| Advice given by Ricky is good. I have reviewed the content of the appeal and see no basis for overturning it. NW ( Talk) 04:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I was banned from both RT News and its talk page because I was supposedly creating "disruptive edits" by asking for scientific, verifiable proof that RT is a propaganda station, asking for studies or some sort of quantifiable data. Instead, I was topic-banned for "disruptive editing"; yet as anyone can see at the RT Talk page I was being very polite until one editor begun accusing me of having a fake account and of editing in poor faith. I think my topic-ban is extremely unjust, and I also call about admins to review the sources behind RT's page, as 'Daily Beast' and Tumblr have never been valid sources, and yet the admin who is attempting to lock debate on the issue of valid sources (he says that RT is "undeniably propaganda"--but that's merely opinion!) has nonetheless attempted to railroad the debate one way, in a way that makes RT look like some sort of propaganda channel, when there is no proof to this scientifically or in quantification. I ask that my 6-month topic ban be reviewed; It's truly unfair, and I received it all in an attempt to better Wikipedia and find good sources, (which reminds me another reason why Wikipedia is dying), which makes me not want to contribute very much here anymore (And I've been contributing, mostly to history-related articles, since 2012) if I'm going to be topic-banned every time I try and make a valid improvement, only to get railroaded by influential editors with admin friends. Solntsa90 ( talk) 21:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Canada Jack
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Ricky81682 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
-
Canada Jack (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Motion:_Longevity_.28August_2015.29 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Editing to restore the "original edit" which I point out is wrong.
- The discussions at Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people are largely self-explanatory. The issue is whether reliable sources should determine who should be listed on the page or some other terminology: the phrasing now is "international body that specifically deals in longevity research" but without identifying the GRG as the only actual source in play.
- The "no one has 'verified' the age" versus newspapers alleging "reporting" the age (I don't even know anymore) arguing continues here
- To determine which bodies are said international longevity researching specific-whatever, "We observe what news sources use" so arguing newspapers are unreliable as a source other than to parrot the GRG as a source.
- "Nice try, Ricky. NONE of the sources outside of GRG / Guinness claim that these birthdates are "verified"... unless GRG/Guinness has verified them!" which is false.
- "I never said they were the sole authorities, but media around the world use those two almost exclusively, so we should as well, that's all"
- It's the oldest living people, yet Canada Jack derails the discussion by repeating arguing about the insertion of Methusalah's age knowing full well that's irrelevant, but calling it the logical consequence and the can of worms opened by the lede saying "reliable sources" alone. The section needs an outside admin to just collapse it.
- Canada Jack has been derailing the discussion by pointing to this article in the Canada Star. [2] While never advocating for her inclusion, (a WP:NOTFORUM problem), he's repeatedly referencing it including just to make snipes on other discussions going on.
- " This page is for verified claims. The fact a claim was published doesn't establish its veracity."
- As noted above, there is an argument about the birthdate for Zhou Youguang (not a claim, just that little fact). The only way Canada Jack sees this is "His claim is accepted on its face by the media. But... there is no mention of Guinness and/or GRG as having verified the claim" in regards to his birthdate. As discussed before, no one cares a cent about this until Zhou turned 110 and then there's arguments everywhere that his birthdate must be removed until it's verified by the GRG or else there exists the possibility that Wikipedia is claiming that a supercentenarian exists that the GRG hasn't identified which I don't know why that matters.
- Finally, to summarize this mentality, "Are you seriously trying to claim that it is the Toronto Star which has determined that the proof is "not solid enough" instead of Guinness? That the Toronto Star, not Guinness, bestows the crown of "world's oldest person"? C'mon, Ricky, surely you can do better than that!"
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- The talk pages each notify the editor of the discretionary sanctions.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is the typical parade of horribles and chaos caused whenever there is an ounce of push-back to even debating the language that doesn't explicitly or implicitly treat the GRG as the last word on the birth date of very old people. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- In response, I first note that if Canada Jack knew he was wrong, the proper thing is to restore the correct version, not to ignore it until called out here but it's been changed again which doesn't matter with the RFC ongoing. I note that this is again a single issue: is
List of oldest living people going to continue to be a walled garden that expresses a particular
WP:POV about who is allegedly the world's oldest people or not? Our sourcing policy is clear: we are to have a single
WP:NPOV everywhere and a single standard for
WP:RS. The analogous
WP:MEDRS either believes a fact or strips it away entirely; it does not create separate articles with different sourcing standards. Canada Jack's refusal to accept that is precisely the type of antics that brought about the original longevity ARBCOM case. There is literally nothing in his arguments that hasn't been argued for over a decade. Either we should report on Zhou's birthdate as a fact on his biography, put him in the relevant category, and put him in the (all the) relevant articles (which admittedly the oldest living people is not) or we treat that fact as a
WP:FRINGE theory and ignore it entirely. The amount of inane arguing over an article that literally no one supports or has even thought to include
longevity claims shows the level of hysteria over any pushback that does nothing but drive away all but the most hardened of editors here. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 22:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Spartaz, is it really robust debate to keep bringing up hypotheticals that you have no interest in actually putting down as a fact? I'm for debate but WP:BLUDGEON and WP:NOTFORUM are also relevant; we wouldn't want a page like "List of the best NBA players" or whatever filled up with navel gazing arguments about what "best" is and someone just throwing out argument after argument, none of which they actually want in the article. Is filling the talk page with comments like this about random alleged oldest people (facts that you yourself aren't arguing to be treated as true) in every single section (Canada Jack is arguing about the oldest guy in Israel in a section about the oldest Japanese man) disruptive itself? I don't see any indication that any of Canada Jack's questioning is actually in response to the RFC issue; rather it's repeated discussion after discussion with example after example (the same ones on oldest living people and at oldest people and elsewhere) regardless of relevancy of just "hi I found a single blog or a newspaper somewhere that said something so STUUUUPID, can't you see how there's some wrong newspapers out there". -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Canada Jack
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Canada Jack
My reading of the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" is that it was determined that verified super-centenarian lists from the GRG were considered a "reliable source," and that the non-yet verified lists (Table EE from GRG) were not a "reliable source." However, what we are talking about here is not whether GRG or Table EE is or isn't a RS, it's whether news media reports on longevity claims of those over 110 years old can be used on the "oldest living people" page, if these "reliable sources" suffice to be being included with claims which have been verified by GRG etc., the particular discussion on what the lede should say. The contention here from me and others is the only a recognized authority on verifying these claims should be used in considering these claims "verified," and that news organizations, while "reliable sources," are not able to properly assess these claims, no more than a newspaper, even the New York Times, would publish, say, the latest cancer claims without consulting oncology experts who could better assess and put into context such claims. As Guinness World Records oft stated: "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity," hence the need for a rigorous, more scientific approach in assessing claims. Many news organizations recognize the expertise Guinness and the GRG have on this subject as they are cited, from publications around the world, as having "verified" particular claims. I could supply literally hundreds of examples from around the world of them being cited as authorities.
In attempting to change the lede to allow "verification" from news sources, thus removing the need for sole GRG/Guinness verification, a can of worms is opened, which is what the thrust of the discussion here was. I pointed out that by their own criteria of "reliable sources," dubious claims like that of a woman in Canada who will soon turn 120, would warrant inclusion on this page, thus destroying the credibility of Wikipedia. She would be the oldest person in the world. (News sources, citing Guinness/GRG, routinely identify a woman in New York, at 116, as the world's oldest.) I was never seriously proposing to include her on the page, I was using their own criteria to point out that a highly dubious claim would be admissible, and therefore their changes would be detrimental. This approach from Ricky and others are nakedly anti-GRG, those who argue as I do are routinely painted as shills for GRG, a tone I personally find perplexing - it's as if the approach here is to "get back" at GRG, for some undefined reason.
In sum: There should be no sanction/remedy as I have not engaged in discussion on the subjects for which a sanction/remedy is warranted. And, therefore, discussions on whether non-GRG sources should be considered for inclusion is a topic for which there are no restrictions.
As for his DIFFs...
1 was a good-faith edit, I reverted an edit to what I thought was the original edit as a discussion (the one I refer to) was on-going. He pointed out the error, and I made no further edit. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.
2 discussions are on the subject Ricky (I believe it was him) initiated. If I am violating something for engaging in discussion, then surely Ricky, who initiated it, is too. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.
3 Debating verification is not prohibited - the original decision was the one mentioned above - I'm not challenging GRG as a reliable source; I'm not arguing that GRG's Table EE is a reliable source.
4 He has made a what I consider to be an invalid line of reasoning, making a strawman argument by dismissing an argument I never made. Specifically, that if newspapers are "unreliable" as he claims I am suggesting, then how we can rely on them when they cite GRG/Guinness? But I've never argued the newspapers are "unreliable," just that they are not experts on the subject. Using his logic, if the New York Times cites a cancer expert, we can't say that that person, no matter his/her credentials, is an "expert" as the New York Times is not expert in the subject. I don't buy that line of reasoning, and that was not what I was saying. And, I never suggested we can only verify if cited by a paper, just that newspapers routinely cite GRG/Guinness, therefore they are considered (by media outlets around the world) to be experts on the subject. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.
5 He says it is "false" that media outlets don't say a claim is "verified" without quoting GRG/Guinness. But he's never supplied an example of a claim being called "verified" without a mention of GRG/Guinness. I don't think he understood the point I was making. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.
6 The quote simply states the obvious - they are considered by media world-wide as experts, so should we. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.
7 As I pointed out repeatedly to Ricky, the section in question asked "Who is the world's oldest ever person?" I simply applied the "reliable source" argument - which is at the heart of the discussion here - to that case. It was a Reductio ad absurdum argument directly related to the "verification" and "reliable sources" issues. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.
8 Again, as I earlier pointed out that, given the very criteria Ricky and others are proposing, this woman - Canadian Emma Laurent - would appear on this page even though she is three years older than who Guinness recognizes as the world's oldest. The point was to underline the consequences of the actions proposed - destroying the credibility of the page. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.
9 Again, this is not debating what was resolved and for which there is sanction for discussing - that GRG is a reliable source; that GRG's Table EE is not a reliable source.
10 Ricky misrepresents the discussion at hand. The point was not whether Zhou was verified or not by GRG, the point was the only difference between the Laurent case and the Zhou case in terms of "verified" by "reliable sources" is that Zhou's article doesn't mention GRG/Guinness while Laurent's does - in saying Guinness doesn't accept the claim. He insists that this mere mention disqualifies Laurent for inclusion on the page and that the "non-mention" of GRG/Guinness in Zhou means it warrants inclusion. That makes no sense, as if Zhou doesn't appear on the Guinness/GRG lists, then they've not verified him either - so Ricky and others are employing a double-standard. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.
11 Ricky made numerous false statements on the Laurent article (that Canada copied Haiti's verification of the case - there is no mention of that in the article; that Canada issued a passport on the strength of Haiti's information - there is nothing in the article which says that, indeed the word "passport" doesn't even appear; that the Toronto Star believes the claims is "not proven" when that was the description of Guinness's evaluation of the claim). The final claim is what the quote discusses - his contention that "not proven" means the Star has determined that and, by implication (given the out-of-context quote he used) The Star awards the crown of "world's oldest person," an obvious absurdity. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source. Canada Jack ( talk) 22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Canadian Paul
I'm a little concerned with individuals being brought to Arbitration Enforcement simply because they disagree with the way longevity articles should be handled. As noted below, only one of the diffs is actually an edit to the article and thus I do not see Canada Jack engaging the type of contentious, single-agenda editing that these sanctions were enacted to prevent (and I agree fully that there is so much of it that it easy to get frustrated/be sensitive about it). I understand Canada Jack's reasoning (even if I don't agree with it) and I don't see it as disrupting the project because the article itself is not being affected by it and if he can accept his views as not being the consensus, then that will be all there is to it. Bringing dissenting voices to AE (see also the failed AE request for Lugnuts) only serves to transform an already contentious topic into more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND than it already is. Canadian Paul 18:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Canada Jack
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Robustly defending your position on an article talk page is not disruptive unless the user is refusing to be bound by the eventual consensus or disruptively edit warring to advance their position. I'm really not seeing enough disruption in Canada Jack's edits to merit any action unless there is a clear indication that they will behave disruptively in future. @ Canada Jack: please can you put these concerns to rest by confirming that you will respect the consensus that emerges on verifiability and that you will not take part in further edit wars? Spartaz Humbug! 18:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
| We're not going to block someone for submitting a terrible BLP to AFD. Nobody cares about this except GG partisans on both sides. Please edit the encyclopedia or find another website to use to argue. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning NorthBySouthBaranof
The remedy states that: "Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed." The nomination was about Chanty Binx ( Google search results about her), a feminist who has gained Internet-fame after arguing with men's rights activists in Toronto in 2013. It is thus a gender-related dispute or controversy, and even directly Gamergate-related due to the "meme-status" which can be confirmed by combining the full name or nickname as indicated in the "Knowyourmeme.com" article and "Gamergate". I do agree with the outcome of AfD (it's best fit in the forementioned site, not Wikipedia). However, there's no doubt that the person in question is very notable in Internet feminism-related disputes and her video in Youtube, which I will not link for possible BLP reasons, has over 1 million views. NorthBySouthBaranof also removed an inquiry by another user on his talk page (4th diff). This is aggravating in my opinion because raising an issue on someone's talkpage is the first, and these days without RFC/U, pretty much the only way for dispute resolution. Hence posting here. -- Pudeo ' 01:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning NorthBySouthBaranofStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NorthBySouthBaranofI stumbled on the page in question doing standard new-pages patrol. It was a wholly-negative biography of a living person sourced only to an unacceptable source ( Know Your Meme) and utterly failed our basic content standards for biographies. The question of whether it might be a "gender-related controversy" didn't even cross my mind — the fact is, the page wasn't an acceptable biography of a living person. Even with other putative sources added, it appeared to me that there was no possibility of writing an encyclopedic biography of the person, so I nominated it for deletion and briefly engaged in discussion. It was at that point — one week ago — that another long-time user in good standing privately reminded me of the topic ban and that it might be construed as a violation. I recognized the issue, heeded the advice, disengaged from the deletion discussion and took no further part in editing the article, which has since been deleted by a clear and overwhelming consensus that it is unsuitable for the encyclopedia. On the other hand, the "another user" Pudeo refers to is an obvious SPA troll/sock account with a grand total of three 0-byte articlespace contributions 7 months ago who somehow "magically" leaped into discussion of an AfD and a topic-ban. I decline to engage in any conversation with obvious trolls. The record speaks for itself and the chips will fall where they may. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 01:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JohnuniqI noticed this at ANI ( permalink). That report was opened by an account with a total of 7 edits made six months ago. The same account posted at NorthBySouthBaranof's talk. Asserting that NBSB's removal of that post was a "refusal to dicuss the issue" is very unrealistic. If there is an issue, why didn't an established editor raise it? Why didn't Pudeo or anyone else watching ANI discuss it with NBSB? The answer is that there is nothing to discuss—the article was an WP:ATTACK, should have been deleted, and was deleted. The AfD proceeded smoothly and the community endorsed NBSB's action by deleting the article with a very solid consensus. I examined the article and would have advised NBSB to disengage if I thought the "gender-related dispute or controversy" claim was reasonable. I could not see such a dispute—it looked like a standard attack article where the subject protested during a lecture at a university and was heckled and criticized afterwards. Not a "dispute or controversy", but a flash-in-the-pan incident commemorated with an obviously inappropriate BLP. The article I recall did not phrase the issue as a feminist versus men's rights activists—if the Internet searches mentioned above show that such a connection exists, they should be discounted as it is not reasonable to go beyond how the topic was expressed on-wiki. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by DHeywardThis is obviously more GamerGate nonsense as the Google result shows and NBSB should know that GamerGate topics are off-limits. It's exactly what his Topic Ban covers. NPP and BLP are specious reasons for creating the GG drama of an AfD started by a topic banned editor. No different then those GG topic-banned editors proposing deletion of Quinn or any number of other articles related to GG. -- DHeyward ( talk) 02:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by RhododendritesI don't have any great reason to believe the subject of the AfD has any obvious connection with GamerGate, but it would seem to fit into the category of "gender-related controversy". The article was primarily about a video of the subject's conflict with men's rights advocates. She was engaging them on the subject of feminism and its relationship with men's rights and the interaction became heated. The article was also about the harassment she received afterwards, stemming directly from the video. Even a quick glance at the sources shows the subject to be inextricably linked to both feminism and antifeminism. In fact, she's probably best known for a meme based on the video used broadly to caricature/ridicule feminists. However, there is an exception to such topic bans for "obvious" BLP violations ( WP:BANEX). As far as I know that exception applies to GG sanctions, too. The article was about a subject of ridicule and harassment who is currently reported to be in hiding, and even the small amount of text in the article that wasn't a basic description of events included a negative judgment of her representation of feminists. Every one of the sources was unusable per WP:BLPSPS and the topic was a pretty clear WP:BLP1E. As for whether all of this constitutes "obvious" violations, well, to be honest I'm not certain -- and for that reason I feel a little weird making this my first AE post. I don't follow AE much so don't have a great handle on what precedent is for gray area like this. But I did spend some time with this article and the AfD, and know that, at least from my perspective, I saw major red flags that some might consider "obvious". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourthI participated in this AfD. I believe there are probably valid WP:BLP based exceptions to the topic ban if it is determined that this article falls under the purview of the topic ban, given that people were raising concerns that it was a attack page at the deletion discussion. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 05:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by IPIf Mark Bernstein shows up then we'll have nearly the entire gang of "usuals" magically showing up to defend each other. May as well get rid of the topic ban since this all seems to be part of the plan. For fuck's sake, he was already site banned under his previous account for his bullshit. Everyone knows who he is, what he is and how he'll continue to behave and give a giant middle finger to anyone not on his mailing list.
Statement by MarkBernsteinThe unsigned comment above, attributed to "IP", is interesting. The phrase, "for fuck’s sake” -- is that perhaps related to the current Case Request, in which an exasperated admin said something like this? If discussing whether or not Chanty Binx merits a Wikipedia biography falls under the ambit of "gender-based controversies", then in fact the biography of any woman who has every expressed an opinion falls under that ambit. If ArbCom had wished the topic ban to encompass "all biographies of women" or "all biographies", they were perfectly capable of doing so. This complaint is not intended to prevent disruption.' It is itself disruptive. In point of fact, it’s being coordinated at the Gamergate boards, originally launched by that charming fellow whose user name recalls the sweet, sweet music of Nazi dive bombers exterminating Spanish civilians. For shame. MarkBernstein ( talk) 17:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by a procrastinating BrustopherI've been trying to stay away from Wikipedia for the past month or so, but I really must oppose any block here. The article was utter crap, initially largely negative and a blatant case of BLP1E. Perhaps not a "blatant BLP violation" of the sort traditionally meant by WP:BANEX but definitely not a disruptive move that he should be punished for. I'd disagree with User:DHeyward that this is comparable with GGers AfDing Zoe Quinn, as this was a blatant BLP1E case where the article clearly should have been deleted. If NBSB had nominated TFYC or something along those lines at AfD while topic banned, that would have been a completely different story. I'll also note that the GG topic ban is very broad and everyone and their mother seems to (presumably accidentally) breach it at some point or another. I've seen multiple editors that are far more sympathetic to GG than NBSB breach their "broadly construed" topic bans, but none of them ever get dragged to AE for it. I'd ask the peanut gallery to consider this next time they complain about NBSB allegedly being immune to sanctions. NBSB clearly did the right thing according to BLP policy, and drew attention to a crap, obscure, negative BLP article that may likely have avoided attention had he not intervened. To block him for this would be petty, bureaucratic and encourage the persistence of bad BLP articles within the encyclopedia. Bosstopher2 ( talk) 17:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning NorthBySouthBaranof
|
| No action, since the user has agreed not to edit the OETA article until they satisfy the 500/30 rule that has been imposed as an WP:ARBPIA remedy EdJohnston ( talk) 15:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning AJB43
Although talk pages are included in the ARBPIA3 general prohibition (it says "pages", not "articles", and this interpretation was confirmed at WP:ARCA), I did not list such edits. The only issue here is whether the page Occupied Enemy Territory Administration "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". To clarify, OETA was the military government established by the British government in Palestine when it was conquered from the Ottoman Empire in 1917. It lasted until replaced by a civilian government in 1922. This was a key moment in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. To judge AJB43's denial, we only need to read AJB43's edit summaries and text to see that AJB43 is editing the article precisely out of concern for the Arab-Israeli conflict:
The 30/500 rule was introduced to keep PIA articles from being disrupted by SPA editors like this. Unfortunately, there are not yet (correct me if I'm wrong) the technical means to enforce it. Please enforce this case by a long block. Zero talk 07:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning AJB43Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AJB43I submitted the dispute for a third opinion earlier, and prior to this reporting. User Zero0000 is the biased one here, reverting my non-partisan edits for personal, partisan goals. My edits are not out of concern for the Arab-Israeli Conflict, and could not reasonably be construed that way. My edits are made out of pedantry- the successor area to the OETA that Zero0000 wants to refer to as Palestine is in fact the Palestinian National Authority. This is about precise terms for an online encyclopedia, not a vested interest on my part. If you look at Zero0000's user page, it explicitly states the term "Palestine," and displays numerous other examples of the user's interest in the Arab-Israel Conflict, including stating that Zero0000 has been to "Palestine (West Bank and Gaza). That is clear conflict of interest right there. I edit the article to show "Palestinian National Authority," but Zero0000 doesn't like this because personal opinions hold that it must be "Palestine." This is spin at its finest. The user is the one who is reverting my edits and trying to have me banned because the user wants to interject politics into a Wikipedia article, in which POV has no place. I appeal against any ban. AJB43 ( talk) 08:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)AJB43 Statement by (username)Result concerning AJB43
|
| Banninated by user:Bishonen for egregious gaming of the system. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning HistoryWrite
This editor has made hundreds of junk edits to "satisfy" the 500-edit rule for editing in the Arab-Israel area. I can't list them all here, please see its contributions, its user page, and read its comment "Malik, now that I have amassed 500+ nonsense edits, how will you justify your unilateral deletions of my contributions, and your rewriting of history with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict?" [13].
Almost certainly a sock, but I'm no good at identifications.
Edit quoted above proves both awareness and intention to subvert. Also got ARBPIA notice on talk page.
This is intolerable. Less than a permablock would be too little. Zero talk 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
notified Zero talk 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Discussion concerning HistoryWriteStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by HistoryWriteIn Wikipedia’s Arab-Israeli topics, I have made very important and cited contributions, among them:
My contributions were based on historical facts, germane to the topics, and gave historical context to what have become pro-Palestinian propaganda Wikipedia pages. Yet, people taking decidedly anti-Israel points of views, deleted all of my contributions. Ultimately, Malik Shabazz, to his credit, did not send me to arbitration, he gave me a warning, not about content, but technicality: Wikipedia:ARBPIA3. Therefore, I wrote the following in my Userpage: I am HistoryWrite. Unlike many who suppress their agendas, mine is clear and open. I am on Wikipedia to combat the Arab/Muslim-led political warfare campaigns and efforts to distort and falsely rewrite history in regard to Israel and the Middle East in general, and the Arab-Palestinian agenda in particular. Many efforts have been made to block my historical additions and a recent warning was given to me that I must have 30 days and 500 edits in Wikipedia in order to edit “controversial” pages such as the State of Palestine or the Palestine Liberation Organization. As such, I now have more than 30 days, and here are my 500 edits that once and for all make me legitimate to write factual historical information, specifically regarding the most prominent contributions of the PLO (and many Palestinians): violence and terrorism. My 1…500 edits. Subsequently, I left a note for Malik informing him that I now have the required number of edits. However, to correct the context and meaning, the “500+ nonsense edits” refer ONLY to the numerical edits in my own Userpage, and DO NOT refer to ANY of my edits/contributions in Wikipedia in general, or the Arab-Israeli topic in particular. The Wikipedia:ARBPIA3 would curtail Gore Vidal if he were to join Wikipedia today, although I’m sure the intent is rather to stop drive by attacks. My contributions have been substantial. Interestingly, if a person writes a 30,000 word article and hits save, that is one edit. Correcting a comma is one edit. Where’s the logic, but I digress. Contributors are weighing in on many issues: WP:POVPUSH; User:FDJK001; “hundreds of junk edits”; “aggressive statement”; “POV-warrior gaming the system,” I’m “not a serious editor.” Those statements are either wrong or irrelevant to why I am here. [Note, Torven actually wrote that someone was banned for the same thing, when in fact, the operator was banned for abusively using multiple accounts.] What is most difficult to understand are why people like Guy and EdJohnston would okay a site ban prior first reading any statement of explanation from me. I have been published in major newspapers and I have a relevant voice that will be heard. At the end of the day, I was warned, and now I have 500 edits. I would rather this arbitration deal with the propaganda that is allowed by the pro-Palestinian perspective, rather than banishing me on a technicality. Speaking of technicality, I was actually sent to arbitration after I had the 500 edits. HistoryWrite Statement by NomoskedasticitySurely the aggressive statement of intent on the user page is enough to demonstrate that this editor is not here to contribute to an encyclopaedia but instead to WP:POVPUSH. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by TorvenI had to go digging for it, but this isn't the first time someone has tried to sneak into the circus this way. About six months ago, User:FDJK001 was banned for doing almost the exact same thing. Considering the user's talk page, I don't see much reason to view this situation any differently. Torven ( talk) 15:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@ HistoryWrite: Check his block log. Before the Checkuser results were posted to his page, he was blocked for, among other things, gaming sanctions. The intent of the 500/30 restriction isn't to make you crank out 500 edits as quickly as you can. It's to give new users time to learn how Wikipedia works, both technically and in policy, before they dive into an area that frequent disruption has turned into a minefield. For instance, I've been browsing the site for several years and actively following the notice boards for just over a year. I know some policies well enough, since it is impossible to follow some notice board discussions without them. At the same time, I had no clue how to ping a user until last week when DHeyward pinged me (which, by the way, if you are reading this, thank you for that). Seeing how more experienced editors post and interacting with them is one of the best ways to learn, and by trying to circumvent the sanctions, you have shown you have no interest in learning how to work with the community and are here simply to push your point of view. That won't get you very far, and may have already sabotaged your stated agenda. Also, this board does not use threaded discussions; everyone responds in their own section. Torven ( talk) 00:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Darkfrog24Non-involved non-admin here. To answer your question HistoryWrite, the logic behind the 500 edits rule is to force new editors to practice on non-controversial parts of Wikipedia before jumping into the deep end (and also to make it harder to use fake accounts). The rules here are byzantine and even experienced users can run afoul of regulations that they didn't know were there. If you'd spent your thirty days doing real editing you might have found out that the place to deal with the problems you see in the articles on Palestine is at parts of the site dedicated to a neutral point of view or run across a productive request for comment or found out what is meant when we say that Wikipedia focuses on verifiability rather than truth. Even if, let's say, you spent the past thirty days conscientiously reading Wikipedia talk page discussions (I'm doing something called assuming good faith), you didn't learn what you needed to learn. For example, you added this text about the PLO attacking civilians [14] but you didn't cite a reliable source backing it up; it's an important step and you didn't know you weren't supposed to skip it. Five hundred edits on regular articles would have gone a long way toward proving that you were at least trying; they were meant to establish your reputation. People here find your edits disturbing because it makes it look like you care more about technicalities than about cooperating with other Wikieditors. It's a little like someone cheating on their driving test. Even if your edits didn't involve running over anyone's grandmother, we're still not confident that you know what the blinking yellow light means. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosephThe ruling of ARBCOM says 500 edits. That's what this guy did. Just like all other stupid ARBCOM ruling that comes back to bite them such as 1RR or we can revert for no reason. Maybe next time ARBCOM will clarify and issue a ruling with clarify and think it through. But as the ruling stands, this person did nothing wrong. And of course, since he's pro-Israel, he automatically gets labeled a sock. I'm surprised I wasn't yet labeled a sock at some point. That is of course how it works in this area. Regardless, what Wikipedia doesn't need is yet another pro-Israel editor kicked away merely to prove to the world the bias of Wiki. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SerialjoepsychoI'd classify this as WP:GAMING the system. If someone can just type 1 letter on their own talk page 500 separate times then there's no point behind this rule. Wikipedia we put emphasis behind the spirit of the rules more than the letter of the rules. The question is if he spirit of this is clear? If it is clear you should ban them outright and if it's not you should simply require that they get 500 more edits before editing in this topic area, and 500 that aren't the nonsense that took place here. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 22:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning HistoryWrite
|
| Darkfrog24's existing topic ban is replaced with a topic ban from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics, specifically including quotation marks and quotation styles. This applies on all pages, including your and other's user talk pages. This may be appealed no sooner than 12 months from today (4 February 2016). Thryduulf ( talk) 13:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Darkfrog24
DF24 received a
DF24 is transgressing their ban and WP:ARBATC, perpetuating and more intensely personalizing the AT/MOS dispute central to the ban, seemingly for revenge. Was specifically warned against such behavior (diffs of other warnings also available). Just before the ban, DF24 wrote: When I raised these matters with Thryduulf (who said take it to AE), DF24 didn't take the hint (third diff), pursuing it on my own talk page while professing to not want interaction; this defies reason on several levels. Admins suggested that, DF24 being a professional proofreader, that this an obvious productive area [21], [22]. But DF24 says they mostly can't stand to do it, because WP's punctuation choices are not "correct English". [23]. This fundamentalist, anti-linguistics view is central to the matter – MoS must be changed, no matter what and how long it takes, because it is wrong. This will not be cured by a block of any length. Over six years of tendentious, disruptive campaigning, yet DF24 admits our users don't care about this punctuation trivia anyway [24] Keeping this up is WP:NOTHERE (at least regarding ARBATC). Third party in the first two diffs (we're interacting well now) isn't involved in the LQ debate, and found the circular rehash of it at WT:MOS tiresome in September. He's just a not-random AT/MOS editor – one to whom DF24 (noting an earlier argument between me and that editor about MOS) has repeatedly cast WP:ASPERSIONS about my mental health, after the ban [25], and after Ds/alert: [26], [27]. Also, a long string of dishonesty allegations (increasing after ban) without evidence, only links to DF24's previous claims and denials [28], [29], [30], [31], etc. Can prove this habit of incivility and gaslighting is much broader, but would need length-limit extension.
Given the personalized nature of DF24's continuance of the dispute, the attempts to recruit a previously uninvolved AT/MOS editor to tagteam (see also last AE's evidence of attempt to recruit a new editor to file anti- MOS:LQ RfC on DF24's behalf), and the fact that DF24 has been quite productive in unrelated mainspace and other things since the TB, I suggest the best response isn't the promised block (could make grudgematching worse), but:
"Walling-off" would remove DF's ability to involve more AT/MOS editors in style-warrior crusading, permits ongoing good editing, and obviates further admin action. DF24 needs to start up a new conversation with other guests in some different room at the Wikipedia party.
Discussion concerning Darkfrog24Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Darkfrog24The topic ban covers quotation marks and WP:LQ [43]. It does not cover SMcCandlish specifically or talking about other editors or their behavior in general. For all SMC's links, please just look at what I actually said, in its original context. Do not take his summary of matters at face value.
I did not make accusations without evidence. Plenty was provided [50] [51] [52] [53] and there is more. He rearranges words or leaves them out to make my posts look like something they're not. Example, I actually said "The way I see it, I've done nothing wrong, but you clearly don't feel that way. So what do you see as a positive change that I could make here?" [54] And here's why I cut back on gnoming: [55]. Example: SMcCandlish claimed that I removed a dispute tag "without doing anything to resolve the disputes." [56] That's not true. I attempted to resolve the dispute by replacing the source, which I believed he had contested. [57] Here's the two of us talking about it. [58] Not true + He knows it = "Not being honest" is the nice way to put it. I'd need more space to refute every point. SMcCandlish has not been shy about calling me a liar without cause [59] or about making vicious claims about my motives [60] [61]. Here he is saying "I don't want Darkfrog to be allowed to say I'm not honest or speculate about my motives!" SmC is playing the victim.
And yes, he does know that's what I meant: [62] Scroll down until you see "Are you okay?" Remedy: Tell SMcCandlish to leave me alone. Response to SMC's further allegations: This editor does not understand how I think or why I do what I do. He wants you to believe that this isn't a response to his actions, that I'm just randomly mad and lashing out at just anyone. That's not true. (And speculating about my motives while saying that I should be banned from speculating about his motives is messed up.) Lots of editors don't agree with me on quotation marks. More than one editor commented on the last AE thread. SmC said and is continuing to say things that he knows aren't true. What do I want here? I've already unwatched the MoS and quotation mark pages. I want to reserve the right to speak at any formal complaint that might be filed against SmC for his behavior or to file one myself and to participate in ordinary conversations—like the one I had with CurlyTurkey—under Wikipedia's ordinary rules. I'm trying to make the best of this topic ban. What I need is for him to stay away from me, cease acting as though I were his business in any way, stop presuming to take credit for my work, stop following me around, stop misrepresenting what I say. What's it going to take from me to get that? The question is not rhetorical. Oh good God. [63]. I can't even say "Are you okay?" without him imagining some ulterior motive. @ Thryduulf: Last week, I was not aware that I was not allowed to ask involved admins about the core issue underlying the topic ban. I stopped doing so as soon as EdJ and KillerC told me otherwise. This is what I mean when I say your understanding of the rules is different from mine. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 13:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC) @ EdJohnston: I thought the topic ban already covered the MoS in general. I think you should talk to Tony1, SlimV and Izno. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 22:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC) In case my meaning wasn't obvious, the want/need dichotomy is meant to indicate "I am willing to forego what I want to get what I need." As for what I want, I mean I want to reserve the right to do something like this: [64] If SmC pulls on someone else what he pulled on me, I want to talk about it. I've done it before without incident. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 03:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC) @ EdJohnston: But it does currently cover WP:MOS and WT:MOS themselves, right? So what you're considering is an expansion of the gag order? Question: Do you believe my conversation with Curly Turkey concerned the MoS in some way or is this because of something else? Darkfrog24 ( talk) 05:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Thryduulf: @ Liz: @ Laser brain: @ JzG: @ KillerChihuahua: @ EdJohnston: Alert acknowledged, but I feel the need to say that my messages on your talk pages were a good-faith effort to make the best of the topic ban period. My questions were meant to assess the differences between my view of this matter and your own and so directly address the underlying cause. My best guess as to what the point of all this is is the threads concerning WP:LQ at WT:MOS. I would feel better about this if any of you would acknowledge that you have read the evidence that I have offered that my accuser is not being honest with you and looked at the diffs in question in their original context rather than relying in his misleading presentation. I'm not saying you necessarily didn't; I'm saying I'd feel better if you affirmatively indicated that you did. Similarly, I'd like to thank you for the acknowledgement that I did not violate the ban as it was presented to me. Since one of the reasons given is the belief that my contribution is a "net negative," I believe that MOS regulars and punctuation article contributors other than SMcCandlish should be consulted. I will ask now: In the interest of avoiding further proceedings, in what way do you believe my conversation with Curly_Turkey ( talk · contribs) was not consistent with the letter or spirit of the topic ban? From my perspective, it did not concern quotation marks or the MoS in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfrog24 ( talk • contribs) Even though it's probably too late to change anyone's mind, I want the following on record. SMcCandlish is making most of this up, both here and in the original discussion. There are a few outright lies, a ton of exaggerations, and a whole lot of speculation presented as if it were fact. I personally believe that SMcCandlish deliberately spammed this page with a large amount of irrelevant information specifically to confuse and distract and to present me in a falsely bad light. I believe he deliberately posted so much in the hopes that no one would sit down and look at each diff in context, let alone allow me to refute his accusations when I have been told to keep at least my initial response to 500 words. It is not immediately obvious that the accused does not need to wait for permission to break the 500 word rule. It also makes it harder for me to tell which parts of his accusation you are reacting to and therefore which parts I should address. It's taken me a couple of days to think about it, but right now my best assessment of the situation is that you, the admins, are objecting to 1) my conversation with Curly Turkey and 2) the fact that I asked you about the right way to oppose a longstanding rule. If you were actually objecting to something else, please tell me.
I also believe that you may have seen this for what it was if you hadn't just been exposed to SMC's screeds. Speaking of questions, when someone comes to WT:MOS saying we should change WP:LQ, I say "Yes!" but when they show up asking how to use WP:LQ, I'm the first one there with the "Here's how." [73] I disagree with this rule but I haven't been breaking or undermining it. I also feel this procedure could be benefited by some established guidelines for appropriate notification on the order of WP:CANVASS. You guys may be no more subject to suggestion and bias than anyone else, but that does mean that "accuser is known to exaggerate" and "that's not exactly what happened" are going to have more weight coming from a third party than from the accused. Whether or not such a system is applied to my case, we should probably develop one. Whether it's for six months or twelve, I'm going to need a project and it's one of the ones I'm considering. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 23:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by DicklyonDarkfrog is correct that the topic ban was not quite broad enough to force her to drop the stick. That can be fixed. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by JzGDarkfrog's immediate reaction to the topic ban was to canvass opinion on how he could plan to carry on his campaign when the ban expires: [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]. I think that tells us something important about his determination to continue this, despite clear and unambiguous feedback that his efforts are not appreciated and not in line with Wikipedia ethos. I don't see any alternative here but to extend the TBAN and send an unambiguous sign that no means no. Guy ( Help!) 14:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Darkfrog24
|
| Topic ban restored. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Jaqeli
Despite being topic banned twice, Jaqeli seemingly exhibits the same behavior he has in the past.
The user appears to conduct a concerning WP:TENDENTIOUS editing pattern in Armenian related articles ever since the lifting of his ban. I find that every time he edits an Armenian related article, it is disruptive in one way or another. This disruptive editing pattern is similar to the very same disruption that has gotten him the AA2 ban in the first place. The user has a pretty extensive block log which includes several blocks from edit-warring and topic ban violations. Yet, despite all the blocks, warnings, and bans, the user continues to display a disruptive editing pattern. Therefore, I believe that the user's AA2 topic ban should be reinstated for second and final time.
For past inquiries, please see Jaqeli's:
Discussion concerning JaqeliStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JaqeliStatement by TiptoethrutheminefieldRegarding the AA2 report of 15th August (which I initiated), I was surprised after it to see Jaqeli continue to edit many articles related to Georgia. When I asked Sandstein about this, I was told that Jaqeli's editing restriction applied only to articles that contained material relating to BOTH Armenia and Georgia [87]. In other words, Jaqeli had no restriction on editing Armenia-related articles and no restriction on editing Georgia-related articles. I do not think that most people would read a "topic ban from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia" in this very restricted way. And given that a lot of the pov editing that Jaqeli has now been accused of is removing evidence of any Armenia/Armenian connections, this very restricted topic ban could be perceived as actually encouraging pov editing. If any editing restrictions are going to be reimposed on Jaqeli, would the closing administrator make the wording of it quite clear as to what the topic ban refers to, and consider whether it should be "everything related to Armenia and everything related to Georgia", or perhaps " "every article that could reasonably be expected to be related to Armenia regardless of whether it currently has content related to Armenia". A lot of the uncontroversial content that Jaqeli has worked on or added and that is only Georgia-related seems quite useful, quite specialized, and nobody else is doing it (so it would be a loss if he is gone). However, there seems to be a fundamentally bad attitude within his editing aims in that he consciously wishes at all times and whenever possible to minimize or remove legitimate content that mentions Armenia from articles that primarily concern Georgian history or culture or that jointly concern Georgian and Armenian history or culture. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Jaqeli
|
| blocked for a week and final warning left. This can be handled by dropping a note to my talk page if this resumes. Spartaz Humbug! 17:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 96.57.23.82
This IP has been posting repeated abusive comments and soapboxing at Talk:Hebron. They have removed warnings from their talk page, and continued with the same pattern of editing. Yesterday, they vandalised the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/to do, causing an abusive message to be posted on the talk pages of all members of this project. A study of the IPs contributions suggests that this is a stable IP, allocated to one user, so a lengthy block should not affect other users.
Discussion concerning 96.57.23.82Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 96.57.23.82Statement by (username)Result concerning 96.57.23.82
|
| No action taken. been open too long without input. Refile if problem persist. Spartaz Humbug! 15:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning CFCF
Discretionary sanctions mean that editors on a page must adhere to accepted editorial norms and follow policy and guidelines. CFCF is an experienced editor. He is very active on the WP:MEDRS page and had done a lot of editing to it. Because of this he is very knowledgeable on what is and isnt problematic. He should know better than to insert a editorial (primary) to counted a secondary MEDRS source. He should know better than to insert claims at the front of a paragraph in the lede that are not on the page, and not on topic for the page. He should know better than to use fringe sources to link e-cigs to illegal activity. He should know better than to write captions for images that are not about the image to bring in POV about children. But he has chosen to ignore MEDRS and insert POV after POV edit. He is also arguing to keep these POV edits in place. This one is very problematic as it points out a WEIGHT problem along with POV. [102] This one where he argues an editorial in a journal is a position statement. [103] This push to include pure POV without any discussion beforehand or consensus, one after the other is problematic. He has also added multiple images about children, as KimDabelsteinPetersen points out 40% of the images in the article now are about children and vaping, [104] a very POV focused number considering the article states that use by them is low compared to other age groups. AlbinoFerret 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC) In response to CFCF's post I will point out it is against WP:CAUTIOUS which the talk page has been following lately. Pushing POV edits without and contrary to consensus is problematic. I will also point out the deceptive multiple edit diffs he uses. AlbinoFerret 18:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Notified here. [105] Responses by AlbinoFerret@MarkBernstein While Stanton Glantz may be a professor, he is also a recognised activist. As found in numerous reliable sources. The first source Reuters ties his activism to e-cigs [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] While the whole university site isnt an activist site, his personal blog on the site can be reasonably found to hold his thoughts and agenda. AlbinoFerret 19:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Cloudjpk has provided diffs against me. But none of them show anything really relevant to this current situation.
I believe because of a prior Arbcom section that I was involved in concerning JzG/Guy that he is involved. I have left a message on his talk page. [116] He disagrees and I hope that he recuse's himself from this section. AlbinoFerret 18:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC) @Guy I will give a link to the Lancet source. [117] I will also point out that it is an "editorial" as can clearly be seen right above the title. Regardless of the respectability of the Lancet, an editorial is a primary source and not WP:MEDRS. Editors should never rely on editorials to counter findings of a secondary source, in this case Public Health England a part of the UK Department of Health. I will explain the Lancet POV problem. I point out that we have been here before. McNiel wrote a criticism of the Grana review, part of "peer review". The source was said to be primary. In the McNiel case CFCF was against including it. Here is one subsection from that discussion In the case of criticizing a negative review CFCF argued to keep the primary source criticism out, pointing out its not MEDRS . In this case CFCF wants the primary source criticism of a positive review in. This shows a big POV problem. AlbinoFerret 19:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC) @Jytdog Yes I suggested that S Marshall start a new section like he had been doing on the talk pages until he took a break. I also think you are missing some of the finer points comparing the Stanton Glantz RFC with the later post by CFCF. The RFC is about a MEDRS review. Many may disagree with me, but thats why we have RFC's to see where consensus lies. But I wonder how many of those no comments would agree to add a blog page by him? Not many by reading the talk page, where the journal reviewing the source was a main reason to vote no. Blogs are not reviewed. Blogs of activists {as pointed out in numerous high quality RS), are not good sources to add anything, find a MEDRS secondary source. As for the Lancet, all I am reading here are excuses to bring in a lower primary source to counter a higher secondary source. That is just not done, we should hold to our high standards of MEDRS secondary sources. As I have pointed out above, the talk page has had these discussions before. Thats part of the problem, CFCF is applying MEDRS differently depending on the view of the source. AlbinoFerret 06:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
S Marshall Involvement is not just specific with a topic, it can also be with an editor on different topics. If an editor calls for sanctions against you on a notice board, it is likely that the two of you are involved because of this. This link contains quite a large section by me calling for JzG/Guy to be sanctioned. [127] As does my comment in the GMO case calling for him to be included as a party, and likely face sanctions if he was included. Just as Jytdog cant say he is uninvolved as I presented evidence and PD against him at Arbcom. AlbinoFerret 10:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Discussion concerning CFCFStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CFCFThese edits do not constitute anything apart from a departure from the point of view of AlbinoFerret. All edits are properly sourced and I can categorically refute each accusation:
I believe it is also important to note that AlbinoFerret chose to revert these edits multiple times, I did not revert back, choosing each time to engage in discussion on the talk page. See reverts: [129], [130], [131]. I am under the firm belief that I chose the constructive approach, following up any controversy with discussion, not reverting. CFCF 💌 📧 18:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Starke HathawayHaving reviewed the diffs, I am not persuaded that CFCF has done anything more heinous than disagreeing with AlbinoFerret in a content dispute. My own independent review of the interactions between CFCF and AlbinoFerret leaves me with more concern over the behavior of the latter than the former. See this for instance. -Starke Hathaway ( talk) 18:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by TracyMcClarkOnce again CFCF has shown today on talk and article space that their purpose in the e-cigs area isn't to build a reasonable NPOV entry but to advocate their personal fundamental opposition to the subject. No surprise here considering the OP's advocacy in the past which already led to sanctions against tem. --TMCk ( talk) 19:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by MarkBernsteinIs it entirely reasonable to describe a site of the University of California San Francisco as "an activist site"? The author of this particular page is a full professor of medicine. This does have an unfortunate appearance. MarkBernstein ( talk) 19:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by KimDabelsteinPetersenIn reply to the diffs and CFCF's reply to these:
All in all it seems quite clear to me that CFCF is having difficulty in seperating his personal WP:POV from his work as a wikipedia editor on this article. And that is problematic. Short response to MarkBernstein: He may be a full professor, but it is still a blog, and the source is still opinion and primary. In fact that particular blog is part of Pf. Glantz activism/advocacy, something which he btw. is well known, and well regarded, for. See the discussion on the talkpage, as well as his BLP article for details. -- Kim D. Petersen 20:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC) And we've now turned from Think about the children!, to lets associate it with drug use [136] [137]. I'm not questioning the mention of this in the article, but more the WP:WEIGHT put upon it. And, if i wasn't aware of CFCF's status as a serious medical editor, i would seriously say that he has now turned to the next page in an advocacy handbook. -- Kim D. Petersen 20:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Noticeable, with regards to the general POV and WEIGHT porblems, should also be the talk page discussion here Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Youth_vaping_images -- Kim D. Petersen 20:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC) In reply to the reply from CFCF: Statement by CloudjpkI agree with Starke Hathaway [138] AlbinoFerret's complaint and his related history raises more concerns about him. AlbinoFerret finds reliable sources he disagrees with biased: [139]] [140]. AlbinoFerret deleted text he does not like [141] He claims his change was by consensus, but he deleted a notable source without AFD discussion. He did not not move all the content back to the safety page as he claims. IMO this was gaming the system. And none of this is new; this is a longstanding pattern [142] Cloudjpk ( talk) 22:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved JzGThe "blog post" from an "activist site" is actually a submission to the FDA jointly issued by the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco and the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University. It is extensively referenced and although not peer reviewed is clearly an expert opinion and not a mere "blog post". One of the diffs cited as evidence of evil behaviour also includes this:
The CDC is not some random bunch of activists, and to pretend that citing the CDC is POV-pushing is plainly completely unacceptable. The complainant also objects to an "editorial primary non-MEDRS" statement contradicting a "MEDRS" source. In fact, the edit in question was an article in The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, which pointed out that a figure estimated by Public Health England to be based on "an extraordinarily flimsy foundation" Now, The Lancet does not often go into bat against public health bodies, and Public Health England is not actually a MEDRS, there's been a lot of discussion on opinions by medical and public health bodies and they are not considered reliable to the standard of peer-reviewed articles. I find it worrying that despite the lengthy arbitration, motivated reasoning of this type is still going on. Wikipedia really doesn't care how fervently you might wish that medical academics were in favour of vaping, the fact is that there are profound and well-founded reservations about it, and it is Wikipedia's policy that these must be adequately reflected in articles. The edits of which AlbinoFerret complains are all entirely defensible and to an independent onlooker they appear to be necessary corrections to pro-vaping activism. This is an area where the evidence base is ambiguous and there is still spirited debate within the scientific community, we definitely should not be trying to protray it as settled one way or another, and balancing statements of the type CFCF added are necessary to maintaining NPOV. If there is to be an outcome here it should be a topic ban for AlbinoFerret for making vexatious complaints and attempting to abuse Wikipedia process to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Statement by KingsindianI have no opinion on the request except to state that Mystery Wolff should not be commenting here as they are under a topic ban from the area. They are a new user, so they should be advised that topic bans apply to all pages. They should simply avoid commenting on this matter altogether. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by LesVegasFirst of all, Guy is involved. I'm going to assume in good faith that he is saying he's uninvolved because he doesn't edit on E-Cig or tobacco articles, so he might think he's classified as impartial, but he has definitely been involved in several interactions with Albino Ferret and CFCF that I have seen. One of the more recent ones was when Albino Ferret commented about Guy's behavior at AE here on a GMO case. JzG was also involved in an E-Cig Arbitration Request case where he commented on Albino Ferret, said he supported a topic ban for him, and characterized the E-Cig topic as an unholy confluence of commercial vested interest, emotional commitment, immature medical knowledge and peripheral craziness. Guy and CFCF also both supported topic banning Albino Ferret here and Guy, CFCF, and Albino Ferret have all been involved in a very hot, and very recent dispute on MEDRS, with Guy and CFCF arguing against Albino Ferret's stance there. LesVegas ( talk) 01:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Comment by JohnbodJust brief comments provoked by the (unsigned) "Comment by uninvolved JzG" above.
