should Affirmative action be under this scope? One can certainly find sources on IQ and affirmative action. IQ is not mentioned there now. But if I introduced some material on IQ, would the article then fall under the scope? Would White flight? Similarly, there are a lot of articles where one can introduce the factors IQ and race. Should all of those articles fall under the scope the moment anyone makes this connection? Should Immigration fall under this scope the moment someone introduces some material on race and IQ there? Should Economic development fall under this scope the moment someone introduces some material on race and IQ there? Should HIV fall under this scope if someone introduces some material on race and IQ there, studies of which are in the academic literature? Should Malnutrition, Malaria, Education, or Literacy be under the scope, since they are proposed environmental factors explaining racial IQ differences? Or should the Olympic games article be, the Race and sports article already have some material regarding Chinese views that they are suited to "technical" sports in part because the stereotype of them being smart. Material not in the article applied this to differing Chinese Olympic medal rates for different sports. Should Alzheimer's or Mental retardation fall under this scope since they are intelligence related and differ between races? Should a book like Human Accomplishment be? Or History of science or Technology development? Should Incarceration in the United States or Rape be, if someone transferred some material from race and crime there? Should Genocide and Ethnic conflicts be, some researchers have made a connection with different average IQs causing conflicts between groups.
In short, it is possible to introduce sourced material connecting race and intelligence to numerous other topics. Where does it stop? Some clarification would be greatly appreciated. I introduced IQ to race and crime. I could introduce IQ and race to numerous other articles as per above. Miradre ( talk) 02:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the AE dispute I would have made the edits to race and crime regardless since none of my edits are close to being a policy violation. Miradre ( talk) 03:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I would also ask that the arbitrators to consider my view that while biological unequality explanations are automatically unpopular, they are not necessarily harmful to society. See [7] and the section "My motivation for editing these controversial topics". In my view, I have done no policy violation, but my critics are trying to use the general unpopularity of the views I have introduced, in accordance with policy, to get me banned, not on merit for what I have done, but due to the emotional responses these views cause. Any objective evaluation of the AE evidence would instead show policy violations by several of my detractors. Miradre ( talk) 03:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
In my view a topic that causes emotional revulsion, regardless of scientific merits, has the potential to fare poorly in a quick process possibly involving only a single administrator. Only in a slower process, with more participants, has such unpopular views some chance to judged on merit and not on emotions. So I would also ask the arbitrators to consider the effects of extending the arbitration remedies, which in my view are not well suited for this emotional and important area, more broadly. Miradre ( talk) 03:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Miradre makes a good point above regarding the futility of trying to demarcate the bounds of a contentious topic by an explicit list of articles. The text at the WP:TBAN policy touches on this issue - the relevant sections at otherwise unrelated articles are covered by a topic ban; going by the principle of least astonishment, we should apply the same reasoning when defining areas where discretionary sanctions are necessary. Otherwise we will find edits that violate a topic ban yet fall outside the list of articles covered by the discretionary sanctions invoked to impose that very topic ban. If it was ArbCom's intention that ARBR&I sanctions only be used for article bans and similarly explicitly strictly limited sanctions, then the current wording is fine. That is a significantly more limited tool, though, and is much more easily subjected to gaming of the system. Sandstein's proposal to extend the scope of ARBR&I discretionary sanctions by motion has merit, though I am not sure where the balance lies so that this dispute is covered but the rest of the site is not. By the principle of I know it when I see it, the current AE case deals with editing of the same sort that led up to the case (no comment regarding whether the material should be part of the encyclopedia - it takes two to edit war, and all that); I think that that gives us a minimum threshold for clarifying the scope of the case to cover every article, section, and discussion treating race, intelligence, and any connection between the two. - 2/0 ( cont.) 07:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought someone should mention WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Miradre/Archive. It does seem like the system is being gamed. 75.57.242.120 ( talk) 07:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
No opinion (some reservations) about extending R&I discretionary sanctions to all race-related articles. I notice the Miradre SPI didn't mention User:Woodsrock, created within a week of Miradre. I think I remember a few others as well. (Woodsrock did make a small effort to branch out to a few more topics besides R&I). WP:ARBSCI#Single purpose accounts with agendas says:
- Single purpose accounts with agendas
- 5.1) Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year. Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be re-blocked at the expiry of a topic ban if they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban.
- Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Given this recurring pattern of brand new editors appearing out of nowhere to stir up this area, I think something like that should be added to ARBR&I. A proposal like this was discussed extensively in one of the pre-arbitration ANI threads, and got pretty wide support, not quite reaching consensus at the time (I supported it). Subsequent events suggest we need it after all. 75.57.242.120 ( talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
SirFozzie: re "a warning/clarification is probably the best bet", does the warning Miradre already received (per Mathsci) not count? 75.57.242.120 ( talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 75.57.242.120 ( talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Resident Anthropologist: WP:ARBSCI banned quite a lot of SPA's from Scientology topics ( start here), some of whom were connected with Scientology and others of whom were opponents of Scientology. The editing conduct that led to the bans was often relatively mild if you look at the actual diffs (editing that might have gotten a regular editor warned but not banned). The approach taken seems to have been to let only regular editors do anything controversial in those articles.
Miradre I've never edited in the R&I area. I've commented (like now) on some of the related dispute resolution. 75.57.242.120 ( talk) 06:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the invitation for admins active on AE to comment on this. Here is the current 'Locus and focus of dispute' for WP:ARBR&I:
1.1) The dispute is focused on articles within the Race and intelligence controversy category. The core issue is whether Intelligence quotient varies significantly between different races and, if so, whether this may be attributed to genetic or environmental factors. The dispute may be characterised as comprising: (i) consistent point-of-view pushing; (ii) persistent edit-warring; and (iii) incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources.
This is one of the narrowest definitions of any Arb case that I reviewed. (It is the only one I found which is based on articles in a category). I think the current definition of WP:ARBPIA is working well. It helps that 'conflict between Arabs and Israelis' is an easy concept to grasp, both for the contributing editors and for the admins who may be asked to intervene. The ARBPIA definition is "..the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted."
Arbcom should consider widening the R&I definition to include "..the entire set of articles that discuss scientific findings which purport to show that race has a significant influence on human abilities and behavior, broadly interpreted." If the definition is widened, and this causes too many disputes to wind up at AE, Arbcom could easily undo this by motion. It may be less work for Arbcom to do it this way than for all borderline requests such as WP:AE#Miradre 2 to be passed over to Arbcom for handling as cases. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I generally agree with EdJohnston's statement. In general, authorizing sanctions for articles "closely related" to a topic is pretty much an open invitation to wikilawyering about how close it must be for an article to be "closely related". T. Canens ( talk) 01:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Please make a clarification or a clear statement so that the R&I reach is "broadly interpreted" (and that topic bans in general are broadly interpreted, if possible). Otherwise, every month we'll have a new request for clarification of this same issue, and WP:AE will become increasingly useless as POV pushers wreack havoc and claim that they be sanctioned because they were not editing in the strict topic area (inserting their POV in articles that are not under the ban if it is narrowly interpreted, changing unrelated articles so they are all about their POV, etc). This is, and will keep being, a recurrent problem, and you need to "fix" it via clarification. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 10:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The problems here aren't limited to easily categorized articles but to the overall subject itself, which is questions of racial inheritance and race difference. Uninvolved admins might not recognize how clearly linked the Race and crime problem is to those in Race and intelligence but editors who've worked in the articles will recognize the same sources and the same pattern of NPOV problems with the ways they're being used. Virtually all of Miradre's edits orbit this theme; nearly all relate to some controversial aspect in the study of race differences. "Broadly construed" is more appropriate given that the same pov pushing goes on in subordinate topics such as r/K selection theory, Race and health, IQ and Global Inequality, Lewontin's Fallacy, Human genetic clustering ... Professor marginalia ( talk) 19:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Make the entire Wikipedia subject to WP:Discretionary sanctions. People hardly ever edit it these days without an agenda. I have waded though swaths of topics where dozens of textbooks exist and only a pathetic stub or some crappy and unreadable article exists on the topic here. On the other hand, everyone likes to elbow the competition out of some socially important topic so their opinion is the first hit in Google. In short, admit that Wikipedia is mainly a venue for propaganda these days, and act accordingly. Tijfo098 ( talk) 22:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to the four administrators who watch WP:AE for commenting here. Posting a motion to add "broadly construed" for the discretionary sanctions re wP:ARBR&I would create consistency with previous topic bans and make the sanctions more straightforward to administer. Mathsci ( talk) 13:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't echo more what Timotheus Caneus said above. The standard wording of "broadly interpreted" is beneficial in that it nearly eliminates arguments about whether article X is within topic Y- I'm unaware of any successful challenge of a discretionary sanction due to the article involved not being within a broad interpretation of the related topic- because it is clearly understood language that boils down to on self-moderating one's behaviour for avoiding sanctions to "If it seems related, treat it like it is." On the uninvolved administrator side, a narrower view than that extremely liberal view is taken, my experience on the enforcement side is that the broadly interpreted is treated along the lines of the reasonable person standard. Generally, this lets AE get down to the business of behaviour (which AE is designed to evaluate) instead of questions of jurisdiction. (Note that I am only discussing mainspace and clearly related discussions (talk pages, AFDs, etc.)
What we have here is so different from the usual wording that enforcing it becomes difficult. It has had a tendency to turn enforcement not into a discussion of whether the behaviour involved was problematic, but how close the article involved is to the original subject of the dispute. And unlike the broad interpretation, entirely reasonable people can disagree on closely related, as there is no good, agreed upon way to decide how close is required for closely related to apply. Whether ArbCom settles this by replacing the remedy with "broadly interpreted" language or offers other guidance into the scope of the sanctions is much less important than that some form of clarification is provided. Courcelles 04:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
My current thoughts at this point in time is that this would fall under the third category here, where a warning/clarification is probably the best bet. I'd also note that this is not a game to see how CLOSE one can get to the topic area without actually violating a topic ban (this means adhering to the spirit of the sanction not the letter), and that I would recommend not brushing up against this fuzzy line too many times. SirFozzie ( talk) 00:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
That the following replace the terms in Remedy 5.1:
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Recuse:
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 Cptnono ( talk) at 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Prunesqualer is indeffed from the topic area. [10] Another user and I have a disagreement at Racism in Israel. I "warned" him (he had been warned about his conduct before) on his talk page. In hindsite, I should have been nicer and made it sound less scary. But the point of this request for clarification is that Prunesqualler decided to chime in. [11] Is he allowed to comment in a discussion about the I-P/I-A topic area?
Also, I would be worried about the potential hounding of him following my "career with interest" but he is not prohibited from checking me out. I believe he he is prohibited from joining in discussion, though. If an admin would clarify that an indef does not need to be forever it would be helpful too. If Prunesqualer would stop going out of his way to make attacks and proved his editing could be a benefit to the project then he could request to come back.
On a side note, Guinsberg and I have not gotten off on the right foot. I am tempted to request counseling in a separate request but would like to stop rocking the boat now. It would be appreciated if an admin could formally notify him of the arbitration case and give him advise in a friendlier fashion than I am capable of. Edits of concern include this pointy bombardment of the article with fact templates when there are sources provided for some of the lines.
[12]
Cptnono (
talk) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC) (this has now been done by an admin, although it has not been logged at
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of notifications
Prunesqualer continues to violate his topic ban. No other editor has been allowed to edit in a discussion based on the conflict area they were banned from. This request was a formality. Can an admin advise Prunsesqualer to stop commenting on discussions that originated in the topic area. He is not commenting based on anything else. It is only the I-P/I-A topic areas that we have been involved in and he even mentions them in his initial comment. Can an admin take care of this or do I need to jump through more hoops? If he gets blocked then he cannot edit anywhere so that is my next option.
