| TeeVeeed indefinitely topic banned from editing Vaxxed and the topic area of vaccination. (close by Bishonen at 07:53, 22 April 2016) |
|---|
| 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 TeeVeeed
none
This editor doesn't seem to have any real familiarity with the subject, but seems to be stumbling through, intentionally tryign to step on as many toes as possible in order to fight against what they perceive as an unnecessarily skeptical POV, but which no other editor at the page sees.
15:21, April 21, 2016 Given notice by me.
Discussion concerning TeeVeeedStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TeeVeeedI am sorry that I ever got involved at the article, because I don't like being drawn into edit-wars. And I really did try to understand the mostly good points involved with FRINGE tropics, and I appreciate what I learned with that. But there remains a problem in that article with WP:OWNERSHIP issues where a certain cabal refuse to understand anyone else's points. I have been harassed and accused of all kinds-of nonsense since a very minor GF edit made there. The very day that I 1st edited and then questioned on the TP, a "warning" was posted on the FRINGE noticeboard calling for editors to help brigade against "anti-vaxxers"--which was NEVER my point and which I did not do. My point was to edit in service to WP and the readers, as it always is. Now this drama after I decided that enough was enough on the TP and I requested comments on the RS board regarding a contentious source. Yeah I could have stayed-off the topic, but I'm feeling like this is a bully situation and have seen other editors with my same questions about why this film article was "different" being blocked, and drama-boarded and basically not playing nice with other editors who have tried to edit this article. And TY-to the uninvolved editor Rhoark , yeah rv me for the consensus that MjolnirPants (seemingly?) agreed-to, is just crazy-making. This should be a Boomerang, just for that imo. TeeVeeed ( talk) 20:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC) edited to add
Statement by Rhoark (uninvolved)MjolnirPants seems to be edit warring against the wording that MjolnirPants themselves suggested [1], exactly as TV said. Also, why is it so important to cite the opinion of a non-RS blog about a movie the blogger admits to not having watched? He's an expert in oncology, not a clairvoyant. WP:BUTITSTRUE Rhoark ( talk) 19:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Another Statement about why this should Boomerang and editor frustrations by TeeVeeedAlso, this is not the 1st time that a GF editor has been brought here. Please See /info/en/?search=User_talk:Conzar#Arbitration_enforcement from the TP archive. Also, in trying to reach understanding and consensus, one editor/admin? apparently uses two different names, which is confusing, and I am trying to AGF, so I am not accusing them of anything since they are obviously doing it in an open-fashion, but it has the effect of a SP-(appears like two different accounts in agreement when it is one), on myself at least. TeeVeeed ( talk) 21:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Result concerning TeeVeeed
|
| Sanction imposed. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning STSC
User:STSC is essentially a nuisance editor with a consistent, pro-Chinese government point of view. He is involved in regular conflict with other contributors, edit wars frequently, and personalizes talk page discussions to needle and provoke his opponents. Although most of his actual edits are relatively minor, they are also consistently counter-productive, thereby creating problems that other editors have to resolve. Evidence of the user’s POV editing and adversarial conduct spans a variety of topics related to China (including Sino-Japanese relations, Hong Kong [2] [3], Tibet [4] [5] etc.), but unfortunately this complaint is limited to the user’s conduct on Falun Gong articles per the relevant discretionary sanctions. For more context, there was an ANI complaint about the editor recently here. The complaints there are pretty illuminating. Evidence of POV editing
Evidence of prior warnings about Falun Gong discretionary sanctions: [42] [43] [44]
ResponseAh, I did overlook the 20 diff limit. In that case, would the reviewing administrators allow an exception? Most of the diffs do not show complicated edits—most of these are small, simple edits made repeatedly. The number of them is evidence simply of the user's tendency to edit war to enforce his point; I'm not sure how else to illustrate this type of conduct. As to STSC's contention that "any editor could have informed me on my talk page" about problems with his editing, this is not my experience. I attempted to do this, letting the user know that his edit summaries and caption changes were misleading. [46] He responded by accusing me of harassment and intimidation, informed me that I was unwelcome on his talk page, and called my suggestion that he remedy the problem "a nonsense." [47] TheBlueCanoe 15:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning STSCStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by STSCThis is a brief response as I'm in the middle of my long holiday and will be unlikely to respond in the next 2-3 weeks.
Further statement: I and some other fair-minded editors have tried to correct the unbalance in many Falun Gong related-articles which have been religiously guarded by some diehard editors (user TheBlueCanoe included). My edits were justifiable according to Wikipedia policies so there's nothing much I need to add here.
Statement by TheBlueCanoeOver three weeks have elapsed. I am resurfacing this case so that a decision can be rendered. TheBlueCanoe 16:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by Rhoark
Result concerning STSC
|
| Rhoark is cautioned that further enforcement requests without solid evidence of wrongdoing will not engender leniency. Creating frivolous complaints often results in quick sanctions. MjolnirPants is advised that upholding Wikipedia's policies on Pseudoscience is not an exemption from civility. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:59, 27 April 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 MjolnirPants
I first encountered this topic through the above enforcement request against TeeVeeed, and then examined the related Talk discussions and RS/N filing. As I commented in that case, MjolnirPants edit warred and filed against TeeVeeed based partly on an edit MjolnirPants themselves had endorsed on the talk page. I further noted an air of ownership in the warnings given to TeeVeeed and disproportionate hostility to TeeVeeed's having noted the fact that a blog by David Gorski is self-published. TeeVeeed responded to these provocations with an unfortunate turn of phrase, and did show some degree of credulity for pseudoscience, leading to a topic ban. This left a poorly-sourced claim still on the page, and the justifiability of MjolnirPants' filing unsettled to my mind, so I set about to test the waters. I brought essentially three objections: that statements about the movie rather than science are not in David Gorski's area of expertise, that his notability does not warrant naming him separately in the lede from all the other sources calling the movie propaganda, and that a self-published expert cannot be used for BLP claims per WP:BLOGS. These are all correct judgements, but the last in particular has force of ironclad policy behind it. My suspicions of battleground mentality and ownership were immediately confirmed, with several editors leaping to conclusions that removing any pro-science viewpoint, no matter how improperly sourced, is indicative of pro-fringe POV pushing. To their credit, most editors eventually recognized either that I was acting in good faith, or that local consensus cannot override WP:V. MjolnirPants, however, persists. Consensus is moving towards excluding the BLP violation, but MjolnirPants' potential for disruption remains. I do not wish to remove any anti-fringe editor from Pseudoscience topics in the long term, but without administrator intervention I do not think MjolnirPants will undertake the necessary introspection to separate sourcing that is pro-science from sourcing that is actually scientific and verifiable, nor separate editors that are pro-fringe from those with policy and evidence-based disagreement about fringe topics.
Every filing should invite scrutiny of the filer, which is not often enough practiced, so I do not begrudge it in the slightest. The criticisms are misplaced, though.
Rhoark ( talk) 14:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Jytdog has presented more than I could possibly respond to, but I'll hit the highlights.
Rhoark ( talk) 16:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC) I had thought an uninvolved administrator would readily admonish MjolnirPants about the behavior I've outlined, but as Jytdog is someone MjolnirPants respects, his statement @ Jytdog: if you can concisely specify something I've done wrong, I'll readily acknowledge it, but I won't be held responsible for any time wasted trawling my entire edit history on your own initiative. Rhoark ( talk) 04:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MjolnirPantsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MjolnirPantsOh lord. For starters, contrary to what is stated above, I have only reverted edits removing this content twice. Once here and once here. There have been 5 other reverts of Rhoark and one other editor's attempts to excise the material in question, by 4 other editors. There is broad agreement on the article talk page and at an RSN thread about this that the quote is appropriate and useful. I've explained my rationale, and even offered a compromise which was completely ignored. As for the rest of the diffs, I don't have space to respond to them all. Suffice it to say, his characterization of me is very biased. I will respond in detail if necessary, but honestly, I feel like it's pretty clear that Rhoark doesn't understand what exactly is going on here. To that end, there is
this diff in which Rhoark describes his goal in pushing this.
Statement by PeterTheFourthGiven that MjolnirPants was dealing with an editor whose misconduct has now gotten them indefinitely topic banned from the area, and from a position of quite a large consensus, I find the assertion that he was "edit warring" against them with a total of 2 reverts a bit hard to swallow. Indeed, I'll note that Rhoark themselves has reverted more than Mjolnir- [58] [59] [60] [61]. @ Gongwool: The editor I'm referring to when I say 'indefinitely topic banned' is TeeVeeed, not Rhoark. I could have made this clearer- my bad. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 23:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by GongwoolI believe this is a frivolous complaint and I haven't the time to investigate diffs etc. I agree with PeterTheFourth above. But from what I know MjolnirPants has been trying to restrict WP:FRINGE breaches to such topics. I suggest close this complaint. Gongwool ( talk) 23:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by WntAfter seeing TeeVeed's protest at Jimbo Wales' talk page, I looked at the article and decided that the Gorski blog was not suitable, per policy, for calling someone a "scientific fraud". (I'm OK with using it to call the film "propaganda") The importance of this was muted since reliable sources in the article were making similar statements, but technically, it was a violation of a core policy. In my talk page back-and-forth, MjolnirPants seemed too focused on, well, truth rather than verifiability. I think it is more important here that we establish clarity about what the BLP policy demands than that anyone be sanctioned. I would be much more interested in seeing MjolnirPants' stubbornness credited as a mitigating factor for TeeVeed to have a chance to get rehabilitated and to have a real way out of the usual downward spiral of sanctions than in seeing any action taken against MjolnirPants. The really fundamental problem at that article was a lack of editors and neutral voices to settle policy issues, and harsh administrative actions don't make that any better. Still I should note that it is important even for rationalists to understand that we're here to make a comprehensive and demonstrably neutral encyclopedia, so gathering and featuring the reliable secondary sources most prominently is something of an goal in itself.