Comments by Doc James
I am just not seeing anything that causes significant concern. This appears to be an attempt by Albino to eliminate those who disagree with them. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Comment by Beyond My KenI support Guy's suggestion of a topic ban for Albino Ferret for using Wikipedia processes as a weapon in pushing a POV. BMK ( talk) 19:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by wuerzeleI carefully reviewed the diffs in this AE request and find the request more than adequately supported and actionable. CFCF's transgressions and non-neutral edits may not be obvious to the casual observer. I implore arbcom members to make the effort to look at the diffs REGARDLESS of their opinion about e-cigs:
His self evaluation is incorrect and worse: deceptive. I second the editor who made the case, that JzG is involved, supported by multiple diffs. by calling himself uninvolved he aims to legitimize his turning of the table against AF, the requester, by proposing a 3 mth ban. under "Result concerning CFCF", it says "the section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators". Furthermore, JzG has a history of involvement on many sites, and has gotten a away with blocking editors. 2015 arbcom members should be well aware of the review, as JzG was warned about his behavior making chilling effects. arbcom clerks, please move His comments.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 07:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by JytdogI recently started working on the e-cig articles again for a while, and was really surprised by the level of bad feeling that is still there. When I came on the scene, the "pro-ecig" faction was trying to simplify the article (which it does need) and were proposing content without sourcing. (This section: Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Heading. S Marshall proposed it and AlbinoFerret and others signed off on it (Johnbod at least asked for sources!). When I asked for sources I got rough treatment from S Marshall here and especially here, with the caustic:. Again, I was just asking for sources and wanted the draft content to accurately reflect them. When S Marshall went ahead and implemented it, finally with sources, it became clear that the draft text had basic factual errors in it. (like e-cigs are 20% better than patches for quitting, when no source said that). These things could have been easily worked out. Instead, drama and trying to force things through. AlbinoFerret actually did a pretty collegial job working with me to fix it once we had sources. But the level of bad feeling is high. See this lovely side bar between AlbinoFerret and S Marshall on S Marshall's Talk page about the Mystery Wolf appeal. From S Marshall:Asking for sources for a proposal is exasperating? S Marshall said he is taking a self-imposed break, which I think is wise. About the point Albino raises about Stanton Glanz being an "anti-tobacco activist" and mischaracterizing the source as a "blog post"... Albino himself got fixated on adding an attribution for Glanz as an "anti-tobacco activist" but nobody on any side agreed with him, and Albino even started an RfC on that and got no !votes supporting using that attribution, and all !votes opposing. (see here. But he brings that point as though anybody agrees with him - but not even other members of the pro e-cig faction agree. Which just shows that his judgement is out of whack here. About the Lancet editorial, it is frustrating to see this mischaracterized all around. MEDRS discusses editorials in the normal sense of published opinions written and signed by some individual(s), and it advises the community to treat them as primary. Rightly. The Lancet Editorial in question was by the editorial board - it was signed, "The Lancet". It is a rare thing for the journal per se to make a statement, especially one of the Lancet's stature. For the UK-based Lancet in particular to comment on the PHE report is ...something. It is not of equal stature to PHE itself (PHE is a "major health organization" per MEDRS and I would not consider any journal's editorial board - not even the Lancet - to be one), but the critique was important and should be mentioned. Both sides are distorting things in making the case around that source. Tensions are high. About CFCF's behavior generally. I agree that CFCF has been too bold lately - there is too much churn and he is driving some of it. The overall churn is so fast and the tone on Talk so negatively charged that I have stopped paying attention to the article. But back to CFCF, there was no urgent need for CFCF to update the images in the article, for example, and he did emphasize the risks to children and the potential for use of e-cigs with pot in the images he selected. Pretty POV. Does that violate DS? Hard to see that, and I don't see that this is more worthy of AE than other behaviors I have seen in the brief time I have been back. I find the filing to be exaggerated and ramping up tensions yet more. I think if additional sanctions were imposed to slow down editing and discussion for a while, it might be useful. Two talk page postings and one edit per day, per involved editor, and another admonishment to try to make edits and suggestions that opponents would be likely to accept - the whole "write for the opponent" thing? Something like that. Jytdog ( talk) 06:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Your behavior through this little episode was really out of line - so much drama over a very, very basic WP thing. That you cannot see this.... whew. Jytdog ( talk) 03:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by S Marshall
Statement by Mystery WolffRemarking solely to the abusive and derogatory remarks made directly at me by S Marshall here inside this very AE, and on various user TALK pages, (and also the thinly veiled comments directly alluding to my personal nature, my competence and generalized editorship) I strongly object to their placement and usage here. Note to Admins: My comments are regarding that of S Marshall only, the ones talking about me, as I they were done here, I have no other option than to remark here. S Marshall has already been warned to not taunt me specifically and others also. He has said he can not work with me in other AE, and I am sorry but, its simply unfair and wrong to be spreading and canvassing...that I am someone, that can not be worked with on Wikipedia. If I need to take this to another venue, instructions are welcome, but I make these remarks in good faith now. Thank you. Mystery Wolff ( talk) 22:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by (Username)Result concerning CFCF
|
![[133]](/info/en/?search=Electronic_cigarette#/media/File:Ijerph_ecig_construction.jpg){kind=link}
| Prokaryotes indefinitely topic-banned from pages and content relating to genetically modified organisms, broadly construed. MastCell Talk 19:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Prokaryotes
I think that this is a self-explanatory violation of 1RR by a user who has been extensively warned before. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Still a problem. Inasmuch as the self-revert was helpful, it seems to have come without any real self-awareness, more like a last-minute effort to avoid trouble here. This comment just made at the article talk page, [154], following a series of similar comments, is completely objectionable in context, and clearly demonstrates that the conduct is continuing unabated, self-revert or no. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC) @MastCell and other admins: I'm continuing to see ongoing problems. Prokaryotes argues incessantly against reliable sources based on bizarre reasons. He objects that one source is not reliable because it was written by one author instead of multiple authors: [155], and objects to another because "GM crops" are supposedly not to be used as foods: [156]. This isn't good faith editing; it's trying to throw anything at the wall to prevent us from citing sources that go against his POV. The purpose of 1RR is not simply to assure that second reverts are self-reverted; it is to prevent editing that hampers consensus. Even though I filed this about 1RR, the editing is happening under DS. Where you ask Prokaryotes to demonstrate that he understands, please do not accept inadequate answers. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Update, in case anyone is wondering about whether the problems have subsided. Please see: disparaging a source because the author previously retracted something and the reality. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
-- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Discussion concerning ProkaryotesStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ProkaryotesThe second reference is in response to an ongoing OR investigation, which was triggered when an edit from January 23, 2016 readded content previously considered settled, was changed back to a WP:Synthesis/ WP:OR. My edit summary, "per talk page, no consensus, dont readd without conclusion of current discussion, see also OR noticebaord discussion" The OR discussion involves Tryptofish, i had to report him after fruitless attempts to sort this out @ talk page, OR noticeboard report. Tryptofish is ignoring any editor arguments in this matter, or alternatives, and it seems he tries to use this request here to remove me from further participating. I believe that in light of the ongoing OR discussion my second reported ref above should not be treated as a revert. Additionally, i suggest to use this request here as a chance to settle the current ongoing disputes, which would involve Tryptofish and a couple more editors. I state that i thought 24 hrs had past (look at my edit history, hundreds of edits in the past 24h, well it has now almost past). prokaryotes ( talk) 00:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC) @KingOfAces, he is casting very serious aspersions, and here - where he essential frames everybody participating in the current discussion as a climate change denier, among his common theme as fringe. You be the judge Arb. prokaryotes ( talk) 00:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Additional i want to state that these @MastCell, your warnings were not related to 1RR, and given how easy it is to break 1RR, and given this situation a topic ban seems very drastic. Also to my knowledge a final warning should come from Arbcom not as a quick single admin decision, at least that is my impression when lurking around here. prokaryotes ( talk) 02:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC) @Aircorn, i have self reverted naw. Thanks prokaryotes ( talk) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC) @MastCell, can you clarify what you mean with "there is a strong pattern here"? It would be helpful if you cite a Wikipedia guideline. Besides me breaking the 1RR i am not aware of any wrong doing in my 2016 edits. Thanks. prokaryotes ( talk) 01:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Kingofaces43Was about to request this myself. First, I should point out there was also a previous revert 16:18, January 23 that technically doesn't cross the bright line of 1RR, but gaming of 1RR to keep edit warring has been specifically called by arbs as behavior to deal with by DS. [158]. A common problem can be seen in their edit summaries like, "per talk page, no consensus, dont readd without conclusion of current discussion, see also OR noticebaord discussion" where they try to edit war in their preferred content change that did not have consensus on the talk page (yet citing it as if they did) in order to replace the longer standing consensus version. It's like a reverse WP:BRD where someone tries to claim the status quo cannot remain and their preferred addition must remain even when the new edit does not have consensus. Prokaryotes' edit warring was also brought up in a separate case they brought forward here that was closed without much comment on them because Prokaryotes withdrew the complaint. [159] Prokaryotes' edit warring had quite a bit of coverage at the ArbCom case too. They narrowly avoided a topic ban by one vote. [160] [161]. Opposing arbs generally said the behavior was a problem, but didn't quite reach the point of action at that time. [162] Their edit warring and battleground behavior was the largely last straw on the camel's back that triggered the ArbCom case. Considering their behavior issues have continued even after the warning MastCell gave (mentioned in Tryptofish's request) that they were precariously close to enforcing DS after the case, it doesn't look like there's any other options left. I'd suggest 0RR at a bare minimum, but Prokaryotes has received sufficient warning on impending topic bans due to other things mentioned at the case such as casting aspersions, battleground mentality, a nearly passed ban, that a topic ban would better help prevent disruption at this point. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 00:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I have to echo Tryptofish's reminder that it's still a problem. Given the history and near topic-ban shown at ArbCom with this continuation of behavior even after the self-revert nearly 24 hours later, a short block won't prevent future disruption with that in mind. We're past that point. 0RR or the impending topic ban Prokaryotes was warned about multiple times can though. I'd rather give sanctions a chance instead of doing a GMO 2 case, but we need enforcement of the sanctions to get peace in the topic, especially when editors already warned they were on the brink continue that behavior. Otherwise, civil editors in the topic are going to burn out as battleground behavior and edit warring continues amongst even those that nearly were sanctioned by ArbCom. Admins should consider that the DS are meant to prevent disruption when the history shows it's only been continuing. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 07:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC) New developmentsAdmins, I've unfortunately got to go over the word limit with these new developments, so let me know if you want trimming, a separate case, etc. Essentially, we now have a trainwreck at ANI perpetuated by Prokaryotes. Because we didn't get timely action on this, Prokaryotes has resorted to going to different boards to engage in battleground behavior in a retaliatory fashion, which am I concerned was to avoid scrutiny while their case was open here. Regardless of intended reason (they've never responded) the case should have been opened here so we could actually get some focused scrutiny on my edits. The short of it is that they are violating WP:NPA by purposely misrepresenting two of my comments at WP:NORN [164] [165] incorrectly claiming I am calling editors climate change deniers. The purposeful misrepresentation comes from me directly telling them before they opened the thread and after that those two comments were about content, not editors (i.e., sources describe many of the methods to oppose scientific consensus in this topic as being the same is climate change denial, vaccine controversy, etc.) mainly here here and here. I made it clear my only comments related to editors were: 1. Some editors were misunderstanding some technical details in sources. 2. Mentioning that Prokaryotes' false claim I was commenting on editors as climate-change deniers was a behavior issue (misrepresentation) I wasn't going to mention further so we could focus on content at NORN [166] (more on this). They decided to double-down instead to call discussion on content personal insult. Here are some of my other main comments relating to my intent on my comments if any admins are interested in what's going on with respect to my behavior. [167] [168] [169] [170] If an admin still thinks something is odd on my part, I'll gladly chat with them or even open up a case on myself if they thought it was needed. I don't think it's needed, but I'd abide by such a request so we could get a focused look on what I actually said (my cited comments should make it clear it's very different than Prokaryotes portrays though). For Prokaryotes though, we have them opening up an ANI case shortly after this AE case opened, repeatedly misrepresenting my comments after being notified many times, false accusations of canvassing at WP:FTN [171] just today, and an overall continuation of the battleground out-for-blood behavior at ANI that nearly got them topic banned at ArbCom with a split vote. That's a continued "lack of insight" as you described MastCell, and I'll also ping EdJohnston on these ongoing behavior issues. This is just continuing the same battleground behavior cited at ArbCom [172] we've always had with Prokaryotes that still don't appear to be improving. Something needs to stop it. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 01:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by David TornheimThe problem is not Prokaryotes. The problem is that Tryptofish, KingofAces43 and likely also Aircorn want to change language that was already settled upon and had been stable since last August 2015-early September 2015. That language used the term "scientific agreement" to replace "scientific consensus". The stable language was the result of a compromise created and executed here by Jytdog and agreed to by Prokaryotes at this end of this lengthy discussion that I was also involved in. Others like myself saw the change as a slight improvement and allowed it to stand. That language was incorporated in the lead of the Genetically modified crops article here on September 4, 2015. Prokaryotes inadvertently had not revised the language in the body during that edit. That was the status quo ante consensus position on the language in the lead during this dispute. Now the three editors I named want to go back to the disputed "scientific consensus" language, despite significant opposition to the change here, and to the fact that the term "scientific consensus" is little more than WP:OR and WP:SYN explained here. I will note that this all started when I tried to correct the portion of the body of the article that still had the "scientific consensus" language in it and had not yet been corrected to the agreed upon language with all the other articles back in September 2015. Shortly after I made the correction here, Aircorn put the word "consensus" back in here and in his edit notes suggested the need for yet another RfC. I explained here why I thought that was needlessly causing new problems and was against the former agreement decided months ago at Genetically modified food I explained again the how the agreement came into being again at WP:NOR here. In summary, the problem is not Prokaryotes, but the other three editors who are working against the agreed upon language and creating drama by so doing. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 02:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Aircorn wrote: "I was (and still am) unaware of any wikipedia consensus for changing scientific consensus to scientific agreement. I believe the most recent discussion on the issue...was at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Scientific consensus?." The first post in that section by Johnfos says: "Most GMF articles on WP, like this one [GM Food], contain the statement that: there is "general scientific agreement that food on the market ...."." [174] This shows that Aircorn was aware that the status quo on the articles had the language "scientific agreement", not "scientific consensus". It is my understand that per WP:PAG (please correct me if I am wrong), stable language in the article is assumed to have consensus by default, even if the previous talk page discussion(s) did not clearly achieve it. Per the essay WP:STATUSQUO, "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." Also in WP:BRD, it says "BRD will fail if...There is a preexisting dispute on the page, by editors with entrenched positions, and you are reigniting a debate that has achieved stalemate without consensus." That is exactly where things stood when the above three editors tried to change the "scientific agreement" language (the WP:STATUSQUO) to "scientific consensus". -- David Tornheim ( talk) 17:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC) @ Aircorn: Thank you so much for owning up to what happened. Very upstanding, and also to the suggestion that Prokaryotes self-revert which s/he did within 21 minutes of your suggestion. If Tryptofish had made that suggestion to Prokaryotes, perhaps this entire AE action could have been avoided. Much appreciated. It makes it much easier to work together when you show such integrity. Thanks again. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 17:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC) This post and this post on the other hand have just the opposite effect, and are directly contradicted by the cooperative behavior of Aircorn and Prokaryotes to resolve the dispute, where each is owning up to their own behavior. How are we to work together when some editors will do anything to try to punish another editor and try to justify a topic ban for someone who they disagree with? It's an attempt to sway consensus by removing anyone who disagrees on content. This WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and lack of accountability has to stop and is bad for the project. WP:BOOMERANG with a warning is justified for these lasts post and any like them for those continuing to press for more punishment when editors are working together to resolve disputes. This action could have been avoided entirely if the Plaintiff had simply pointed out and warned the Defendant of the 1RR rather than going straight to court. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC) KingofAces43 mentions this AN/I incident raised by Prokaryotes as if it were problematic. However, many like me agree that the issues Prokaryotes raised are a very real problem that needs to be addressed. Prokaryotes should be applauded, not condemned, for staring that helpful discussion about the unnecessary use of ad hominem comparisons, which resulted in the very productive section with Softlavender's Suggestion which has quite a bit of support. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 17:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Tryptofish above suggests Prokaryotes has done something wrong in suggesting that the use of pro-GMO advocate Pamela Ronald's research is not the best choice of WP:RS. I agree with Prokaryotes that s/he is right to object to use of Ronald. I provided ample evidence (in item 4) that she is a pro-GMO advocate in this RfC. Tsavage made the same observation here and here and here. Others echoed that same concern at the RfC. Tryptofish's reaction reminds me of another editor's threat that things would get ugly if I did not remove mention of the article Can the Scientific Reputation of Pamela Ronald, Public Face of GMOs, Be Salvaged? from my talk page and that even mention of her retraction was "disgusting". I do not understand why pro-GMO scientists like Ronald get such an esteemed status and are not allowed to be criticized, while researchers like Seralini who are treated with such disdain for a retraction of a paper that was later republished and for which the process of the retraction was questioned [175], [176]. As I mentioned at ArbCom here double-standards are applied to treatment of pro-GMO advocates compared to GMO critics. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 02:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by AlbinoFerretI also have concerns that Tryptofish and Kingofaces43 are using AE to win a content dispute. Tryptofish has an opinion that Core policies like WP:OR/synthesis can be overcome with a local consensus. [177] in a dispute over a synthesis claim. In fact both editors are arguing to include WP:SYNTHESIS in the GMO articles. Removal of those who wish to follow WP policy would aid in this quest to retain OR. AlbinoFerret 02:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It appears Prokaryotes followed Aircorn's very good advice and has self reverted the 1RR violation. [178] AlbinoFerret 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by AircornI was (and still am) unaware of any wikipedia consensus for changing scientific consensus to scientific agreement. I believe the most recent discussion on the issue before I partially reverted David was at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Scientific consensus?. AIRcorn (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC) @David. It shows nothing except that Wikipedia is inconsistent. The wording "scientific consensus" has been in the controversies section since October 2013. You made an edit in good faith, I partially reverted in good faith because I did not think there was any consensus. Now we are having this discussion in multiple places. WP:BRD was followed and WP:STATUSQUO would have been too if Prokaryotes had not broken 1rr. AIRcorn (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Prokaryotes. You still have time to self revert. AIRcorn (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Prokaryotes
|
| SageRad has agreed to avoid Yvette d'Entremont, Charles Eisenstein and Bhopal disaster, and not to discuss Bhopal on other pages. He has been asked to make more effort in general to avoid pages related to GMO, including meta discussions. SarahSV (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning SageRad
"SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."
I'll requote the decision against SageRad, emphasizing the parts some people are missing "SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."
Discussion concerning SageRadStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SageRadYes, i agree. SarahSV and others, yes, i will agree to this absolutely. Let me explain that with Yvette d'Entremont, i didn't know her as a GMO activist but now i do, and i will never edit her article again. With Charles Eisenstein, i never knew him to be a GMO activist and i still don't, but i'll take your word for it and never edit his article again. As for anyone else who i know to be a GMO activist, i will not edit their articles going forward either. As for Bhopal disaster, i don't believe i've ever edited that but i won't now that i know that disaster involved an agrochemical precursor. I think the only reference i made to it was to say that perhaps the section on PFOA at Dow Chemical should look like the section on the Bhopal disaster in format. But i'll not refer to it again anyway. I will continue to obey the topic ban as i have been, and not edit any pages that are about GMOs or agrochemicals and not edit any parts of other pages that may be about GMOs or agrochemicals. I've been editing according to those principles, and i invite anyone to point out if i unwittingly stray into any other topic that is about GMOs or agrochemicals. I hope this will please the interpreters and enforcers of policy to allow me to edit on other topics conscientiously. SageRad ( talk) 23:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Seeing closing comments. Thank you for taking this time to do this.
Could we please be done with this? It's bad for my ability to sleep through the night. I'm observing the topic ban to a strict degree. I am a conscientious editor and i respect the policies more than most editors i know. I have not edited anything about GMOs or agrochemicals at all since the topic ban. Period. I'm not stupid. I know that violating my topic ban would be suicide. Someone obviously spent a lot of time trying to compile a case. I'm editing with integrity and not touching the areas from which i am topic banned. None of the diffs provided show me discussing GMOs or agrochemicals at all -- because i have not. There are misrepresentations in the allegations that ought to qualify for them to be thrown out summarily. For example, when Kingofaces writes:
he's actually speaking of a conversation that begins with:
In other words -- it's not "a discussion on GMOs" -- it's a discussion on meta-level aspects of Wikipedia culture, mainly about the use of "fringe" as an aspersion, and how we deal with name-calling, and all that. It is not a discussion on GMOs, and his trying to frame it as such is a lie. And, Kingofaces says:
but this links actually to this diff which has nothing to do with GMOs. Again, a lie. And most of his issue seems to be that i speak against a harmful dynamic that i see going on. As for DuPont -- my edits on that company (and Dow who have merged with them, hence [198]) have been about the chemical PFOA (like this edit [199]) which is not an agrochemical. It's a Teflon additive that did pollute water in West Virginia and in the Ohio River. That's not under my topic ban. And i also edited about Styrofoam [200] to correct a trade name. Styrofoam is made by Dow but Thermocol is made by another company. I also made the same change at Polystyrene to correct that trade name ( my edit). I made a further edit at polystyrene about biodegradation at another editor's request. I'm allowed to do this and it's good for the encyclopedia. Seriously, my edit to Charles Eisenstein [201] ???? This is out of control. Eisenstein is a wonderful thinker, author of Sacred Economics and many other books. He probably wrote something about GMOs sometime, but i've never seen it if he did. This is stretching. This is looking like McCarthyism. It's looking like an attempt to harm me for other reasons. So, even though i said i wouldn't, i just went through all the diffs provided, and as i know, they do not show me editing anything at all about GMOs or agrochemicals. I know this because my conscience is clear. I have not edited anything about GMOs or agrochemicals at all since the topic ban. I ask for this case to be summarily dropped, as it's onerous and seems to be intended to "get me" for being outspoken on cultural issues within Wikipedia. Note that i was quite aware of this decision which explicitly did not prohibit editing about companies that may also make agrochemicals or GMOs. Those were subject to DS and not the ban, and that was already clarified. I operated under that clarification when i edited about PFOA and Styrofoam. If anyone was unaware of this clarification, then now they are aware. @Only in Death's comment: I have no "MO" except to edit articles well. @DHeyward's comment: The only one being tarred and feathered here is me, and it's a joke. @JzG's comment: Thanks. @BMK, it's not okay to call people names who write in my support " peanut gallery to egg them on" @Kingofaces43 -- I'm not "testing the boundaries". I disagree with the topic ban but i've obeyed it. SageRad ( talk) 20:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by AlbinoFerretHaving commented on the recent WP:ARCA section on increasing the topic bans to "companies that produce them" for the topic banned editors from the GMO case. I would like to point out the motion in section 11.25.1 that would have added the companies failed. As a result, SageRad is not topic banned from editing articles of companies that produce agricultural chemicals as long as he is not editing about agricultural chemicals/GMO's. None of the diffs provided are on agricultural chemicals/GMO's. AlbinoFerret 03:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC) I would also like to point out that that the warnings predate the close of the ARCA section and one was specifically about that section and should be covered by WP:BANEX AlbinoFerret 03:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC) The "broadly construed" argument to include companies when editing non GMO and agricultural chemicals was rejected by Arbcom. [202] Continuing the argument on AE (a Arbcom page) so soon after the motion failed is going against that finding. AlbinoFerret 18:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Kingofaces43SageRad has also been commenting directly at ANI on a discussion on GMOs starting with this scaled back to this, quite obviously so they could claim they weren't directly entering discussion on GMOs. Followed by: [203] [204] [205] [206] With this gem of an edit summary, "There is a reason that i continue to compare the anti-fringe movement to McCarthyism." All these above occurred in this ANI thread, which was explicitly focused on genetically modified organisms, the scientific consensus around it, and how we deal with WP:FRINGE aspects in content discussion around it. They also responded directly to me at WP:FTN when I asked for more eyes on this GMO discussion [207] with this referring to McCarthyism again, which is another unambiguous violation followed by more commentary Regardless of meta-discussions popping up within the specific incidents, there they have been plenty of discussions on topic banned users in this topic to not even be commenting from the sidelines at admin boards when they are topic banned. There have been some previous instances where SageRad has been chaffing against their ban [208] [209], though not quite as bad as others sanctioned at the case. There still have been issues going on though with a previous AE case [210]. I won't even suggest any particular actions to admins, but SageRad needs to stay out the topic plain and simple without finding ways to skirt the ban. I'm concerned there's a lot of the same soapboxing and hyperbole related to WP:FRINGE, etc. that got them topic banned from GMOs, but that might be something ANI handles if they can respect the topic ban. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 04:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My KenIn response to Liz's warning about word limits below, I believe I can re-state my position more concisely:
BMK ( talk) 22:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Darkfrog24Very uninvolved non-admin. Most of these edits don't specifically mention GMOs, but SageRad is also banned from "pages relating to genetically modified organisms." According to AlbinoF, that does not include DuPont or Dow, but my own take is that it would include d'Entremont.
IMO #1 and #13 are the only ones that can be construed as violations, but it is reasonable that the filer would not know that DuPont and Dow are not covered by the ban, so I wouldn't call it deliberate spam either. Yes, SR mentions GMOs or more specifically the discussion of GMOs on Wikipedia in this AN/I discussion; self-removes this part of the post about twelve hours later. I don't see the problem with "Resent your calling my response 'hysterical'" or those other posts.
Bottom line: There is a lot of stuff in this complaint that's innocuous. The comment on the SciBabe article talk page
Statement by Only in DeathRe Darkfrog, SageRad is banned from agricultural chemicals, which are a major part of Dow's business. The only reason I did not report SageRad for those transgressions was they appeared to take the hint and backed off the article. The AE report I actually filed previously which was closed by EdJohnston despite being a blatant violation was a different matter, evidence of their attempt to canvass support for their POV pushing. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 17:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course, there is also jumping into POV discussions from 2009. Oh and then claiming intimidation in order to not edit there. Seriously, why are we putting up with this rubbish? Only in death does duty end ( talk) 17:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by MarkBernsteinThe complaint is vexatious, and is apparently intended to lure admins at AE into carelessly extending a topic ban into domains which ArbCom explicitly rejected, for the purposes of gaining advantage in a topic dispute and of further securing Wikipedia for the American right. Is perfluorooctanioc acid an agricultural chemical? It sure sounds chemical, doesn’t it? Does it have something to do with GMOs? Kind of sounds like it would! DuPoint and Dow do make some farm products! Obviously, a breaching experiment: ring the alarms! Unfortunately for this complaint, some Wikipedians have knowledge of a variety of domains, and others are remarkably willing to look stuff up. A long time ago, I earned a doctorate in chemistry. Also, a long time ago, I was employed by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., though by Central Research, not by the agrochemical division. I can say with some confidence that perfluorooctanoic acid is not an agricultural chemical, at least not on this planet! (Speculation on the slippery nature of perfluorinated wildlife might amuse arbitrators more than this complaint.) DuPont has long been a world leader in fluorocarbon chemistry, and its perfluorinated polymer, Teflon, is a household word. Perfluorooctanoic acid is used to manufacture Teflon and related polymers, as a water repellent, and for related applications. There’s quite a decent article on this on a Web site called Wikipedia. The question of whether the topic ban extends to non-agricultural chemicals, or to other operations of these and other companies, was explicitly raised -- by myself and others -- at ARCA. ArbCom's rejection of this broad construction was clear and unambiguous. The editor raising this question should be topic-banned from discussion of topic bans for GMO in order to avoid future disruption. MarkBernstein ( talk) 18:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by TryptofishI have not looked at all the company-related edits, but the last edit listed in the opening filing, [211], is an unambiguous violation, because the lead section of the page clearly notes that the subject is notable for criticizing "the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC) I'll just say that the comments by Spartaz and by SlimVirgin seem very reasonable to me, as to an outcome. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC) I support SageRad's assurances, and I support closing this as a result. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by JzGSageRad has been active at Vani Hari ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), discussed during the case, and the dispute between Hari and d'Entremont is well documented - the dispute explicitly includes Hari's GMO fearmongering and when this is taken along with Dow and DuPont I would say it's time to start making firm statements that no, we do not mean get as close to the topic as you think you can get away with, we mean, stay away from GMOs, broadly construed. I would not like to see SageRad blocked this time, but equally I do think he needs to actually leave that area alone, and in fact it might be helpful if he was to drop the stick entirely (e.g. stop kvetching about use of a site associated with David Gorski, with whom he has a dispute over GMOs). Guy ( Help!) 00:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by DHeywardThe result of "broadly construed" findings was to stop eactly this type of tar and feathering approach to GMO companies. Sorry but I find little coincidence in the editing of GMO company products in a negative tone and editing GMO products themselves. These editors need to get off the "ZOMG! these GMO companies are killing us in so many different ways!" treadmill and find a new hobby. -- DHeyward ( talk) 00:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by HughI see no topic ban violation in the diffs in the complaint. Uninvolved with GMOs, minor interactions with SageRad. Hugh ( talk) 07:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: It is simply not true that a precursor chemical to an agricultural chemical is necessarily an agricultural chemical. This analysis invokes a "two degrees of separation" interpretation of "broadly construed" to industrial chemical production processes and is clearly a misapplication of WP:TBAN, which policy is specifically written to provide us with guidance on the detection of topic ban boundaries. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 23:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Dow (talk) -> Bhopal -> methyl isocyanate -> chemical precursors -> pesticides -> agricultural chemicals -> bingo! topic ban. Really? Hugh ( talk) 23:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC) @ Spartaz: "While none of the specific edits relate to GMO matters...I don't think SageRad has purposefully broken the ban..." We agree. "...the sanction was a ban from all pages related to GMO matters. This means that even non-GMO edits are violations...the specific ban relates to GMO related pages not just GMO edits." Please I would like to better understand your position, in particular with your application of WP:TBAN. To me it is clear that we are asked by written policy to consider that not all edits to given page are necessarily in scope of a topic ban. Do you believe an enforcing admin can toss some magic words like "all pages" into a topic ban notice and slap a topic ban that exceeds the authorization of policy? Doesn't WP:TBAN constrain the scope of all topic bans, no matter how cleverly worded the notice? What do you think? Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 23:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Cla68As contentious as the GMO articles continue to be, I'd say a healthy dose of boomerang on some of the editors here following SageRad around trying to get him banned would probably help things out, but I doubt any of the responding admins will put any effort into doing so. Cla68 ( talk) 16:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by DrChrissyGiven that this is an arbitration page, am I allowed to contribute here without violating my topic ban on GMO's (the same as SageRad)?DrChrissy (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Result concerning SageRad
|
| Appeal declined. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186#Ollie231213, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015#Longevity
Statement by Ollie231213The reason that I was topic banned was because, in the admins' words, I am "clearly here to advocate for a specific position on longevity articles rather than following our long standing policies and guidelines" and that I am "consistently editing articles, and voting in AfDs, to favor the position of the Gerontology Research Group [which] is incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia." These are accusations which I strongly deny. The implications here are that I am not following Wikipedia policy and am affiliated with the Gerontology Research Group, both of which are false. I explained very clearly in my statement why I believed I was following Wikipedia policy, but these arguments appear to have been ignored. Let me use an example here: we can probably all agree that an organisation like the New York Times is, generally speaking, considered a reliable source for many things on Wikipedia. However, what if we're dealing with a specialist topic area - astronomy, for example? Are you going to argue that the NYT is an equally reliable source on that topic as NASA is? What normally happens is that, for stories about astronomy, news organisations simply report what NASA has said. They don't do the research themselves. If the NYT published a story claiming that a new star had been discovered, but no authoritative bodies such as NASA had verified the claims, would we just add that to Wikipedia without even a footnote? Well, the GRG is to gerontology what NASA is astronomy. Just look at how many times you see news organisations say "...according to the Gerontology Research Group" in stories about the world's oldest people - these are just a few: [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219]. Lots of other sources clearly consider the GRG to be an authority in the topic area. All I am saying is that Wikipedia should reflect this and base its articles on longevity primarily on this source and not on other less-reliable ones. For example: Yasutaro Koide, recognised by the GRG and Guinness World Records as the world's oldest man, died recently aged 112. However, the previous day, a man named Andrew Hatch died at the claimed age of 117, according to this source (which might generally be considered reliable). However, he was not able to prove his age so was not recognised by Guinness and the GRG. So what happens here? Do we treat both sources as equally reliable and say that both were the oldest man?!? No, Guinness and the GRG are clearly more reputable and widely-recognised as authorities in this topic area than the Contra Consta Times. I'm not saying don't include Andrew Hatch at all on Wikipedia, but include him as a "longevity claim" and not as if his age is definitely true. So, just to summarise: I made it very clear in my statement in the initial request that I am following Wikipedia's policies. I just want Wikipedia's articles on longevity to based on the best sources, and don't want unverified information to be included as if it is fact. My edits in the past have been in line with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:NOR, and WP:RSCONTEXT. I don't see how I can be justifiably topic-banned when I've clearly explained why I am following policy and am acting in good faith. And, should the ban be repealed, I promise to act in a more civil manner in the future. -- Ollie231213 ( talk) 23:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SpartazI don't have anything to add beyond what Ed and I said in the original AE. Ollie, the only opinions that have any weight here are the uninvolved admins. Everything else is just noise. Do not canvass others to come and support you. It won't affect the outcome but would be obvious evidence that you are not editing per our accepted norms. Spartaz Humbug! 18:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by LegacypacOllie demonstrates a lack of understanding of wikipolicy in his appeal. If, as he say,s "GRG is to gerontology what NASA is astronomy" we can safely treat GRG as just one of many RS. Our Astronomy article does not even mention NASA (that I can see) and the lead says "Astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can still play an active role" NASA is definitely a great authority but hardly the primary or final authority in astronomy. If someone wants to write up Andrew Hatch (super old guy) we have good sources and would report he claimed to be 117, has lots of id that verifies that, but did not have a birth certificate because birth certificates were not issued in his region (just as the contracosta times did), they should write it. For completeness, they should also note that GRG would not validate his age. But Hatch is a total red herring as no editor has tried to include him in any table or assert he was the world's oldest man (that I'm aware of). Ollie's assertion that we should "base its (Wikipedia) articles on longevity primarily on this (GRG) source and not on other less-reliable ones." goes right to the heart of why he must stay topic banned. GRG is not a super source of absolute WP:TRUTH that must be used to the general exclusion of all other RS. (I commented on the AE request that led to the topic ban, not sure if that makes me involved or uninvolved) Legacypac ( talk) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by The Blade of the Northern LightsIt will be quite unsurprising that I see no reason to overturn the sanctions here. The amount of energy that's been expended arguing that the GRG is The One And Only True SourceTM on this subject is so enormously wasteful that allowing editors back in who want to continue that fight will only degrade the quality of the articles on human longevity. I don't see where the implementation of sanctions violated any policies, nor do I see how lifting them will be in any way helpful. Therefore, I strongly recommend this be closed with no action and a reminder that brevity is actually a virtue. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 19:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I would also note Mabidex's charming statement below is hardly indicative of an editor who will be useful in this topic. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 19:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by JzGI am unsurprised that Ollie rejects the findings of independent admins reviewing his conduct - that is pretty much the definitive rationale for enacting a sanction, since people who accept independent views rarely end up here. Ollie, find some other area to edit. Leave this topic completely, forever. All you are doing is reinforcing the impression of an externally coordinated campaign to manipulate Wikipedia in support of an ideology. We're bored with it. Guy ( Help!) 14:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Ricky81682
Statement by (involved editor 3)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ollie231213Statement by GlrxOllie231213's appeal does not show an understanding of why sanctions were imposed. Instead the argument is that GRG should be as respected as NASA and therefore implies the sanctions were improper. The ban should stay. Glrx ( talk) 05:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC) @ NuclearWarfare:. I have not been following longevity topics, but here's my take. Ollie represents that Gerontology Research Group should be the respected authority on the age of very old people. It and the Guiness Book of Records should be given more weight on the topic than other reliable sources. Ollie apparently founds that belief in GRG's strict requirements for documenting age. This Smithsonian article describes GRG and its procedures. The article describes GRG's requirements for 2 to 3 pieces of documentation. The article also points out that people often make false claims about age, and GRG's documentation requirements often uncover or prevent such frauds. Unfortunately, the documentation requirements also exclude many potentially bona fide old people. For example, there are good records in Japan, but almost no records in Africa. Even in countries with good documentation, some people are not on the list because they want their privacy. If nobody tells GRG that a very old lady is living in Pasadena, then that lady won't be on the list. Or maybe the little old lady has a birth certificate but she doesn't have her marriage certificate, so GRG won't put her on the list. Consequently, if someone is on the list, then there are presumably reasonable supporting documents for the individual's age. Volunteers, not professionals, validate these age claims. Wikipedia apparently accepts GRG's Table E as a reliable indication of an individual's age. [220] However, not being on the list does not contradict a claimed age. It doesn't even show that GRG investigated a claimed age and rejected it for some reason. So GRG's list is not "the oldest living people in the world" but rather "the oldest living people that GRG found and can document"; GRG calls the table "Validated Living Supercentenarians". Now say the old lady in Pasdena dies, and the coroner issues a death certificate that says she is older than the oldest person on GRG's or anybody else's list. The Los Angeles Times then prints a story that includes the age on the death certificate. The Los Angeles Times may even claim she was the oldest known person in the world because it does not know of anyone older. What should WP do? It has some reliable sources, but apparently Ollie will take issue with the reliability of those sources. The original AE found that Ollie was violating WP policy in AfDs and articles by continually taking the view that GRG should be the most reliable source. In the appeal above, Ollie makes exactly that claim. There has been no change since the ban. Glrx ( talk) 03:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC) @ Ollie231213: Editors don't get topic bans for their beliefs; they get topic bans for their behavior. Your behavioral issue was not following WP policies. You open with the claim that you were following WP policies, but the body of your appeal does not address WP behavior policies at all. You close with "I made it very clear in my statement in the initial request that I am following Wikipedia's policies." That is not the case either. The charge in the original AE was "Ollie231213's conduct at various AFD discussions is bordering into uncivil territory with numerous personal attacks." There were four diffs. Your response was not about the uncivil diffs, the original research issue, or your continued engagement at the RFC ("Apologies if I sounded patronising or disrespectful but part of the reason why I'm sounding repetitive is because I keep getting faced with straw man arguments, and I want to make sure we understand where we are both coming from here. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)"). You were not on topic for the AE. You did mention some WP policy, but they were not policies about behavior but rather sources. You believe GRG is the superior source. That's fine. Editors may believe what they want. Editors usually have a right to discuss their beliefs and persuade others to their position, but there are limits because other editors have rights, too. WP does not tolerate edit wars where one group keeps putting its version in an article and another group keeps replacing it with something else. Neither does WP want disruption on its talk pages. When there's disagreement, WP policy wants the groups to discuss the issues reasonably and adopt a consensus view even if that view is wrong. Maybe there is compromise; maybe one side prevails for now. The consensus view today is that GRG is a reliable source for some information but it is not the superior source that you want it to be. You were topic banned not for your beliefs about GRG's stature as a source but rather for your disruptive behavior with other editors. The issue at this board is not whether your viewpoint about weighing longevity sources is right or wrong but whether continued disruptive behavior is likely. You have not addressed your behavior at all. Instead, you continue to argue that GRG is the best source even though this is not the forum for a content argument. The implication is that you want this board to admit the original topic ban was wrong, approve of GRG as a great source (something that it cannot do), and give you license to edit war or demean editors who disagree with you. That's not what is done here. I do not see an effective appeal here. The appeal should have addressed behavioral issues raised in the orignal AE. Looking at the original AE proceeding, I could conclude that the allegations were weak. I expect Legacypac has thick skin and some one-off ad hominem arguments can be forgiven. Extended and repetive engagement at any discussion is not desired, but it happens. Furthermore, it takes two (or more) to tango. I suspect NuclearWarfare's has that concern. The question is whether the behavior is typical. Furthermore, longevity has been found to be a contentious area, and discretionary sanctions are authorized. In the original AE, you claim, "I'm not on a pro-GRG campaign, on I'm an anti-anti-GRG campaign, which is not the same thing." For the purposes here, the double-negative distinction makes little difference because WP does not want campaigners. I haven't chased the sub-sub-discussion at RSN, but my guess is it is similar to the RfC. Consequently, I expect there is a long history of edit warring and disruptive engagement on many longevity articles. Statement by BlackmaneI am somewhat peripherally involved as I've voted on a number of the AFD's that were raised largely by Ricky81682 among others.
I think a simple statement would suffice here. Ollie2312 was topic banned because of his advocacy for GRG. Naturally, he refutes the accusation of advocacy but is, in his words, on an "anti anti GRG campaign". However, from his statement above: @ Ollie231213: I read, re-read and re-read again your reasoning. My view does not change. I would not have written what I did if I hadn't read it. Again, having one list that is only for GRG as a source while another list has all other sources pushes forward the POV that GRG is singularly better or special compared to any other source. It is not up to Wikipedia to say "this source is better than these other sources so we're giving it its own list". What any list should say is "here is the claim, here is the source" no more, no less. If the claim is later discredited then the entry is removed. If a claim is weak or variable because sources disagree, then the entry should be adjusted based on a discussion. Blackmane ( talk) 01:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC) @ Ollie231213: WP has never made any pretenses at having a judicial system. It's a privately owned website and as far as has been discussed this is most obviously not just a content dispute. At this point, I will leave this as my last comment as further discussion will derail this appeal. Blackmane ( talk) 01:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Mabidex@ Ollie231213: I read your reasoning. I do believe that anyone achieving the age of 100 is very notable, as it remains rare. Which brings me to it's exceptional nature: What is more rare to humans who read Wikipedia than another of our own human species living longer than most others on this earth? According to the US Census, only 0.02% or 55,000 people in the US in all of the time between 2007 through 2011 [1]. To reiterate, being a Super Centenarian is an extraordinary claim, and it surely requires extraordinary proof. While the GRG is not the only source that verifies Super Centenarians it is one of the more prominent non-profit ones. I don't disagree that verification should be done, but commercial interests should be known for those on the lists that use the story to sell more newspapers (for example) and benefit the commercial interests because of it. Yes I agree that It is not up to Wikipedia to say "this source is better than these other sources so we're giving it its own list" but a verified claim of age should be supported of non-commercial claims over those of a commercial nature. What any list should say is "here is the claim, here is the (Commercial/Non-Commercial) source" no more, no less. I agree, If the claim is later discredited then the entry is removed. If a claim is weak or variable because sources disagree, then the entry should be adjusted. As for the topic ban, it should simply be lifted. I see no reason to continue it as this person should be allowed to make disagreements about weak sources. @ NuclearWarfare: I also see no reason to consider JzG's words here as an involved admin, as they are clearly of a libel nature and out of line as appeals to spite and ridicule to win over the Admins consideration. Mabidex ( talk) 02:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Ollie231213
|
| Closing this post-appeal request discussion. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Violating his topic ban again (just like when he was first banned) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Alansohn&curid=2578623&diff=705015467&oldid=705013935 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.41.51 ( talk • contribs)
|
| Persuant to the unanimous consensus of administrators commenting on this request, Darkfrog24 is blocked for one week. He is strongly advised not to further test the bounds of his topic ban. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 03:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Darkfrog24
This is a clear violation of DF's topic ban from MoS matters, and is just another example of his trying to continue the dispute post-ban. Let's not forget that it was not long ago that his topic ban had to be expanded from "quotation marks" to "MoS matters" because of similar actions on his part. This, however, is the worst action yet. I don't think he should be allowed to continue skirting the topic ban. To all other parties, please look at the corrected second diff. It is one thing to say "I cannot participate", but it is another thing to directly reference the dispute and cast WP:ASPERSIONS about members of a deletion discussion. Darkfrog24 should not be discussing the MoS at all, should not be writing anything about it, should not be expressing an opinion on "MoS regulars". Darkfrog24 was advised by the uninvolved administrators to avoid this area completely, and was told numerous times not get involved in this dispute again. If he were smart, he would not've responded at all, which is what he was told to do. I have done nothing wrong. "Note the identity of the filer", etc., had a clear subtext. I do not appreciate being subject to WP:ASPERSIONS from topic-banned editors. Last comment on this matter: Ivanvector, if you'd like such an interaction ban, I have no objection. I never interact with this fellow. I was not a party to the original dispute that led to the AE filing. It would make absolutely no difference to me if such a ban were imposed, because I have no desire to interact with DF, and don't do so anyway. Such a ban would thankfully keep DF from dragging me into disputes where I have no place.
Discussion concerning Darkfrog24Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Darkfrog24It is not a violation of a topic ban to tell people that I'm not allowed to participate because I'm under a topic ban. Smokey pinged me and said, " I find it odd that Wavelength, Darkfrog24 and Dickylon haven't commented," so I told him why I and possibly Dicklyon haven't commented. I don't remember which admin it was, but I've been actively told, "If someone asks you about X, you have to tell them you're under a topic ban." The so-called "similar actions" were going to the talk pages of involved editors and asking them for constructive criticism on how to make the best of the topic ban. [223] While we're here, I don't think it's appropriate for SMcCandlish to make such strongly negative and false claims about me in a forum in which I'm not allowed to respond. This is the second time since the ban was put in place on January 22 that an uninvolved user has actively requested that I contribute to a MoS-related project or discussion. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 16:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Laser brain: I think what's going on here is that you are used to dealing with topic bans. You deal with the details of them on a daily basis and those details are very familiar to you. Sometimes, people who are around a subject a lot don't grasp that the specifics are not obvious to people who aren't. To address one factual matter: No I was never told not to discuss the topic ban, only not to discuss the MoS. It is not remotely obvious from either the ban itself or from any of the answers given to me by Thryduulf or other admins that I am not allowed to say who filed the original complaint. To use your words, I did not put my thoughts out there on a MoS matter; I told SmokeyJoe that I was under a topic ban and posted a link. That seems to me to be an obvious, relevant and nonproblematic part of the process. You guys are expecting me to avoid boundaries, but you need to either be a lot clearer about where they are or accept that I'm going to step on a mine now and then. I will remind you that I have mistaken those boundaries in both directions—I thought the entire MoS was covered under the original ban [225]. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 16:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Only in DeathTrouts incoming I suspect. Telling an editor who has effectively notified them by alert that 'I cannot talk about this since I am topic banned' is hardly an actionable edit. Talk about being petty. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Starke HathawayThis is such an obviously unfounded and vexatious complaint that I think the filer ought to face sanction for it. -Starke Hathaway ( talk) 15:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by IvanvectorIt's difficult to assume this request is in good faith, in fact it's hard to see what the point of it is at all if not to try to cause trouble. The first diff shows Darkfrog24 responding to a direct question with an explanation of why they are not responding, in as neutral and cordial language as would be possible I can only assume. I have to assume the second diff is in error since it's RGloucester's own edit. How in the world this indicates "the worst action yet" is dumbfounding. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 17:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC) In fact I agree with Starke Hathaway: if RGloucester cannot explain how this request has any merit at all and is not clearly and obviously vexatious, they ought to be sanctioned for it. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 17:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC) @ RGloucester: I think SmokeyJoe hit the nail on the head here, and in echoing his sentiment I believe I will make the fourth editor (third uninvolved) to tell you this is petty. But you seem to think petty is fine. I think if you were banned from interacting with Darkfrog24 you would have less petty things to do. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 17:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by SmokeyJoeI think the following two things are unacceptable:
If Darkfrog24 is not allowed to participate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support, then I think the page in question ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support) should be referred to Arbs on the question of deletion. Or an Arb should contribute in the MfD in their capacity as an Arb. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Darkfrog24
|
| No action taken. Galassi warned to be more careful with regard to their Ukraine Topic Ban. Spartaz Humbug! 17:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Galassi
Galassi has a history of reverts at Vladimir Putin [233] without any talkpage participation [234]. There has recently been a lot of tension in that article, to which Galassi has significantly contributed by performing 4 WP:NINJA-style reverts in recent days, without any explanation, much less discussion, whatsoever: [235] No explanation, no reasoning, no discussion, just blanket reverts. Considering the tension and the ongoing discussions at the talkpage, this kind of drive-by reverting is counterproductive and highly disruptive. Galassi has been asked to participate in the talkpage during a previous reverting spree [239] (his response: [240]) and the current one [241], to no avail. This user has a troubled history regarding Eastern-European topics, having been blocked for edit-warring many times [242], and indefinitely topic-banned from Ukraine [243]. In fact, this recent revert could be construed as a violation of his topic ban [244]. It appears this user is uninterested in constructive discussion and has learned nothing from his past behavior, pointing to long-term disruption in this topic area. A broadening of his topic ban to include Vladimir Putin may be in order.