Cptnono (
talk) 02:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This is still unresolved. Although I am happy to see this dropped sooner than later, some clarification is still needed. Cptnono ( talk) 06:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Stop dodging th quesiton admins. Xeno: Can he edit or not? I am not going to open an AE just to see it devovle into garbage. I want something clarified and that is the point of this board. Either you can do it or you should not comment here ever again since you have proven that you are not interested. Can he edit or not in a discussion about a topic area. Yes or no. I ti s an easy question. I get the reluctance but go ahead and answer. Cptnono ( talk) 05:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I realise that the following is almost certainly not being presented in the correct form, or forum. However I can only hope that interested parties will sympathise with the following: I am doing little harm here, and that: one should not have to be a Wiki-Lawyer in order to contribute to Wiki.
I believe my contributions, before my indefinite topic ban, were "a benefit to the project".
Re. my ban (to which Cptnono has linked/referred) I can now see that I committed naive breaches of Wiki editing rules. In the case of my first ban I didn’t even know what 3RR meant (I realise ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence, I'm just pointing out where I stood as an inexperienced editor). I noted during my resulting 21 October 2010, 24 hour, editing "block" that Wiki software made it impossible to edit. I made the following wrong assumption: that when I was allowed by the software to edit the Gaza war article before my longer ban on that page had run it's time I must have been forgiven or had slipped through the net (accepting the second possibility was not a noble thing to consider acting on, I admit) . This excuse may seem a little lame but I would add that if you follow the "Gaza War" discussion page at that time, you will find a fair bit of acceptance for the edits I proposed, even from previous opponents (this added to the "green light" feeling I had about making the edits). I realise now that that is not how Wiki works. For these relatively harmless mistakes I received an indefinite ban on editing IP/IA articles.
By contrast here are some Cptnono Wiki quotes:
"Call it Palestinians getting screwed with giant dildos as far as I am concerned"
"If you fuck with the mainspace I am going to fuck with you"
"How many separate articles do we need on the Palestinians being sad?"
"So you have enough time to write an AE but it took you this long to comment? Prick."
Action taken for the previous comments "blocked 3 hours for incivility"
Frankly, I admit, that since these events my attitudes and actions have reflected more than a touch of bitterness towards Cptnono. I believe Cptnono is more biased in IP/AP outlook than I am. I see no good reason beyond his (admittedly) superior Wiki-lawyering skills, as to why- he should be allowed to edit on IP/AP articles, and not I. PS I would be very happy to discuss the issue of subjectivity, which is so central to these matters (and all human affairs), with any interested party.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prunesqualer ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a great connaisseur of wikipedia's protocol. Even though I am aware that user Prunesqualer has been banned from contributing to Israeli/Palestinian articles, I can't understand the basis for Cptnono's complaint against him. User P. was not contributing to an Israeli/Palestinian article: he was using my Talk Page to warn me about the rather sly argument style Cptnono adopts on discussions about that topic - that is, user Prunesqualer wasn't even actually discussing Israeli/Palestinian politics, the only subject he has been forbidden to contribute to on Wikipedia. From what I can see in Cptnono's conduct, he has a very provocative communication style. He frequently accuses me of being disruptive and threatens to file a complaint against me for doing exactly what he's done before - even on instances where he recognizes I was right in acting in such a way. That he decided to pick on user Prunesqualer even though it is very hard to see what he has done wrong in communicating with me, only goes to confirm the pattern argumentative behavior. Plus, what he says about me - that I have been warned by an adm on my editions - is not true. Guinsberg ( talk) 01:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
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 Calvin Ty at 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
My apologizes for making this request for clarification several weeks after the fact. Only today, I came across this discussion between Amatulić and Sandstein about the ArbCom Longevity case. There was a link to the ArbCom case, and there's where I saw the Notifications section here showing that the admin EdJohnston gave me a notification on 6 March 2011. The ArbCom Longevity case closed on 17 Feb 2011, and I was not active on Wikipedia until 25 Feb 2011 and onwards.
EdJohnston and I did discuss the necessity of the 'notification' at the time (on 6 March 2011):
That's the reason I'm here today. I hope I'm at the right place. For starters, I have learned a lot since 25 Feb 2011 and am now better educated in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. At the time, and still today, I am of strong opinion that I should not have received a notice considering that I was not engaged in any inappropriate behavior.
I thought I had not, but I see that I did tell EdJohnston here where I quoted the ArbCom case, Finding of Facts #3, "Membership in or affiliation with the Gerontology Research Group, or any other group named in the evidence to this case, does not in and of itself constitute a substantive conflict of interest with regard to the editing of articles on longevity topics."
In that RfE case against NickOrnstein, which was expanded to include The 110 Club members (of which I'm an administrator/member of) due to possible off-wiki canvassing by some forum members, I had suggested a potential compromise here. I asked any admin this: "first, what is a discretionary sanction? Of more concern, why should every member of The 110 Club forum receive one automatically regardless of their level of involvement, if any, in a possible violation of any guidelines (which, to date, is quite debatable and has not been sufficiently proven)?"
To date, I still don't feel that I along with several other forum members should have received any notice unless there were diffs to provide evidence against each one of us (as far as I know, none were supplied by any editor against me). Yes, there were several diffs providing evidence against some forum members, which were quite convincing, but EdJohnston may have acted erroneously in good faith when he came to the conclusion that "I think that everyone who is part of the '110 Club Wikipedia' ought to receive this message.".
Finally, I apologize again for my chatterbox habit, but to sum up, I just feel that a formal notice was given to me by mistake, and I want to find out how I can have this formally retracted, if possible. I just am the type of person who abides with policies and guidelines, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere, and I still feel that formal notice is a negative connotation against me and who I really am like. Seeing my name in an ArbCom case did upset me so that's why I'm following up on whether I am able to have a notice retracted, hopefully by EdJohnston himself. Best regards, Calvin Ty 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
@EdJohnston, that was a good analogy about "taking back a notice is like unringing a bell". @SirFozzie, I did understood that "Notification does not imply any wrongdoing"; I guess I was just taken aback when I saw my name appearing in an ArbCom case that closed before I even became active here (even if it's just a notification). By 6 March 2011, the date of the notice, I knew that Longevity articles were being watched due to the recent ArbCom case. Yet, "notification does imply something" and the notification appeared not to be sent to every The 110 Club forum member that is also a Wikipedia editor (we can see a larger list of duplicate members in the ArbCom case) -- so naturally I felt "singled out" and that it was implied that "I was engaging in inappropriate behavior solely because of my The 110 Club membership" even as EdJohnston did strike out the "further" part of "inappropriate behavior" of the notice template, which was appreciative. That notification just didn't seem to jive with the ArbCom's statement about membership affiliation, that was all.
In any case, I certainly do not want to make a big deal out of this; just wanted to see whether there was an appeal process for getting a notice. Since there isn't, so SirFozzie or any arbitrator, please feel free to close this request for clarification. Regards, Calvin Ty 11:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I read some great points by everyone who commented to date. Since they have made the effort to comment, I'd like to follow-up here:
At present there is no appeal process for those who receive notices of discretionary sanctions and feel that they do not deserve them. Since notices are intended to head off future trouble, it seems unwise to make them into a major deal. The notice gives the recipient a link to policies and past decisions so they can see if they think they are OK. Taking back a notice is like unringing a bell. I am not aware that any recipient of a notice has ever been un-notified, and I don't see why we should began that now.
The major concerns raised at the AE regarding Nick Ornstein was that Nick was edit-warring against consensus, and that an offwiki group called the 110 Club was trying to manipulate the longevity articles on Wikipedia. CalvinTy made it known that he was an administrator of the 110 Club. As a result of the AE, Nick agreed to change his approach, and that issue appears resolved. It was decided not to take any action regarding the 110 Club. There were no sanctions against CalvinTy as a result of the thread; he was merely notified of the discretionary sanctions. User:SirFozzie may recall some of the details since he participated in the admin discussion at the AE. EdJohnston ( talk) 23:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll only comment about my understanding of the warning requirement, as the longevity-related matters are WP:TLDR.
WP:AC/DS#Warning says: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."
The wording of this provision does not require that the editor being warned has already done anything objectionable, or even (as some remedies do) that the warning needs to be given by an uninvolved administrator. With this wording, my understanding of the warning is that it is simply a procedural requirement to ensure that people who edit troublesome topics are aware that higher conduct standards apply to editing in these areas than elsewhere in Wikipedia. As such, I see no need to question, appeal or undo a warning under any circumstances. But evidently, editors who are not editing problematically should be warned (if at all) without using the {{ uw-sanctions}} template, which assumes that misconduct has already taken place. Sandstein 15:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the AE section to refresh my memory. I think there was a valid concern that there was canvassing happening there, that the blanket notification of possible sanctions for issues in this area. In fact, Ed went so far to say in the formal closing of the AE request: Notification does not imply any wrongdoing, but it is official notice that their behavior may be looked at if they seem to be editing so as to favor the use of a specific set of off-wiki sources. It's good that we haven't had any further issues after the warning was issued, but I don't see any reason to say that means the blanket warning wasn't necessary and/or a good idea. SirFozzie ( talk) 07:45, 13 April 2011 (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 Abd ( talk) at 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I apologize for the length of this; however there are complex issues, and I already spent a day boiling it down. I believe that what remains is worth reading. If not, I really shouldn't bother any more with Wikipedia, indeed, this is my letting go, my effort to ensure that I did what I could.
This is a request to lift a ban under general sanctions, [15], based on AN discussion, report filed by JzG. Ban was based on alleged "re-engagement in prior disruptive behavior that caused ArbComm to issue the sanction a little over a year ago." Asked for specifics, GWH provided
detailed reasons, and I comment specifically, for anyone wanting detail
|
---|
By the way, if not topic banned, I doubt I would have pursued formal dispute resolution, it's inconsistent with COI editing. Rather, I'd have occasionally advised, or responded to questions, and as I still do, off-wiki. I'd just rather advise, re cold fusion, on the cold fusion Talk page! Or make non-controversial edits, I often see errors or obvious shortcomings, since I know the damn field! |
While "wall of text" may have been a contributing factor for some arbitrators, the sanctions based on lengthy discussion did not pass, and the ban was rooted in a finding of tendentious article editing, with lengthy Talk page comment only weakly asserted. Since there was, this time, no such editing of the article even alleged, the new ban was not based on repetition of what led to the ban. See also the discussion of that finding as proposed. Rather, "wall of text" was a common claim from some editors, and I acknowledge it as a problem. It has been understood, however, that sometimes detailed discussion is appropriate, or can, at least, be tolerated, perhaps collapsed.
This is one full discussion that was part of the basis for GWH's decision, as considered in collapse above. The issue here is what RfAr/Abd and JzG was about, with another editor, previously and subsequently banned and blocked for behavior like this, raising the same arguments as ArbComm had rejected. You can see how the debate continued after I gave up, having done as much as I felt I could do. I did not create the mess at Cold fusion, it existed long before I became aware of the cold fusion article. The lenr-canr.org issue is still alive, see Talk:Cold fusion on lenr-canr.org, permalink for today.
To understand why it might easily seem that I'm disruptive, notice that my first case found that use of tools while involved had happened, and the second desysopped the admin, the occasion for my filing. A non-admin confronting admin abuse is rarely popular. With the first case, the preceding RfC, with crystal-clear evidence, had still shown 2/3 comment for banning me instead of addressing the RfC subject. The second case, the same clique had piled in, resulting in an easy appearance that "this editor is causing trouble." A later case, in which I took no part, addressed the clique itself.
Even if "wall of text" were the prior basis, contrary to claims that I "didn't hear," I had ceased the writing of lengthy comment, even where it might have been necessary, as a waste of my own time, and as ineffective with others. I acted consistently with COI restrictions, rigorously, regardless. This is a topic where experts, including Nobel laureates, disagree, see Brian Josephson, at Energy Catalyzer, and detailed discussion regarding the implications of sources, needed to negotiate a balanced article, will almost certainly be "impenetrable" to those who don't study and read the sources, etc.