Extra note: @ Jytdog: came up with a satisfactory solution, providing third-party coverage of the Gorski quote from the L.A. Times (though personally I would prefer some other quotes from that article made in their own voice). So I am nonplussed by his section here about Rhoark. It might be that Rhoark has an interest in conflict resolution - an editor shouldn't have to be an admin or even an admin wannabe to have that interest. Any editing history free of any clear restrictions or warnings should not count against him, more so if he actually touched Gamergate that often without getting stung. You can do "opposition research" on any editor, and you can make some argument or other about his motivations - the sheer number of available hypotheses when you do that guarantees you can find some weak statistical support for some detrimental notion or other. But Rhoark's policy argument was clearly appropriate for an editor in good standing, and he deserves to be treated as one. Wnt ( talk) 15:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by Staszek Lem<sigh> I believe everybody deserves a trout slap in this drama including myself. I came to [[Vaxxed] page from WP:RS noticeboard where it was asked whether Gorski's blog is a WP:RS. I have a firm opinion that in context of this article Gorski does have expertise. And therefore noticing his quotation removed with edit summary being a link to a talk thread which was tl;dr I jumped in with revert. (trout in my face) I was reverted with edit summary " WP:BLOGS prohibits this use regardless of expertise". . A little better, but still confusing, so I asked it the talk page and finally got a convincing explanation. Here is a troutpiece to Rhoark: Had he put this one short phrase that directly pointed to the problem, I would not have run my face into a trout. That said, both sides are obviously smart persons, but their eloquence serves them bad. We all speak out of some context sitting in our head and some of our premises we forget to mention, taken for granted. While your opponent may just the same neglect to mention some other premises. Here goes a trout to the other side of the dispute: MjolnirPants wrote: " What you're saying is akin to saying that I have to watch Loose Change in order to know it's full of truther bullshit." - in reply to some philosophical remark of Rhoark. If you look at this phrase in isolation, M-Pants appears to be right: yes, one may know that Loose Change is full of it without actually watching it. But we are wikipedians, and our knowledge is not an argument: it is a a guide in search of arguments published in WP:RS. We (including experts cited) often "know" things by mistake, by hearsay, by a preconceived notion, etc. Therefore MjolnirPants' objection, while being smart, is a non-argument in the context of wikipedia. The problem with eloquence in wikipedia is that a long rant may contain both valid and dubious claims. And your opponent, unless of extremely disciplined mind, will reject your position basing on arbitrarily picked pieces of your rant. This is exemplified by the following statement from talk page: "have all explicitly or implicitly endorsed the inclusion and refuted arguments against including it". I have no idea what the arguments were' " tl;dr", but I accepted that my position was countered by a single irrefutable argument. I don't know whether it was buried somewhere in that talk page above. Moreover, the contested edit was easily remedied by removal of only two words from the contested piece rather than by full-metal revert. Therefore we have to learn to chop our arguments into digestible pieces and stick them to the corresponding pieces of the disputed text. So, once again, peace and trout to y'all. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JytdogI want to note that I received notice of this AE from MjolnirPants. I had CANVASS concerns, but if you look at their contribs, he notified all the editors who have been active on the page and can still discuss the topic. The notice is (mostly) neutral, as well. So it is actually OK, I believe. To the point: Yep. MjolnirPants was too harsh in arguing. Please warn him to cool it. (MjolnirPants, I say that as one who is too harsh myself sometimes; being harsh that way is to your longterm detriment here) My focus here is on Rhoark - I had a POINTy vibe through this whole thing. I am glad to hear them say now that they were indeed "testing the waters", but it is still bad behavior. That it was driven by doubt about whether TeeVeed was disruptive is yet more troubling with regard to their judgement in general. I don't want to re-litigate Teeveed's TBAN but for me the killer thing was that after several (!) exchanges I had with TeeVeed about about PSCI and DS and asking them to be careful, all through which they kept arguing with others about content, they finally wrote this to me, where they said " I don't even know what the PSCI is!" (in other words, what the PSCI issue is, in the Vaxxed article). And at that point I knew they were either incompetent or completely bad faith, and in neither case was it going to end well. So I struggle to see how, if Rhoark really looked at what Teeveed did and was saying, and understood our policies, there could be significant doubt. Anti-vax is serious - kids are getting sick and dying because their parents -sometimes other kids parents - believe this stuff. And this being the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", we have to deal with anti-vax advocates all the time, relentlessly. So the kind of tra-la-la testing the waters thing, the whole spirit of it, and the motivation for it from questioning Teeveed's TBAN, in light of the context here in WP, is disturbing to me. This led me to look at their contribs. Rhoark joined us in Nov 2014 and it was Men's Rights/Gamergate that drew them. here is their first-ever unpromising edit, which was on Microaggression theory. They went from there to Frankfurt School conspiracy theory and then on to GamerGate, where their editing let to a TBAN via an AE for 3 months in Feb 2015: here. When that ended, they were right back to Gamergating. From their edit count, they spend way more time arguing on Talk pages than they do creating content:
So that is where Rhoark has come from. Up to their entry into the Vaxxed article, on PSCI/altmed topics pretty much all they have done is that unpromising toe-dipping into the parapychology article. So I will be frank here - that is far enough. The last thing the community needs is importation of Gamergate-trained relentless Talk page wikilawyering into PSCI topics; no focus on actual content creation. The POINTYness, the "let's test the waters to see what other endless philosophical contentiousness I can get involved in" of this whole thing, including the "gotcha" of the AE filing itself, is really bad, as is the lack of ability to see why Teeveed was TBANed. Further entry is going to be a drain on the time of other editors who actually are productive in creating and maintaining content. I will put a stake in the ground and request that Rhoark be TBANed from PSCI and alt med topics. In general, Gamergate is a terrible training ground for the rest of the encyclopedia, and has attracted many people who are not here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog ( talk) 14:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC) (amend Jytdog ( talk) 21:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC))
Statement by D. CreishMy comment concerns Jytdog's section: the ratio of invective to diffs here is unacceptable. Especially so in a contentious topic area. On examination, this behavior mimics that which earned his GMO topic ban. A reminder or council from more authoritative editors seems in order. I'll review the rest of the evidence and amend this section correspondingly. D.Creish ( talk) 21:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by LizziusI ended up on the page that started this AE responding to an RFC on a related topic, and I am astonished at how different the tenor of this article/talk-space is relative to most other editing spaces on Wikipedia (well, at least editing spaces that I have encountered so far). I thought reading through the discussion here would help me understand where the disconnect in content originated from, but I am left scratching my head. On that note, I couldn't agree more with Jytdog concerning his point that turning topics like this into a bit of a quagmire could have nightmarish consequences for the legitimacy of the encyclopedia. @ D.Creish: I'm admittedly very new to editing Wikipedia (though your history would suggest you are too) and certainly new to participating in discussions like this, but what specifically about Jytdog's reply worries you? I see you haven't been terribly active in editing the topic at hand, though you and Jytdog have had some overlap while editing in other areas that I won't list here. Lizzius ( talk) 13:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning MjolnirPants
|
Sailor Haumea is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of longevity, broadly construed.
Zad
68 20:34, 29 April 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 Sailor Haumea
This is a long-running issue on longevity articles. Basically, there are some editors who believe that Wikipedia should only list supercentenarians that are verified by the GRG. However, a recent RfC resulted in the consensus that any reliable source is fine. Sailor Haumea showed up on List of oldest living people and removed all non-GRG sourced entries. They were reverted and engaged in talk page discussion ( Talk:List of oldest living people#Reverted back to GRG-associated) where it was explained that all reliable sources are accepted. They rejected this and edit warred to their preferred version, reaching, but not breaking, WP:3RR. However, they have continued to state their rejection of consensus and reverted again, though they self-reverted immediately after. This pattern of behavior is clearly disruptive. Editors with similar attitudes have been blocked or topic-banned under these discretionary sanctions: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186#Ollie231213, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#930310, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#GreatGreen, not to mention those blocked or topic-banned under the original ruling. Given the behavior here and the fact that they appear to be a single-purpose account focused on longevity articles, I recommend a topic ban until such time as they can work with consensus instead of against it. clpo13( talk) 17:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Sailor HaumeaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Sailor HaumeaLongevity is a field requiring verifiable content. Sailor Haumea ( talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by EEngSince stating above that "I don't want to get banned, so I will follow consensus", SH has just gone back to the usual longevity-fan nonsense: What's with these people anyway? No evidence SH is interested in anything but longevity [67] so let's save time -- skip the topic ban and go straight to indefinite block. E Eng 16:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by GlrxI believe I am uninvolved. I haven't been following longevity, but I did comment in Ollie231213's appeal of a topic ban in this area 3 months ago. [68] Ollie231213's appeal was declined 14 February 2016. The Sailor Haumea account has been active since 24 February 2016. From talk page comments, [69] Sailor Haumea seems well aware of the decision to use sources other than GRG by 22:23 18 April 2016, but SH believes that decision was wrong / had been "debunked". Comment also shows that SH knows editors are getting blocked for editing behavior wrt longevity. SH does 4 reverts on 18 April 2016 [70] before an explicit 3RR warning on 18 April at 23;11. [71] Discretionary warning hits 23:13, 18 April 2016. SH continues to revert and speaks of "Establish a consensus". [72] SH appears to be a sophisticated user. DS allows a 1-year topic ban, and that is what I'd recommend at the minimum. I believe there is a colorable claim that SH is avoiding an existing topic ban. (First 2 diffs by EEng also show correlation with DN-boards1; see also User talk:DN-boards1#Blocked.) Glrx ( talk) 01:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Sailor Haumea
|
| User:Wikiwillkane is warned to observe the terms of the 500/30 general prohibition. Further edits like those listed in this complaint may lead to a conventional ARBPIA topic ban. EdJohnston ( talk) 23:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Wikiwillkane
Not applicable
Not applicable
Informed by Huldra of the arbitration decision barring users with less than 500 edits from editing in the topic area on 25 April. Warned by me that continuing to edit in the topic area may result in being reported. Continued to edit in the topic area without responding. I dont know if its just they dont know to click on the link that says you have new messages or not, but something should be done to make sure the editor is aware that their edits are in violation of that decision (regardless of the general quality of the edits, which is bad) and that they agree to abide by the decision and refrain from editing in the topic area until they are allowed to do so. The last edit was following my warning, all the ones from the 26th were after Huldra's notification, which as the editor is here responding to this makes me think that it was not simply being ignorant of the big you have new messages link meaning something. But regarding Dafna Meir, its an article on a woman killed in Israeli settlement by Palestinians. I dont think it gets much clearer than that, but hey who knows, maybe Im wrong and this new account knows something I dont. Pretty sure I did not reference a Roseanne Barr edit, but hey as the user brings it up, material on BDS is fairly clearly within the topic area as well. nableezy - 20:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning WikiwillkaneStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WikiwillkaneI was given a warning from Nableezy regarding the 30/500 and heeded his/her advice, and have not edited since on a page that came up with a 30/500 warning. However, Nableezy seems to be unilaterally expanding the 30/500 to anything related to Israel. Editing Roseanne Barr's page with the simple fact that she was a keynote speaker at an anti-BDS conference in Israel seems well beyond the scope of the 30/500 and does not seem to be the original intent of the rule. If the 30/500 rule is placed on the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment (BDS) Movement, you will need to stop thousands who are presently editing on that topic without 30/500. Regarding the Dafna Meir page, it never mentions "Palestinians" or "Terrorists," so, again, it should not be part of the 30/500 rule. It was about the murder of an Israeli woman. Obviously, the 30/500 rule is not clear as some pages have the warning, others do not. What about Roseanne Barr? At what point does the 30/500 not exist? If the word Israeli, anti-BDS, is that entire article now part of the 30/500? Dafna Meir did not mention Palestinians at all. She was a murder victim. Statement by HuldraObviously, this editor does not believe that WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is valid for them. After being warned, they start the article about Dafna Meir (nominated for deletion), claiming that it should "not be part of the 30/500 rule." (!) Please, could someone make this editor understand that WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is also for them? Huldra ( talk) 22:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Peter JamesThe restrictions specifically mention "page" and "article". If editors intend to apply it to related content in generally unrelated pages an amendment should be requested. Peter James ( talk) 10:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC) @ RolandR: @ Wikiwillkane: I would regard the Dafna Meir article (and others mentioned) as related - perhaps the subject wasn't but the event that is the only reason for the article's existence is, and Wikiwillkane is aware of this. I was referring to the Roseanne Barr article. Peter James ( talk) 23:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC) @ EdJohnston: The Scientology case adds "or discussions on any page", should this case be amended to add that? Peter James ( talk) 09:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by WikiwillkaneI agree to stay away from the Israeli-Arab conflict until I have reached the 500 edits. However, Wikipedia's 30/500 rule now seems to be extend an extremely board net over what is considered the "Arab-Israeli conflict." The 30/500 rule was on certain pages of that conflict, such as "Israel" the "West Bank," etc. Now it moved into an area that is discussed, especially regarding BDS, in almost every university campus today. Are you stating that a college student cannot write about a visiting lecturer who discusses BDS because they do not have 30 days or 500 edits on Wikipedia? Roseanne Barr is an internationally known celebrity who was a keynote speaker at a conference in Israel and it was written about extensively. This NOW is under the umbrella of 30/500??? Does that mean that nobody can write on the Students Justice for Palestine Wikipedia page because they discuss BDS? Hillary Clinton is a vocal critic of BDS. Does that mean that nobody can edit her page to reflect this or to write about a speech she gives? Wikipedia must look how many users are now using the 30/500 rule specifically to stifle the voices with opinions different than theirs. Deleting my comments that Roseanne was a keynote speaker at a conference in Israel based on 30/500 is such an example. When an administrator must do a search to see that one news article listed Dafna Meir's murder as terrorism in order to justify that she falls under the 30/500 rule is again an example of far-reaching.