Discussion concerning GalassiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Galassi
Statement by (username)Result concerning Galassi
|
| Semitransgenic is topic-banned indefinitely from pages and content related to genetically modified organisms, broadly construed. Spartaz Humbug! 11:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Semitransgenic
The main issue with Semitransgenic is their habit of personal attacks. I'll let the quoted statements above speak for themselves where a focus on cocks, ass, and shit is becoming a hallmark of Semitransgenic's comments. I'd rather not return here so shortly after a previous enforcement case, but this has become a chronic problem. As shown in the previous sanctions section, they were previously blocked for this exact same kind of behavior at the ArbCom case, and had that block extended when they continued the attacks on their talk page through the appeal process. This is just a return to that behavior. This is the last kind of editor we need in a volatile topic like this, and they've already been blocked for this by ArbCom. Warnings and blocks obviously have not helped. The only option at this point seems to be a topic-ban where the DS currently apply. As a side note, uninvolved admins such as Spartaz have commented on a peanut gallery problem with recent GMO enforcement cases where other editors try to vehemently encourage or excuse problem editors when they are only a particular "side". I'd ask that admins be mindful of this issue if this case turns out like previous ones even though editors have been warned about the peanut gallery problem. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 01:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SemitransgenicStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SemitransgenicEarlier incidents aside (which were addressed by offended parties on each occasion), maybe focus on the latest issue, the context being: There is an ongoing, protracted, and somewhat circular discussion about a single sentence (which, we should probably note, involves the listing editor). I merely suggested that it might actually be more constructive to improve the main content and then address the sentence. I noted that Tryptofish (a doctor of biotechnology), could perhaps help us address the glaringly inadequacies in the main body of the text [265] [266]. Trypto, despite the apparent expertise, felt that these content issues were something they couldn’t see. I find this kind of editing disingenuous, but I accept my response was inappropriate. Note Trypto left a warning, and that was that.There are valid points to be raised about the manner in which certain editors are approaching content building in the GMO domain, but perhaps they need to be communicated more effectively, so let me make this real easy. Semitransgenic talk. 18:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Suggestion by Shock Brigade Harvester BorisThis is a cut-and-dried case of WP:NPA etc. that doesn't necessarily bear on AE. Therefore you can bring this to WP:ANI, where it will be acted upon much faster than the glacial pace of this board. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by SunriseIt may be worth noting that Semitransgenic has a long history of personal attacks in this topic area, in addition to the comments that led to blocks. For example, I'm reminded of this series of edits [267] [268] [269] from August 2013 (which I remember because I redacted them, though I didn't act further at the time). Of course, these aren't directly relevant today and this was long before DS were introduced, but I think it should be established that this isn't just a recent pattern. Sunrise ( talk) 19:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by TryptofishI'm late to get here, but I agree entirely with what other editors are already saying. I find Semitransgenic's response here to be highly un-self-aware. I think that KingofAces43 and Sunrise have summarized everything that I could have thought to say, and expressed it quite well. And I think that EdJohnston and Spartaz have analyzed the situation exactly right. The retirement is not binding, and a topic ban is necessary. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Semitransgenic
|
| An IPv4 editor has been blocked three days, an IPv6 has been warned for violation of the 500/30 rule on ARBPIA articles. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning 2604:2000:f20e:2800:7135:8c2:c554:2169
This IP began the edit war editing with 104.162.193.17. Both IP addresses did the same edits and one of them gave me inappropriate warnings by copying my warnings on his talk page and pasting them on my talk page. This is not the first time I have been involved in a edit conflict with such IP addresses. Last time was in December and the administrators intervened quickly were it was blocked for one year after a 3-month block. I think it may be the same editor who edit Wikipedia by evading the block. Apart from this differences of numerous edits, It keeps tracking me by insisting that Liwa Al-Quds is an Islamist organization even though their Ideology is Pro-Baathism with no source mentioning that the are Islamist only because the article states they are mostly Sunni Palestinians from Al Nayrab refugee camp.-- Opdire657 ( talk) 14:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 2604:2000:f20e:2800:7135:8c2:c554:2169Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Darkfrog24I had a good paragraph ready about the two-way POV pushing in this article and possible solutions and a request for diffs of this edit war, but user:RolandR has pointed out here [271] that anon2604 is in violation of the 500/30 rule, which covers all anonymous editing. Tell this user to establish an account and come back after thirty days of editing. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 17:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by RolandRThis user also appears to be editing from IP 104.162.193.17, which has been making the same, or very similar, edits [272] [273] [274] to the same range of articles, and continues despite being repeatedly warned. [275] [276] RolandR ( talk) 16:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Sir JosephSome of the categories added by the IP are correct, for example Arab Terrorism in Israel, and Terrorist Organizations, and as I pointed out a few times to RolandR, not every action of an IP editor NEEDS to be reverted. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning 2604:2000:f20e:2800:7135:8c2:c554:2169
|
- This person appears to be back again, editing now from IP
2604:2000:F20E:2800:383B:D996:29E3:9D62
RolandR (
talk) 00:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- And from IP
2604:2000:F20E:2800:303A:E966:A2B4:6C0D.
RolandR (
talk) 00:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Admin Coffee has now blocked both. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- And from IP
2604:2000:F20E:2800:303A:E966:A2B4:6C0D.
RolandR (
talk) 00:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
| Catflap08 blocked for a week for breaching their topic ban. Hijiri88 reminded that reporting TBAN vios is a breach of their IBAN and instructed to stop following Catflap's edits. Spartaz Humbug! 13:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Catflap08
Not applicable
The demonstrably false claim to having "retired" (his fifth or sixth in the last year) and continuing to accuse other users of "white-washing" without providing evidence are also concerning, but don't need to be dealt with because the posts themselves were clear-cut TBAN-violations and merit blocks.
Discussion concerning Catflap08Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Catflap08I am quite unsure if I should laugh or cry … maybe both. I asked this [ [278]] which was moved to EAR and I was told in an email by what seems an admin to either seek the talk page (which due to the ban I refrain from doing) or turn to the Tea House. So asking questions about an edit is a violation of the TBAN???? This gets better every time. So let me get this right. I am not allowed to edit issues on Nichiren Buddhism. Fair enough. I do see an edit which in my eyes is highly problematic, I then go on asking on how to proceed, making clear that sanctions were imposed and I am advised to turn to the talk page (or Tea House) and THIS may be seen as violation a ban in itself??? Me making clear in my request that due to a ban I am asking for advice on how to proceed?? Maybe I should have made an edit, or a request, as a sock or unregistered user instead then?? So if I am prohibited to ask questions please let me know. Furthermore I do have the inkling I am watched closer by a certain individual than I would have thought. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 19:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
[Moved here from the result section - William M. Connolley ( talk)]
May I add that in the very start of discussion nearly two years ago a person threatened me to get me blocked? That person has succeeded in doing so even though inflicted with a ban himself now. That very person now brings up all this as a result of me asking a question on how to report an issue that worries me as I find that bad faith edits have taken place. Bad faith edits on a subject that I care about, a subject that I was told to have had an impartial input, a subject that is on the fringe and now yet again being invaded by adherents of a “cult”. I stayed clear form editing the lemma on the cult in question in general – and sought to add references as much as I could, references published, references that appear to be reliable on the subject that I have been banned from. And let me be clear that I do not suspect that person to be a member of that cult. This person in my books seems to have severe mental issues for this is HOUNDING. Go ahead and get me blocked from whatever, I walk away from all this, keeping in mind that I worked on a contentious subject anyway and that advocates of a certain cult get their way in the long run. I was threatened elsewhere on the internet for hinting at published information with legal action. The person who started all this, most probably unaware of doing so, has made himself an accomplice of that cult. Well done you all. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 17:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by IvanvectorJust pointing out that Catflap08 and Hijiri88 are subject to a two-way interaction ban. I think this report meets the WP:BANEX conditions, but thought it should be noted. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 14:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Looie496Both editors are in violation. Catflap08 is clearly in violation of the topic ban, and pretty clearly did not understand its scope. Hijiri88 violates both Arbcom-imposed topic bans by filing this report, and also violates the interaction ban with Catflap08 (which however is not an Arbitration ban). This report does not fall within the scope of BANEX, since Catflap08's actions, although violations, do not have any impact on anything Hijiri88 is permitted to edit. Looie496 ( talk) 16:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by AlbinoFerretIt appears that Looie496 is 100% correct. I took part in this Arbcom as an uninvolved party. Hijiri88 is himself subject to the same ban as Catflap08. Reporting a violation in the topic area of another editor is a topic ban violation. As it doesnt impact Hijiri88 in any way because he is topic banned in the area. BANEX provides no excuse for the report here in an area Hijiri88 is banned from, and so it violates the topic ban. What is even more troubling, is that after dozens of noticeboard sections, an IBAN and an Arbcom case Hijiri88 is still watching and yes hounding Catflap08, watching their every move in order to pounce. While Catflap08 has violated the topic ban and should receive some sanction, Hijiri88's behaviour in this shows that he still doesnt get it and a stronger sanction should be given to him. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Hijiri88, I seek no IBAN with anyone, this page is open to community members. My commenting on this section is not some dark plan to find you, I have replied to quite a few sections here in the last few months that had nothing to do with you. I dont even edit in the topic, and have not edited any articles you have edited. But will go into greater detail. Hijiri88 is under the same Topic ban as Catflap08. This includes all noticeboard sections dealing with the topic. Starting a noticeboard section dealing with edits in the topic is a Topic ban violation. The exceptions are found in WP:BANX, none cover edits that the editor is not involved in. This is not vandalism, a violation of the IBAN between Hijiri88 and Catflap08, a clarification of the scope of his ban, or an appeal of his ban. The main issue in this whole disaster of noticeboard sections, Arbcom, and now here is these two editors just cant get along, nor leave each other alone. Its endless. While Arbcom didnt place the IBAN, they acknowledged it in the final decision. There may be a excuse for the IBAN violation, I am not really convinced there is as Hijiri88 didnt come across this during normal editing, he couldnt have, he is topic banned. The only way to find them is following an editor he has an IBAN with. But there is no excuse for the topic ban violation of starting a section here dealing with edits in a topic he is banned from. AlbinoFerret 04:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC) @Thryduulf I think that warnings have already been issued. Numerous sections on other noticeboards failed to stop any of this ongoing problem, thats why it went to arbcom. I want to point out that Dennis Brown gave a more or less final warning to Hijiri88 here [279]. That says "If either editor pushes the boundaries of incivility, bludgeons a discussion, violates WP:IDHT, acts in a disruptive manner on any talk page, or breaching any other policy that makes editing miserable for other editors, then either myself or another admin should simply block for a minimum of 72 hours, with rapidly escalating blocks. It doesn't matter if there is another party that is equally guilty.". I think that covers starting a noticeboard section about another editor on a topic he is banned from, where the only way he has the knowledge of the edits is following an editor with whom he has an IBAN with. AlbinoFerret 13:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC) @EdJonston But no one to my knowledge told Hijiri88 to start the ARCA section that is basically the same, and deals with the same edits. [280] If the AE is excused because he was told to come here, that excuse does not apply to ARCA. AlbinoFerret 19:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianThis is a pretty simple TBAN violation, so that part is easy. Regarding Hijiri88, it was not a good idea for them to file this complaint. Let's forget the language of BANEX for a moment, which anyway does not accept this exception. Let's look at the spirit of the IBAN and TBAN. The idea was for the two users to avoid each other and avoid the topic area. This request clearly violates the spirit. As to Hijiri's worry about "setting a precedent", that is unfounded. Just because a particular "crime" is unreported and unpunished in a particular instance does not make it ok in the future. That said, I do not support any sanctions against Hijiri88, just an advice to them to leave this alone. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by L235Thought I should mention here that I've now archived the ARCA filing about this. For the Committee – Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Cullen328
Statement by Curly Turkey
Statement by (username)Result concerning Catflap08
|
| CometEncke blocked as an obviously returning user editing controversial areas who refused to reveal their previous editing history. Spartaz Humbug! 17:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Athenean
In addition to the personal attacks themselves, I believe the failure to strike them upon explicit request should be an issue. User:Volunteer Marek explicitly asked User:Athenean to strike his personal attacks [285] [286]. Yet they are still present on the talk page. Additionally, User:Athenean has continued to edit both the talk page and article after Marek and I requested that he strike the attacks [287] , and even after receiving the template, and I seconded Marek's request. [288] However, he has not struck them.
Discussion concerning AtheneanStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AtheneanStatement by Hijiri88You are supposed to specifically link the restriction that was violated, not just the ArbCom case page. Scrolling down, I don't see any restriction or remedy being placed on Athenean during the case. Are you asking for the decision to be amended to place some form of restriction on him/her? Because I'm pretty sure this is not the place for that. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by CometEncke@Spartaz You are correct, I am not a new user. I have good reasons for my WP:FS. I have got to say that the word "benefit" does not accurately describe what is happening or has happened. The true situation is quite the opposite, as this very discussion shows. Your lack of trust of that is understandable, as I know the history, and you don't. I will say that I did not start this account with an eye to ending up here this quickly. What happened is that I was new to the Putin article, genuinely new. I came to the talk page, took a look at it, and was frankly horrified by the level of rancour I saw, not to mention the article itself, which was an abomination. I've been involved in several contentious discussions on US related issues. The level of rancour we see at the Putin article was simply absent. Additionally, I would note that Eastern Europe issues are not, and never have been, my primary editing interest. Even from my limited history, the truth of that should be obvious. I am not going to give up my privacy in order to stop someone's personal attacks. If you have to dismiss this complaint on that basis, so be it. Quite frankly, I would not have continued to make this complaint here if the user had not come to my talk page with the insinuating questions that he did, as I linked above. Could you then ask yourself, really ask yourself, whether what is happening to me is then a "benefit" or a "handicap"? In in either case, how long will I have it? Lastly, I just want to point to the way I have dealt with some other people whose edits had room for improvement, but were not making personal attacks. [290] CometEncke ( talk) 16:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC) @Hijiri, where did I edit war? I only intended to add it once, and when I look at my contribs, I only see one addition. Am I missing something? CometEncke ( talk) 16:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC) And where on Athenean's talk page did I do something inflammatory? Obviously I am missing something, but what? @People dismissing this because I'm going to keep my privacy, fine, I actually don't mind. But I do want to ask one question -- for how long am I going to have this handicap? And to put up with posts like the first three I linked in my complaint, all of which were in fact directed at me? Because that's actually becoming a routine event. [291] CometEncke ( talk) 16:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Desperate plea by Shock Brigade Harvester BorisI rarely agree with User:CometEncke but the larger point he makes is spot on. The atmosphere at Vladimir Putin (the article in question) is beyond toxic. Regardless of the merits of this particular case, or of User:CometEncke's status, could we please, please, pretty please with Nutella on top have some admins monitor that article? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 16:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Athenean
|
| Darkfrog24 is blocked indefinately until they either understand the terms of the tban or agree to stop disruptively relitigating it. Spartaz Humbug! 23:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Darkfrog24
Topic ban from the Manual of Style and manual of style related topics [292], placed under the DS authority given by WP:ARBATC.
After asking (yet again) for clarification of their topic ban on my talk page and I replied. Their response has been to extensively justify why they are right to fight about quotation styles, discussing sources relating to quotation styles, and commenting about the motives of others. e.g.
All contained in [293]
I've been trying to respond to their persistent requests for clarification of the topic ban in good faith, but at this point I'm starting to see it as a tactic to try and continue participating in the topic area.
Discussion concerning Darkfrog24Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Darkfrog241. I am explicitly allowed to ask the enforcing administrator questions about the topic ban. Thryduulf is one of the enforcing administrators. 2. Here's what happened: The complaints made against me were over 10,000 words long and contained dozens of different alleged offenses, ranging from arguable to ridiculous to provably false. I'd always figured that the admins considered some of them merited but not others, but no one ever explicitly stated which ones. Earlier this week, it occurred to me that I didn't know exactly what I did that inspired the admins to issue and then expand the topic ban, so I asked. [296] I did so so that I could spend the next eleven months putting my efforts where they would address the underlying problem, whether that was a new talk page MO, new editing style, etc. Thryduulf took the time to answer. To my surprise, the first item on his list was something that I hadn't done, [297] the claim that I'd made a "bogus" ENGVAR case. I immediately provided proof that I had not in fact invented the ENGVAR issue and that a related accusation, campaigning in the article space, was also therefore false. [298] I provided this information solely within the context of discussing the ban, not to "justify why I'm right" but to prove that some of the accusations made against me were false:
My take: If any part of a topic ban's scope, duration or time until appeal is even partially attributable to something that is provably untrue, then talking to an enforcing admin about it is not only allowable but actively good. If this is an issue for some other time or forum, then redirect me. I'm not going to pretend that being topic banned has been easy. A great deal seems counterintuitive. All I can say about my previous violations is that they were unintentional and I've followed every rule that I found out about. As for questions, there are two ways to find out what's expected of me: 1) ask and 2) watch this page for months to see what's interpreted as a violation. I've done the first and am doing the second. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Before any final decision is made, I'd like to quote WP:BANEX: Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Both finding out exactly why I was banned and providing relevant factual corrections are legitimate concerns, and if a talk page discussion with the enforcing editor isn't the appropriate forum, then direct me elsewhere. If Thryduulf is tired of answering my questions, that's his or her prerogative, but I do need the answers from somewhere. I can only learn about Thryduulf's thought process from Thryduulf, but for anything else, I could ask anyone who knows the answer. From the beginning, I have viewed making the best of this topic ban as an active project worthy of my time and energy. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 22:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Darkfrog24
|
Belated comment for the record: That ping didn't work for whatever reason, and I was completely unaware any of this was happening. But I would not have had much to say other than I'm disappointed it came to this; I took pains to try to discourage a block being the result, ever since this matter came to a head in Jan. I'm not even offended that DF24 continues to blame and accuse me; people get angry. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
| No action taken Spartaz Humbug! 11:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Arminden
The page involved, Daniel Seaman has devolved into Wikipedia:Attack page, and has far too long stood as one long WP:COATRACK in violation of basic WP:BLP (and also has basic WP:MOS issues the editor is not abiding by).
[300] (had also requested that the user self-rv, to no avail [301])
Discussion concerning ArmindenStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ArmindenSorry, I thought I'm to stay out of this until the arbiters figure it out based on the plain facts, which are out there for anyone to see. Statement by SepsisPlot Spoiler deleted large parts of the page three times in 24 hours. Three different editors each reverted him. I have never edited the page but I would also have reverted Plot Spoiler's edits if I had been there. Does Plot Spoiler think WP:ARE exists to block editors he disagrees with while he can revert an unlimited number of times without consequence? Sepsis II ( talk) 23:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000Here is what happened on that page, all within one 24-hour period:
If the 17:24 edit was a revert (about which I'm not sure), Arminden violated 1RR. The boomerang against Plot Spoiler is much clearer: 3 reverts in 24 hours. As well as that, Plot Spoiler is far too experienced to not know that the Speedy Delete process is not intended for getting rid of long-standing articles that you don't like. In my opinion, that first edit is actionable by itself. Arminden is very knowledgeable about Middle East archaeology and his edits there have been an invaluable contribution to the encyclopedia. Why he made an exception to his usual practice for this article, I don't know. I can't think of anything positive to write about Plot Spoiler. Zero talk 01:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC) @ Laser brain:, @ Number 57:, Plot Spoiler's 6 consecutive edits deleted text that had been inserted less than 24 hours before. How on earth can that not be a revert? What is a revert if that isn't? I'm totally flabbergasted. Zero talk 01:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani
I think the whole diff record of reverts should be examined impartially, and, if IR infractions are evidenced (I won't evaluate Arminden's since I am notoriously bad at the finer distinctions of IR), the appropriate sanctions be applied. It would be appropriate to examine who knows exactly what these rules require in editors walking into the I/P minefield. Ignorance is no excuse, but long experience in the area, which Plot Spoiler has, leading to the kind of blanking and edit-warring against other editors shouldn't exempt him from scrutiny. This place should not lend itself to tactical abuse, as appears to be the case with Plot Spoiler's failure to observe 2 hours self-restraint period he promised for Arminden to allow the latter understand the nature of his own claim, and respond. Nishidani ( talk) 16:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by AnotherNewAccountArminden is an excellent editor, but he does seem to have a total bee-in-his-bonnet over this individual. The History clearly shows him reverting IPs, rightly or wrongly, with some pretty ranty and incollegiate edit summaries over a long period of time. Too numerous to list them all, but here is a few: [302] [303], these two verge on WP:OWN: [304] [305] He is also the author of much of the "problematic" negative material, see here: [306] [307]; E.M.Gregory subsequently drive-by tagged the page for POV: [308]. I see this as a more of an ARBBLP issue, rather than an ARBPIA violation, and in all honesty, Plot Spoiler has a point when he notes severe NPOV and BLP issues here. I can only recommend that Arminden be banned from editing this particular article if he cannot do so with due neutrality; he's otherwise an superb editor in every way. The article itself should also probably be referred to the neutral point of view noticeboard. Administrators should take note that Arminden edits the topic with extremely and perhaps naively good faith. He is in fact probably the only editor in the entire topic area for whom it has been impossible to fathom which "side" he favours. This is both rare and valuable. AnotherNewAccount ( talk) 17:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy@ Number 57:: I'm not sure how you come up with PS only having made one revert. Any blanking of an article or section is by definition a revert. A revert is any edit that reverses, in part or in whole, another editors edits. Blanking reverses another editor(s) edits in the most basic sense. The blanking of the article by itself is the first revert, each additional edit that blanked a section is also a revert. PS did not simply "tag the page for deletion". This is the first revert, this is the second revert, and this is the third. nableezy - 18:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Result concerning Arminden
|
| No action taken. EdJohnston ( talk) 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Markus2685
Something weird is going on at AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khojaly massacre memorials and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khojaly Massacre recognition. 6 new accounts popped up in a quick succession to make similar comments and votes. Looks like an attempt at votestacking by using sock accounts. I have a reason to suspect that it is the nominator himself, and checkuser results seem to indicate that it could be so. But an admin needs to make the judgment call, and since it is an arbitration covered area, the discretionary sanctions may apply. Grand master 19:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Markus2685Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Markus2685As far as I know there is the possibility of checking IPs of users on Wikipedia. If done so, you would have seen that my account is not the same. So this is a false assumption on behalf of user Grandmaster. Basically anyone endorsing my arguments that I stated could have opened accounts copying my statements and that's it. For example anyone can create accounts, copying user Grandmasters arguments, and then I could accuse Grandmaster of creating sockpuppets. As I already mentioned these accounts (at least some of them) also seem weird to me, so just block them and problem solved. Markus2685 ( talk) 19:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Markus2685
|
| Not action taken. Spartaz |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Konullu
Konullu is violating his topic ban. He has done this twice already, and has been blocked for it.
{{ ping}} what about all the other topic ban violations? Should we go ahead and revert those too? -- Երևանցի talk 12:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning KonulluStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by KonulluI thought that my topic ban did not apply to AFDs. Sincerely, Konullu ( talk) 20:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by GrandmasterIt's been 3 years since the topic ban, with no misconduct. Konullu should probably appeal his ban, and his vote in AFD, while formally a ban violation, is not in my opinion a severe disruption. Grand master 22:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Konullu
|
| No enforcement action is necessary at this time. Coffee |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Malik_Shabazz
As Spartaz has now hatted all the comments above, I have copied all the hatted comments here in order to save time. (If the above request gets archived before this one is done, it will be a pain moving back and forth to track comments) As Nishidani has struck out my copy of his previous comments I assume he is retracting them in full. Essentially as with his desysop previously, Malik has shown no remorse and no intention to abide by wikipedia's editing and collegiality policies. While there may have been some mitigating circumstances previously, there is absolutely no excuse for threatening to go to the press if you dont get your own way. As Malik on his talkpage and ANI has refused to withdraw his comments, it must be taken that his threat is genuine. So while a ban under discretionary sanctions from American Politics might solve the immediate problem, unless he retracts his threat how is any editor supposed to edit in the same area as him with that sort of threat hanging over them? That if you dont agree with them, they are going to go to the press and smear you.
Discussion concerning Malik_ShabazzStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Malik_ShabazzSince the flavor of the day is quoting walls of text, here's my post from yesterday at WP:AN/I:
Torven, if you think editors are engaging in behavior that casts aspersions on the project, stop them. I've tried, but nobody seems to give a fuck. Wikipedia's moronic and self-important double standard concerning Jews is perfectly embodied by this edit, which changed the phrase "celebrated his bar mitzvah in 1954" to "became a bar mitzvah in 1954" with the edit summary "we don't know if he celebrated it". I look forward to editors changing the word "celebrate" to "commemorate" or "mark" throughout Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources indicating that the individuals involved were, in fact, celebrating. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 18:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by NishidaniSaying one will notify the press of one's personal view Wikipedia discriminates in its treatment of Jewish as opposed to Christian (politicians) is not a threat. One Jewish editor has already been banned in this context. Highly respected editors and admins who self-identify as Jewish such as
Cullen Statement by Starke HathawayGiven that the previous instance of intemperance from Shabazz (which I can't link here because it has been revdeled but which is detailed in Ceradon's statement here) also involved inappropriate comments about another editor in relation to being Jewish, I wonder if it might be appropriate for him to step back from Jewish topics generally. -Starke Hathaway ( talk) 15:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Guy MaconShould I withdraw the ANI report to avoid a duplicate discussion? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by TorvenIt may not be a legal threat, but the "or else" of any ultimatum is always a threat of some kind. In this case, it's a threat to cast aspersions about the project and, by extension, several involved users in the press. Even if No Legal Threats doesn't apply, it should qualify as a threat of off-wiki harassment. Torven ( talk) 16:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by NableezyThe idea that "going to the press" is a threat to "smear" somebody or is a threat of "off-wiki harassment" is preposterous. Somebody wants to write something here they can take responsibility for their actions. If somebody would be embarrassed by their own actions if they were reported, well then perhaps they should have considered their actions more carefully prior to committing them. Maybe Malik should have just gone to the press without telling anybody here that he would, but that seems a bit underhanded and underhandedness doesnt seem to be Malik's strong suit. If yall so confident in your actions why exactly are you concerned about them being reported? Statement by James J. LambdenIt's clear this is an effort by some editors to brand Sanders with a digital star of David. This kind of attack is extremely upsetting. I'll be forwarding my summary along with the usernames of editors who continue to pursue this to the ADL who no doubt WILL take action. This is perfectly acceptable and not a threat. James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Malik's problematic edits
@Drmies If I end up banned for pointing out antisemitism I will notify the press. This is not a threat. James J. Lambden ( talk) 08:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by SoftlavenderI'm personally concerned on a couple of accounts: (1) That a user who until August 2015 was one of the most remarkably civil and patient of editors, not to mention admins, is repeating nearly the sort of hostility that got him desysopped and caused him to retire. (2) That I can't figure out what has caused this personality change, and because of my admiration and love for him, I hope is not something serious off-wiki. (3) That the "battleground" at issue is something rather COI-ish, in that Malik is Jewish, which COI does not reflect well on him considering his behavior and his level of hostility on this subject matter re: the Sanders issue. (4) That he has repeatedly (in edit summaries and in posts) called Guy Macon a troll. Guy Macon is a lot of things, and can often be very frustrating (especially if one does not agree with him), but he is not a troll and should never be called one. (Wikipedia discussion should proceed on logic and policy, not on insults and ad hominem attacks.) I find all these developments very worrying. I want my old Malik Shabazz back. I want peace and civility to reign, regardless of whether Wikipedia consensus agrees with my/someone's/anyone's personal viewpoint or preference. I recommend an admonishment here but no action. Softlavender ( talk) 05:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC); edited 07:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Curly Turkey@ Laser brain: I provided a link. Did you follow it? These aren't "losing his cool" when he digs in his heels like that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I second Masem's suggestion, which I'm surprised isn't already policy or something—Wikipedia can't seriously tolerate threats of this nature. What's doubly disturbing is that so many seem to want this slide "because it's Malik". Obviously not too many Wikipedians would have gotten away with this behaviour. If I made such a threat, which I have remained unblocked? How many commenters here would believe an admin who answered "yes" to that question? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My KenFor me, this is not really about Malik Shabazz. I have nothing bad to say about Malik as an editor, I always thought he was a good admin, and his de-sysopping was an aberration, but if this incident is allowed to go by without something being done about it – not a sanction, not a block or topic ban, but at the very least a formal warning – then it opens the door for every Wikipedian who feels as strongly about their religion/ethnicity/nationality/gender/sexuality/neural state/fraternal organization/whatever as Malik does about being Jewish to say "DO X ABOUT Y OR I"M GOING TO THE PRESS", and that is simply an untenable situation. It creates a terrible precedent that has the potential of crippling certain controversial subject areas even more so then they are already.In my best Cassandra manner let me say: if you don't deal with it now, you're going to be dealing with much worse instances in the future - and, let's face it, if it wasn't Malik, you would be dealing with it – and that's understandable, but very, very unfortunate.At least that's how I see it, but I know I'm swimming upstream. BMK ( talk) 19:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by MrXThe statements by James J. Lambden, Beyond My Ken, and few others capture my thoughts perfectly. Drmies, your comments are so nonsensical it leaves me wondering whether you were drunk when you wrote them, or if you're just trolling. @ Malik Shabazz: I used to have lot of respect for you, before you decided to co-opt Wikipedia to right great wrongs.- Mr X 21:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by MasemAgreeing with Beyond My Ken that this isn't presently an issue ArbCom should handle. Instead, I would think that the community should develop a companion to No Legal Threats based on "No Third-Party Threats" that are intended to prevent claims of going to an external entity to try to enact change on WP. Whether that is going to the press, claiming to engage an external forum, meatpuppets, etc., all have the intent of chilling speech, typically the same intent that a legal threat has. These aren't as actionable as legal threats (eg there's nothing legally wrong going to the press), hence must be handled differently, but there behavior issues that should be strongly discouraged and captured in some policy. -- MASEM ( t) 21:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by IrondomeI can only thoroughly concur with Nish's statement upthread. This is a complex issue which is being addressed by consensual discussion amongst colleagues who identify as Jewish and have differing views on cultural and cognitive concepts of that definition. I have my own views on this, but I am seeing a hugely respected and wise human being being again harassed, I believe unwittingly, on the heels of a deeply problematic dysopping, which has had significant emotional impact on Malik. He was trolled and goaded, and yet he had the courage to return and continue to support the project despite his evident distress. It would be wise and kind to back off and leave a fine editor to regain his equilibrium. Simon. Irondome ( talk) 02:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Malik_Shabazz
|
| User:Sir Joseph's appeal of the one-week topic ban from Bernie Sanders is declined. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||
Statement by Sir JosephOn the talk page there are a few editors who are stubbornly refusing to allow "Relgion:Jewish" in the infobox of Bernie Sander's article even though it is thoroughly sourced through reliable sources and self soured as well. A few editors then came up with a new policy that says that it has to come from Bernie's own mouth, as per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Religion. Firstly, that is not a infobox policy, that is a categorization policy, but even so, the page says right on the top: "guideline,... best treated with common sense...and occasional exceptions..." When a Senator has a press kit on the SENATE.GOV's website we may treat that as his own words. That being said, I still found an article that had Sanders, IN HIS OWN WORDS, say, "I am proud to be Jewish." So I added that to the article as per the talk page. Since the entire talk page consensus was that Bernie's Jewishness could only be included only if he said it himself, here's an article that said it himself and I thought we can put this stupid matter to rest. Those editors opposing the inclusion of the Jewish reference, blindly ignoring all the evidence of his Jewishness, are requiring Bernie saying he is Jewish in his own words. So I found an article that said he is Jewish and proud of it. That is all Wikipedia should be doing. What these editors want to do is now determine level of observance and that is not what the infobox or what Wikipedia is all about. We don't do it for other religions and we shouldn't start doing it for Jews.
Statement by CoffeeI have nothing to add to what I've already stated at my talk page, the article's talk page, and in the sanction at Sir Joseph's talk page. (Unless this is somehow unclear to other uninvolved admins... which I doubt.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Guy MaconSir Joseph is in violation of his topic ban.
Sir Joseph has made six edits on other pages since my request that he self-revert [330] [331] [332] [333] [334] [335] and has been informed of the ban on talk page comments by several people, yet has not self-reverted. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Malik Shabazz
Statement by Curly Turkey
Statement by Winkelvi
It should be noted Sir Joseph has continued to discuss the Sanders article here and here, in spite of and in violation of his topic ban. Obviously, he doesn't take the TBAN seriously or care that it exists. Since his violation of the ban is pretty much being ignored, I have to wonder if admins who have commented take it seriously, too. Not trying to cause problems, but, really? Why is he being allowed to continue in this manner? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sir JosephStatement by Darkfrog24At first this looks like just a content dispute, but according to Coffee's official notice, Sir J was sanctioned for failing to get consensus before adding disputed content. [338] And Sir J seems to be saying "Even though I didn't wait for the other editors to say 'okay' on the talk page, I did find exactly what they asked for, so I shouldn't be topic-banned." Is that correct? As for content, I've been in a similar situation and it is very frustrating, but editors don't always say what it is that they really want (or they don't list all their reasons). What worked in my case was that a neutral party came in, figured out what the additional issue was, and then we ran a clearly worded RfC that addressed that issue directly. In that case, the other editors were asking for reliable sources, but the additional issue was the subjective editorial decision of whether the content improved the article. I didn't understand why no matter how many sources I found they still weren't happy. Once we were able to deal with these matters separately, things proceeded in a quick and civilized fashion. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 18:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC) EDIT: Okay, I went through the RfC thread and I don't see any clear version of "Just find us a reliable source that says X and we're fine with the addition." Rather, the discussion focuses on ethnic vs. religious Judaism, on participation and on whether Sanders' Jewish status is notable. Maybe Sir J found what one or two of the many participants said they wanted, and props for the legwork, but that's not enough to reasonably assume that most of the participants would be satisfied. (Also, Spacklick seems to be addressing the editorial issue directly.) Darkfrog24 ( talk) 18:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by SMcCandlish"Jewish" has multiple meanings. It's original research to label someone as professing a religious faith when they may simply be commenting on part of their ethnic background. There are lots of agnostic/atheist Jews, and so on. So, it doesn't matter how many places he says he's proud to be Jewish, it has no impact on the infobox parameter unless and until we have him saying he's religiously Jewish. And that is probably something that should be a self-statement, for a BLP, especially one subjected to racist and faith-based slurs from Christian rednecks and the like. E.g., if Fox News claims he goes to synagogue, that's not a reliable source. An infobox religion parameter is a very blunt instrument. What Sanders's "Jewishness" entails, to the extent it's even encyclopedic, is a matter best explored in the article body, like the "Irishness" of various individuals in certain parts of that island in various time periods, and so on. Not every group label is a cut-and-dry matter. I don't see any recognition of this complexity and nuance on the part of the appellant, just a certainty that a great wrong is being done by not putting the word "Jewish" into that slot in the infobox. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Only in Death
In reply to JamesBWatson - His PR presspack (which was available on the website) listed his religion as 'Jewish'. -ninja edit- Appears to still be available on right hand side via 'download press package' button. If there were no contradictory sources, as a primary source this would usually be enough. However when the subject themselves also states they are not religious it gets a bit murkier. Its just not clear cut enough for a definitive infobox statement. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by JamesBWatson
Statement by MaunusI second SmCandlish's statement. The argument for putting the label in the religion slot, ignores the fact that unlike the word "Christian" the word "Jewish" is polysemic and does not only refer to religion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by IvanvectorIs this section meant to be broken up by sub-headers? No matter I guess. Sir Joseph is clearly in violation of his topic ban, I mean there can be no question, this entire appeal is continuing to discuss Bernie Sanders, the topic that Sir Joseph is banned from. I expect to see appeals in the form, "this topic ban is invalid because <evidence the ban rationale was incorrect>" or some such. For example, Sir Joseph could argue that
Coffee was mistaken and SJ actually didn't add contentious information Was there consensus for the edit? The large, open RfC on the talk page suggests not. It's still open, of course, but I think it's a pretty big leap to say it's going to close as support. So there's no consensus. Did Sir Joseph edit war to add the edit? He sure did. Not to mention that these edits came while the matter was still being hotly contested on the talk page, he ought to have known, sourced or not, that these edits would be contentious. Was Sir Joseph aware of the discretionary sanctions? I find it hard to believe that anybody edits in topic areas like these without knowing about the WP:BLP policy and related DS, but just in case he also missed the editnotice, there's this warning on his talk page. Is the blocking administrator WP:INVOLVED? No reason has been given as to why Coffee should be considered involved here, and I can't find one. So I don't see any reason that this ban should be overturned. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 17:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by LizSince you asked the question, JamesBWatson if you go to his About page there is a box that says "PRESS PACKAGE DOWNLOAD (PDF)". If you download this biography, which I assume is official, it states that Sanders religion is "Jewish". I don't think any editor of Wikipedia is qualified to judge how religious Sanders is or what he means by Jewish. It's his self-identification. Any interpretation of this by a Wikipedia editor is pure original research. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by MasemAs only involved in responding to discussion at BLP/N and OR/N, the issue is that while the press kit (which may or may not be authored directly by Sanders) says that, his statements directly recorded by the press as self-identification beg the question of his religion. The press kit is conflicting with his statements to a point where saying "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox may be wrong. It would be OR to try to come to a conclusion either way from these sets of conflicting statements. It's well recognized that what his religious beliefs are is important, but can't be readily summarized in one word. Hence, a solution that I offered at OR/N that seems to have consensus is to have "See (Religion section)" as the entry in the infobox - it doesn't deny he has stated some type of faith, but it is something not readily captured by one or two words. In my eyes, this is the similar practice that we allow people to omit infoboxes from bio articles if they believe the infobox is insufficient for capturing a person in a brief snapshot. -- MASEM ( t) 00:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Darouet
Result of the appeal by Sir Joseph
|
| No action taken. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Jytdog
User is mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
In addition to the above edit which is clearly within the scope of the topic ban, Jytdog has made a number of recent edits to a range of other Bayer-related articles. Per the January 2016 reword of the Discretionary sanctions in the GMO case, companies that produce agricultural chemicals are within the scope of the sanctions, and it could be inferred that this clarification of scope would also apply to topic bans. While the majority of Jytdog's edits here appear to be related to their pharma business, Bayer produces agricultural chemicals and has been involved in the production of, and controversies related to, GMOs ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-01/bayer-to-pay-750-million-to-end-lawsuits-over-genetically-modified-rice example ref). @ Kingofaces43 This filing primarily concerns only one diff, evaluation of which should not pose a undue burden to admins. I reject Kingofaces43’ position that this filing is vexatious. Jytdog writes in his statement that he agrees his edit was a violation of his topic ban. Please provide a link where anyone has told Jytdog that he has ‘been explicitly told it's ok to edit,’ Bayer-related articles. The discussion you link for the statement that 'adding companies to existing topic bans did not pass' shows that there were not enough votes either way. I assume this means arbcom members could still vote to pass it. Dialectric ( talk) 23:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC) @Kingofaces43 , I believe you are reading more into the arbcom motion than is there. There is no explicit statement that it is OK to edit articles about agchem companies. In fact several arbcom members say explicitly 'don't test the boundaries'. An admin could reasonably take a topic ban on agricultural chemicals broadly construed to include those companies which produce agricultural chemicals, whether or not arbcom included wording about companies. Bayer CropScience is more closely related to GMOs, the core of the controversy, than Agent Orange is related to GMOs. If you would like to discuss interpretation of the arbcom decision further, you are welcome to do so on my talk page. Dialectric ( talk) 01:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC) @Jytdog Thank you for reverting the edit to Bayer CropScience Limited. Dialectric ( talk) 23:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC) As Jytdog has reverted his edit, I believe this issue is now resolved. If an uninvolved admin agrees, feel free to close. Dialectric ( talk) 00:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JytdogStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JytdogI was cleaning up articles around Bayer which had a proliferation of articles that had contradictory/overlapping content ( here are my contribs for today), and noted that in my edit note when I redirected this stub to the main Bayer article. There was nearly identical content already in the Bayer article. I see the violation of course, and I reckoned that someone might have a cow over this, but was figuring no one would because it is ... minor... obvious... and it is hard to see why anyone would care or object, I guess. Anyway, no drama - I have reverted the redirect and will leave that piece for someone else. Would have done the same had Dielectric just asked me. But this is for sure a violation and the path to AE was wide open. No argument there. Jytdog ( talk) 21:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Kingofaces43There's no violation here, even technical. Jytdog's topic ban covers at most pesticide related content here. For better or worse, ArbCom made it clear that the current topic bans they handed out do not specifically apply to companies producing pesticides as long as the editor is not editing about topics covered by the ban; specifically adding companies to existing topic bans did not pass. [341] Arbs were pretty clear there that edits on this specific area should be watched closely, but would cautiously be allowed. This has come up a few times at AE now, so Dialectric should know better than to file a case like this when we already have another vexatious GMO filing just above this. Some GMO topic-banned editors have been given admin guidance outside of their ban to stay away from the agricultural company articles entirely because they still couldn't disengage from advocacy for other disruptive behavior. Putting in a redirect for an article that does not even discuss any of the topic ban areas is about as far as you could get from that and is in line with what arbs were allowing. We've discussed admin malaise with GMO AE filings above already. [342] What's starting to become interesting is that most topic-bans by ArbCom and filings that resulted in action at AE have been against editors critical of the scientific consensus on GMOs in some fashion. When those same editors file cases here though, they're often found to be lacking merit or even resulting in a boomerang on the filer. In a case like this were Dialectric is effectively using Jytdog's topic ban to push them out of topics without legitimate reason where they have been explicitly told it's ok to edit, we do need to start clamping down on that behavior. It makes me look like I'm out for blood when I end up calling for a boomerang here so often, so would ask that admins be mindful of this trend we have now (just a glimpse of what us regulars without sanctions have been putting up with) when it comes to assessing filings. I would ask admins that if they see a filing that's tenuous at best, to nip it in the bud with a good look at whether it would serve the topic to take action against the filer. Hopefully that cuts down on the litany GMO filings in the future. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Adv4AgJust my opinion, but I agree with Kingofaces43. I couldn't believe Jytdog was facing another ArbCom after the topic ban, so I had to come take a look. My first thought when I saw the Bayer diff was, "You've got to be kidding. An ArbCom over a simple re-direct?!?" It just seems an awful lot like sour grapes to me. I'm a very infrequent editor, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter, but it sure looks like making a mountain out of a molehill. Adv4Ag ( talk) 23:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by AlbinoFerretArbcom did clarify that editors topic banned in the GMO case could edit pages of companies that produce agracutural chemicals as long as it was not about GMO's or agracutural chemicals. But the edit in question appears to remove GMO information. We find this line | products = [[Environmental science]], [[pesticide]] and [[seeds]] Also this (my bold, but could not bold the last refrence and have it show and be bold), <Bayer CropScience Limited''' is the Indian subsidiary of [[Bayer AG]]. Its head office is located in [[Hiranandani Estate]], [[Thane district]] in [[Maharashtra]], India. Bayer CropScience Limited is a part of Bayer Group (India) and is the only [[public company]] of Bayer Group in India.<ref name="About Bayer">{{cite news|title=About Bayer|publisher=Official website|accessdate=September 2015|url=http://www.bayer.co.in/about_us.php}}</ref><ref name="German polymer major views India as growth driver">{{cite news|title=German polymer major views India as growth driver|publisher=[[Business Standard]]|accessdate=September 2015|url=http://www.business-standard.com/article/b2b-connect/german-polymer-major-covestro-views-india-as-growth-driver-115090300153_1.html}}</ref><ref name="Bayer CropScience buys SeedWorks ">{{cite news|title=Bayer CropScience buys SeedWorks |publisher=[[Business Standard]]|accessdate=September 2015|url=http://www.business-standard.com/content/b2b-chemicals/bayer-cropscience-buys-vegetable-seed-firm-seedworks-india-115060101389_1.html}}</ref> and this catagory. [[Category:Agriculture in India]] This is a clear violation. AlbinoFerret 16:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC) @Tryptofish I would like you remoind you that Prokaryotes was sanctioned in a section on this page dealing with the GMO arbcom case, that you started. @EdJhonston I think your correct that since its been self reverted nothing needs to be done, but a warrning not to violate the ban again may be a good idea. AlbinoFerret 01:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by TryptofishI think that this was, indeed, a violation of the topic ban, and Jytdog should have known better. And I am glad that Jytdog reverted the reference to Dialectric supposedly having "had a cow", because I see Dialectric's filing as good faith. But, much as with numerous other recent AE filings coming out of the GMO case, it was a minor and relatively harmless step over the topic ban boundary, it was self-reverted, and Jytdog has made it clear that he will not repeat it. The other similar AE cases did not result in sanctions, and neither should this one. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JzGThis request shows why there is admin fatigue over the GMO case. A technical infringement, fixed by self-reversion, and no evidence at all of trying to game the system. Why are we even here? This just about rises to the level of "meh". Guy ( Help!) 16:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Jytdog
|
| not actionable. Spartaz Humbug! 23:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Gaijin42
Gaijin42 was topic banned and appealed his ban. In his appeal he gave three examples of the editing he'd do if the ban were lifted. [344] See "example areas of potential work". Of those three areas, he has done no work on two of them. These edits were made in the days immediately following the lifting of his topic ban, when presumably would have been most careful. While this happened six months ago, it was only now discovered. Misreporting what a source says is one of the most pernicious forms of POV pushing, since it may go undetected for so long. This is a case of really, really bad editing. Gaijin42 makes a source say the opposite of what it really said, using an undisclosed source which never would have been acceptable for anything but an attributed opinion. In December Gaijin42 brought an enforcement request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive185#TruthIsDivine - he reported a user who was upset that "fraudulent" material was in a gun ontrol-related article, including material that Gaijin42 restored. [345] He refused to address the substance of the complaint. He later said that the material was, in fact, significantly wrong. Talk:Defensive_gun_use#Pro-gun_fraud_in_this_article [346] So his first recourse was to edit warring and enforcement, rather than listening and dealing with the problem. That is an example of battleground editing. Battleground editing and putting undue weight on issues were among the reasons Gaijin42 was originally topic banned. This editing is of the same type. In re: the somewhat peripheral issue of the Defensive gun use article and user:TruthIsDivine, it appears Gaijin42 contacted Gamaliel off-Wiki at the time. [347] In re: Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act, the article has other POV issues regarding weight and sources that trace back to Gaijin's editing, so I don't think it can be held up as an example of fine editing. However the highlighted edit is the worst. In re: off-wiki contact. There's no way for uninvolved users to know the content of such discussions. This. isn't the basis for the complaint - it just stood out. The basis for this complaint is the misleading editing of a gun control-related article. @ EdJohnston: - In re: "thin complaint" - I've looked further into Gaijin42's recent gun control-related editing. These don't look good either:
These are the types of POV pushing edits that got Gaijin42 topic banned and even blocked before. In re: "boomerang for grasping at straws?" below - Gaijin42 seems to be saying that complaining about his editing is a bannable offense. Since he is on what amounts to probation on this topic, he should expect his edits to be reviewed closely. The fact he made and let stand for six months a horribly misleading and POV edit is not my fault. @ Gamaliel: Gaijin42 leaving the bad edit in place for five months makes it worse, not better, IMO. As for the other edits, someone who appealed for a second chance while giving false claims of what work he'd do, someone who has made less-than-optimal edits across a variety of articles, someone who accepts bad sources and discards good ones, that seems to me like someone who needs to avoid the topic altogether. But you guys are wiser than me, I'm sure. Maybe this time Gaijin42 has learned to avoid outrageously misleading and POV edits in this topic.