I was pleased with General Sanctions passing, but, other than this ban, there has been no enforcement, in spite of clear disregard of policies and guidelines by others at Cold fusion. The only experienced editors supporting neutrality, previously active there, who knew how to, and had the energy to, handle disputes and get them resolved, to raise issues for AE, had been banned, both of us on the instigation of JzG, who was clearly highly involved, the basis for RfAr/Abd and JzG. This is not the place to examine JzG's behavior, per se, which is why extensive possible evidence about him isn't being submitted, it is only necessary, now, to understand that there is possible damage, and lessen it by removing an impediment to dispute resolution and true consensus, the bans. If the behavior is not repeated, water under the bridge.
An editor at Cold fusion, with his reverts and comments leading to so much of the allegedly offensive discussion, was later topic banned, and indef blocked, for behavior elsewhere that was no worse than at Cold fusion. Again, it is not necessary to rule on misbehavior, only the possibility of damage from such.
I ask for the Cold fusion topic bans of Pcarbonn and myself to be lifted, as unnecessary and prejudicial in context. Pcarbonn also acted consistently with COI rules on his return, he had found employment as a researcher in the field, I believe, and had not been tendentiously editing Cold fusion, confining himself to reasonable discussion on Talk, suggesting sources, etc. Pcarbonn told me that he'd given up, when he was banned the second time, notice, in such a frustrating way -- the arguments were bogus and misleading at best, implying that ArbComm had banned Pcarbonnn for his POV, something JzG often alleged in attempting to ban others. Sensibly for himself, he moved on to something else -- as did I, see Wikiversity:Special:Contributions/Abd. But Wikipedia lost. I also was, at the time of this ban, credited for editorial assistance in a journal that Einstein published in, Naturwissenschaften, in a recent review, Status of cold fusion (2010). Theoretically, this source should be golden on cold fusion (a recent peer-reviwed secondary source review in a mainstream publication), but material from it was tendentiously opposed.
Because of the meta delisting, one of GWH's reasons for the ban, I can provide a convenience link to this recent review.
Under General Sanctions, if a problem appears, it can be efficiently handled, but if the only experienced editors capable of clearly recognizing and addressing a problem are topic banned, there goes neutrality, while what is left looks like consensus. -- Abd ( talk) 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Abd was topic-banned for wall-of-text argumentation of WP:TRUTH from primary sources using links to copyright violating material on partisan sites.
His appeal consists of a wall of text arguing WP:TRUTH with links to primary sources hosted in violation of copyright on a partisan site. The previous appeal was couched in exactly similar terms. Abd, a self-confessed obsessive, never gives up.
The central question for any appeal must be: what's changed. The answer in this case is, nothing. One more paper has been published, which has not, as far as anyone can tell, changed the scientific consensus, and Abd's appeal rationale is the same as last time: that he's still right and everyone else is still wrong, especially that the original decision in the cold fusion arbitration case is wrong, the previous appeals resulting in upholding that decision were wrong, and Abd is still a fearless and wronged crusader for WP:TRUTH.
But the ban was not imposed because Abd was wrong, it was imposed because his interaction with others was impossibly problematic. As is pretty clear from the above, he doesn't get that. Abd lacks the self-criticism necessary to understand and resolve the problems that ensue when he tries to edit a subject on which he has deeply-held convictions that are at odds with the opinion of other editors. Guy ( Help!) 09:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that the situation has changed. I appreciate that Abd is continuing to address this via appeal procedures and within the system, but I don't see that the fundamental behavior has changed.
Abd - Additionally, while reviewing this, I came across your comments on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist over the last couple of days regarding lenr-canr.org. I am concerned that this activity violated the topic ban, which is in effect now.
I believe that you should stop that conversation until and unless Arbcom changes its mind below and revokes the sanction, in which case it would be a moot point anyways.
Currently, the topic ban goes until... October 5, 2011, one year from the AN discussion. I am greatly concerned that, if things continue in this direction, it will have to be reimposed for at least another year. Abd - I appreciate your devotion to this topic and you willingness to keep working within Wikipedia's system with regards to appeals and so forth, but your behavior on this topic is just not ok. It's not doing you, or Wikipedia, any good.
Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 18:41, 29 April 2011 (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 Abd ( talk) at 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I apologize for the length of this; however there are complex issues, and I already spent a day boiling it down. I believe that what remains is worth reading. If not, I really shouldn't bother any more with Wikipedia, indeed, this is my letting go, my effort to ensure that I did what I could.
This is a request to lift a ban under general sanctions, [20], based on AN discussion, report filed by JzG. Ban was based on alleged "re-engagement in prior disruptive behavior that caused ArbComm to issue the sanction a little over a year ago." Asked for specifics, GWH provided
detailed reasons, and I comment specifically, for anyone wanting detail
|
---|
By the way, if not topic banned, I doubt I would have pursued formal dispute resolution, it's inconsistent with COI editing. Rather, I'd have occasionally advised, or responded to questions, and as I still do, off-wiki. I'd just rather advise, re cold fusion, on the cold fusion Talk page! Or make non-controversial edits, I often see errors or obvious shortcomings, since I know the damn field! |
While "wall of text" may have been a contributing factor for some arbitrators, the sanctions based on lengthy discussion did not pass, and the ban was rooted in a finding of tendentious article editing, with lengthy Talk page comment only weakly asserted. Since there was, this time, no such editing of the article even alleged, the new ban was not based on repetition of what led to the ban. See also the discussion of that finding as proposed. Rather, "wall of text" was a common claim from some editors, and I acknowledge it as a problem. It has been understood, however, that sometimes detailed discussion is appropriate, or can, at least, be tolerated, perhaps collapsed.
This is one full discussion that was part of the basis for GWH's decision, as considered in collapse above. The issue here is what RfAr/Abd and JzG was about, with another editor, previously and subsequently banned and blocked for behavior like this, raising the same arguments as ArbComm had rejected. You can see how the debate continued after I gave up, having done as much as I felt I could do. I did not create the mess at Cold fusion, it existed long before I became aware of the cold fusion article. The lenr-canr.org issue is still alive, see Talk:Cold fusion on lenr-canr.org, permalink for today.
To understand why it might easily seem that I'm disruptive, notice that my first case found that use of tools while involved had happened, and the second desysopped the admin, the occasion for my filing. A non-admin confronting admin abuse is rarely popular. With the first case, the preceding RfC, with crystal-clear evidence, had still shown 2/3 comment for banning me instead of addressing the RfC subject. The second case, the same clique had piled in, resulting in an easy appearance that "this editor is causing trouble." A later case, in which I took no part, addressed the clique itself.
Even if "wall of text" were the prior basis, contrary to claims that I "didn't hear," I had ceased the writing of lengthy comment, even where it might have been necessary, as a waste of my own time, and as ineffective with others. I acted consistently with COI restrictions, rigorously, regardless. This is a topic where experts, including Nobel laureates, disagree, see Brian Josephson, at Energy Catalyzer, and detailed discussion regarding the implications of sources, needed to negotiate a balanced article, will almost certainly be "impenetrable" to those who don't study and read the sources, etc.
I was pleased with General Sanctions passing, but, other than this ban, there has been no enforcement, in spite of clear disregard of policies and guidelines by others at Cold fusion. The only experienced editors supporting neutrality, previously active there, who knew how to, and had the energy to, handle disputes and get them resolved, to raise issues for AE, had been banned, both of us on the instigation of JzG, who was clearly highly involved, the basis for RfAr/Abd and JzG. This is not the place to examine JzG's behavior, per se, which is why extensive possible evidence about him isn't being submitted, it is only necessary, now, to understand that there is possible damage, and lessen it by removing an impediment to dispute resolution and true consensus, the bans. If the behavior is not repeated, water under the bridge.
An editor at Cold fusion, with his reverts and comments leading to so much of the allegedly offensive discussion, was later topic banned, and indef blocked, for behavior elsewhere that was no worse than at Cold fusion. Again, it is not necessary to rule on misbehavior, only the possibility of damage from such.
I ask for the Cold fusion topic bans of Pcarbonn and myself to be lifted, as unnecessary and prejudicial in context. Pcarbonn also acted consistently with COI rules on his return, he had found employment as a researcher in the field, I believe, and had not been tendentiously editing Cold fusion, confining himself to reasonable discussion on Talk, suggesting sources, etc. Pcarbonn told me that he'd given up, when he was banned the second time, notice, in such a frustrating way -- the arguments were bogus and misleading at best, implying that ArbComm had banned Pcarbonnn for his POV, something JzG often alleged in attempting to ban others. Sensibly for himself, he moved on to something else -- as did I, see Wikiversity:Special:Contributions/Abd. But Wikipedia lost. I also was, at the time of this ban, credited for editorial assistance in a journal that Einstein published in, Naturwissenschaften, in a recent review, Status of cold fusion (2010). Theoretically, this source should be golden on cold fusion (a recent peer-reviwed secondary source review in a mainstream publication), but material from it was tendentiously opposed.
Because of the meta delisting, one of GWH's reasons for the ban, I can provide a convenience link to this recent review.
Under General Sanctions, if a problem appears, it can be efficiently handled, but if the only experienced editors capable of clearly recognizing and addressing a problem are topic banned, there goes neutrality, while what is left looks like consensus. -- Abd ( talk) 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
responses to comments
|
---|
|
Abd was topic-banned for wall-of-text argumentation of WP:TRUTH from primary sources using links to copyright violating material on partisan sites.
His appeal consists of a wall of text arguing WP:TRUTH with links to primary sources hosted in violation of copyright on a partisan site. The previous appeal was couched in exactly similar terms. Abd, a self-confessed obsessive, never gives up.
The central question for any appeal must be: what's changed. The answer in this case is, nothing. One more paper has been published, which has not, as far as anyone can tell, changed the scientific consensus, and Abd's appeal rationale is the same as last time: that he's still right and everyone else is still wrong, especially that the original decision in the cold fusion arbitration case is wrong, the previous appeals resulting in upholding that decision were wrong, and Abd is still a fearless and wronged crusader for WP:TRUTH.
But the ban was not imposed because Abd was wrong, it was imposed because his interaction with others was impossibly problematic. As is pretty clear from the above, he doesn't get that. Abd lacks the self-criticism necessary to understand and resolve the problems that ensue when he tries to edit a subject on which he has deeply-held convictions that are at odds with the opinion of other editors. Guy ( Help!) 09:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that the situation has changed. I appreciate that Abd is continuing to address this via appeal procedures and within the system, but I don't see that the fundamental behavior has changed.
Abd - Additionally, while reviewing this, I came across your comments on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist over the last couple of days regarding lenr-canr.org. I am concerned that this activity violated the topic ban, which is in effect now.
I believe that you should stop that conversation until and unless Arbcom changes its mind below and revokes the sanction, in which case it would be a moot point anyways.
Currently, the topic ban goes until... October 5, 2011, one year from the AN discussion. I am greatly concerned that, if things continue in this direction, it will have to be reimposed for at least another year. Abd - I appreciate your devotion to this topic and you willingness to keep working within Wikipedia's system with regards to appeals and so forth, but your behavior on this topic is just not ok. It's not doing you, or Wikipedia, any good.
Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 18:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Abd has decided that his current block shouldn't prevent him from POINTy editing while logged out, purportedly to remove previously-made comments which might violate his topic ban, but principally as a way to stir things up: summary provided by Abd himself. (I presume based on past performance that he's waiting for someone to block his IP so he can file another rambling unblock request, explaining how unreasonable it is for us to block him while he is trying so hard to clean up after himself, and why is everyone being so unfair?) Since Abd has such an extensive history of boundary-testing, I would recommend that the ArbCom short-circuit the nonsense, save everyone some time, and ban him already. He's declared that he's going to edit through a block or ban anyway, but we might as well dot the i and cross the t. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:48, 1 May 2011 (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 Tijfo098 ( talk) at 13:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I find the discretionary sanctions passed in this case quite muddy. Do they apply for instance to someone who persistently edits with, say, anti-Palestinian or anti-Serbian bias? I can think of a number of users who don't break 1RR and similar technical rules (like outright misusing sources) but edit in this fashion overall, by adding solely negative information about some peoples. Assuming my impression is correct, may I bring them to WP:AE under the discretionary sanctioned passed in this case? 13:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Casliber, did you change your mind since the vote? Or was the remedy poorly worded? The discretionary sanction/remedy linked says "its terms are applicable to other disputes similar to those arising in this current case." It seems to me that NYB's thought experiment, although not part of the decision itself, is how that remedy is to be interpreted, at least by him. 14:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, Casliber, what do you mean by "opening the floodgate"? Do you think there are many editors like Noleander active, but editing in different anti-people-X areas? 17:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Tryptofish, Noleander has been indef topic banned as a separate remedy in the case, so I doubt the discretionary sanctions were meant for him alone (the 2nd / discretionary remedy doesn't contain such wording or even name Noleander), but who knows... 16:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. 03:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I had thought that the decision was clear and settled, but seeing Casliber's comment below makes me feel a need to come back with a question. It seems clear to me that the Noleander case was about articles pertaining to Judaism and the Jewish people, so the discretionary sanctions do not automatically extend to other religions or peoples, as Casliber says. However, Casliber's answer sounds to me like the sanctions might only apply to Noleander, individually, and not to other editors who might engage in the kinds of conduct addressed in the sanction, in content pertaining to to Judaism and the Jewish people. If so, that does not make sense to me. Noleander is topic banned from that subject area, so surely the sanctions apply to other editors. Furthermore, it seemed clear to me during the case that the purpose of the discretionary sanctions was to address conduct by editors other than Noleander, that did not rise to the level of requiring ArbCom sanctions in this case, but which was nonetheless recognized as being unhelpful. Could the Committee please clarify that? Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I too am confused by Calisber's response. I was under the impression that Arbitration Enforcement of discretionary sanctions was available as a remedy once someone was notified by an admin that their edits in a certain area fall under the purview of an arbitration case. Is that not correct? Thanks for any clarification. Griswaldo ( talk) 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Roger and Brad, are you saying that discretionary sanctions may not be imposed anywhere on the authority of the Noleander case, but they could be imposed for most examples of racist editing, if the racism is regarding or alluding to the intelligence or other human attributes (specifically including kindness, typical behaviour and/or impartiality, but presumably excluding things like height, physical strength and similar non-personality attributes) of the denigrated race on the authority of the Race and intelligence case? If so,
Thank you all, particularly Roger, as I'm now happy I understand everything. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (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 YMB29 ( talk) at 19:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Remedy #8 - YMB29 topic banned
It has been almost a year and I stayed away from editing. Can the topic ban end now?
I did not edit outside the topic because I only edited on the topic before and I did not know until recently that admins look at that.
If editing outside the topic is so important then why was not this made clear when the case was decided? I understood the ban as a restriction that would be lifted if I don't violate it and stay out of trouble. - YMB29 ( talk) 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your objective reaction. You were also the only arbitrator who understood my situation and suggested a less severe ban. [27] [28]
As for what I would do differently, I guess I won't get into edit warring even if a user does nothing but that. If I again encounter a user who does not want to discuss and compromise, I will keep trying to get an admin or other users to help, even if that will take long and be frustrating.
If you want me to gradually return to editing on the topic, maybe I could for now be limited to a few edits per week and/or no reverts of others? - YMB29 ( talk) 06:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess thank you for providing diffs of me trying to make the wording in articles more neutral and accurate ("reinterpreting" is better than misinterpreting), adding sourced information (don't know where you got that I don't give new sources...), and requesting sources for statements. If you want diffs of me significantly expanding articles here are some examples: [29] [30] (forgot to login but that was me)
If anything problems with you discouraged me from getting more involved in editing Wikipedia and making more of such edits. - YMB29 ( talk) 21:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Why are you so concerned? It is not like I did anything terrible. Again, one of the arbitrators did not even think that I deserved such a long ban. [31] I am in this situation because of a conflict with one user who is still topic banned (and who is trying to keep me topic banned now). With others I have always been able to resolve disputes. - YMB29 ( talk) 21:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I am aware of what that user is trying to do but just felt I had to respond to some accusations since the arbitrators might look at that. As for editing the topic you suggested, I think it is too late now for this amendment, if only I knew about editing outside the topic ban requirement before... - YMB29 ( talk) 01:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
When I asked you in late February about me having to edit outside the topic you did not give a clear answer and did not answer me about opening this request. [32] So after some time I decided to try making a request. - YMB29 ( talk) 06:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I've never been involved with this case or topic area, but it seems to me that the spirit of the resolution was that YMB29 should stay away from this troublesome topic area for a significant period of time, which he has done. I see what all the arbitrators are saying, but I think Newyorkbrad has got the right attitude here, and YMB29's response to his statement is along the same lines I was thinking. So, as a way forward I would like to propose the following:
I don't expect this to be perfect, so I anticipate changes (e.g. not everything may be necessary, and/or I may have missed something). The essence is that YMB29 agrees to an editing restrictions and to work with mentors to gradually ease the restrictions.
I have deliberately not mentioned a narrowing of the topic ban (e.g. if YMB29 is seen to be doing fine on some aspects of the topic but not others) as I don't know whether this should be within the powers of the moderators or should only be done by application to the arbitration committee.
I unfortunately do not have the time to volunteer to be one of the mentors. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the purpose of indefinite sanctions issued in many recent cases was to make sure that editors can improve. This is different from issuing a ban for a fixed period of time. Nevertheless, I believe that any editor with a good record of content contributions must be given second chance, as I said about another participant of this case [33]. I would encourage YMB29 to provide five to ten best diffs showing how he creates or significantly expands any articles during last three years (I could not find anything). That would be an important argument in his favor. Hodja Nasreddin ( talk) 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
@YMB29. Thank you for providing two your best diffs. Hodja Nasreddin ( talk) 00:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
@Russavia. I commented as the only person who closely interacted with YMB29 in the past. All others ( User:Isarig, User:Kostan1, User:Altenmann and User:Boris Novikov) are currently inactive. I neither support nor object this request. I only suggested to look at his editing record, which I thought was a perfectly legitimate suggestion. Hodja Nasreddin ( talk) 15:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
@Commenting on the policy debate. This is an important debate because such sanctions were given in many recent cases including "Climate change". I think it was a perfectly legitimate idea to follow real life justice model: giving certain time to the violators, but allowing them to return earlier if they show good behavior. At the same time, I do believe that your recent decisions include one problematic approach. Here it is: giving an indefinite time to first-time violators who made a significant contribution to the project based on their editing record (I am talking about many recent cases; "first-time" means they did not receive previously any official sanctions by Arbcom). That is something you might wish to reconsider. Hodja Nasreddin ( talk) 14:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
YMB29, may I make a suggestion. The fact that an editor has chosen to covertly attack your presence on WP right here at this request should be ignored by yourself. The whole point of the attack being made as it was is to try and provoke you into a response which you should not be making.
As it is, your request will likely be approved (as it is as this point in time) perhaps with a 1RR restriction for a year. This is something which if implemented on yourself should also be placed on other editors when they come to have their requests looked at.
Having said that, why don't you use this opportunity, right now to go and expand some articles on Russia pre-1917? Your topic ban never stopped you from editing pre-1917 Russian articles, did you know that? Why not use this opportunity to show that you can do what some arbs are doubting you are capable of? -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 22:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a question about enforcement of Motions 1 and 1.1 at AE. The admins at AE would need guidance on how to handle any possible future complaints. The decision that YMB29 is requesting an amendment to is WP:ARBRB, which does not provide any discretionary sanctions. So if YMB29 does not follow the expected standards after the lifting of his topic ban, it is not clear what to do. Motions 1 and 1.1 defer to 'related decisions' for enforcement. Can we assume that the related decisions would be WP:DIGWUREN? It is not at first sight obvious that WP:DIGWUREN#Locus of dispute covers the entire Soviet Union, which is what YMB29 was specifically banned from under WP:ARBRB. This is not necessarily a problem if the Committee thinks that DIGWUREN is sufficient to handle anything likely to go wrong in the future. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh what the hell, give him a chance. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Volunteer Marek. There's been enough witch hunting and bad blood.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 22:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Remedy 8 ("YMB29 topic banned") of the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys is terminated, effective immediately. YMB29 is placed on a one-revert-per-day restriction in the relevant topic area ("articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles") for a period of six months. YMB29 is reminded to abide by the principles discussed in the decision, as well as all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in his future editing, and that he remains subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of related decisions should he violate them.
Remedy 8 ("YMB29 topic banned") of the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys is terminated, effective immediately. YMB29 is placed on a one-revert-per-day restriction in the relevant topic area ("articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles") for a period of one year. YMB29 is reminded to abide by the principles discussed in the decision, as well as all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in his future editing, and that he remains subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of related decisions should he violate them.
An editor who is indefinitely topic-banned or otherwise restricted from editing in a topic area under an Arbitration Committee decision may request an amendment to lift or modify the restriction after an appropriate time period has elapsed. A reasonable minimum time period for such a request will ordinarily be six months, unless the decision provides for a different time or the Committee subsequently determines otherwise. In considering such a request, the Committee will give significant weight to, among other factors, whether the editor in question has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.
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 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
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 Lightmouse ( talk) at 12:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Proposed amendment:
The Lightmouse non-bot account and the related bot account (Lightbot) have been dealing with units of measurement for years and have played a part in significantly improving the accessibility, consistency and more functional linking of units of measurement that we now see on Wikipedia. Lightbot is currently authorised by BAG to edit feet and miles and there's an application to extend the scope to include inches. The workload of BAG is such that weeks have passed without a decision.
BAG and Lightmouse are in the unenviable position of having to debate code scope prior to testing rather than after. It means that non-bot automated edits must be elevated to bot status or remain undone.
Could I suggest that clause 7.1 be removed? This would reduce the administrative burden related to improving units of measure, which is a huge and ongoing task for Wikipedia. I believe it will be to the betterment of the project.
The resumption of "MOS Warrior" tactics is not an acceptable outcome here. The manual of style is a true guideline that merely offers guidance, not a set of rules to be enforced using automation. Resumption of widespread and automated "MOS enforcement" will cause a lot of unnecessary conflict. The local consensus at MOS talk pages is often not reflected on a global scale, especially when it comes to units, which are often governed by different conventions in different fields of endeavor.
I remain unconvinced that Lightmouse understands that automation should only be used for truly non-controversial tasks. The correctness of a particular style is not important, what is important is whether the task is truly non-controversial.
The latest amendment was generous, and should not be expanded upon at this time. Gigs ( talk) 17:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed by the direction this case is going. It seems to me that no one at ArbCom is really bothered by Lightmouse having made at least 4853 semi-automated edits from his own account, at speeds of up to 15 edits a minute (faster than we expect bots to go) and without BAG approval (all of this is neatly listed at this page) despite being under a sanction which clearly stated he was to take no semi or fully automated edits from any account except his bot account, and even then to only do so with BAG approval. I fail to understand the point of ArbCom making sanctions if they are not then going to enforce them, and thus far the only "enforcement" I've seen is further relaxing of the sanctions, which I don't feel was done in an entirely open manner (I don't feel the most recent amendment really took into account this request, which was closed as stale). Personally I feel the action which needs to be taken in this case is further restricting and enforcement, rather than simply looking the other way. - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}
{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 aprock ( talk) at 21:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
List of any editors already sanctioned, and confirmation that all have been notified of the motion to amend:
There seems to be some confusion about what edits fall under Administration Enforcement for the Race and Intelligence discretionary sanctions. From R/I Arbitration Remedies:Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles. The open question is how to interpret "closely related".
At the current AE Miradre/2 discussion, the behavior being discussed centers around the article Race and crime. Race and crime mentions IQ/intelligence seven times, and Race and intelligence is listed in the "See also" section of the article.
