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 50 | ← | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | → | Archive 60 |
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 Mbz1 ( talk) at 15:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to stop on #2 please:
So as you see from the above I have proven that except a single bad SPI request I have never abused any of the boards for at least two month prior to my bans. The bans were unfair, unwarranted, humiliating. I believe that ArbCom's prestige will benefit from removing the mention of these bans from my block log. Thanks.
SirFozzie, thank you for your comment. I am editing under my real name, which is displayed at most of thousands of images I uploaded to wikipedia. The bans listed in my block log are hurting me a lot not only here on wikipedia, but in a real life as well. Could you imagine what people are to think about me because of these bans? I believe I have proven the bans were unwarranted. What wrong will it do, if the list of these unwarranted bans that should have never been added to my block log in the first place are removed from my block log? I understand it is not what is normally done, but it it will be a right thing to do. Besides I do not believe that even warranted bans should be listed in a block log.
The list of these bans hurts me in a real life. I am not saying they were listed in my block log in a bad faith, but they were unwarranted.
Shell, you comment is the best point why the bans should be removed from my block log. You said: "if you don't want a record of you behaving poorly, don't behave poorly." It is what other think when they see the bans listed in my block log: she behaved poorly and was banned. The point is I was not behaving poorly. I have never abused any of these boards. Shell, may I please ask you to be so kind and to prove your words with the differences? In what way my "poor" behavior deserved the bans in question? Have I ever abused any of the boards in question to deserve such bans?
Thank you for bringing up a painful memories, Shell. I even know what wikihound of mine emailed you the link D= But what my talk page proves anyway? Whatever editing I have done at my talk page while being blocked has nothing to do with my conduct at administrative noticeboards.
Shell, I know I am not doing myself a favor, but you know what, I do not care. I am 99.99% positive the link was emailed to you, and I know who did it.
If you found the link yourself, one could assume that you read the link you found before posting it, and this edit does not look as you did, but this hardly matters. I could even apologize to you, but this also would not matter. I am simply very, very tired.
I even realize that I could end indefinitely banned as a result of this request, but this also hardly matters.
You still failed to respond what my talk page has to do with my bans on noticeboards? I mean, if instead of looking at my contributions on the boards I was banned from, you found yourself the link to my talk page, you should have been thinking how my conduct at my talk page is to help you to prove your point about me behaving "poorly" on the noticeboards. Listen, I am still grateful you're trying to prove something :-) Most admins say: "It is right because I said it" :-) Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 00:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Shell, thank you very much for your response and for trying to justify your position. I cannot stress strong enough how much I appreciate you trying, but Shell, the other editors did not provide any evidences of my "poor" behavior on AN/I and/or AN and/or SPI others than I discussed above. None of my AN/I post, none of my AN posts and a single, yes, filed in a hurry but not in a bad faith, SPI should not have resulted in me banning on these boards, and you know this, Shell.Thanks.
BTW while we at my talk page, you might be interested to know that Rd232 removed one post of an "editor who were bringing up concerns" from my talk page as unhelpful. I wish somebody removed from my talk page the harassment by user:betsythedevine . That user claimed I canvassed Sandstein for this email I sent to him when Gwen removed my talk page access. How this email is canvasing, Shell? That user user:betsythedevine went above and beyond to assassinate my character, and she succeeded in doing this. Also user:betsythedevine alleged I hounded somebody without providing any differences to prove that false accusation she often makes. I have never hounded anybody. But once again I am bringing this matter here only because, you, Shell brought it first. My initial block was unfair, my indefinite one, and removing my talk page access were more than unfair and I could prove it, but once again this request is not about my block review. This request is only about removing a list of my unwarranted bans from a single record in my block log, which is the right thing to do.
I would not have bothered ArbCom, if it did not. Just listen to yourself please. Most of you except Shell do not even arguing the bans were warranted, but you're declining undoing wrong that was done do me, and why you declining it? Because it is not what is done normally. Is this reason a good enough?
I still hope that it will be at least a single arbitrator, who will support my request. Even, if this record in my block log is not edited, it will make me feel so much better.
May I please ask you to consider removing the last record from my block log altogether and to leave me blocked indefinitely. I should have never agreed on humiliating, unwarranted bans as a condition of my unblock. It is much better to be blocked indefinitely than to have these bans in my block log. Thanks.
{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.}
I'm having a hard time believing what I'm reading here. Didn't we just go through a MASSIVE clusterfuck of a debate barely three weeks ago regarding Mbz1 and block logs? AGK put a 1-second block on mbz1, the purpose of which was to annotate the block log which, in his personal opinion, he felt was wrong. This was overturned by the community discussion at ANI (AGK was found to have acted in good-faith, though, no wrong-doing there), and the 1-second block was itself revdeleted by (I believe) Rd232.
I have never, in years of editing here, seen anyone obsess with their block log and worry about it being a stain or a badge of shame or whatever. I'd like to see a ban on mbz1 ever bringing this subject up to any policy board again, quite honestly. This is bordering on the tendentious. Tarc ( talk) 18:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Addendum; unfortunately, mbz forgets the old "it takes two to tango" saying, that our Wikipedia Review exchanges are quite a two-way street of colorful comments, e.g. I am a "brainless anti-Semite", apparently. But this is neither here nor there.
Yes, Rd232 suggested that you head to WP:AN if you wish the block reviewed. Did you?
Again, this is a user who was blocked and topic-banned for a time, does not feel that either were deserved and wants the entries clarified or expunged. How many hundreds of sanctioned editors in 10 years of the project's existence feel the same way? Hell, I was baited into a 3RR war and earned a half-day block once, but I really don't care about it. Reject this, please, otherwise the floodgates will open to everyone who wants to scrub their block log of anything they think is unjustified. Tarc ( talk) 18:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by User:Ravpapa ( talk) at 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
This and the following request for amendment regarding Gilabrand replace the request that I submitted proposing a more general amnesty for blocked and banned editors in the IP topic area. A number of administrators commented in that discussion that they opposed a general amnesty, and would prefer a case by case discussion of amendments. Therefore I am submitting this and the following requests.
In a discussion of the state of the IP project here, it was the feeling of participants in the discussion that the blocking and banning of editors had done little to reduce the level of conflict on the project, while other measures (centralized discussion and 1RR restriction) had been effective. On the other hand, several of the participants felt that blocks had removed knowledgeable editors from the project on both sides, and had thus actually hurt, rather than helped, the project.
Nishidani is such an editor. Regardless of his often caustic and highly irritating comments on talk pages, he is unquestionably one of the most knowledgeable editors to tread in this sensitive topic area. His encyclopedic knowledge of sources was often astounding. His insights into article organization and language were always enlightening. True, he has an undisputed talent for aggravating his opponents; however, unlike other aggravating editors, he not only argued but also made important substantive additions to articles he worked on.
In the discussion leading to this request, editors from both sides of the IP dispute supported a lifting of sanctions against Nishidani and Gilabrand. I fear that by separating the requests, we will turn this into a partisan dispute, something I had hoped to avoid. In any case, I call upon editors from both sides to support the lifting of this ban, as an act of faith in the viability of our project and the belief that knowledgeable editors are a benefit to the project.
I think this is a no-brainer. In the WB/JS case ArbCom said that work in developing featured class articles in other topic areas would be looked upon favorably in a request for lifting the topic ban. Nishidani has done such work, helping bring the once very poor article Shakespeare authorship question to FA and improving a host of articles related to that, see for example his contributions at History of the Shakespeare authorship question, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, and Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Additionally, Nishidani has helped bring the article Al-Azhar Mosque up to GA quality and, if I ever spend the time needed to finish a certain section, nearly up to FA quality, working with an editor who was also banned in the WB/JS case (Jayjg) in doing so. See also his work at Barasana, which looked like this prior to him starting to work on that page, and like this after a few weeks of his working on it. He has also written, largely by himself, the articles Franz Baermann Steiner and Taboo (book).
Ill repeat what I wrote in the now archived "general amnesty" appeal, the restrictions put in place in WB/JS have not made the topic area better in any way. The main instigator of the edit-warring that brought that case about (NoCal100 and his socks, including another party to that case Canadian Monkey) continues to edit with impunity. Nishidani has not chosen to go that way; he has instead edited in a wide range of topics, helping to bring very poor quality articles to a much higher standard.
However, the appeal is not about what Nishidani did prior to being banned. Ynhockey's accusation that Nishidani has not worked on any good articles or featured articles while he was banned is demonstrably untrue; links in my original statement demonstrate that his accusation is false. Nishidani has indeed worked on featured content, helping to bring very poor articles, or non-existent ones, up to such a status. That those who oppose his views on the I-P conflict also oppose this request is not surprising, though it is disappointing that they chose to make such false charges against him to argue that his ban be maintained. I hope the committee will see through the comments of those that have been in conflict with him and instead make their decision based on the actual evidence. nableezy - 15:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Ravpapa about Nishidani's "often caustic and highly irritating comments on talk pages" and "he has an undisputed talent for aggravating his opponents". Do we really want to let such a battlefield mentality editor loose again, without a clear acknowledgement of change of heart? I note that he regards himself as essentially innocent, in a recent statement blaming his ban on a "stray remark", and is presumably unrepentant. As Boris remarked "it is not easy to earn a permaban by a slip of the tongue". Indeed.
I support this amendment due to Nishidani's extremely helpful contributions at Shakespeare authorship question (SAQ). I started following the turmoil and article development at SAQ in October 2010 after seeing the matter raised at a noticeboard. I had no knowledge of Nishidani before then, and have never looked at P-I issues. At SAQ, I saw a tremendous amount of disruption from people wanting to promote the UNDUE notion that Shakespeare did not write his plays. Eventually, an ArbCom case resolved the disruption allowing the two main editors of the article ( Tom Reedy and Nishidani), with several other expert editors, to continue article development with the result that it was promoted to FA in April 2011. Every step of the process was strenuously opposed by disruptive editors, and I observed that Nishidani remained calm and helpful despite a lot of provocation. Some recent discussions, now here, show some diffs of Nishidani falling short of CIVIL, but that was in May 2010 and involved an editor who was repeatedly misreading sources, and who is now topic banned for a year, while Nishidani has never been sanctioned regarding the SAQ area. Certainly Nishidani is now fully aware of the requirements for editing and civil collaboration, and there is no reason to maintain a topic ban.
Nishidani's knowledge is extraordinary, and he has excellent access to resources. Removing a topic ban is likely to assist the encyclopedia and cannot do harm since WP:ARBPIA allows sanctions to be readily applied should the need arise. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Michael, the diff you cite in evidence against me does not support the deduction you make from it, and I would appreciate you clarifying on what evidence you base your contention that I regard myself as 'innocent', esp. since in the diff I clearly admit that I did break the rules, (in reverting 4 editors) and that Arbcom exercised its proper right to punish me for my infringement. Namely, I wrote, contrary to your inference that I was protesting my innocence, that
Thank you. Nishidani ( talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
In reply to JClemens, I confess I do not quite 'wish' to return to the I/P area. Several fellow editors have expressed some confidence in the idea that, if I mend my scabrous tongue, and learn to refrain from, to misquote Sir Thomas Browne, abusing the incivility of my knee, I might prove helpful in the area they edit. However the vote swings, or I swing, I owe them a vote of thanks for their solicitude in expressing a desire to have me back as a colleague there. This motion imposes on me a sense of obligation, if the amnesty is passed, to work in a manner that will not disappoint their confidence. Nishidani ( talk) 11:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I support this amendment. Nishidani is a very able and intelligent contributor to Wikipedia. Like JayJG, he has contributed high quality work in areas not covered by the ban.
Wikipedia is not some cult or extremist party where editors are expected to make obsequious replies to "just criticism". Shortly after the original punishment, Nishidani attempted to retire at a round number of edits which I think was 13K. he is now approaching 20K edits. He has not been blocked for over two years and does not attract much admin criticism. Although Michael note that Nishidani can be ascerbic, he has not produced evidence newer than the year-old edits in the other thread.
He is therefore someone whose presence is generally a benefit to the project and I think that Wikipedia can afford to take a small risk in lifting the topic ban in the same way that it did with JayJG with no subsequent problematic repercussions.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 22:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this amendment. I agree that Nishidani is a veryable and intelligent contributor to Wikipedia, but he has violated his topic ban many times. For instance Nishidani inserted himself in the discussions directly related to I/P conflict, including introducing hate propaganda anti-Israeli cartoon
Besides it is my understanding that Nishidani was not very civil editing in other areas of the project:
I do not believe I/P topic will benefit from this user incivility. Broccolo ( talk) 16:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
As I said in the proposal from a few days ago, and say again now, the last thing the I–P area needs is bringing back problematic editors. There are enough problems as it is, and there is no doubt that this editor was not banned for nothing. Broccoli above presents a solid evidenced case why there is absolutely no reason to lift the ban.
Moreover, the condition for lifting the ban was that the editor continues to contribute to Wikipedia in a significant way. With due respect to Nishidani's contributions, he has not written any FAs or GAs or even DYKs lately (as far as I can tell), did not participate in the major backlog drives, and mostly continued his pattern of editing little but writing TLDR talk page comments that waste everyone else's time, only now outside of I–P ( about 64% of Nishidani's latest 500 edits, for example, are on various talk pages, which isn't necessarily a problem, but for anyone who remembers the case and why Nishidani was banned, it is). I feel that Wikipedia has not lost a major asset by banning Nishidani from the topic area, and won't lose anything by not lifting the ban. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
@Jclemens - The "portion of the community commenting here" consists mainly of editors heavily involved in the topic area Nishidani was banned from. There are only two editors I don't recognize from I/P articles (in which I am also involved, for the record). No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 18:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with Brewcrewer. In the little interaction I had with Nishidani, I found him to be combative, condescending and long winded. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 09:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
@nableezy - The main reason that "when Jayjg appealed his ban, you did not see editors who hold opposing views as him making such comments as the ones seen below" is that Jayjg doesn't antagonize editors holding opposing views like Nishidani does. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 14:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea why Nishidani would want to have the topic ban lifted. He does not appear to have any history of solid contributions to the Israel-Arab topic. All I remember about Nishidani are his huge blocs of text he added to talk pages in which little was understood save for his belittlement of other editors. I am open to being corrected of course. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm thoroughly opposed to the idea of granting amnesty to banned users, regardless of whose side they're against. I'm not familiar with either of the two editors on whose behalf the amendment is being sought – though I suppose I do indirectly bear the blame for Gilabrand ( talk · contribs)'s ban) – but my opinion based on my experience in the I/P topic area thus far is that more editors should be sanctioned, not have their sanctions rescinded. The topic area is bad enough with the small number of disruptive participants already involved in it. Opening the door for even more disruption will be a disaster.— Biosketch ( talk) 10:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Biosketch has an interesting view. But: the vast majority of contributors to the I/P topic area have, shall we say, very strong views one way or the other. If we topic ban all of them, no one will be left to contrtibute. Thus any bans have to be weighed against past and potential contributions of the user(s) in question. In short: no users - no disruption, but also no content.
Even if it is true that more editors need to be banned, this needs to be consistent. I do not see that Nishidani is any more disruptive than a number of other editors. He is under such a drastic sanction because it was an ArbCom case. I think on this basis, Nishidani's ban needs to be lifted. He will certainly be under very close scrutiny.