Statement by RolandRPeter James above engages in the most egregious wikilawyering with his quibble about "page" and "article". The sanction explicitly refers to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". Every one of the articles noted in the original complaint ( Israeli-occupied territories, Palestinian political violence, Dafna Meir, Omar Barghouti, Judea and Samaria Area) is unequivocally related to the conflict. Indeed, it would be unreasonable to construe any of them as unrelated. RolandR ( talk) 18:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Darwinian Aperant on "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." The problem comes from the sanction itself rather than the editor conduct. 500/30 restriction is the antithesis of Wikipedia, yet here we have a broad spectrum of (current and future)articles with that restriction. Wikipedia, encyclopedia anyone can edit, unless it's a contentious topic, then you have to first go edit articles about broomsticks and teaspoons. Oh and did I also mention you have to wait for a period of 30 days? Same as acquiring a gun! Yes editing Wikipedia and guns, totally the same thing. rant off If we put my little objection to the sanction aside, the problem is not adding the brand new extended protection to all pages that are "reasonably" construed as related to Arab Israeli conflict. Doing so will prevent this kind of AE requests to a degree. And it's only fair that we have a standard in preventing these lowly new editors and IP's from editing other than the involved editors of their respected articles.(What I'm trying to say is they may be unconsciously biased in their reporting.) That is my humble opinion on the matter. Darwinian Ape talk 18:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Wikiwillkane
|
| Appeal declined at this time. The totality of the diffs initially provided were more than adequate to justify the ban and no evidence has been presented to show the ban is no longer needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:55, 2 May 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 STSCI appeal the sanction and I want it to be lifted. Based on this discussion on the neutrality of the article title [74], The Wordsmith wrongly determined that my comment "openly supports the elimination of a religious group as a good and necessary thing". I commented,
"Falun Gong was considered [by the Chinese] as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore [the Chinese considered it] must be eliminated from China"... Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society." My comment was pointing out that "Falun Gong was considered as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore must be eliminated from China" is a Chinese internal policy. I used the wording "was considered" by a third party, the sentence as a whole was meant to be expressing the viewpoint of China. Further statement Admins are accountable to the Wikipedia community and they must properly explain their actions; and we certainly don't just accept some blanket statements as to what they think without showing any concrete evidence. It's a hasty and poor judgement by The Wordsmith who has not thoroughly investigated the complaint in a fair manner. STSC ( talk) 06:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC) The Wordsmith's decision
[75] was based on a comment in a discussion in June 2015, I have refuted his claim that my comment supports the elimination of a religious group. He then came up with other claims in his statement in this appeal but failed to provide any evidence as to when, where and how. I must ask the sanction to be lifted in the interest of accountability and fairness.
STSC (
talk) 06:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Review I would review here the diffs which were cherry-picked to build up the baseless accusations by TheBlueCanoe. (I can only input bit by bit here when time allows)
Replies
Statement by The WordsmithObviously I stand by the sanction I imposed. I believe it to be in the best interests of that topic area that STSC be removed from participation. Reviewing their contributions makes it clear that they have lost the ability to edit in accordance with our policies and guidelines. I believe their pattern of bias and POV pushing to demonstrate an agenda that is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia. Therefore, a lesser sanction or finite duration would not have been effective. I arrived at this conclusion after an in-depth review of all the evidence presented and after careful consideration of all the statements given, and I maintain that it is within the bounds of Administrator discretion allowed by Discretionary Sanctions. I take pride in the fact that of all the enforcement actions I have issued, only one has ever been overturned, and that was in 2010 (and by an editor who was later banned by the Arbitration Committee). However, I'm still human, and therefore fallible. I welcome a review of the sanction issued. The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by TheBlueCanoeIt seems highly unlikely that anyone will overturn this topic ban, but here are some quick responses to the discussion:
Finally, this may be obvious, but Shrigley is not exactly "uninvolved"—at least not in the broader Falun Gong topic area. Some time ago I recalled that he fought vigorously (and unsuccessfully) to prevent an article about an apparent Falun Gong torture death from appearing as a DYK. [96] There too, he presented himself as a neutral reviewer—which he evidently was not.
TheBlueCanoe 18:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Responding to STSC:
Statement by John CarterOnly wishing to point out here that the elimination of a religious creed of any sort is not in and of itself in all cases definitely undesirable. If it were possible to retroactively eliminate heaven's Gate or the People's Temple, as groups, prior to the eventual suicides, I think most people might find that desirable. And there are or have been a few other religious groups over the years which have had core beliefs which have later been found to be without any reasonable foundation, and I rather doubt that the "elimination" they may have suffered when their beliefs were found baseless is one most people would necessarily find objectionable. Also, honestly, if Christian Identity or perhaps other groups tied to White supremacist ideology were "eliminated" in some way, preferably through means other than killing all of them of course, I wonder how many people would object. I also, admittedly belately, support a lot of Shrigley's comments below regarding the "political correctness"/"PRC is bad" attitude which tends to prevail relating to FG related matters in the West. By most medical standards, FG practices qualify as quack medicine, which a lot of people in China accept because it is (1) traditional to them and (2) a lot cheaper than more useful Western medicine, which doesn't have the same pseudoscience/quackery issues as FG and other Qigong practices do. The fact that FG is now the standard-bearer of Western criticism of the PRC is another issue. We have had editors here labelled as supporters of the PRC for disagreeing with FG, if I remember correctly, and that same tendency toward labelling of FG opposers seems to me to be even stronger in outside press. Right now, the assessment criteria of the Falun Gong work group at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Falun Gong articles by quality statistics indicate a total of 28 articles of stub class or similar here, not counting all the NA pages. Is there any sort of way to maybe put them all under pending changes or similar so that maybe the only way to bring really substantive changes to them is through broad consensus through an RfC? That is, admittedly, a rather draconian proposal, but with so few articles, and what is to my eyes a rather obvious Western bias in the issue, it might, maybe, be workable. John Carter ( talk) 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by RhoarkI am unconvinced that STSC was describing only the perspective of the Chinese establishment, and not their own authentic views (or possibly if they are living in China, views that they are compelled to publicly adhere to.) It's plausible that the "must be eliminated" section was intended to imply "from the perspective of the Chinese authorities", but such an interpretation does not concord with the rest of the statement, "...such process should not be described as 'persecution' as if the elimination is undesirable. Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society." This strikes me as the perspective of someone who internalizes official Chinese diktat rather than just describes it. If I'm wrong though, STSC should have no trouble positively affirming that no one should be violently compelled to renounce religious beliefs. Anyone seized by a fashionable moral relativism should actually read the practices detailed at Persecution of Falun Gong, which is not so much analogous to Germany's treatment of Scientology as to Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, which I challenge anyone to describe as "internal policy for the good of its society." Rhoark ( talk) 02:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by ShrigleyTheWordsmith's comment here, which justifies the sanction, does not show me that he critically considered whether TheBlueCanoe's diffs about STSC correctly impugned STSC's character. The filer of that original AE request is, as is obvious to anyone with experience in the Falun Gong editspace (it is necessary to drop certain cultural biases: more on that later), very motivated to see a sympathetic viewpoint to Falun Gong represented on Wikipedia, and to see unsympathetic viewpoints excised. I wish more people made specific comments analyzing the diffs and how they were presented. I don't have time now, but maybe I will if this appeal stays open a few more days. If
this diff is considered the "smoking gun" of STSC's supposed animus towards Falun Gong, it is weak evidence indeed. In the first place, the sentence structure (admittedly, his grammar is not perfectly native) shows that STSC was
describing a viewpoint -- of Chinese society in general or the Chinese government in particular, it is not clear but does not matter -- and not expressing it:
A cursory look at TheBlueCanoe's diffs reveals them to be deeply problematic for anyone with specialist subject knowledge. For example, TBC lists this diff as evidence of STSC's bias. However, as with many third world countries, torture happens in China by local governments, despite it being illegal on a national level (and prosecuted by the central government when these cases are exposed!), because of certain perverse incentives to improve crime statistics for increased funding: the idea that certain incidents of torture happened as a planned tool of a national campaign against Falun Gong is pretty controversial. Shrigley ( talk) 08:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by ZujineIn view of the unfortunate lack of self-awareness or contrition demonstrated by STSC in this process, I would echo @ User:Seraphimblade and @ User:Dennis Brown and recommend that the appeal be declined. I would also welcome administrator's views on whether a warning is in order for Shrigley. On numerous past occasions at AE, this user has come to the defense of clearly disruptive editors in this topic area (for example, see cases against User:PCPP [99] [100] and User:Bobby fletcher [101]). Although it may be a novel interpretation of policy—and certainly one that would need to be applied with great caution—I wonder whether repeated attempts to shield obviously disruptive editors from much-deserved censure may itself be a form of disruption. And though it's pretty stale, the user's conduct at this DYK nomination [102] is troubling. Shrigley acted as a neutral reviewer for the DYK nomination, despite prior involvement in the topic area and clear animus toward Falungong [103]. He approved the review on the condition that his heavily edited version of the article be accepted. If anyone rejected his edits, he would declare the page "unstable" and thus withdraw approval for the DYK (uninvolved editors ultimately overturned his arguments). I have a hard time believing this was anything other than a deliberate abuse of process meant to derail a legitimate nomination.—Zujine| talk 18:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by STSCWhat Was SaidThe critical edit here, apparently, is this:
This is neither very clear or grammatical, but of course Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and some editors are not native speakers. If I were copy-editing this, my assumption is that the intended meaning was that "Falun Gong was considered [by the government] to be a danger to Chinese society; therefore, [the government] believed it must be eliminated from China." I would then have inverted the order to remove the passive: "The government considered Falun Gong to be a danger to Chinese society, and that it ought to be eliminated from China. This is not, I think, a strained or unreasonable interpretation, and seems to me to be a reasonable summary of one received narrative. Even if the sentiments ought to be ascribed to the editor, which I think is doubtful, we have "Falun Gong is a danger to society and must be eliminated from China." This is intolerant and un-American, but I’m not entirely certain that we should be banning people who hold un-American beliefs. I would observe that the Court of Massachusetts felt much this way about Roger Williams in 1636, that American Nativists expressed much the same about Catholic immigration, and that a current candidate for the US Presidency has called for a moratorium on Moslem immigration. Even if policy prohibits the practice of religious intolerance, I doubt that it prohibits its description. STSC is incorrect in asserting that this "should not be described as "persecution" as if the elimination is undesirable." Persecution is precisely the right word. An non-native speaker, or simply an editor with a limited background, might recognize only the informal, colloquial sense of persecution, and not understand that this is precisely its technical meaning. Otherwise, STSC’s statement makes no sense at all. I don’t disagree with Seraphimblade -- I’ve not examined the rest of the history -- but I suggest this ill-composed passage has been misinterpreted. MarkBernstein ( talk) 21:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Previous ANI filingsI also note the following filings at WP:ANI - December 2015 [104]; February 2016 [105] - which would seem to indicate that the behaviours discussed in the original WP:AE filing are both long standing and wider spread than the Falun Gong topic space. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by STSC
|
| Jonniefood topic banned 90 days from the topics of The Troubles and the Ulster Banner, broadly construed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:57, 3 May 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 Jonniefood
Diff of notification of sanctions
Clear breach of the 1RR that is enforced on all articles related to The Troubles. This editor is a single purpose account in the area of the Ulster Banner and the Northern Ireland flag issue..