Discussion concerning Gaijin42Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Gaijin42The edits in question to the PLCAA article are from Note that even at the time, I specifically drew attention to that edit saying that it could use some NPOV help. (see edit summary) [349] I admit, I should have taken more time to double check that sentence for neutrality and sourcing. But a single sentence 6 months ago, and when challenged I readily admit a problem and do not object to any changing... I'm not sure why everyone's time is being wasted here. Regarding the other matter, a sock
User:TruthIsDivine of a
As the December AE report is at issue, pinging the involved admins at the time @ Gamaliel and Rschen7754: Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Regarding the ygm ping to Gamaliel, note that it was sent AFTER the case was closed. For the record, the message I sent is below. clearly an inappropriate communication. This is approaching WP:HOUND. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC) boomerang for grasping at straws?This is ridiculous. Felsic is grasping at straws on some kind of witch hunt agenda now. You may agree with or disagree with any of the edits or talk page comments listed, but they clearly fall well within the bounds of normal editing and WP:BRD and WP:CON.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Felsic, the main edit in question, I have freely admitted was problematic. I take full responsibility for the issue. But a single edit 5 months ago, that nobody is fighting over is wasting everyone's time. Past that, you are grasping at straws, and frankly misrepresenting the diffs in question in an effort to buttress the one diff that is a problem. (Oh no, I said in a talk page comment I thought a better source might be needed! oh the humanity!) You are clearly reviewing my entire edit history for the past several months and coming up with either completely appropriate edits and talk page comments, or at the worst insignificant issues which occur regularly as part of normal editing process. Either you have a personal agenda against me that I was not aware of, or you need to take a deep breath and rethink the level of nitpicking you are engaging in. This entire debacle could have been (and in fact was) resolved with a simple talk page discussion. Unless you come up with something that truly demands a response, I'm done letting you waste my time. Admins, please close this so we can get on with making an encyclopedia. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Gaijin42
|
| The enforcement action is reversed per consensus among uninvolved administrators. Laser brain (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Volunteer MarekHoly freakin' crap. I make ONE - that's right ONE - revert to the Bernie Sanders page [350] and I am topic banned for a WEEK for "edit warring". Without warning. Without notification. Just "BOOM!" Is this serious? Did April 1st come early this year or something? And yes, I did start a talk page discussion [351]. I'm sorry but that is simply NOT "edit warring", that's normal WP:BRD. The other editor who has also made one revert [352] was not topic banned (and no, I don't think they should be either - that would be insane, just like this is). Look. I understand the need for discretionary sanctions on a topic like potentially contentious topic like Sanders (incidentally, why isn't the Clinton - or other US presidential candidates - article subject to the same sanction [353]?). But this is way over the line. The purpose of these sanctions, per the final decision was to prevent "continuous disruption of content as the problems move from one area to another."" Was there any "continuous disruption" here? No, it was a single fishin' edit (and a good one too). And per DS/definitions "Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE." Was this done? No, it was just .... "BOOM!" I also feel compelled to point out that this kind of enforcement runs afoul of BLP issues. Under this schema, where a single revert gets you topic banned, the person who ADDS material to a BLP article is "protected", whereas the person who REMOVES material from a BLP article runs the danger of getting sanctioned. I'm sorry but that's completely backwards. Is this really how you guys want this to work? Adding contentious material to BLPs is fine, "protected from removal" even, but removing it gets you a topic ban? Did someone forget to think this one through? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Coffee, what you are effectively doing with your serial and exclusive sanction-slapping on Bernie Sanders, is imposing a 0RR restriction on the article. Without telling anyone about it. And no, the warning that appears when you press "edit" does not sufficiently address that - it says there are discretionary sanctions in place but it does NOT warn editors that they can get a topic ban for a single revert. IF you are going to treat the article as if it was under 0RR - which I'm pretty sure is NOT what the ArbCom decision was meant to do - then at the very least you need to make sure that editors know this. Change that discretionary sanctions notice to say "This article is under 0RR restriction". Which isn't to agree with there being a 0RR restriction on the article, particularly since it's a BLP, which means reverting will be necessary to REMOVE contentious material. But if that's how you're going to interpret "discretionary sanctions", you need to let people know before sanctioning them. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC) @David, the first edit was not a revert. It was just removing some sketchy info from the article. And please don't accuse me of "dishonesty" - you are engaging in baseless personal attacks on a WP:AE page which itself could get you blocked. And really pissing me off too, as I don't appreciate being accused of being "dishonest" and am tempted to throw a few choice adjectives your way in response. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC) And speaking of ... I'm going to call this "inaccuracy", rather than "dishonesty", David, I never said "I made one edit" as you claim. I said "I made one revert". So get your own claims in order before you accuse others of lying. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
And if we're going to get all procedural, here's what WP:AC/DS actually says about alerts and warnings relevant to discretionary sanctions: "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:
Notice what is NOT on the list? "Some administrator adds a vague and ambiguously worded template to an article that appears when editors click "edit"" of the kind that a lot of editors might not even notice when editing an article for the first time" is NOT on the list. In other words, no, per ArbCom decision, that template by itself is not sufficient notice of discretionary sanctions. Now, funnily enough where I myself am concerned, #2 actually applies since it seems I did comment in the original arbitration request [354] (which I don't actually remember, didn't follow the case itself, and if this here happened a week later it would be inapplicable). But in the future you really DO NEED to formally warn editors before sanctioning them, as required per WP:AC/DS. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by CoffeeThis particular ban, is made specifically for the article itself... not the topic as a whole (which allows Marek to discuss changes at the talk page). This, as I said at his talk page, is to prevent further disruption on the article itself. There have simply been too many edit wars occurring on that page, which is what caused me to place sanctions on the article originally (after a report was made a few weeks ago at WP:RFPP). All editors have been made aware of the sanctions, per Arbitration Committee policy, article sanctions are placed in the edit notice. The other editor, who made the revert, was following WP:BRD... reverting his revert is an edit war (BRD stands for be Bold and make an edit, someone Reverts you, now you Discuss the edit... it does not stand for Bold , someone Reverts, make one Comment on the talk page and immediately afterwards you Revert - that would be BRCR. This is fairly simple, it is not my responsibility to ensure Volunteer Marek actually reads the very obvious edit notice before making an edit, he violated the sanctions placed there... and is now subject to a personal sanction to simply prevent further disruption. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by Sir JosephFirstly, where does DS say that DS is 1RR? For ARBPIA it explicitly says that 1RR is the rule. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Volunteer MarekGaijin42
David TornheimIt was not "1 edit". There were two reverts in a <24 hours period: [355] [356]. If the article is under 1RR, then it has been violated. I say make the topic ban one month rather than 1 week for misrepresenting the facts and wasting our time with dishonesty. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC) MarkBernsteinLet’s not get carried away. Let me recap the bidding.
As a technical matter, whether or not this violates 1RR hinges on whether we interpret the first edit on March 11 as a revert. I would be strongly disinclined to call anyone “dishonest” for believing that it was not; had Marek replaced the passage with another passage, perhaps a briefer and more neutral summary, it would certainly not be construed as a revert. More broadly, it is not clear the VM is wrong on the merits. His talk page defense of the edit has, as I write, received no response. The sanctioned edit is combative, yes, but much stronger responses could be envisioned; for example, VM might instead have added a number of countervailing polls, or a list of countervailing editorial opinions, each of which could in principle deserve our attention as much as this poll does. In 2024, this passage will be long gone: whatever happens, no one will care what a December poll predicted about this candidate's electability. So, VM is bringing the page one step closer to the shape it will have (should Wikipedia survive) in the distant future. In any case, this already-overheated discussion is emblematic of the mess that ArbCom has invited with its handling of American Politics. I doubt sanctions are useful here; in practice, they're going to expend a lot of volunteer time that could be more profitably spent on protecting the project from attackers. MarkBernstein ( talk) 20:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Rhoark1RR is a limit, not an entitlement. Regardless of revert count, it was a revert of well-sourced content for hand-waving reasons. It's not beyond the pale to show someone the penalty box for that. Rhoark ( talk) 20:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
LjLI have little sympathy for Marek's ways of editing in general and I haven't followed the incident here, but I want to at least comment on what Rhoark said: first it was "3RR is a limit, not an entitlement", now more and more (and more) articles are falling into the net of discretionary sanctions, making 1RR a limit, but that's not enough! Since 1RR is not an entitlement, as a matter of fact, if you make one revert - not one unjustified revert, but one revert that is only justified with reasons not specific enough ("hand-waving") to convince an administrator, you can be sanctioned? That would really be extreme, a most unwelcome progressive radicalization to basically "you can be sanctioned if you make any edit" of originally fair bright-line rules. LjL ( talk) 21:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Jnorton7558@ Coffee:, where is the log entry for this page restriction? "The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place." -- Jnorton7558 ( talk) 22:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Capitals00Can someone remove the topic ban now? Its been almost a week that this request was filed. Capitals00 ( talk) 13:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Volunteer Marek
|
| No action taken. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Felsic2
The user has acknowledged that they edited under both Felsic ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 162.119.231.132 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and has made no attempt to hide this; this is not a SPI request). Almost all of their edits have been to gun control pages, and I cannot recall a single one that has made a page more in favor of gun rights or less in favor of gun control. The non-article or talk space edits appear to mostly have been focused on requesting sanctions against editors who Felsic perceives as being in favor of gun rights. Under their previous account, two pro gun control editors admonished Felsic for his/her conduct. Felsic's response was "Tell you what, you can spend the whole goddamn weekend trying to work out a compromise. Lottsa luck with that. If you succeed I'll nominate you for sainthood." (with an edit summary of "have fun hitting your head against the wall"). Since their return to active editing (under the new account), Felsic's attitude and pattern of behavior seems to have remained consistent - he/she sees Wikipedia as a tug-of-war, not a collaborative project. The one thing that seems inconsistent is their professed indifference to the topic; Felsic appears to be entirely focused on making Wikipedia more in favor of gun control, using whatever means are available to do so.
I would still call those edits partial reverts. For example, on edit "D", you moved the "legal term of art" language from the lead sentence to the final sentence of the second paragraph. That's seriously different. And honestly I don't care what language you use, whether you say "crappy" or just "bad". This is the internet; I've seen worse. The problem is the attitude behind the language. Telling others to "stick it" would be just as bad if you had said "take that". Note that I didn't say you weren't correct in wanting the article's language changed; it appears you were entirely correct. But spiking the football makes it clear that you see this as a battleground, not a collaborative effort. As to my conduct, I have my own biases, but I do what I can to check those at the door and stay neutral and balanced; I know I've made edits to remove non-neutral language from both sides. The SPI was filed in good faith and withdrawn when evidence made it clear that you weren't LB's sock. I apologized for it, and I have not raised the issue since then; note that in filing this AE request I made it clear that I did not think you were socking. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 12:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Felsic2Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Felsic2Faceless Enemy's complaint Much of this complaint is related to my use of the term "crappy" which Google defines as "(vulgar slang) adjective: of extremely poor quality." [359] Is he upset that I use a vulgar term for poor quality material? 1. The material I removed from Civil_liberties_in_the_United_States was written by a college freshman as part of a class assignment. user:Wood3cm did not know how to write for Wikipedia. The content was "crappy" - it made WP:SYNTH arguments, used poor quality sources, gave undue attention to one aspect of the topic, etc. [360] Here's one 'crappy' bit by the same editor deleted by another editor. [361] The editor has not edited Wikipedia before or since using that username. Though it used a vulgar term, my edit summary was reasonably accurate. 2. As for reverts: what version of the article was I reverting to? 3. He says that questioning the objectivity of a list shows "general hostility and battleground attitude". [371] If the scope of the list were objective then it wouldn't be up for alteration by WP editors. The list has three pages of talk archives, showing disagreements over its supposedly objective content. Is it now "battleground attitude" to question the POV of an article? 4. Someone made what I called a "really, really bad edit". I didn't know who or when it was done at first. I posted about it, then I looked in the history. Later, some univolved editor made a flyby comment that I shouldn't have posted to that page with my obeservation about the edit. Maybe I'm mistaken - I thought article talk pages existed to talk about edits to the article. The other editor was wrong to chastise me for making the complaint. Yet Faceless Enemy blames me, not editor who made the specious complaint and certainly not the editor who made the "really really bed edit". [372] Faceless Enemy has filed a number of complaints about me. [373] User:GRuban wrote Oh give me a break" and told him to "cut it out". [374] As for taking sides in a debate, Faceless Enemy has made far more edits than I have to gun politics articles. If there were sufficient space I think I could show that he has made the majority of them in favor of one side. This list of talk pages show that the overwhelming percentage of his discussuon has been about gun-related topics. [375] If one-sidedness is a real problem then I'm not the user to start with. Felsic2 ( talk) 21:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Gaijin42's complaint Gaijin42 seems upset that I filed a complaint against him for making an edit that one of the uninvolved admins called "extremely troubling" and said it would have been sanctionable if found sooner. [376] He says the material I deleted from [ High-capacity magazine ban]] was about the High-capacity magazine ban. I checked the source and found no significant mention of magazines. The comment in the source was not about high-capacity magazines, which are barely mentioned in the article. [377] I'm not the only editor who has removed sourced material from that article. So has Faceless Enemy. [378] [379] What's the difference? Gaijin42 says I was combative for saying that a list whose restrictions are arbitrary is not necessarily objective. Yet he was trying to get the scope of the list changed. If it was an objective scope, it wouldn't be subject to change by WP editors. (See above - Faceless Enemy made the same complaint.) He says I disrupted Wikipedia to make a point. No - I tried to treat articles on gun control organizations the same as a gun organization is treated. The National Rifle Association article has a mission statement in its infobox sourced to Guidestar. I added mission statements to gun control advocacy groups. Faceless Enemy deleted them, whether sourced to Guidestar or not. [380] [381] Faceless Enemy did not discuss his reversions. Talk:National_Gun_Victims_Action_Council I asked if the mission statement in NRA was compliant with the WP:MISSION page, and after a day with no response I deleted it. It ain't disruptive to expect similar topic to be edited using the same rules. For the Starbucks articles, I looked at the sources and did not find any which labeled the protesting group as "gun rights advocates". I am concerned about how people and groups on all sides of the debate are pigeon-holed as being either pro-gun control or pro-gun rights. I used a more general term that was entirely correct. The issue was discussed on the talk page and a consensus version was found. [382] What is Gaijin42's problem with using the [Category:Civil liberties advocacy groups in the United States] for groups which oppose gun violence? "Right to life" is a civil liberty. Faceless Enemy reverted those additions with no discussion. [383] Gaijin42 also gives no reason for why the category is inappropriate. PS: I see I was supposed to limit this to 500 words. If some of the complaints are unimportant then delete responses to them. If the complaints are significant then I don't see a good reason for the restrictions on my defense. Statement by Gaijin42I'd also point out the section above that Felsic started against me, which could have easily been (and easily was) resolved with a talk page discussion. That he felt the need to immediately bring it to AE is a sign of battleground. His final comment in that section seems indicative. [384] General combativeness in responses to civil discussion : [385] WP:POINT [386] [387](after he added a mission statement and it was removed, he proceeded to remove mission statements elsehwere. No argument as to the merits or not of having mission statements from me, but the pointedness of his edit seems obvious) Arguing that "Second amendment supporters" does not sufficiently cite "gun rights advocates" and changing the content to "gun advocates" https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Starbucks&diff=prev&oldid=709299265 mass adding of "civil rights" cat to gun control groups. [388] [389] [390] [391] [392] Removal of content directly discussing high capacity magazine bans with the reasoning that "this stuff isn't about magazine capacity" https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=High-capacity_magazine_ban&diff=prev&oldid=709195608 Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Felsic2
|
| No action. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Scjessey
I want to preface this by stating that I'm not seeking harsh sanctions, nor do I believe Scjessey's behavior has been particularly egregious. In fact, he's a thoughtful editor who does much to improve our content. Over the past six months or so, the editing environment in American politics has been relatively peaceful, in part due to topic bans of a few problem editors. I've observed that Scjessey tends to WP:OWN certain articles, especially those related to Hillary Clinton. This behavior manifests as edit warring, cussing at other editors, tendentiousness, and refusal to accept consensus. I'm seeking a creative solution that will get this editor to take a step back, cooperate with other editors, and stop acting as the gatekeeper for every Hillary Clinton article. Perhaps a short topic ban, a 1RR restriction, a final warning, or some combination of these, would help the situation before it gets out of control.- Mr X 20:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ScjesseyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Scjessey
Statement by Wikidemon
@Gaijin42 — it looks like 3-2 for me on a matter under discussion for less than a day. Looks more like trigger-happy arbitration requests than "overwhelming consensus", a case of WP:OWN, or whatever the proponents of the content are calling it. Jonathunder's talk page comment came after this was filed, and if Neutrality has an opinion I don't see that he voiced it on the article talk page.- Wikidemon ( talk) 03:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Gaijin42I second the notion that while Scjessey should not be harshly sanctioned at this time, he needs a very firm "knock it off or else". As wikidemon says, there are some strong POV problems from Zigzig20s and others, and Scjessy is a needed voice to balance them. However, Scjessy's issue is that he mistakes all information he doesn't like for a blp/pov violation He has a very obvious case of OWN where he stonewalls any information that is anything other than glowing for Clinton. Every issue must be taken to an RFC or have an overwhelming consensus develop before he caves in. Once one hammers through his reflexive Clinton protection, he does a good job of raising legitimate concerns and working on collaborative compromise to include information while addressing neutrality etc. If he could start at step 2 rather than an immediate revert every time, it would solve 99% of the issue.
Wikidemon Your count on this dispute is off. The current standing is 6-2 (Me, MrX, Zig, Jonathunder, Neutrality, TFD), for a two sentences of content that every major source has written multiple detailed articles about. Gaijin42 ( talk) 03:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Wikidemon re Neutrality, while an explicit talk page comment would certainly be more easier to quantify, he edited the content in question, which is indicative of support for its inclusion. [412] Gaijin42 ( talk) 13:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
As I note above, once Scjessy actually gets to the collaboration and improvement stage, things work well (and he has very valuable and important input). The issue is that it takes giant battles to get to that stage. Also as I said above, I'm not looking for a topic ban or anything like that, merely a warning to be a little less reverty, and start out at the collaborative improvement phrase. There are certainly POV violations that need to be nipped in the bud, but these are not them, and the fact that each of these took giant threads to insert one or two sentences each is ridiculous.
Statement by (username)Result concerning Scjessey
|
| This has been clarified, Its 500 edits even if you have 30 days tenure. If the edits don't appear in their account they don't count Spartaz Humbug! 14:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Mrbrklyn
Although this editor has been repeatedly warned of the arbitration restrictions, and has taken part in several discussions [414] [415] [416] about this, all of which have confirmed that he is restricted from making such edits, the editor continues to insist that he is indeed allowed to edit in the subject area. He claims both that the restrictions permit editors with fewer than 500 edits, but longer than 30 days tenure, to edit [417] [418] [419], and that in any case the restriction does not apply to him because he claims to have made several hundred edits which Wikipedia has somehow "lost". [420] [421] [422] The editor has also made abusive personal attacks on several other editors, [423] [424] [425]
Discussion concerning MrbrklynStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MrbrklynStatement by Sepsis IITo be fair, the editor has made quite a few edits under various IPs, but, the editor does show an inability to take part in discussions in relation to Israel-Palestine articles. Sepsis II ( talk) 01:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Mrbrklyn
|
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
When I SEE A VOTE, on disinterested editors, then you will know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
|
| No Action taken. This seems something for arbcom to sort out. There is a sense that GMO is still not settling despite a case, a clarification and some AE action. Spartaz Humbug! 19:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc
I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (aka jps) and Alexbrn have edit-warred material into the article GMO conspiracy theories based on self-published sources and other poor sourcing, ignoring objections. Jps created the article on January 31, 2016 to look like this. Many of the sources do not meet our sourcing guidelines. I pointed this out here and then took out a number of these unreliable sources [426] [427] [428] [429]. (Please note that Genetic Literacy Project is run by Jon Entine a Pro-GMO advocate. [430] [431]; Mark Lynas does similar pro-GMO advocacy [432].) jps went ahead and put the material back in without addressing any of the concerns and without achieving consensus first here. I reverted here. Alexbrn edit-warred the material back in here despite continuing objections here. Tsavage also explained the problematic sourcing here. At this ANI, jps's behavior was outrageous. Jps lied about the content of sources: [433]. He originally said that Domingo 2011 [1] was "much criticized" [434]. When Petrarchan47 pointed out he was lying and asked him to "prove it" [435] [436], he responded with three journals [437], none of which criticized Domingo. An independent editor Sammy1339 confirmed it was a lie here. Rather than address the misrepresentations, jps made a mockery of the proceedings. [438] [439] [440] [441] [442] Jusdafax noted this disruptful behavior [443], as did Petrarchan47 [444].
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 22:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC) CLARIFICATION
Regarding King's accusations of WP:Fringe:
I agree with Spartaz that the "nuclear option" should have its own separate action. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 10:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgycStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgycClaims of edit warring are pretty strange. Certainly no violation of 1RR or even anything close to that (weeks in between reversions?) has occurred by anyone active at the article. I have encountered a lot of resistance from people of a certain political persuasion when it comes to the GMO controversy. Unfortunately, discussion on the talkpage has occasionally degenerated into problematic arguments by anti-GMO activists that, for example, sources such as academic books published by Oxford University Press were unreliable. [460] Sorry about my exasperation. I will try to dial back the snark as much as possible. It would be nice if you all would give David and Petra little breaks from this subject as they are the ones who are most problematic in baiting and changing the discussion from content toward argumentative rhetoric. The AN/I discussion was outlandish for its demonstration that anti-GMO activists are so ideologically inclined to attach themselves to their favored sources, they cannot even understand when the sources are contradicted. I also find it particularly galling when they try to claim that Mark Lynas and David Entine are somehow corrupt sources [461] (e.g., an argument that because Entine works for AEI and climate deniers also work for AEI that therefore Entine is not a reliable source for information on genetic engineering, biotechnology, or food safety -- what?). Petra has gone so far as to claim equivalency between Lynas and Vani Hari [462] which is a level of incompetence regarding the identification of reliable sources that is fairly unrivaled at Wikipedia since maybe the time we were overrun with climate deniers. jps ( talk) 00:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Diffs (for those who like them)WP:BOOMERANG may apply here as well. These are all David diffs since he filed the report:
Responses@ Liz:: You're absolutely right about the arbcom GMO case. The problem, I think, is similar to what happened with global warming. There are just many editors with the same agendas willing to hop back into the game after their friends are banned and there is no arbitration of content (which is really what is needed because at the end of the day that's where the dispute lies -- not in behavior). What ended up happening in the climate change omnibus case was an outright ban of basically everyone with the deniers remaining banned and the "pro-science" folks slowly restored. We're almost at the point where all the things that the pro-science crowd wanted to do back in 2009 are accomplished, but some might argue that Wikipedia is better for having done the shoot first, ask questions later approach since it was ultimately difficult to pin the disciplinary action on any one ideology. But make no mistake, we know which "side" won that battle and it is pretty clear to me which "side" will win this battle too in the long run. If it takes a Boris-style suggestion of kicking us all to the curb to get it done because of the dysfunctional way Wikipedia administration and arbitration works, I guess that's okay by me. As the mother who asked that Solomon give the baby to the other woman rather than splitting it in twain, I would rather a decision made that will ultimately save the encyclopedia from becoming a haven for anti-GMO paranoia rather than preserving any small part I may have in helping this situation along. But you might consider whether the article I have written (for the most part) really is as bad as my esteemed colleagues who have dragged me here would have you believe. jps ( talk) 03:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC) @ David Tornheim: It's pretty awful when no one can tell what your actual argument is upon filing. It's even worse when your argument is that you don't like the sources. There is essentially zero precedent for an WP:AE ruling over content like this. You're at the wrong venue. jps ( talk) 13:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC) @ Aircorn: On what basis do you request that I be topic banned? What diffs in particular brought up in this case cause you to want me to be kicked to the curb? jps ( talk) 22:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by TryptofishThis is more complicated than what the filing editor describes. Bottom line: jps should be strongly advised to dial back his sarcasm and snark, with the understanding that continuation will likely result in action here: [464], [465], [466]. At the same time, there is some reason for exasperation on jps' part, and some degree of conduct from the "other side" that gets rather close to baiting. I've gone through every single diff that David T. provided. The so-called edit warring isn't quite that, although David was just as much involved in it as anyone else – and I don't see anything disruptive on Alexbrn's part. When David talks about "unreliable sources", he is throwing PZ Myers and Scientific American into the mix, so the content dispute has a lot more shades of gray than what is presented. About the Domingo source, well, we can probably quibble over whether it was "much criticized", or just "criticized". The three sources cited by jps draw somewhat the opposite conclusions to Domingo, and since then another reliable source has directly refuted Domingo: [467]. Anti-GMO activists cling to the Domingo source, which is why it seems to be such high stakes. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Kingofaces43Tryptofish described the overall situation well, but I do have to suggest a boomerang for David Tornheim as jps mentioned for a vexatious AE filing like this, which has resulted in action on other editors before. [469]. David Tornheim does have a tendency to antagonize the situation in this topic by some very clear cut fringe-advocacy behavior, which is only continuing to exacerbate the community's patience as we've seen in jps' case. WP:KETTLE is the most apparent behavior problem associated with battleground behavior for anyone that's been following David's actions in this topic. Edit warring often occurs with David making demands as jps pointed out [470] or where they revert a new edit basically demanding in edit summaries that material cannot be changed without their approval even when they don't attempt to open up initial talk page discussion on it, which runs entirely against WP:DRNC.(just need to read edit summaries here) [471] [472] [473] [474] [475] They still fail to see this problem in their behavior even in their comments in this filing. [476] However, when it comes to David's own edits, they pull a full 180 and try to edit war content back in they are already aware didn't have consensus such as this string (some intermediate edits not included) [477] [478] [479], and this [480] [481] [482] More kettle issues come up at the ANI [483] David tries to cite as evidence if someone takes the time to read through their multitude of posts, especially the battleground aspect of bringing up Nazi's, etc. David has been warned multiple times at ANI now for battleground, edit warring, and general tendentiousness. [484] [485] [486], plus by admins for peanut gallery type behavior in this topic at admin boards. [487] Continuing that behavior and jumping to AE when someone shows reasonable frustration is just more battleground. We're past the point of warnings, so it's starting to look like the path to a topic ban is already being well traveled. If that doesn't seem clear to admins yet, reading the edit summaries in my diffs should be enough indication for a 0RR restriction for David as an intermediate step at this point. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 05:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by AlexbrnI see I have been accused of edit-warring on an article where I have only made two (unrelated) edits ever. [489] [490] That says it all. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester BorisThis nonsense has gone on too long. The editing atmosphere is much too toxic for any newcomers to try to contribute, as User:Alexbrn's statement above demonstrate. Suggested remedy:
No, I am not trying to be funny. Nothing else is going to work. We need to make this topic safe for new contributors if anything is to change. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 13:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by AircornA few babies will go down the drain if SBHB's remedy is used. I don't think we are at this stage though. The major problem revolves around our presentation of the safety of GMO food. The divide between the science and public opinion is large [491] and that is reflected on Wikipedia. Correspondingly most of the problems stem from disagreements over this issue. Good progress had been made on this front (for example Talk:Genetically modified crops#First proposal revised) and before we resort to kicking everyone a better first step would be to get a well run rfc to decide this question for an enforceable period of time. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
JPS. I don't want anyone kicked to the curb, but the fact remains that this is still open and the current trend looks to be to blanket ban everyone. I would rather see some of the more disruptive editors pruned off first. Diffs don't provide context, but if anyone is willing to read the talk page at Talk:GMO conspiracy theories they will see your part in the excessive discussion that is turning off both involved and uninvolved editors. The recent request by Dr Chrissey for their topic ban to be lifted at ANI highlights your involvement in carrying on off topic discussions in wrong forums. However, your blase attitude to the suggestion of the blanket ban pissed me off the most. There are some good editors here and your willingness to through everyone under the bus came did not come across well. AIRcorn (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by AtsmeI agree with Tryptofish regarding his recommendation to strongly advise jps to "dial back his sarcasm and snark" but I doubt it will do any good because he has gotten away with it for far too long. I admit that my suggestion comes from first-hand experiences but that isn't why I'm here. I have a suggestion that may help resolve some of the ongoing disputes regarding controversial topics. GMO articles by their very nature attract editors with different perspectives, and as one would expect, involved editors almost always reach an impasse. What I've witnessed from the sidelines appears to be more of a syntax issue that escalates into behavioral issues, most of which are instigated by "sarcasm and snark" when the problem could easily be resolved with the help of qualified neutral copyeditors and/or experienced FA reviewers who can corroborate the prose against the cited sources. Perhaps we should consider a neutral "mediation team" who can step in and resolve these syntax disputes and spare the project further POV imbalance resulting from the use of TBs which actually conflict with our efforts in editor retention. Atsme 📞 📧 04:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by PetraIn response to the claim from JPS regarding my supposed incompetence, "Petra has gone so far as to claim equivalency between Lynas and Vani Hari which is a level of incompetence regarding the identification of reliable sources that is fairly unrivaled at Wikipedia since maybe the time we were overrun with climate deniers." I would like to note that Lynas is known as a pro-GMO writer. The "Food Babe" was an example I used of an advocate who is known as anti-GMO. I suggested that the reader should be alerted to his advocacy in the same way we would do for Vani Hari. That was my only claim. [But... climate change!(?)] Admins, do you feel that my suggestion shows incompetence? Is it appropriate for JPS to not only fail to ping me, but to call me incompetent? Just wondering. Comment by JzGPetra, Lynas is a respected science writer, Hari has a level of scientific ignorance that is hard to convey without resort to hyperbole. This is someone who genuinely wrote that aircraft cause problems because they are pressurised above mean sea level pressure, and asserted that the cabin air is a problem because it's not pure oxygen but instead "recycled" from outside the cabin. That's not even wrong. To assert any kind of equivalence is indeed to exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding about WP:PARITY. Guy ( Help!) 13:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Comment by DialectricThis is in response to the proposal by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, and the admin support for the proposal that appears below in the results section. Banning everyone from the area is not the answer. Many editors in the GMO area have made an effort to work through disagreements in a civil and scholarly way, without resorting to personal attacks or battleground mentality. The articles in this area are now by and large stable, supported by extensive RS references; many of the references meet more stringent criteria including WP:SCIRS and the articles usually provide reasonably weighted coverage of minority views. There are, however, some ‘holy warriors’ at the extremes of the pro and anti GMO spectrum, willing to cast aside civil discourse and disregard wikipedia policies in the service of their agendas. These extreme voices will be unhappy as long as the opposition is reflected in any way in the article, regardless of sourcing quality. Reigning in these extreme voices is a difficult challenge, but there are avenues open to us that do not require a scorched-earth ban-everyone approach: 0rr has been implemented in a few cases; requiring that all changes be discussed on the talk page for at least 24hrs prior to implementation could be a reasonable step before a total ban. Is there any evidence that a 6 month ban would solve the problem? Why 6 months and not 3 or some other time? Why employ an extreme, novel solution when there are other incremental solutions open to us? Dialectric ( talk) 19:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Result concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc
|
| Chesdovi is topic banned from Zionism (broadly construed) and Western Wall or adding references to Palestine or Palestinians in articles that do not contain them. I have left out categories as they should be covered by the Zionism tban. Chesdovi is cautioned that high volumes of repetitive edits in sensitive areas that case disruption are to be avoided. Further controversy over such edits will result in long blocks Spartaz Humbug! 11:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Chesdovi
I did not add all his recent edits since that's not necessary, but he has begun to edit again in this area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AChesdovi&type=revision&diff=710081001 Discussion concerning ChesdoviStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ChesdoviAllowed word count increased to 750 Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Jeppiz, Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionism is not linked to the I/P conflict: [493]. Chesdovi ( talk) 22:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Ed, I may not be a "major editor on Orthodox Jewish topics or on historical rabbis of various periods", but I have spent hours adding my fair share to Wikipedia over the years, besides from my numerous edits on Haredim and Haredim and Zionism , I have created pages about rabbi throughout the ages ( [494], [495], [496], [497], [498], [499], [500], [501], [502], [503], [504]) and added tens of images to supplement rabbi pages. Chesdovi ( talk) 23:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) (modified) I am also not sure how הָאֶתְרוֹג הַפַּלֶשְׂתִּינִי translates in "Israeli citron", changed by a vandal and not linked at all to the I/P conflict, (except by those who will go to war for the sake of a lemon's name it seems...) Chesdovi ( talk) 19:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Brewcrewer, the category was not plastered over "random pages". I felt this category would be in line with Category:Criticism of the official accounts of the September 11 attacks and the like. It seems not. I may create a page about this topic instead. Sorry for any offence caused. It was not meant as an "attack". It is a widely held belief, and I thought I could group together the relevant pages. Chesdovi ( talk) 21:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Sir Joseph, you think I should be banned from that page, but I am not topic banned from that page, just like I am not topic banned from Tomaccio. Where have you explained that the venerable old rabbi is related to I/P? This is a dispute centred around name conventions. I prefer the historic common use in RS, while you prefer literal or translation. You persistently force you POV without waiting for due consensus and wish to drag this innocuous article into the I/P conflict. It seems some people will go to war over the name of a lemon! I was not banned from using the word "Palestinian" and I don't see why I should be. Maybe you should be banned from using the word "West"? "Changing "Israeli" to "Palestinian" in an article about citrons is certainly pushing a POV" does not stack up. I reverted "Palestinian" to match the Hebrew text next to it, something you will appreciate in your efforts to call Rabbi Tachlifa the "Westerner" - a literal translation of the Aramaic. Chesdovi ( talk) 23:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) (modified) AnotherNewAccount: My motivation for the creation of Palestinian wine was contrary to your claims and I dispute your assessment of my conduct at AfD. (modified) Chesdovi ( talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Debresser: Thank you for calling me "unscrupulous and unprofessional", but you jave not responded to repeated requests to show where consensus has been reached that "Palestinian" is not to be used. I reject your allegation that my source are "often biased" or "cheery-picked". Scholarly RS, both inside and outside Israel, chiefly use Palestine/Palestinian in relation to matters prior to Israel's creation. (modified) Chesdovi ( talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Spartaz: 1. As mentioned at talk, I do not add the word Palestinian to every page where it can possibly be put. In the past I have created pages including the term whereupon they are pounced upon by Debresser who removes the "offending" word according to his/her POV. This not an issue? 2. I'm curious to know whether you also think it is "unhealthy" to have editors "obsessed" with Zionism removing the word "Palestinian" from every page as they deem necessary. 3. I'm also curious to know how numerous and painstaking gathered inline citations I provided at Jewish boycott of the Western Wall were insufficient and would like to know your suggestion of how to include that information on Wikipedia. Leibowitz still has not been re-added to Western Wall at the behest of Debresser an SJ. The obvious question is Why? 4. I would also like to know why you think it was valid for SJ to revert to "Tachlifa of the West" without opening a discussion at talk if indeed it is such a sensitive editing area. Why do "obsessive" "pro-Zionists" trump "ant-Zionists" on Wikipedia? 5. Debresser is of the opinion that using the term "Palestinian" is inappropriate according to consensus but has yet to show where this so-called consensus was reached. Chesdovi ( talk) 19:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC) SJ is making allegations against me which I cannot respond to since I have passed my word limit. (Please note that he is removing the word "Palestine" on spurious grounds, just as he did at Tachlifa the Palestinian: [505] - we are not to be informed where in the Ottoman Empire Safed was! If this is not a clear POV push, I do not know what is. Chesdovi ( talk) 00:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Please see talk and talk. Chesdovi ( talk) 00:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC) SJ, I have not been told "not to" (except by you); I have not added the word "Palestinian" to any articles mainspace since this began; I have not edited articles under my TB since it was given 4 years ago. You were extremely upset about Jews who boycott the wall and have been following me around ever since making it very unpleasant for me here. Chesdovi ( talk) 00:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JeppizI came here as an uninvolved user who has had no interactions with Chesdovi, but the topic ban violations are so rampant it seems to be deliberate and provocative. In the space of one hour, Chesdovi has already violated the topic ban 20 times! I'm afraid an indef block is the only solution, this user seems determined to go on violating the topic ban. Jeppiz ( talk) 21:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by RolandRThe article in question is about a 4th century rabbi; as far as I can see, it does not have even a minimal connection to the Palestine/Israel conflict, however broadly interpreted. The complaint is without merit. RolandR ( talk) 22:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000As per RolandR, the article in question is not covered by ARBPIA and Chesdovi is permitted to edit there. Zero talk 23:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by SerialjoepsychoThis topic ban includes any thing that can be construed to be a part of the Palestinian conflict. Edit warring because you disagree that something is a part of ARBPIA is a violation of ARBPIA. [506]. If you disagree that something is a part of your topic ban WP:ARCA has been set up for clarification. There is also here at WP:ARE. Be more careful Chesdovi. An additional side concern, This seems to have more to do with Sir Joseph's recent ban than any disagreement with Chesdovi. Disrupting wikipedia to make a point is grounds for a ban. Be more careful Sir Joseph. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 00:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Only in DeathEditing articles about historic or even recent Rabbi's does not necessarily infringe upon 'Arab-Israeli conflict' Which is what he is topic-banned from (emphasis mine). Unless those rabbis are themeselves embroiled in the conflict in some way its just not part of the ban. Unless you are going to modify the ban to 'Anything remotely Arab, Jewish or middle-east broadly construed'. This is a non-issue. The description for the category added is "The category Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism includes articles about groups and subject matters that oppose Zionism, on Jewish religious grounds." Thats not exactly related to Arab-Israeli conflict. If anything its Jewish-Israeli conflict... Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by DebresserAccording to a recent clarification request at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_.28February_2016.29 the unanimous opinion of 7 editors is that the topic ban is still in place. This editor has for years been pushing the word "Palestinian" where it is not appropriate. His recent move of Tachlifa of the West to Tachlifa the Palestinian is just the latest of them. I strongly feel we will all be better of without this unscrupulous and unprofessional POV pusher. Debresser ( talk) 10:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by BrewcrewerHe's now commenced with a conspiracy theory category blaming Zionists for the Holocaust [510] and plastering it unsourced all over random pages. If this is not what the intention for topic bans I don't know what was. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved FinnusertopArbCom members, uninvolved administrators or Chesdovi. Please amend the opening post to hide (using a :File link rather than embedding) the following non-free images because they are not allowed in Wikipedia: namespace: the first 13 images plus File:Steipler Gaon.jpg. Thank you. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by AnotherNewAccount
Statement by Malik ShabazzChesdovi's conduct during that AfD was deplorable, but the AfD was closed more than a month ago. The time to complain about his conduct came and went. Since AnotherNewAccount has the chutzpah to complain about the article Chesdovi wrote about Palestinian wine and about unnamed "pro-Palestine nationalist editors", let's take a look at Israeli wine—which is mostly grown on occupied Syrian and Palestinian land, but you would never know that from reading the Wikipedia article about it. You also wouldn't have a clue that one of Israel's biggest foreign trade issues at the moment is its fight to prevent the European Union and the United States from properly labeling "Israeli" wine based on whether it is produced in Israel or in Israeli-occupied territory. No, let's throw the book at Chesdovi—who probably deserves it—and lob stones at unnamed "pro-Palestine nationalist editors" instead of being honest and requiring all editors to follow NPOV, which is allegedly a core policy here at Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC) (In fairness to AnotherNewAccount, it doesn't appear that he has edited Israeli wine. That doesn't make that article, or the rest of Wikipedia's coverage of Israel and Palestine, any less of a POV mess.) Result concerning Chesdovi
|
| Reasonable time elapsed and no engagement from Sinceouch2422. In the circumstances a page ban is an indef ban so I have blocked them indefinately. Spartaz Humbug! 12:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Sinceouch2422
The edits above are to one page that is included in the Falun Gong arbitration dispute (Epoch Times is a newspaper associated with Falun Gong). The edits in question had been under extensive discussion on the talk page, as can be seen. It seems that 90% of Sinceouch2422's edits on the encyclopedia have been of this sort: revert with no discussion. Other editors, including myself in some cases, then reverted his changes back and called for discussion. The changes that were reverted were of a series of iterative changes that had been made, as a result of protracted discussion and the sharing and debating of different opinions, on the talk page, engaged in by myself and other users. Sinceouch has never been part of that process and simply disruptively wound back the page to versions months prior. After two warnings and constant disruption, I'm bringing the case to AE. Happy monsoon day 17:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Enforcement of arbitration rulings does not primarily involve qualitative judgements on the content of edits. The issue under consideration is the behavior of Sinceouch2422. Myself and other editors (how I wish I had "allies") were discussing and making changes to the pages for several months. There was a step-by-step, iterative process involving discussion and push-and-pull. Very normal Wikipedia process. Sinceouch2422 would come along every couple of weeks and just do a massive revert to an old version of the page. Again and again. That is a completely different dynamic of interaction than that myself and other editors engaged in, no matter how we judge the quality of the arguments that the various parties were presenting. Happy monsoon day 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Discussion concerning Sinceouch2422Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Sinceouch2422Statement by RhoarkThe user is obviously using misleading edit summaries, and that needs to be addressed. I'm struck by one fact, though: all of the associated edits are eminently reasonable. Why would one need to resort to subterfuge to introduce such edits? I've caught up on the talk page, and it's pretty clear what's going on. Essentially, there are no clean hands here. In the first diff, Sinceouch2422 was not reverting to a prior consensus as claimed, but was reverting material by Happymonsoonday1 that talk page consensus was also clearly against. Sinceouch2422 combined removal of material that consensus was against, along with addition/alteration for which consensus was unclear. Sinceouch2422 has participated on the talk page rarely, but there are certainly others on the page whose views align. The edit summary in diff #2 was not "specious" in any way. Using the page for a newspaper to go on a tangent about a story the paper published once is classic WP:COATRACK. In #4 the claimed redundant line is, surprisingly enough, redundant. The same claim is made twice. It's said once in the section and the said again. A second time. Redundantly. Diff #5 is removal of primary-sourced claims which had talk-page consensus for removal. The rest, #3 and 6-14 are part of edit warring by both parties and associated allies, neither of which has clear consensus on the talk page. I suggest a 6 month page ban for the accused and filer, and then maybe we can see what the consensus really is. Rhoark ( talk) 01:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by TheBlueCanoeLooks like a classic single-purpose account. No edits outside the Epoch Times page, though judging from the level of precocity on display, it seems plausible that they have alternate account(s). TheBlueCanoe 18:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Sinceouch2422
|
| Beautifulpeoplelikeyou is banned from the topic of electronic harassment and psychotronics, broadly construed. Spartaz Humbug! 12:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Beautifulpeoplelikeyou
Articles involved include:
Beautifulpeoplelikeyou is a single-purpose account whose focus is promoting the idea that "electronic harassment" - i.e. electronic mental torture of individuals - is real, or at least potentially real, rather than psychotic and/or illusory. Consensus on the Talk page of the article is that these edits are tendentious, violating WP:SYN in many cases. A purported bolded alternate term psychotronic assault, is sourced to a Washington Post article that does not appear to use the term, for example. Some edits, including the user's current proposed rewrite User:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou/sandbox have serious coherence issues. I think we need this person topic banned from electronic harassment and psychotronics, broadly construed, for the sanity of all involved. Guy ( Help!) 00:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning BeautifulpeoplelikeyouStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BeautifulpeoplelikeyouI'm in a real hurry now (going to the doctor for an Echocardiography). I think the most relevant and compelling thing I can say is: I'm not "promoting the idea that "electronic harassment" - i.e. electronic mental torture of individuals - is real, or at least potentially real, rather than psychotic and/or illusory". Maybe I'm promoting the idea that psychotronic weapons could exist but that's not the issue. What I'm trying to do with the Electronic harassment article is to correct its (imho) biased content, because I believe the sources depict it as both a conspiracy theory and a mental illness without giving away one of the two? In other words: I believe the sources depict it as an unknown/ambiguous phenomena with no overall bias, thus it deserves to have all its relevant aspects (psychological diagnoses, the claims, legislative interventions, past experimentation and research, and violent incidents) equally covered. See you later. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou ( talk) 17:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Looie496Although I agree that the editing pattern here is disruptive, I'm not entirely comfortable with classifying it as pseudoscience. The sort of beliefs reflected in such edits often arise in the context of delusions associated with schizophrenia, and tend to be more anti-science than spurious science. We have seen this sort of thing dozens of times from many editors, and as far as I know nobody has yet tried to apply the "pseudoscience" sanctions to them. Looie496 ( talk) 14:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Starke HathawayIt seems to me that the behavior being complained of here is disruptive, but is also not a great fit for the pseudoscience case. Is there a reason this needs to be at AE rather than ANI? -Starke Hathaway ( talk) 17:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by LuckyLouieA few diffs that illustrate the POV that Beautifulpeoplelikeyou is advocating, and the scope of the resulting disruption:
I've left out documenting this user's personal attacks against other editors, since they've been covered elsewhere. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou has already shown that warnings and temporary blocks have no effect on their disruptive behavior, so I believe a topic ban is warranted and appropriate, given the user's history and the fringe nature of the topic. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by JytdogSupport TBAN. This editor's trajectory here is almost a perfect paradigm of an advocacy editor who came here to soapbox and who interprets every effort to educate them about policies and guidelines as efforts to control or censor them. The "psychotronic" stuff is definitely PSCI and it is for people like this that the PSCI DS were created. Please do enact them. Jytdog ( talk) 19:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Staszek Lem<Sigh> I was patiently ignoring his references to "pompous <whatever>" (because I know I may look like one due to terseness of some responses). This editor's response to this ArbReq clearly demonstrates that we hit a blind spot in his perception. This user simply ignores multiple comments that unreferenced wikipedians' opinions cannot go into articles. In particular, he was told we cannot describe something as "unknown phenomenon" without refs. We cannot write into article the statement "often ending the debate in what looks as an embarrassing impasse" without refs, etc. However he dismisses these requirements with phrases like "This is called stonewalling" or calls it "censorship". Concluding, unfortunately we are indeed in "an embarrassing impasse" with this editor and it looks like an administrative intervention is required. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC) He was also suggested to edit the article in small increments and I even started smaller subsections for smaller bits. In 1-2 places a reasonable agreement was reached, but instead of updating the article with these simpler pieces this user continued general soapboxing, so WP:AGF is getting really thin and I don't think I want to spend more time on this non-productive debate. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Beautifulpeoplelikeyou
|
| No action taken. Stale Spartaz Humbug! 06:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Nableezy
When a Palestinian is described as a terrorist Nableezy is quick to remove the term under the WP:TERRORIST guideline. However when a Jewish/Israeli is described as a terrorist Nableezy re-adds the word "terrorist". [521] This type of blatant non neutral editing and POV pushing is expressly prohibited at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Remedies 4 & 5. I would also add that Nableezy tendentiously WP:STALKed me to revert me at this article ( it was his first edit) because of disagreement on another page. While Nableezy will undoubtedly respond with WP:BOOMERANG alleging far more insidious behavior from me, I would point out that just a few edits ago I reverted some POV pushing that was consistent with the POV I am claimed to have. I am calling for a topic ban consistent with the remedies linked to above.
Discussion concerning NableezyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NableezyUmm theres a slight difference between the Jewish Underground, which as far as I know has no real sources calling it anything other than a terrorist group, and a group that actually does have sources that dont call it a terrorist group and instead call it resistance movement, or the government of Gaza, or whatever (ie Hamas). Ill now say that this edit in 2010 was an error, that can be called terrorism in the narrative voice. The others Ill stand by, attacking an illegal colony in occupied territory may or may not be terrorism and the sources arent as unanimous in calling it that as in the case of say the Jewish Underground. I actually stalked Nishidani there, I like to see what he does from time to time. Which as far as I can tell is how brewcrewer got to this page, as it was likewise his first edit there, restoring an edit that even the person who initially made it agrees that that article uses the term properly. Baseless as baseless gets, and a boomerang for alleging stalking when the person filing the complaint pretty clearly stalked Nishidani to that article might be in order.