Several editors feel that the content and edits about race and intelligence (e.g. [4], [5], [6]) to Race and crime should be covered by arbitration enforcement. On the other hand, at least one administrator (Sandstein), is taking the not unreasonable view that this article is not covered by discretionary sanctions.
Clarification request: Does "closely related" apply only to what articles should be about, or does it also apply to the actual content within articles which may not otherwise be considered closely related?
I've no opinion about whether the AE case is actionable on the merits, as I've examined it so far only with respect of the scope of the remedy that is to be enforced. Sandstein 21:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Second Sandstein's suggestion. Just make it "race and related topics", as in this particular case - and most likely many future ones - the problems aren't just limited to Race and crime and Race and intelligence but also Social interpretation of race, Immigration and crime, Ethnic nepotism and many other articles, all orbiting in one way or another the topic of race. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that it makes little sense to phrase the remedy as having to do with certain articles, but rather with certain topics. The topics is "race and intelligence" but this topic can be partially treated in many articles that are not yet tagged with "Race and intelligence controversy" because nobody (but Miradre) have noticed that this topic has any relation to the R&I topic yet. If the restrictions should be limited to articles within the category then any user would be able to create new articles without including them in the category and repeat all the same problems that lead to the R&I Arbcase with impunity. That seems unreasonable. The discretionary restrictions should touch the topic whether it is treated in an article that is explicitly linked to the arbcase or not. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The issue to me is we are experiencing spill over from the initial WP:ARBR&I scope. I am going to talk about the scenario without naming names here to show that this is problem with the scope. I am not going to name name because that would that its limited to single editor and single scenario but represents a flaw in ability to enforce the core values of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR to ensure Encyclopedic Content.
An editor who is using legitimate sources to and portraying them in way unintended by the authors of the sources. The Article Race and Crime seemingly represents something well outside the WP:ARBR&I boundaries. The assertion is put into the article that Black are responsible for disproportionment amount of crime in Western Justice systems. No one dispute that Black are convicted of most crimes in America/UK and a fair number of european justice systems Justice system. The article as written by this individual presented very main stream data of Crime and prison statistics. This seemingly valid content has place in an encyclopedia under articles like Minorities and Crime.
The editor then presents fringe sources that suggest Race/Genetics/Intlectual abilitlities all play a role that makes blacks more prone to crime. Then says the view have been met with "criticism" but leaves it at that.
The editor is taken to AE where Admin who is taking a strict interpretation of the Ruling that states "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles."
Clearly in this scenario and all future scenarios AE admins need to have the tools to prevent spill over of WP:ARBR&I material into articles where such material is placed.
I thank the committee for their time and hope they will understand the scenario is not limited to this Editor and this Admin made in the request for clarification. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 22:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
IQ correlates with lot of things. Similarly, race can be interpreted very broadly. Obviously the main articles about the controversy falls under the arbitration remedies. But I think one can introduce IQ as a factor in many race articles. Should Affirmative action be under this scope? One can certainly find sources on IQ and affirmative action. IQ is not mentioned there now. But if I introduced some material on IQ, would the article then fall under the scope? Would White flight? Similarly, there are a lot of articles where one can introduce the factors IQ and race. Should all of those articles fall under the scope the moment anyone makes this connection? Should Immigration fall under this scope the moment someone introduces some material on race and IQ there? Should Economic development fall under this scope the moment someone introduces some material on race and IQ there? Should HIV fall under this scope if someone introduces some material on race and IQ there, studies of which are in the academic literature? Should Malnutrition, Malaria, Education, or Literacy be under the scope, since they are proposed environmental factors explaining racial IQ differences? Or should the Olympic games article be, the Race and sports article already have some material regarding Chinese views that they are suited to "technical" sports in part because the stereotype of them being smart. Material not in the article applied this to differing Chinese Olympic medal rates for different sports. Should Alzheimer's or Mental retardation fall under this scope since they are intelligence related and differ between races? Should a book like Human Accomplishment be? Or History of science or Technology development? Should Incarceration in the United States or Rape be, if someone transferred some material from race and crime there? Should Genocide and Ethnic conflicts be, some researchers have made a connection with different average IQs causing conflicts between groups.
In short, it is possible to introduce sourced material connecting race and intelligence to numerous other topics. Where does it stop? Some clarification would be greatly appreciated. I introduced IQ to race and crime. I could introduce IQ and race to numerous other articles as per above. Miradre ( talk) 02:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the AE dispute I would have made the edits to race and crime regardless since none of my edits are close to being a policy violation. Miradre ( talk) 03:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I would also ask that the arbitrators to consider my view that while biological unequality explanations are automatically unpopular, they are not necessarily harmful to society. See [7] and the section "My motivation for editing these controversial topics". In my view, I have done no policy violation, but my critics are trying to use the general unpopularity of the views I have introduced, in accordance with policy, to get me banned, not on merit for what I have done, but due to the emotional responses these views cause. Any objective evaluation of the AE evidence would instead show policy violations by several of my detractors. Miradre ( talk) 03:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
In my view a topic that causes emotional revulsion, regardless of scientific merits, has the potential to fare poorly in a quick process possibly involving only a single administrator. Only in a slower process, with more participants, has such unpopular views some chance to judged on merit and not on emotions. So I would also ask the arbitrators to consider the effects of extending the arbitration remedies, which in my view are not well suited for this emotional and important area, more broadly. Miradre ( talk) 03:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Miradre makes a good point above regarding the futility of trying to demarcate the bounds of a contentious topic by an explicit list of articles. The text at the WP:TBAN policy touches on this issue - the relevant sections at otherwise unrelated articles are covered by a topic ban; going by the principle of least astonishment, we should apply the same reasoning when defining areas where discretionary sanctions are necessary. Otherwise we will find edits that violate a topic ban yet fall outside the list of articles covered by the discretionary sanctions invoked to impose that very topic ban. If it was ArbCom's intention that ARBR&I sanctions only be used for article bans and similarly explicitly strictly limited sanctions, then the current wording is fine. That is a significantly more limited tool, though, and is much more easily subjected to gaming of the system. Sandstein's proposal to extend the scope of ARBR&I discretionary sanctions by motion has merit, though I am not sure where the balance lies so that this dispute is covered but the rest of the site is not. By the principle of I know it when I see it, the current AE case deals with editing of the same sort that led up to the case (no comment regarding whether the material should be part of the encyclopedia - it takes two to edit war, and all that); I think that that gives us a minimum threshold for clarifying the scope of the case to cover every article, section, and discussion treating race, intelligence, and any connection between the two. - 2/0 ( cont.) 07:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought someone should mention WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Miradre/Archive. It does seem like the system is being gamed. 75.57.242.120 ( talk) 07:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
No opinion (some reservations) about extending R&I discretionary sanctions to all race-related articles. I notice the Miradre SPI didn't mention User:Woodsrock, created within a week of Miradre. I think I remember a few others as well. (Woodsrock did make a small effort to branch out to a few more topics besides R&I). WP:ARBSCI#Single purpose accounts with agendas says:
- Single purpose accounts with agendas
- 5.1) Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year. Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be re-blocked at the expiry of a topic ban if they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban.
- Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Given this recurring pattern of brand new editors appearing out of nowhere to stir up this area, I think something like that should be added to ARBR&I. A proposal like this was discussed extensively in one of the pre-arbitration ANI threads, and got pretty wide support, not quite reaching consensus at the time (I supported it). Subsequent events suggest we need it after all. 75.57.242.120 ( talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
SirFozzie: re "a warning/clarification is probably the best bet", does the warning Miradre already received (per Mathsci) not count? 75.57.242.120 ( talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 75.57.242.120 ( talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Resident Anthropologist: WP:ARBSCI banned quite a lot of SPA's from Scientology topics ( start here), some of whom were connected with Scientology and others of whom were opponents of Scientology. The editing conduct that led to the bans was often relatively mild if you look at the actual diffs (editing that might have gotten a regular editor warned but not banned). The approach taken seems to have been to let only regular editors do anything controversial in those articles.
Miradre I've never edited in the R&I area. I've commented (like now) on some of the related dispute resolution. 75.57.242.120 ( talk) 06:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the invitation for admins active on AE to comment on this. Here is the current 'Locus and focus of dispute' for WP:ARBR&I:
1.1) The dispute is focused on articles within the Race and intelligence controversy category. The core issue is whether Intelligence quotient varies significantly between different races and, if so, whether this may be attributed to genetic or environmental factors. The dispute may be characterised as comprising: (i) consistent point-of-view pushing; (ii) persistent edit-warring; and (iii) incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources.
This is one of the narrowest definitions of any Arb case that I reviewed. (It is the only one I found which is based on articles in a category). I think the current definition of WP:ARBPIA is working well. It helps that 'conflict between Arabs and Israelis' is an easy concept to grasp, both for the contributing editors and for the admins who may be asked to intervene. The ARBPIA definition is "..the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted."
Arbcom should consider widening the R&I definition to include "..the entire set of articles that discuss scientific findings which purport to show that race has a significant influence on human abilities and behavior, broadly interpreted." If the definition is widened, and this causes too many disputes to wind up at AE, Arbcom could easily undo this by motion. It may be less work for Arbcom to do it this way than for all borderline requests such as WP:AE#Miradre 2 to be passed over to Arbcom for handling as cases. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I generally agree with EdJohnston's statement. In general, authorizing sanctions for articles "closely related" to a topic is pretty much an open invitation to wikilawyering about how close it must be for an article to be "closely related". T. Canens ( talk) 01:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Please make a clarification or a clear statement so that the R&I reach is "broadly interpreted" (and that topic bans in general are broadly interpreted, if possible). Otherwise, every month we'll have a new request for clarification of this same issue, and WP:AE will become increasingly useless as POV pushers wreack havoc and claim that they be sanctioned because they were not editing in the strict topic area (inserting their POV in articles that are not under the ban if it is narrowly interpreted, changing unrelated articles so they are all about their POV, etc). This is, and will keep being, a recurrent problem, and you need to "fix" it via clarification. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 10:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The problems here aren't limited to easily categorized articles but to the overall subject itself, which is questions of racial inheritance and race difference. Uninvolved admins might not recognize how clearly linked the Race and crime problem is to those in Race and intelligence but editors who've worked in the articles will recognize the same sources and the same pattern of NPOV problems with the ways they're being used. Virtually all of Miradre's edits orbit this theme; nearly all relate to some controversial aspect in the study of race differences. "Broadly construed" is more appropriate given that the same pov pushing goes on in subordinate topics such as r/K selection theory, Race and health, IQ and Global Inequality, Lewontin's Fallacy, Human genetic clustering ... Professor marginalia ( talk) 19:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Make the entire Wikipedia subject to WP:Discretionary sanctions. People hardly ever edit it these days without an agenda. I have waded though swaths of topics where dozens of textbooks exist and only a pathetic stub or some crappy and unreadable article exists on the topic here. On the other hand, everyone likes to elbow the competition out of some socially important topic so their opinion is the first hit in Google. In short, admit that Wikipedia is mainly a venue for propaganda these days, and act accordingly. Tijfo098 ( talk) 22:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to the four administrators who watch WP:AE for commenting here. Posting a motion to add "broadly construed" for the discretionary sanctions re wP:ARBR&I would create consistency with previous topic bans and make the sanctions more straightforward to administer. Mathsci ( talk) 13:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't echo more what Timotheus Caneus said above. The standard wording of "broadly interpreted" is beneficial in that it nearly eliminates arguments about whether article X is within topic Y- I'm unaware of any successful challenge of a discretionary sanction due to the article involved not being within a broad interpretation of the related topic- because it is clearly understood language that boils down to on self-moderating one's behaviour for avoiding sanctions to "If it seems related, treat it like it is." On the uninvolved administrator side, a narrower view than that extremely liberal view is taken, my experience on the enforcement side is that the broadly interpreted is treated along the lines of the reasonable person standard. Generally, this lets AE get down to the business of behaviour (which AE is designed to evaluate) instead of questions of jurisdiction. (Note that I am only discussing mainspace and clearly related discussions (talk pages, AFDs, etc.)