Diff of notification of this request Discussion concerning JonniefoodStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Jonniefood
Statement by (Miles Creagh)The diffs presented by the reporting editor don't seem to show true reverts, as each deals with different material and distinct language in the article in question. Also not sure it is appropriate to comment on the editor rather than content, by mentioning SPAs etc. Miles Creagh ( talk) 17:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourth@ Miles Creagh: Regardless of whether the reverts were each for different material, if they were both within 24 hours of each other and both reverts, that's still a violation of 1RR. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 14:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (Uninvolved Editor)Result concerning Jonniefood
|
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 Abbatai
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- OptimusView ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
-
Abbatai (
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:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 14:20, 1 May 2016 1st revert
- 15:17, 1 May 2016 2nd revert
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- [108] Blocked 3 times for editwarring and disruptive editing
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- *Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [109].
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The article is placed under 1rr, and Abbatai already made 2 reverts of his edit of April 20th ( [110]).
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [111]
Discussion concerning Abbatai
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 Abbatai
The first edit above was not a revert at all. I added the word "separatist" with reference to NKR, previously it was stating NKR Forces in the lead.
And this one: 15:17, 1 May 2016 was my first and only revert in which I explained why? on talk page and invited users to discussion. See [112] and [113] Thanks Abbatai 18:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Abbatai
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- As Abbatai had previously added the "separatist" wording on 20 April, both edits were clearly reverts to a previous version, so this is a 1RR violation. The previous edit warring sanctions were many years ago, so I'm not inclined to factor them too heavily, but I think some time away from the topic area might be in order. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- The blocks were so long ago as to be almost meaningless here. While Seraphimblade is correct that the same "separatist" verbiage was added 10 days prior with the same citation (which looks to check out), and it was technically a revert, to me this fades a bit with time. Still sanctionable, but not as severe as other 1RRs I've seen that happen over a day or two. He might have thought it really wasn't a 1RR violation, even though it technically was. Since he hasn't been sanctioned in a very long time, and never for this particular Arb restriction, I would lean towards a very short topic ban, say 30 days, which would probably be adequate to prevent problems in the future. I won't argue against something somewhat longer, I just think that is proportional to the disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:58, 2 May 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 Abbatai
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- OptimusView ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
-
Abbatai (
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:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 14:20, 1 May 2016 1st revert
- 15:17, 1 May 2016 2nd revert
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- [114] Blocked 3 times for editwarring and disruptive editing
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- *Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [115].
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The article is placed under 1rr, and Abbatai already made 2 reverts of his edit of April 20th ( [116]).
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [117]
Discussion concerning Abbatai
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 Abbatai
The first edit above was not a revert at all. I added the word "separatist" with reference to NKR, previously it was stating NKR Forces in the lead.
And this one: 15:17, 1 May 2016 was my first and only revert in which I explained why? on talk page and invited users to discussion. See [118] and [119] Thanks Abbatai 18:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Abbatai
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- As Abbatai had previously added the "separatist" wording on 20 April, both edits were clearly reverts to a previous version, so this is a 1RR violation. The previous edit warring sanctions were many years ago, so I'm not inclined to factor them too heavily, but I think some time away from the topic area might be in order. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- The blocks were so long ago as to be almost meaningless here. While Seraphimblade is correct that the same "separatist" verbiage was added 10 days prior with the same citation (which looks to check out), and it was technically a revert, to me this fades a bit with time. Still sanctionable, but not as severe as other 1RRs I've seen that happen over a day or two. He might have thought it really wasn't a 1RR violation, even though it technically was. Since he hasn't been sanctioned in a very long time, and never for this particular Arb restriction, I would lean towards a very short topic ban, say 30 days, which would probably be adequate to prevent problems in the future. I won't argue against something somewhat longer, I just think that is proportional to the disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
| AmirSurfLera blocked three months and will be given a final warning to abide by the topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:51, 7 May 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 AmirSurfLera
Since AmirSurfLera's appeal for their indefinite ARBPIA topic ban to be lifted was declined in January 2015, they made no edits to Wikipedia using this account until a couple of days ago. Since reactivating this account they have made what I regard as 5 topic ban violations so far. I contacted them ( User_talk:AmirSurfLera#Topic_ban_violations) to inform them that if they "make another edit that violates the topic ban I will file an AE report". Since I did not find the response satisfactory I have come here. The first 2 edits I listed above are unambiguous topic ban violations. The editor's explanation was "I made a mistake on Barghouti". Fine, they made a mistake. The last 3 edits listed all relate to Palestinian mufti Amin al-Husseini and the Israeli Prime Minister's stated view that a Palestinian was responsible for persuading Hitler to exterminate European Jews. AmirSurfLera's view is that "I didn't violate my topic ban with the rest of the edits, since they are related to Nazism, antisemitism and the Holocaust, not the Arab-Israeli conflict. I wasn't banned from all Jewish-related articles". I find this response unacceptable. Please ensure that this person cannot use this account to violate their topic ban. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning AmirSurfLeraStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AmirSurfLeraI'm not sure what Wikipedia means by ARBPIA. I interpret articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, an article about the economy of Israel, as far as I understand, is not part of this area, even though it's connected somehow. An article about Kiruv in Orthodox Judaism, is not related to ARBPIA, nor an article about a British politician. I wasn't expecting to be accused of violating my topic ban for editing about antisemitism, Nazism and the Holocaust. For example, this edit and this one are related to the Holocaust and antisemitism. In the first case I restored the picture of a neo-Nazi protesting in Berlin. In the second case, even though the mufti was an important actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict, I simply restored a caption about his meeting with Hitler (removed by Pluto2012 without previous discussion). The Mufti was other things besides an enemy of Israel (like a recruiter for the SS). If I made a mistake and I violated the ban with those edits, I offer my sincere apologies, I won't edit in those articles anymore. But I came back to edit in good faith (starting with Holocaust controversies), not to cause troubles in ARBPIA. I'm sorry that I edit on Jewish-related topics only, but I don't know anything about cars, bugs, trees and elephants.-- AmirSurfLera ( talk) 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC) I understand, although my knowledge of religion is limited. I'll be more careful. But what about antisemitism? (excluding Hamas, Hezbollah and things like that)-- AmirSurfLera ( talk) 21:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Reply to my comment moved from admin section to editors' section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000The violation is obvious and I can't imagine how anyone could dispute it. Zero talk 14:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by Pluto2012AmirSurfLera refused to selfrevert his edits on the article 'Antisemitism' despite he modified the caption on the Palestinian nationalist leader Haj Amin al-Husseini and that he re-inserted a picture in the "Palestinian section" with the portrait of Yasser Arafat. These are obvious violation of the topic ban. and he/she is perfectly aware of this. Pluto2012 ( talk) 16:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning AmirSurfLera
|
| HughD blocked for a period of one month. The existing topic ban is extended to indefinite and broadened to include climate change and post-1932 American politics. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:07, 8 May 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 HughD
Expanded on 26 April, 2016 [122], "Your topic ban is expanded to include a ban on editing everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed, on any article. Your topic ban is extended to Jan 1, 2017." (Talk page notification [123]) As part of the ARE closed on 26th April, it was noted that the way HughD has been editing climate change articles is a violation of his topic ban, ".Again, the topics themselves are not related to conservative politics but the nature of HughD's edits are within them related to conservative politics (Mother Jones categorizations at the very are conservative politics even if you don't consider climate change issues per se related). Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2016 " HughD was also warned, "The kind of playing round the edges of the previous ban (which was for the same area, but shorter) that led to this AE filing won't be tolerated. If you're in doubt whether the ban allows you a particular edit, please ask an admin before making it. There's a kind of logic in not blocking now, yes, but it also means the user has got away with a lot. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)."
The below edits may be considered political as they tend to further what appears to be an objective to cast Exxon's actions in the most negative light possible with respect to climate change. By them selves I do not believe these would be violations but they may be when considered in context with other edits.
A request for admins involved in the previous discussion to review the 26 April edits prior to filing any ARE was made. Bishonen, [126], "I'm not sure. Sorry, Springee, I'd rather not make the call either." Dennis Brown, [127], "I don't have time to really look closely, but at first glance, I can easily see why you might be concerned." Laser brain was contacted [128] and followed up with HughD [129] resulting in an unsatisfactory explanation and Hugh's claims of nothing but civil behavior, "I am proud of my article space focus, my good articles, all my edits, and in particular my superb edit summaries, and my exemplary participation and focus on content in article talk page discussions... All of my edits are good faith improvements to our encyclopedia and respectful of the topic ban; I respectfully request specific diffs of edits you feel are not, and an opportunity to discuss and self-revert." The last comment was questioned by both Safehaven86 (end of section) and Anmccaff [130], "Anmccaff: I'm tired of dealing with him, to be honest. If you believe he's violating his topic ban, please open a report at WP:AE for wider input." Editors involved with the article in question have also expressed concerns with HughD's edits and behavior. [131] The ARE closed on 26 April originally suggested an edit block of 30 days but based on HughD's engagement in discussion an assumption of good faith was given and no block was included. The refusal to consider the concerns of others involved with the ExxonMobil articles and condescending replies do not support an assumption of good faith nor do they appear to support seeking consensus. (Comments directed at Beagel [132] [133] [134] )
/info/en/?search=User_talk:HughD#Notice_of_WP:ARE Discussion concerning HughDStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by HughDNo topic ban violation. No disruptive editing. Let us together examine each the reported diffs, in turn:
In summary, no topic ban violation, and no disruptive editing. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 02:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC) The rush to discuss how severe the sanction is deeply disturbing. I must insist on some demonstration of the ability to distinguish a vexatious filing from disruptive editing. I plan to appeal any sanctions from this filing. Please help. Respectfully I must insist that each responding uninvolved administrator very specifically identify an edit that is a topic ban violation, uncivil, or disruptive, and very specifically why, citing specific policy or guideline, before joining the chorus. Go on record, please. I must insist on some acknowledgement of the above "your own conduct may be examined as well"; respectfully I ask each responding uninvolved administrator demonstrate some due diligence, and include some comment on complainant's editorial behavior, even if it is only to say you see nothing actionable or to praise complainant's contributions to our project. Go on record. Thank you.