One concern I do have is conflicting and confusing messages from Nishdani. On one hand, he says that he has retired partly because he was prevented from contributing to the I/P topic area. On the other hand, he says now he is not keen to return to this area. According to his talk page he is retired, but according to the user page, semi-retired. A bit confusing. BorisG ( talk) 10:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
As is noted in the decision itself, as well as in the comments lifting JayJG's restriction, any edits to the pages in question will remain subject to discretionary sanctions. That being the case, I believe that it is not unreasonable to lift Nishidani's existing restrictions as well. As is the case for JayJG, and, really, any and all other editors who will ever edit the related pages in question so long as the discretionary sanctions remain in effect, any misconduct they might make from this point forward may well cause the placement of sanctions of some sort on that editor. Personally, I think that those sanctions could, reasonably, include temporary topic bans, if such were indicated. Nishidani is a good editor who has done very good work in recently helping to bring at least one other contentious and difficult article, the Shakespeare authorship question, to FA. He appears to have demonstrated a significant degree of knowledge regarding this topic as well. That being the case, I can see no good reason to continue to permanently keep a good editor who is knowledgable about the subject and apparently willing to work on it from doing so. Should the misconduct recur in a non-trivial way, a block or temporary ban could be restored, or potentially edits to the article pages themselves placed on him. (A single instance of moderately insulting someone would at least to my eyes qualify as a trivial example of misconduct, for instance.) But I don't think it necessarily makes sense to keep a good and productive editor from being able to edit content he has, apparently, already demonstrated an ability to improve. John Carter ( talk) 15:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Why? The editor has been semi-retired or retired for a bit. He even says that he does not wish to return. We don't need him and he appears to be fine with it. He thinks that simply biting his tongue will be sufficient? Why hasn't he made a statement acknowledging that he understands that his bias has been a hurdle to editing constructively and that is something he promises to keep in check? If he would have not violated his topic ban multiple times (see the warning last September) and then not made completely unneeded and possibly baiting commentary disguised as a "note to self" in March [3] then maybe I would believe that there could be some change. I also believe the never archived nsection at the top oh his talk page is still a concern even if consensus was otherwise. Cptnono ( talk) 05:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Looking forward to saying "I told you so". General amnesty picked by an editor seemingly at random? One of them has no chance at coming back (see below) and another all of a sudden can even though they have not made it clear that they actually understand what they did wrong (edit warring and a sharp tongue are one thing, but completely ignoring the goals of this project by not keeping an seemingly uncontrollable bias in check is another). The requester (not even the editors in question) actually asked at the collaboration page what difference the sanctions have made. To paraphrase my answer: It is quite now but as editors get off their blocks it will all start up again. How many more AEs do we need? Cptnono ( talk) 02:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani ( talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.
For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
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 Miradre ( talk) at 10:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
The current statement for the scope of the sanctions are "to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed)". It is highly problematic that the focus seems to be on "articles" and not on the actual material that is edited. The same focus on the article title rather than on the material edited are in these templates:
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 55, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. |
1. Does the sanctions include material that is clearly not regarding this intersection but that are in articles that may contain some other material regarding to this intersection. For example, would adding material about the relationship between "IQ and happiness" to the "IQ" article be within the scope of the sanctions?
2. Exactly what articles are included? Articles about ethnic foods? Female circumcision (varies by ethnicity)? Cousin marriages? Immigration? Slavery? Wars (ethnicity certainly often important)? Are articles about various differences between nations under the sanctions? Ethnically based political parties? Politics in general which often includes ethnic concerns? General medical articles since there are ethnic differences regarding diseases? All religious articles since religion varies by ethnicity? I am sure the one with could find this intersection in some small part of every article about human activity in Wikipedia which in effect would mean that all articles about humans are under the scope.
I would recommend that the emphasis should be shifted from specific "articles" to specific "material". So the parts of the "IQ" article not about this intersection is not under the sanctions but the sanctions apply to material about the intersection regardless of the title of article.
Reply to Aprock. None of the articles or edits, such as the rankings in the book Human Accomplishment, are about either race or intelligence. Obviously therefore not their intersection. Harassment by Aprock who disagrees with me on issues besides race and intelligence. Also, as usual his presentation is misleading. As far as I know E. O. Wilson is not a "prominent hereditarian" on either race or intelligence issues. Also, I still do not understand or have received an explanation for why Aprock did not also receive a topic ban, or at least notification, for reverting. He did more reverts than me as documented in the topic ban discussion! [4] Looks like a double standard in this area, when I receive a 3 month topic ban, while he nothing for doing more reverts than me, so a clarification would be helpful. Miradre ( talk) 19:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Meritless request. This editor is spamming neutral articles with non-neutral content related to R&I and wasting the time of editors, administrators and (in this case) arbitrators. Mathsci ( talk) 16:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
As a general observation, the race & intelligence dispute features a number of editors who are quite invested in testing and wikilawyering the boundaries of their restrictions. Given this tendency, I think a broad restriction is preferable to death by a thousand cuts. If Miradre's edits are general psychology-related improvements clearly unrelated to the race/intelligence intersection, then I think we have to trust that admins won't sanction him for them. On the other hand, if Miradre's edits simply seem designed to circumvent the letter of the restriction on race/intelligence articles, then I think admins should have the latitude to act. MastCell Talk 18:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
As an illustration of MastCell's comments above about "testing boundaries", Miradre has embarked on a series of edits to promote the book Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, adding it to a number of articles where it's inclusion is WP:UNDUE:
On a related tack...
Given this pattern of "walking the line" of his topic ban, could an administrator please clarify whether or not these edits fall within or without the scope of the topic ban? aprock ( talk) 19:10, 20 July 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 Martin ( talk) at 14:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I am not happy with the way the AGK has handled the above mentioned AE case, where I reported Russavia for breaching his interaction ban, and seek clarification of some issues that have arisen in wake of this.
I was minding my own business editing Occupation of the Baltic states, where I had corrected some obviously POVed piece of unsorted text that made a misleading assertion [9]. Unfortunately before I could add the appropriate reference to support the change, Russavia reverted the text in the very next edit [10]. Because the revert is not permitted per WP:IBAN, and Russavia is subject to an interaction ban, I asked Administrators to take action in an appropriate forum being WP:AE, as permitted by Wikipedia:IBAN#Exceptions_to_limited_bans. Russavia was subsequently blocked for 48 hours and AGK asked for input from other Administrators if any further action should be taken [11].
However no other Administrator had made any comment despite AGK's request for input while the case remained open during the week, thus most people would construe that no further action was necessary. In fact the case remained open for such a long time that Russavia was able to comment further after his block expired [12], seeking a retaliatory block. AGK duly complies and blocks me, claiming the filing an AE report about Russavia's violation was a breach of my own interaction ban [13].
When I and others subsequently point out that WP:IBAN explicitly permits the reporting of the other party in mutual interaction bans, AGK agrees that my filing of an AE report was not a violation of my interaction ban [14], but then claims this edit [15], made six days after Russavia's ban breaching revert was a violation of my interaction ban.
However it is a general principle that edits made in defiance of a ban should be reverted, Wikipedia:IBAN#Enforcement_by_reverting discusses this. As Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement states, Wikipedia's approach to enforcing bans balances a number of competing concerns, in this case:
It would just simply be untenable that a breaching edit, such as revert or even a comment on a user talk page cannot ever be undone, not in one week, one month or ever. It would lead to all sorts of kamikaze sanction breaking edits if there was some profit to be derived from that.
I am a long standing editor of Occupation of the Baltic states with 132 edits since March 2007 compared with Russavia's 5 edits since May 2009 [16]. My edit of the 17th of June [17], coming six days after Russavia's original breaching edit [18], was not a blind revert but was made in the spirit of Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement, removing the ban breaching edit and adding the two references I was was going to add before the disruption.
An additional issue is that I asked AGK to amend the result of the AE case to reflect his new reason for the block [19], he has not done so.
Can the Committee clarify whether:
Thanks for your time. -- Martin ( talk) 14:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
EdJohnston claims there is no wording in WP:BAN that permits reverting of ban breaching edits, yet this clearly states:
Of course regular reverts are prohibited by WP:IBAN, but what AGK and EdJohnston are saying is that, for example, if someone should make an edit in defiance of their IBAN by leaving a comment on my talk page, and I would not be allowed to remove that ban breaching edit from my talk page after the matter has been reported and the other party blocked. In other words, AGK and EdJohston are saying that a long standing editor of an article (132 edits since 2007) can never edit that particular section of an article ever again because the other party (5 edits since 2009) has defied their IBAN by disruptively editing that section, even though the matter has been appropriately reported and the other party blocked for defying their IBAN. -- Martin ( talk) 19:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
AGK raises the issue of "unclean hands", however my revert came six days after I reported Russavia's edit and after it was determined that edit was made in defiance of Russavia's IBAN, so AGK's claim that I came to AE with "unclean hands" is some what misleading because my AE request significantly pre-dated the supposed "unclean" edit. -- Martin ( talk) 19:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Shell, reverting out of the blue isn't identical to reverting an edit in context of an AE report which has found that specific edit presented as evidence had breached the ban.
Are you saying that if A breaches their interaction ban by, for example, leaving a comment on B's talk page and is subsequently reported and blocked, party B cannot subsequently remove that ban breaching comment from their talk page ever? Don't you think that turns the spirit of Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement, which seeks to dissuade banned editors from editing the relevant area of the ban, on its head by incentivising undesirable behaviour by making such edits sticky? -- Martin Tammsalu ( talk) 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I see that Russavia has chimed in to my clarification request, which I thought clearing up the two issues would be of benefit for him too, given the fact that he had again reverted [26] my edit [27] within hours of him coming off his own block. But instead he launches in to more polemic.
His continual reference to myself after his block, not only in the original AE case [28], not only a second time [29], but a third time [30], and a forth time in this Clarification request is surely yet another breach of his interaction ban, since WP:IBAN suggests any complaint be made no more than once.
It seems to me that this clarification request has gone as far as it can, so I'm not going to comment further. I'll be filing amendments in due course to update the enforcement provisions of both relevant cases to introduce an additional "Enforcement by reversion" provision with respect to the interaction bans (which is within scope of the WP:BAN policy) in order to solve the problems evident with the current regime. -- Martin Tammsalu ( talk) 10:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Russavia reverted Martin, in violation of WP:IBAN and WP:EEML#Interaction ban. I blocked Russavia, which Martin did not contest. Martin then re-reverted Russavia; for this, I therefore also blocked Martin. It is a given at AE that editors with "unclean hands" who request enforcement may also be blocked or sanctioned. I do not see what the issue is here. AGK [ • 16:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe that WP:IBAN does not allow the action that Tammsalu says is OK. He makes a statement which I can't find support for in policy: "Having found that a particular edit has breached the interaction ban, that disruptive edit can be undone per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement by reverting." There is no wording in WP:BAN which supports that either. He might be thinking of the provision of WP:3RR which does not include reverts of a banned editor as counting toward the limit of three reverts. Tammsalu is not allowed to revert *any* edit of someone from whom he is interaction banned, so the fact that such an edit won't count towards 3RR is not of interest. Tammsalu is asking Arbcom to rule on what the policy says, and I think it supports AGK's view of the matter. I would also recommend that Tammsalu change his signature to match his user name, since 'Martin' causes puzzlement. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
As User:Tammsalu (aka User:Martintg) accuses myself of disruption, one also needs to know:
Given Tammsalu's history of harrassment of myself, and his history of vexatious reporting, it appears that as soon as there was a good faith belief that my revert of their edit was made without knowledge of their change of username, they immediately escalated the issue and reported me for breaking an interaction ban with other editors, when those editors were more than able to report me. This in itself is a dire breach of Martintg's interaction ban, is it not?
I urge arbitrators to look at this for themselves, and comment accordingly. -- Russavia Let's dialogue 13:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This is necessary dispute resolution, not simply a clarification request. As per AGK's comments I have sought the guidance of uninvolved admins (Jehochman and FPaS) on how to approach instances such as that on Anti-Estonian sentiment. Those two admins have not responded, so perhaps the committee can provide guidance on how to approach issues such as this. I have taken note of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions. Will anyone on the Committee be prepared to look past the surface and take a little bit of time to actually look at what appears to be occurring. -- Russavia Let's dialogue 11:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I have posted a raft of problems relating to Anti-Estonian sentiment at Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Major_problems_with_this_article. Given the 1) timing of the edit by Tammsalu and 2) fact that all edits by myself to the article 12 months ago have been reverted and 3) the nature of the information which has been removed and/or reintroduced into the article by Tammsalu, from where I am sitting, I can only assume that this is a provocative edit on the part of Tammsalu, perhaps with a bit of battleground furtherance behind it, but done first and foremost because the interaction ban would prevent myself from doing anything substantial on the article as it would be seen as a revert at WP:AE, which I am sure would be taken there if I attempted to touch the article in any substantial way.
I am not going to wikilawyer restrictions as seems to be the case with this very clarification request, but if one uses the very same arguments that Tammsalu is using, I would be well within my rights (according to Tammsalu) to report him to WP:AE for breaking his interaction ban on me, and I would be well within my rights to immediately undo his edit in its entireity. But I shall not do this, because the reasoning is shallow and not really grounded in policy.
However, I would ask the Committee to re-read Tammsalu's initial complaint, and then look at his actions on the above article, and one could likely reach the conclusion that Tammsalu is using the interaction ban in such a way that is pointy and somewhat disruptive to the project as a whole. This opinion is reinforced even further after Tammsalu has used mutual and constructive interactions between Miacek and myself in such a way as to try and have me alone sanctioned.
Perhaps editors could clarify their reasons right here for their edits, so that the committee can reach informed opinion on whether interaction bans are now going to be used as a battleground tool by certain editors, and whether some amendment to cases actually need to be made. -- Russavia Let's dialogue 11:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Russavia, very funny.
-- Sander Säde 09:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Nanobear: a) The doctor was from USA, not Latvia; b) He has allegedly published ads, not article; c) He didn't write in the ad that he would not treat a Russian patient; d) Doctor's name is Slūcis (transliterated Slucis), the professor (or you, as I have not seen the original) obviously mistransliterated the name.
So. What exactly do you claim that was correct about your edit? No typos? Bonus points there. Even the source itself was given partially, without the publisher or ISBN. This is not an acceptable way to edit controversial topics. And yet you dare to claim I "arrived" here reeking "of clear battleground behaviour and harassment"... I don't think any further comments are needed. I am done here and will leave for my well-deserved two-week vacation on the beach. Bye. -- Sander Säde 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Response to Sander Säde: No, the material I inserted was not "unverifiable" and "wrong in more or less every detail, including the name of the doctor" as you claim. What I inserted was this [31]. It is not "unverifiable": the source (which I gave in the edit) is ISBN 9780230614185 (pages 44 and 58), a book written by a Professor of San Francisco University, a notable expert. The name of the doctor is not wrong; it comes directly from source and has the same transliteration as in the source. That Sander Säde has chosen to arrive here claiming that my completely legitimate edit is "wrong in almost every respect" reeks of clear battleground behaviour and harassment by Sander Säde.