What we have here is so different from the usual wording that enforcing it becomes difficult. It has had a tendency to turn enforcement not into a discussion of whether the behaviour involved was problematic, but how close the article involved is to the original subject of the dispute. And unlike the broad interpretation, entirely reasonable people can disagree on closely related, as there is no good, agreed upon way to decide how close is required for closely related to apply. Whether ArbCom settles this by replacing the remedy with "broadly interpreted" language or offers other guidance into the scope of the sanctions is much less important than that some form of clarification is provided. Courcelles 04:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
My current thoughts at this point in time is that this would fall under the third category here, where a warning/clarification is probably the best bet. I'd also note that this is not a game to see how CLOSE one can get to the topic area without actually violating a topic ban (this means adhering to the spirit of the sanction not the letter), and that I would recommend not brushing up against this fuzzy line too many times. SirFozzie ( talk) 00:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
That the following replace the terms in Remedy 5.1:
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Recuse:
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 Cptnono ( talk) at 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Prunesqualer is indeffed from the topic area. [10] Another user and I have a disagreement at Racism in Israel. I "warned" him (he had been warned about his conduct before) on his talk page. In hindsite, I should have been nicer and made it sound less scary. But the point of this request for clarification is that Prunesqualler decided to chime in. [11] Is he allowed to comment in a discussion about the I-P/I-A topic area?
Also, I would be worried about the potential hounding of him following my "career with interest" but he is not prohibited from checking me out. I believe he he is prohibited from joining in discussion, though. If an admin would clarify that an indef does not need to be forever it would be helpful too. If Prunesqualer would stop going out of his way to make attacks and proved his editing could be a benefit to the project then he could request to come back.
On a side note, Guinsberg and I have not gotten off on the right foot. I am tempted to request counseling in a separate request but would like to stop rocking the boat now. It would be appreciated if an admin could formally notify him of the arbitration case and give him advise in a friendlier fashion than I am capable of. Edits of concern include this pointy bombardment of the article with fact templates when there are sources provided for some of the lines.
[12]
Cptnono (
talk) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC) (this has now been done by an admin, although it has not been logged at
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of notifications
Prunesqualer continues to violate his topic ban. No other editor has been allowed to edit in a discussion based on the conflict area they were banned from. This request was a formality. Can an admin advise Prunsesqualer to stop commenting on discussions that originated in the topic area. He is not commenting based on anything else. It is only the I-P/I-A topic areas that we have been involved in and he even mentions them in his initial comment. Can an admin take care of this or do I need to jump through more hoops? If he gets blocked then he cannot edit anywhere so that is my next option.
Cptnono (
talk) 02:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This is still unresolved. Although I am happy to see this dropped sooner than later, some clarification is still needed. Cptnono ( talk) 06:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Stop dodging th quesiton admins. Xeno: Can he edit or not? I am not going to open an AE just to see it devovle into garbage. I want something clarified and that is the point of this board. Either you can do it or you should not comment here ever again since you have proven that you are not interested. Can he edit or not in a discussion about a topic area. Yes or no. I ti s an easy question. I get the reluctance but go ahead and answer. Cptnono ( talk) 05:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I realise that the following is almost certainly not being presented in the correct form, or forum. However I can only hope that interested parties will sympathise with the following: I am doing little harm here, and that: one should not have to be a Wiki-Lawyer in order to contribute to Wiki.
I believe my contributions, before my indefinite topic ban, were "a benefit to the project".
Re. my ban (to which Cptnono has linked/referred) I can now see that I committed naive breaches of Wiki editing rules. In the case of my first ban I didn’t even know what 3RR meant (I realise ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence, I'm just pointing out where I stood as an inexperienced editor). I noted during my resulting 21 October 2010, 24 hour, editing "block" that Wiki software made it impossible to edit. I made the following wrong assumption: that when I was allowed by the software to edit the Gaza war article before my longer ban on that page had run it's time I must have been forgiven or had slipped through the net (accepting the second possibility was not a noble thing to consider acting on, I admit) . This excuse may seem a little lame but I would add that if you follow the "Gaza War" discussion page at that time, you will find a fair bit of acceptance for the edits I proposed, even from previous opponents (this added to the "green light" feeling I had about making the edits). I realise now that that is not how Wiki works. For these relatively harmless mistakes I received an indefinite ban on editing IP/IA articles.
By contrast here are some Cptnono Wiki quotes:
"Call it Palestinians getting screwed with giant dildos as far as I am concerned"
"If you fuck with the mainspace I am going to fuck with you"
"How many separate articles do we need on the Palestinians being sad?"
"So you have enough time to write an AE but it took you this long to comment? Prick."
Action taken for the previous comments "blocked 3 hours for incivility"
Frankly, I admit, that since these events my attitudes and actions have reflected more than a touch of bitterness towards Cptnono. I believe Cptnono is more biased in IP/AP outlook than I am. I see no good reason beyond his (admittedly) superior Wiki-lawyering skills, as to why- he should be allowed to edit on IP/AP articles, and not I. PS I would be very happy to discuss the issue of subjectivity, which is so central to these matters (and all human affairs), with any interested party.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prunesqualer ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a great connaisseur of wikipedia's protocol. Even though I am aware that user Prunesqualer has been banned from contributing to Israeli/Palestinian articles, I can't understand the basis for Cptnono's complaint against him. User P. was not contributing to an Israeli/Palestinian article: he was using my Talk Page to warn me about the rather sly argument style Cptnono adopts on discussions about that topic - that is, user Prunesqualer wasn't even actually discussing Israeli/Palestinian politics, the only subject he has been forbidden to contribute to on Wikipedia. From what I can see in Cptnono's conduct, he has a very provocative communication style. He frequently accuses me of being disruptive and threatens to file a complaint against me for doing exactly what he's done before - even on instances where he recognizes I was right in acting in such a way. That he decided to pick on user Prunesqualer even though it is very hard to see what he has done wrong in communicating with me, only goes to confirm the pattern argumentative behavior. Plus, what he says about me - that I have been warned by an adm on my editions - is not true. Guinsberg ( talk) 01:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
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 Calvin Ty at 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
My apologizes for making this request for clarification several weeks after the fact. Only today, I came across this discussion between Amatulić and Sandstein about the ArbCom Longevity case. There was a link to the ArbCom case, and there's where I saw the Notifications section here showing that the admin EdJohnston gave me a notification on 6 March 2011. The ArbCom Longevity case closed on 17 Feb 2011, and I was not active on Wikipedia until 25 Feb 2011 and onwards.
EdJohnston and I did discuss the necessity of the 'notification' at the time (on 6 March 2011):
That's the reason I'm here today. I hope I'm at the right place. For starters, I have learned a lot since 25 Feb 2011 and am now better educated in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. At the time, and still today, I am of strong opinion that I should not have received a notice considering that I was not engaged in any inappropriate behavior.
I thought I had not, but I see that I did tell EdJohnston here where I quoted the ArbCom case, Finding of Facts #3, "Membership in or affiliation with the Gerontology Research Group, or any other group named in the evidence to this case, does not in and of itself constitute a substantive conflict of interest with regard to the editing of articles on longevity topics."
In that RfE case against NickOrnstein, which was expanded to include The 110 Club members (of which I'm an administrator/member of) due to possible off-wiki canvassing by some forum members, I had suggested a potential compromise here. I asked any admin this: "first, what is a discretionary sanction? Of more concern, why should every member of The 110 Club forum receive one automatically regardless of their level of involvement, if any, in a possible violation of any guidelines (which, to date, is quite debatable and has not been sufficiently proven)?"
To date, I still don't feel that I along with several other forum members should have received any notice unless there were diffs to provide evidence against each one of us (as far as I know, none were supplied by any editor against me). Yes, there were several diffs providing evidence against some forum members, which were quite convincing, but EdJohnston may have acted erroneously in good faith when he came to the conclusion that "I think that everyone who is part of the '110 Club Wikipedia' ought to receive this message.".
Finally, I apologize again for my chatterbox habit, but to sum up, I just feel that a formal notice was given to me by mistake, and I want to find out how I can have this formally retracted, if possible. I just am the type of person who abides with policies and guidelines, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere, and I still feel that formal notice is a negative connotation against me and who I really am like. Seeing my name in an ArbCom case did upset me so that's why I'm following up on whether I am able to have a notice retracted, hopefully by EdJohnston himself. Best regards, Calvin Ty 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
@EdJohnston, that was a good analogy about "taking back a notice is like unringing a bell". @SirFozzie, I did understood that "Notification does not imply any wrongdoing"; I guess I was just taken aback when I saw my name appearing in an ArbCom case that closed before I even became active here (even if it's just a notification). By 6 March 2011, the date of the notice, I knew that Longevity articles were being watched due to the recent ArbCom case. Yet, "notification does imply something" and the notification appeared not to be sent to every The 110 Club forum member that is also a Wikipedia editor (we can see a larger list of duplicate members in the ArbCom case) -- so naturally I felt "singled out" and that it was implied that "I was engaging in inappropriate behavior solely because of my The 110 Club membership" even as EdJohnston did strike out the "further" part of "inappropriate behavior" of the notice template, which was appreciative. That notification just didn't seem to jive with the ArbCom's statement about membership affiliation, that was all.
In any case, I certainly do not want to make a big deal out of this; just wanted to see whether there was an appeal process for getting a notice. Since there isn't, so SirFozzie or any arbitrator, please feel free to close this request for clarification. Regards, Calvin Ty 11:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I read some great points by everyone who commented to date. Since they have made the effort to comment, I'd like to follow-up here:
At present there is no appeal process for those who receive notices of discretionary sanctions and feel that they do not deserve them. Since notices are intended to head off future trouble, it seems unwise to make them into a major deal. The notice gives the recipient a link to policies and past decisions so they can see if they think they are OK. Taking back a notice is like unringing a bell. I am not aware that any recipient of a notice has ever been un-notified, and I don't see why we should began that now.
The major concerns raised at the AE regarding Nick Ornstein was that Nick was edit-warring against consensus, and that an offwiki group called the 110 Club was trying to manipulate the longevity articles on Wikipedia. CalvinTy made it known that he was an administrator of the 110 Club. As a result of the AE, Nick agreed to change his approach, and that issue appears resolved. It was decided not to take any action regarding the 110 Club. There were no sanctions against CalvinTy as a result of the thread; he was merely notified of the discretionary sanctions. User:SirFozzie may recall some of the details since he participated in the admin discussion at the AE. EdJohnston ( talk) 23:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll only comment about my understanding of the warning requirement, as the longevity-related matters are WP:TLDR.
WP:AC/DS#Warning says: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."
The wording of this provision does not require that the editor being warned has already done anything objectionable, or even (as some remedies do) that the warning needs to be given by an uninvolved administrator. With this wording, my understanding of the warning is that it is simply a procedural requirement to ensure that people who edit troublesome topics are aware that higher conduct standards apply to editing in these areas than elsewhere in Wikipedia. As such, I see no need to question, appeal or undo a warning under any circumstances. But evidently, editors who are not editing problematically should be warned (if at all) without using the {{ uw-sanctions}} template, which assumes that misconduct has already taken place. Sandstein 15:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the AE section to refresh my memory. I think there was a valid concern that there was canvassing happening there, that the blanket notification of possible sanctions for issues in this area. In fact, Ed went so far to say in the formal closing of the AE request: Notification does not imply any wrongdoing, but it is official notice that their behavior may be looked at if they seem to be editing so as to favor the use of a specific set of off-wiki sources. It's good that we haven't had any further issues after the warning was issued, but I don't see any reason to say that means the blanket warning wasn't necessary and/or a good idea. SirFozzie ( talk) 07:45, 13 April 2011 (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 Abd ( talk) at 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I apologize for the length of this; however there are complex issues, and I already spent a day boiling it down. I believe that what remains is worth reading. If not, I really shouldn't bother any more with Wikipedia, indeed, this is my letting go, my effort to ensure that I did what I could.