Statement by Malik ShabazzAre you serious, Brewcrewer? You're making a complaint based on two diffs that are more than six years old and one that is eight months old? Really? — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph
Statement by Nishidani
Statement by (username)Result concerning Nableezy
|
| Advice given by Ricky is good. I have reviewed the content of the appeal and see no basis for overturning it. NW ( Talk) 04:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I was banned from both RT News and its talk page because I was supposedly creating "disruptive edits" by asking for scientific, verifiable proof that RT is a propaganda station, asking for studies or some sort of quantifiable data. Instead, I was topic-banned for "disruptive editing"; yet as anyone can see at the RT Talk page I was being very polite until one editor begun accusing me of having a fake account and of editing in poor faith. I think my topic-ban is extremely unjust, and I also call about admins to review the sources behind RT's page, as 'Daily Beast' and Tumblr have never been valid sources, and yet the admin who is attempting to lock debate on the issue of valid sources (he says that RT is "undeniably propaganda"--but that's merely opinion!) has nonetheless attempted to railroad the debate one way, in a way that makes RT look like some sort of propaganda channel, when there is no proof to this scientifically or in quantification. I ask that my 6-month topic ban be reviewed; It's truly unfair, and I received it all in an attempt to better Wikipedia and find good sources, (which reminds me another reason why Wikipedia is dying), which makes me not want to contribute very much here anymore (And I've been contributing, mostly to history-related articles, since 2012) if I'm going to be topic-banned every time I try and make a valid improvement, only to get railroaded by influential editors with admin friends. Solntsa90 ( talk) 21:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Canada Jack
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Ricky81682 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
-
Canada Jack (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Motion:_Longevity_.28August_2015.29 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Editing to restore the "original edit" which I point out is wrong.
- The discussions at Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people are largely self-explanatory. The issue is whether reliable sources should determine who should be listed on the page or some other terminology: the phrasing now is "international body that specifically deals in longevity research" but without identifying the GRG as the only actual source in play.
- The "no one has 'verified' the age" versus newspapers alleging "reporting" the age (I don't even know anymore) arguing continues here
- To determine which bodies are said international longevity researching specific-whatever, "We observe what news sources use" so arguing newspapers are unreliable as a source other than to parrot the GRG as a source.
- "Nice try, Ricky. NONE of the sources outside of GRG / Guinness claim that these birthdates are "verified"... unless GRG/Guinness has verified them!" which is false.
- "I never said they were the sole authorities, but media around the world use those two almost exclusively, so we should as well, that's all"
- It's the oldest living people, yet Canada Jack derails the discussion by repeating arguing about the insertion of Methusalah's age knowing full well that's irrelevant, but calling it the logical consequence and the can of worms opened by the lede saying "reliable sources" alone. The section needs an outside admin to just collapse it.
- Canada Jack has been derailing the discussion by pointing to this article in the Canada Star. [2] While never advocating for her inclusion, (a WP:NOTFORUM problem), he's repeatedly referencing it including just to make snipes on other discussions going on.
- " This page is for verified claims. The fact a claim was published doesn't establish its veracity."
- As noted above, there is an argument about the birthdate for Zhou Youguang (not a claim, just that little fact). The only way Canada Jack sees this is "His claim is accepted on its face by the media. But... there is no mention of Guinness and/or GRG as having verified the claim" in regards to his birthdate. As discussed before, no one cares a cent about this until Zhou turned 110 and then there's arguments everywhere that his birthdate must be removed until it's verified by the GRG or else there exists the possibility that Wikipedia is claiming that a supercentenarian exists that the GRG hasn't identified which I don't know why that matters.
- Finally, to summarize this mentality, "Are you seriously trying to claim that it is the Toronto Star which has determined that the proof is "not solid enough" instead of Guinness? That the Toronto Star, not Guinness, bestows the crown of "world's oldest person"? C'mon, Ricky, surely you can do better than that!"
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- The talk pages each notify the editor of the discretionary sanctions.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is the typical parade of horribles and chaos caused whenever there is an ounce of push-back to even debating the language that doesn't explicitly or implicitly treat the GRG as the last word on the birth date of very old people. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- In response, I first note that if Canada Jack knew he was wrong, the proper thing is to restore the correct version, not to ignore it until called out here but it's been changed again which doesn't matter with the RFC ongoing. I note that this is again a single issue: is
List of oldest living people going to continue to be a walled garden that expresses a particular
WP:POV about who is allegedly the world's oldest people or not? Our sourcing policy is clear: we are to have a single
WP:NPOV everywhere and a single standard for
WP:RS. The analogous
WP:MEDRS either believes a fact or strips it away entirely; it does not create separate articles with different sourcing standards. Canada Jack's refusal to accept that is precisely the type of antics that brought about the original longevity ARBCOM case. There is literally nothing in his arguments that hasn't been argued for over a decade. Either we should report on Zhou's birthdate as a fact on his biography, put him in the relevant category, and put him in the (all the) relevant articles (which admittedly the oldest living people is not) or we treat that fact as a
WP:FRINGE theory and ignore it entirely. The amount of inane arguing over an article that literally no one supports or has even thought to include
longevity claims shows the level of hysteria over any pushback that does nothing but drive away all but the most hardened of editors here. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 22:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Spartaz, is it really robust debate to keep bringing up hypotheticals that you have no interest in actually putting down as a fact? I'm for debate but WP:BLUDGEON and WP:NOTFORUM are also relevant; we wouldn't want a page like "List of the best NBA players" or whatever filled up with navel gazing arguments about what "best" is and someone just throwing out argument after argument, none of which they actually want in the article. Is filling the talk page with comments like this about random alleged oldest people (facts that you yourself aren't arguing to be treated as true) in every single section (Canada Jack is arguing about the oldest guy in Israel in a section about the oldest Japanese man) disruptive itself? I don't see any indication that any of Canada Jack's questioning is actually in response to the RFC issue; rather it's repeated discussion after discussion with example after example (the same ones on oldest living people and at oldest people and elsewhere) regardless of relevancy of just "hi I found a single blog or a newspaper somewhere that said something so STUUUUPID, can't you see how there's some wrong newspapers out there". -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Canada Jack
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Canada Jack
My reading of the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" is that it was determined that verified super-centenarian lists from the GRG were considered a "reliable source," and that the non-yet verified lists (Table EE from GRG) were not a "reliable source." However, what we are talking about here is not whether GRG or Table EE is or isn't a RS, it's whether news media reports on longevity claims of those over 110 years old can be used on the "oldest living people" page, if these "reliable sources" suffice to be being included with claims which have been verified by GRG etc., the particular discussion on what the lede should say. The contention here from me and others is the only a recognized authority on verifying these claims should be used in considering these claims "verified," and that news organizations, while "reliable sources," are not able to properly assess these claims, no more than a newspaper, even the New York Times, would publish, say, the latest cancer claims without consulting oncology experts who could better assess and put into context such claims. As Guinness World Records oft stated: "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity," hence the need for a rigorous, more scientific approach in assessing claims. Many news organizations recognize the expertise Guinness and the GRG have on this subject as they are cited, from publications around the world, as having "verified" particular claims. I could supply literally hundreds of examples from around the world of them being cited as authorities.
In attempting to change the lede to allow "verification" from news sources, thus removing the need for sole GRG/Guinness verification, a can of worms is opened, which is what the thrust of the discussion here was. I pointed out that by their own criteria of "reliable sources," dubious claims like that of a woman in Canada who will soon turn 120, would warrant inclusion on this page, thus destroying the credibility of Wikipedia. She would be the oldest person in the world. (News sources, citing Guinness/GRG, routinely identify a woman in New York, at 116, as the world's oldest.) I was never seriously proposing to include her on the page, I was using their own criteria to point out that a highly dubious claim would be admissible, and therefore their changes would be detrimental. This approach from Ricky and others are nakedly anti-GRG, those who argue as I do are routinely painted as shills for GRG, a tone I personally find perplexing - it's as if the approach here is to "get back" at GRG, for some undefined reason.
In sum: There should be no sanction/remedy as I have not engaged in discussion on the subjects for which a sanction/remedy is warranted. And, therefore, discussions on whether non-GRG sources should be considered for inclusion is a topic for which there are no restrictions.
As for his DIFFs...
1 was a good-faith edit, I reverted an edit to what I thought was the original edit as a discussion (the one I refer to) was on-going. He pointed out the error, and I made no further edit. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.
2 discussions are on the subject Ricky (I believe it was him) initiated. If I am violating something for engaging in discussion, then surely Ricky, who initiated it, is too. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.
3 Debating verification is not prohibited - the original decision was the one mentioned above - I'm not challenging GRG as a reliable source; I'm not arguing that GRG's Table EE is a reliable source.
4 He has made a what I consider to be an invalid line of reasoning, making a strawman argument by dismissing an argument I never made. Specifically, that if newspapers are "unreliable" as he claims I am suggesting, then how we can rely on them when they cite GRG/Guinness? But I've never argued the newspapers are "unreliable," just that they are not experts on the subject. Using his logic, if the New York Times cites a cancer expert, we can't say that that person, no matter his/her credentials, is an "expert" as the New York Times is not expert in the subject. I don't buy that line of reasoning, and that was not what I was saying. And, I never suggested we can only verify if cited by a paper, just that newspapers routinely cite GRG/Guinness, therefore they are considered (by media outlets around the world) to be experts on the subject. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.
5 He says it is "false" that media outlets don't say a claim is "verified" without quoting GRG/Guinness. But he's never supplied an example of a claim being called "verified" without a mention of GRG/Guinness. I don't think he understood the point I was making. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.
6 The quote simply states the obvious - they are considered by media world-wide as experts, so should we. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.
7 As I pointed out repeatedly to Ricky, the section in question asked "Who is the world's oldest ever person?" I simply applied the "reliable source" argument - which is at the heart of the discussion here - to that case. It was a Reductio ad absurdum argument directly related to the "verification" and "reliable sources" issues. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.
8 Again, as I earlier pointed out that, given the very criteria Ricky and others are proposing, this woman - Canadian Emma Laurent - would appear on this page even though she is three years older than who Guinness recognizes as the world's oldest. The point was to underline the consequences of the actions proposed - destroying the credibility of the page. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.
9 Again, this is not debating what was resolved and for which there is sanction for discussing - that GRG is a reliable source; that GRG's Table EE is not a reliable source.
10 Ricky misrepresents the discussion at hand. The point was not whether Zhou was verified or not by GRG, the point was the only difference between the Laurent case and the Zhou case in terms of "verified" by "reliable sources" is that Zhou's article doesn't mention GRG/Guinness while Laurent's does - in saying Guinness doesn't accept the claim. He insists that this mere mention disqualifies Laurent for inclusion on the page and that the "non-mention" of GRG/Guinness in Zhou means it warrants inclusion. That makes no sense, as if Zhou doesn't appear on the Guinness/GRG lists, then they've not verified him either - so Ricky and others are employing a double-standard. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.
11 Ricky made numerous false statements on the Laurent article (that Canada copied Haiti's verification of the case - there is no mention of that in the article; that Canada issued a passport on the strength of Haiti's information - there is nothing in the article which says that, indeed the word "passport" doesn't even appear; that the Toronto Star believes the claims is "not proven" when that was the description of Guinness's evaluation of the claim). The final claim is what the quote discusses - his contention that "not proven" means the Star has determined that and, by implication (given the out-of-context quote he used) The Star awards the crown of "world's oldest person," an obvious absurdity. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source. Canada Jack ( talk) 22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Canadian Paul
I'm a little concerned with individuals being brought to Arbitration Enforcement simply because they disagree with the way longevity articles should be handled. As noted below, only one of the diffs is actually an edit to the article and thus I do not see Canada Jack engaging the type of contentious, single-agenda editing that these sanctions were enacted to prevent (and I agree fully that there is so much of it that it easy to get frustrated/be sensitive about it). I understand Canada Jack's reasoning (even if I don't agree with it) and I don't see it as disrupting the project because the article itself is not being affected by it and if he can accept his views as not being the consensus, then that will be all there is to it. Bringing dissenting voices to AE (see also the failed AE request for Lugnuts) only serves to transform an already contentious topic into more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND than it already is. Canadian Paul 18:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Canada Jack
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Robustly defending your position on an article talk page is not disruptive unless the user is refusing to be bound by the eventual consensus or disruptively edit warring to advance their position. I'm really not seeing enough disruption in Canada Jack's edits to merit any action unless there is a clear indication that they will behave disruptively in future. @ Canada Jack: please can you put these concerns to rest by confirming that you will respect the consensus that emerges on verifiability and that you will not take part in further edit wars? Spartaz Humbug! 18:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
| We're not going to block someone for submitting a terrible BLP to AFD. Nobody cares about this except GG partisans on both sides. Please edit the encyclopedia or find another website to use to argue. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning NorthBySouthBaranof
The remedy states that: "Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed." The nomination was about Chanty Binx ( Google search results about her), a feminist who has gained Internet-fame after arguing with men's rights activists in Toronto in 2013. It is thus a gender-related dispute or controversy, and even directly Gamergate-related due to the "meme-status" which can be confirmed by combining the full name or nickname as indicated in the "Knowyourmeme.com" article and "Gamergate". I do agree with the outcome of AfD (it's best fit in the forementioned site, not Wikipedia). However, there's no doubt that the person in question is very notable in Internet feminism-related disputes and her video in Youtube, which I will not link for possible BLP reasons, has over 1 million views. NorthBySouthBaranof also removed an inquiry by another user on his talk page (4th diff). This is aggravating in my opinion because raising an issue on someone's talkpage is the first, and these days without RFC/U, pretty much the only way for dispute resolution. Hence posting here. -- Pudeo ' 01:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning NorthBySouthBaranofStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NorthBySouthBaranofI stumbled on the page in question doing standard new-pages patrol. It was a wholly-negative biography of a living person sourced only to an unacceptable source ( Know Your Meme) and utterly failed our basic content standards for biographies. The question of whether it might be a "gender-related controversy" didn't even cross my mind — the fact is, the page wasn't an acceptable biography of a living person. Even with other putative sources added, it appeared to me that there was no possibility of writing an encyclopedic biography of the person, so I nominated it for deletion and briefly engaged in discussion. It was at that point — one week ago — that another long-time user in good standing privately reminded me of the topic ban and that it might be construed as a violation. I recognized the issue, heeded the advice, disengaged from the deletion discussion and took no further part in editing the article, which has since been deleted by a clear and overwhelming consensus that it is unsuitable for the encyclopedia. On the other hand, the "another user" Pudeo refers to is an obvious SPA troll/sock account with a grand total of three 0-byte articlespace contributions 7 months ago who somehow "magically" leaped into discussion of an AfD and a topic-ban. I decline to engage in any conversation with obvious trolls. The record speaks for itself and the chips will fall where they may. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 01:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JohnuniqI noticed this at ANI ( permalink). That report was opened by an account with a total of 7 edits made six months ago. The same account posted at NorthBySouthBaranof's talk. Asserting that NBSB's removal of that post was a "refusal to dicuss the issue" is very unrealistic. If there is an issue, why didn't an established editor raise it? Why didn't Pudeo or anyone else watching ANI discuss it with NBSB? The answer is that there is nothing to discuss—the article was an WP:ATTACK, should have been deleted, and was deleted. The AfD proceeded smoothly and the community endorsed NBSB's action by deleting the article with a very solid consensus. I examined the article and would have advised NBSB to disengage if I thought the "gender-related dispute or controversy" claim was reasonable. I could not see such a dispute—it looked like a standard attack article where the subject protested during a lecture at a university and was heckled and criticized afterwards. Not a "dispute or controversy", but a flash-in-the-pan incident commemorated with an obviously inappropriate BLP. The article I recall did not phrase the issue as a feminist versus men's rights activists—if the Internet searches mentioned above show that such a connection exists, they should be discounted as it is not reasonable to go beyond how the topic was expressed on-wiki. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by DHeywardThis is obviously more GamerGate nonsense as the Google result shows and NBSB should know that GamerGate topics are off-limits. It's exactly what his Topic Ban covers. NPP and BLP are specious reasons for creating the GG drama of an AfD started by a topic banned editor. No different then those GG topic-banned editors proposing deletion of Quinn or any number of other articles related to GG. -- DHeyward ( talk) 02:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by RhododendritesI don't have any great reason to believe the subject of the AfD has any obvious connection with GamerGate, but it would seem to fit into the category of "gender-related controversy". The article was primarily about a video of the subject's conflict with men's rights advocates. She was engaging them on the subject of feminism and its relationship with men's rights and the interaction became heated. The article was also about the harassment she received afterwards, stemming directly from the video. Even a quick glance at the sources shows the subject to be inextricably linked to both feminism and antifeminism. In fact, she's probably best known for a meme based on the video used broadly to caricature/ridicule feminists. However, there is an exception to such topic bans for "obvious" BLP violations ( WP:BANEX). As far as I know that exception applies to GG sanctions, too. The article was about a subject of ridicule and harassment who is currently reported to be in hiding, and even the small amount of text in the article that wasn't a basic description of events included a negative judgment of her representation of feminists. Every one of the sources was unusable per WP:BLPSPS and the topic was a pretty clear WP:BLP1E. As for whether all of this constitutes "obvious" violations, well, to be honest I'm not certain -- and for that reason I feel a little weird making this my first AE post. I don't follow AE much so don't have a great handle on what precedent is for gray area like this. But I did spend some time with this article and the AfD, and know that, at least from my perspective, I saw major red flags that some might consider "obvious". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourthI participated in this AfD. I believe there are probably valid WP:BLP based exceptions to the topic ban if it is determined that this article falls under the purview of the topic ban, given that people were raising concerns that it was a attack page at the deletion discussion. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 05:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by IPIf Mark Bernstein shows up then we'll have nearly the entire gang of "usuals" magically showing up to defend each other. May as well get rid of the topic ban since this all seems to be part of the plan. For fuck's sake, he was already site banned under his previous account for his bullshit. Everyone knows who he is, what he is and how he'll continue to behave and give a giant middle finger to anyone not on his mailing list.
Statement by MarkBernsteinThe unsigned comment above, attributed to "IP", is interesting. The phrase, "for fuck’s sake” -- is that perhaps related to the current Case Request, in which an exasperated admin said something like this? If discussing whether or not Chanty Binx merits a Wikipedia biography falls under the ambit of "gender-based controversies", then in fact the biography of any woman who has every expressed an opinion falls under that ambit. If ArbCom had wished the topic ban to encompass "all biographies of women" or "all biographies", they were perfectly capable of doing so. This complaint is not intended to prevent disruption.' It is itself disruptive. In point of fact, it’s being coordinated at the Gamergate boards, originally launched by that charming fellow whose user name recalls the sweet, sweet music of Nazi dive bombers exterminating Spanish civilians. For shame. MarkBernstein ( talk) 17:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by a procrastinating BrustopherI've been trying to stay away from Wikipedia for the past month or so, but I really must oppose any block here. The article was utter crap, initially largely negative and a blatant case of BLP1E. Perhaps not a "blatant BLP violation" of the sort traditionally meant by WP:BANEX but definitely not a disruptive move that he should be punished for. I'd disagree with User:DHeyward that this is comparable with GGers AfDing Zoe Quinn, as this was a blatant BLP1E case where the article clearly should have been deleted. If NBSB had nominated TFYC or something along those lines at AfD while topic banned, that would have been a completely different story. I'll also note that the GG topic ban is very broad and everyone and their mother seems to (presumably accidentally) breach it at some point or another. I've seen multiple editors that are far more sympathetic to GG than NBSB breach their "broadly construed" topic bans, but none of them ever get dragged to AE for it. I'd ask the peanut gallery to consider this next time they complain about NBSB allegedly being immune to sanctions. NBSB clearly did the right thing according to BLP policy, and drew attention to a crap, obscure, negative BLP article that may likely have avoided attention had he not intervened. To block him for this would be petty, bureaucratic and encourage the persistence of bad BLP articles within the encyclopedia. Bosstopher2 ( talk) 17:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning NorthBySouthBaranof
|
| No action, since the user has agreed not to edit the OETA article until they satisfy the 500/30 rule that has been imposed as an WP:ARBPIA remedy EdJohnston ( talk) 15:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning AJB43
Although talk pages are included in the ARBPIA3 general prohibition (it says "pages", not "articles", and this interpretation was confirmed at WP:ARCA), I did not list such edits. The only issue here is whether the page Occupied Enemy Territory Administration "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". To clarify, OETA was the military government established by the British government in Palestine when it was conquered from the Ottoman Empire in 1917. It lasted until replaced by a civilian government in 1922. This was a key moment in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. To judge AJB43's denial, we only need to read AJB43's edit summaries and text to see that AJB43 is editing the article precisely out of concern for the Arab-Israeli conflict:
The 30/500 rule was introduced to keep PIA articles from being disrupted by SPA editors like this. Unfortunately, there are not yet (correct me if I'm wrong) the technical means to enforce it. Please enforce this case by a long block. Zero talk 07:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning AJB43Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AJB43I submitted the dispute for a third opinion earlier, and prior to this reporting. User Zero0000 is the biased one here, reverting my non-partisan edits for personal, partisan goals. My edits are not out of concern for the Arab-Israeli Conflict, and could not reasonably be construed that way. My edits are made out of pedantry- the successor area to the OETA that Zero0000 wants to refer to as Palestine is in fact the Palestinian National Authority. This is about precise terms for an online encyclopedia, not a vested interest on my part. If you look at Zero0000's user page, it explicitly states the term "Palestine," and displays numerous other examples of the user's interest in the Arab-Israel Conflict, including stating that Zero0000 has been to "Palestine (West Bank and Gaza). That is clear conflict of interest right there. I edit the article to show "Palestinian National Authority," but Zero0000 doesn't like this because personal opinions hold that it must be "Palestine." This is spin at its finest. The user is the one who is reverting my edits and trying to have me banned because the user wants to interject politics into a Wikipedia article, in which POV has no place. I appeal against any ban. AJB43 ( talk) 08:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)AJB43 Statement by (username)Result concerning AJB43
|
| Banninated by user:Bishonen for egregious gaming of the system. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning HistoryWrite
This editor has made hundreds of junk edits to "satisfy" the 500-edit rule for editing in the Arab-Israel area. I can't list them all here, please see its contributions, its user page, and read its comment "Malik, now that I have amassed 500+ nonsense edits, how will you justify your unilateral deletions of my contributions, and your rewriting of history with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict?" [13].
Almost certainly a sock, but I'm no good at identifications.
Edit quoted above proves both awareness and intention to subvert. Also got ARBPIA notice on talk page.
This is intolerable. Less than a permablock would be too little. Zero talk 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
notified Zero talk 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Discussion concerning HistoryWriteStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by HistoryWriteIn Wikipedia’s Arab-Israeli topics, I have made very important and cited contributions, among them:
My contributions were based on historical facts, germane to the topics, and gave historical context to what have become pro-Palestinian propaganda Wikipedia pages. Yet, people taking decidedly anti-Israel points of views, deleted all of my contributions. Ultimately, Malik Shabazz, to his credit, did not send me to arbitration, he gave me a warning, not about content, but technicality: Wikipedia:ARBPIA3. Therefore, I wrote the following in my Userpage: I am HistoryWrite. Unlike many who suppress their agendas, mine is clear and open. I am on Wikipedia to combat the Arab/Muslim-led political warfare campaigns and efforts to distort and falsely rewrite history in regard to Israel and the Middle East in general, and the Arab-Palestinian agenda in particular. Many efforts have been made to block my historical additions and a recent warning was given to me that I must have 30 days and 500 edits in Wikipedia in order to edit “controversial” pages such as the State of Palestine or the Palestine Liberation Organization. As such, I now have more than 30 days, and here are my 500 edits that once and for all make me legitimate to write factual historical information, specifically regarding the most prominent contributions of the PLO (and many Palestinians): violence and terrorism. My 1…500 edits. Subsequently, I left a note for Malik informing him that I now have the required number of edits. However, to correct the context and meaning, the “500+ nonsense edits” refer ONLY to the numerical edits in my own Userpage, and DO NOT refer to ANY of my edits/contributions in Wikipedia in general, or the Arab-Israeli topic in particular. The Wikipedia:ARBPIA3 would curtail Gore Vidal if he were to join Wikipedia today, although I’m sure the intent is rather to stop drive by attacks. My contributions have been substantial. Interestingly, if a person writes a 30,000 word article and hits save, that is one edit. Correcting a comma is one edit. Where’s the logic, but I digress. Contributors are weighing in on many issues: WP:POVPUSH; User:FDJK001; “hundreds of junk edits”; “aggressive statement”; “POV-warrior gaming the system,” I’m “not a serious editor.” Those statements are either wrong or irrelevant to why I am here. [Note, Torven actually wrote that someone was banned for the same thing, when in fact, the operator was banned for abusively using multiple accounts.] What is most difficult to understand are why people like Guy and EdJohnston would okay a site ban prior first reading any statement of explanation from me. I have been published in major newspapers and I have a relevant voice that will be heard. At the end of the day, I was warned, and now I have 500 edits. I would rather this arbitration deal with the propaganda that is allowed by the pro-Palestinian perspective, rather than banishing me on a technicality. Speaking of technicality, I was actually sent to arbitration after I had the 500 edits. HistoryWrite Statement by NomoskedasticitySurely the aggressive statement of intent on the user page is enough to demonstrate that this editor is not here to contribute to an encyclopaedia but instead to WP:POVPUSH. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by TorvenI had to go digging for it, but this isn't the first time someone has tried to sneak into the circus this way. About six months ago, User:FDJK001 was banned for doing almost the exact same thing. Considering the user's talk page, I don't see much reason to view this situation any differently. Torven ( talk) 15:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@ HistoryWrite: Check his block log. Before the Checkuser results were posted to his page, he was blocked for, among other things, gaming sanctions. The intent of the 500/30 restriction isn't to make you crank out 500 edits as quickly as you can. It's to give new users time to learn how Wikipedia works, both technically and in policy, before they dive into an area that frequent disruption has turned into a minefield. For instance, I've been browsing the site for several years and actively following the notice boards for just over a year. I know some policies well enough, since it is impossible to follow some notice board discussions without them. At the same time, I had no clue how to ping a user until last week when DHeyward pinged me (which, by the way, if you are reading this, thank you for that). Seeing how more experienced editors post and interacting with them is one of the best ways to learn, and by trying to circumvent the sanctions, you have shown you have no interest in learning how to work with the community and are here simply to push your point of view. That won't get you very far, and may have already sabotaged your stated agenda. Also, this board does not use threaded discussions; everyone responds in their own section. Torven ( talk) 00:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Darkfrog24Non-involved non-admin here. To answer your question HistoryWrite, the logic behind the 500 edits rule is to force new editors to practice on non-controversial parts of Wikipedia before jumping into the deep end (and also to make it harder to use fake accounts). The rules here are byzantine and even experienced users can run afoul of regulations that they didn't know were there. If you'd spent your thirty days doing real editing you might have found out that the place to deal with the problems you see in the articles on Palestine is at parts of the site dedicated to a neutral point of view or run across a productive request for comment or found out what is meant when we say that Wikipedia focuses on verifiability rather than truth. Even if, let's say, you spent the past thirty days conscientiously reading Wikipedia talk page discussions (I'm doing something called assuming good faith), you didn't learn what you needed to learn. For example, you added this text about the PLO attacking civilians [14] but you didn't cite a reliable source backing it up; it's an important step and you didn't know you weren't supposed to skip it. Five hundred edits on regular articles would have gone a long way toward proving that you were at least trying; they were meant to establish your reputation. People here find your edits disturbing because it makes it look like you care more about technicalities than about cooperating with other Wikieditors. It's a little like someone cheating on their driving test. Even if your edits didn't involve running over anyone's grandmother, we're still not confident that you know what the blinking yellow light means. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosephThe ruling of ARBCOM says 500 edits. That's what this guy did. Just like all other stupid ARBCOM ruling that comes back to bite them such as 1RR or we can revert for no reason. Maybe next time ARBCOM will clarify and issue a ruling with clarify and think it through. But as the ruling stands, this person did nothing wrong. And of course, since he's pro-Israel, he automatically gets labeled a sock. I'm surprised I wasn't yet labeled a sock at some point. That is of course how it works in this area. Regardless, what Wikipedia doesn't need is yet another pro-Israel editor kicked away merely to prove to the world the bias of Wiki. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SerialjoepsychoI'd classify this as WP:GAMING the system. If someone can just type 1 letter on their own talk page 500 separate times then there's no point behind this rule. Wikipedia we put emphasis behind the spirit of the rules more than the letter of the rules. The question is if he spirit of this is clear? If it is clear you should ban them outright and if it's not you should simply require that they get 500 more edits before editing in this topic area, and 500 that aren't the nonsense that took place here. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 22:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning HistoryWrite
|
| Darkfrog24's existing topic ban is replaced with a topic ban from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics, specifically including quotation marks and quotation styles. This applies on all pages, including your and other's user talk pages. This may be appealed no sooner than 12 months from today (4 February 2016). Thryduulf ( talk) 13:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Darkfrog24
DF24 received a
DF24 is transgressing their ban and WP:ARBATC, perpetuating and more intensely personalizing the AT/MOS dispute central to the ban, seemingly for revenge. Was specifically warned against such behavior (diffs of other warnings also available). Just before the ban, DF24 wrote: When I raised these matters with Thryduulf (who said take it to AE), DF24 didn't take the hint (third diff), pursuing it on my own talk page while professing to not want interaction; this defies reason on several levels. Admins suggested that, DF24 being a professional proofreader, that this an obvious productive area [21], [22]. But DF24 says they mostly can't stand to do it, because WP's punctuation choices are not "correct English". [23]. This fundamentalist, anti-linguistics view is central to the matter – MoS must be changed, no matter what and how long it takes, because it is wrong. This will not be cured by a block of any length. Over six years of tendentious, disruptive campaigning, yet DF24 admits our users don't care about this punctuation trivia anyway [24] Keeping this up is WP:NOTHERE (at least regarding ARBATC). Third party in the first two diffs (we're interacting well now) isn't involved in the LQ debate, and found the circular rehash of it at WT:MOS tiresome in September. He's just a not-random AT/MOS editor – one to whom DF24 (noting an earlier argument between me and that editor about MOS) has repeatedly cast WP:ASPERSIONS about my mental health, after the ban [25], and after Ds/alert: [26], [27]. Also, a long string of dishonesty allegations (increasing after ban) without evidence, only links to DF24's previous claims and denials [28], [29], [30], [31], etc. Can prove this habit of incivility and gaslighting is much broader, but would need length-limit extension.
Given the personalized nature of DF24's continuance of the dispute, the attempts to recruit a previously uninvolved AT/MOS editor to tagteam (see also last AE's evidence of attempt to recruit a new editor to file anti- MOS:LQ RfC on DF24's behalf), and the fact that DF24 has been quite productive in unrelated mainspace and other things since the TB, I suggest the best response isn't the promised block (could make grudgematching worse), but:
"Walling-off" would remove DF's ability to involve more AT/MOS editors in style-warrior crusading, permits ongoing good editing, and obviates further admin action. DF24 needs to start up a new conversation with other guests in some different room at the Wikipedia party.
Discussion concerning Darkfrog24Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Darkfrog24The topic ban covers quotation marks and WP:LQ [43]. It does not cover SMcCandlish specifically or talking about other editors or their behavior in general. For all SMC's links, please just look at what I actually said, in its original context. Do not take his summary of matters at face value.
I did not make accusations without evidence. Plenty was provided [50] [51] [52] [53] and there is more. He rearranges words or leaves them out to make my posts look like something they're not. Example, I actually said "The way I see it, I've done nothing wrong, but you clearly don't feel that way. So what do you see as a positive change that I could make here?" [54] And here's why I cut back on gnoming: [55]. Example: SMcCandlish claimed that I removed a dispute tag "without doing anything to resolve the disputes." [56] That's not true. I attempted to resolve the dispute by replacing the source, which I believed he had contested. [57] Here's the two of us talking about it. [58] Not true + He knows it = "Not being honest" is the nice way to put it. I'd need more space to refute every point. SMcCandlish has not been shy about calling me a liar without cause [59] or about making vicious claims about my motives [60] [61]. Here he is saying "I don't want Darkfrog to be allowed to say I'm not honest or speculate about my motives!" SmC is playing the victim.
And yes, he does know that's what I meant: [62] Scroll down until you see "Are you okay?" Remedy: Tell SMcCandlish to leave me alone. Response to SMC's further allegations: This editor does not understand how I think or why I do what I do. He wants you to believe that this isn't a response to his actions, that I'm just randomly mad and lashing out at just anyone. That's not true. (And speculating about my motives while saying that I should be banned from speculating about his motives is messed up.) Lots of editors don't agree with me on quotation marks. More than one editor commented on the last AE thread. SmC said and is continuing to say things that he knows aren't true. What do I want here? I've already unwatched the MoS and quotation mark pages. I want to reserve the right to speak at any formal complaint that might be filed against SmC for his behavior or to file one myself and to participate in ordinary conversations—like the one I had with CurlyTurkey—under Wikipedia's ordinary rules. I'm trying to make the best of this topic ban. What I need is for him to stay away from me, cease acting as though I were his business in any way, stop presuming to take credit for my work, stop following me around, stop misrepresenting what I say. What's it going to take from me to get that? The question is not rhetorical. Oh good God. [63]. I can't even say "Are you okay?" without him imagining some ulterior motive. @ Thryduulf: Last week, I was not aware that I was not allowed to ask involved admins about the core issue underlying the topic ban. I stopped doing so as soon as EdJ and KillerC told me otherwise. This is what I mean when I say your understanding of the rules is different from mine. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 13:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC) @ EdJohnston: I thought the topic ban already covered the MoS in general. I think you should talk to Tony1, SlimV and Izno. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 22:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC) In case my meaning wasn't obvious, the want/need dichotomy is meant to indicate "I am willing to forego what I want to get what I need." As for what I want, I mean I want to reserve the right to do something like this: [64] If SmC pulls on someone else what he pulled on me, I want to talk about it. I've done it before without incident. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 03:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC) @ EdJohnston: But it does currently cover WP:MOS and WT:MOS themselves, right? So what you're considering is an expansion of the gag order? Question: Do you believe my conversation with Curly Turkey concerned the MoS in some way or is this because of something else? Darkfrog24 ( talk) 05:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Thryduulf: @ Liz: @ Laser brain: @ JzG: @ KillerChihuahua: @ EdJohnston: Alert acknowledged, but I feel the need to say that my messages on your talk pages were a good-faith effort to make the best of the topic ban period. My questions were meant to assess the differences between my view of this matter and your own and so directly address the underlying cause. My best guess as to what the point of all this is is the threads concerning WP:LQ at WT:MOS. I would feel better about this if any of you would acknowledge that you have read the evidence that I have offered that my accuser is not being honest with you and looked at the diffs in question in their original context rather than relying in his misleading presentation. I'm not saying you necessarily didn't; I'm saying I'd feel better if you affirmatively indicated that you did. Similarly, I'd like to thank you for the acknowledgement that I did not violate the ban as it was presented to me. Since one of the reasons given is the belief that my contribution is a "net negative," I believe that MOS regulars and punctuation article contributors other than SMcCandlish should be consulted. I will ask now: In the interest of avoiding further proceedings, in what way do you believe my conversation with Curly_Turkey ( talk · contribs) was not consistent with the letter or spirit of the topic ban? From my perspective, it did not concern quotation marks or the MoS in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfrog24 ( talk • contribs) Even though it's probably too late to change anyone's mind, I want the following on record. SMcCandlish is making most of this up, both here and in the original discussion. There are a few outright lies, a ton of exaggerations, and a whole lot of speculation presented as if it were fact. I personally believe that SMcCandlish deliberately spammed this page with a large amount of irrelevant information specifically to confuse and distract and to present me in a falsely bad light. I believe he deliberately posted so much in the hopes that no one would sit down and look at each diff in context, let alone allow me to refute his accusations when I have been told to keep at least my initial response to 500 words. It is not immediately obvious that the accused does not need to wait for permission to break the 500 word rule. It also makes it harder for me to tell which parts of his accusation you are reacting to and therefore which parts I should address. It's taken me a couple of days to think about it, but right now my best assessment of the situation is that you, the admins, are objecting to 1) my conversation with Curly Turkey and 2) the fact that I asked you about the right way to oppose a longstanding rule. If you were actually objecting to something else, please tell me.
I also believe that you may have seen this for what it was if you hadn't just been exposed to SMC's screeds. Speaking of questions, when someone comes to WT:MOS saying we should change WP:LQ, I say "Yes!" but when they show up asking how to use WP:LQ, I'm the first one there with the "Here's how." [73] I disagree with this rule but I haven't been breaking or undermining it. I also feel this procedure could be benefited by some established guidelines for appropriate notification on the order of WP:CANVASS. You guys may be no more subject to suggestion and bias than anyone else, but that does mean that "accuser is known to exaggerate" and "that's not exactly what happened" are going to have more weight coming from a third party than from the accused. Whether or not such a system is applied to my case, we should probably develop one. Whether it's for six months or twelve, I'm going to need a project and it's one of the ones I'm considering. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 23:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by DicklyonDarkfrog is correct that the topic ban was not quite broad enough to force her to drop the stick. That can be fixed. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by JzGDarkfrog's immediate reaction to the topic ban was to canvass opinion on how he could plan to carry on his campaign when the ban expires: [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]. I think that tells us something important about his determination to continue this, despite clear and unambiguous feedback that his efforts are not appreciated and not in line with Wikipedia ethos. I don't see any alternative here but to extend the TBAN and send an unambiguous sign that no means no. Guy ( Help!) 14:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Darkfrog24
|
| Topic ban restored. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Jaqeli
Despite being topic banned twice, Jaqeli seemingly exhibits the same behavior he has in the past.
The user appears to conduct a concerning WP:TENDENTIOUS editing pattern in Armenian related articles ever since the lifting of his ban. I find that every time he edits an Armenian related article, it is disruptive in one way or another. This disruptive editing pattern is similar to the very same disruption that has gotten him the AA2 ban in the first place. The user has a pretty extensive block log which includes several blocks from edit-warring and topic ban violations. Yet, despite all the blocks, warnings, and bans, the user continues to display a disruptive editing pattern. Therefore, I believe that the user's AA2 topic ban should be reinstated for second and final time.
For past inquiries, please see Jaqeli's:
Discussion concerning JaqeliStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JaqeliStatement by TiptoethrutheminefieldRegarding the AA2 report of 15th August (which I initiated), I was surprised after it to see Jaqeli continue to edit many articles related to Georgia. When I asked Sandstein about this, I was told that Jaqeli's editing restriction applied only to articles that contained material relating to BOTH Armenia and Georgia [87]. In other words, Jaqeli had no restriction on editing Armenia-related articles and no restriction on editing Georgia-related articles. I do not think that most people would read a "topic ban from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia" in this very restricted way. And given that a lot of the pov editing that Jaqeli has now been accused of is removing evidence of any Armenia/Armenian connections, this very restricted topic ban could be perceived as actually encouraging pov editing. If any editing restrictions are going to be reimposed on Jaqeli, would the closing administrator make the wording of it quite clear as to what the topic ban refers to, and consider whether it should be "everything related to Armenia and everything related to Georgia", or perhaps " "every article that could reasonably be expected to be related to Armenia regardless of whether it currently has content related to Armenia". A lot of the uncontroversial content that Jaqeli has worked on or added and that is only Georgia-related seems quite useful, quite specialized, and nobody else is doing it (so it would be a loss if he is gone). However, there seems to be a fundamentally bad attitude within his editing aims in that he consciously wishes at all times and whenever possible to minimize or remove legitimate content that mentions Armenia from articles that primarily concern Georgian history or culture or that jointly concern Georgian and Armenian history or culture. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Jaqeli
|
| blocked for a week and final warning left. This can be handled by dropping a note to my talk page if this resumes. Spartaz Humbug! 17:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 96.57.23.82
This IP has been posting repeated abusive comments and soapboxing at Talk:Hebron. They have removed warnings from their talk page, and continued with the same pattern of editing. Yesterday, they vandalised the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/to do, causing an abusive message to be posted on the talk pages of all members of this project. A study of the IPs contributions suggests that this is a stable IP, allocated to one user, so a lengthy block should not affect other users.
Discussion concerning 96.57.23.82Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 96.57.23.82Statement by (username)Result concerning 96.57.23.82
|
| No action taken. been open too long without input. Refile if problem persist. Spartaz Humbug! 15:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning CFCF
Discretionary sanctions mean that editors on a page must adhere to accepted editorial norms and follow policy and guidelines. CFCF is an experienced editor. He is very active on the WP:MEDRS page and had done a lot of editing to it. Because of this he is very knowledgeable on what is and isnt problematic. He should know better than to insert a editorial (primary) to counted a secondary MEDRS source. He should know better than to insert claims at the front of a paragraph in the lede that are not on the page, and not on topic for the page. He should know better than to use fringe sources to link e-cigs to illegal activity. He should know better than to write captions for images that are not about the image to bring in POV about children. But he has chosen to ignore MEDRS and insert POV after POV edit. He is also arguing to keep these POV edits in place. This one is very problematic as it points out a WEIGHT problem along with POV. [102] This one where he argues an editorial in a journal is a position statement. [103] This push to include pure POV without any discussion beforehand or consensus, one after the other is problematic. He has also added multiple images about children, as KimDabelsteinPetersen points out 40% of the images in the article now are about children and vaping, [104] a very POV focused number considering the article states that use by them is low compared to other age groups. AlbinoFerret 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC) In response to CFCF's post I will point out it is against WP:CAUTIOUS which the talk page has been following lately. Pushing POV edits without and contrary to consensus is problematic. I will also point out the deceptive multiple edit diffs he uses. AlbinoFerret 18:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Notified here. [105] Responses by AlbinoFerret@MarkBernstein While Stanton Glantz may be a professor, he is also a recognised activist. As found in numerous reliable sources. The first source Reuters ties his activism to e-cigs [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] While the whole university site isnt an activist site, his personal blog on the site can be reasonably found to hold his thoughts and agenda. AlbinoFerret 19:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Cloudjpk has provided diffs against me. But none of them show anything really relevant to this current situation.
I believe because of a prior Arbcom section that I was involved in concerning JzG/Guy that he is involved. I have left a message on his talk page. [116] He disagrees and I hope that he recuse's himself from this section. AlbinoFerret 18:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC) @Guy I will give a link to the Lancet source. [117] I will also point out that it is an "editorial" as can clearly be seen right above the title. Regardless of the respectability of the Lancet, an editorial is a primary source and not WP:MEDRS. Editors should never rely on editorials to counter findings of a secondary source, in this case Public Health England a part of the UK Department of Health. I will explain the Lancet POV problem. I point out that we have been here before. McNiel wrote a criticism of the Grana review, part of "peer review". The source was said to be primary. In the McNiel case CFCF was against including it. Here is one subsection from that discussion In the case of criticizing a negative review CFCF argued to keep the primary source criticism out, pointing out its not MEDRS . In this case CFCF wants the primary source criticism of a positive review in. This shows a big POV problem. AlbinoFerret 19:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC) @Jytdog Yes I suggested that S Marshall start a new section like he had been doing on the talk pages until he took a break. I also think you are missing some of the finer points comparing the Stanton Glantz RFC with the later post by CFCF. The RFC is about a MEDRS review. Many may disagree with me, but thats why we have RFC's to see where consensus lies. But I wonder how many of those no comments would agree to add a blog page by him? Not many by reading the talk page, where the journal reviewing the source was a main reason to vote no. Blogs are not reviewed. Blogs of activists {as pointed out in numerous high quality RS), are not good sources to add anything, find a MEDRS secondary source. As for the Lancet, all I am reading here are excuses to bring in a lower primary source to counter a higher secondary source. That is just not done, we should hold to our high standards of MEDRS secondary sources. As I have pointed out above, the talk page has had these discussions before. Thats part of the problem, CFCF is applying MEDRS differently depending on the view of the source. AlbinoFerret 06:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
S Marshall Involvement is not just specific with a topic, it can also be with an editor on different topics. If an editor calls for sanctions against you on a notice board, it is likely that the two of you are involved because of this. This link contains quite a large section by me calling for JzG/Guy to be sanctioned. [127] As does my comment in the GMO case calling for him to be included as a party, and likely face sanctions if he was included. Just as Jytdog cant say he is uninvolved as I presented evidence and PD against him at Arbcom. AlbinoFerret 10:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Discussion concerning CFCFStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CFCFThese edits do not constitute anything apart from a departure from the point of view of AlbinoFerret. All edits are properly sourced and I can categorically refute each accusation:
I believe it is also important to note that AlbinoFerret chose to revert these edits multiple times, I did not revert back, choosing each time to engage in discussion on the talk page. See reverts: [129], [130], [131]. I am under the firm belief that I chose the constructive approach, following up any controversy with discussion, not reverting. CFCF 💌 📧 18:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Starke HathawayHaving reviewed the diffs, I am not persuaded that CFCF has done anything more heinous than disagreeing with AlbinoFerret in a content dispute. My own independent review of the interactions between CFCF and AlbinoFerret leaves me with more concern over the behavior of the latter than the former. See this for instance. -Starke Hathaway ( talk) 18:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by TracyMcClarkOnce again CFCF has shown today on talk and article space that their purpose in the e-cigs area isn't to build a reasonable NPOV entry but to advocate their personal fundamental opposition to the subject. No surprise here considering the OP's advocacy in the past which already led to sanctions against tem. --TMCk ( talk) 19:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by MarkBernsteinIs it entirely reasonable to describe a site of the University of California San Francisco as "an activist site"? The author of this particular page is a full professor of medicine. This does have an unfortunate appearance. MarkBernstein ( talk) 19:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by KimDabelsteinPetersenIn reply to the diffs and CFCF's reply to these:
All in all it seems quite clear to me that CFCF is having difficulty in seperating his personal WP:POV from his work as a wikipedia editor on this article. And that is problematic. Short response to MarkBernstein: He may be a full professor, but it is still a blog, and the source is still opinion and primary. In fact that particular blog is part of Pf. Glantz activism/advocacy, something which he btw. is well known, and well regarded, for. See the discussion on the talkpage, as well as his BLP article for details. -- Kim D. Petersen 20:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC) And we've now turned from Think about the children!, to lets associate it with drug use [136] [137]. I'm not questioning the mention of this in the article, but more the WP:WEIGHT put upon it. And, if i wasn't aware of CFCF's status as a serious medical editor, i would seriously say that he has now turned to the next page in an advocacy handbook. -- Kim D. Petersen 20:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Noticeable, with regards to the general POV and WEIGHT porblems, should also be the talk page discussion here Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Youth_vaping_images -- Kim D. Petersen 20:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC) In reply to the reply from CFCF: Statement by CloudjpkI agree with Starke Hathaway [138] AlbinoFerret's complaint and his related history raises more concerns about him. AlbinoFerret finds reliable sources he disagrees with biased: [139]] [140]. AlbinoFerret deleted text he does not like [141] He claims his change was by consensus, but he deleted a notable source without AFD discussion. He did not not move all the content back to the safety page as he claims. IMO this was gaming the system. And none of this is new; this is a longstanding pattern [142] Cloudjpk ( talk) 22:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved JzGThe "blog post" from an "activist site" is actually a submission to the FDA jointly issued by the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco and the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University. It is extensively referenced and although not peer reviewed is clearly an expert opinion and not a mere "blog post". One of the diffs cited as evidence of evil behaviour also includes this:
The CDC is not some random bunch of activists, and to pretend that citing the CDC is POV-pushing is plainly completely unacceptable. The complainant also objects to an "editorial primary non-MEDRS" statement contradicting a "MEDRS" source. In fact, the edit in question was an article in The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, which pointed out that a figure estimated by Public Health England to be based on "an extraordinarily flimsy foundation" Now, The Lancet does not often go into bat against public health bodies, and Public Health England is not actually a MEDRS, there's been a lot of discussion on opinions by medical and public health bodies and they are not considered reliable to the standard of peer-reviewed articles. I find it worrying that despite the lengthy arbitration, motivated reasoning of this type is still going on. Wikipedia really doesn't care how fervently you might wish that medical academics were in favour of vaping, the fact is that there are profound and well-founded reservations about it, and it is Wikipedia's policy that these must be adequately reflected in articles. The edits of which AlbinoFerret complains are all entirely defensible and to an independent onlooker they appear to be necessary corrections to pro-vaping activism. This is an area where the evidence base is ambiguous and there is still spirited debate within the scientific community, we definitely should not be trying to protray it as settled one way or another, and balancing statements of the type CFCF added are necessary to maintaining NPOV. If there is to be an outcome here it should be a topic ban for AlbinoFerret for making vexatious complaints and attempting to abuse Wikipedia process to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Statement by KingsindianI have no opinion on the request except to state that Mystery Wolff should not be commenting here as they are under a topic ban from the area. They are a new user, so they should be advised that topic bans apply to all pages. They should simply avoid commenting on this matter altogether. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by LesVegasFirst of all, Guy is involved. I'm going to assume in good faith that he is saying he's uninvolved because he doesn't edit on E-Cig or tobacco articles, so he might think he's classified as impartial, but he has definitely been involved in several interactions with Albino Ferret and CFCF that I have seen. One of the more recent ones was when Albino Ferret commented about Guy's behavior at AE here on a GMO case. JzG was also involved in an E-Cig Arbitration Request case where he commented on Albino Ferret, said he supported a topic ban for him, and characterized the E-Cig topic as an unholy confluence of commercial vested interest, emotional commitment, immature medical knowledge and peripheral craziness. Guy and CFCF also both supported topic banning Albino Ferret here and Guy, CFCF, and Albino Ferret have all been involved in a very hot, and very recent dispute on MEDRS, with Guy and CFCF arguing against Albino Ferret's stance there. LesVegas ( talk) 01:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Comment by JohnbodJust brief comments provoked by the (unsigned) "Comment by uninvolved JzG" above.