About changing usernames: Martintg/Tammsalu seems to have covertly changed his username without notifying ArbCom clerks. His new username is NOT listed at WP:EEML, making is difficult for admins and editors to find the sanctions and warnings Martintg has received. It also leads to misunderstandings such as when Russavia did not know recognise Tammsalu as Martintg and did not know Tammsalu was an EEML member (with whom Russavia is not supposed to interact with), since Tammsalu's name is not listed at Wikipedia:EEML#List_membership. When I changed my username, I immediately informed a clerk (as well as ArbCom) about the change, and my name on the relevant pages was changed: [32]. Why has Martintg not done the same? Did he simply forget, or was it a deliberate attempt to conceal his history of disruption - your choice. Nanobear ( talk) 14:43, 1 July 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 Ravpapa ( talk) 18:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC) at 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
This and the previous request for amendment regarding Nishidani replace the request that I submitted proposing a more general amnesty for blocked and banned editors in the IP topic area. A number of administrators commented in that discussion that they opposed a general amnesty, and would prefer a case by case discussion of amendments. Therefore I am submitting this and the preceding requests.
In a discussion of the state of the IP project here, it was the feeling of participants in the discussion that the blocking and banning of editors had done little to reduce the level of conflict on the project, while other measures (centralized discussion and 1RR restriction) had been effective. On the other hand, several of the participants felt that blocks had removed knowledgeable editors from the project on both sides, and had thus actually hurt, rather than helped, the project.
Gilabrand is such an editor. She has extensive knowledge of the topics on which she writes, and she is a clear and incisive writer. Moreover, she has contributed not only to IP topic articles, but also to articles on a variety of subjects. She has shown herself to be an editor genuinely interested in advancing the Wikipedia project.
This request for amnesty is in no way meant to condone the unconscionable use of an anonymous IP to continue editing when under topic ban. I am aware of the extensive damage that puppetry has wreaked on the Wikipedia as a whole, and in the IP area specifically. Almost universally, these puppets are single-issue editors, whose sole purpose is to introduce propaganda into the Wikipedia. But this certainly is not the case with Gilabrand. Her interest in contributing to Wikipedia as a whole is genuine, and if her passion led her astray in the past, I am confident that this ban has put enough of a scare in her that she won't do it again.
I urge editors from both sides of the IP divide to support this request. By supporting amnesty for Gilabrand and Nishidani, I believe we are showing a level of solidarity and of genuine interest in the well-being of the project that can move the project forward.
I support the amnesty suggested for User: Gilabrand based on her contributions to the project over a long period of time. She has done some work in some contentious areas of the project and that can lead to stress-related moves that can account for some of the trouble she has run into. I recommend another chance at getting things right. Bus stop ( talk) 03:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate Ravpapa's sentiment. Perhaps editors' reticence to comment is due, in part, to how recently Gila was found to be block-evading. That's three weeks between the AE thread and the first amendment request. It may seem too fresh. Jd2718 ( talk) 09:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Although I had found Gilabrand's edits to be at times somewhat impetuous and a little inclined to take unilateral action on matters that should preferably have been the subject of prior discussion, there is no denying the enormous contribution she has made over the years to the IP and other projects, her deep knowledge of the subject and the hard work and effort expended by her in improving the quality and range of Wikipedia articles. I consider that an indefinite ban to have been harsh, taking into account her contribution, and support the amnesty proposed by Ravpapa. Davshul ( talk) 11:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully by now Gilabrand has learned her lesson and will be careful to abide by all WP policies and guidelines. She will then be able to contribute her great knowledge and skills to enhance WP. Even great people like Nelson Mandela and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ran afoul of their authorities but they then had the most productive years of their lives ahead of them after they were punished, jailed and banished as they came out mellowed and wiser for their experiences. WP should not " cut off its own nose to spite its face." Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 09:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The filing party must notify the blocking administrator that this request has been submitted. Before we proceed, he ought to do that. With regards to the request, I oppose it. Gilabrand was topic-banned some months ago, and it was later discovered quite by accident (Gila signed a comment using an IP address) that he (or she?) was evading the ban by editing anonymously. No SPI was ever ran, so we don't know if Gilabrand also used registered accounts to evade the ban, but it was sock-puppetry and ban evasion that led to the block, not simple misconduct.
I haven't refamiliarised myself with the case, but I do recall that considerable disruption preceded the topic ban and the one-year block. It is my view that that is a moot issue, because in no case should an appeal be granted so soon, if at all, after such serious ban evasion. AGK [ • 10:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I strongly support the amnesty suggested for user Gilabrand based on his unparalleled contributions to Wikipedia over a long period of time, on a wide spectrum of topics. The violation this user was blocked for seems to be motivated by the desire to improve the project, not disrupt it. Indefinite blocking is way too harsh for such a capable editor. Let's give him/her another chance. 07:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Gilabrand needs to be given an opportunity to make a statement. She may be thinking doing so may violate her topic ban. Can we invite her to make a statement? - BorisG ( talk) 11:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
More or less as per my comments about Nishidani above, I would think that it might make sense to allow interested and competent editors to edit this topic. Should misconduct continue, the existing discretionary sanctions can be used to enforce adherance to conduct guidelines. John Carter ( talk) 16:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I find myself very surprised that I have not been notified of this request, and that I only discovered by chance. In any event, I agree with AGK's last sentence. In light of Gilabrand's seven blocks for violating an AE restriction in a single year, at least two of which she evaded through IP socking, I believe that restrictions are not useful in her case. T. Canens ( talk) 17:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I, too, strongly support the amnesty suggested for user Gilabrand based on his/her unparalleled contributions to Wikipedia over a long period of time, on a wide spectrum of topics. The violation this user was blocked for (a year ago?) seems to be motivated by the desire to improve the project, not disrupt it. Indefinite blocking is way too harsh for such a capable editor. Let's give him/her another chance. (yes, i copied from markowitz, but it says what i want to say too!) Soosim ( talk) 06:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Despite years of jibes from the academic community, Wikipedia has become a leading source of information. If that information is to be reliable, comprehensive and comprehensible, Wikipedia needs people who are willing to give of their time to bring in solidly sourced information, write in clear, concise English, remove non-encyclopedic and off-topic material, and add images that illustrate the content and make the reading experience more interesting and enjoyable. These have been my goals since joining Wikipedia half a decade ago. I have edited thousands of articles and taken dozens of photographs in this spirit, and I would be grateful for an opportunity to continue.
My sincere thanks to the courageous editors who have taken the trouble to speak up on my behalf. If I am unblocked, I will do my best not to disappoint them.-- Geewhiz ( talk) 07:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
My IP address is a shared one. I replied to a question on my talk page but forgot to log in. When I noticed the IP number, I replaced it with my signature. This led to an accusation that back in 2010 I evaded a topic ban. I replied that I opened an account five and a half years ago as advised by Wikipedia so as not to be associated with this shared global IP used by a business center with many offices. I was called a liar by administrators and given an indefinite block, although several editors pointed out that this was indeed a global IP address used by others. Anyone who takes the trouble to look will see ample evidence of my productive work on Wikipedia over the course of many years. I have devoted myself to adding content and images. I have turned thousands of stubs and start-class articles into worthy encyclopedia entries. I have written numerous articles from scratch and spent hours assessing articles for various projects on Wikipedia. I have received thanks from editors across the IP divide for my input. So I am not ashamed of my edits, and I have no reason to edit anonymously. If I am unblocked, I will do my utmost to stay clear of controversy, improve relations with anyone I may have clashed with, and work together to make Wikipedia better.-- Geewhiz ( talk) 11:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, Ravpapa brought two 'opposing' editors here for amnesty, for balance. You were wiling to give Nish full support so the community could decide, but in contrast, you fail to give Gila AGF and even doubt her 'generic' (?) 'promise'. Nice. Could you instead comment on how the substantially lopsided quality contributions by Gila (in contrast to Nish) does not have any weight to your opinion of her? -- Shuki ( talk) 21:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I was contacted by Gila by e-mail, who asked me to comment here. I first came across Gila when she started copy-editing articles and doing a good job of cleaning them up and expanding them (I actually have her a barnstar at one point). Although she later drifted into edit warring and NPOV violations, unlike many of the contributers in the Israeli-Palestinian arena who were strongly biased and tenditious from day one and should never be allowed back (or banned permanently as many of them are still around), Gila was once a good and productive editor. I would be happy to see her ban lifted for a trial period to see which Gila reappears. Number 5 7 18:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I normally edit the articles in the
List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I saw some IP-edits on
Bayt 'Itab, and was quite certain that was Gilabrand, breaking their topic-ban block. I was not surprised, as
Gilabrand has earlier stated: This is a sanction that goes against Wikipedia norms, since the person who complained about me retracted his statement. I will continue to edit as necessary, reverting tendentious edits and removing unneeded tags that are placed on articles out of some political agenda or spite. I will continue to copyedit as necessary, and add content and solid references to articles.
In short, Wikipedia sanctions are apparently not valid for Gilabrand...unless she finds them valid.
The "shared global IP used by a business center"-story is difficult to swallow, given the evidence here.
Having said that, I actually agree with most of what Number 57 said above: Gilabrand can be a productive editor, copy-editing articles etc. But I wish that before you consider unblocking, Gilabrand would A: come clean/explain the evidence cited above, B: accept that sanctions are also valid for her. Huldra ( talk) 05:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
After I wrote the above, I received an email from Gilabrand -which I of course cannot quote from here. However, I then went to her talk-page (which she can edit) and asked her to clarify whether or not she had made the above IP-edits on Bayt 'Itab. She has not yet answered. Huldra ( talk) 12:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't recall editing with Gilabrand much, except for one minor incident, where I witlessly infringed my topic ban and she got upset, but if I recall correctly did not rush to go for me at AE. I trust Ravpapa, BorisG and Number57's judgement a lot here. The area needs page builders rather than edit monitors, and apparently she was good at content. I think, rather than our opinions, that, as Huldra suggests, she be invited to discuss this directly with the Arbs here in a conversation undisturbed by co-editors, to see if some provisory test return can be thrashed out. TC's concerns about a pattern are legitimate, but we have lost quite a few good editors in the past, and now that strong sanctions that can be applied imediately are in place, there's perhaps room for experiment. Nishidani ( talk) 09:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
with regards to Caslibers request for examples of noncontroversial edits by gilabrand:
The overwhelming majority of Gilabrands edits are noncontroversial. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 08:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
It is my understanding that it was not proven that Gila was the one who used the very public IP in question. If this is the case, the block should be lifted without pre-conditions.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 20:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Initially I was opposed to amending anyone's sanctions by granting special amnesty. I felt it would further complicate things in a topic area that's problematic enough with the editors already in it. Since then, though, Nishidani ( talk · contribs) had his request for amnesty approved and his contributions to I/P have on the whole been constructive. If Admins were willing to extend to User:Nishidani the benefit of the doubt and leave it to the community to determine whether or not the decision was a wise one, then the same ought to be done in the case of Gilabrand ( talk · contribs). Indeed, in just the past couple of weeks I've happened upon User:Gilabrand's name in quite a few important articles, and each time I've found his contributions to be decidedly positive in nature and impressive in scope. My attitude is as that of Soosim ( talk · contribs) above: in order to embrace the spirit of Ravpapa ( talk · contribs)'s original request with a mind to being fair to all parties involved, and considering Gilabrand's stated commitment to the values and principles of the Project, I encourage the Admins to favor lifting his sanctions and allowing the community to be the judge of his conduct.— Biosketch ( talk) 04:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
In this discussion so far, 16 people have participated. Of those, 14 - representing editors from both sides of the Israel-Palestine area - have supported the amnesty. Two - both administrators, one of whom was the administrator who imposed the original ban - are opposed.
I think that this discussion has been sufficient to reflect the opinion of the I-P editing community, and that an administrator can make a motion and act upon it. Regards, -- Ravpapa ( talk) 06:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The arbitration enforcement block placed on Gilabrand ( talk · contribs) related to the Palestine-Israel articles case is provisionally suspended as of 25 August or the passage of this motion, whichever is the latter. Gilabrand is reminded that articles in the area of conflict remain the subject of discretionary sanctions, and are currently subject to a 1RR restriction. Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will viewed dimly.
For this motion, there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 is a majority.
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 Mathsci ( talk) at 21:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Withdrawn
|
---|
Miradre is under a three month topic ban under WP:ARBR&I and appears to have broken that ban by editing too close to the limits. I have filed a report at WP:AE. That is not the issue here. Captain Occam, who is subject to a very general topic ban which I would have thought precludes his involvement in such requests if he is not directly implicated, has added comments there claiming to be "uninvolved". However, he has used the occasion to launch an attack on my edits on wikipedia, in an area outside my self-imposed voluntary topic ban, to which I have adhered fairly scrupulously. That self-imposed restriction does not apply to project space, although I have agreed that requests at WP:AE related to WP:ARBR&I will be sparing (as has been the case). Captain Occam's attack on me there appears to break his topic ban and I actually don't understand the logic of his misusing WP:AE in that way. He has used the occasion to launch an attack on me which has nothing whatsover to do with arbitration enforcement. Perhaps he could have made a posting on WP:ANI about his concerns, although I appear to have made hardly any edits of any substance to articles recently. His complaints on WP:AE seem to be reiterating the disruptive trolling (now reverted) of yet another sockpuppet of A.K.Nole, A.B.C.Hawkes ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was just blocked by Sandstein after two SPIs with some help also from Elen of the Roads. I am not under any ArbCom restrictions. Captain Occam, however, seems to have broken the terms of his extended topic ban and appears to be abusing the arbitration enforcement page. I am reporting this here because it seems so anomolous. Please could ArbCom clarify whether Captain Occam's attack on me in this context is within the terms of his topic ban, as extended subsequently at WP:AE. There is also the issue of the two confirmed meatpuppets of Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2, who since the topic bans appear to have been editing on behalf of the topic banned users. Their real life identities have been confirmed to ArbCom at the start of the year. SightWatcher has complained about me in the same vociferous way as Captain Occam, which is hardly surprising in the circumstances. Several users, including administrators, have privately and on-wiki raised doubts about three further accounts that have appeared since the topic ban, editing exclusively in the area of the topic ban. These users are Woodsrock, Boothello and Miradre; the only evidence so far has been circumstantial. Mathsci ( talk) 21:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
|
The query that I had seems to have been answered here by EdJohnston so I am withdrawing this request for clarification.
As I understand it uninvolved administrators dealing with the WP:AE case can, if deemed appropriate, simultaneously clarify the extended topic bans to preclude any involvement in enforcement requests concerned with WP:ARBR&I except when the originator of the request.
Thanks to all who have commented.
Mathsci ( talk) 01:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I must say that this request to prohibit another user from uttering an opinion seems very hypocritical considering that Mathsci himself in a RfC argued that he should be able to participate on "process pages" while promising to stay away from the topic itself. See the discussion for removing the topic ban [38] as well as Mathsci's stated desire to be able to voice opinions on "process pages" while staying away from the topic itself. [39] Also, his description of me is incorrect and I argue in the AE case that he himself has broken his promise to the ArbCom to stay away from the topic area. Miradre ( talk) 22:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Just pointing out that Volunteer Marek is not an uninvolved editor but has had extensive disputes with me in that past as well as has been involved in race articles with a strong personal POV. Miradre ( talk) 21:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I already mentioned this in the AE thread, but Ferahgo’s and my topic bans specifically do not extend to AE. This was first pointed out by ArbCom in a previous request for clarificaiton. When Ferahgo’s and my topic bans were extended in this thread, the thread also mentioned AE as a special exception, and the advice that I not participate in R&I-related AE threads is listed as “not compulsory”.