This is a request to lift a ban under general sanctions, [15], based on AN discussion, report filed by JzG. Ban was based on alleged "re-engagement in prior disruptive behavior that caused ArbComm to issue the sanction a little over a year ago." Asked for specifics, GWH provided
detailed reasons, and I comment specifically, for anyone wanting detail
|
---|
By the way, if not topic banned, I doubt I would have pursued formal dispute resolution, it's inconsistent with COI editing. Rather, I'd have occasionally advised, or responded to questions, and as I still do, off-wiki. I'd just rather advise, re cold fusion, on the cold fusion Talk page! Or make non-controversial edits, I often see errors or obvious shortcomings, since I know the damn field! |
While "wall of text" may have been a contributing factor for some arbitrators, the sanctions based on lengthy discussion did not pass, and the ban was rooted in a finding of tendentious article editing, with lengthy Talk page comment only weakly asserted. Since there was, this time, no such editing of the article even alleged, the new ban was not based on repetition of what led to the ban. See also the discussion of that finding as proposed. Rather, "wall of text" was a common claim from some editors, and I acknowledge it as a problem. It has been understood, however, that sometimes detailed discussion is appropriate, or can, at least, be tolerated, perhaps collapsed.
This is one full discussion that was part of the basis for GWH's decision, as considered in collapse above. The issue here is what RfAr/Abd and JzG was about, with another editor, previously and subsequently banned and blocked for behavior like this, raising the same arguments as ArbComm had rejected. You can see how the debate continued after I gave up, having done as much as I felt I could do. I did not create the mess at Cold fusion, it existed long before I became aware of the cold fusion article. The lenr-canr.org issue is still alive, see Talk:Cold fusion on lenr-canr.org, permalink for today.
To understand why it might easily seem that I'm disruptive, notice that my first case found that use of tools while involved had happened, and the second desysopped the admin, the occasion for my filing. A non-admin confronting admin abuse is rarely popular. With the first case, the preceding RfC, with crystal-clear evidence, had still shown 2/3 comment for banning me instead of addressing the RfC subject. The second case, the same clique had piled in, resulting in an easy appearance that "this editor is causing trouble." A later case, in which I took no part, addressed the clique itself.
Even if "wall of text" were the prior basis, contrary to claims that I "didn't hear," I had ceased the writing of lengthy comment, even where it might have been necessary, as a waste of my own time, and as ineffective with others. I acted consistently with COI restrictions, rigorously, regardless. This is a topic where experts, including Nobel laureates, disagree, see Brian Josephson, at Energy Catalyzer, and detailed discussion regarding the implications of sources, needed to negotiate a balanced article, will almost certainly be "impenetrable" to those who don't study and read the sources, etc.
I was pleased with General Sanctions passing, but, other than this ban, there has been no enforcement, in spite of clear disregard of policies and guidelines by others at Cold fusion. The only experienced editors supporting neutrality, previously active there, who knew how to, and had the energy to, handle disputes and get them resolved, to raise issues for AE, had been banned, both of us on the instigation of JzG, who was clearly highly involved, the basis for RfAr/Abd and JzG. This is not the place to examine JzG's behavior, per se, which is why extensive possible evidence about him isn't being submitted, it is only necessary, now, to understand that there is possible damage, and lessen it by removing an impediment to dispute resolution and true consensus, the bans. If the behavior is not repeated, water under the bridge.
An editor at Cold fusion, with his reverts and comments leading to so much of the allegedly offensive discussion, was later topic banned, and indef blocked, for behavior elsewhere that was no worse than at Cold fusion. Again, it is not necessary to rule on misbehavior, only the possibility of damage from such.
I ask for the Cold fusion topic bans of Pcarbonn and myself to be lifted, as unnecessary and prejudicial in context. Pcarbonn also acted consistently with COI rules on his return, he had found employment as a researcher in the field, I believe, and had not been tendentiously editing Cold fusion, confining himself to reasonable discussion on Talk, suggesting sources, etc. Pcarbonn told me that he'd given up, when he was banned the second time, notice, in such a frustrating way -- the arguments were bogus and misleading at best, implying that ArbComm had banned Pcarbonnn for his POV, something JzG often alleged in attempting to ban others. Sensibly for himself, he moved on to something else -- as did I, see Wikiversity:Special:Contributions/Abd. But Wikipedia lost. I also was, at the time of this ban, credited for editorial assistance in a journal that Einstein published in, Naturwissenschaften, in a recent review, Status of cold fusion (2010). Theoretically, this source should be golden on cold fusion (a recent peer-reviwed secondary source review in a mainstream publication), but material from it was tendentiously opposed.
Because of the meta delisting, one of GWH's reasons for the ban, I can provide a convenience link to this recent review.
Under General Sanctions, if a problem appears, it can be efficiently handled, but if the only experienced editors capable of clearly recognizing and addressing a problem are topic banned, there goes neutrality, while what is left looks like consensus. -- Abd ( talk) 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Abd was topic-banned for wall-of-text argumentation of WP:TRUTH from primary sources using links to copyright violating material on partisan sites.
His appeal consists of a wall of text arguing WP:TRUTH with links to primary sources hosted in violation of copyright on a partisan site. The previous appeal was couched in exactly similar terms. Abd, a self-confessed obsessive, never gives up.
The central question for any appeal must be: what's changed. The answer in this case is, nothing. One more paper has been published, which has not, as far as anyone can tell, changed the scientific consensus, and Abd's appeal rationale is the same as last time: that he's still right and everyone else is still wrong, especially that the original decision in the cold fusion arbitration case is wrong, the previous appeals resulting in upholding that decision were wrong, and Abd is still a fearless and wronged crusader for WP:TRUTH.
But the ban was not imposed because Abd was wrong, it was imposed because his interaction with others was impossibly problematic. As is pretty clear from the above, he doesn't get that. Abd lacks the self-criticism necessary to understand and resolve the problems that ensue when he tries to edit a subject on which he has deeply-held convictions that are at odds with the opinion of other editors. Guy ( Help!) 09:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that the situation has changed. I appreciate that Abd is continuing to address this via appeal procedures and within the system, but I don't see that the fundamental behavior has changed.
Abd - Additionally, while reviewing this, I came across your comments on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist over the last couple of days regarding lenr-canr.org. I am concerned that this activity violated the topic ban, which is in effect now.
I believe that you should stop that conversation until and unless Arbcom changes its mind below and revokes the sanction, in which case it would be a moot point anyways.
Currently, the topic ban goes until... October 5, 2011, one year from the AN discussion. I am greatly concerned that, if things continue in this direction, it will have to be reimposed for at least another year. Abd - I appreciate your devotion to this topic and you willingness to keep working within Wikipedia's system with regards to appeals and so forth, but your behavior on this topic is just not ok. It's not doing you, or Wikipedia, any good.
Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 18:41, 29 April 2011 (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 Abd ( talk) at 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I apologize for the length of this; however there are complex issues, and I already spent a day boiling it down. I believe that what remains is worth reading. If not, I really shouldn't bother any more with Wikipedia, indeed, this is my letting go, my effort to ensure that I did what I could.
This is a request to lift a ban under general sanctions, [20], based on AN discussion, report filed by JzG. Ban was based on alleged "re-engagement in prior disruptive behavior that caused ArbComm to issue the sanction a little over a year ago." Asked for specifics, GWH provided
detailed reasons, and I comment specifically, for anyone wanting detail
|
---|
By the way, if not topic banned, I doubt I would have pursued formal dispute resolution, it's inconsistent with COI editing. Rather, I'd have occasionally advised, or responded to questions, and as I still do, off-wiki. I'd just rather advise, re cold fusion, on the cold fusion Talk page! Or make non-controversial edits, I often see errors or obvious shortcomings, since I know the damn field! |
While "wall of text" may have been a contributing factor for some arbitrators, the sanctions based on lengthy discussion did not pass, and the ban was rooted in a finding of tendentious article editing, with lengthy Talk page comment only weakly asserted. Since there was, this time, no such editing of the article even alleged, the new ban was not based on repetition of what led to the ban. See also the discussion of that finding as proposed. Rather, "wall of text" was a common claim from some editors, and I acknowledge it as a problem. It has been understood, however, that sometimes detailed discussion is appropriate, or can, at least, be tolerated, perhaps collapsed.
This is one full discussion that was part of the basis for GWH's decision, as considered in collapse above. The issue here is what RfAr/Abd and JzG was about, with another editor, previously and subsequently banned and blocked for behavior like this, raising the same arguments as ArbComm had rejected. You can see how the debate continued after I gave up, having done as much as I felt I could do. I did not create the mess at Cold fusion, it existed long before I became aware of the cold fusion article. The lenr-canr.org issue is still alive, see Talk:Cold fusion on lenr-canr.org, permalink for today.
To understand why it might easily seem that I'm disruptive, notice that my first case found that use of tools while involved had happened, and the second desysopped the admin, the occasion for my filing. A non-admin confronting admin abuse is rarely popular. With the first case, the preceding RfC, with crystal-clear evidence, had still shown 2/3 comment for banning me instead of addressing the RfC subject. The second case, the same clique had piled in, resulting in an easy appearance that "this editor is causing trouble." A later case, in which I took no part, addressed the clique itself.
Even if "wall of text" were the prior basis, contrary to claims that I "didn't hear," I had ceased the writing of lengthy comment, even where it might have been necessary, as a waste of my own time, and as ineffective with others. I acted consistently with COI restrictions, rigorously, regardless. This is a topic where experts, including Nobel laureates, disagree, see Brian Josephson, at Energy Catalyzer, and detailed discussion regarding the implications of sources, needed to negotiate a balanced article, will almost certainly be "impenetrable" to those who don't study and read the sources, etc.
I was pleased with General Sanctions passing, but, other than this ban, there has been no enforcement, in spite of clear disregard of policies and guidelines by others at Cold fusion. The only experienced editors supporting neutrality, previously active there, who knew how to, and had the energy to, handle disputes and get them resolved, to raise issues for AE, had been banned, both of us on the instigation of JzG, who was clearly highly involved, the basis for RfAr/Abd and JzG. This is not the place to examine JzG's behavior, per se, which is why extensive possible evidence about him isn't being submitted, it is only necessary, now, to understand that there is possible damage, and lessen it by removing an impediment to dispute resolution and true consensus, the bans. If the behavior is not repeated, water under the bridge.
An editor at Cold fusion, with his reverts and comments leading to so much of the allegedly offensive discussion, was later topic banned, and indef blocked, for behavior elsewhere that was no worse than at Cold fusion. Again, it is not necessary to rule on misbehavior, only the possibility of damage from such.
I ask for the Cold fusion topic bans of Pcarbonn and myself to be lifted, as unnecessary and prejudicial in context. Pcarbonn also acted consistently with COI rules on his return, he had found employment as a researcher in the field, I believe, and had not been tendentiously editing Cold fusion, confining himself to reasonable discussion on Talk, suggesting sources, etc. Pcarbonn told me that he'd given up, when he was banned the second time, notice, in such a frustrating way -- the arguments were bogus and misleading at best, implying that ArbComm had banned Pcarbonnn for his POV, something JzG often alleged in attempting to ban others. Sensibly for himself, he moved on to something else -- as did I, see Wikiversity:Special:Contributions/Abd. But Wikipedia lost. I also was, at the time of this ban, credited for editorial assistance in a journal that Einstein published in, Naturwissenschaften, in a recent review, Status of cold fusion (2010). Theoretically, this source should be golden on cold fusion (a recent peer-reviwed secondary source review in a mainstream publication), but material from it was tendentiously opposed.
Because of the meta delisting, one of GWH's reasons for the ban, I can provide a convenience link to this recent review.
Under General Sanctions, if a problem appears, it can be efficiently handled, but if the only experienced editors capable of clearly recognizing and addressing a problem are topic banned, there goes neutrality, while what is left looks like consensus. -- Abd ( talk) 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
responses to comments
|
---|
|
Abd was topic-banned for wall-of-text argumentation of WP:TRUTH from primary sources using links to copyright violating material on partisan sites.