Comments by Doc James
I am just not seeing anything that causes significant concern. This appears to be an attempt by Albino to eliminate those who disagree with them. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Comment by Beyond My KenI support Guy's suggestion of a topic ban for Albino Ferret for using Wikipedia processes as a weapon in pushing a POV. BMK ( talk) 19:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by wuerzeleI carefully reviewed the diffs in this AE request and find the request more than adequately supported and actionable. CFCF's transgressions and non-neutral edits may not be obvious to the casual observer. I implore arbcom members to make the effort to look at the diffs REGARDLESS of their opinion about e-cigs:
His self evaluation is incorrect and worse: deceptive. I second the editor who made the case, that JzG is involved, supported by multiple diffs. by calling himself uninvolved he aims to legitimize his turning of the table against AF, the requester, by proposing a 3 mth ban. under "Result concerning CFCF", it says "the section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators". Furthermore, JzG has a history of involvement on many sites, and has gotten a away with blocking editors. 2015 arbcom members should be well aware of the review, as JzG was warned about his behavior making chilling effects. arbcom clerks, please move His comments.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 07:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by JytdogI recently started working on the e-cig articles again for a while, and was really surprised by the level of bad feeling that is still there. When I came on the scene, the "pro-ecig" faction was trying to simplify the article (which it does need) and were proposing content without sourcing. (This section: Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Heading. S Marshall proposed it and AlbinoFerret and others signed off on it (Johnbod at least asked for sources!). When I asked for sources I got rough treatment from S Marshall here and especially here, with the caustic:. Again, I was just asking for sources and wanted the draft content to accurately reflect them. When S Marshall went ahead and implemented it, finally with sources, it became clear that the draft text had basic factual errors in it. (like e-cigs are 20% better than patches for quitting, when no source said that). These things could have been easily worked out. Instead, drama and trying to force things through. AlbinoFerret actually did a pretty collegial job working with me to fix it once we had sources. But the level of bad feeling is high. See this lovely side bar between AlbinoFerret and S Marshall on S Marshall's Talk page about the Mystery Wolf appeal. From S Marshall:Asking for sources for a proposal is exasperating? S Marshall said he is taking a self-imposed break, which I think is wise. About the point Albino raises about Stanton Glanz being an "anti-tobacco activist" and mischaracterizing the source as a "blog post"... Albino himself got fixated on adding an attribution for Glanz as an "anti-tobacco activist" but nobody on any side agreed with him, and Albino even started an RfC on that and got no !votes supporting using that attribution, and all !votes opposing. (see here. But he brings that point as though anybody agrees with him - but not even other members of the pro e-cig faction agree. Which just shows that his judgement is out of whack here. About the Lancet editorial, it is frustrating to see this mischaracterized all around. MEDRS discusses editorials in the normal sense of published opinions written and signed by some individual(s), and it advises the community to treat them as primary. Rightly. The Lancet Editorial in question was by the editorial board - it was signed, "The Lancet". It is a rare thing for the journal per se to make a statement, especially one of the Lancet's stature. For the UK-based Lancet in particular to comment on the PHE report is ...something. It is not of equal stature to PHE itself (PHE is a "major health organization" per MEDRS and I would not consider any journal's editorial board - not even the Lancet - to be one), but the critique was important and should be mentioned. Both sides are distorting things in making the case around that source. Tensions are high. About CFCF's behavior generally. I agree that CFCF has been too bold lately - there is too much churn and he is driving some of it. The overall churn is so fast and the tone on Talk so negatively charged that I have stopped paying attention to the article. But back to CFCF, there was no urgent need for CFCF to update the images in the article, for example, and he did emphasize the risks to children and the potential for use of e-cigs with pot in the images he selected. Pretty POV. Does that violate DS? Hard to see that, and I don't see that this is more worthy of AE than other behaviors I have seen in the brief time I have been back. I find the filing to be exaggerated and ramping up tensions yet more. I think if additional sanctions were imposed to slow down editing and discussion for a while, it might be useful. Two talk page postings and one edit per day, per involved editor, and another admonishment to try to make edits and suggestions that opponents would be likely to accept - the whole "write for the opponent" thing? Something like that. Jytdog ( talk) 06:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Your behavior through this little episode was really out of line - so much drama over a very, very basic WP thing. That you cannot see this.... whew. Jytdog ( talk) 03:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by S Marshall
Statement by Mystery WolffRemarking solely to the abusive and derogatory remarks made directly at me by S Marshall here inside this very AE, and on various user TALK pages, (and also the thinly veiled comments directly alluding to my personal nature, my competence and generalized editorship) I strongly object to their placement and usage here. Note to Admins: My comments are regarding that of S Marshall only, the ones talking about me, as I they were done here, I have no other option than to remark here. S Marshall has already been warned to not taunt me specifically and others also. He has said he can not work with me in other AE, and I am sorry but, its simply unfair and wrong to be spreading and canvassing...that I am someone, that can not be worked with on Wikipedia. If I need to take this to another venue, instructions are welcome, but I make these remarks in good faith now. Thank you. Mystery Wolff ( talk) 22:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by (Username)Result concerning CFCF
|
| Prokaryotes indefinitely topic-banned from pages and content relating to genetically modified organisms, broadly construed. MastCell Talk 19:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Prokaryotes
I think that this is a self-explanatory violation of 1RR by a user who has been extensively warned before. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Still a problem. Inasmuch as the self-revert was helpful, it seems to have come without any real self-awareness, more like a last-minute effort to avoid trouble here. This comment just made at the article talk page, [154], following a series of similar comments, is completely objectionable in context, and clearly demonstrates that the conduct is continuing unabated, self-revert or no. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC) @MastCell and other admins: I'm continuing to see ongoing problems. Prokaryotes argues incessantly against reliable sources based on bizarre reasons. He objects that one source is not reliable because it was written by one author instead of multiple authors: [155], and objects to another because "GM crops" are supposedly not to be used as foods: [156]. This isn't good faith editing; it's trying to throw anything at the wall to prevent us from citing sources that go against his POV. The purpose of 1RR is not simply to assure that second reverts are self-reverted; it is to prevent editing that hampers consensus. Even though I filed this about 1RR, the editing is happening under DS. Where you ask Prokaryotes to demonstrate that he understands, please do not accept inadequate answers. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Update, in case anyone is wondering about whether the problems have subsided. Please see: disparaging a source because the author previously retracted something and the reality. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
-- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Discussion concerning ProkaryotesStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ProkaryotesThe second reference is in response to an ongoing OR investigation, which was triggered when an edit from January 23, 2016 readded content previously considered settled, was changed back to a WP:Synthesis/ WP:OR. My edit summary, "per talk page, no consensus, dont readd without conclusion of current discussion, see also OR noticebaord discussion" The OR discussion involves Tryptofish, i had to report him after fruitless attempts to sort this out @ talk page, OR noticeboard report. Tryptofish is ignoring any editor arguments in this matter, or alternatives, and it seems he tries to use this request here to remove me from further participating. I believe that in light of the ongoing OR discussion my second reported ref above should not be treated as a revert. Additionally, i suggest to use this request here as a chance to settle the current ongoing disputes, which would involve Tryptofish and a couple more editors. I state that i thought 24 hrs had past (look at my edit history, hundreds of edits in the past 24h, well it has now almost past). prokaryotes ( talk) 00:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC) @KingOfAces, he is casting very serious aspersions, and here - where he essential frames everybody participating in the current discussion as a climate change denier, among his common theme as fringe. You be the judge Arb. prokaryotes ( talk) 00:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Additional i want to state that these @MastCell, your warnings were not related to 1RR, and given how easy it is to break 1RR, and given this situation a topic ban seems very drastic. Also to my knowledge a final warning should come from Arbcom not as a quick single admin decision, at least that is my impression when lurking around here. prokaryotes ( talk) 02:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC) @Aircorn, i have self reverted naw. Thanks prokaryotes ( talk) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC) @MastCell, can you clarify what you mean with "there is a strong pattern here"? It would be helpful if you cite a Wikipedia guideline. Besides me breaking the 1RR i am not aware of any wrong doing in my 2016 edits. Thanks. prokaryotes ( talk) 01:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Kingofaces43Was about to request this myself. First, I should point out there was also a previous revert 16:18, January 23 that technically doesn't cross the bright line of 1RR, but gaming of 1RR to keep edit warring has been specifically called by arbs as behavior to deal with by DS. [158]. A common problem can be seen in their edit summaries like, "per talk page, no consensus, dont readd without conclusion of current discussion, see also OR noticebaord discussion" where they try to edit war in their preferred content change that did not have consensus on the talk page (yet citing it as if they did) in order to replace the longer standing consensus version. It's like a reverse WP:BRD where someone tries to claim the status quo cannot remain and their preferred addition must remain even when the new edit does not have consensus. Prokaryotes' edit warring was also brought up in a separate case they brought forward here that was closed without much comment on them because Prokaryotes withdrew the complaint. [159] Prokaryotes' edit warring had quite a bit of coverage at the ArbCom case too. They narrowly avoided a topic ban by one vote. [160] [161]. Opposing arbs generally said the behavior was a problem, but didn't quite reach the point of action at that time. [162] Their edit warring and battleground behavior was the largely last straw on the camel's back that triggered the ArbCom case. Considering their behavior issues have continued even after the warning MastCell gave (mentioned in Tryptofish's request) that they were precariously close to enforcing DS after the case, it doesn't look like there's any other options left. I'd suggest 0RR at a bare minimum, but Prokaryotes has received sufficient warning on impending topic bans due to other things mentioned at the case such as casting aspersions, battleground mentality, a nearly passed ban, that a topic ban would better help prevent disruption at this point. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 00:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I have to echo Tryptofish's reminder that it's still a problem. Given the history and near topic-ban shown at ArbCom with this continuation of behavior even after the self-revert nearly 24 hours later, a short block won't prevent future disruption with that in mind. We're past that point. 0RR or the impending topic ban Prokaryotes was warned about multiple times can though. I'd rather give sanctions a chance instead of doing a GMO 2 case, but we need enforcement of the sanctions to get peace in the topic, especially when editors already warned they were on the brink continue that behavior. Otherwise, civil editors in the topic are going to burn out as battleground behavior and edit warring continues amongst even those that nearly were sanctioned by ArbCom. Admins should consider that the DS are meant to prevent disruption when the history shows it's only been continuing. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 07:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC) New developmentsAdmins, I've unfortunately got to go over the word limit with these new developments, so let me know if you want trimming, a separate case, etc. Essentially, we now have a trainwreck at ANI perpetuated by Prokaryotes. Because we didn't get timely action on this, Prokaryotes has resorted to going to different boards to engage in battleground behavior in a retaliatory fashion, which am I concerned was to avoid scrutiny while their case was open here. Regardless of intended reason (they've never responded) the case should have been opened here so we could actually get some focused scrutiny on my edits. The short of it is that they are violating WP:NPA by purposely misrepresenting two of my comments at WP:NORN [164] [165] incorrectly claiming I am calling editors climate change deniers. The purposeful misrepresentation comes from me directly telling them before they opened the thread and after that those two comments were about content, not editors (i.e., sources describe many of the methods to oppose scientific consensus in this topic as being the same is climate change denial, vaccine controversy, etc.) mainly here here and here. I made it clear my only comments related to editors were: 1. Some editors were misunderstanding some technical details in sources. 2. Mentioning that Prokaryotes' false claim I was commenting on editors as climate-change deniers was a behavior issue (misrepresentation) I wasn't going to mention further so we could focus on content at NORN [166] (more on this). They decided to double-down instead to call discussion on content personal insult. Here are some of my other main comments relating to my intent on my comments if any admins are interested in what's going on with respect to my behavior. [167] [168] [169] [170] If an admin still thinks something is odd on my part, I'll gladly chat with them or even open up a case on myself if they thought it was needed. I don't think it's needed, but I'd abide by such a request so we could get a focused look on what I actually said (my cited comments should make it clear it's very different than Prokaryotes portrays though). For Prokaryotes though, we have them opening up an ANI case shortly after this AE case opened, repeatedly misrepresenting my comments after being notified many times, false accusations of canvassing at WP:FTN [171] just today, and an overall continuation of the battleground out-for-blood behavior at ANI that nearly got them topic banned at ArbCom with a split vote. That's a continued "lack of insight" as you described MastCell, and I'll also ping EdJohnston on these ongoing behavior issues. This is just continuing the same battleground behavior cited at ArbCom [172] we've always had with Prokaryotes that still don't appear to be improving. Something needs to stop it. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 01:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by David TornheimThe problem is not Prokaryotes. The problem is that Tryptofish, KingofAces43 and likely also Aircorn want to change language that was already settled upon and had been stable since last August 2015-early September 2015. That language used the term "scientific agreement" to replace "scientific consensus". The stable language was the result of a compromise created and executed here by Jytdog and agreed to by Prokaryotes at this end of this lengthy discussion that I was also involved in. Others like myself saw the change as a slight improvement and allowed it to stand. That language was incorporated in the lead of the Genetically modified crops article here on September 4, 2015. Prokaryotes inadvertently had not revised the language in the body during that edit. That was the status quo ante consensus position on the language in the lead during this dispute. Now the three editors I named want to go back to the disputed "scientific consensus" language, despite significant opposition to the change here, and to the fact that the term "scientific consensus" is little more than WP:OR and WP:SYN explained here. I will note that this all started when I tried to correct the portion of the body of the article that still had the "scientific consensus" language in it and had not yet been corrected to the agreed upon language with all the other articles back in September 2015. Shortly after I made the correction here, Aircorn put the word "consensus" back in here and in his edit notes suggested the need for yet another RfC. I explained here why I thought that was needlessly causing new problems and was against the former agreement decided months ago at Genetically modified food I explained again the how the agreement came into being again at WP:NOR here. In summary, the problem is not Prokaryotes, but the other three editors who are working against the agreed upon language and creating drama by so doing. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 02:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Aircorn wrote: "I was (and still am) unaware of any wikipedia consensus for changing scientific consensus to scientific agreement. I believe the most recent discussion on the issue...was at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Scientific consensus?." The first post in that section by Johnfos says: "Most GMF articles on WP, like this one [GM Food], contain the statement that: there is "general scientific agreement that food on the market ...."." [174] This shows that Aircorn was aware that the status quo on the articles had the language "scientific agreement", not "scientific consensus". It is my understand that per WP:PAG (please correct me if I am wrong), stable language in the article is assumed to have consensus by default, even if the previous talk page discussion(s) did not clearly achieve it. Per the essay WP:STATUSQUO, "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." Also in WP:BRD, it says "BRD will fail if...There is a preexisting dispute on the page, by editors with entrenched positions, and you are reigniting a debate that has achieved stalemate without consensus." That is exactly where things stood when the above three editors tried to change the "scientific agreement" language (the WP:STATUSQUO) to "scientific consensus". -- David Tornheim ( talk) 17:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC) @ Aircorn: Thank you so much for owning up to what happened. Very upstanding, and also to the suggestion that Prokaryotes self-revert which s/he did within 21 minutes of your suggestion. If Tryptofish had made that suggestion to Prokaryotes, perhaps this entire AE action could have been avoided. Much appreciated. It makes it much easier to work together when you show such integrity. Thanks again. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 17:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC) This post and this post on the other hand have just the opposite effect, and are directly contradicted by the cooperative behavior of Aircorn and Prokaryotes to resolve the dispute, where each is owning up to their own behavior. How are we to work together when some editors will do anything to try to punish another editor and try to justify a topic ban for someone who they disagree with? It's an attempt to sway consensus by removing anyone who disagrees on content. This WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and lack of accountability has to stop and is bad for the project. WP:BOOMERANG with a warning is justified for these lasts post and any like them for those continuing to press for more punishment when editors are working together to resolve disputes. This action could have been avoided entirely if the Plaintiff had simply pointed out and warned the Defendant of the 1RR rather than going straight to court. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC) KingofAces43 mentions this AN/I incident raised by Prokaryotes as if it were problematic. However, many like me agree that the issues Prokaryotes raised are a very real problem that needs to be addressed. Prokaryotes should be applauded, not condemned, for staring that helpful discussion about the unnecessary use of ad hominem comparisons, which resulted in the very productive section with Softlavender's Suggestion which has quite a bit of support. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 17:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Tryptofish above suggests Prokaryotes has done something wrong in suggesting that the use of pro-GMO advocate Pamela Ronald's research is not the best choice of WP:RS. I agree with Prokaryotes that s/he is right to object to use of Ronald. I provided ample evidence (in item 4) that she is a pro-GMO advocate in this RfC. Tsavage made the same observation here and here and here. Others echoed that same concern at the RfC. Tryptofish's reaction reminds me of another editor's threat that things would get ugly if I did not remove mention of the article Can the Scientific Reputation of Pamela Ronald, Public Face of GMOs, Be Salvaged? from my talk page and that even mention of her retraction was "disgusting". I do not understand why pro-GMO scientists like Ronald get such an esteemed status and are not allowed to be criticized, while researchers like Seralini who are treated with such disdain for a retraction of a paper that was later republished and for which the process of the retraction was questioned [175], [176]. As I mentioned at ArbCom here double-standards are applied to treatment of pro-GMO advocates compared to GMO critics. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 02:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by AlbinoFerretI also have concerns that Tryptofish and Kingofaces43 are using AE to win a content dispute. Tryptofish has an opinion that Core policies like WP:OR/synthesis can be overcome with a local consensus. [177] in a dispute over a synthesis claim. In fact both editors are arguing to include WP:SYNTHESIS in the GMO articles. Removal of those who wish to follow WP policy would aid in this quest to retain OR. AlbinoFerret 02:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It appears Prokaryotes followed Aircorn's very good advice and has self reverted the 1RR violation. [178] AlbinoFerret 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by AircornI was (and still am) unaware of any wikipedia consensus for changing scientific consensus to scientific agreement. I believe the most recent discussion on the issue before I partially reverted David was at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Scientific consensus?. AIRcorn (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC) @David. It shows nothing except that Wikipedia is inconsistent. The wording "scientific consensus" has been in the controversies section since October 2013. You made an edit in good faith, I partially reverted in good faith because I did not think there was any consensus. Now we are having this discussion in multiple places. WP:BRD was followed and WP:STATUSQUO would have been too if Prokaryotes had not broken 1rr. AIRcorn (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Prokaryotes. You still have time to self revert. AIRcorn (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Prokaryotes
|
| SageRad has agreed to avoid Yvette d'Entremont, Charles Eisenstein and Bhopal disaster, and not to discuss Bhopal on other pages. He has been asked to make more effort in general to avoid pages related to GMO, including meta discussions. SarahSV (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning SageRad
"SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."
I'll requote the decision against SageRad, emphasizing the parts some people are missing "SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."
Discussion concerning SageRadStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SageRadYes, i agree. SarahSV and others, yes, i will agree to this absolutely. Let me explain that with Yvette d'Entremont, i didn't know her as a GMO activist but now i do, and i will never edit her article again. With Charles Eisenstein, i never knew him to be a GMO activist and i still don't, but i'll take your word for it and never edit his article again. As for anyone else who i know to be a GMO activist, i will not edit their articles going forward either. As for Bhopal disaster, i don't believe i've ever edited that but i won't now that i know that disaster involved an agrochemical precursor. I think the only reference i made to it was to say that perhaps the section on PFOA at Dow Chemical should look like the section on the Bhopal disaster in format. But i'll not refer to it again anyway. I will continue to obey the topic ban as i have been, and not edit any pages that are about GMOs or agrochemicals and not edit any parts of other pages that may be about GMOs or agrochemicals. I've been editing according to those principles, and i invite anyone to point out if i unwittingly stray into any other topic that is about GMOs or agrochemicals. I hope this will please the interpreters and enforcers of policy to allow me to edit on other topics conscientiously. SageRad ( talk) 23:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Seeing closing comments. Thank you for taking this time to do this.
Could we please be done with this? It's bad for my ability to sleep through the night. I'm observing the topic ban to a strict degree. I am a conscientious editor and i respect the policies more than most editors i know. I have not edited anything about GMOs or agrochemicals at all since the topic ban. Period. I'm not stupid. I know that violating my topic ban would be suicide. Someone obviously spent a lot of time trying to compile a case. I'm editing with integrity and not touching the areas from which i am topic banned. None of the diffs provided show me discussing GMOs or agrochemicals at all -- because i have not. There are misrepresentations in the allegations that ought to qualify for them to be thrown out summarily. For example, when Kingofaces writes:
he's actually speaking of a conversation that begins with:
In other words -- it's not "a discussion on GMOs" -- it's a discussion on meta-level aspects of Wikipedia culture, mainly about the use of "fringe" as an aspersion, and how we deal with name-calling, and all that. It is not a discussion on GMOs, and his trying to frame it as such is a lie. And, Kingofaces says:
but this links actually to this diff which has nothing to do with GMOs. Again, a lie. And most of his issue seems to be that i speak against a harmful dynamic that i see going on. As for DuPont -- my edits on that company (and Dow who have merged with them, hence [198]) have been about the chemical PFOA (like this edit [199]) which is not an agrochemical. It's a Teflon additive that did pollute water in West Virginia and in the Ohio River. That's not under my topic ban. And i also edited about Styrofoam [200] to correct a trade name. Styrofoam is made by Dow but Thermocol is made by another company. I also made the same change at Polystyrene to correct that trade name ( my edit). I made a further edit at polystyrene about biodegradation at another editor's request. I'm allowed to do this and it's good for the encyclopedia. Seriously, my edit to Charles Eisenstein [201] ???? This is out of control. Eisenstein is a wonderful thinker, author of Sacred Economics and many other books. He probably wrote something about GMOs sometime, but i've never seen it if he did. This is stretching. This is looking like McCarthyism. It's looking like an attempt to harm me for other reasons. So, even though i said i wouldn't, i just went through all the diffs provided, and as i know, they do not show me editing anything at all about GMOs or agrochemicals. I know this because my conscience is clear. I have not edited anything about GMOs or agrochemicals at all since the topic ban. I ask for this case to be summarily dropped, as it's onerous and seems to be intended to "get me" for being outspoken on cultural issues within Wikipedia. Note that i was quite aware of this decision which explicitly did not prohibit editing about companies that may also make agrochemicals or GMOs. Those were subject to DS and not the ban, and that was already clarified. I operated under that clarification when i edited about PFOA and Styrofoam. If anyone was unaware of this clarification, then now they are aware. @Only in Death's comment: I have no "MO" except to edit articles well. @DHeyward's comment: The only one being tarred and feathered here is me, and it's a joke. @JzG's comment: Thanks. @BMK, it's not okay to call people names who write in my support " peanut gallery to egg them on" @Kingofaces43 -- I'm not "testing the boundaries". I disagree with the topic ban but i've obeyed it. SageRad ( talk) 20:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by AlbinoFerretHaving commented on the recent WP:ARCA section on increasing the topic bans to "companies that produce them" for the topic banned editors from the GMO case. I would like to point out the motion in section 11.25.1 that would have added the companies failed. As a result, SageRad is not topic banned from editing articles of companies that produce agricultural chemicals as long as he is not editing about agricultural chemicals/GMO's. None of the diffs provided are on agricultural chemicals/GMO's. AlbinoFerret 03:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC) I would also like to point out that that the warnings predate the close of the ARCA section and one was specifically about that section and should be covered by WP:BANEX AlbinoFerret 03:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC) The "broadly construed" argument to include companies when editing non GMO and agricultural chemicals was rejected by Arbcom. [202] Continuing the argument on AE (a Arbcom page) so soon after the motion failed is going against that finding. AlbinoFerret 18:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Kingofaces43SageRad has also been commenting directly at ANI on a discussion on GMOs starting with this scaled back to this, quite obviously so they could claim they weren't directly entering discussion on GMOs. Followed by: [203] [204] [205] [206] With this gem of an edit summary, "There is a reason that i continue to compare the anti-fringe movement to McCarthyism." All these above occurred in this ANI thread, which was explicitly focused on genetically modified organisms, the scientific consensus around it, and how we deal with WP:FRINGE aspects in content discussion around it. They also responded directly to me at WP:FTN when I asked for more eyes on this GMO discussion [207] with this referring to McCarthyism again, which is another unambiguous violation followed by more commentary Regardless of meta-discussions popping up within the specific incidents, there they have been plenty of discussions on topic banned users in this topic to not even be commenting from the sidelines at admin boards when they are topic banned. There have been some previous instances where SageRad has been chaffing against their ban [208] [209], though not quite as bad as others sanctioned at the case. There still have been issues going on though with a previous AE case [210]. I won't even suggest any particular actions to admins, but SageRad needs to stay out the topic plain and simple without finding ways to skirt the ban. I'm concerned there's a lot of the same soapboxing and hyperbole related to WP:FRINGE, etc. that got them topic banned from GMOs, but that might be something ANI handles if they can respect the topic ban. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 04:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My KenIn response to Liz's warning about word limits below, I believe I can re-state my position more concisely:
BMK ( talk) 22:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Darkfrog24Very uninvolved non-admin. Most of these edits don't specifically mention GMOs, but SageRad is also banned from "pages relating to genetically modified organisms." According to AlbinoF, that does not include DuPont or Dow, but my own take is that it would include d'Entremont.
IMO #1 and #13 are the only ones that can be construed as violations, but it is reasonable that the filer would not know that DuPont and Dow are not covered by the ban, so I wouldn't call it deliberate spam either. Yes, SR mentions GMOs or more specifically the discussion of GMOs on Wikipedia in this AN/I discussion; self-removes this part of the post about twelve hours later. I don't see the problem with "Resent your calling my response 'hysterical'" or those other posts.
Bottom line: There is a lot of stuff in this complaint that's innocuous. The comment on the SciBabe article talk page
Statement by Only in DeathRe Darkfrog, SageRad is banned from agricultural chemicals, which are a major part of Dow's business. The only reason I did not report SageRad for those transgressions was they appeared to take the hint and backed off the article. The AE report I actually filed previously which was closed by EdJohnston despite being a blatant violation was a different matter, evidence of their attempt to canvass support for their POV pushing. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 17:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course, there is also jumping into POV discussions from 2009. Oh and then claiming intimidation in order to not edit there. Seriously, why are we putting up with this rubbish? Only in death does duty end ( talk) 17:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by MarkBernsteinThe complaint is vexatious, and is apparently intended to lure admins at AE into carelessly extending a topic ban into domains which ArbCom explicitly rejected, for the purposes of gaining advantage in a topic dispute and of further securing Wikipedia for the American right. Is perfluorooctanioc acid an agricultural chemical? It sure sounds chemical, doesn’t it? Does it have something to do with GMOs? Kind of sounds like it would! DuPoint and Dow do make some farm products! Obviously, a breaching experiment: ring the alarms! Unfortunately for this complaint, some Wikipedians have knowledge of a variety of domains, and others are remarkably willing to look stuff up. A long time ago, I earned a doctorate in chemistry. Also, a long time ago, I was employed by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., though by Central Research, not by the agrochemical division. I can say with some confidence that perfluorooctanoic acid is not an agricultural chemical, at least not on this planet! (Speculation on the slippery nature of perfluorinated wildlife might amuse arbitrators more than this complaint.) DuPont has long been a world leader in fluorocarbon chemistry, and its perfluorinated polymer, Teflon, is a household word. Perfluorooctanoic acid is used to manufacture Teflon and related polymers, as a water repellent, and for related applications. There’s quite a decent article on this on a Web site called Wikipedia. The question of whether the topic ban extends to non-agricultural chemicals, or to other operations of these and other companies, was explicitly raised -- by myself and others -- at ARCA. ArbCom's rejection of this broad construction was clear and unambiguous. The editor raising this question should be topic-banned from discussion of topic bans for GMO in order to avoid future disruption. MarkBernstein ( talk) 18:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by TryptofishI have not looked at all the company-related edits, but the last edit listed in the opening filing, [211], is an unambiguous violation, because the lead section of the page clearly notes that the subject is notable for criticizing "the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC) I'll just say that the comments by Spartaz and by SlimVirgin seem very reasonable to me, as to an outcome. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC) I support SageRad's assurances, and I support closing this as a result. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by JzGSageRad has been active at Vani Hari ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), discussed during the case, and the dispute between Hari and d'Entremont is well documented - the dispute explicitly includes Hari's GMO fearmongering and when this is taken along with Dow and DuPont I would say it's time to start making firm statements that no, we do not mean get as close to the topic as you think you can get away with, we mean, stay away from GMOs, broadly construed. I would not like to see SageRad blocked this time, but equally I do think he needs to actually leave that area alone, and in fact it might be helpful if he was to drop the stick entirely (e.g. stop kvetching about use of a site associated with David Gorski, with whom he has a dispute over GMOs). Guy ( Help!) 00:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by DHeywardThe result of "broadly construed" findings was to stop eactly this type of tar and feathering approach to GMO companies. Sorry but I find little coincidence in the editing of GMO company products in a negative tone and editing GMO products themselves. These editors need to get off the "ZOMG! these GMO companies are killing us in so many different ways!" treadmill and find a new hobby. -- DHeyward ( talk) 00:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by HughI see no topic ban violation in the diffs in the complaint. Uninvolved with GMOs, minor interactions with SageRad. Hugh ( talk) 07:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: It is simply not true that a precursor chemical to an agricultural chemical is necessarily an agricultural chemical. This analysis invokes a "two degrees of separation" interpretation of "broadly construed" to industrial chemical production processes and is clearly a misapplication of WP:TBAN, which policy is specifically written to provide us with guidance on the detection of topic ban boundaries. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 23:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Dow (talk) -> Bhopal -> methyl isocyanate -> chemical precursors -> pesticides -> agricultural chemicals -> bingo! topic ban. Really? Hugh ( talk) 23:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC) @ Spartaz: "While none of the specific edits relate to GMO matters...I don't think SageRad has purposefully broken the ban..." We agree. "...the sanction was a ban from all pages related to GMO matters. This means that even non-GMO edits are violations...the specific ban relates to GMO related pages not just GMO edits." Please I would like to better understand your position, in particular with your application of WP:TBAN. To me it is clear that we are asked by written policy to consider that not all edits to given page are necessarily in scope of a topic ban. Do you believe an enforcing admin can toss some magic words like "all pages" into a topic ban notice and slap a topic ban that exceeds the authorization of policy? Doesn't WP:TBAN constrain the scope of all topic bans, no matter how cleverly worded the notice? What do you think? Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 23:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Cla68As contentious as the GMO articles continue to be, I'd say a healthy dose of boomerang on some of the editors here following SageRad around trying to get him banned would probably help things out, but I doubt any of the responding admins will put any effort into doing so. Cla68 ( talk) 16:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by DrChrissyGiven that this is an arbitration page, am I allowed to contribute here without violating my topic ban on GMO's (the same as SageRad)?DrChrissy (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Result concerning SageRad
|
| Appeal declined. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186#Ollie231213, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015#Longevity
Statement by Ollie231213The reason that I was topic banned was because, in the admins' words, I am "clearly here to advocate for a specific position on longevity articles rather than following our long standing policies and guidelines" and that I am "consistently editing articles, and voting in AfDs, to favor the position of the Gerontology Research Group [which] is incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia." These are accusations which I strongly deny. The implications here are that I am not following Wikipedia policy and am affiliated with the Gerontology Research Group, both of which are false. I explained very clearly in my statement why I believed I was following Wikipedia policy, but these arguments appear to have been ignored. Let me use an example here: we can probably all agree that an organisation like the New York Times is, generally speaking, considered a reliable source for many things on Wikipedia. However, what if we're dealing with a specialist topic area - astronomy, for example? Are you going to argue that the NYT is an equally reliable source on that topic as NASA is? What normally happens is that, for stories about astronomy, news organisations simply report what NASA has said. They don't do the research themselves. If the NYT published a story claiming that a new star had been discovered, but no authoritative bodies such as NASA had verified the claims, would we just add that to Wikipedia without even a footnote? Well, the GRG is to gerontology what NASA is astronomy. Just look at how many times you see news organisations say "...according to the Gerontology Research Group" in stories about the world's oldest people - these are just a few: [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219]. Lots of other sources clearly consider the GRG to be an authority in the topic area. All I am saying is that Wikipedia should reflect this and base its articles on longevity primarily on this source and not on other less-reliable ones. For example: Yasutaro Koide, recognised by the GRG and Guinness World Records as the world's oldest man, died recently aged 112. However, the previous day, a man named Andrew Hatch died at the claimed age of 117, according to this source (which might generally be considered reliable). However, he was not able to prove his age so was not recognised by Guinness and the GRG. So what happens here? Do we treat both sources as equally reliable and say that both were the oldest man?!? No, Guinness and the GRG are clearly more reputable and widely-recognised as authorities in this topic area than the Contra Consta Times. I'm not saying don't include Andrew Hatch at all on Wikipedia, but include him as a "longevity claim" and not as if his age is definitely true. So, just to summarise: I made it very clear in my statement in the initial request that I am following Wikipedia's policies. I just want Wikipedia's articles on longevity to based on the best sources, and don't want unverified information to be included as if it is fact. My edits in the past have been in line with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:NOR, and WP:RSCONTEXT. I don't see how I can be justifiably topic-banned when I've clearly explained why I am following policy and am acting in good faith. And, should the ban be repealed, I promise to act in a more civil manner in the future. -- Ollie231213 ( talk) 23:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SpartazI don't have anything to add beyond what Ed and I said in the original AE. Ollie, the only opinions that have any weight here are the uninvolved admins. Everything else is just noise. Do not canvass others to come and support you. It won't affect the outcome but would be obvious evidence that you are not editing per our accepted norms. Spartaz Humbug! 18:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by LegacypacOllie demonstrates a lack of understanding of wikipolicy in his appeal. If, as he say,s "GRG is to gerontology what NASA is astronomy" we can safely treat GRG as just one of many RS. Our Astronomy article does not even mention NASA (that I can see) and the lead says "Astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can still play an active role" NASA is definitely a great authority but hardly the primary or final authority in astronomy. If someone wants to write up Andrew Hatch (super old guy) we have good sources and would report he claimed to be 117, has lots of id that verifies that, but did not have a birth certificate because birth certificates were not issued in his region (just as the contracosta times did), they should write it. For completeness, they should also note that GRG would not validate his age. But Hatch is a total red herring as no editor has tried to include him in any table or assert he was the world's oldest man (that I'm aware of). Ollie's assertion that we should "base its (Wikipedia) articles on longevity primarily on this (GRG) source and not on other less-reliable ones." goes right to the heart of why he must stay topic banned. GRG is not a super source of absolute WP:TRUTH that must be used to the general exclusion of all other RS. (I commented on the AE request that led to the topic ban, not sure if that makes me involved or uninvolved) Legacypac ( talk) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by The Blade of the Northern LightsIt will be quite unsurprising that I see no reason to overturn the sanctions here. The amount of energy that's been expended arguing that the GRG is The One And Only True SourceTM on this subject is so enormously wasteful that allowing editors back in who want to continue that fight will only degrade the quality of the articles on human longevity. I don't see where the implementation of sanctions violated any policies, nor do I see how lifting them will be in any way helpful. Therefore, I strongly recommend this be closed with no action and a reminder that brevity is actually a virtue. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 19:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I would also note Mabidex's charming statement below is hardly indicative of an editor who will be useful in this topic. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 19:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by JzGI am unsurprised that Ollie rejects the findings of independent admins reviewing his conduct - that is pretty much the definitive rationale for enacting a sanction, since people who accept independent views rarely end up here. Ollie, find some other area to edit. Leave this topic completely, forever. All you are doing is reinforcing the impression of an externally coordinated campaign to manipulate Wikipedia in support of an ideology. We're bored with it. Guy ( Help!) 14:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Ricky81682
Statement by (involved editor 3)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ollie231213Statement by GlrxOllie231213's appeal does not show an understanding of why sanctions were imposed. Instead the argument is that GRG should be as respected as NASA and therefore implies the sanctions were improper. The ban should stay. Glrx ( talk) 05:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC) @ NuclearWarfare:. I have not been following longevity topics, but here's my take. Ollie represents that Gerontology Research Group should be the respected authority on the age of very old people. It and the Guiness Book of Records should be given more weight on the topic than other reliable sources. Ollie apparently founds that belief in GRG's strict requirements for documenting age. This Smithsonian article describes GRG and its procedures. The article describes GRG's requirements for 2 to 3 pieces of documentation. The article also points out that people often make false claims about age, and GRG's documentation requirements often uncover or prevent such frauds. Unfortunately, the documentation requirements also exclude many potentially bona fide old people. For example, there are good records in Japan, but almost no records in Africa. Even in countries with good documentation, some people are not on the list because they want their privacy. If nobody tells GRG that a very old lady is living in Pasadena, then that lady won't be on the list. Or maybe the little old lady has a birth certificate but she doesn't have her marriage certificate, so GRG won't put her on the list. Consequently, if someone is on the list, then there are presumably reasonable supporting documents for the individual's age. Volunteers, not professionals, validate these age claims. Wikipedia apparently accepts GRG's Table E as a reliable indication of an individual's age. [220] However, not being on the list does not contradict a claimed age. It doesn't even show that GRG investigated a claimed age and rejected it for some reason. So GRG's list is not "the oldest living people in the world" but rather "the oldest living people that GRG found and can document"; GRG calls the table "Validated Living Supercentenarians". Now say the old lady in Pasdena dies, and the coroner issues a death certificate that says she is older than the oldest person on GRG's or anybody else's list. The Los Angeles Times then prints a story that includes the age on the death certificate. The Los Angeles Times may even claim she was the oldest known person in the world because it does not know of anyone older. What should WP do? It has some reliable sources, but apparently Ollie will take issue with the reliability of those sources. The original AE found that Ollie was violating WP policy in AfDs and articles by continually taking the view that GRG should be the most reliable source. In the appeal above, Ollie makes exactly that claim. There has been no change since the ban. Glrx ( talk) 03:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC) @ Ollie231213: Editors don't get topic bans for their beliefs; they get topic bans for their behavior. Your behavioral issue was not following WP policies. You open with the claim that you were following WP policies, but the body of your appeal does not address WP behavior policies at all. You close with "I made it very clear in my statement in the initial request that I am following Wikipedia's policies." That is not the case either. The charge in the original AE was "Ollie231213's conduct at various AFD discussions is bordering into uncivil territory with numerous personal attacks." There were four diffs. Your response was not about the uncivil diffs, the original research issue, or your continued engagement at the RFC ("Apologies if I sounded patronising or disrespectful but part of the reason why I'm sounding repetitive is because I keep getting faced with straw man arguments, and I want to make sure we understand where we are both coming from here. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)"). You were not on topic for the AE. You did mention some WP policy, but they were not policies about behavior but rather sources. You believe GRG is the superior source. That's fine. Editors may believe what they want. Editors usually have a right to discuss their beliefs and persuade others to their position, but there are limits because other editors have rights, too. WP does not tolerate edit wars where one group keeps putting its version in an article and another group keeps replacing it with something else. Neither does WP want disruption on its talk pages. When there's disagreement, WP policy wants the groups to discuss the issues reasonably and adopt a consensus view even if that view is wrong. Maybe there is compromise; maybe one side prevails for now. The consensus view today is that GRG is a reliable source for some information but it is not the superior source that you want it to be. You were topic banned not for your beliefs about GRG's stature as a source but rather for your disruptive behavior with other editors. The issue at this board is not whether your viewpoint about weighing longevity sources is right or wrong but whether continued disruptive behavior is likely. You have not addressed your behavior at all. Instead, you continue to argue that GRG is the best source even though this is not the forum for a content argument. The implication is that you want this board to admit the original topic ban was wrong, approve of GRG as a great source (something that it cannot do), and give you license to edit war or demean editors who disagree with you. That's not what is done here. I do not see an effective appeal here. The appeal should have addressed behavioral issues raised in the orignal AE. Looking at the original AE proceeding, I could conclude that the allegations were weak. I expect Legacypac has thick skin and some one-off ad hominem arguments can be forgiven. Extended and repetive engagement at any discussion is not desired, but it happens. Furthermore, it takes two (or more) to tango. I suspect NuclearWarfare's has that concern. The question is whether the behavior is typical. Furthermore, longevity has been found to be a contentious area, and discretionary sanctions are authorized. In the original AE, you claim, "I'm not on a pro-GRG campaign, on I'm an anti-anti-GRG campaign, which is not the same thing." For the purposes here, the double-negative distinction makes little difference because WP does not want campaigners. I haven't chased the sub-sub-discussion at RSN, but my guess is it is similar to the RfC. Consequently, I expect there is a long history of edit warring and disruptive engagement on many longevity articles. Statement by BlackmaneI am somewhat peripherally involved as I've voted on a number of the AFD's that were raised largely by Ricky81682 among others.
I think a simple statement would suffice here. Ollie2312 was topic banned because of his advocacy for GRG. Naturally, he refutes the accusation of advocacy but is, in his words, on an "anti anti GRG campaign". However, from his statement above: @ Ollie231213: I read, re-read and re-read again your reasoning. My view does not change. I would not have written what I did if I hadn't read it. Again, having one list that is only for GRG as a source while another list has all other sources pushes forward the POV that GRG is singularly better or special compared to any other source. It is not up to Wikipedia to say "this source is better than these other sources so we're giving it its own list". What any list should say is "here is the claim, here is the source" no more, no less. If the claim is later discredited then the entry is removed. If a claim is weak or variable because sources disagree, then the entry should be adjusted based on a discussion. Blackmane ( talk) 01:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC) @ Ollie231213: WP has never made any pretenses at having a judicial system. It's a privately owned website and as far as has been discussed this is most obviously not just a content dispute. At this point, I will leave this as my last comment as further discussion will derail this appeal. Blackmane ( talk) 01:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Mabidex@ Ollie231213: I read your reasoning. I do believe that anyone achieving the age of 100 is very notable, as it remains rare. Which brings me to it's exceptional nature: What is more rare to humans who read Wikipedia than another of our own human species living longer than most others on this earth? According to the US Census, only 0.02% or 55,000 people in the US in all of the time between 2007 through 2011 [1]. To reiterate, being a Super Centenarian is an extraordinary claim, and it surely requires extraordinary proof. While the GRG is not the only source that verifies Super Centenarians it is one of the more prominent non-profit ones. I don't disagree that verification should be done, but commercial interests should be known for those on the lists that use the story to sell more newspapers (for example) and benefit the commercial interests because of it. Yes I agree that It is not up to Wikipedia to say "this source is better than these other sources so we're giving it its own list" but a verified claim of age should be supported of non-commercial claims over those of a commercial nature. What any list should say is "here is the claim, here is the (Commercial/Non-Commercial) source" no more, no less. I agree, If the claim is later discredited then the entry is removed. If a claim is weak or variable because sources disagree, then the entry should be adjusted. As for the topic ban, it should simply be lifted. I see no reason to continue it as this person should be allowed to make disagreements about weak sources. @ NuclearWarfare: I also see no reason to consider JzG's words here as an involved admin, as they are clearly of a libel nature and out of line as appeals to spite and ridicule to win over the Admins consideration. Mabidex ( talk) 02:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Ollie231213
|
| Closing this post-appeal request discussion. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Violating his topic ban again (just like when he was first banned) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Alansohn&curid=2578623&diff=705015467&oldid=705013935 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.41.51 ( talk • contribs)
|
| Persuant to the unanimous consensus of administrators commenting on this request, Darkfrog24 is blocked for one week. He is strongly advised not to further test the bounds of his topic ban. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 03:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Darkfrog24
This is a clear violation of DF's topic ban from MoS matters, and is just another example of his trying to continue the dispute post-ban. Let's not forget that it was not long ago that his topic ban had to be expanded from "quotation marks" to "MoS matters" because of similar actions on his part. This, however, is the worst action yet. I don't think he should be allowed to continue skirting the topic ban. To all other parties, please look at the corrected second diff. It is one thing to say "I cannot participate", but it is another thing to directly reference the dispute and cast WP:ASPERSIONS about members of a deletion discussion. Darkfrog24 should not be discussing the MoS at all, should not be writing anything about it, should not be expressing an opinion on "MoS regulars". Darkfrog24 was advised by the uninvolved administrators to avoid this area completely, and was told numerous times not get involved in this dispute again. If he were smart, he would not've responded at all, which is what he was told to do. I have done nothing wrong. "Note the identity of the filer", etc., had a clear subtext. I do not appreciate being subject to WP:ASPERSIONS from topic-banned editors. Last comment on this matter: Ivanvector, if you'd like such an interaction ban, I have no objection. I never interact with this fellow. I was not a party to the original dispute that led to the AE filing. It would make absolutely no difference to me if such a ban were imposed, because I have no desire to interact with DF, and don't do so anyway. Such a ban would thankfully keep DF from dragging me into disputes where I have no place.
Discussion concerning Darkfrog24Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Darkfrog24It is not a violation of a topic ban to tell people that I'm not allowed to participate because I'm under a topic ban. Smokey pinged me and said, " I find it odd that Wavelength, Darkfrog24 and Dickylon haven't commented," so I told him why I and possibly Dicklyon haven't commented. I don't remember which admin it was, but I've been actively told, "If someone asks you about X, you have to tell them you're under a topic ban." The so-called "similar actions" were going to the talk pages of involved editors and asking them for constructive criticism on how to make the best of the topic ban. [223] While we're here, I don't think it's appropriate for SMcCandlish to make such strongly negative and false claims about me in a forum in which I'm not allowed to respond. This is the second time since the ban was put in place on January 22 that an uninvolved user has actively requested that I contribute to a MoS-related project or discussion. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 16:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Laser brain: I think what's going on here is that you are used to dealing with topic bans. You deal with the details of them on a daily basis and those details are very familiar to you. Sometimes, people who are around a subject a lot don't grasp that the specifics are not obvious to people who aren't. To address one factual matter: No I was never told not to discuss the topic ban, only not to discuss the MoS. It is not remotely obvious from either the ban itself or from any of the answers given to me by Thryduulf or other admins that I am not allowed to say who filed the original complaint. To use your words, I did not put my thoughts out there on a MoS matter; I told SmokeyJoe that I was under a topic ban and posted a link. That seems to me to be an obvious, relevant and nonproblematic part of the process. You guys are expecting me to avoid boundaries, but you need to either be a lot clearer about where they are or accept that I'm going to step on a mine now and then. I will remind you that I have mistaken those boundaries in both directions—I thought the entire MoS was covered under the original ban [225]. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 16:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Only in DeathTrouts incoming I suspect. Telling an editor who has effectively notified them by alert that 'I cannot talk about this since I am topic banned' is hardly an actionable edit. Talk about being petty. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Starke HathawayThis is such an obviously unfounded and vexatious complaint that I think the filer ought to face sanction for it. -Starke Hathaway ( talk) 15:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by IvanvectorIt's difficult to assume this request is in good faith, in fact it's hard to see what the point of it is at all if not to try to cause trouble. The first diff shows Darkfrog24 responding to a direct question with an explanation of why they are not responding, in as neutral and cordial language as would be possible I can only assume. I have to assume the second diff is in error since it's RGloucester's own edit. How in the world this indicates "the worst action yet" is dumbfounding. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 17:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC) In fact I agree with Starke Hathaway: if RGloucester cannot explain how this request has any merit at all and is not clearly and obviously vexatious, they ought to be sanctioned for it. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 17:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC) @ RGloucester: I think SmokeyJoe hit the nail on the head here, and in echoing his sentiment I believe I will make the fourth editor (third uninvolved) to tell you this is petty. But you seem to think petty is fine. I think if you were banned from interacting with Darkfrog24 you would have less petty things to do. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 17:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by SmokeyJoeI think the following two things are unacceptable:
If Darkfrog24 is not allowed to participate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support, then I think the page in question ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support) should be referred to Arbs on the question of deletion. Or an Arb should contribute in the MfD in their capacity as an Arb. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Darkfrog24
|
| No action taken. Galassi warned to be more careful with regard to their Ukraine Topic Ban. Spartaz Humbug! 17:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Galassi
Galassi has a history of reverts at Vladimir Putin [233] without any talkpage participation [234]. There has recently been a lot of tension in that article, to which Galassi has significantly contributed by performing 4 WP:NINJA-style reverts in recent days, without any explanation, much less discussion, whatsoever: [235] No explanation, no reasoning, no discussion, just blanket reverts. Considering the tension and the ongoing discussions at the talkpage, this kind of drive-by reverting is counterproductive and highly disruptive. Galassi has been asked to participate in the talkpage during a previous reverting spree [239] (his response: [240]) and the current one [241], to no avail. This user has a troubled history regarding Eastern-European topics, having been blocked for edit-warring many times [242], and indefinitely topic-banned from Ukraine [243]. In fact, this recent revert could be construed as a violation of his topic ban [244]. It appears this user is uninterested in constructive discussion and has learned nothing from his past behavior, pointing to long-term disruption in this topic area. A broadening of his topic ban to include Vladimir Putin may be in order.