Respectfully, a reminder: I am not banned from politics, I am not banned from all topics on which two or more Americans may disagree, which of course is all topics. If you think Mother Jones (magazine), or ExxonMobil, or climate change is in scope of American conservative politics, please clearly say so and sign your name. Thank you. Izno, thank you for your suggested sanctions. Kindly explicitly state which edit or edits in your view are a topic ban violation and why it is a topic ban violation. Context matters. Be fair. You quote an excerpt from a source, not any content that I added to article text. Serial complainant, single purpose account harassment and noticeboard specialist again artfully juxtaposes edits to give the appearance of an edit war. Let's take a closer look. Article ExxonMobil
So string me up. When RfCs are criminalized, only criminals will use RfCs. RfCs are not disruptive, RfCs are the opposite of disruptive. 30 May 2015 EdJohnston challenged me to be part of the solution; since then I have embraced dispute resolution including our content noticeboards and requests for comment and have at all times been civil. Meanwhile SPA serial complainant is a fervent champion of the supremacy of the local consensus, often when the local consensus consists only of themselves, and has specialized in the application of behavioral noticeboards in content disputes, and in disrupting dispute resolution. Complainant hates any attempt to broaden community participation. Complainant wants to take RfCs away from me, in fact all editing privileges. It only takes one admin to help complete their year-long project. If you are so inclined I must insist you lay out your reasons very explicitly and very clearly and sign your name. Dennis asked for options. Some reasonable, measured options uninvolved administrators might consider in addressing this filing, were anyone interested in anything other than a witch burning.
I oppose sanctions without specific edits clearly violating specific policy or guideline. Thank you. "I find it difficult to believe that you are so dense as to not understand..." Enough of that. I understand the topic ban very well and respect it at all times, thank you. You are responsible for explaining your administrative actions. You need to clearly explain how you believe an edit is in scope of conservative American politics. Do not shirk your responsibility by insulting your target and labeling them as unworthy of good faith and a well-reasoned cogent explanation demonstrating due diligence and careful reflection, respectfully request you strike through. I am a veteran productive content provider volunteer with multiple good articles, a good article in the pipeline at all times, an article space percentage of 68% and I deserve better from you. It is simply not the case that anything any two Americans might consider controversial is in scope to conservative American politics WP:COMMONSENSE. Thank you. "You'll inevitably cross it" Not true, no topic ban violation has occurred. I inevitable get reported. There is a difference, an important difference, I hope. As we are all here to build an encyclopedia I know you do not want to sanction lightly, absent harm to our encyclopedia. Please avoid the echo chamber, I must insist you please specify an edit that in your view violated the topic ban or was anything other than a good faith effort to build our encyclopedia and specifically why. Respectfully, a reminder: I am not banned from US politics, I am not banned from topics you may consider "hot button", I am not banned from American politics. Complainant is very excited about the recent traction of the idea that a ban on conservative US politics includes all of politics or all issues any two Americans may disagree on, but complainant is not an admin, so they need an admin to complete their year-long project, so go ahead, make a new friend. Or, why not try the simplest thing that might work first? Remind complainant they were asked to stop following by an admin, ask complainant to leave it to someone else, if I am as bad as all that, inevitably we will be back here in about a week, and you can mete out justice, right? Why are you bringing up Global Climate Coalition? None of the reported diffs involve GCC. Please focus. If you can't perhaps you should leave this filing to someone else. GCC was an industry trade group. It filed as a not-for-profit. It was prohibited from partisan political activities and was required to focus on the issues of its membership, it would have been illegal for them to pursue a political ideology of any flavor. GCC had a notable role in shaping our environment. GCC opposed regulation, and some conservatives oppose regulation, therefore, what??? On any given issue on which two Americans may differ, often one side may be labeled by some as conservative and the other as liberal; I am not banned from all such topics. It goes without saying, is that why our article doesn't say it? Doesn't seem much point to me in a topic ban on conservative US politics that includes all of politics and in fact all topics anyone might consider political, construed beyond all WP:COMMONSENSE, but apparently you agree with complainant, so you too have an opportunity to make a friend for life by delivering the capstone to a year-long project. Our article Global Climate Coalition is a good article nominee and I am proud of it. I worked hard on it, as a volunteer, unpaid. Will you delete it, work product in violation of a topic ban? Also, I note you have yet to comment on complainant's editorial behavior, anything jump out at you during your due diligence? "play dumb" No. There's very simple explanation for the reported diffs: good faith efforts to improve our encyclopedia. Viewed in its behavioral context, there's a very simple explanation for this filing: surprising even themselves with the traction of the idea that conservative US politics = politics = everything, there was nothing to lose, might as well take a shot. Last winter arbcom consolidated and simplified areas of dispute, if CC is a subset of AP2, make the suggestion, you may find it well-received. A given source may say many things, but in this case the Mother Jones article was used solely in an obviously good faith effort to support contended content regarding one of the most notable aspects of the subject of an article and to hopefully discourage future deletions. There was no edit war, no disruptive editing, only benefit to our encyclopedia. How about "anything any two Americans might disagree on" or "anything complainant disagrees with"? Please cite the topic ban notification or logging of Mother Jones (magazine) or climate change or all politics or all controversial issues. Thank you. Please state whether your sanction is authorized by community, or under DS, and if so which DS area. We have two admins who have gone on record that Mother Jones (magazine), climate change and/or all topics anyone might consider "political" are in scope to "conservative American Politics." Respectfully request addition uninvolved administrator input on this and on the proportionality of the suggested sanctions with respect to the actual disruption of our project reported here. As previously stated, I plan to appeal. Respectfully request any block be suspended pending outcome of appeal specifically so I may participate, with a voluntary suspension of article editing. Thank you. Statement by Only in death does duty endClimate change != American conservative politics. American politicians may make climate change an issue at times, however that does not defacto make climate change as a topic part of the american politics area any more than any other topic US politicians decide to talk about. If you are going to extend that reasoning to literally everything politicians talk about, you also need to *explictly* ban Hugh from abortion, gun control, immigration etc etc. Hugh is clearly topic banned from one, and not another. Since topic bans are specifically about the topic, not the article page so lets look at the two issues above listed by the filer:
Statement by IznoI rarely make a comment on a drama-related board, but I would tend to agree with the assessment that HughD is attempting to skirt his topic ban, given his focus on a certain set of sourcing in the context of certain articles Remedy suggestions (and thoughtsmithing welcome): topic ban HughD from editing any topics, broadly construed, related to the post-1944 era. You can probably go back to post-1933 era (when The New Deal started). That would cover most of the major American political points of recent times--gun control (only so problematic as it is since the NRA started being active in politics in the early 30s), climate change (most of the science of climate change starts after World War II), and etc. Using a modern source to discuss, say, Japanese art of 1850, would not be intended to be a violation, but I suppose you might consider that blurring the line... a view, which, if taken, probably means he deserves a block. -- Izno ( talk) 12:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SpringeeQuestion for admins: To avoid a potential future issue, would an AP2 (assuming a broadly construed clause) include topics such as the social/political back drop related to passing of a law or actions of the government? I ask to preemptively find out if such a TBAN would apply to several recent topic discussions. This discussion regarding the political backdrop that lead to the passage of a safety act by Congress [135] and this discussion related to why the NHTSA chose to take action [136]. I would assume the answers would apply to the same material in an article (or talk page) space. Ping: Dennis Brown, The Wordsmith, Seraphimblade, Masem Thank you, Springee ( talk) 13:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning HughD
|
| Reqest is moot. This particular sanction is pending appeal below (and likely to be overturned), and editor has been blocked for violating a different sanction. Any further action would be punitive rather than preventative. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:38, 15 May 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 MarkBernstein
Amended 23:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MarkBernsteinStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MarkBernsteinThe (modified) three-way topic ban between myself, Thargor Orlando, and DHeyward specifically allows participation in noticeboard and ArbCom cases in which one or all are a party. Moreover, asking an editor to confirm an interpretation of a statement, or to clarify a statement that might be ambiguous, does not infringe the topic ban. To make assurance doubly sure, I checked in advance with the administrator who composed and modified that topic ban whether it was intended to prevent my participation in a case to which DHeyward is a party.
MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The scope of the ArbCom case in question explicitly excludes Gamergate, and both arbitrators and clerks have repeatedly asserted that the case is not related to Gamergate. Nor does it involve gender-related controversies. I have commented in a general way about threats against Wikipedians, but not all threats derive from Gamergate. (Arbitrators interested in off-wiki harassment may want to take a look at the customary sites, which have not been completely inactive overnight.) MarkBernstein ( talk) 15:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by KingsindianIn the last AE
request,
MarkBernstein stated that
Statement by GoldenRingI'm also rather perplexed that MarkBernstein doesn't think that
1 and
2 are violations of his
more recent topic ban. Either he doesn't think they're violations or he just doesn't care. I'm struggling to see how discussing Gamaliel's restriction from enforcing GamerGate arbitration provisions doesn't fall within
Statement by Starke HathawayGiven that the relevant sanction between MarkBernstein and DHeyward is a topic ban and not an interaction ban, it's hard to see a direct reply from MB to DH as a violation per se. Nevertheless, MB has in recent days developed a habit of testing the edges of the topic bans to which he is subject, demonstrated by the following:
In fairness to Mark, he has generally reverted/struck these offending comments on his own initiative. But while that might excuse a single violation, it begins to look like a deliberate effort to opine on a prohibited topic while avoiding sanctions after three or four occurrences. I think Mark ought to be dissuaded from this course of action. Whether that takes the form of a stern warning (although warnings have had less than stellar effectiveness with MB in the past) or something more serious is for wiser heads than mine. -Starke Hathaway ( talk) 19:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Dennis BrownWhile I'm uninvolved when it comes to Mark, I (tried to) participate in that Arb case and mentioned Mark as the beneficiary of too much goodwill by an admin, which is not Mark's fault. The participation is still enough that I will stay on this side of the "results" line and just opine. I think if Mark had been named as a party to the case, it would be easy to overlook or even grant a temporary stay of the restriction while he participated in the case. Something to consider is the poorly chosen title of the case "Gamaliel and others", as Mark has been mentioned in interactions with Gamaliel several times, including by myself, although never in any way that indicates Mark did anything wrong. Judging from past cases (and this one) he could theoretically be added to the case with no explanation, or simply sanctioned without being formally listed as a party. This assumes he did something wrong prior to the case that would warrant sanction, something I have no evidence of. It is simply saying there is at least a possibility that he would be mentioned for sanctions, and would feel the need to defend himself or participate. I say this only because I think this AE case is just a tiny bit in the grey area. Honestly, Mark should have asked for a temporary lifting first, he should have known this would be seen as violating the topic ban, and I don't there there is any question these are textbook violations, but if I'm fair, I have to admit the circumstances here are very different than arguing on an article talk page. How much that should play into sanctions, I leave to those that are totally uninvolved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by James J. LambdenThis is getting ridiculous. @ MarkBernstein: If “professional obligations” necessitate your posting to wikipedia, you must disclose any potential overlap - see WP:PAID and WP:COI. If not, it’s irrelevant. The spirit of the restrictions are straightforward: avoid Gamergate and DHeyward. If you can abide by that I’m sure you can be productive elsewhere. If not, the community has better things do than police this “I’m not touching youuuu” nonsense. Regarding “the instruction[s] received from the responsible administrator” you’ve been asked to clarify whether this came before or after you made the following comment (diff in Kingsindian’s section):
Despite several posts you have not clarified. Please clarify so we can wrap this up. James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC) @ MarkBernstein: Thank you for clarifying the dates. If that's the case the responsible administrator has given apparently conflicting instructions which you shouldn't be held responsible for. I suggest the complaints re: your interactions with DHeyward be dismissed and either the responsible administrator clarifies explicitly, on wiki, the scope of the interaction ban or another administrator applies a more straightforward restriction. James J. Lambden ( talk) 21:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
MarkBernstein: You tweet that the Arb case against Gamaliel is a “surrender to extortion” and request input from experts on internet extortion, citing the case of Alison Rapp (Gamergate). You then
post to
Go Phightins!’ page asking if the Signpost would be @ MarkBernstein: So there’s no ambiguity: your topic ban restricts you from the topic of Gamergate. It’s not a ban on the word specifically, so that by equivocation, you’re permitted to discuss it. Regardless of the supervising editor’s experience or respectability I can't imagine a scenario where writing an article on extortion you believe has been perpetrated by "Gamergate" doesn’t bring us right back here - assuming (hopefully) this request is closed by then. This isn’t a government-sponsored legal system where in exchange for tax dollars you’re provided inexhaustible bureaucratic recourse. Each edit is a volunteer donating time and effort - persistent boundary-testing is an abuse of these donated resources. Your actions have real costs to the community. Please recognize that and behave accordingly. James J. Lambden ( talk) 18:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by Ryk72The diffs provided by
NE Ent and
Starke Hathaway are clearly in breach of the respective topic bans. The advice provided by the
Admin imposing the "
DHeyward" topic ban explicitly states that commenting on the other topic banned person is within the scope of the ban; the diffs show comment on that person. Statement by CapeoCan we just be done with this now? Since MB's topic ban he's done nothing but dance around or step over the edges as the difs above show. The idea of TB is that an editor moves on to something else. MB is not moving on. It's endless innuendo and boundary pushing. We have a rather strange Iban from an admin who won't even respond that is basically unenforceable at this point and a Tban that has either has teeth or it doesn't. Capeo ( talk) 02:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by SitushAgree with Capeo. This is gaming the system, plain and simple. - Sitush ( talk) 09:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by DHeywardI didn't receive the latest reinterpretation where I can comment as long as it not about the other parties. This makes it very convoluted because the source of the topic ban was commenting in AE cases. I'd just as soon have the topic ban lifted. The admin that imposed it can't even interpret it any more per his ArbCom sanction. Please remove the 3-way topic ban so we don't end up here. It's already led to an enforcement in November that was overturned and led to the latest modification that is too convoluted to understand (see my block log) It's not helping the encyclopedia. -- DHeyward ( talk) 00:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by TorchiestIt's clear MB is doing everything in his power to push the limits of his topic ban. Even just yesterday, he posted this to Go Phightins!' talk page. There's no doubt that the "extortion" referred to is explicitly related to Gamergate, based on comments he's made elsewhere. MB is looking for a way to continue his advocacy and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It's getting to the point that I think WP:NOTHERE may apply. — Torchiest talk edits 16:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning MarkBernstein
|
| TeeVeeed indefinitely topic banned from editing Vaxxed and the topic area of vaccination. (close by Bishonen at 07:53, 22 April 2016) |
|---|
| 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 TeeVeeed
none
This editor doesn't seem to have any real familiarity with the subject, but seems to be stumbling through, intentionally tryign to step on as many toes as possible in order to fight against what they perceive as an unnecessarily skeptical POV, but which no other editor at the page sees.