I need to make it clear that in general I have been trying to avoid Mathsci since the beginning of the year. He has not returned the favor. The most obvious example of this was his attempt to get me site-banned in February, which grew out of an argument that he initiated with me in Jimbo Wales’ user talk about my letter which was published in The Economist. In response to that amendment thread, several arbitrators told him that he should cease his involvement in the R&I topic area. Mathsci doesn’t appear to have followed that advice. In addition to his various enforcement requests against other editors during the time since then, on June 30th he sent me e-mail saying that I will have to put up with this again myself if I attempt to appeal my topic ban. Specifically, he said that he will demand that my topic ban be lifted only if I promise to never edit race-related articles again, and that he’ll support this with all the same accusations of meatpuppetry and whatnot that he’s made in the February thread and the current one. I’d had no recent involvement with Mathsci when he sent me this message; the only context of him sending it was that I was discussing the possibility of appealing my topic ban with Newyorkbrad. (Jclemens has seen the contents of the e-mail.)
I would like to have as little to do with Mathsci as possible, but I would also like to have the opportunity to eventually appeal my topic ban without Mathsci using it as a platform to pursue the same interpersonal dispute against me that he’s been pursuing for more than a year. For the past month, I have been attempting to discuss with ArbCom whether there is a way that that’s possible, but have had very little success communicating with them effectively. (The main problem I’ve been having is arbitrators either not responding to me at all, or abruptly ceasing to respond while I’m trying to discuss the issue with them.) I’m kind of at my wit’s end about this. An appeal is supposed to be an opportunity for an editor to discuss with ArbCom whether or not his or her editing has improved. It’s not supposed to be an opportunity for someone else sanctioned in the same case to continue pursing the same interpersonal dispute that originally led to arbitration. But that’s what Mathsci has promised it will be, if I attempt to appeal my topic ban.
This is why I began paying attention to his behavior towards Miradre. After Mathsci sent me this e-mail on June 30, I wanted to see just how severe his harassment behavior is nowadays, since apparently I’ll soon have to put up with this again myself. My reason for mentioning this at AE is because I’m still hoping that if something could be done about this behavior while Mathsci is directing it at Miradre, perhaps when I appeal my topic ban I won’t have to put up with it myself. I don’t actually want to take a side in the Mathsci/Miradre dispute, especially not as far as content is concerned. I just care about my ability to not be harassed myself when I’m ready to appeal my topic ban, and after a month of silence from ArbCom in response to my efforts to discuss how this might be possible, bringing attention to his harassment behavior at AE is the only way I can think of that this might be possible.
I hope this thread can receive attention from the arbitrators that I’ve tried to talk to about the possibility of appealing my ban: Newyorkbrad, Cool Hand Luke, and especially Jclemens. Please, I’m asking all of you—give me a way to appeal my topic ban without having to put up with this, such as permission to appeal it in a private hearing. That’s the only thing I really care about here. If I can be given that, I won’t have any need to try and forestall Mathsci’s promised harassment of me by trying to get attention for it when it’s being directed at someone else.
In response to SirFozzie: if the arbitrators want me to change my comment at AE to not describe myself as uninvolved, I’m willing to do that. However, what I think really needs to be addressed here is the issue I described above. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 22:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I have added a comment on the current WP:AE request about Miradre to indicate that Captain Occam doesn't seem to be violating his current topic ban by posting there. (My wording *advised* him not to post at AE about other people but it did not forbid it). In general, I think that in the future, any broad topic bans that are written (those bans which include talk pages) should disallow commenting about others on any page of Wikipedia, including AE, unless the person's own edits are under review. Such article+talk topic bans should still allow direct appeals to Arbcom. It is too late for me to fix the wording that I drafted for the AE sanction that was issued to Captain Occam on December 2, 2010. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Question/statement on Capt. Occam's statement:
I hope I’ve made this clear already, but I think it bears repeating that I really don’t want to be in the middle of this conflict. - yet you show up on AE out of the blue in a case in which you haven't been mentioned with a 7097 character/1213 word statement (basically the equivalent of a decent sized Wikipedia article). That just doesn't look like a "really don't want"a to me. It looks like a "I'm itching to be in this again".
I don’t actually want to take a side in the Mathsci/Miradre dispute - you might not want to but somehow you did.
I just care about my ability to not be harassed myself when I’m ready to appeal my topic ban - so you pick a (real) fight with Mathsci today because of some hypothetical harassment you think he might engage in the future?
Note that Capt. Occam (and a sock of Mikemikev) aside, the consensus at AE is pretty much that Mirardre's edits are trouble - so if this was some kind of attempt to preempt possibility of future harassment, as silly as that is in itself, Capt. Occam definitely picked a wrong situation to do it in.
Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
@Mirardre: has had extensive disputes with me in that past as well as has been involved in race articles with a strong personal POV
has had extensive disputes with me - probably true. So have at least have a dozen other editors.
has been involved in race articles - yes, somewhat.
with a strong personal POV - total nonsense. Again, at least a half a dozen other editors have had precisely the same disagreements with you that I have.
@Cpt. Occam - maybe I haven't been around for that long, but I *am* fully capable of going back and reading old cases, threads and discussions. Your way of framing things is ... "peculiar", to be put it nicely. Anyway - general point stands; if you don't want to interact with Mathsci, why pick fights with him? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:40, 10 August 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 Colincbn ( talk) at 05:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I request clarification of Remedies 4) Article and subject scope. Specifically: "Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area."
In practice this is being taken to mean that the Topic Banned parties are able to comment on any RfM, any RfC, or any other new topic as it comes up. In effect not just putting forth their proposals at the beginning of the discussion but their views on the proposals of others. Also Blackash is being asked "direct questions" on her views of the posts of others by a new SPA, thereby allowing her to make her case in response without Slowart being given the same courtesy.
I have noted that in the above ruling it clearly states "allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion". These comments are not proposals, they are not background rational for their proposals, and they are not being made at the commencement of the discussion (note there is a section specifically set aside for this purpose that they have opted not to use).
Also the statement: "This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area." seems to rule out Sydney Bluegum as he is not an expert nor has he, or anyone else, ever claimed he is.
I do not think this was the original intended outcome of this ruling, but if it is I am more than happy to stand by that ruling if it is made clear. Colincbn ( talk) 05:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
So far all the arbitrators who have commented here have agreed with the current implementation, I have no problem with that. However I hope you will amend
Remedy 4) Article and subject scope to be an accurate reflection of this position. I think the wording suggested above is appropriate. Currently the remedy is worded much more strictly than it is being interpreted as.
Colincbn (
talk) 10:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Colincbn is in disagreement with how the ArbCom ruling is being interpreted. As an uninvolved administrator monitoring the article, I have interpreted the Article and subject scope remedy as meaning that Slowart, Sydney Bluegum, and Blackash are banned from discussing the naming issue, but are each allowed to make a single statement in those discussions, and then reply to specific queries. As such, when a Requested Move was filed, I allowed each of the three banned editors to make one statement, no more than 500 words, and am allowing them to reply to specific questions. Colincbn, however, disagrees strongly, and is of the opinion that this is not what ArbCom intended, and that the three banned editors should have been limited to participating in the RfC, but not in the RM. There have also been concerns expressed by some of the editors on the page that Sydney Bluegum is a SPA, and should not be allowed to participate at all. A further concern is that one of the editors, ?oygul ( talk · contribs) is a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet and should therefore be banned from the discussion. However, multiple checkuser requests have been filed, and though there is a possible connection since the account is in the same city as Sydney Bluegum, the account is using a different ISP/computer. I have been monitoring ?oygul's behavior closely, and issued a couple warnings, but ?oygul has been adapting to requests so I have not seen a ban as necessary. It is my opinion that I am interpreting the existing ArbCom ruling correctly, that the discussions on the talkpage are moving slowly forward in a mostly productive manner, and that once the RM is allowed to reach its natural conclusion in a few days, that things should simmer down. Of course, if ArbCom would like to modify the case remedies, I will adapt my monitoring to match. -- El on ka 06:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I support Elonka's concerns about ?oygul. There does seem to be an element of gaming the system in which ?oygul allows Blackash to continue her business and personal rivalry with Slowart by asking her specific questions, thus giving her the right to respond. This is not conducive to a rational discussion, neither do I think it is what Arbcom had in mind when they allowed the banned editors to respond to questions because of 'their experience and familiarity with the area'. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe Elonka's interpretation of Remedy 4) seems to working. Blackash have a chat 00:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC) In reply to Martin's comments above.
As long as Elonka keeps a close watch on the potential trouble makers (myself included)and is not shy about editing (as done) and blocking if needed, I trust the participating editors will embrace the spirit of, if the letter of the ban. Sometimes a little controlled venting let's the pressure off. Slowart ( talk) 19:09, 23 August 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 — Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) at 02:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like these three aspects concerning the seeking of real life identities to be removed entirely from my injunction as they are in no way relevant to what had happened.
It has been two years since the injunctions against me were filed and these related entries are the ones I still have issues with. As I stated in my original whatever it was that the now banned user Mythdon was the instigator in this supposed "real life identity" searching. Prior to the ArbCom case, Mythdon went out of his way to bother me on my YouTube channel. I still have the incoming and outgoing messages Mythdon sent me via YouTube, asking if the YouTube user Ryulong was in fact me (which it is). The only thing I provided to MBisanz was a link to the profile Mythdon was using which happened to include his age at the time. I have never gone out of my way to seek out the real life identity of anyone, including Mythdon, and I find that these particular findings and injunctions against me are overly unnecessary and they make it appear I had done something which I never did. If necessary, I can provide the messages received through YouTube from 2008 in which Mythdon continued his harassment off site, unprovoked.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 02:17, 16 August 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 Ohconfucius ¡digame! at 06:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This week marks the second anniversary of the conclusion of the case, and six months since the remedies imposed on me were last amended. In the six months since the amendment, there have not been any issues arising from date linking, nor any drama involving same, with or without me. Although one might say that the remedies no longer have practical effect, I am seeking to having all remaining restrictions lifted. Call it housekeeping if you will. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I would however, address particular comments of Carcharoth that could be misconstrued. First, there exists, IMHO, a healthy tension at the many MoS and TITLE talk pages; far better that issues be worked through in those more 'exposed' places, than at isolated article talk pages where revert-wars are much more likely. I believe it's all too easy to dwell on the negative – the tensions among editors playing out on its talk pages – and overlook the stability of the MoS over the past few years. The exchange of views and tensions are natural and healthy (so long as they remain civil), and I would genuinely welcome a wider participation in the formulation of style guidelines. The ensuing rules must be clear and consistent. Truth is that even animated discussions fail to get consensus for change; it is hard to find evidence that style and running bots/scripts are part of a connected agenda by anyone there. Things just do not work this cart-before-horse way: "...develops a consensus about a particular aspect of style that is amenable to being worked on with a script or bot". Third, style guides, like pillars and policies, are indeed a belief system on a wiki if they are to have an effect or function; but they take their place in the hierarchy.
My personal "belief" is always within the context of the WP environment. My statement is, no more and no less, part of my effort to communicate with those who may have questions on what I do – many editors state on their userpages what they do and the rationale behind it in very similar terms. I regret the fait accompli apparently communicated. I stated: "However, the time and my skill-set is not yet ripe" – this was not quoted. I accept that I don't have more rights over other editors; my "weight" is because of what I do and how I do it. I try to be responsive and to queries and suggestions, and I believe that my talk page comments reflect this care. As to the 'project' of tagging articles for dmy and mdy dates, I am one user. There are some who use my scripts or variants thereof; there are others who tag independently; I do not know who these all are. As to my 'bot', perhaps I should have also linked to my failed bot application as a reference point. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Ohconfucius is still actively making controversial date-related edits. A well-attended RfC found no consensus to remove yyyy-mm-dd formatted dates from WP, in particular from the references. Ohconfucious nevertheless has been using a script which routinely removes that format from the references, in violation of WP:DATERET, even when an article is already consistently using one format or a style is clearly present. (A few recent examples: [46] [47] [48] [49].) Ohconfucius has been asked to stop many times; these scripted edits are producing a Fait accompli. This behaviour has led to ANI threads 1 March 14 May, 30 June and 13 August that I know of. (I started the last one.) Ohconfucious is editing against consensus expressed in the RfC and the current MOSDATE guideline. If anything is to be amended in the past decision, it should be to clearly apply it to date formats so that this behaviour can be addressed at WP:AE. Gimmetoo ( talk) 01:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
My concern here, though, is what Ohconfucius said here, which is worth reading in full. The parts I want to quote here are:
I should disclose that I have disagreed with Ohconfucius in the past on the issue of script-editing, and have recently been discussing the issue of the Manual of Style, and the way it or those editing to bring articles into line with the MoS, can sometimes lead to friction (see User talk:Noetica). What I said there was that I am concerned that some see the MoS as a 'belief system' (see User:Ohconfucius/script, which starts out with a 'Mission statement' that says "I believe in Wikipedia's Manual of Style"). My other concern is that mass editing with scripts and bots, especially where the MoS is concerned, can destabilise things across Wikipedia as a critical mass of editors previously unaware of the issue of the day get drawn into arguing about it when they see various bot or script edits on their watchlist.
The general development of MoS disputes (only some issues seem to develop into disputes for some reason) seems to go like this:
If the restrictions are lifted, my advice would be for Ohconfucius to take things very slowly, as any mass editing leading to another Wikipedia-wide dispute like the date-delinking case would not be a good outcome. I would suggest a separate account at the very least, more centralised discussions, and work done systematically by a team rather than single editors using scripts. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Remedies 16 and 18 (as amended) of the Date delinking case are terminated, effective immediately. Ohconfucius is reminded that this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, and that he is expected to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines, especially those concerning the editing and discussion of policies and guidelines, and the use of alternate accounts.
For this motion, there are 15 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive and 1 who is recused, so 8 support votes are a majority.
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
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) at 19:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Due to concern regarding real life identify users in question not provided.
In the TM case we passed a number of previsions including one pertaining to WP:COI [55] It states that editor which "have only an indirect relationship" may continue to edit. What about editors who are members of the public relations department of the Transcendental Meditation movement? Are they too allowed to continue editing or should their editing ability be restricted? Would stipulate the specifics off Wiki due concerns of releasing peoples identify if this is indeed a concern.
Risker writes: "those who have a personal belief system that is in direct conflict with the philosophies of Transcendental Meditation (or for that matter, any other belief system) must also bear in mind their own potential conflict of interest and edit neutrally or not at all."
Belief systems and religions have the distinguishing quality of belief. Anybody who doesn't belong to the in-group (Socialists, Objectivists, Zoroastrians, Christians, TMers, Quakers, Raelians, Atheists, or whatever) is in direct conflict with the belief system. However normally we tend think of those outsiders as having a better chance of writing objectively about the belief system than the believers. I think this is probably a good idea. -- TS 01:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | → | Archive 60 |
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 Mbz1 ( talk) at 15:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to stop on #2 please:
So as you see from the above I have proven that except a single bad SPI request I have never abused any of the boards for at least two month prior to my bans. The bans were unfair, unwarranted, humiliating. I believe that ArbCom's prestige will benefit from removing the mention of these bans from my block log. Thanks.