Discussion concerning GalassiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Galassi
Statement by (username)Result concerning Galassi
|
| Semitransgenic is topic-banned indefinitely from pages and content related to genetically modified organisms, broadly construed. Spartaz Humbug! 11:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Semitransgenic
The main issue with Semitransgenic is their habit of personal attacks. I'll let the quoted statements above speak for themselves where a focus on cocks, ass, and shit is becoming a hallmark of Semitransgenic's comments. I'd rather not return here so shortly after a previous enforcement case, but this has become a chronic problem. As shown in the previous sanctions section, they were previously blocked for this exact same kind of behavior at the ArbCom case, and had that block extended when they continued the attacks on their talk page through the appeal process. This is just a return to that behavior. This is the last kind of editor we need in a volatile topic like this, and they've already been blocked for this by ArbCom. Warnings and blocks obviously have not helped. The only option at this point seems to be a topic-ban where the DS currently apply. As a side note, uninvolved admins such as Spartaz have commented on a peanut gallery problem with recent GMO enforcement cases where other editors try to vehemently encourage or excuse problem editors when they are only a particular "side". I'd ask that admins be mindful of this issue if this case turns out like previous ones even though editors have been warned about the peanut gallery problem. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 01:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SemitransgenicStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SemitransgenicEarlier incidents aside (which were addressed by offended parties on each occasion), maybe focus on the latest issue, the context being: There is an ongoing, protracted, and somewhat circular discussion about a single sentence (which, we should probably note, involves the listing editor). I merely suggested that it might actually be more constructive to improve the main content and then address the sentence. I noted that Tryptofish (a doctor of biotechnology), could perhaps help us address the glaringly inadequacies in the main body of the text [265] [266]. Trypto, despite the apparent expertise, felt that these content issues were something they couldn’t see. I find this kind of editing disingenuous, but I accept my response was inappropriate. Note Trypto left a warning, and that was that.There are valid points to be raised about the manner in which certain editors are approaching content building in the GMO domain, but perhaps they need to be communicated more effectively, so let me make this real easy. Semitransgenic talk. 18:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Suggestion by Shock Brigade Harvester BorisThis is a cut-and-dried case of WP:NPA etc. that doesn't necessarily bear on AE. Therefore you can bring this to WP:ANI, where it will be acted upon much faster than the glacial pace of this board. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by SunriseIt may be worth noting that Semitransgenic has a long history of personal attacks in this topic area, in addition to the comments that led to blocks. For example, I'm reminded of this series of edits [267] [268] [269] from August 2013 (which I remember because I redacted them, though I didn't act further at the time). Of course, these aren't directly relevant today and this was long before DS were introduced, but I think it should be established that this isn't just a recent pattern. Sunrise ( talk) 19:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by TryptofishI'm late to get here, but I agree entirely with what other editors are already saying. I find Semitransgenic's response here to be highly un-self-aware. I think that KingofAces43 and Sunrise have summarized everything that I could have thought to say, and expressed it quite well. And I think that EdJohnston and Spartaz have analyzed the situation exactly right. The retirement is not binding, and a topic ban is necessary. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Semitransgenic
|
| An IPv4 editor has been blocked three days, an IPv6 has been warned for violation of the 500/30 rule on ARBPIA articles. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning 2604:2000:f20e:2800:7135:8c2:c554:2169
This IP began the edit war editing with 104.162.193.17. Both IP addresses did the same edits and one of them gave me inappropriate warnings by copying my warnings on his talk page and pasting them on my talk page. This is not the first time I have been involved in a edit conflict with such IP addresses. Last time was in December and the administrators intervened quickly were it was blocked for one year after a 3-month block. I think it may be the same editor who edit Wikipedia by evading the block. Apart from this differences of numerous edits, It keeps tracking me by insisting that Liwa Al-Quds is an Islamist organization even though their Ideology is Pro-Baathism with no source mentioning that the are Islamist only because the article states they are mostly Sunni Palestinians from Al Nayrab refugee camp.-- Opdire657 ( talk) 14:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 2604:2000:f20e:2800:7135:8c2:c554:2169Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Darkfrog24I had a good paragraph ready about the two-way POV pushing in this article and possible solutions and a request for diffs of this edit war, but user:RolandR has pointed out here [271] that anon2604 is in violation of the 500/30 rule, which covers all anonymous editing. Tell this user to establish an account and come back after thirty days of editing. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 17:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by RolandRThis user also appears to be editing from IP 104.162.193.17, which has been making the same, or very similar, edits [272] [273] [274] to the same range of articles, and continues despite being repeatedly warned. [275] [276] RolandR ( talk) 16:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Sir JosephSome of the categories added by the IP are correct, for example Arab Terrorism in Israel, and Terrorist Organizations, and as I pointed out a few times to RolandR, not every action of an IP editor NEEDS to be reverted. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning 2604:2000:f20e:2800:7135:8c2:c554:2169
|
- This person appears to be back again, editing now from IP
2604:2000:F20E:2800:383B:D996:29E3:9D62
RolandR (
talk) 00:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- And from IP
2604:2000:F20E:2800:303A:E966:A2B4:6C0D.
RolandR (
talk) 00:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Admin Coffee has now blocked both. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- And from IP
2604:2000:F20E:2800:303A:E966:A2B4:6C0D.
RolandR (
talk) 00:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
| Catflap08 blocked for a week for breaching their topic ban. Hijiri88 reminded that reporting TBAN vios is a breach of their IBAN and instructed to stop following Catflap's edits. Spartaz Humbug! 13:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Catflap08
Not applicable
The demonstrably false claim to having "retired" (his fifth or sixth in the last year) and continuing to accuse other users of "white-washing" without providing evidence are also concerning, but don't need to be dealt with because the posts themselves were clear-cut TBAN-violations and merit blocks.
Discussion concerning Catflap08Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Catflap08I am quite unsure if I should laugh or cry … maybe both. I asked this [ [278]] which was moved to EAR and I was told in an email by what seems an admin to either seek the talk page (which due to the ban I refrain from doing) or turn to the Tea House. So asking questions about an edit is a violation of the TBAN???? This gets better every time. So let me get this right. I am not allowed to edit issues on Nichiren Buddhism. Fair enough. I do see an edit which in my eyes is highly problematic, I then go on asking on how to proceed, making clear that sanctions were imposed and I am advised to turn to the talk page (or Tea House) and THIS may be seen as violation a ban in itself??? Me making clear in my request that due to a ban I am asking for advice on how to proceed?? Maybe I should have made an edit, or a request, as a sock or unregistered user instead then?? So if I am prohibited to ask questions please let me know. Furthermore I do have the inkling I am watched closer by a certain individual than I would have thought. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 19:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
[Moved here from the result section - William M. Connolley ( talk)]
May I add that in the very start of discussion nearly two years ago a person threatened me to get me blocked? That person has succeeded in doing so even though inflicted with a ban himself now. That very person now brings up all this as a result of me asking a question on how to report an issue that worries me as I find that bad faith edits have taken place. Bad faith edits on a subject that I care about, a subject that I was told to have had an impartial input, a subject that is on the fringe and now yet again being invaded by adherents of a “cult”. I stayed clear form editing the lemma on the cult in question in general – and sought to add references as much as I could, references published, references that appear to be reliable on the subject that I have been banned from. And let me be clear that I do not suspect that person to be a member of that cult. This person in my books seems to have severe mental issues for this is HOUNDING. Go ahead and get me blocked from whatever, I walk away from all this, keeping in mind that I worked on a contentious subject anyway and that advocates of a certain cult get their way in the long run. I was threatened elsewhere on the internet for hinting at published information with legal action. The person who started all this, most probably unaware of doing so, has made himself an accomplice of that cult. Well done you all. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 17:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by IvanvectorJust pointing out that Catflap08 and Hijiri88 are subject to a two-way interaction ban. I think this report meets the WP:BANEX conditions, but thought it should be noted. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 14:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Looie496Both editors are in violation. Catflap08 is clearly in violation of the topic ban, and pretty clearly did not understand its scope. Hijiri88 violates both Arbcom-imposed topic bans by filing this report, and also violates the interaction ban with Catflap08 (which however is not an Arbitration ban). This report does not fall within the scope of BANEX, since Catflap08's actions, although violations, do not have any impact on anything Hijiri88 is permitted to edit. Looie496 ( talk) 16:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by AlbinoFerretIt appears that Looie496 is 100% correct. I took part in this Arbcom as an uninvolved party. Hijiri88 is himself subject to the same ban as Catflap08. Reporting a violation in the topic area of another editor is a topic ban violation. As it doesnt impact Hijiri88 in any way because he is topic banned in the area. BANEX provides no excuse for the report here in an area Hijiri88 is banned from, and so it violates the topic ban. What is even more troubling, is that after dozens of noticeboard sections, an IBAN and an Arbcom case Hijiri88 is still watching and yes hounding Catflap08, watching their every move in order to pounce. While Catflap08 has violated the topic ban and should receive some sanction, Hijiri88's behaviour in this shows that he still doesnt get it and a stronger sanction should be given to him. AlbinoFerret 21:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Hijiri88, I seek no IBAN with anyone, this page is open to community members. My commenting on this section is not some dark plan to find you, I have replied to quite a few sections here in the last few months that had nothing to do with you. I dont even edit in the topic, and have not edited any articles you have edited. But will go into greater detail. Hijiri88 is under the same Topic ban as Catflap08. This includes all noticeboard sections dealing with the topic. Starting a noticeboard section dealing with edits in the topic is a Topic ban violation. The exceptions are found in WP:BANX, none cover edits that the editor is not involved in. This is not vandalism, a violation of the IBAN between Hijiri88 and Catflap08, a clarification of the scope of his ban, or an appeal of his ban. The main issue in this whole disaster of noticeboard sections, Arbcom, and now here is these two editors just cant get along, nor leave each other alone. Its endless. While Arbcom didnt place the IBAN, they acknowledged it in the final decision. There may be a excuse for the IBAN violation, I am not really convinced there is as Hijiri88 didnt come across this during normal editing, he couldnt have, he is topic banned. The only way to find them is following an editor he has an IBAN with. But there is no excuse for the topic ban violation of starting a section here dealing with edits in a topic he is banned from. AlbinoFerret 04:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC) @Thryduulf I think that warnings have already been issued. Numerous sections on other noticeboards failed to stop any of this ongoing problem, thats why it went to arbcom. I want to point out that Dennis Brown gave a more or less final warning to Hijiri88 here [279]. That says "If either editor pushes the boundaries of incivility, bludgeons a discussion, violates WP:IDHT, acts in a disruptive manner on any talk page, or breaching any other policy that makes editing miserable for other editors, then either myself or another admin should simply block for a minimum of 72 hours, with rapidly escalating blocks. It doesn't matter if there is another party that is equally guilty.". I think that covers starting a noticeboard section about another editor on a topic he is banned from, where the only way he has the knowledge of the edits is following an editor with whom he has an IBAN with. AlbinoFerret 13:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC) @EdJonston But no one to my knowledge told Hijiri88 to start the ARCA section that is basically the same, and deals with the same edits. [280] If the AE is excused because he was told to come here, that excuse does not apply to ARCA. AlbinoFerret 19:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianThis is a pretty simple TBAN violation, so that part is easy. Regarding Hijiri88, it was not a good idea for them to file this complaint. Let's forget the language of BANEX for a moment, which anyway does not accept this exception. Let's look at the spirit of the IBAN and TBAN. The idea was for the two users to avoid each other and avoid the topic area. This request clearly violates the spirit. As to Hijiri's worry about "setting a precedent", that is unfounded. Just because a particular "crime" is unreported and unpunished in a particular instance does not make it ok in the future. That said, I do not support any sanctions against Hijiri88, just an advice to them to leave this alone. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by L235Thought I should mention here that I've now archived the ARCA filing about this. For the Committee – Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Cullen328
Statement by Curly Turkey
Statement by (username)Result concerning Catflap08
|
| CometEncke blocked as an obviously returning user editing controversial areas who refused to reveal their previous editing history. Spartaz Humbug! 17:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Athenean
In addition to the personal attacks themselves, I believe the failure to strike them upon explicit request should be an issue. User:Volunteer Marek explicitly asked User:Athenean to strike his personal attacks [285] [286]. Yet they are still present on the talk page. Additionally, User:Athenean has continued to edit both the talk page and article after Marek and I requested that he strike the attacks [287] , and even after receiving the template, and I seconded Marek's request. [288] However, he has not struck them.
Discussion concerning AtheneanStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AtheneanStatement by Hijiri88You are supposed to specifically link the restriction that was violated, not just the ArbCom case page. Scrolling down, I don't see any restriction or remedy being placed on Athenean during the case. Are you asking for the decision to be amended to place some form of restriction on him/her? Because I'm pretty sure this is not the place for that. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by CometEncke@Spartaz You are correct, I am not a new user. I have good reasons for my WP:FS. I have got to say that the word "benefit" does not accurately describe what is happening or has happened. The true situation is quite the opposite, as this very discussion shows. Your lack of trust of that is understandable, as I know the history, and you don't. I will say that I did not start this account with an eye to ending up here this quickly. What happened is that I was new to the Putin article, genuinely new. I came to the talk page, took a look at it, and was frankly horrified by the level of rancour I saw, not to mention the article itself, which was an abomination. I've been involved in several contentious discussions on US related issues. The level of rancour we see at the Putin article was simply absent. Additionally, I would note that Eastern Europe issues are not, and never have been, my primary editing interest. Even from my limited history, the truth of that should be obvious. I am not going to give up my privacy in order to stop someone's personal attacks. If you have to dismiss this complaint on that basis, so be it. Quite frankly, I would not have continued to make this complaint here if the user had not come to my talk page with the insinuating questions that he did, as I linked above. Could you then ask yourself, really ask yourself, whether what is happening to me is then a "benefit" or a "handicap"? In in either case, how long will I have it? Lastly, I just want to point to the way I have dealt with some other people whose edits had room for improvement, but were not making personal attacks. [290] CometEncke ( talk) 16:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC) @Hijiri, where did I edit war? I only intended to add it once, and when I look at my contribs, I only see one addition. Am I missing something? CometEncke ( talk) 16:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC) And where on Athenean's talk page did I do something inflammatory? Obviously I am missing something, but what? @People dismissing this because I'm going to keep my privacy, fine, I actually don't mind. But I do want to ask one question -- for how long am I going to have this handicap? And to put up with posts like the first three I linked in my complaint, all of which were in fact directed at me? Because that's actually becoming a routine event. [291] CometEncke ( talk) 16:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Desperate plea by Shock Brigade Harvester BorisI rarely agree with User:CometEncke but the larger point he makes is spot on. The atmosphere at Vladimir Putin (the article in question) is beyond toxic. Regardless of the merits of this particular case, or of User:CometEncke's status, could we please, please, pretty please with Nutella on top have some admins monitor that article? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 16:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Athenean
|
| Darkfrog24 is blocked indefinately until they either understand the terms of the tban or agree to stop disruptively relitigating it. Spartaz Humbug! 23:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Darkfrog24
Topic ban from the Manual of Style and manual of style related topics [292], placed under the DS authority given by WP:ARBATC.
After asking (yet again) for clarification of their topic ban on my talk page and I replied. Their response has been to extensively justify why they are right to fight about quotation styles, discussing sources relating to quotation styles, and commenting about the motives of others. e.g.
All contained in [293]
I've been trying to respond to their persistent requests for clarification of the topic ban in good faith, but at this point I'm starting to see it as a tactic to try and continue participating in the topic area.
Discussion concerning Darkfrog24Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Darkfrog241. I am explicitly allowed to ask the enforcing administrator questions about the topic ban. Thryduulf is one of the enforcing administrators. 2. Here's what happened: The complaints made against me were over 10,000 words long and contained dozens of different alleged offenses, ranging from arguable to ridiculous to provably false. I'd always figured that the admins considered some of them merited but not others, but no one ever explicitly stated which ones. Earlier this week, it occurred to me that I didn't know exactly what I did that inspired the admins to issue and then expand the topic ban, so I asked. [296] I did so so that I could spend the next eleven months putting my efforts where they would address the underlying problem, whether that was a new talk page MO, new editing style, etc. Thryduulf took the time to answer. To my surprise, the first item on his list was something that I hadn't done, [297] the claim that I'd made a "bogus" ENGVAR case. I immediately provided proof that I had not in fact invented the ENGVAR issue and that a related accusation, campaigning in the article space, was also therefore false. [298] I provided this information solely within the context of discussing the ban, not to "justify why I'm right" but to prove that some of the accusations made against me were false:
My take: If any part of a topic ban's scope, duration or time until appeal is even partially attributable to something that is provably untrue, then talking to an enforcing admin about it is not only allowable but actively good. If this is an issue for some other time or forum, then redirect me. I'm not going to pretend that being topic banned has been easy. A great deal seems counterintuitive. All I can say about my previous violations is that they were unintentional and I've followed every rule that I found out about. As for questions, there are two ways to find out what's expected of me: 1) ask and 2) watch this page for months to see what's interpreted as a violation. I've done the first and am doing the second. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 20:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Before any final decision is made, I'd like to quote WP:BANEX: Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Both finding out exactly why I was banned and providing relevant factual corrections are legitimate concerns, and if a talk page discussion with the enforcing editor isn't the appropriate forum, then direct me elsewhere. If Thryduulf is tired of answering my questions, that's his or her prerogative, but I do need the answers from somewhere. I can only learn about Thryduulf's thought process from Thryduulf, but for anything else, I could ask anyone who knows the answer. From the beginning, I have viewed making the best of this topic ban as an active project worthy of my time and energy. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 22:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Darkfrog24
|
Belated comment for the record: That ping didn't work for whatever reason, and I was completely unaware any of this was happening. But I would not have had much to say other than I'm disappointed it came to this; I took pains to try to discourage a block being the result, ever since this matter came to a head in Jan. I'm not even offended that DF24 continues to blame and accuse me; people get angry. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
| No action taken Spartaz Humbug! 11:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Arminden
The page involved, Daniel Seaman has devolved into Wikipedia:Attack page, and has far too long stood as one long WP:COATRACK in violation of basic WP:BLP (and also has basic WP:MOS issues the editor is not abiding by).
[300] (had also requested that the user self-rv, to no avail [301])
Discussion concerning ArmindenStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ArmindenSorry, I thought I'm to stay out of this until the arbiters figure it out based on the plain facts, which are out there for anyone to see. Statement by SepsisPlot Spoiler deleted large parts of the page three times in 24 hours. Three different editors each reverted him. I have never edited the page but I would also have reverted Plot Spoiler's edits if I had been there. Does Plot Spoiler think WP:ARE exists to block editors he disagrees with while he can revert an unlimited number of times without consequence? Sepsis II ( talk) 23:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000Here is what happened on that page, all within one 24-hour period:
If the 17:24 edit was a revert (about which I'm not sure), Arminden violated 1RR. The boomerang against Plot Spoiler is much clearer: 3 reverts in 24 hours. As well as that, Plot Spoiler is far too experienced to not know that the Speedy Delete process is not intended for getting rid of long-standing articles that you don't like. In my opinion, that first edit is actionable by itself. Arminden is very knowledgeable about Middle East archaeology and his edits there have been an invaluable contribution to the encyclopedia. Why he made an exception to his usual practice for this article, I don't know. I can't think of anything positive to write about Plot Spoiler. Zero talk 01:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC) @ Laser brain:, @ Number 57:, Plot Spoiler's 6 consecutive edits deleted text that had been inserted less than 24 hours before. How on earth can that not be a revert? What is a revert if that isn't? I'm totally flabbergasted. Zero talk 01:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani
I think the whole diff record of reverts should be examined impartially, and, if IR infractions are evidenced (I won't evaluate Arminden's since I am notoriously bad at the finer distinctions of IR), the appropriate sanctions be applied. It would be appropriate to examine who knows exactly what these rules require in editors walking into the I/P minefield. Ignorance is no excuse, but long experience in the area, which Plot Spoiler has, leading to the kind of blanking and edit-warring against other editors shouldn't exempt him from scrutiny. This place should not lend itself to tactical abuse, as appears to be the case with Plot Spoiler's failure to observe 2 hours self-restraint period he promised for Arminden to allow the latter understand the nature of his own claim, and respond. Nishidani ( talk) 16:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by AnotherNewAccountArminden is an excellent editor, but he does seem to have a total bee-in-his-bonnet over this individual. The History clearly shows him reverting IPs, rightly or wrongly, with some pretty ranty and incollegiate edit summaries over a long period of time. Too numerous to list them all, but here is a few: [302] [303], these two verge on WP:OWN: [304] [305] He is also the author of much of the "problematic" negative material, see here: [306] [307]; E.M.Gregory subsequently drive-by tagged the page for POV: [308]. I see this as a more of an ARBBLP issue, rather than an ARBPIA violation, and in all honesty, Plot Spoiler has a point when he notes severe NPOV and BLP issues here. I can only recommend that Arminden be banned from editing this particular article if he cannot do so with due neutrality; he's otherwise an superb editor in every way. The article itself should also probably be referred to the neutral point of view noticeboard. Administrators should take note that Arminden edits the topic with extremely and perhaps naively good faith. He is in fact probably the only editor in the entire topic area for whom it has been impossible to fathom which "side" he favours. This is both rare and valuable. AnotherNewAccount ( talk) 17:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy@ Number 57:: I'm not sure how you come up with PS only having made one revert. Any blanking of an article or section is by definition a revert. A revert is any edit that reverses, in part or in whole, another editors edits. Blanking reverses another editor(s) edits in the most basic sense. The blanking of the article by itself is the first revert, each additional edit that blanked a section is also a revert. PS did not simply "tag the page for deletion". This is the first revert, this is the second revert, and this is the third. nableezy - 18:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Result concerning Arminden
|
| No action taken. EdJohnston ( talk) 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Markus2685
Something weird is going on at AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khojaly massacre memorials and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khojaly Massacre recognition. 6 new accounts popped up in a quick succession to make similar comments and votes. Looks like an attempt at votestacking by using sock accounts. I have a reason to suspect that it is the nominator himself, and checkuser results seem to indicate that it could be so. But an admin needs to make the judgment call, and since it is an arbitration covered area, the discretionary sanctions may apply. Grand master 19:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Markus2685Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Markus2685As far as I know there is the possibility of checking IPs of users on Wikipedia. If done so, you would have seen that my account is not the same. So this is a false assumption on behalf of user Grandmaster. Basically anyone endorsing my arguments that I stated could have opened accounts copying my statements and that's it. For example anyone can create accounts, copying user Grandmasters arguments, and then I could accuse Grandmaster of creating sockpuppets. As I already mentioned these accounts (at least some of them) also seem weird to me, so just block them and problem solved. Markus2685 ( talk) 19:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Markus2685
|
| Not action taken. Spartaz |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Konullu
Konullu is violating his topic ban. He has done this twice already, and has been blocked for it.
{{ ping}} what about all the other topic ban violations? Should we go ahead and revert those too? -- Երևանցի talk 12:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning KonulluStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by KonulluI thought that my topic ban did not apply to AFDs. Sincerely, Konullu ( talk) 20:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by GrandmasterIt's been 3 years since the topic ban, with no misconduct. Konullu should probably appeal his ban, and his vote in AFD, while formally a ban violation, is not in my opinion a severe disruption. Grand master 22:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Konullu
|
| No enforcement action is necessary at this time. Coffee |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Malik_Shabazz
As Spartaz has now hatted all the comments above, I have copied all the hatted comments here in order to save time. (If the above request gets archived before this one is done, it will be a pain moving back and forth to track comments) As Nishidani has struck out my copy of his previous comments I assume he is retracting them in full. Essentially as with his desysop previously, Malik has shown no remorse and no intention to abide by wikipedia's editing and collegiality policies. While there may have been some mitigating circumstances previously, there is absolutely no excuse for threatening to go to the press if you dont get your own way. As Malik on his talkpage and ANI has refused to withdraw his comments, it must be taken that his threat is genuine. So while a ban under discretionary sanctions from American Politics might solve the immediate problem, unless he retracts his threat how is any editor supposed to edit in the same area as him with that sort of threat hanging over them? That if you dont agree with them, they are going to go to the press and smear you.
Discussion concerning Malik_ShabazzStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Malik_ShabazzSince the flavor of the day is quoting walls of text, here's my post from yesterday at WP:AN/I:
Torven, if you think editors are engaging in behavior that casts aspersions on the project, stop them. I've tried, but nobody seems to give a fuck. Wikipedia's moronic and self-important double standard concerning Jews is perfectly embodied by this edit, which changed the phrase "celebrated his bar mitzvah in 1954" to "became a bar mitzvah in 1954" with the edit summary "we don't know if he celebrated it". I look forward to editors changing the word "celebrate" to "commemorate" or "mark" throughout Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources indicating that the individuals involved were, in fact, celebrating. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 18:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by NishidaniSaying one will notify the press of one's personal view Wikipedia discriminates in its treatment of Jewish as opposed to Christian (politicians) is not a threat. One Jewish editor has already been banned in this context. Highly respected editors and admins who self-identify as Jewish such as
Cullen Statement by Starke HathawayGiven that the previous instance of intemperance from Shabazz (which I can't link here because it has been revdeled but which is detailed in Ceradon's statement here) also involved inappropriate comments about another editor in relation to being Jewish, I wonder if it might be appropriate for him to step back from Jewish topics generally. -Starke Hathaway ( talk) 15:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Guy MaconShould I withdraw the ANI report to avoid a duplicate discussion? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by TorvenIt may not be a legal threat, but the "or else" of any ultimatum is always a threat of some kind. In this case, it's a threat to cast aspersions about the project and, by extension, several involved users in the press. Even if No Legal Threats doesn't apply, it should qualify as a threat of off-wiki harassment. Torven ( talk) 16:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by NableezyThe idea that "going to the press" is a threat to "smear" somebody or is a threat of "off-wiki harassment" is preposterous. Somebody wants to write something here they can take responsibility for their actions. If somebody would be embarrassed by their own actions if they were reported, well then perhaps they should have considered their actions more carefully prior to committing them. Maybe Malik should have just gone to the press without telling anybody here that he would, but that seems a bit underhanded and underhandedness doesnt seem to be Malik's strong suit. If yall so confident in your actions why exactly are you concerned about them being reported? Statement by James J. LambdenIt's clear this is an effort by some editors to brand Sanders with a digital star of David. This kind of attack is extremely upsetting. I'll be forwarding my summary along with the usernames of editors who continue to pursue this to the ADL who no doubt WILL take action. This is perfectly acceptable and not a threat. James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Malik's problematic edits
@Drmies If I end up banned for pointing out antisemitism I will notify the press. This is not a threat. James J. Lambden ( talk) 08:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by SoftlavenderI'm personally concerned on a couple of accounts: (1) That a user who until August 2015 was one of the most remarkably civil and patient of editors, not to mention admins, is repeating nearly the sort of hostility that got him desysopped and caused him to retire. (2) That I can't figure out what has caused this personality change, and because of my admiration and love for him, I hope is not something serious off-wiki. (3) That the "battleground" at issue is something rather COI-ish, in that Malik is Jewish, which COI does not reflect well on him considering his behavior and his level of hostility on this subject matter re: the Sanders issue. (4) That he has repeatedly (in edit summaries and in posts) called Guy Macon a troll. Guy Macon is a lot of things, and can often be very frustrating (especially if one does not agree with him), but he is not a troll and should never be called one. (Wikipedia discussion should proceed on logic and policy, not on insults and ad hominem attacks.) I find all these developments very worrying. I want my old Malik Shabazz back. I want peace and civility to reign, regardless of whether Wikipedia consensus agrees with my/someone's/anyone's personal viewpoint or preference. I recommend an admonishment here but no action. Softlavender ( talk) 05:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC); edited 07:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Curly Turkey@ Laser brain: I provided a link. Did you follow it? These aren't "losing his cool" when he digs in his heels like that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I second Masem's suggestion, which I'm surprised isn't already policy or something—Wikipedia can't seriously tolerate threats of this nature. What's doubly disturbing is that so many seem to want this slide "because it's Malik". Obviously not too many Wikipedians would have gotten away with this behaviour. If I made such a threat, which I have remained unblocked? How many commenters here would believe an admin who answered "yes" to that question? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My KenFor me, this is not really about Malik Shabazz. I have nothing bad to say about Malik as an editor, I always thought he was a good admin, and his de-sysopping was an aberration, but if this incident is allowed to go by without something being done about it – not a sanction, not a block or topic ban, but at the very least a formal warning – then it opens the door for every Wikipedian who feels as strongly about their religion/ethnicity/nationality/gender/sexuality/neural state/fraternal organization/whatever as Malik does about being Jewish to say "DO X ABOUT Y OR I"M GOING TO THE PRESS", and that is simply an untenable situation. It creates a terrible precedent that has the potential of crippling certain controversial subject areas even more so then they are already.In my best Cassandra manner let me say: if you don't deal with it now, you're going to be dealing with much worse instances in the future - and, let's face it, if it wasn't Malik, you would be dealing with it – and that's understandable, but very, very unfortunate.At least that's how I see it, but I know I'm swimming upstream. BMK ( talk) 19:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by MrXThe statements by James J. Lambden, Beyond My Ken, and few others capture my thoughts perfectly. Drmies, your comments are so nonsensical it leaves me wondering whether you were drunk when you wrote them, or if you're just trolling. @ Malik Shabazz: I used to have lot of respect for you, before you decided to co-opt Wikipedia to right great wrongs.- Mr X 21:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by MasemAgreeing with Beyond My Ken that this isn't presently an issue ArbCom should handle. Instead, I would think that the community should develop a companion to No Legal Threats based on "No Third-Party Threats" that are intended to prevent claims of going to an external entity to try to enact change on WP. Whether that is going to the press, claiming to engage an external forum, meatpuppets, etc., all have the intent of chilling speech, typically the same intent that a legal threat has. These aren't as actionable as legal threats (eg there's nothing legally wrong going to the press), hence must be handled differently, but there behavior issues that should be strongly discouraged and captured in some policy. -- MASEM ( t) 21:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by IrondomeI can only thoroughly concur with Nish's statement upthread. This is a complex issue which is being addressed by consensual discussion amongst colleagues who identify as Jewish and have differing views on cultural and cognitive concepts of that definition. I have my own views on this, but I am seeing a hugely respected and wise human being being again harassed, I believe unwittingly, on the heels of a deeply problematic dysopping, which has had significant emotional impact on Malik. He was trolled and goaded, and yet he had the courage to return and continue to support the project despite his evident distress. It would be wise and kind to back off and leave a fine editor to regain his equilibrium. Simon. Irondome ( talk) 02:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Malik_Shabazz
|
| User:Sir Joseph's appeal of the one-week topic ban from Bernie Sanders is declined. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||
Statement by Sir JosephOn the talk page there are a few editors who are stubbornly refusing to allow "Relgion:Jewish" in the infobox of Bernie Sander's article even though it is thoroughly sourced through reliable sources and self soured as well. A few editors then came up with a new policy that says that it has to come from Bernie's own mouth, as per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Religion. Firstly, that is not a infobox policy, that is a categorization policy, but even so, the page says right on the top: "guideline,... best treated with common sense...and occasional exceptions..." When a Senator has a press kit on the SENATE.GOV's website we may treat that as his own words. That being said, I still found an article that had Sanders, IN HIS OWN WORDS, say, "I am proud to be Jewish." So I added that to the article as per the talk page. Since the entire talk page consensus was that Bernie's Jewishness could only be included only if he said it himself, here's an article that said it himself and I thought we can put this stupid matter to rest. Those editors opposing the inclusion of the Jewish reference, blindly ignoring all the evidence of his Jewishness, are requiring Bernie saying he is Jewish in his own words. So I found an article that said he is Jewish and proud of it. That is all Wikipedia should be doing. What these editors want to do is now determine level of observance and that is not what the infobox or what Wikipedia is all about. We don't do it for other religions and we shouldn't start doing it for Jews.
Statement by CoffeeI have nothing to add to what I've already stated at my talk page, the article's talk page, and in the sanction at Sir Joseph's talk page. (Unless this is somehow unclear to other uninvolved admins... which I doubt.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Guy MaconSir Joseph is in violation of his topic ban.
Sir Joseph has made six edits on other pages since my request that he self-revert [330] [331] [332] [333] [334] [335] and has been informed of the ban on talk page comments by several people, yet has not self-reverted. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Malik Shabazz
Statement by Curly Turkey
Statement by Winkelvi
It should be noted Sir Joseph has continued to discuss the Sanders article here and here, in spite of and in violation of his topic ban. Obviously, he doesn't take the TBAN seriously or care that it exists. Since his violation of the ban is pretty much being ignored, I have to wonder if admins who have commented take it seriously, too. Not trying to cause problems, but, really? Why is he being allowed to continue in this manner? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sir JosephStatement by Darkfrog24At first this looks like just a content dispute, but according to Coffee's official notice, Sir J was sanctioned for failing to get consensus before adding disputed content. [338] And Sir J seems to be saying "Even though I didn't wait for the other editors to say 'okay' on the talk page, I did find exactly what they asked for, so I shouldn't be topic-banned." Is that correct? As for content, I've been in a similar situation and it is very frustrating, but editors don't always say what it is that they really want (or they don't list all their reasons). What worked in my case was that a neutral party came in, figured out what the additional issue was, and then we ran a clearly worded RfC that addressed that issue directly. In that case, the other editors were asking for reliable sources, but the additional issue was the subjective editorial decision of whether the content improved the article. I didn't understand why no matter how many sources I found they still weren't happy. Once we were able to deal with these matters separately, things proceeded in a quick and civilized fashion. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 18:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC) EDIT: Okay, I went through the RfC thread and I don't see any clear version of "Just find us a reliable source that says X and we're fine with the addition." Rather, the discussion focuses on ethnic vs. religious Judaism, on participation and on whether Sanders' Jewish status is notable. Maybe Sir J found what one or two of the many participants said they wanted, and props for the legwork, but that's not enough to reasonably assume that most of the participants would be satisfied. (Also, Spacklick seems to be addressing the editorial issue directly.) Darkfrog24 ( talk) 18:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by SMcCandlish"Jewish" has multiple meanings. It's original research to label someone as professing a religious faith when they may simply be commenting on part of their ethnic background. There are lots of agnostic/atheist Jews, and so on. So, it doesn't matter how many places he says he's proud to be Jewish, it has no impact on the infobox parameter unless and until we have him saying he's religiously Jewish. And that is probably something that should be a self-statement, for a BLP, especially one subjected to racist and faith-based slurs from Christian rednecks and the like. E.g., if Fox News claims he goes to synagogue, that's not a reliable source. An infobox religion parameter is a very blunt instrument. What Sanders's "Jewishness" entails, to the extent it's even encyclopedic, is a matter best explored in the article body, like the "Irishness" of various individuals in certain parts of that island in various time periods, and so on. Not every group label is a cut-and-dry matter. I don't see any recognition of this complexity and nuance on the part of the appellant, just a certainty that a great wrong is being done by not putting the word "Jewish" into that slot in the infobox. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Only in Death
In reply to JamesBWatson - His PR presspack (which was available on the website) listed his religion as 'Jewish'. -ninja edit- Appears to still be available on right hand side via 'download press package' button. If there were no contradictory sources, as a primary source this would usually be enough. However when the subject themselves also states they are not religious it gets a bit murkier. Its just not clear cut enough for a definitive infobox statement. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by JamesBWatson
Statement by MaunusI second SmCandlish's statement. The argument for putting the label in the religion slot, ignores the fact that unlike the word "Christian" the word "Jewish" is polysemic and does not only refer to religion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by IvanvectorIs this section meant to be broken up by sub-headers? No matter I guess. Sir Joseph is clearly in violation of his topic ban, I mean there can be no question, this entire appeal is continuing to discuss Bernie Sanders, the topic that Sir Joseph is banned from. I expect to see appeals in the form, "this topic ban is invalid because <evidence the ban rationale was incorrect>" or some such. For example, Sir Joseph could argue that
Coffee was mistaken and SJ actually didn't add contentious information Was there consensus for the edit? The large, open RfC on the talk page suggests not. It's still open, of course, but I think it's a pretty big leap to say it's going to close as support. So there's no consensus. Did Sir Joseph edit war to add the edit? He sure did. Not to mention that these edits came while the matter was still being hotly contested on the talk page, he ought to have known, sourced or not, that these edits would be contentious. Was Sir Joseph aware of the discretionary sanctions? I find it hard to believe that anybody edits in topic areas like these without knowing about the WP:BLP policy and related DS, but just in case he also missed the editnotice, there's this warning on his talk page. Is the blocking administrator WP:INVOLVED? No reason has been given as to why Coffee should be considered involved here, and I can't find one. So I don't see any reason that this ban should be overturned. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 17:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by LizSince you asked the question, JamesBWatson if you go to his About page there is a box that says "PRESS PACKAGE DOWNLOAD (PDF)". If you download this biography, which I assume is official, it states that Sanders religion is "Jewish". I don't think any editor of Wikipedia is qualified to judge how religious Sanders is or what he means by Jewish. It's his self-identification. Any interpretation of this by a Wikipedia editor is pure original research. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by MasemAs only involved in responding to discussion at BLP/N and OR/N, the issue is that while the press kit (which may or may not be authored directly by Sanders) says that, his statements directly recorded by the press as self-identification beg the question of his religion. The press kit is conflicting with his statements to a point where saying "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox may be wrong. It would be OR to try to come to a conclusion either way from these sets of conflicting statements. It's well recognized that what his religious beliefs are is important, but can't be readily summarized in one word. Hence, a solution that I offered at OR/N that seems to have consensus is to have "See (Religion section)" as the entry in the infobox - it doesn't deny he has stated some type of faith, but it is something not readily captured by one or two words. In my eyes, this is the similar practice that we allow people to omit infoboxes from bio articles if they believe the infobox is insufficient for capturing a person in a brief snapshot. -- MASEM ( t) 00:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Darouet
Result of the appeal by Sir Joseph
|
| No action taken. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Jytdog
User is mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
In addition to the above edit which is clearly within the scope of the topic ban, Jytdog has made a number of recent edits to a range of other Bayer-related articles. Per the January 2016 reword of the Discretionary sanctions in the GMO case, companies that produce agricultural chemicals are within the scope of the sanctions, and it could be inferred that this clarification of scope would also apply to topic bans. While the majority of Jytdog's edits here appear to be related to their pharma business, Bayer produces agricultural chemicals and has been involved in the production of, and controversies related to, GMOs ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-01/bayer-to-pay-750-million-to-end-lawsuits-over-genetically-modified-rice example ref). @ Kingofaces43 This filing primarily concerns only one diff, evaluation of which should not pose a undue burden to admins. I reject Kingofaces43’ position that this filing is vexatious. Jytdog writes in his statement that he agrees his edit was a violation of his topic ban. Please provide a link where anyone has told Jytdog that he has ‘been explicitly told it's ok to edit,’ Bayer-related articles. The discussion you link for the statement that 'adding companies to existing topic bans did not pass' shows that there were not enough votes either way. I assume this means arbcom members could still vote to pass it. Dialectric ( talk) 23:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC) @Kingofaces43 , I believe you are reading more into the arbcom motion than is there. There is no explicit statement that it is OK to edit articles about agchem companies. In fact several arbcom members say explicitly 'don't test the boundaries'. An admin could reasonably take a topic ban on agricultural chemicals broadly construed to include those companies which produce agricultural chemicals, whether or not arbcom included wording about companies. Bayer CropScience is more closely related to GMOs, the core of the controversy, than Agent Orange is related to GMOs. If you would like to discuss interpretation of the arbcom decision further, you are welcome to do so on my talk page. Dialectric ( talk) 01:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC) @Jytdog Thank you for reverting the edit to Bayer CropScience Limited. Dialectric ( talk) 23:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC) As Jytdog has reverted his edit, I believe this issue is now resolved. If an uninvolved admin agrees, feel free to close. Dialectric ( talk) 00:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JytdogStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JytdogI was cleaning up articles around Bayer which had a proliferation of articles that had contradictory/overlapping content ( here are my contribs for today), and noted that in my edit note when I redirected this stub to the main Bayer article. There was nearly identical content already in the Bayer article. I see the violation of course, and I reckoned that someone might have a cow over this, but was figuring no one would because it is ... minor... obvious... and it is hard to see why anyone would care or object, I guess. Anyway, no drama - I have reverted the redirect and will leave that piece for someone else. Would have done the same had Dielectric just asked me. But this is for sure a violation and the path to AE was wide open. No argument there. Jytdog ( talk) 21:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Kingofaces43There's no violation here, even technical. Jytdog's topic ban covers at most pesticide related content here. For better or worse, ArbCom made it clear that the current topic bans they handed out do not specifically apply to companies producing pesticides as long as the editor is not editing about topics covered by the ban; specifically adding companies to existing topic bans did not pass. [341] Arbs were pretty clear there that edits on this specific area should be watched closely, but would cautiously be allowed. This has come up a few times at AE now, so Dialectric should know better than to file a case like this when we already have another vexatious GMO filing just above this. Some GMO topic-banned editors have been given admin guidance outside of their ban to stay away from the agricultural company articles entirely because they still couldn't disengage from advocacy for other disruptive behavior. Putting in a redirect for an article that does not even discuss any of the topic ban areas is about as far as you could get from that and is in line with what arbs were allowing. We've discussed admin malaise with GMO AE filings above already. [342] What's starting to become interesting is that most topic-bans by ArbCom and filings that resulted in action at AE have been against editors critical of the scientific consensus on GMOs in some fashion. When those same editors file cases here though, they're often found to be lacking merit or even resulting in a boomerang on the filer. In a case like this were Dialectric is effectively using Jytdog's topic ban to push them out of topics without legitimate reason where they have been explicitly told it's ok to edit, we do need to start clamping down on that behavior. It makes me look like I'm out for blood when I end up calling for a boomerang here so often, so would ask that admins be mindful of this trend we have now (just a glimpse of what us regulars without sanctions have been putting up with) when it comes to assessing filings. I would ask admins that if they see a filing that's tenuous at best, to nip it in the bud with a good look at whether it would serve the topic to take action against the filer. Hopefully that cuts down on the litany GMO filings in the future. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Adv4AgJust my opinion, but I agree with Kingofaces43. I couldn't believe Jytdog was facing another ArbCom after the topic ban, so I had to come take a look. My first thought when I saw the Bayer diff was, "You've got to be kidding. An ArbCom over a simple re-direct?!?" It just seems an awful lot like sour grapes to me. I'm a very infrequent editor, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter, but it sure looks like making a mountain out of a molehill. Adv4Ag ( talk) 23:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by AlbinoFerretArbcom did clarify that editors topic banned in the GMO case could edit pages of companies that produce agracutural chemicals as long as it was not about GMO's or agracutural chemicals. But the edit in question appears to remove GMO information. We find this line | products = [[Environmental science]], [[pesticide]] and [[seeds]] Also this (my bold, but could not bold the last refrence and have it show and be bold), <Bayer CropScience Limited''' is the Indian subsidiary of [[Bayer AG]]. Its head office is located in [[Hiranandani Estate]], [[Thane district]] in [[Maharashtra]], India. Bayer CropScience Limited is a part of Bayer Group (India) and is the only [[public company]] of Bayer Group in India.<ref name="About Bayer">{{cite news|title=About Bayer|publisher=Official website|accessdate=September 2015|url=http://www.bayer.co.in/about_us.php}}</ref><ref name="German polymer major views India as growth driver">{{cite news|title=German polymer major views India as growth driver|publisher=[[Business Standard]]|accessdate=September 2015|url=http://www.business-standard.com/article/b2b-connect/german-polymer-major-covestro-views-india-as-growth-driver-115090300153_1.html}}</ref><ref name="Bayer CropScience buys SeedWorks ">{{cite news|title=Bayer CropScience buys SeedWorks |publisher=[[Business Standard]]|accessdate=September 2015|url=http://www.business-standard.com/content/b2b-chemicals/bayer-cropscience-buys-vegetable-seed-firm-seedworks-india-115060101389_1.html}}</ref> and this catagory. [[Category:Agriculture in India]] This is a clear violation. AlbinoFerret 16:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC) @Tryptofish I would like you remoind you that Prokaryotes was sanctioned in a section on this page dealing with the GMO arbcom case, that you started. @EdJhonston I think your correct that since its been self reverted nothing needs to be done, but a warrning not to violate the ban again may be a good idea. AlbinoFerret 01:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by TryptofishI think that this was, indeed, a violation of the topic ban, and Jytdog should have known better. And I am glad that Jytdog reverted the reference to Dialectric supposedly having "had a cow", because I see Dialectric's filing as good faith. But, much as with numerous other recent AE filings coming out of the GMO case, it was a minor and relatively harmless step over the topic ban boundary, it was self-reverted, and Jytdog has made it clear that he will not repeat it. The other similar AE cases did not result in sanctions, and neither should this one. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JzGThis request shows why there is admin fatigue over the GMO case. A technical infringement, fixed by self-reversion, and no evidence at all of trying to game the system. Why are we even here? This just about rises to the level of "meh". Guy ( Help!) 16:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Jytdog
|
| not actionable. Spartaz Humbug! 23:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Gaijin42
Gaijin42 was topic banned and appealed his ban. In his appeal he gave three examples of the editing he'd do if the ban were lifted. [344] See "example areas of potential work". Of those three areas, he has done no work on two of them. These edits were made in the days immediately following the lifting of his topic ban, when presumably would have been most careful. While this happened six months ago, it was only now discovered. Misreporting what a source says is one of the most pernicious forms of POV pushing, since it may go undetected for so long. This is a case of really, really bad editing. Gaijin42 makes a source say the opposite of what it really said, using an undisclosed source which never would have been acceptable for anything but an attributed opinion. In December Gaijin42 brought an enforcement request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive185#TruthIsDivine - he reported a user who was upset that "fraudulent" material was in a gun ontrol-related article, including material that Gaijin42 restored. [345] He refused to address the substance of the complaint. He later said that the material was, in fact, significantly wrong. Talk:Defensive_gun_use#Pro-gun_fraud_in_this_article [346] So his first recourse was to edit warring and enforcement, rather than listening and dealing with the problem. That is an example of battleground editing. Battleground editing and putting undue weight on issues were among the reasons Gaijin42 was originally topic banned. This editing is of the same type. In re: the somewhat peripheral issue of the Defensive gun use article and user:TruthIsDivine, it appears Gaijin42 contacted Gamaliel off-Wiki at the time. [347] In re: Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act, the article has other POV issues regarding weight and sources that trace back to Gaijin's editing, so I don't think it can be held up as an example of fine editing. However the highlighted edit is the worst. In re: off-wiki contact. There's no way for uninvolved users to know the content of such discussions. This. isn't the basis for the complaint - it just stood out. The basis for this complaint is the misleading editing of a gun control-related article. @ EdJohnston: - In re: "thin complaint" - I've looked further into Gaijin42's recent gun control-related editing. These don't look good either:
These are the types of POV pushing edits that got Gaijin42 topic banned and even blocked before. In re: "boomerang for grasping at straws?" below - Gaijin42 seems to be saying that complaining about his editing is a bannable offense. Since he is on what amounts to probation on this topic, he should expect his edits to be reviewed closely. The fact he made and let stand for six months a horribly misleading and POV edit is not my fault. @ Gamaliel: Gaijin42 leaving the bad edit in place for five months makes it worse, not better, IMO. As for the other edits, someone who appealed for a second chance while giving false claims of what work he'd do, someone who has made less-than-optimal edits across a variety of articles, someone who accepts bad sources and discards good ones, that seems to me like someone who needs to avoid the topic altogether. But you guys are wiser than me, I'm sure. Maybe this time Gaijin42 has learned to avoid outrageously misleading and POV edits in this topic.