15:21, April 21, 2016 Given notice by me.
Discussion concerning TeeVeeedStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TeeVeeedI am sorry that I ever got involved at the article, because I don't like being drawn into edit-wars. And I really did try to understand the mostly good points involved with FRINGE tropics, and I appreciate what I learned with that. But there remains a problem in that article with WP:OWNERSHIP issues where a certain cabal refuse to understand anyone else's points. I have been harassed and accused of all kinds-of nonsense since a very minor GF edit made there. The very day that I 1st edited and then questioned on the TP, a "warning" was posted on the FRINGE noticeboard calling for editors to help brigade against "anti-vaxxers"--which was NEVER my point and which I did not do. My point was to edit in service to WP and the readers, as it always is. Now this drama after I decided that enough was enough on the TP and I requested comments on the RS board regarding a contentious source. Yeah I could have stayed-off the topic, but I'm feeling like this is a bully situation and have seen other editors with my same questions about why this film article was "different" being blocked, and drama-boarded and basically not playing nice with other editors who have tried to edit this article. And TY-to the uninvolved editor Rhoark , yeah rv me for the consensus that MjolnirPants (seemingly?) agreed-to, is just crazy-making. This should be a Boomerang, just for that imo. TeeVeeed ( talk) 20:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC) edited to add
Statement by Rhoark (uninvolved)MjolnirPants seems to be edit warring against the wording that MjolnirPants themselves suggested [1], exactly as TV said. Also, why is it so important to cite the opinion of a non-RS blog about a movie the blogger admits to not having watched? He's an expert in oncology, not a clairvoyant. WP:BUTITSTRUE Rhoark ( talk) 19:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Another Statement about why this should Boomerang and editor frustrations by TeeVeeedAlso, this is not the 1st time that a GF editor has been brought here. Please See /info/en/?search=User_talk:Conzar#Arbitration_enforcement from the TP archive. Also, in trying to reach understanding and consensus, one editor/admin? apparently uses two different names, which is confusing, and I am trying to AGF, so I am not accusing them of anything since they are obviously doing it in an open-fashion, but it has the effect of a SP-(appears like two different accounts in agreement when it is one), on myself at least. TeeVeeed ( talk) 21:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Result concerning TeeVeeed
|
| Sanction imposed. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning STSC
User:STSC is essentially a nuisance editor with a consistent, pro-Chinese government point of view. He is involved in regular conflict with other contributors, edit wars frequently, and personalizes talk page discussions to needle and provoke his opponents. Although most of his actual edits are relatively minor, they are also consistently counter-productive, thereby creating problems that other editors have to resolve. Evidence of the user’s POV editing and adversarial conduct spans a variety of topics related to China (including Sino-Japanese relations, Hong Kong [2] [3], Tibet [4] [5] etc.), but unfortunately this complaint is limited to the user’s conduct on Falun Gong articles per the relevant discretionary sanctions. For more context, there was an ANI complaint about the editor recently here. The complaints there are pretty illuminating. Evidence of POV editing
Evidence of prior warnings about Falun Gong discretionary sanctions: [42] [43] [44]
ResponseAh, I did overlook the 20 diff limit. In that case, would the reviewing administrators allow an exception? Most of the diffs do not show complicated edits—most of these are small, simple edits made repeatedly. The number of them is evidence simply of the user's tendency to edit war to enforce his point; I'm not sure how else to illustrate this type of conduct. As to STSC's contention that "any editor could have informed me on my talk page" about problems with his editing, this is not my experience. I attempted to do this, letting the user know that his edit summaries and caption changes were misleading. [46] He responded by accusing me of harassment and intimidation, informed me that I was unwelcome on his talk page, and called my suggestion that he remedy the problem "a nonsense." [47] TheBlueCanoe 15:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning STSCStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by STSCThis is a brief response as I'm in the middle of my long holiday and will be unlikely to respond in the next 2-3 weeks.
Further statement: I and some other fair-minded editors have tried to correct the unbalance in many Falun Gong related-articles which have been religiously guarded by some diehard editors (user TheBlueCanoe included). My edits were justifiable according to Wikipedia policies so there's nothing much I need to add here.
Statement by TheBlueCanoeOver three weeks have elapsed. I am resurfacing this case so that a decision can be rendered. TheBlueCanoe 16:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by Rhoark
Result concerning STSC
|
| Rhoark is cautioned that further enforcement requests without solid evidence of wrongdoing will not engender leniency. Creating frivolous complaints often results in quick sanctions. MjolnirPants is advised that upholding Wikipedia's policies on Pseudoscience is not an exemption from civility. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:59, 27 April 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 MjolnirPants
I first encountered this topic through the above enforcement request against TeeVeeed, and then examined the related Talk discussions and RS/N filing. As I commented in that case, MjolnirPants edit warred and filed against TeeVeeed based partly on an edit MjolnirPants themselves had endorsed on the talk page. I further noted an air of ownership in the warnings given to TeeVeeed and disproportionate hostility to TeeVeeed's having noted the fact that a blog by David Gorski is self-published. TeeVeeed responded to these provocations with an unfortunate turn of phrase, and did show some degree of credulity for pseudoscience, leading to a topic ban. This left a poorly-sourced claim still on the page, and the justifiability of MjolnirPants' filing unsettled to my mind, so I set about to test the waters. I brought essentially three objections: that statements about the movie rather than science are not in David Gorski's area of expertise, that his notability does not warrant naming him separately in the lede from all the other sources calling the movie propaganda, and that a self-published expert cannot be used for BLP claims per WP:BLOGS. These are all correct judgements, but the last in particular has force of ironclad policy behind it. My suspicions of battleground mentality and ownership were immediately confirmed, with several editors leaping to conclusions that removing any pro-science viewpoint, no matter how improperly sourced, is indicative of pro-fringe POV pushing. To their credit, most editors eventually recognized either that I was acting in good faith, or that local consensus cannot override WP:V. MjolnirPants, however, persists. Consensus is moving towards excluding the BLP violation, but MjolnirPants' potential for disruption remains. I do not wish to remove any anti-fringe editor from Pseudoscience topics in the long term, but without administrator intervention I do not think MjolnirPants will undertake the necessary introspection to separate sourcing that is pro-science from sourcing that is actually scientific and verifiable, nor separate editors that are pro-fringe from those with policy and evidence-based disagreement about fringe topics.
Every filing should invite scrutiny of the filer, which is not often enough practiced, so I do not begrudge it in the slightest. The criticisms are misplaced, though.
Rhoark ( talk) 14:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Jytdog has presented more than I could possibly respond to, but I'll hit the highlights.
Rhoark ( talk) 16:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC) I had thought an uninvolved administrator would readily admonish MjolnirPants about the behavior I've outlined, but as Jytdog is someone MjolnirPants respects, his statement @ Jytdog: if you can concisely specify something I've done wrong, I'll readily acknowledge it, but I won't be held responsible for any time wasted trawling my entire edit history on your own initiative. Rhoark ( talk) 04:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MjolnirPantsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MjolnirPantsOh lord. For starters, contrary to what is stated above, I have only reverted edits removing this content twice. Once here and once here. There have been 5 other reverts of Rhoark and one other editor's attempts to excise the material in question, by 4 other editors. There is broad agreement on the article talk page and at an RSN thread about this that the quote is appropriate and useful. I've explained my rationale, and even offered a compromise which was completely ignored. As for the rest of the diffs, I don't have space to respond to them all. Suffice it to say, his characterization of me is very biased. I will respond in detail if necessary, but honestly, I feel like it's pretty clear that Rhoark doesn't understand what exactly is going on here. To that end, there is
this diff in which Rhoark describes his goal in pushing this.
Statement by PeterTheFourthGiven that MjolnirPants was dealing with an editor whose misconduct has now gotten them indefinitely topic banned from the area, and from a position of quite a large consensus, I find the assertion that he was "edit warring" against them with a total of 2 reverts a bit hard to swallow. Indeed, I'll note that Rhoark themselves has reverted more than Mjolnir- [58] [59] [60] [61]. @ Gongwool: The editor I'm referring to when I say 'indefinitely topic banned' is TeeVeeed, not Rhoark. I could have made this clearer- my bad. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 23:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by GongwoolI believe this is a frivolous complaint and I haven't the time to investigate diffs etc. I agree with PeterTheFourth above. But from what I know MjolnirPants has been trying to restrict WP:FRINGE breaches to such topics. I suggest close this complaint. Gongwool ( talk) 23:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by WntAfter seeing TeeVeed's protest at Jimbo Wales' talk page, I looked at the article and decided that the Gorski blog was not suitable, per policy, for calling someone a "scientific fraud". (I'm OK with using it to call the film "propaganda") The importance of this was muted since reliable sources in the article were making similar statements, but technically, it was a violation of a core policy. In my talk page back-and-forth, MjolnirPants seemed too focused on, well, truth rather than verifiability. I think it is more important here that we establish clarity about what the BLP policy demands than that anyone be sanctioned. I would be much more interested in seeing MjolnirPants' stubbornness credited as a mitigating factor for TeeVeed to have a chance to get rehabilitated and to have a real way out of the usual downward spiral of sanctions than in seeing any action taken against MjolnirPants. The really fundamental problem at that article was a lack of editors and neutral voices to settle policy issues, and harsh administrative actions don't make that any better. Still I should note that it is important even for rationalists to understand that we're here to make a comprehensive and demonstrably neutral encyclopedia, so gathering and featuring the reliable secondary sources most prominently is something of an goal in itself.