SirFozzie, thank you for your comment. I am editing under my real name, which is displayed at most of thousands of images I uploaded to wikipedia. The bans listed in my block log are hurting me a lot not only here on wikipedia, but in a real life as well. Could you imagine what people are to think about me because of these bans? I believe I have proven the bans were unwarranted. What wrong will it do, if the list of these unwarranted bans that should have never been added to my block log in the first place are removed from my block log? I understand it is not what is normally done, but it it will be a right thing to do. Besides I do not believe that even warranted bans should be listed in a block log.
The list of these bans hurts me in a real life. I am not saying they were listed in my block log in a bad faith, but they were unwarranted.
Shell, you comment is the best point why the bans should be removed from my block log. You said: "if you don't want a record of you behaving poorly, don't behave poorly." It is what other think when they see the bans listed in my block log: she behaved poorly and was banned. The point is I was not behaving poorly. I have never abused any of these boards. Shell, may I please ask you to be so kind and to prove your words with the differences? In what way my "poor" behavior deserved the bans in question? Have I ever abused any of the boards in question to deserve such bans?
Thank you for bringing up a painful memories, Shell. I even know what wikihound of mine emailed you the link D= But what my talk page proves anyway? Whatever editing I have done at my talk page while being blocked has nothing to do with my conduct at administrative noticeboards.
Shell, I know I am not doing myself a favor, but you know what, I do not care. I am 99.99% positive the link was emailed to you, and I know who did it.
If you found the link yourself, one could assume that you read the link you found before posting it, and this edit does not look as you did, but this hardly matters. I could even apologize to you, but this also would not matter. I am simply very, very tired.
I even realize that I could end indefinitely banned as a result of this request, but this also hardly matters.
You still failed to respond what my talk page has to do with my bans on noticeboards? I mean, if instead of looking at my contributions on the boards I was banned from, you found yourself the link to my talk page, you should have been thinking how my conduct at my talk page is to help you to prove your point about me behaving "poorly" on the noticeboards. Listen, I am still grateful you're trying to prove something :-) Most admins say: "It is right because I said it" :-) Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 00:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Shell, thank you very much for your response and for trying to justify your position. I cannot stress strong enough how much I appreciate you trying, but Shell, the other editors did not provide any evidences of my "poor" behavior on AN/I and/or AN and/or SPI others than I discussed above. None of my AN/I post, none of my AN posts and a single, yes, filed in a hurry but not in a bad faith, SPI should not have resulted in me banning on these boards, and you know this, Shell.Thanks.
BTW while we at my talk page, you might be interested to know that Rd232 removed one post of an "editor who were bringing up concerns" from my talk page as unhelpful. I wish somebody removed from my talk page the harassment by user:betsythedevine . That user claimed I canvassed Sandstein for this email I sent to him when Gwen removed my talk page access. How this email is canvasing, Shell? That user user:betsythedevine went above and beyond to assassinate my character, and she succeeded in doing this. Also user:betsythedevine alleged I hounded somebody without providing any differences to prove that false accusation she often makes. I have never hounded anybody. But once again I am bringing this matter here only because, you, Shell brought it first. My initial block was unfair, my indefinite one, and removing my talk page access were more than unfair and I could prove it, but once again this request is not about my block review. This request is only about removing a list of my unwarranted bans from a single record in my block log, which is the right thing to do.
I would not have bothered ArbCom, if it did not. Just listen to yourself please. Most of you except Shell do not even arguing the bans were warranted, but you're declining undoing wrong that was done do me, and why you declining it? Because it is not what is done normally. Is this reason a good enough?
I still hope that it will be at least a single arbitrator, who will support my request. Even, if this record in my block log is not edited, it will make me feel so much better.
May I please ask you to consider removing the last record from my block log altogether and to leave me blocked indefinitely. I should have never agreed on humiliating, unwarranted bans as a condition of my unblock. It is much better to be blocked indefinitely than to have these bans in my block log. Thanks.
{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.}
I'm having a hard time believing what I'm reading here. Didn't we just go through a MASSIVE clusterfuck of a debate barely three weeks ago regarding Mbz1 and block logs? AGK put a 1-second block on mbz1, the purpose of which was to annotate the block log which, in his personal opinion, he felt was wrong. This was overturned by the community discussion at ANI (AGK was found to have acted in good-faith, though, no wrong-doing there), and the 1-second block was itself revdeleted by (I believe) Rd232.
I have never, in years of editing here, seen anyone obsess with their block log and worry about it being a stain or a badge of shame or whatever. I'd like to see a ban on mbz1 ever bringing this subject up to any policy board again, quite honestly. This is bordering on the tendentious. Tarc ( talk) 18:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Addendum; unfortunately, mbz forgets the old "it takes two to tango" saying, that our Wikipedia Review exchanges are quite a two-way street of colorful comments, e.g. I am a "brainless anti-Semite", apparently. But this is neither here nor there.
Yes, Rd232 suggested that you head to WP:AN if you wish the block reviewed. Did you?
Again, this is a user who was blocked and topic-banned for a time, does not feel that either were deserved and wants the entries clarified or expunged. How many hundreds of sanctioned editors in 10 years of the project's existence feel the same way? Hell, I was baited into a 3RR war and earned a half-day block once, but I really don't care about it. Reject this, please, otherwise the floodgates will open to everyone who wants to scrub their block log of anything they think is unjustified. Tarc ( talk) 18:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by User:Ravpapa ( talk) at 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
This and the following request for amendment regarding Gilabrand replace the request that I submitted proposing a more general amnesty for blocked and banned editors in the IP topic area. A number of administrators commented in that discussion that they opposed a general amnesty, and would prefer a case by case discussion of amendments. Therefore I am submitting this and the following requests.
In a discussion of the state of the IP project here, it was the feeling of participants in the discussion that the blocking and banning of editors had done little to reduce the level of conflict on the project, while other measures (centralized discussion and 1RR restriction) had been effective. On the other hand, several of the participants felt that blocks had removed knowledgeable editors from the project on both sides, and had thus actually hurt, rather than helped, the project.
Nishidani is such an editor. Regardless of his often caustic and highly irritating comments on talk pages, he is unquestionably one of the most knowledgeable editors to tread in this sensitive topic area. His encyclopedic knowledge of sources was often astounding. His insights into article organization and language were always enlightening. True, he has an undisputed talent for aggravating his opponents; however, unlike other aggravating editors, he not only argued but also made important substantive additions to articles he worked on.
In the discussion leading to this request, editors from both sides of the IP dispute supported a lifting of sanctions against Nishidani and Gilabrand. I fear that by separating the requests, we will turn this into a partisan dispute, something I had hoped to avoid. In any case, I call upon editors from both sides to support the lifting of this ban, as an act of faith in the viability of our project and the belief that knowledgeable editors are a benefit to the project.
I think this is a no-brainer. In the WB/JS case ArbCom said that work in developing featured class articles in other topic areas would be looked upon favorably in a request for lifting the topic ban. Nishidani has done such work, helping bring the once very poor article Shakespeare authorship question to FA and improving a host of articles related to that, see for example his contributions at History of the Shakespeare authorship question, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, and Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Additionally, Nishidani has helped bring the article Al-Azhar Mosque up to GA quality and, if I ever spend the time needed to finish a certain section, nearly up to FA quality, working with an editor who was also banned in the WB/JS case (Jayjg) in doing so. See also his work at Barasana, which looked like this prior to him starting to work on that page, and like this after a few weeks of his working on it. He has also written, largely by himself, the articles Franz Baermann Steiner and Taboo (book).
Ill repeat what I wrote in the now archived "general amnesty" appeal, the restrictions put in place in WB/JS have not made the topic area better in any way. The main instigator of the edit-warring that brought that case about (NoCal100 and his socks, including another party to that case Canadian Monkey) continues to edit with impunity. Nishidani has not chosen to go that way; he has instead edited in a wide range of topics, helping to bring very poor quality articles to a much higher standard.
However, the appeal is not about what Nishidani did prior to being banned. Ynhockey's accusation that Nishidani has not worked on any good articles or featured articles while he was banned is demonstrably untrue; links in my original statement demonstrate that his accusation is false. Nishidani has indeed worked on featured content, helping to bring very poor articles, or non-existent ones, up to such a status. That those who oppose his views on the I-P conflict also oppose this request is not surprising, though it is disappointing that they chose to make such false charges against him to argue that his ban be maintained. I hope the committee will see through the comments of those that have been in conflict with him and instead make their decision based on the actual evidence. nableezy - 15:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Ravpapa about Nishidani's "often caustic and highly irritating comments on talk pages" and "he has an undisputed talent for aggravating his opponents". Do we really want to let such a battlefield mentality editor loose again, without a clear acknowledgement of change of heart? I note that he regards himself as essentially innocent, in a recent statement blaming his ban on a "stray remark", and is presumably unrepentant. As Boris remarked "it is not easy to earn a permaban by a slip of the tongue". Indeed.
I support this amendment due to Nishidani's extremely helpful contributions at Shakespeare authorship question (SAQ). I started following the turmoil and article development at SAQ in October 2010 after seeing the matter raised at a noticeboard. I had no knowledge of Nishidani before then, and have never looked at P-I issues. At SAQ, I saw a tremendous amount of disruption from people wanting to promote the UNDUE notion that Shakespeare did not write his plays. Eventually, an ArbCom case resolved the disruption allowing the two main editors of the article ( Tom Reedy and Nishidani), with several other expert editors, to continue article development with the result that it was promoted to FA in April 2011. Every step of the process was strenuously opposed by disruptive editors, and I observed that Nishidani remained calm and helpful despite a lot of provocation. Some recent discussions, now here, show some diffs of Nishidani falling short of CIVIL, but that was in May 2010 and involved an editor who was repeatedly misreading sources, and who is now topic banned for a year, while Nishidani has never been sanctioned regarding the SAQ area. Certainly Nishidani is now fully aware of the requirements for editing and civil collaboration, and there is no reason to maintain a topic ban.
Nishidani's knowledge is extraordinary, and he has excellent access to resources. Removing a topic ban is likely to assist the encyclopedia and cannot do harm since WP:ARBPIA allows sanctions to be readily applied should the need arise. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Michael, the diff you cite in evidence against me does not support the deduction you make from it, and I would appreciate you clarifying on what evidence you base your contention that I regard myself as 'innocent', esp. since in the diff I clearly admit that I did break the rules, (in reverting 4 editors) and that Arbcom exercised its proper right to punish me for my infringement. Namely, I wrote, contrary to your inference that I was protesting my innocence, that
Thank you. Nishidani ( talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
In reply to JClemens, I confess I do not quite 'wish' to return to the I/P area. Several fellow editors have expressed some confidence in the idea that, if I mend my scabrous tongue, and learn to refrain from, to misquote Sir Thomas Browne, abusing the incivility of my knee, I might prove helpful in the area they edit. However the vote swings, or I swing, I owe them a vote of thanks for their solicitude in expressing a desire to have me back as a colleague there. This motion imposes on me a sense of obligation, if the amnesty is passed, to work in a manner that will not disappoint their confidence. Nishidani ( talk) 11:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I support this amendment. Nishidani is a very able and intelligent contributor to Wikipedia. Like JayJG, he has contributed high quality work in areas not covered by the ban.
Wikipedia is not some cult or extremist party where editors are expected to make obsequious replies to "just criticism". Shortly after the original punishment, Nishidani attempted to retire at a round number of edits which I think was 13K. he is now approaching 20K edits. He has not been blocked for over two years and does not attract much admin criticism. Although Michael note that Nishidani can be ascerbic, he has not produced evidence newer than the year-old edits in the other thread.
He is therefore someone whose presence is generally a benefit to the project and I think that Wikipedia can afford to take a small risk in lifting the topic ban in the same way that it did with JayJG with no subsequent problematic repercussions.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 22:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this amendment. I agree that Nishidani is a veryable and intelligent contributor to Wikipedia, but he has violated his topic ban many times. For instance Nishidani inserted himself in the discussions directly related to I/P conflict, including introducing hate propaganda anti-Israeli cartoon
Besides it is my understanding that Nishidani was not very civil editing in other areas of the project:
I do not believe I/P topic will benefit from this user incivility. Broccolo ( talk) 16:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
As I said in the proposal from a few days ago, and say again now, the last thing the I–P area needs is bringing back problematic editors. There are enough problems as it is, and there is no doubt that this editor was not banned for nothing. Broccoli above presents a solid evidenced case why there is absolutely no reason to lift the ban.
Moreover, the condition for lifting the ban was that the editor continues to contribute to Wikipedia in a significant way. With due respect to Nishidani's contributions, he has not written any FAs or GAs or even DYKs lately (as far as I can tell), did not participate in the major backlog drives, and mostly continued his pattern of editing little but writing TLDR talk page comments that waste everyone else's time, only now outside of I–P ( about 64% of Nishidani's latest 500 edits, for example, are on various talk pages, which isn't necessarily a problem, but for anyone who remembers the case and why Nishidani was banned, it is). I feel that Wikipedia has not lost a major asset by banning Nishidani from the topic area, and won't lose anything by not lifting the ban. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
@Jclemens - The "portion of the community commenting here" consists mainly of editors heavily involved in the topic area Nishidani was banned from. There are only two editors I don't recognize from I/P articles (in which I am also involved, for the record). No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 18:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with Brewcrewer. In the little interaction I had with Nishidani, I found him to be combative, condescending and long winded. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 09:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
@nableezy - The main reason that "when Jayjg appealed his ban, you did not see editors who hold opposing views as him making such comments as the ones seen below" is that Jayjg doesn't antagonize editors holding opposing views like Nishidani does. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 14:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea why Nishidani would want to have the topic ban lifted. He does not appear to have any history of solid contributions to the Israel-Arab topic. All I remember about Nishidani are his huge blocs of text he added to talk pages in which little was understood save for his belittlement of other editors. I am open to being corrected of course. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm thoroughly opposed to the idea of granting amnesty to banned users, regardless of whose side they're against. I'm not familiar with either of the two editors on whose behalf the amendment is being sought – though I suppose I do indirectly bear the blame for Gilabrand ( talk · contribs)'s ban) – but my opinion based on my experience in the I/P topic area thus far is that more editors should be sanctioned, not have their sanctions rescinded. The topic area is bad enough with the small number of disruptive participants already involved in it. Opening the door for even more disruption will be a disaster.— Biosketch ( talk) 10:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Biosketch has an interesting view. But: the vast majority of contributors to the I/P topic area have, shall we say, very strong views one way or the other. If we topic ban all of them, no one will be left to contrtibute. Thus any bans have to be weighed against past and potential contributions of the user(s) in question. In short: no users - no disruption, but also no content.
Even if it is true that more editors need to be banned, this needs to be consistent. I do not see that Nishidani is any more disruptive than a number of other editors. He is under such a drastic sanction because it was an ArbCom case. I think on this basis, Nishidani's ban needs to be lifted. He will certainly be under very close scrutiny.