Discussion concerning Gaijin42Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Gaijin42The edits in question to the PLCAA article are from Note that even at the time, I specifically drew attention to that edit saying that it could use some NPOV help. (see edit summary) [349] I admit, I should have taken more time to double check that sentence for neutrality and sourcing. But a single sentence 6 months ago, and when challenged I readily admit a problem and do not object to any changing... I'm not sure why everyone's time is being wasted here. Regarding the other matter, a sock
User:TruthIsDivine of a
As the December AE report is at issue, pinging the involved admins at the time @ Gamaliel and Rschen7754: Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Regarding the ygm ping to Gamaliel, note that it was sent AFTER the case was closed. For the record, the message I sent is below. clearly an inappropriate communication. This is approaching WP:HOUND. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC) boomerang for grasping at straws?This is ridiculous. Felsic is grasping at straws on some kind of witch hunt agenda now. You may agree with or disagree with any of the edits or talk page comments listed, but they clearly fall well within the bounds of normal editing and WP:BRD and WP:CON.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Felsic, the main edit in question, I have freely admitted was problematic. I take full responsibility for the issue. But a single edit 5 months ago, that nobody is fighting over is wasting everyone's time. Past that, you are grasping at straws, and frankly misrepresenting the diffs in question in an effort to buttress the one diff that is a problem. (Oh no, I said in a talk page comment I thought a better source might be needed! oh the humanity!) You are clearly reviewing my entire edit history for the past several months and coming up with either completely appropriate edits and talk page comments, or at the worst insignificant issues which occur regularly as part of normal editing process. Either you have a personal agenda against me that I was not aware of, or you need to take a deep breath and rethink the level of nitpicking you are engaging in. This entire debacle could have been (and in fact was) resolved with a simple talk page discussion. Unless you come up with something that truly demands a response, I'm done letting you waste my time. Admins, please close this so we can get on with making an encyclopedia. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Gaijin42
|
| The enforcement action is reversed per consensus among uninvolved administrators. Laser brain (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Volunteer MarekHoly freakin' crap. I make ONE - that's right ONE - revert to the Bernie Sanders page [350] and I am topic banned for a WEEK for "edit warring". Without warning. Without notification. Just "BOOM!" Is this serious? Did April 1st come early this year or something? And yes, I did start a talk page discussion [351]. I'm sorry but that is simply NOT "edit warring", that's normal WP:BRD. The other editor who has also made one revert [352] was not topic banned (and no, I don't think they should be either - that would be insane, just like this is). Look. I understand the need for discretionary sanctions on a topic like potentially contentious topic like Sanders (incidentally, why isn't the Clinton - or other US presidential candidates - article subject to the same sanction [353]?). But this is way over the line. The purpose of these sanctions, per the final decision was to prevent "continuous disruption of content as the problems move from one area to another."" Was there any "continuous disruption" here? No, it was a single fishin' edit (and a good one too). And per DS/definitions "Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE." Was this done? No, it was just .... "BOOM!" I also feel compelled to point out that this kind of enforcement runs afoul of BLP issues. Under this schema, where a single revert gets you topic banned, the person who ADDS material to a BLP article is "protected", whereas the person who REMOVES material from a BLP article runs the danger of getting sanctioned. I'm sorry but that's completely backwards. Is this really how you guys want this to work? Adding contentious material to BLPs is fine, "protected from removal" even, but removing it gets you a topic ban? Did someone forget to think this one through? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Coffee, what you are effectively doing with your serial and exclusive sanction-slapping on Bernie Sanders, is imposing a 0RR restriction on the article. Without telling anyone about it. And no, the warning that appears when you press "edit" does not sufficiently address that - it says there are discretionary sanctions in place but it does NOT warn editors that they can get a topic ban for a single revert. IF you are going to treat the article as if it was under 0RR - which I'm pretty sure is NOT what the ArbCom decision was meant to do - then at the very least you need to make sure that editors know this. Change that discretionary sanctions notice to say "This article is under 0RR restriction". Which isn't to agree with there being a 0RR restriction on the article, particularly since it's a BLP, which means reverting will be necessary to REMOVE contentious material. But if that's how you're going to interpret "discretionary sanctions", you need to let people know before sanctioning them. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC) @David, the first edit was not a revert. It was just removing some sketchy info from the article. And please don't accuse me of "dishonesty" - you are engaging in baseless personal attacks on a WP:AE page which itself could get you blocked. And really pissing me off too, as I don't appreciate being accused of being "dishonest" and am tempted to throw a few choice adjectives your way in response. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC) And speaking of ... I'm going to call this "inaccuracy", rather than "dishonesty", David, I never said "I made one edit" as you claim. I said "I made one revert". So get your own claims in order before you accuse others of lying. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
And if we're going to get all procedural, here's what WP:AC/DS actually says about alerts and warnings relevant to discretionary sanctions: "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:
Notice what is NOT on the list? "Some administrator adds a vague and ambiguously worded template to an article that appears when editors click "edit"" of the kind that a lot of editors might not even notice when editing an article for the first time" is NOT on the list. In other words, no, per ArbCom decision, that template by itself is not sufficient notice of discretionary sanctions. Now, funnily enough where I myself am concerned, #2 actually applies since it seems I did comment in the original arbitration request [354] (which I don't actually remember, didn't follow the case itself, and if this here happened a week later it would be inapplicable). But in the future you really DO NEED to formally warn editors before sanctioning them, as required per WP:AC/DS. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by CoffeeThis particular ban, is made specifically for the article itself... not the topic as a whole (which allows Marek to discuss changes at the talk page). This, as I said at his talk page, is to prevent further disruption on the article itself. There have simply been too many edit wars occurring on that page, which is what caused me to place sanctions on the article originally (after a report was made a few weeks ago at WP:RFPP). All editors have been made aware of the sanctions, per Arbitration Committee policy, article sanctions are placed in the edit notice. The other editor, who made the revert, was following WP:BRD... reverting his revert is an edit war (BRD stands for be Bold and make an edit, someone Reverts you, now you Discuss the edit... it does not stand for Bold , someone Reverts, make one Comment on the talk page and immediately afterwards you Revert - that would be BRCR. This is fairly simple, it is not my responsibility to ensure Volunteer Marek actually reads the very obvious edit notice before making an edit, he violated the sanctions placed there... and is now subject to a personal sanction to simply prevent further disruption. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by Sir JosephFirstly, where does DS say that DS is 1RR? For ARBPIA it explicitly says that 1RR is the rule. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Volunteer MarekGaijin42
David TornheimIt was not "1 edit". There were two reverts in a <24 hours period: [355] [356]. If the article is under 1RR, then it has been violated. I say make the topic ban one month rather than 1 week for misrepresenting the facts and wasting our time with dishonesty. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC) MarkBernsteinLet’s not get carried away. Let me recap the bidding.
As a technical matter, whether or not this violates 1RR hinges on whether we interpret the first edit on March 11 as a revert. I would be strongly disinclined to call anyone “dishonest” for believing that it was not; had Marek replaced the passage with another passage, perhaps a briefer and more neutral summary, it would certainly not be construed as a revert. More broadly, it is not clear the VM is wrong on the merits. His talk page defense of the edit has, as I write, received no response. The sanctioned edit is combative, yes, but much stronger responses could be envisioned; for example, VM might instead have added a number of countervailing polls, or a list of countervailing editorial opinions, each of which could in principle deserve our attention as much as this poll does. In 2024, this passage will be long gone: whatever happens, no one will care what a December poll predicted about this candidate's electability. So, VM is bringing the page one step closer to the shape it will have (should Wikipedia survive) in the distant future. In any case, this already-overheated discussion is emblematic of the mess that ArbCom has invited with its handling of American Politics. I doubt sanctions are useful here; in practice, they're going to expend a lot of volunteer time that could be more profitably spent on protecting the project from attackers. MarkBernstein ( talk) 20:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Rhoark1RR is a limit, not an entitlement. Regardless of revert count, it was a revert of well-sourced content for hand-waving reasons. It's not beyond the pale to show someone the penalty box for that. Rhoark ( talk) 20:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
LjLI have little sympathy for Marek's ways of editing in general and I haven't followed the incident here, but I want to at least comment on what Rhoark said: first it was "3RR is a limit, not an entitlement", now more and more (and more) articles are falling into the net of discretionary sanctions, making 1RR a limit, but that's not enough! Since 1RR is not an entitlement, as a matter of fact, if you make one revert - not one unjustified revert, but one revert that is only justified with reasons not specific enough ("hand-waving") to convince an administrator, you can be sanctioned? That would really be extreme, a most unwelcome progressive radicalization to basically "you can be sanctioned if you make any edit" of originally fair bright-line rules. LjL ( talk) 21:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Jnorton7558@ Coffee:, where is the log entry for this page restriction? "The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place." -- Jnorton7558 ( talk) 22:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Capitals00Can someone remove the topic ban now? Its been almost a week that this request was filed. Capitals00 ( talk) 13:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Volunteer Marek
|
| No action taken. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Felsic2
The user has acknowledged that they edited under both Felsic ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 162.119.231.132 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and has made no attempt to hide this; this is not a SPI request). Almost all of their edits have been to gun control pages, and I cannot recall a single one that has made a page more in favor of gun rights or less in favor of gun control. The non-article or talk space edits appear to mostly have been focused on requesting sanctions against editors who Felsic perceives as being in favor of gun rights. Under their previous account, two pro gun control editors admonished Felsic for his/her conduct. Felsic's response was "Tell you what, you can spend the whole goddamn weekend trying to work out a compromise. Lottsa luck with that. If you succeed I'll nominate you for sainthood." (with an edit summary of "have fun hitting your head against the wall"). Since their return to active editing (under the new account), Felsic's attitude and pattern of behavior seems to have remained consistent - he/she sees Wikipedia as a tug-of-war, not a collaborative project. The one thing that seems inconsistent is their professed indifference to the topic; Felsic appears to be entirely focused on making Wikipedia more in favor of gun control, using whatever means are available to do so.
I would still call those edits partial reverts. For example, on edit "D", you moved the "legal term of art" language from the lead sentence to the final sentence of the second paragraph. That's seriously different. And honestly I don't care what language you use, whether you say "crappy" or just "bad". This is the internet; I've seen worse. The problem is the attitude behind the language. Telling others to "stick it" would be just as bad if you had said "take that". Note that I didn't say you weren't correct in wanting the article's language changed; it appears you were entirely correct. But spiking the football makes it clear that you see this as a battleground, not a collaborative effort. As to my conduct, I have my own biases, but I do what I can to check those at the door and stay neutral and balanced; I know I've made edits to remove non-neutral language from both sides. The SPI was filed in good faith and withdrawn when evidence made it clear that you weren't LB's sock. I apologized for it, and I have not raised the issue since then; note that in filing this AE request I made it clear that I did not think you were socking. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 12:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Felsic2Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Felsic2Faceless Enemy's complaint Much of this complaint is related to my use of the term "crappy" which Google defines as "(vulgar slang) adjective: of extremely poor quality." [359] Is he upset that I use a vulgar term for poor quality material? 1. The material I removed from Civil_liberties_in_the_United_States was written by a college freshman as part of a class assignment. user:Wood3cm did not know how to write for Wikipedia. The content was "crappy" - it made WP:SYNTH arguments, used poor quality sources, gave undue attention to one aspect of the topic, etc. [360] Here's one 'crappy' bit by the same editor deleted by another editor. [361] The editor has not edited Wikipedia before or since using that username. Though it used a vulgar term, my edit summary was reasonably accurate. 2. As for reverts: what version of the article was I reverting to? 3. He says that questioning the objectivity of a list shows "general hostility and battleground attitude". [371] If the scope of the list were objective then it wouldn't be up for alteration by WP editors. The list has three pages of talk archives, showing disagreements over its supposedly objective content. Is it now "battleground attitude" to question the POV of an article? 4. Someone made what I called a "really, really bad edit". I didn't know who or when it was done at first. I posted about it, then I looked in the history. Later, some univolved editor made a flyby comment that I shouldn't have posted to that page with my obeservation about the edit. Maybe I'm mistaken - I thought article talk pages existed to talk about edits to the article. The other editor was wrong to chastise me for making the complaint. Yet Faceless Enemy blames me, not editor who made the specious complaint and certainly not the editor who made the "really really bed edit". [372] Faceless Enemy has filed a number of complaints about me. [373] User:GRuban wrote Oh give me a break" and told him to "cut it out". [374] As for taking sides in a debate, Faceless Enemy has made far more edits than I have to gun politics articles. If there were sufficient space I think I could show that he has made the majority of them in favor of one side. This list of talk pages show that the overwhelming percentage of his discussuon has been about gun-related topics. [375] If one-sidedness is a real problem then I'm not the user to start with. Felsic2 ( talk) 21:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Gaijin42's complaint Gaijin42 seems upset that I filed a complaint against him for making an edit that one of the uninvolved admins called "extremely troubling" and said it would have been sanctionable if found sooner. [376] He says the material I deleted from [ High-capacity magazine ban]] was about the High-capacity magazine ban. I checked the source and found no significant mention of magazines. The comment in the source was not about high-capacity magazines, which are barely mentioned in the article. [377] I'm not the only editor who has removed sourced material from that article. So has Faceless Enemy. [378] [379] What's the difference? Gaijin42 says I was combative for saying that a list whose restrictions are arbitrary is not necessarily objective. Yet he was trying to get the scope of the list changed. If it was an objective scope, it wouldn't be subject to change by WP editors. (See above - Faceless Enemy made the same complaint.) He says I disrupted Wikipedia to make a point. No - I tried to treat articles on gun control organizations the same as a gun organization is treated. The National Rifle Association article has a mission statement in its infobox sourced to Guidestar. I added mission statements to gun control advocacy groups. Faceless Enemy deleted them, whether sourced to Guidestar or not. [380] [381] Faceless Enemy did not discuss his reversions. Talk:National_Gun_Victims_Action_Council I asked if the mission statement in NRA was compliant with the WP:MISSION page, and after a day with no response I deleted it. It ain't disruptive to expect similar topic to be edited using the same rules. For the Starbucks articles, I looked at the sources and did not find any which labeled the protesting group as "gun rights advocates". I am concerned about how people and groups on all sides of the debate are pigeon-holed as being either pro-gun control or pro-gun rights. I used a more general term that was entirely correct. The issue was discussed on the talk page and a consensus version was found. [382] What is Gaijin42's problem with using the [Category:Civil liberties advocacy groups in the United States] for groups which oppose gun violence? "Right to life" is a civil liberty. Faceless Enemy reverted those additions with no discussion. [383] Gaijin42 also gives no reason for why the category is inappropriate. PS: I see I was supposed to limit this to 500 words. If some of the complaints are unimportant then delete responses to them. If the complaints are significant then I don't see a good reason for the restrictions on my defense. Statement by Gaijin42I'd also point out the section above that Felsic started against me, which could have easily been (and easily was) resolved with a talk page discussion. That he felt the need to immediately bring it to AE is a sign of battleground. His final comment in that section seems indicative. [384] General combativeness in responses to civil discussion : [385] WP:POINT [386] [387](after he added a mission statement and it was removed, he proceeded to remove mission statements elsehwere. No argument as to the merits or not of having mission statements from me, but the pointedness of his edit seems obvious) Arguing that "Second amendment supporters" does not sufficiently cite "gun rights advocates" and changing the content to "gun advocates" https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Starbucks&diff=prev&oldid=709299265 mass adding of "civil rights" cat to gun control groups. [388] [389] [390] [391] [392] Removal of content directly discussing high capacity magazine bans with the reasoning that "this stuff isn't about magazine capacity" https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=High-capacity_magazine_ban&diff=prev&oldid=709195608 Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Felsic2
|
| No action. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Scjessey
I want to preface this by stating that I'm not seeking harsh sanctions, nor do I believe Scjessey's behavior has been particularly egregious. In fact, he's a thoughtful editor who does much to improve our content. Over the past six months or so, the editing environment in American politics has been relatively peaceful, in part due to topic bans of a few problem editors. I've observed that Scjessey tends to WP:OWN certain articles, especially those related to Hillary Clinton. This behavior manifests as edit warring, cussing at other editors, tendentiousness, and refusal to accept consensus. I'm seeking a creative solution that will get this editor to take a step back, cooperate with other editors, and stop acting as the gatekeeper for every Hillary Clinton article. Perhaps a short topic ban, a 1RR restriction, a final warning, or some combination of these, would help the situation before it gets out of control.- Mr X 20:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ScjesseyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Scjessey
Statement by Wikidemon
@Gaijin42 — it looks like 3-2 for me on a matter under discussion for less than a day. Looks more like trigger-happy arbitration requests than "overwhelming consensus", a case of WP:OWN, or whatever the proponents of the content are calling it. Jonathunder's talk page comment came after this was filed, and if Neutrality has an opinion I don't see that he voiced it on the article talk page.- Wikidemon ( talk) 03:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Gaijin42I second the notion that while Scjessey should not be harshly sanctioned at this time, he needs a very firm "knock it off or else". As wikidemon says, there are some strong POV problems from Zigzig20s and others, and Scjessy is a needed voice to balance them. However, Scjessy's issue is that he mistakes all information he doesn't like for a blp/pov violation He has a very obvious case of OWN where he stonewalls any information that is anything other than glowing for Clinton. Every issue must be taken to an RFC or have an overwhelming consensus develop before he caves in. Once one hammers through his reflexive Clinton protection, he does a good job of raising legitimate concerns and working on collaborative compromise to include information while addressing neutrality etc. If he could start at step 2 rather than an immediate revert every time, it would solve 99% of the issue.
Wikidemon Your count on this dispute is off. The current standing is 6-2 (Me, MrX, Zig, Jonathunder, Neutrality, TFD), for a two sentences of content that every major source has written multiple detailed articles about. Gaijin42 ( talk) 03:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Wikidemon re Neutrality, while an explicit talk page comment would certainly be more easier to quantify, he edited the content in question, which is indicative of support for its inclusion. [412] Gaijin42 ( talk) 13:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
As I note above, once Scjessy actually gets to the collaboration and improvement stage, things work well (and he has very valuable and important input). The issue is that it takes giant battles to get to that stage. Also as I said above, I'm not looking for a topic ban or anything like that, merely a warning to be a little less reverty, and start out at the collaborative improvement phrase. There are certainly POV violations that need to be nipped in the bud, but these are not them, and the fact that each of these took giant threads to insert one or two sentences each is ridiculous.
Statement by (username)Result concerning Scjessey
|
| This has been clarified, Its 500 edits even if you have 30 days tenure. If the edits don't appear in their account they don't count Spartaz Humbug! 14:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Mrbrklyn
Although this editor has been repeatedly warned of the arbitration restrictions, and has taken part in several discussions [414] [415] [416] about this, all of which have confirmed that he is restricted from making such edits, the editor continues to insist that he is indeed allowed to edit in the subject area. He claims both that the restrictions permit editors with fewer than 500 edits, but longer than 30 days tenure, to edit [417] [418] [419], and that in any case the restriction does not apply to him because he claims to have made several hundred edits which Wikipedia has somehow "lost". [420] [421] [422] The editor has also made abusive personal attacks on several other editors, [423] [424] [425]
Discussion concerning MrbrklynStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MrbrklynStatement by Sepsis IITo be fair, the editor has made quite a few edits under various IPs, but, the editor does show an inability to take part in discussions in relation to Israel-Palestine articles. Sepsis II ( talk) 01:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Mrbrklyn
|
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
When I SEE A VOTE, on disinterested editors, then you will know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
|
| No Action taken. This seems something for arbcom to sort out. There is a sense that GMO is still not settling despite a case, a clarification and some AE action. Spartaz Humbug! 19:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc
I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (aka jps) and Alexbrn have edit-warred material into the article GMO conspiracy theories based on self-published sources and other poor sourcing, ignoring objections. Jps created the article on January 31, 2016 to look like this. Many of the sources do not meet our sourcing guidelines. I pointed this out here and then took out a number of these unreliable sources [426] [427] [428] [429]. (Please note that Genetic Literacy Project is run by Jon Entine a Pro-GMO advocate. [430] [431]; Mark Lynas does similar pro-GMO advocacy [432].) jps went ahead and put the material back in without addressing any of the concerns and without achieving consensus first here. I reverted here. Alexbrn edit-warred the material back in here despite continuing objections here. Tsavage also explained the problematic sourcing here. At this ANI, jps's behavior was outrageous. Jps lied about the content of sources: [433]. He originally said that Domingo 2011 [1] was "much criticized" [434]. When Petrarchan47 pointed out he was lying and asked him to "prove it" [435] [436], he responded with three journals [437], none of which criticized Domingo. An independent editor Sammy1339 confirmed it was a lie here. Rather than address the misrepresentations, jps made a mockery of the proceedings. [438] [439] [440] [441] [442] Jusdafax noted this disruptful behavior [443], as did Petrarchan47 [444].
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 22:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC) CLARIFICATION
Regarding King's accusations of WP:Fringe:
I agree with Spartaz that the "nuclear option" should have its own separate action. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 10:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgycStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgycClaims of edit warring are pretty strange. Certainly no violation of 1RR or even anything close to that (weeks in between reversions?) has occurred by anyone active at the article. I have encountered a lot of resistance from people of a certain political persuasion when it comes to the GMO controversy. Unfortunately, discussion on the talkpage has occasionally degenerated into problematic arguments by anti-GMO activists that, for example, sources such as academic books published by Oxford University Press were unreliable. [460] Sorry about my exasperation. I will try to dial back the snark as much as possible. It would be nice if you all would give David and Petra little breaks from this subject as they are the ones who are most problematic in baiting and changing the discussion from content toward argumentative rhetoric. The AN/I discussion was outlandish for its demonstration that anti-GMO activists are so ideologically inclined to attach themselves to their favored sources, they cannot even understand when the sources are contradicted. I also find it particularly galling when they try to claim that Mark Lynas and David Entine are somehow corrupt sources [461] (e.g., an argument that because Entine works for AEI and climate deniers also work for AEI that therefore Entine is not a reliable source for information on genetic engineering, biotechnology, or food safety -- what?). Petra has gone so far as to claim equivalency between Lynas and Vani Hari [462] which is a level of incompetence regarding the identification of reliable sources that is fairly unrivaled at Wikipedia since maybe the time we were overrun with climate deniers. jps ( talk) 00:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Diffs (for those who like them)WP:BOOMERANG may apply here as well. These are all David diffs since he filed the report:
Responses@ Liz:: You're absolutely right about the arbcom GMO case. The problem, I think, is similar to what happened with global warming. There are just many editors with the same agendas willing to hop back into the game after their friends are banned and there is no arbitration of content (which is really what is needed because at the end of the day that's where the dispute lies -- not in behavior). What ended up happening in the climate change omnibus case was an outright ban of basically everyone with the deniers remaining banned and the "pro-science" folks slowly restored. We're almost at the point where all the things that the pro-science crowd wanted to do back in 2009 are accomplished, but some might argue that Wikipedia is better for having done the shoot first, ask questions later approach since it was ultimately difficult to pin the disciplinary action on any one ideology. But make no mistake, we know which "side" won that battle and it is pretty clear to me which "side" will win this battle too in the long run. If it takes a Boris-style suggestion of kicking us all to the curb to get it done because of the dysfunctional way Wikipedia administration and arbitration works, I guess that's okay by me. As the mother who asked that Solomon give the baby to the other woman rather than splitting it in twain, I would rather a decision made that will ultimately save the encyclopedia from becoming a haven for anti-GMO paranoia rather than preserving any small part I may have in helping this situation along. But you might consider whether the article I have written (for the most part) really is as bad as my esteemed colleagues who have dragged me here would have you believe. jps ( talk) 03:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC) @ David Tornheim: It's pretty awful when no one can tell what your actual argument is upon filing. It's even worse when your argument is that you don't like the sources. There is essentially zero precedent for an WP:AE ruling over content like this. You're at the wrong venue. jps ( talk) 13:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC) @ Aircorn: On what basis do you request that I be topic banned? What diffs in particular brought up in this case cause you to want me to be kicked to the curb? jps ( talk) 22:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by TryptofishThis is more complicated than what the filing editor describes. Bottom line: jps should be strongly advised to dial back his sarcasm and snark, with the understanding that continuation will likely result in action here: [464], [465], [466]. At the same time, there is some reason for exasperation on jps' part, and some degree of conduct from the "other side" that gets rather close to baiting. I've gone through every single diff that David T. provided. The so-called edit warring isn't quite that, although David was just as much involved in it as anyone else – and I don't see anything disruptive on Alexbrn's part. When David talks about "unreliable sources", he is throwing PZ Myers and Scientific American into the mix, so the content dispute has a lot more shades of gray than what is presented. About the Domingo source, well, we can probably quibble over whether it was "much criticized", or just "criticized". The three sources cited by jps draw somewhat the opposite conclusions to Domingo, and since then another reliable source has directly refuted Domingo: [467]. Anti-GMO activists cling to the Domingo source, which is why it seems to be such high stakes. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Kingofaces43Tryptofish described the overall situation well, but I do have to suggest a boomerang for David Tornheim as jps mentioned for a vexatious AE filing like this, which has resulted in action on other editors before. [469]. David Tornheim does have a tendency to antagonize the situation in this topic by some very clear cut fringe-advocacy behavior, which is only continuing to exacerbate the community's patience as we've seen in jps' case. WP:KETTLE is the most apparent behavior problem associated with battleground behavior for anyone that's been following David's actions in this topic. Edit warring often occurs with David making demands as jps pointed out [470] or where they revert a new edit basically demanding in edit summaries that material cannot be changed without their approval even when they don't attempt to open up initial talk page discussion on it, which runs entirely against WP:DRNC.(just need to read edit summaries here) [471] [472] [473] [474] [475] They still fail to see this problem in their behavior even in their comments in this filing. [476] However, when it comes to David's own edits, they pull a full 180 and try to edit war content back in they are already aware didn't have consensus such as this string (some intermediate edits not included) [477] [478] [479], and this [480] [481] [482] More kettle issues come up at the ANI [483] David tries to cite as evidence if someone takes the time to read through their multitude of posts, especially the battleground aspect of bringing up Nazi's, etc. David has been warned multiple times at ANI now for battleground, edit warring, and general tendentiousness. [484] [485] [486], plus by admins for peanut gallery type behavior in this topic at admin boards. [487] Continuing that behavior and jumping to AE when someone shows reasonable frustration is just more battleground. We're past the point of warnings, so it's starting to look like the path to a topic ban is already being well traveled. If that doesn't seem clear to admins yet, reading the edit summaries in my diffs should be enough indication for a 0RR restriction for David as an intermediate step at this point. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 05:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by AlexbrnI see I have been accused of edit-warring on an article where I have only made two (unrelated) edits ever. [489] [490] That says it all. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester BorisThis nonsense has gone on too long. The editing atmosphere is much too toxic for any newcomers to try to contribute, as User:Alexbrn's statement above demonstrate. Suggested remedy:
No, I am not trying to be funny. Nothing else is going to work. We need to make this topic safe for new contributors if anything is to change. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 13:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by AircornA few babies will go down the drain if SBHB's remedy is used. I don't think we are at this stage though. The major problem revolves around our presentation of the safety of GMO food. The divide between the science and public opinion is large [491] and that is reflected on Wikipedia. Correspondingly most of the problems stem from disagreements over this issue. Good progress had been made on this front (for example Talk:Genetically modified crops#First proposal revised) and before we resort to kicking everyone a better first step would be to get a well run rfc to decide this question for an enforceable period of time. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
JPS. I don't want anyone kicked to the curb, but the fact remains that this is still open and the current trend looks to be to blanket ban everyone. I would rather see some of the more disruptive editors pruned off first. Diffs don't provide context, but if anyone is willing to read the talk page at Talk:GMO conspiracy theories they will see your part in the excessive discussion that is turning off both involved and uninvolved editors. The recent request by Dr Chrissey for their topic ban to be lifted at ANI highlights your involvement in carrying on off topic discussions in wrong forums. However, your blase attitude to the suggestion of the blanket ban pissed me off the most. There are some good editors here and your willingness to through everyone under the bus came did not come across well. AIRcorn (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by AtsmeI agree with Tryptofish regarding his recommendation to strongly advise jps to "dial back his sarcasm and snark" but I doubt it will do any good because he has gotten away with it for far too long. I admit that my suggestion comes from first-hand experiences but that isn't why I'm here. I have a suggestion that may help resolve some of the ongoing disputes regarding controversial topics. GMO articles by their very nature attract editors with different perspectives, and as one would expect, involved editors almost always reach an impasse. What I've witnessed from the sidelines appears to be more of a syntax issue that escalates into behavioral issues, most of which are instigated by "sarcasm and snark" when the problem could easily be resolved with the help of qualified neutral copyeditors and/or experienced FA reviewers who can corroborate the prose against the cited sources. Perhaps we should consider a neutral "mediation team" who can step in and resolve these syntax disputes and spare the project further POV imbalance resulting from the use of TBs which actually conflict with our efforts in editor retention. Atsme 📞 📧 04:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by PetraIn response to the claim from JPS regarding my supposed incompetence, "Petra has gone so far as to claim equivalency between Lynas and Vani Hari which is a level of incompetence regarding the identification of reliable sources that is fairly unrivaled at Wikipedia since maybe the time we were overrun with climate deniers." I would like to note that Lynas is known as a pro-GMO writer. The "Food Babe" was an example I used of an advocate who is known as anti-GMO. I suggested that the reader should be alerted to his advocacy in the same way we would do for Vani Hari. That was my only claim. [But... climate change!(?)] Admins, do you feel that my suggestion shows incompetence? Is it appropriate for JPS to not only fail to ping me, but to call me incompetent? Just wondering. Comment by JzGPetra, Lynas is a respected science writer, Hari has a level of scientific ignorance that is hard to convey without resort to hyperbole. This is someone who genuinely wrote that aircraft cause problems because they are pressurised above mean sea level pressure, and asserted that the cabin air is a problem because it's not pure oxygen but instead "recycled" from outside the cabin. That's not even wrong. To assert any kind of equivalence is indeed to exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding about WP:PARITY. Guy ( Help!) 13:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Comment by DialectricThis is in response to the proposal by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, and the admin support for the proposal that appears below in the results section. Banning everyone from the area is not the answer. Many editors in the GMO area have made an effort to work through disagreements in a civil and scholarly way, without resorting to personal attacks or battleground mentality. The articles in this area are now by and large stable, supported by extensive RS references; many of the references meet more stringent criteria including WP:SCIRS and the articles usually provide reasonably weighted coverage of minority views. There are, however, some ‘holy warriors’ at the extremes of the pro and anti GMO spectrum, willing to cast aside civil discourse and disregard wikipedia policies in the service of their agendas. These extreme voices will be unhappy as long as the opposition is reflected in any way in the article, regardless of sourcing quality. Reigning in these extreme voices is a difficult challenge, but there are avenues open to us that do not require a scorched-earth ban-everyone approach: 0rr has been implemented in a few cases; requiring that all changes be discussed on the talk page for at least 24hrs prior to implementation could be a reasonable step before a total ban. Is there any evidence that a 6 month ban would solve the problem? Why 6 months and not 3 or some other time? Why employ an extreme, novel solution when there are other incremental solutions open to us? Dialectric ( talk) 19:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Result concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc
|
| Chesdovi is topic banned from Zionism (broadly construed) and Western Wall or adding references to Palestine or Palestinians in articles that do not contain them. I have left out categories as they should be covered by the Zionism tban. Chesdovi is cautioned that high volumes of repetitive edits in sensitive areas that case disruption are to be avoided. Further controversy over such edits will result in long blocks Spartaz Humbug! 11:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Chesdovi
I did not add all his recent edits since that's not necessary, but he has begun to edit again in this area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AChesdovi&type=revision&diff=710081001 Discussion concerning ChesdoviStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ChesdoviAllowed word count increased to 750 Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Jeppiz, Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionism is not linked to the I/P conflict: [493]. Chesdovi ( talk) 22:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Ed, I may not be a "major editor on Orthodox Jewish topics or on historical rabbis of various periods", but I have spent hours adding my fair share to Wikipedia over the years, besides from my numerous edits on Haredim and Haredim and Zionism , I have created pages about rabbi throughout the ages ( [494], [495], [496], [497], [498], [499], [500], [501], [502], [503], [504]) and added tens of images to supplement rabbi pages. Chesdovi ( talk) 23:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) (modified) I am also not sure how הָאֶתְרוֹג הַפַּלֶשְׂתִּינִי translates in "Israeli citron", changed by a vandal and not linked at all to the I/P conflict, (except by those who will go to war for the sake of a lemon's name it seems...) Chesdovi ( talk) 19:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Brewcrewer, the category was not plastered over "random pages". I felt this category would be in line with Category:Criticism of the official accounts of the September 11 attacks and the like. It seems not. I may create a page about this topic instead. Sorry for any offence caused. It was not meant as an "attack". It is a widely held belief, and I thought I could group together the relevant pages. Chesdovi ( talk) 21:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Sir Joseph, you think I should be banned from that page, but I am not topic banned from that page, just like I am not topic banned from Tomaccio. Where have you explained that the venerable old rabbi is related to I/P? This is a dispute centred around name conventions. I prefer the historic common use in RS, while you prefer literal or translation. You persistently force you POV without waiting for due consensus and wish to drag this innocuous article into the I/P conflict. It seems some people will go to war over the name of a lemon! I was not banned from using the word "Palestinian" and I don't see why I should be. Maybe you should be banned from using the word "West"? "Changing "Israeli" to "Palestinian" in an article about citrons is certainly pushing a POV" does not stack up. I reverted "Palestinian" to match the Hebrew text next to it, something you will appreciate in your efforts to call Rabbi Tachlifa the "Westerner" - a literal translation of the Aramaic. Chesdovi ( talk) 23:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) (modified) AnotherNewAccount: My motivation for the creation of Palestinian wine was contrary to your claims and I dispute your assessment of my conduct at AfD. (modified) Chesdovi ( talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Debresser: Thank you for calling me "unscrupulous and unprofessional", but you jave not responded to repeated requests to show where consensus has been reached that "Palestinian" is not to be used. I reject your allegation that my source are "often biased" or "cheery-picked". Scholarly RS, both inside and outside Israel, chiefly use Palestine/Palestinian in relation to matters prior to Israel's creation. (modified) Chesdovi ( talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Spartaz: 1. As mentioned at talk, I do not add the word Palestinian to every page where it can possibly be put. In the past I have created pages including the term whereupon they are pounced upon by Debresser who removes the "offending" word according to his/her POV. This not an issue? 2. I'm curious to know whether you also think it is "unhealthy" to have editors "obsessed" with Zionism removing the word "Palestinian" from every page as they deem necessary. 3. I'm also curious to know how numerous and painstaking gathered inline citations I provided at Jewish boycott of the Western Wall were insufficient and would like to know your suggestion of how to include that information on Wikipedia. Leibowitz still has not been re-added to Western Wall at the behest of Debresser an SJ. The obvious question is Why? 4. I would also like to know why you think it was valid for SJ to revert to "Tachlifa of the West" without opening a discussion at talk if indeed it is such a sensitive editing area. Why do "obsessive" "pro-Zionists" trump "ant-Zionists" on Wikipedia? 5. Debresser is of the opinion that using the term "Palestinian" is inappropriate according to consensus but has yet to show where this so-called consensus was reached. Chesdovi ( talk) 19:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC) SJ is making allegations against me which I cannot respond to since I have passed my word limit. (Please note that he is removing the word "Palestine" on spurious grounds, just as he did at Tachlifa the Palestinian: [505] - we are not to be informed where in the Ottoman Empire Safed was! If this is not a clear POV push, I do not know what is. Chesdovi ( talk) 00:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Please see talk and talk. Chesdovi ( talk) 00:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC) SJ, I have not been told "not to" (except by you); I have not added the word "Palestinian" to any articles mainspace since this began; I have not edited articles under my TB since it was given 4 years ago. You were extremely upset about Jews who boycott the wall and have been following me around ever since making it very unpleasant for me here. Chesdovi ( talk) 00:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JeppizI came here as an uninvolved user who has had no interactions with Chesdovi, but the topic ban violations are so rampant it seems to be deliberate and provocative. In the space of one hour, Chesdovi has already violated the topic ban 20 times! I'm afraid an indef block is the only solution, this user seems determined to go on violating the topic ban. Jeppiz ( talk) 21:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by RolandRThe article in question is about a 4th century rabbi; as far as I can see, it does not have even a minimal connection to the Palestine/Israel conflict, however broadly interpreted. The complaint is without merit. RolandR ( talk) 22:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000As per RolandR, the article in question is not covered by ARBPIA and Chesdovi is permitted to edit there. Zero talk 23:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by SerialjoepsychoThis topic ban includes any thing that can be construed to be a part of the Palestinian conflict. Edit warring because you disagree that something is a part of ARBPIA is a violation of ARBPIA. [506]. If you disagree that something is a part of your topic ban WP:ARCA has been set up for clarification. There is also here at WP:ARE. Be more careful Chesdovi. An additional side concern, This seems to have more to do with Sir Joseph's recent ban than any disagreement with Chesdovi. Disrupting wikipedia to make a point is grounds for a ban. Be more careful Sir Joseph. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 00:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Only in DeathEditing articles about historic or even recent Rabbi's does not necessarily infringe upon 'Arab-Israeli conflict' Which is what he is topic-banned from (emphasis mine). Unless those rabbis are themeselves embroiled in the conflict in some way its just not part of the ban. Unless you are going to modify the ban to 'Anything remotely Arab, Jewish or middle-east broadly construed'. This is a non-issue. The description for the category added is "The category Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism includes articles about groups and subject matters that oppose Zionism, on Jewish religious grounds." Thats not exactly related to Arab-Israeli conflict. If anything its Jewish-Israeli conflict... Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by DebresserAccording to a recent clarification request at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_.28February_2016.29 the unanimous opinion of 7 editors is that the topic ban is still in place. This editor has for years been pushing the word "Palestinian" where it is not appropriate. His recent move of Tachlifa of the West to Tachlifa the Palestinian is just the latest of them. I strongly feel we will all be better of without this unscrupulous and unprofessional POV pusher. Debresser ( talk) 10:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by BrewcrewerHe's now commenced with a conspiracy theory category blaming Zionists for the Holocaust [510] and plastering it unsourced all over random pages. If this is not what the intention for topic bans I don't know what was. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved FinnusertopArbCom members, uninvolved administrators or Chesdovi. Please amend the opening post to hide (using a :File link rather than embedding) the following non-free images because they are not allowed in Wikipedia: namespace: the first 13 images plus File:Steipler Gaon.jpg. Thank you. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by AnotherNewAccount
Statement by Malik ShabazzChesdovi's conduct during that AfD was deplorable, but the AfD was closed more than a month ago. The time to complain about his conduct came and went. Since AnotherNewAccount has the chutzpah to complain about the article Chesdovi wrote about Palestinian wine and about unnamed "pro-Palestine nationalist editors", let's take a look at Israeli wine—which is mostly grown on occupied Syrian and Palestinian land, but you would never know that from reading the Wikipedia article about it. You also wouldn't have a clue that one of Israel's biggest foreign trade issues at the moment is its fight to prevent the European Union and the United States from properly labeling "Israeli" wine based on whether it is produced in Israel or in Israeli-occupied territory. No, let's throw the book at Chesdovi—who probably deserves it—and lob stones at unnamed "pro-Palestine nationalist editors" instead of being honest and requiring all editors to follow NPOV, which is allegedly a core policy here at Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC) (In fairness to AnotherNewAccount, it doesn't appear that he has edited Israeli wine. That doesn't make that article, or the rest of Wikipedia's coverage of Israel and Palestine, any less of a POV mess.) Result concerning Chesdovi
|
| Reasonable time elapsed and no engagement from Sinceouch2422. In the circumstances a page ban is an indef ban so I have blocked them indefinately. Spartaz Humbug! 12:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Sinceouch2422
The edits above are to one page that is included in the Falun Gong arbitration dispute (Epoch Times is a newspaper associated with Falun Gong). The edits in question had been under extensive discussion on the talk page, as can be seen. It seems that 90% of Sinceouch2422's edits on the encyclopedia have been of this sort: revert with no discussion. Other editors, including myself in some cases, then reverted his changes back and called for discussion. The changes that were reverted were of a series of iterative changes that had been made, as a result of protracted discussion and the sharing and debating of different opinions, on the talk page, engaged in by myself and other users. Sinceouch has never been part of that process and simply disruptively wound back the page to versions months prior. After two warnings and constant disruption, I'm bringing the case to AE. Happy monsoon day 17:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Enforcement of arbitration rulings does not primarily involve qualitative judgements on the content of edits. The issue under consideration is the behavior of Sinceouch2422. Myself and other editors (how I wish I had "allies") were discussing and making changes to the pages for several months. There was a step-by-step, iterative process involving discussion and push-and-pull. Very normal Wikipedia process. Sinceouch2422 would come along every couple of weeks and just do a massive revert to an old version of the page. Again and again. That is a completely different dynamic of interaction than that myself and other editors engaged in, no matter how we judge the quality of the arguments that the various parties were presenting. Happy monsoon day 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Discussion concerning Sinceouch2422Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Sinceouch2422Statement by RhoarkThe user is obviously using misleading edit summaries, and that needs to be addressed. I'm struck by one fact, though: all of the associated edits are eminently reasonable. Why would one need to resort to subterfuge to introduce such edits? I've caught up on the talk page, and it's pretty clear what's going on. Essentially, there are no clean hands here. In the first diff, Sinceouch2422 was not reverting to a prior consensus as claimed, but was reverting material by Happymonsoonday1 that talk page consensus was also clearly against. Sinceouch2422 combined removal of material that consensus was against, along with addition/alteration for which consensus was unclear. Sinceouch2422 has participated on the talk page rarely, but there are certainly others on the page whose views align. The edit summary in diff #2 was not "specious" in any way. Using the page for a newspaper to go on a tangent about a story the paper published once is classic WP:COATRACK. In #4 the claimed redundant line is, surprisingly enough, redundant. The same claim is made twice. It's said once in the section and the said again. A second time. Redundantly. Diff #5 is removal of primary-sourced claims which had talk-page consensus for removal. The rest, #3 and 6-14 are part of edit warring by both parties and associated allies, neither of which has clear consensus on the talk page. I suggest a 6 month page ban for the accused and filer, and then maybe we can see what the consensus really is. Rhoark ( talk) 01:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by TheBlueCanoeLooks like a classic single-purpose account. No edits outside the Epoch Times page, though judging from the level of precocity on display, it seems plausible that they have alternate account(s). TheBlueCanoe 18:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Sinceouch2422
|
| Beautifulpeoplelikeyou is banned from the topic of electronic harassment and psychotronics, broadly construed. Spartaz Humbug! 12:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Beautifulpeoplelikeyou
Articles involved include:
Beautifulpeoplelikeyou is a single-purpose account whose focus is promoting the idea that "electronic harassment" - i.e. electronic mental torture of individuals - is real, or at least potentially real, rather than psychotic and/or illusory. Consensus on the Talk page of the article is that these edits are tendentious, violating WP:SYN in many cases. A purported bolded alternate term psychotronic assault, is sourced to a Washington Post article that does not appear to use the term, for example. Some edits, including the user's current proposed rewrite User:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou/sandbox have serious coherence issues. I think we need this person topic banned from electronic harassment and psychotronics, broadly construed, for the sanity of all involved. Guy ( Help!) 00:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning BeautifulpeoplelikeyouStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BeautifulpeoplelikeyouI'm in a real hurry now (going to the doctor for an Echocardiography). I think the most relevant and compelling thing I can say is: I'm not "promoting the idea that "electronic harassment" - i.e. electronic mental torture of individuals - is real, or at least potentially real, rather than psychotic and/or illusory". Maybe I'm promoting the idea that psychotronic weapons could exist but that's not the issue. What I'm trying to do with the Electronic harassment article is to correct its (imho) biased content, because I believe the sources depict it as both a conspiracy theory and a mental illness without giving away one of the two? In other words: I believe the sources depict it as an unknown/ambiguous phenomena with no overall bias, thus it deserves to have all its relevant aspects (psychological diagnoses, the claims, legislative interventions, past experimentation and research, and violent incidents) equally covered. See you later. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou ( talk) 17:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Looie496Although I agree that the editing pattern here is disruptive, I'm not entirely comfortable with classifying it as pseudoscience. The sort of beliefs reflected in such edits often arise in the context of delusions associated with schizophrenia, and tend to be more anti-science than spurious science. We have seen this sort of thing dozens of times from many editors, and as far as I know nobody has yet tried to apply the "pseudoscience" sanctions to them. Looie496 ( talk) 14:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Starke HathawayIt seems to me that the behavior being complained of here is disruptive, but is also not a great fit for the pseudoscience case. Is there a reason this needs to be at AE rather than ANI? -Starke Hathaway ( talk) 17:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by LuckyLouieA few diffs that illustrate the POV that Beautifulpeoplelikeyou is advocating, and the scope of the resulting disruption:
I've left out documenting this user's personal attacks against other editors, since they've been covered elsewhere. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou has already shown that warnings and temporary blocks have no effect on their disruptive behavior, so I believe a topic ban is warranted and appropriate, given the user's history and the fringe nature of the topic. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by JytdogSupport TBAN. This editor's trajectory here is almost a perfect paradigm of an advocacy editor who came here to soapbox and who interprets every effort to educate them about policies and guidelines as efforts to control or censor them. The "psychotronic" stuff is definitely PSCI and it is for people like this that the PSCI DS were created. Please do enact them. Jytdog ( talk) 19:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Staszek Lem<Sigh> I was patiently ignoring his references to "pompous <whatever>" (because I know I may look like one due to terseness of some responses). This editor's response to this ArbReq clearly demonstrates that we hit a blind spot in his perception. This user simply ignores multiple comments that unreferenced wikipedians' opinions cannot go into articles. In particular, he was told we cannot describe something as "unknown phenomenon" without refs. We cannot write into article the statement "often ending the debate in what looks as an embarrassing impasse" without refs, etc. However he dismisses these requirements with phrases like "This is called stonewalling" or calls it "censorship". Concluding, unfortunately we are indeed in "an embarrassing impasse" with this editor and it looks like an administrative intervention is required. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC) He was also suggested to edit the article in small increments and I even started smaller subsections for smaller bits. In 1-2 places a reasonable agreement was reached, but instead of updating the article with these simpler pieces this user continued general soapboxing, so WP:AGF is getting really thin and I don't think I want to spend more time on this non-productive debate. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Beautifulpeoplelikeyou
|
| No action taken. Stale Spartaz Humbug! 06:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Nableezy
When a Palestinian is described as a terrorist Nableezy is quick to remove the term under the WP:TERRORIST guideline. However when a Jewish/Israeli is described as a terrorist Nableezy re-adds the word "terrorist". [521] This type of blatant non neutral editing and POV pushing is expressly prohibited at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Remedies 4 & 5. I would also add that Nableezy tendentiously WP:STALKed me to revert me at this article ( it was his first edit) because of disagreement on another page. While Nableezy will undoubtedly respond with WP:BOOMERANG alleging far more insidious behavior from me, I would point out that just a few edits ago I reverted some POV pushing that was consistent with the POV I am claimed to have. I am calling for a topic ban consistent with the remedies linked to above.
Discussion concerning NableezyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NableezyUmm theres a slight difference between the Jewish Underground, which as far as I know has no real sources calling it anything other than a terrorist group, and a group that actually does have sources that dont call it a terrorist group and instead call it resistance movement, or the government of Gaza, or whatever (ie Hamas). Ill now say that this edit in 2010 was an error, that can be called terrorism in the narrative voice. The others Ill stand by, attacking an illegal colony in occupied territory may or may not be terrorism and the sources arent as unanimous in calling it that as in the case of say the Jewish Underground. I actually stalked Nishidani there, I like to see what he does from time to time. Which as far as I can tell is how brewcrewer got to this page, as it was likewise his first edit there, restoring an edit that even the person who initially made it agrees that that article uses the term properly. Baseless as baseless gets, and a boomerang for alleging stalking when the person filing the complaint pretty clearly stalked Nishidani to that article might be in order.
Statement by Malik ShabazzAre you serious, Brewcrewer? You're making a complaint based on two diffs that are more than six years old and one that is eight months old? Really? — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph
Statement by Nishidani
Statement by (username)Result concerning Nableezy
|