Extra note: @ Jytdog: came up with a satisfactory solution, providing third-party coverage of the Gorski quote from the L.A. Times (though personally I would prefer some other quotes from that article made in their own voice). So I am nonplussed by his section here about Rhoark. It might be that Rhoark has an interest in conflict resolution - an editor shouldn't have to be an admin or even an admin wannabe to have that interest. Any editing history free of any clear restrictions or warnings should not count against him, more so if he actually touched Gamergate that often without getting stung. You can do "opposition research" on any editor, and you can make some argument or other about his motivations - the sheer number of available hypotheses when you do that guarantees you can find some weak statistical support for some detrimental notion or other. But Rhoark's policy argument was clearly appropriate for an editor in good standing, and he deserves to be treated as one. Wnt ( talk) 15:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by Staszek Lem<sigh> I believe everybody deserves a trout slap in this drama including myself. I came to [[Vaxxed] page from WP:RS noticeboard where it was asked whether Gorski's blog is a WP:RS. I have a firm opinion that in context of this article Gorski does have expertise. And therefore noticing his quotation removed with edit summary being a link to a talk thread which was tl;dr I jumped in with revert. (trout in my face) I was reverted with edit summary " WP:BLOGS prohibits this use regardless of expertise". . A little better, but still confusing, so I asked it the talk page and finally got a convincing explanation. Here is a troutpiece to Rhoark: Had he put this one short phrase that directly pointed to the problem, I would not have run my face into a trout. That said, both sides are obviously smart persons, but their eloquence serves them bad. We all speak out of some context sitting in our head and some of our premises we forget to mention, taken for granted. While your opponent may just the same neglect to mention some other premises. Here goes a trout to the other side of the dispute: MjolnirPants wrote: " What you're saying is akin to saying that I have to watch Loose Change in order to know it's full of truther bullshit." - in reply to some philosophical remark of Rhoark. If you look at this phrase in isolation, M-Pants appears to be right: yes, one may know that Loose Change is full of it without actually watching it. But we are wikipedians, and our knowledge is not an argument: it is a a guide in search of arguments published in WP:RS. We (including experts cited) often "know" things by mistake, by hearsay, by a preconceived notion, etc. Therefore MjolnirPants' objection, while being smart, is a non-argument in the context of wikipedia. The problem with eloquence in wikipedia is that a long rant may contain both valid and dubious claims. And your opponent, unless of extremely disciplined mind, will reject your position basing on arbitrarily picked pieces of your rant. This is exemplified by the following statement from talk page: "have all explicitly or implicitly endorsed the inclusion and refuted arguments against including it". I have no idea what the arguments were' " tl;dr", but I accepted that my position was countered by a single irrefutable argument. I don't know whether it was buried somewhere in that talk page above. Moreover, the contested edit was easily remedied by removal of only two words from the contested piece rather than by full-metal revert. Therefore we have to learn to chop our arguments into digestible pieces and stick them to the corresponding pieces of the disputed text. So, once again, peace and trout to y'all. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JytdogI want to note that I received notice of this AE from MjolnirPants. I had CANVASS concerns, but if you look at their contribs, he notified all the editors who have been active on the page and can still discuss the topic. The notice is (mostly) neutral, as well. So it is actually OK, I believe. To the point: Yep. MjolnirPants was too harsh in arguing. Please warn him to cool it. (MjolnirPants, I say that as one who is too harsh myself sometimes; being harsh that way is to your longterm detriment here) My focus here is on Rhoark - I had a POINTy vibe through this whole thing. I am glad to hear them say now that they were indeed "testing the waters", but it is still bad behavior. That it was driven by doubt about whether TeeVeed was disruptive is yet more troubling with regard to their judgement in general. I don't want to re-litigate Teeveed's TBAN but for me the killer thing was that after several (!) exchanges I had with TeeVeed about about PSCI and DS and asking them to be careful, all through which they kept arguing with others about content, they finally wrote this to me, where they said " I don't even know what the PSCI is!" (in other words, what the PSCI issue is, in the Vaxxed article). And at that point I knew they were either incompetent or completely bad faith, and in neither case was it going to end well. So I struggle to see how, if Rhoark really looked at what Teeveed did and was saying, and understood our policies, there could be significant doubt. Anti-vax is serious - kids are getting sick and dying because their parents -sometimes other kids parents - believe this stuff. And this being the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", we have to deal with anti-vax advocates all the time, relentlessly. So the kind of tra-la-la testing the waters thing, the whole spirit of it, and the motivation for it from questioning Teeveed's TBAN, in light of the context here in WP, is disturbing to me. This led me to look at their contribs. Rhoark joined us in Nov 2014 and it was Men's Rights/Gamergate that drew them. here is their first-ever unpromising edit, which was on Microaggression theory. They went from there to Frankfurt School conspiracy theory and then on to GamerGate, where their editing let to a TBAN via an AE for 3 months in Feb 2015: here. When that ended, they were right back to Gamergating. From their edit count, they spend way more time arguing on Talk pages than they do creating content:
So that is where Rhoark has come from. Up to their entry into the Vaxxed article, on PSCI/altmed topics pretty much all they have done is that unpromising toe-dipping into the parapychology article. So I will be frank here - that is far enough. The last thing the community needs is importation of Gamergate-trained relentless Talk page wikilawyering into PSCI topics; no focus on actual content creation. The POINTYness, the "let's test the waters to see what other endless philosophical contentiousness I can get involved in" of this whole thing, including the "gotcha" of the AE filing itself, is really bad, as is the lack of ability to see why Teeveed was TBANed. Further entry is going to be a drain on the time of other editors who actually are productive in creating and maintaining content. I will put a stake in the ground and request that Rhoark be TBANed from PSCI and alt med topics. In general, Gamergate is a terrible training ground for the rest of the encyclopedia, and has attracted many people who are not here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog ( talk) 14:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC) (amend Jytdog ( talk) 21:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC))
Statement by D. CreishMy comment concerns Jytdog's section: the ratio of invective to diffs here is unacceptable. Especially so in a contentious topic area. On examination, this behavior mimics that which earned his GMO topic ban. A reminder or council from more authoritative editors seems in order. I'll review the rest of the evidence and amend this section correspondingly. D.Creish ( talk) 21:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by LizziusI ended up on the page that started this AE responding to an RFC on a related topic, and I am astonished at how different the tenor of this article/talk-space is relative to most other editing spaces on Wikipedia (well, at least editing spaces that I have encountered so far). I thought reading through the discussion here would help me understand where the disconnect in content originated from, but I am left scratching my head. On that note, I couldn't agree more with Jytdog concerning his point that turning topics like this into a bit of a quagmire could have nightmarish consequences for the legitimacy of the encyclopedia. @ D.Creish: I'm admittedly very new to editing Wikipedia (though your history would suggest you are too) and certainly new to participating in discussions like this, but what specifically about Jytdog's reply worries you? I see you haven't been terribly active in editing the topic at hand, though you and Jytdog have had some overlap while editing in other areas that I won't list here. Lizzius ( talk) 13:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning MjolnirPants
|
Sailor Haumea is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of longevity, broadly construed.
Zad
68 20:34, 29 April 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 Sailor Haumea
This is a long-running issue on longevity articles. Basically, there are some editors who believe that Wikipedia should only list supercentenarians that are verified by the GRG. However, a recent RfC resulted in the consensus that any reliable source is fine. Sailor Haumea showed up on List of oldest living people and removed all non-GRG sourced entries. They were reverted and engaged in talk page discussion ( Talk:List of oldest living people#Reverted back to GRG-associated) where it was explained that all reliable sources are accepted. They rejected this and edit warred to their preferred version, reaching, but not breaking, WP:3RR. However, they have continued to state their rejection of consensus and reverted again, though they self-reverted immediately after. This pattern of behavior is clearly disruptive. Editors with similar attitudes have been blocked or topic-banned under these discretionary sanctions: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186#Ollie231213, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#930310, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#GreatGreen, not to mention those blocked or topic-banned under the original ruling. Given the behavior here and the fact that they appear to be a single-purpose account focused on longevity articles, I recommend a topic ban until such time as they can work with consensus instead of against it. clpo13( talk) 17:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Sailor HaumeaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Sailor HaumeaLongevity is a field requiring verifiable content. Sailor Haumea ( talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by EEngSince stating above that "I don't want to get banned, so I will follow consensus", SH has just gone back to the usual longevity-fan nonsense: What's with these people anyway? No evidence SH is interested in anything but longevity [67] so let's save time -- skip the topic ban and go straight to indefinite block. E Eng 16:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by GlrxI believe I am uninvolved. I haven't been following longevity, but I did comment in Ollie231213's appeal of a topic ban in this area 3 months ago. [68] Ollie231213's appeal was declined 14 February 2016. The Sailor Haumea account has been active since 24 February 2016. From talk page comments, [69] Sailor Haumea seems well aware of the decision to use sources other than GRG by 22:23 18 April 2016, but SH believes that decision was wrong / had been "debunked". Comment also shows that SH knows editors are getting blocked for editing behavior wrt longevity. SH does 4 reverts on 18 April 2016 [70] before an explicit 3RR warning on 18 April at 23;11. [71] Discretionary warning hits 23:13, 18 April 2016. SH continues to revert and speaks of "Establish a consensus". [72] SH appears to be a sophisticated user. DS allows a 1-year topic ban, and that is what I'd recommend at the minimum. I believe there is a colorable claim that SH is avoiding an existing topic ban. (First 2 diffs by EEng also show correlation with DN-boards1; see also User talk:DN-boards1#Blocked.) Glrx ( talk) 01:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Sailor Haumea
|
| User:Wikiwillkane is warned to observe the terms of the 500/30 general prohibition. Further edits like those listed in this complaint may lead to a conventional ARBPIA topic ban. EdJohnston ( talk) 23:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Wikiwillkane
Not applicable
Not applicable
Informed by Huldra of the arbitration decision barring users with less than 500 edits from editing in the topic area on 25 April. Warned by me that continuing to edit in the topic area may result in being reported. Continued to edit in the topic area without responding. I dont know if its just they dont know to click on the link that says you have new messages or not, but something should be done to make sure the editor is aware that their edits are in violation of that decision (regardless of the general quality of the edits, which is bad) and that they agree to abide by the decision and refrain from editing in the topic area until they are allowed to do so. The last edit was following my warning, all the ones from the 26th were after Huldra's notification, which as the editor is here responding to this makes me think that it was not simply being ignorant of the big you have new messages link meaning something. But regarding Dafna Meir, its an article on a woman killed in Israeli settlement by Palestinians. I dont think it gets much clearer than that, but hey who knows, maybe Im wrong and this new account knows something I dont. Pretty sure I did not reference a Roseanne Barr edit, but hey as the user brings it up, material on BDS is fairly clearly within the topic area as well. nableezy - 20:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning WikiwillkaneStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WikiwillkaneI was given a warning from Nableezy regarding the 30/500 and heeded his/her advice, and have not edited since on a page that came up with a 30/500 warning. However, Nableezy seems to be unilaterally expanding the 30/500 to anything related to Israel. Editing Roseanne Barr's page with the simple fact that she was a keynote speaker at an anti-BDS conference in Israel seems well beyond the scope of the 30/500 and does not seem to be the original intent of the rule. If the 30/500 rule is placed on the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment (BDS) Movement, you will need to stop thousands who are presently editing on that topic without 30/500. Regarding the Dafna Meir page, it never mentions "Palestinians" or "Terrorists," so, again, it should not be part of the 30/500 rule. It was about the murder of an Israeli woman. Obviously, the 30/500 rule is not clear as some pages have the warning, others do not. What about Roseanne Barr? At what point does the 30/500 not exist? If the word Israeli, anti-BDS, is that entire article now part of the 30/500? Dafna Meir did not mention Palestinians at all. She was a murder victim. Statement by HuldraObviously, this editor does not believe that WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is valid for them. After being warned, they start the article about Dafna Meir (nominated for deletion), claiming that it should "not be part of the 30/500 rule." (!) Please, could someone make this editor understand that WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is also for them? Huldra ( talk) 22:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Peter JamesThe restrictions specifically mention "page" and "article". If editors intend to apply it to related content in generally unrelated pages an amendment should be requested. Peter James ( talk) 10:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC) @ RolandR: @ Wikiwillkane: I would regard the Dafna Meir article (and others mentioned) as related - perhaps the subject wasn't but the event that is the only reason for the article's existence is, and Wikiwillkane is aware of this. I was referring to the Roseanne Barr article. Peter James ( talk) 23:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC) @ EdJohnston: The Scientology case adds "or discussions on any page", should this case be amended to add that? Peter James ( talk) 09:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by WikiwillkaneI agree to stay away from the Israeli-Arab conflict until I have reached the 500 edits. However, Wikipedia's 30/500 rule now seems to be extend an extremely board net over what is considered the "Arab-Israeli conflict." The 30/500 rule was on certain pages of that conflict, such as "Israel" the "West Bank," etc. Now it moved into an area that is discussed, especially regarding BDS, in almost every university campus today. Are you stating that a college student cannot write about a visiting lecturer who discusses BDS because they do not have 30 days or 500 edits on Wikipedia? Roseanne Barr is an internationally known celebrity who was a keynote speaker at a conference in Israel and it was written about extensively. This NOW is under the umbrella of 30/500??? Does that mean that nobody can write on the Students Justice for Palestine Wikipedia page because they discuss BDS? Hillary Clinton is a vocal critic of BDS. Does that mean that nobody can edit her page to reflect this or to write about a speech she gives? Wikipedia must look how many users are now using the 30/500 rule specifically to stifle the voices with opinions different than theirs. Deleting my comments that Roseanne was a keynote speaker at a conference in Israel based on 30/500 is such an example. When an administrator must do a search to see that one news article listed Dafna Meir's murder as terrorism in order to justify that she falls under the 30/500 rule is again an example of far-reaching.