One concern I do have is conflicting and confusing messages from Nishdani. On one hand, he says that he has retired partly because he was prevented from contributing to the I/P topic area. On the other hand, he says now he is not keen to return to this area. According to his talk page he is retired, but according to the user page, semi-retired. A bit confusing. BorisG ( talk) 10:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
As is noted in the decision itself, as well as in the comments lifting JayJG's restriction, any edits to the pages in question will remain subject to discretionary sanctions. That being the case, I believe that it is not unreasonable to lift Nishidani's existing restrictions as well. As is the case for JayJG, and, really, any and all other editors who will ever edit the related pages in question so long as the discretionary sanctions remain in effect, any misconduct they might make from this point forward may well cause the placement of sanctions of some sort on that editor. Personally, I think that those sanctions could, reasonably, include temporary topic bans, if such were indicated. Nishidani is a good editor who has done very good work in recently helping to bring at least one other contentious and difficult article, the Shakespeare authorship question, to FA. He appears to have demonstrated a significant degree of knowledge regarding this topic as well. That being the case, I can see no good reason to continue to permanently keep a good editor who is knowledgable about the subject and apparently willing to work on it from doing so. Should the misconduct recur in a non-trivial way, a block or temporary ban could be restored, or potentially edits to the article pages themselves placed on him. (A single instance of moderately insulting someone would at least to my eyes qualify as a trivial example of misconduct, for instance.) But I don't think it necessarily makes sense to keep a good and productive editor from being able to edit content he has, apparently, already demonstrated an ability to improve. John Carter ( talk) 15:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Why? The editor has been semi-retired or retired for a bit. He even says that he does not wish to return. We don't need him and he appears to be fine with it. He thinks that simply biting his tongue will be sufficient? Why hasn't he made a statement acknowledging that he understands that his bias has been a hurdle to editing constructively and that is something he promises to keep in check? If he would have not violated his topic ban multiple times (see the warning last September) and then not made completely unneeded and possibly baiting commentary disguised as a "note to self" in March [3] then maybe I would believe that there could be some change. I also believe the never archived nsection at the top oh his talk page is still a concern even if consensus was otherwise. Cptnono ( talk) 05:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Looking forward to saying "I told you so". General amnesty picked by an editor seemingly at random? One of them has no chance at coming back (see below) and another all of a sudden can even though they have not made it clear that they actually understand what they did wrong (edit warring and a sharp tongue are one thing, but completely ignoring the goals of this project by not keeping an seemingly uncontrollable bias in check is another). The requester (not even the editors in question) actually asked at the collaboration page what difference the sanctions have made. To paraphrase my answer: It is quite now but as editors get off their blocks it will all start up again. How many more AEs do we need? Cptnono ( talk) 02:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani ( talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.
For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
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 Miradre ( talk) at 10:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
The current statement for the scope of the sanctions are "to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed)". It is highly problematic that the focus seems to be on "articles" and not on the actual material that is edited. The same focus on the article title rather than on the material edited are in these templates:
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 55, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. |
1. Does the sanctions include material that is clearly not regarding this intersection but that are in articles that may contain some other material regarding to this intersection. For example, would adding material about the relationship between "IQ and happiness" to the "IQ" article be within the scope of the sanctions?
2. Exactly what articles are included? Articles about ethnic foods? Female circumcision (varies by ethnicity)? Cousin marriages? Immigration? Slavery? Wars (ethnicity certainly often important)? Are articles about various differences between nations under the sanctions? Ethnically based political parties? Politics in general which often includes ethnic concerns? General medical articles since there are ethnic differences regarding diseases? All religious articles since religion varies by ethnicity? I am sure the one with could find this intersection in some small part of every article about human activity in Wikipedia which in effect would mean that all articles about humans are under the scope.
I would recommend that the emphasis should be shifted from specific "articles" to specific "material". So the parts of the "IQ" article not about this intersection is not under the sanctions but the sanctions apply to material about the intersection regardless of the title of article.
Reply to Aprock. None of the articles or edits, such as the rankings in the book Human Accomplishment, are about either race or intelligence. Obviously therefore not their intersection. Harassment by Aprock who disagrees with me on issues besides race and intelligence. Also, as usual his presentation is misleading. As far as I know E. O. Wilson is not a "prominent hereditarian" on either race or intelligence issues. Also, I still do not understand or have received an explanation for why Aprock did not also receive a topic ban, or at least notification, for reverting. He did more reverts than me as documented in the topic ban discussion! [4] Looks like a double standard in this area, when I receive a 3 month topic ban, while he nothing for doing more reverts than me, so a clarification would be helpful. Miradre ( talk) 19:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Meritless request. This editor is spamming neutral articles with non-neutral content related to R&I and wasting the time of editors, administrators and (in this case) arbitrators. Mathsci ( talk) 16:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
As a general observation, the race & intelligence dispute features a number of editors who are quite invested in testing and wikilawyering the boundaries of their restrictions. Given this tendency, I think a broad restriction is preferable to death by a thousand cuts. If Miradre's edits are general psychology-related improvements clearly unrelated to the race/intelligence intersection, then I think we have to trust that admins won't sanction him for them. On the other hand, if Miradre's edits simply seem designed to circumvent the letter of the restriction on race/intelligence articles, then I think admins should have the latitude to act. MastCell Talk 18:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
As an illustration of MastCell's comments above about "testing boundaries", Miradre has embarked on a series of edits to promote the book Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, adding it to a number of articles where it's inclusion is WP:UNDUE:
On a related tack...
Given this pattern of "walking the line" of his topic ban, could an administrator please clarify whether or not these edits fall within or without the scope of the topic ban? aprock ( talk) 19:10, 20 July 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 Martin ( talk) at 14:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I am not happy with the way the AGK has handled the above mentioned AE case, where I reported Russavia for breaching his interaction ban, and seek clarification of some issues that have arisen in wake of this.
I was minding my own business editing Occupation of the Baltic states, where I had corrected some obviously POVed piece of unsorted text that made a misleading assertion [9]. Unfortunately before I could add the appropriate reference to support the change, Russavia reverted the text in the very next edit [10]. Because the revert is not permitted per WP:IBAN, and Russavia is subject to an interaction ban, I asked Administrators to take action in an appropriate forum being WP:AE, as permitted by Wikipedia:IBAN#Exceptions_to_limited_bans. Russavia was subsequently blocked for 48 hours and AGK asked for input from other Administrators if any further action should be taken [11].
However no other Administrator had made any comment despite AGK's request for input while the case remained open during the week, thus most people would construe that no further action was necessary. In fact the case remained open for such a long time that Russavia was able to comment further after his block expired [12], seeking a retaliatory block. AGK duly complies and blocks me, claiming the filing an AE report about Russavia's violation was a breach of my own interaction ban [13].
When I and others subsequently point out that WP:IBAN explicitly permits the reporting of the other party in mutual interaction bans, AGK agrees that my filing of an AE report was not a violation of my interaction ban [14], but then claims this edit [15], made six days after Russavia's ban breaching revert was a violation of my interaction ban.
However it is a general principle that edits made in defiance of a ban should be reverted, Wikipedia:IBAN#Enforcement_by_reverting discusses this. As Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement states, Wikipedia's approach to enforcing bans balances a number of competing concerns, in this case:
It would just simply be untenable that a breaching edit, such as revert or even a comment on a user talk page cannot ever be undone, not in one week, one month or ever. It would lead to all sorts of kamikaze sanction breaking edits if there was some profit to be derived from that.
I am a long standing editor of Occupation of the Baltic states with 132 edits since March 2007 compared with Russavia's 5 edits since May 2009 [16]. My edit of the 17th of June [17], coming six days after Russavia's original breaching edit [18], was not a blind revert but was made in the spirit of Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement, removing the ban breaching edit and adding the two references I was was going to add before the disruption.
An additional issue is that I asked AGK to amend the result of the AE case to reflect his new reason for the block [19], he has not done so.
Can the Committee clarify whether:
Thanks for your time. -- Martin ( talk) 14:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
EdJohnston claims there is no wording in WP:BAN that permits reverting of ban breaching edits, yet this clearly states:
Of course regular reverts are prohibited by WP:IBAN, but what AGK and EdJohnston are saying is that, for example, if someone should make an edit in defiance of their IBAN by leaving a comment on my talk page, and I would not be allowed to remove that ban breaching edit from my talk page after the matter has been reported and the other party blocked. In other words, AGK and EdJohston are saying that a long standing editor of an article (132 edits since 2007) can never edit that particular section of an article ever again because the other party (5 edits since 2009) has defied their IBAN by disruptively editing that section, even though the matter has been appropriately reported and the other party blocked for defying their IBAN. -- Martin ( talk) 19:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
AGK raises the issue of "unclean hands", however my revert came six days after I reported Russavia's edit and after it was determined that edit was made in defiance of Russavia's IBAN, so AGK's claim that I came to AE with "unclean hands" is some what misleading because my AE request significantly pre-dated the supposed "unclean" edit. -- Martin ( talk) 19:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Shell, reverting out of the blue isn't identical to reverting an edit in context of an AE report which has found that specific edit presented as evidence had breached the ban.
Are you saying that if A breaches their interaction ban by, for example, leaving a comment on B's talk page and is subsequently reported and blocked, party B cannot subsequently remove that ban breaching comment from their talk page ever? Don't you think that turns the spirit of Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion_and_enforcement, which seeks to dissuade banned editors from editing the relevant area of the ban, on its head by incentivising undesirable behaviour by making such edits sticky? -- Martin Tammsalu ( talk) 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I see that Russavia has chimed in to my clarification request, which I thought clearing up the two issues would be of benefit for him too, given the fact that he had again reverted [26] my edit [27] within hours of him coming off his own block. But instead he launches in to more polemic.
His continual reference to myself after his block, not only in the original AE case [28], not only a second time [29], but a third time [30], and a forth time in this Clarification request is surely yet another breach of his interaction ban, since WP:IBAN suggests any complaint be made no more than once.
It seems to me that this clarification request has gone as far as it can, so I'm not going to comment further. I'll be filing amendments in due course to update the enforcement provisions of both relevant cases to introduce an additional "Enforcement by reversion" provision with respect to the interaction bans (which is within scope of the WP:BAN policy) in order to solve the problems evident with the current regime. -- Martin Tammsalu ( talk) 10:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Russavia reverted Martin, in violation of WP:IBAN and WP:EEML#Interaction ban. I blocked Russavia, which Martin did not contest. Martin then re-reverted Russavia; for this, I therefore also blocked Martin. It is a given at AE that editors with "unclean hands" who request enforcement may also be blocked or sanctioned. I do not see what the issue is here. AGK [ • 16:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe that WP:IBAN does not allow the action that Tammsalu says is OK. He makes a statement which I can't find support for in policy: "Having found that a particular edit has breached the interaction ban, that disruptive edit can be undone per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement by reverting." There is no wording in WP:BAN which supports that either. He might be thinking of the provision of WP:3RR which does not include reverts of a banned editor as counting toward the limit of three reverts. Tammsalu is not allowed to revert *any* edit of someone from whom he is interaction banned, so the fact that such an edit won't count towards 3RR is not of interest. Tammsalu is asking Arbcom to rule on what the policy says, and I think it supports AGK's view of the matter. I would also recommend that Tammsalu change his signature to match his user name, since 'Martin' causes puzzlement. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
As User:Tammsalu (aka User:Martintg) accuses myself of disruption, one also needs to know:
Given Tammsalu's history of harrassment of myself, and his history of vexatious reporting, it appears that as soon as there was a good faith belief that my revert of their edit was made without knowledge of their change of username, they immediately escalated the issue and reported me for breaking an interaction ban with other editors, when those editors were more than able to report me. This in itself is a dire breach of Martintg's interaction ban, is it not?
I urge arbitrators to look at this for themselves, and comment accordingly. -- Russavia Let's dialogue 13:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This is necessary dispute resolution, not simply a clarification request. As per AGK's comments I have sought the guidance of uninvolved admins (Jehochman and FPaS) on how to approach instances such as that on Anti-Estonian sentiment. Those two admins have not responded, so perhaps the committee can provide guidance on how to approach issues such as this. I have taken note of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions. Will anyone on the Committee be prepared to look past the surface and take a little bit of time to actually look at what appears to be occurring. -- Russavia Let's dialogue 11:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I have posted a raft of problems relating to Anti-Estonian sentiment at Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Major_problems_with_this_article. Given the 1) timing of the edit by Tammsalu and 2) fact that all edits by myself to the article 12 months ago have been reverted and 3) the nature of the information which has been removed and/or reintroduced into the article by Tammsalu, from where I am sitting, I can only assume that this is a provocative edit on the part of Tammsalu, perhaps with a bit of battleground furtherance behind it, but done first and foremost because the interaction ban would prevent myself from doing anything substantial on the article as it would be seen as a revert at WP:AE, which I am sure would be taken there if I attempted to touch the article in any substantial way.
I am not going to wikilawyer restrictions as seems to be the case with this very clarification request, but if one uses the very same arguments that Tammsalu is using, I would be well within my rights (according to Tammsalu) to report him to WP:AE for breaking his interaction ban on me, and I would be well within my rights to immediately undo his edit in its entireity. But I shall not do this, because the reasoning is shallow and not really grounded in policy.
However, I would ask the Committee to re-read Tammsalu's initial complaint, and then look at his actions on the above article, and one could likely reach the conclusion that Tammsalu is using the interaction ban in such a way that is pointy and somewhat disruptive to the project as a whole. This opinion is reinforced even further after Tammsalu has used mutual and constructive interactions between Miacek and myself in such a way as to try and have me alone sanctioned.
Perhaps editors could clarify their reasons right here for their edits, so that the committee can reach informed opinion on whether interaction bans are now going to be used as a battleground tool by certain editors, and whether some amendment to cases actually need to be made. -- Russavia Let's dialogue 11:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Russavia, very funny.
-- Sander Säde 09:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Nanobear: a) The doctor was from USA, not Latvia; b) He has allegedly published ads, not article; c) He didn't write in the ad that he would not treat a Russian patient; d) Doctor's name is Slūcis (transliterated Slucis), the professor (or you, as I have not seen the original) obviously mistransliterated the name.
So. What exactly do you claim that was correct about your edit? No typos? Bonus points there. Even the source itself was given partially, without the publisher or ISBN. This is not an acceptable way to edit controversial topics. And yet you dare to claim I "arrived" here reeking "of clear battleground behaviour and harassment"... I don't think any further comments are needed. I am done here and will leave for my well-deserved two-week vacation on the beach. Bye. -- Sander Säde 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Response to Sander Säde: No, the material I inserted was not "unverifiable" and "wrong in more or less every detail, including the name of the doctor" as you claim. What I inserted was this [31]. It is not "unverifiable": the source (which I gave in the edit) is ISBN 9780230614185 (pages 44 and 58), a book written by a Professor of San Francisco University, a notable expert. The name of the doctor is not wrong; it comes directly from source and has the same transliteration as in the source. That Sander Säde has chosen to arrive here claiming that my completely legitimate edit is "wrong in almost every respect" reeks of clear battleground behaviour and harassment by Sander Säde.