His appeal consists of a wall of text arguing WP:TRUTH with links to primary sources hosted in violation of copyright on a partisan site. The previous appeal was couched in exactly similar terms. Abd, a self-confessed obsessive, never gives up.
The central question for any appeal must be: what's changed. The answer in this case is, nothing. One more paper has been published, which has not, as far as anyone can tell, changed the scientific consensus, and Abd's appeal rationale is the same as last time: that he's still right and everyone else is still wrong, especially that the original decision in the cold fusion arbitration case is wrong, the previous appeals resulting in upholding that decision were wrong, and Abd is still a fearless and wronged crusader for WP:TRUTH.
But the ban was not imposed because Abd was wrong, it was imposed because his interaction with others was impossibly problematic. As is pretty clear from the above, he doesn't get that. Abd lacks the self-criticism necessary to understand and resolve the problems that ensue when he tries to edit a subject on which he has deeply-held convictions that are at odds with the opinion of other editors. Guy ( Help!) 09:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that the situation has changed. I appreciate that Abd is continuing to address this via appeal procedures and within the system, but I don't see that the fundamental behavior has changed.
Abd - Additionally, while reviewing this, I came across your comments on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist over the last couple of days regarding lenr-canr.org. I am concerned that this activity violated the topic ban, which is in effect now.
I believe that you should stop that conversation until and unless Arbcom changes its mind below and revokes the sanction, in which case it would be a moot point anyways.
Currently, the topic ban goes until... October 5, 2011, one year from the AN discussion. I am greatly concerned that, if things continue in this direction, it will have to be reimposed for at least another year. Abd - I appreciate your devotion to this topic and you willingness to keep working within Wikipedia's system with regards to appeals and so forth, but your behavior on this topic is just not ok. It's not doing you, or Wikipedia, any good.
Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 18:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Abd has decided that his current block shouldn't prevent him from POINTy editing while logged out, purportedly to remove previously-made comments which might violate his topic ban, but principally as a way to stir things up: summary provided by Abd himself. (I presume based on past performance that he's waiting for someone to block his IP so he can file another rambling unblock request, explaining how unreasonable it is for us to block him while he is trying so hard to clean up after himself, and why is everyone being so unfair?) Since Abd has such an extensive history of boundary-testing, I would recommend that the ArbCom short-circuit the nonsense, save everyone some time, and ban him already. He's declared that he's going to edit through a block or ban anyway, but we might as well dot the i and cross the t. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:48, 1 May 2011 (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 Tijfo098 ( talk) at 13:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I find the discretionary sanctions passed in this case quite muddy. Do they apply for instance to someone who persistently edits with, say, anti-Palestinian or anti-Serbian bias? I can think of a number of users who don't break 1RR and similar technical rules (like outright misusing sources) but edit in this fashion overall, by adding solely negative information about some peoples. Assuming my impression is correct, may I bring them to WP:AE under the discretionary sanctioned passed in this case? 13:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Casliber, did you change your mind since the vote? Or was the remedy poorly worded? The discretionary sanction/remedy linked says "its terms are applicable to other disputes similar to those arising in this current case." It seems to me that NYB's thought experiment, although not part of the decision itself, is how that remedy is to be interpreted, at least by him. 14:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, Casliber, what do you mean by "opening the floodgate"? Do you think there are many editors like Noleander active, but editing in different anti-people-X areas? 17:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Tryptofish, Noleander has been indef topic banned as a separate remedy in the case, so I doubt the discretionary sanctions were meant for him alone (the 2nd / discretionary remedy doesn't contain such wording or even name Noleander), but who knows... 16:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. 03:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I had thought that the decision was clear and settled, but seeing Casliber's comment below makes me feel a need to come back with a question. It seems clear to me that the Noleander case was about articles pertaining to Judaism and the Jewish people, so the discretionary sanctions do not automatically extend to other religions or peoples, as Casliber says. However, Casliber's answer sounds to me like the sanctions might only apply to Noleander, individually, and not to other editors who might engage in the kinds of conduct addressed in the sanction, in content pertaining to to Judaism and the Jewish people. If so, that does not make sense to me. Noleander is topic banned from that subject area, so surely the sanctions apply to other editors. Furthermore, it seemed clear to me during the case that the purpose of the discretionary sanctions was to address conduct by editors other than Noleander, that did not rise to the level of requiring ArbCom sanctions in this case, but which was nonetheless recognized as being unhelpful. Could the Committee please clarify that? Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I too am confused by Calisber's response. I was under the impression that Arbitration Enforcement of discretionary sanctions was available as a remedy once someone was notified by an admin that their edits in a certain area fall under the purview of an arbitration case. Is that not correct? Thanks for any clarification. Griswaldo ( talk) 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Roger and Brad, are you saying that discretionary sanctions may not be imposed anywhere on the authority of the Noleander case, but they could be imposed for most examples of racist editing, if the racism is regarding or alluding to the intelligence or other human attributes (specifically including kindness, typical behaviour and/or impartiality, but presumably excluding things like height, physical strength and similar non-personality attributes) of the denigrated race on the authority of the Race and intelligence case? If so,
Thank you all, particularly Roger, as I'm now happy I understand everything. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (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 YMB29 ( talk) at 19:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Remedy #8 - YMB29 topic banned
It has been almost a year and I stayed away from editing. Can the topic ban end now?
I did not edit outside the topic because I only edited on the topic before and I did not know until recently that admins look at that.
If editing outside the topic is so important then why was not this made clear when the case was decided? I understood the ban as a restriction that would be lifted if I don't violate it and stay out of trouble. - YMB29 ( talk) 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your objective reaction. You were also the only arbitrator who understood my situation and suggested a less severe ban. [27] [28]
As for what I would do differently, I guess I won't get into edit warring even if a user does nothing but that. If I again encounter a user who does not want to discuss and compromise, I will keep trying to get an admin or other users to help, even if that will take long and be frustrating.
If you want me to gradually return to editing on the topic, maybe I could for now be limited to a few edits per week and/or no reverts of others? - YMB29 ( talk) 06:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess thank you for providing diffs of me trying to make the wording in articles more neutral and accurate ("reinterpreting" is better than misinterpreting), adding sourced information (don't know where you got that I don't give new sources...), and requesting sources for statements. If you want diffs of me significantly expanding articles here are some examples: [29] [30] (forgot to login but that was me)
If anything problems with you discouraged me from getting more involved in editing Wikipedia and making more of such edits. - YMB29 ( talk) 21:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Why are you so concerned? It is not like I did anything terrible. Again, one of the arbitrators did not even think that I deserved such a long ban. [31] I am in this situation because of a conflict with one user who is still topic banned (and who is trying to keep me topic banned now). With others I have always been able to resolve disputes. - YMB29 ( talk) 21:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I am aware of what that user is trying to do but just felt I had to respond to some accusations since the arbitrators might look at that. As for editing the topic you suggested, I think it is too late now for this amendment, if only I knew about editing outside the topic ban requirement before... - YMB29 ( talk) 01:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
When I asked you in late February about me having to edit outside the topic you did not give a clear answer and did not answer me about opening this request. [32] So after some time I decided to try making a request. - YMB29 ( talk) 06:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I've never been involved with this case or topic area, but it seems to me that the spirit of the resolution was that YMB29 should stay away from this troublesome topic area for a significant period of time, which he has done. I see what all the arbitrators are saying, but I think Newyorkbrad has got the right attitude here, and YMB29's response to his statement is along the same lines I was thinking. So, as a way forward I would like to propose the following:
I don't expect this to be perfect, so I anticipate changes (e.g. not everything may be necessary, and/or I may have missed something). The essence is that YMB29 agrees to an editing restrictions and to work with mentors to gradually ease the restrictions.
I have deliberately not mentioned a narrowing of the topic ban (e.g. if YMB29 is seen to be doing fine on some aspects of the topic but not others) as I don't know whether this should be within the powers of the moderators or should only be done by application to the arbitration committee.
I unfortunately do not have the time to volunteer to be one of the mentors. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the purpose of indefinite sanctions issued in many recent cases was to make sure that editors can improve. This is different from issuing a ban for a fixed period of time. Nevertheless, I believe that any editor with a good record of content contributions must be given second chance, as I said about another participant of this case [33]. I would encourage YMB29 to provide five to ten best diffs showing how he creates or significantly expands any articles during last three years (I could not find anything). That would be an important argument in his favor. Hodja Nasreddin ( talk) 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
@YMB29. Thank you for providing two your best diffs. Hodja Nasreddin ( talk) 00:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
@Russavia. I commented as the only person who closely interacted with YMB29 in the past. All others ( User:Isarig, User:Kostan1, User:Altenmann and User:Boris Novikov) are currently inactive. I neither support nor object this request. I only suggested to look at his editing record, which I thought was a perfectly legitimate suggestion. Hodja Nasreddin ( talk) 15:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
@Commenting on the policy debate. This is an important debate because such sanctions were given in many recent cases including "Climate change". I think it was a perfectly legitimate idea to follow real life justice model: giving certain time to the violators, but allowing them to return earlier if they show good behavior. At the same time, I do believe that your recent decisions include one problematic approach. Here it is: giving an indefinite time to first-time violators who made a significant contribution to the project based on their editing record (I am talking about many recent cases; "first-time" means they did not receive previously any official sanctions by Arbcom). That is something you might wish to reconsider. Hodja Nasreddin ( talk) 14:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
YMB29, may I make a suggestion. The fact that an editor has chosen to covertly attack your presence on WP right here at this request should be ignored by yourself. The whole point of the attack being made as it was is to try and provoke you into a response which you should not be making.
As it is, your request will likely be approved (as it is as this point in time) perhaps with a 1RR restriction for a year. This is something which if implemented on yourself should also be placed on other editors when they come to have their requests looked at.
Having said that, why don't you use this opportunity, right now to go and expand some articles on Russia pre-1917? Your topic ban never stopped you from editing pre-1917 Russian articles, did you know that? Why not use this opportunity to show that you can do what some arbs are doubting you are capable of? -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 22:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This is a question about enforcement of Motions 1 and 1.1 at AE. The admins at AE would need guidance on how to handle any possible future complaints. The decision that YMB29 is requesting an amendment to is WP:ARBRB, which does not provide any discretionary sanctions. So if YMB29 does not follow the expected standards after the lifting of his topic ban, it is not clear what to do. Motions 1 and 1.1 defer to 'related decisions' for enforcement. Can we assume that the related decisions would be WP:DIGWUREN? It is not at first sight obvious that WP:DIGWUREN#Locus of dispute covers the entire Soviet Union, which is what YMB29 was specifically banned from under WP:ARBRB. This is not necessarily a problem if the Committee thinks that DIGWUREN is sufficient to handle anything likely to go wrong in the future. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh what the hell, give him a chance. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Volunteer Marek. There's been enough witch hunting and bad blood.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 22:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Remedy 8 ("YMB29 topic banned") of the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys is terminated, effective immediately. YMB29 is placed on a one-revert-per-day restriction in the relevant topic area ("articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles") for a period of six months. YMB29 is reminded to abide by the principles discussed in the decision, as well as all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in his future editing, and that he remains subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of related decisions should he violate them.
Remedy 8 ("YMB29 topic banned") of the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys is terminated, effective immediately. YMB29 is placed on a one-revert-per-day restriction in the relevant topic area ("articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles") for a period of one year. YMB29 is reminded to abide by the principles discussed in the decision, as well as all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in his future editing, and that he remains subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of related decisions should he violate them.
An editor who is indefinitely topic-banned or otherwise restricted from editing in a topic area under an Arbitration Committee decision may request an amendment to lift or modify the restriction after an appropriate time period has elapsed. A reasonable minimum time period for such a request will ordinarily be six months, unless the decision provides for a different time or the Committee subsequently determines otherwise. In considering such a request, the Committee will give significant weight to, among other factors, whether the editor in question has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.