About changing usernames: Martintg/Tammsalu seems to have covertly changed his username without notifying ArbCom clerks. His new username is NOT listed at WP:EEML, making is difficult for admins and editors to find the sanctions and warnings Martintg has received. It also leads to misunderstandings such as when Russavia did not know recognise Tammsalu as Martintg and did not know Tammsalu was an EEML member (with whom Russavia is not supposed to interact with), since Tammsalu's name is not listed at Wikipedia:EEML#List_membership. When I changed my username, I immediately informed a clerk (as well as ArbCom) about the change, and my name on the relevant pages was changed: [32]. Why has Martintg not done the same? Did he simply forget, or was it a deliberate attempt to conceal his history of disruption - your choice. Nanobear ( talk) 14:43, 1 July 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 Ravpapa ( talk) 18:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC) at 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
This and the previous request for amendment regarding Nishidani replace the request that I submitted proposing a more general amnesty for blocked and banned editors in the IP topic area. A number of administrators commented in that discussion that they opposed a general amnesty, and would prefer a case by case discussion of amendments. Therefore I am submitting this and the preceding requests.
In a discussion of the state of the IP project here, it was the feeling of participants in the discussion that the blocking and banning of editors had done little to reduce the level of conflict on the project, while other measures (centralized discussion and 1RR restriction) had been effective. On the other hand, several of the participants felt that blocks had removed knowledgeable editors from the project on both sides, and had thus actually hurt, rather than helped, the project.
Gilabrand is such an editor. She has extensive knowledge of the topics on which she writes, and she is a clear and incisive writer. Moreover, she has contributed not only to IP topic articles, but also to articles on a variety of subjects. She has shown herself to be an editor genuinely interested in advancing the Wikipedia project.
This request for amnesty is in no way meant to condone the unconscionable use of an anonymous IP to continue editing when under topic ban. I am aware of the extensive damage that puppetry has wreaked on the Wikipedia as a whole, and in the IP area specifically. Almost universally, these puppets are single-issue editors, whose sole purpose is to introduce propaganda into the Wikipedia. But this certainly is not the case with Gilabrand. Her interest in contributing to Wikipedia as a whole is genuine, and if her passion led her astray in the past, I am confident that this ban has put enough of a scare in her that she won't do it again.
I urge editors from both sides of the IP divide to support this request. By supporting amnesty for Gilabrand and Nishidani, I believe we are showing a level of solidarity and of genuine interest in the well-being of the project that can move the project forward.
I support the amnesty suggested for User: Gilabrand based on her contributions to the project over a long period of time. She has done some work in some contentious areas of the project and that can lead to stress-related moves that can account for some of the trouble she has run into. I recommend another chance at getting things right. Bus stop ( talk) 03:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate Ravpapa's sentiment. Perhaps editors' reticence to comment is due, in part, to how recently Gila was found to be block-evading. That's three weeks between the AE thread and the first amendment request. It may seem too fresh. Jd2718 ( talk) 09:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Although I had found Gilabrand's edits to be at times somewhat impetuous and a little inclined to take unilateral action on matters that should preferably have been the subject of prior discussion, there is no denying the enormous contribution she has made over the years to the IP and other projects, her deep knowledge of the subject and the hard work and effort expended by her in improving the quality and range of Wikipedia articles. I consider that an indefinite ban to have been harsh, taking into account her contribution, and support the amnesty proposed by Ravpapa. Davshul ( talk) 11:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully by now Gilabrand has learned her lesson and will be careful to abide by all WP policies and guidelines. She will then be able to contribute her great knowledge and skills to enhance WP. Even great people like Nelson Mandela and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ran afoul of their authorities but they then had the most productive years of their lives ahead of them after they were punished, jailed and banished as they came out mellowed and wiser for their experiences. WP should not " cut off its own nose to spite its face." Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 09:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The filing party must notify the blocking administrator that this request has been submitted. Before we proceed, he ought to do that. With regards to the request, I oppose it. Gilabrand was topic-banned some months ago, and it was later discovered quite by accident (Gila signed a comment using an IP address) that he (or she?) was evading the ban by editing anonymously. No SPI was ever ran, so we don't know if Gilabrand also used registered accounts to evade the ban, but it was sock-puppetry and ban evasion that led to the block, not simple misconduct.
I haven't refamiliarised myself with the case, but I do recall that considerable disruption preceded the topic ban and the one-year block. It is my view that that is a moot issue, because in no case should an appeal be granted so soon, if at all, after such serious ban evasion. AGK [ • 10:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I strongly support the amnesty suggested for user Gilabrand based on his unparalleled contributions to Wikipedia over a long period of time, on a wide spectrum of topics. The violation this user was blocked for seems to be motivated by the desire to improve the project, not disrupt it. Indefinite blocking is way too harsh for such a capable editor. Let's give him/her another chance. 07:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Gilabrand needs to be given an opportunity to make a statement. She may be thinking doing so may violate her topic ban. Can we invite her to make a statement? - BorisG ( talk) 11:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
More or less as per my comments about Nishidani above, I would think that it might make sense to allow interested and competent editors to edit this topic. Should misconduct continue, the existing discretionary sanctions can be used to enforce adherance to conduct guidelines. John Carter ( talk) 16:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I find myself very surprised that I have not been notified of this request, and that I only discovered by chance. In any event, I agree with AGK's last sentence. In light of Gilabrand's seven blocks for violating an AE restriction in a single year, at least two of which she evaded through IP socking, I believe that restrictions are not useful in her case. T. Canens ( talk) 17:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I, too, strongly support the amnesty suggested for user Gilabrand based on his/her unparalleled contributions to Wikipedia over a long period of time, on a wide spectrum of topics. The violation this user was blocked for (a year ago?) seems to be motivated by the desire to improve the project, not disrupt it. Indefinite blocking is way too harsh for such a capable editor. Let's give him/her another chance. (yes, i copied from markowitz, but it says what i want to say too!) Soosim ( talk) 06:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Despite years of jibes from the academic community, Wikipedia has become a leading source of information. If that information is to be reliable, comprehensive and comprehensible, Wikipedia needs people who are willing to give of their time to bring in solidly sourced information, write in clear, concise English, remove non-encyclopedic and off-topic material, and add images that illustrate the content and make the reading experience more interesting and enjoyable. These have been my goals since joining Wikipedia half a decade ago. I have edited thousands of articles and taken dozens of photographs in this spirit, and I would be grateful for an opportunity to continue.
My sincere thanks to the courageous editors who have taken the trouble to speak up on my behalf. If I am unblocked, I will do my best not to disappoint them.-- Geewhiz ( talk) 07:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
My IP address is a shared one. I replied to a question on my talk page but forgot to log in. When I noticed the IP number, I replaced it with my signature. This led to an accusation that back in 2010 I evaded a topic ban. I replied that I opened an account five and a half years ago as advised by Wikipedia so as not to be associated with this shared global IP used by a business center with many offices. I was called a liar by administrators and given an indefinite block, although several editors pointed out that this was indeed a global IP address used by others. Anyone who takes the trouble to look will see ample evidence of my productive work on Wikipedia over the course of many years. I have devoted myself to adding content and images. I have turned thousands of stubs and start-class articles into worthy encyclopedia entries. I have written numerous articles from scratch and spent hours assessing articles for various projects on Wikipedia. I have received thanks from editors across the IP divide for my input. So I am not ashamed of my edits, and I have no reason to edit anonymously. If I am unblocked, I will do my utmost to stay clear of controversy, improve relations with anyone I may have clashed with, and work together to make Wikipedia better.-- Geewhiz ( talk) 11:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, Ravpapa brought two 'opposing' editors here for amnesty, for balance. You were wiling to give Nish full support so the community could decide, but in contrast, you fail to give Gila AGF and even doubt her 'generic' (?) 'promise'. Nice. Could you instead comment on how the substantially lopsided quality contributions by Gila (in contrast to Nish) does not have any weight to your opinion of her? -- Shuki ( talk) 21:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I was contacted by Gila by e-mail, who asked me to comment here. I first came across Gila when she started copy-editing articles and doing a good job of cleaning them up and expanding them (I actually have her a barnstar at one point). Although she later drifted into edit warring and NPOV violations, unlike many of the contributers in the Israeli-Palestinian arena who were strongly biased and tenditious from day one and should never be allowed back (or banned permanently as many of them are still around), Gila was once a good and productive editor. I would be happy to see her ban lifted for a trial period to see which Gila reappears. Number 5 7 18:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I normally edit the articles in the
List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I saw some IP-edits on
Bayt 'Itab, and was quite certain that was Gilabrand, breaking their topic-ban block. I was not surprised, as
Gilabrand has earlier stated: This is a sanction that goes against Wikipedia norms, since the person who complained about me retracted his statement. I will continue to edit as necessary, reverting tendentious edits and removing unneeded tags that are placed on articles out of some political agenda or spite. I will continue to copyedit as necessary, and add content and solid references to articles.
In short, Wikipedia sanctions are apparently not valid for Gilabrand...unless she finds them valid.
The "shared global IP used by a business center"-story is difficult to swallow, given the evidence here.
Having said that, I actually agree with most of what Number 57 said above: Gilabrand can be a productive editor, copy-editing articles etc. But I wish that before you consider unblocking, Gilabrand would A: come clean/explain the evidence cited above, B: accept that sanctions are also valid for her. Huldra ( talk) 05:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
After I wrote the above, I received an email from Gilabrand -which I of course cannot quote from here. However, I then went to her talk-page (which she can edit) and asked her to clarify whether or not she had made the above IP-edits on Bayt 'Itab. She has not yet answered. Huldra ( talk) 12:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't recall editing with Gilabrand much, except for one minor incident, where I witlessly infringed my topic ban and she got upset, but if I recall correctly did not rush to go for me at AE. I trust Ravpapa, BorisG and Number57's judgement a lot here. The area needs page builders rather than edit monitors, and apparently she was good at content. I think, rather than our opinions, that, as Huldra suggests, she be invited to discuss this directly with the Arbs here in a conversation undisturbed by co-editors, to see if some provisory test return can be thrashed out. TC's concerns about a pattern are legitimate, but we have lost quite a few good editors in the past, and now that strong sanctions that can be applied imediately are in place, there's perhaps room for experiment. Nishidani ( talk) 09:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
with regards to Caslibers request for examples of noncontroversial edits by gilabrand:
The overwhelming majority of Gilabrands edits are noncontroversial. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 08:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
It is my understanding that it was not proven that Gila was the one who used the very public IP in question. If this is the case, the block should be lifted without pre-conditions.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 20:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Initially I was opposed to amending anyone's sanctions by granting special amnesty. I felt it would further complicate things in a topic area that's problematic enough with the editors already in it. Since then, though, Nishidani ( talk · contribs) had his request for amnesty approved and his contributions to I/P have on the whole been constructive. If Admins were willing to extend to User:Nishidani the benefit of the doubt and leave it to the community to determine whether or not the decision was a wise one, then the same ought to be done in the case of Gilabrand ( talk · contribs). Indeed, in just the past couple of weeks I've happened upon User:Gilabrand's name in quite a few important articles, and each time I've found his contributions to be decidedly positive in nature and impressive in scope. My attitude is as that of Soosim ( talk · contribs) above: in order to embrace the spirit of Ravpapa ( talk · contribs)'s original request with a mind to being fair to all parties involved, and considering Gilabrand's stated commitment to the values and principles of the Project, I encourage the Admins to favor lifting his sanctions and allowing the community to be the judge of his conduct.— Biosketch ( talk) 04:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
In this discussion so far, 16 people have participated. Of those, 14 - representing editors from both sides of the Israel-Palestine area - have supported the amnesty. Two - both administrators, one of whom was the administrator who imposed the original ban - are opposed.
I think that this discussion has been sufficient to reflect the opinion of the I-P editing community, and that an administrator can make a motion and act upon it. Regards, -- Ravpapa ( talk) 06:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The arbitration enforcement block placed on Gilabrand ( talk · contribs) related to the Palestine-Israel articles case is provisionally suspended as of 25 August or the passage of this motion, whichever is the latter. Gilabrand is reminded that articles in the area of conflict remain the subject of discretionary sanctions, and are currently subject to a 1RR restriction. Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will viewed dimly.
For this motion, there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 is a majority.
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 Mathsci ( talk) at 21:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Withdrawn
|
---|
Miradre is under a three month topic ban under WP:ARBR&I and appears to have broken that ban by editing too close to the limits. I have filed a report at WP:AE. That is not the issue here. Captain Occam, who is subject to a very general topic ban which I would have thought precludes his involvement in such requests if he is not directly implicated, has added comments there claiming to be "uninvolved". However, he has used the occasion to launch an attack on my edits on wikipedia, in an area outside my self-imposed voluntary topic ban, to which I have adhered fairly scrupulously. That self-imposed restriction does not apply to project space, although I have agreed that requests at WP:AE related to WP:ARBR&I will be sparing (as has been the case). Captain Occam's attack on me there appears to break his topic ban and I actually don't understand the logic of his misusing WP:AE in that way. He has used the occasion to launch an attack on me which has nothing whatsover to do with arbitration enforcement. Perhaps he could have made a posting on WP:ANI about his concerns, although I appear to have made hardly any edits of any substance to articles recently. His complaints on WP:AE seem to be reiterating the disruptive trolling (now reverted) of yet another sockpuppet of A.K.Nole, A.B.C.Hawkes ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was just blocked by Sandstein after two SPIs with some help also from Elen of the Roads. I am not under any ArbCom restrictions. Captain Occam, however, seems to have broken the terms of his extended topic ban and appears to be abusing the arbitration enforcement page. I am reporting this here because it seems so anomolous. Please could ArbCom clarify whether Captain Occam's attack on me in this context is within the terms of his topic ban, as extended subsequently at WP:AE. There is also the issue of the two confirmed meatpuppets of Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2, who since the topic bans appear to have been editing on behalf of the topic banned users. Their real life identities have been confirmed to ArbCom at the start of the year. SightWatcher has complained about me in the same vociferous way as Captain Occam, which is hardly surprising in the circumstances. Several users, including administrators, have privately and on-wiki raised doubts about three further accounts that have appeared since the topic ban, editing exclusively in the area of the topic ban. These users are Woodsrock, Boothello and Miradre; the only evidence so far has been circumstantial. Mathsci ( talk) 21:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
|
The query that I had seems to have been answered here by EdJohnston so I am withdrawing this request for clarification.
As I understand it uninvolved administrators dealing with the WP:AE case can, if deemed appropriate, simultaneously clarify the extended topic bans to preclude any involvement in enforcement requests concerned with WP:ARBR&I except when the originator of the request.
Thanks to all who have commented.
Mathsci ( talk) 01:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I must say that this request to prohibit another user from uttering an opinion seems very hypocritical considering that Mathsci himself in a RfC argued that he should be able to participate on "process pages" while promising to stay away from the topic itself. See the discussion for removing the topic ban [38] as well as Mathsci's stated desire to be able to voice opinions on "process pages" while staying away from the topic itself. [39] Also, his description of me is incorrect and I argue in the AE case that he himself has broken his promise to the ArbCom to stay away from the topic area. Miradre ( talk) 22:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Just pointing out that Volunteer Marek is not an uninvolved editor but has had extensive disputes with me in that past as well as has been involved in race articles with a strong personal POV. Miradre ( talk) 21:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I already mentioned this in the AE thread, but Ferahgo’s and my topic bans specifically do not extend to AE. This was first pointed out by ArbCom in a previous request for clarificaiton. When Ferahgo’s and my topic bans were extended in this thread, the thread also mentioned AE as a special exception, and the advice that I not participate in R&I-related AE threads is listed as “not compulsory”.
I need to make it clear that in general I have been trying to avoid Mathsci since the beginning of the year. He has not returned the favor. The most obvious example of this was his attempt to get me site-banned in February, which grew out of an argument that he initiated with me in Jimbo Wales’ user talk about my letter which was published in The Economist. In response to that amendment thread, several arbitrators told him that he should cease his involvement in the R&I topic area. Mathsci doesn’t appear to have followed that advice. In addition to his various enforcement requests against other editors during the time since then, on June 30th he sent me e-mail saying that I will have to put up with this again myself if I attempt to appeal my topic ban. Specifically, he said that he will demand that my topic ban be lifted only if I promise to never edit race-related articles again, and that he’ll support this with all the same accusations of meatpuppetry and whatnot that he’s made in the February thread and the current one. I’d had no recent involvement with Mathsci when he sent me this message; the only context of him sending it was that I was discussing the possibility of appealing my topic ban with Newyorkbrad. (Jclemens has seen the contents of the e-mail.)
I would like to have as little to do with Mathsci as possible, but I would also like to have the opportunity to eventually appeal my topic ban without Mathsci using it as a platform to pursue the same interpersonal dispute against me that he’s been pursuing for more than a year. For the past month, I have been attempting to discuss with ArbCom whether there is a way that that’s possible, but have had very little success communicating with them effectively. (The main problem I’ve been having is arbitrators either not responding to me at all, or abruptly ceasing to respond while I’m trying to discuss the issue with them.) I’m kind of at my wit’s end about this. An appeal is supposed to be an opportunity for an editor to discuss with ArbCom whether or not his or her editing has improved. It’s not supposed to be an opportunity for someone else sanctioned in the same case to continue pursing the same interpersonal dispute that originally led to arbitration. But that’s what Mathsci has promised it will be, if I attempt to appeal my topic ban.
This is why I began paying attention to his behavior towards Miradre. After Mathsci sent me this e-mail on June 30, I wanted to see just how severe his harassment behavior is nowadays, since apparently I’ll soon have to put up with this again myself. My reason for mentioning this at AE is because I’m still hoping that if something could be done about this behavior while Mathsci is directing it at Miradre, perhaps when I appeal my topic ban I won’t have to put up with it myself. I don’t actually want to take a side in the Mathsci/Miradre dispute, especially not as far as content is concerned. I just care about my ability to not be harassed myself when I’m ready to appeal my topic ban, and after a month of silence from ArbCom in response to my efforts to discuss how this might be possible, bringing attention to his harassment behavior at AE is the only way I can think of that this might be possible.
I hope this thread can receive attention from the arbitrators that I’ve tried to talk to about the possibility of appealing my ban: Newyorkbrad, Cool Hand Luke, and especially Jclemens. Please, I’m asking all of you—give me a way to appeal my topic ban without having to put up with this, such as permission to appeal it in a private hearing. That’s the only thing I really care about here. If I can be given that, I won’t have any need to try and forestall Mathsci’s promised harassment of me by trying to get attention for it when it’s being directed at someone else.
In response to SirFozzie: if the arbitrators want me to change my comment at AE to not describe myself as uninvolved, I’m willing to do that. However, what I think really needs to be addressed here is the issue I described above. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 22:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I have added a comment on the current WP:AE request about Miradre to indicate that Captain Occam doesn't seem to be violating his current topic ban by posting there. (My wording *advised* him not to post at AE about other people but it did not forbid it). In general, I think that in the future, any broad topic bans that are written (those bans which include talk pages) should disallow commenting about others on any page of Wikipedia, including AE, unless the person's own edits are under review. Such article+talk topic bans should still allow direct appeals to Arbcom. It is too late for me to fix the wording that I drafted for the AE sanction that was issued to Captain Occam on December 2, 2010. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Question/statement on Capt. Occam's statement:
I hope I’ve made this clear already, but I think it bears repeating that I really don’t want to be in the middle of this conflict. - yet you show up on AE out of the blue in a case in which you haven't been mentioned with a 7097 character/1213 word statement (basically the equivalent of a decent sized Wikipedia article). That just doesn't look like a "really don't want"a to me. It looks like a "I'm itching to be in this again".
I don’t actually want to take a side in the Mathsci/Miradre dispute - you might not want to but somehow you did.
I just care about my ability to not be harassed myself when I’m ready to appeal my topic ban - so you pick a (real) fight with Mathsci today because of some hypothetical harassment you think he might engage in the future?
Note that Capt. Occam (and a sock of Mikemikev) aside, the consensus at AE is pretty much that Mirardre's edits are trouble - so if this was some kind of attempt to preempt possibility of future harassment, as silly as that is in itself, Capt. Occam definitely picked a wrong situation to do it in.
Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
@Mirardre: has had extensive disputes with me in that past as well as has been involved in race articles with a strong personal POV
has had extensive disputes with me - probably true. So have at least have a dozen other editors.
has been involved in race articles - yes, somewhat.
with a strong personal POV - total nonsense. Again, at least a half a dozen other editors have had precisely the same disagreements with you that I have.
@Cpt. Occam - maybe I haven't been around for that long, but I *am* fully capable of going back and reading old cases, threads and discussions. Your way of framing things is ... "peculiar", to be put it nicely. Anyway - general point stands; if you don't want to interact with Mathsci, why pick fights with him? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:40, 10 August 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 Colincbn ( talk) at 05:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
I request clarification of Remedies 4) Article and subject scope. Specifically: "Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area."
In practice this is being taken to mean that the Topic Banned parties are able to comment on any RfM, any RfC, or any other new topic as it comes up. In effect not just putting forth their proposals at the beginning of the discussion but their views on the proposals of others. Also Blackash is being asked "direct questions" on her views of the posts of others by a new SPA, thereby allowing her to make her case in response without Slowart being given the same courtesy.
I have noted that in the above ruling it clearly states "allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion". These comments are not proposals, they are not background rational for their proposals, and they are not being made at the commencement of the discussion (note there is a section specifically set aside for this purpose that they have opted not to use).
Also the statement: "This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area." seems to rule out Sydney Bluegum as he is not an expert nor has he, or anyone else, ever claimed he is.
I do not think this was the original intended outcome of this ruling, but if it is I am more than happy to stand by that ruling if it is made clear. Colincbn ( talk) 05:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
So far all the arbitrators who have commented here have agreed with the current implementation, I have no problem with that. However I hope you will amend
Remedy 4) Article and subject scope to be an accurate reflection of this position. I think the wording suggested above is appropriate. Currently the remedy is worded much more strictly than it is being interpreted as.
Colincbn (
talk) 10:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Colincbn is in disagreement with how the ArbCom ruling is being interpreted. As an uninvolved administrator monitoring the article, I have interpreted the Article and subject scope remedy as meaning that Slowart, Sydney Bluegum, and Blackash are banned from discussing the naming issue, but are each allowed to make a single statement in those discussions, and then reply to specific queries. As such, when a Requested Move was filed, I allowed each of the three banned editors to make one statement, no more than 500 words, and am allowing them to reply to specific questions. Colincbn, however, disagrees strongly, and is of the opinion that this is not what ArbCom intended, and that the three banned editors should have been limited to participating in the RfC, but not in the RM. There have also been concerns expressed by some of the editors on the page that Sydney Bluegum is a SPA, and should not be allowed to participate at all. A further concern is that one of the editors, ?oygul ( talk · contribs) is a possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet and should therefore be banned from the discussion. However, multiple checkuser requests have been filed, and though there is a possible connection since the account is in the same city as Sydney Bluegum, the account is using a different ISP/computer. I have been monitoring ?oygul's behavior closely, and issued a couple warnings, but ?oygul has been adapting to requests so I have not seen a ban as necessary. It is my opinion that I am interpreting the existing ArbCom ruling correctly, that the discussions on the talkpage are moving slowly forward in a mostly productive manner, and that once the RM is allowed to reach its natural conclusion in a few days, that things should simmer down. Of course, if ArbCom would like to modify the case remedies, I will adapt my monitoring to match. -- El on ka 06:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I support Elonka's concerns about ?oygul. There does seem to be an element of gaming the system in which ?oygul allows Blackash to continue her business and personal rivalry with Slowart by asking her specific questions, thus giving her the right to respond. This is not conducive to a rational discussion, neither do I think it is what Arbcom had in mind when they allowed the banned editors to respond to questions because of 'their experience and familiarity with the area'. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe Elonka's interpretation of Remedy 4) seems to working. Blackash have a chat 00:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC) In reply to Martin's comments above.
As long as Elonka keeps a close watch on the potential trouble makers (myself included)and is not shy about editing (as done) and blocking if needed, I trust the participating editors will embrace the spirit of, if the letter of the ban. Sometimes a little controlled venting let's the pressure off. Slowart ( talk) 19:09, 23 August 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 — Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) at 02:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like these three aspects concerning the seeking of real life identities to be removed entirely from my injunction as they are in no way relevant to what had happened.
It has been two years since the injunctions against me were filed and these related entries are the ones I still have issues with. As I stated in my original whatever it was that the now banned user Mythdon was the instigator in this supposed "real life identity" searching. Prior to the ArbCom case, Mythdon went out of his way to bother me on my YouTube channel. I still have the incoming and outgoing messages Mythdon sent me via YouTube, asking if the YouTube user Ryulong was in fact me (which it is). The only thing I provided to MBisanz was a link to the profile Mythdon was using which happened to include his age at the time. I have never gone out of my way to seek out the real life identity of anyone, including Mythdon, and I find that these particular findings and injunctions against me are overly unnecessary and they make it appear I had done something which I never did. If necessary, I can provide the messages received through YouTube from 2008 in which Mythdon continued his harassment off site, unprovoked.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 02:17, 16 August 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 Ohconfucius ¡digame! at 06:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This week marks the second anniversary of the conclusion of the case, and six months since the remedies imposed on me were last amended. In the six months since the amendment, there have not been any issues arising from date linking, nor any drama involving same, with or without me. Although one might say that the remedies no longer have practical effect, I am seeking to having all remaining restrictions lifted. Call it housekeeping if you will. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I would however, address particular comments of Carcharoth that could be misconstrued. First, there exists, IMHO, a healthy tension at the many MoS and TITLE talk pages; far better that issues be worked through in those more 'exposed' places, than at isolated article talk pages where revert-wars are much more likely. I believe it's all too easy to dwell on the negative – the tensions among editors playing out on its talk pages – and overlook the stability of the MoS over the past few years. The exchange of views and tensions are natural and healthy (so long as they remain civil), and I would genuinely welcome a wider participation in the formulation of style guidelines. The ensuing rules must be clear and consistent. Truth is that even animated discussions fail to get consensus for change; it is hard to find evidence that style and running bots/scripts are part of a connected agenda by anyone there. Things just do not work this cart-before-horse way: "...develops a consensus about a particular aspect of style that is amenable to being worked on with a script or bot". Third, style guides, like pillars and policies, are indeed a belief system on a wiki if they are to have an effect or function; but they take their place in the hierarchy.
My personal "belief" is always within the context of the WP environment. My statement is, no more and no less, part of my effort to communicate with those who may have questions on what I do – many editors state on their userpages what they do and the rationale behind it in very similar terms. I regret the fait accompli apparently communicated. I stated: "However, the time and my skill-set is not yet ripe" – this was not quoted. I accept that I don't have more rights over other editors; my "weight" is because of what I do and how I do it. I try to be responsive and to queries and suggestions, and I believe that my talk page comments reflect this care. As to the 'project' of tagging articles for dmy and mdy dates, I am one user. There are some who use my scripts or variants thereof; there are others who tag independently; I do not know who these all are. As to my 'bot', perhaps I should have also linked to my failed bot application as a reference point. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Ohconfucius is still actively making controversial date-related edits. A well-attended RfC found no consensus to remove yyyy-mm-dd formatted dates from WP, in particular from the references. Ohconfucious nevertheless has been using a script which routinely removes that format from the references, in violation of WP:DATERET, even when an article is already consistently using one format or a style is clearly present. (A few recent examples: [46] [47] [48] [49].) Ohconfucius has been asked to stop many times; these scripted edits are producing a Fait accompli. This behaviour has led to ANI threads 1 March 14 May, 30 June and 13 August that I know of. (I started the last one.) Ohconfucious is editing against consensus expressed in the RfC and the current MOSDATE guideline. If anything is to be amended in the past decision, it should be to clearly apply it to date formats so that this behaviour can be addressed at WP:AE. Gimmetoo ( talk) 01:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
My concern here, though, is what Ohconfucius said here, which is worth reading in full. The parts I want to quote here are:
I should disclose that I have disagreed with Ohconfucius in the past on the issue of script-editing, and have recently been discussing the issue of the Manual of Style, and the way it or those editing to bring articles into line with the MoS, can sometimes lead to friction (see User talk:Noetica). What I said there was that I am concerned that some see the MoS as a 'belief system' (see User:Ohconfucius/script, which starts out with a 'Mission statement' that says "I believe in Wikipedia's Manual of Style"). My other concern is that mass editing with scripts and bots, especially where the MoS is concerned, can destabilise things across Wikipedia as a critical mass of editors previously unaware of the issue of the day get drawn into arguing about it when they see various bot or script edits on their watchlist.
The general development of MoS disputes (only some issues seem to develop into disputes for some reason) seems to go like this:
If the restrictions are lifted, my advice would be for Ohconfucius to take things very slowly, as any mass editing leading to another Wikipedia-wide dispute like the date-delinking case would not be a good outcome. I would suggest a separate account at the very least, more centralised discussions, and work done systematically by a team rather than single editors using scripts. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Remedies 16 and 18 (as amended) of the Date delinking case are terminated, effective immediately. Ohconfucius is reminded that this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, and that he is expected to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines, especially those concerning the editing and discussion of policies and guidelines, and the use of alternate accounts.
For this motion, there are 15 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive and 1 who is recused, so 8 support votes are a majority.
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
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) at 19:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Due to concern regarding real life identify users in question not provided.
In the TM case we passed a number of previsions including one pertaining to WP:COI [55] It states that editor which "have only an indirect relationship" may continue to edit. What about editors who are members of the public relations department of the Transcendental Meditation movement? Are they too allowed to continue editing or should their editing ability be restricted? Would stipulate the specifics off Wiki due concerns of releasing peoples identify if this is indeed a concern.
Risker writes: "those who have a personal belief system that is in direct conflict with the philosophies of Transcendental Meditation (or for that matter, any other belief system) must also bear in mind their own potential conflict of interest and edit neutrally or not at all."
Belief systems and religions have the distinguishing quality of belief. Anybody who doesn't belong to the in-group (Socialists, Objectivists, Zoroastrians, Christians, TMers, Quakers, Raelians, Atheists, or whatever) is in direct conflict with the belief system. However normally we tend think of those outsiders as having a better chance of writing objectively about the belief system than the believers. I think this is probably a good idea. -- TS 01:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)