Statement by RolandRPeter James above engages in the most egregious wikilawyering with his quibble about "page" and "article". The sanction explicitly refers to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". Every one of the articles noted in the original complaint ( Israeli-occupied territories, Palestinian political violence, Dafna Meir, Omar Barghouti, Judea and Samaria Area) is unequivocally related to the conflict. Indeed, it would be unreasonable to construe any of them as unrelated. RolandR ( talk) 18:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Darwinian Aperant on "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." The problem comes from the sanction itself rather than the editor conduct. 500/30 restriction is the antithesis of Wikipedia, yet here we have a broad spectrum of (current and future)articles with that restriction. Wikipedia, encyclopedia anyone can edit, unless it's a contentious topic, then you have to first go edit articles about broomsticks and teaspoons. Oh and did I also mention you have to wait for a period of 30 days? Same as acquiring a gun! Yes editing Wikipedia and guns, totally the same thing. rant off If we put my little objection to the sanction aside, the problem is not adding the brand new extended protection to all pages that are "reasonably" construed as related to Arab Israeli conflict. Doing so will prevent this kind of AE requests to a degree. And it's only fair that we have a standard in preventing these lowly new editors and IP's from editing other than the involved editors of their respected articles.(What I'm trying to say is they may be unconsciously biased in their reporting.) That is my humble opinion on the matter. Darwinian Ape talk 18:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Wikiwillkane
|
| Appeal declined at this time. The totality of the diffs initially provided were more than adequate to justify the ban and no evidence has been presented to show the ban is no longer needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:55, 2 May 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 STSCI appeal the sanction and I want it to be lifted. Based on this discussion on the neutrality of the article title [74], The Wordsmith wrongly determined that my comment "openly supports the elimination of a religious group as a good and necessary thing". I commented,
"Falun Gong was considered [by the Chinese] as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore [the Chinese considered it] must be eliminated from China"... Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society." My comment was pointing out that "Falun Gong was considered as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore must be eliminated from China" is a Chinese internal policy. I used the wording "was considered" by a third party, the sentence as a whole was meant to be expressing the viewpoint of China. Further statement Admins are accountable to the Wikipedia community and they must properly explain their actions; and we certainly don't just accept some blanket statements as to what they think without showing any concrete evidence. It's a hasty and poor judgement by The Wordsmith who has not thoroughly investigated the complaint in a fair manner. STSC ( talk) 06:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC) The Wordsmith's decision
[75] was based on a comment in a discussion in June 2015, I have refuted his claim that my comment supports the elimination of a religious group. He then came up with other claims in his statement in this appeal but failed to provide any evidence as to when, where and how. I must ask the sanction to be lifted in the interest of accountability and fairness.
STSC (
talk) 06:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Review I would review here the diffs which were cherry-picked to build up the baseless accusations by TheBlueCanoe. (I can only input bit by bit here when time allows)
Replies
Statement by The WordsmithObviously I stand by the sanction I imposed. I believe it to be in the best interests of that topic area that STSC be removed from participation. Reviewing their contributions makes it clear that they have lost the ability to edit in accordance with our policies and guidelines. I believe their pattern of bias and POV pushing to demonstrate an agenda that is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia. Therefore, a lesser sanction or finite duration would not have been effective. I arrived at this conclusion after an in-depth review of all the evidence presented and after careful consideration of all the statements given, and I maintain that it is within the bounds of Administrator discretion allowed by Discretionary Sanctions. I take pride in the fact that of all the enforcement actions I have issued, only one has ever been overturned, and that was in 2010 (and by an editor who was later banned by the Arbitration Committee). However, I'm still human, and therefore fallible. I welcome a review of the sanction issued. The Wordsmith Talk to me 03:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by TheBlueCanoeIt seems highly unlikely that anyone will overturn this topic ban, but here are some quick responses to the discussion:
Finally, this may be obvious, but Shrigley is not exactly "uninvolved"—at least not in the broader Falun Gong topic area. Some time ago I recalled that he fought vigorously (and unsuccessfully) to prevent an article about an apparent Falun Gong torture death from appearing as a DYK. [96] There too, he presented himself as a neutral reviewer—which he evidently was not.
TheBlueCanoe 18:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Responding to STSC:
Statement by John CarterOnly wishing to point out here that the elimination of a religious creed of any sort is not in and of itself in all cases definitely undesirable. If it were possible to retroactively eliminate heaven's Gate or the People's Temple, as groups, prior to the eventual suicides, I think most people might find that desirable. And there are or have been a few other religious groups over the years which have had core beliefs which have later been found to be without any reasonable foundation, and I rather doubt that the "elimination" they may have suffered when their beliefs were found baseless is one most people would necessarily find objectionable. Also, honestly, if Christian Identity or perhaps other groups tied to White supremacist ideology were "eliminated" in some way, preferably through means other than killing all of them of course, I wonder how many people would object. I also, admittedly belately, support a lot of Shrigley's comments below regarding the "political correctness"/"PRC is bad" attitude which tends to prevail relating to FG related matters in the West. By most medical standards, FG practices qualify as quack medicine, which a lot of people in China accept because it is (1) traditional to them and (2) a lot cheaper than more useful Western medicine, which doesn't have the same pseudoscience/quackery issues as FG and other Qigong practices do. The fact that FG is now the standard-bearer of Western criticism of the PRC is another issue. We have had editors here labelled as supporters of the PRC for disagreeing with FG, if I remember correctly, and that same tendency toward labelling of FG opposers seems to me to be even stronger in outside press. Right now, the assessment criteria of the Falun Gong work group at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Falun Gong articles by quality statistics indicate a total of 28 articles of stub class or similar here, not counting all the NA pages. Is there any sort of way to maybe put them all under pending changes or similar so that maybe the only way to bring really substantive changes to them is through broad consensus through an RfC? That is, admittedly, a rather draconian proposal, but with so few articles, and what is to my eyes a rather obvious Western bias in the issue, it might, maybe, be workable. John Carter ( talk) 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by RhoarkI am unconvinced that STSC was describing only the perspective of the Chinese establishment, and not their own authentic views (or possibly if they are living in China, views that they are compelled to publicly adhere to.) It's plausible that the "must be eliminated" section was intended to imply "from the perspective of the Chinese authorities", but such an interpretation does not concord with the rest of the statement, "...such process should not be described as 'persecution' as if the elimination is undesirable. Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society." This strikes me as the perspective of someone who internalizes official Chinese diktat rather than just describes it. If I'm wrong though, STSC should have no trouble positively affirming that no one should be violently compelled to renounce religious beliefs. Anyone seized by a fashionable moral relativism should actually read the practices detailed at Persecution of Falun Gong, which is not so much analogous to Germany's treatment of Scientology as to Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, which I challenge anyone to describe as "internal policy for the good of its society." Rhoark ( talk) 02:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by ShrigleyTheWordsmith's comment here, which justifies the sanction, does not show me that he critically considered whether TheBlueCanoe's diffs about STSC correctly impugned STSC's character. The filer of that original AE request is, as is obvious to anyone with experience in the Falun Gong editspace (it is necessary to drop certain cultural biases: more on that later), very motivated to see a sympathetic viewpoint to Falun Gong represented on Wikipedia, and to see unsympathetic viewpoints excised. I wish more people made specific comments analyzing the diffs and how they were presented. I don't have time now, but maybe I will if this appeal stays open a few more days. If
this diff is considered the "smoking gun" of STSC's supposed animus towards Falun Gong, it is weak evidence indeed. In the first place, the sentence structure (admittedly, his grammar is not perfectly native) shows that STSC was
describing a viewpoint -- of Chinese society in general or the Chinese government in particular, it is not clear but does not matter -- and not expressing it:
A cursory look at TheBlueCanoe's diffs reveals them to be deeply problematic for anyone with specialist subject knowledge. For example, TBC lists this diff as evidence of STSC's bias. However, as with many third world countries, torture happens in China by local governments, despite it being illegal on a national level (and prosecuted by the central government when these cases are exposed!), because of certain perverse incentives to improve crime statistics for increased funding: the idea that certain incidents of torture happened as a planned tool of a national campaign against Falun Gong is pretty controversial. Shrigley ( talk) 08:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by ZujineIn view of the unfortunate lack of self-awareness or contrition demonstrated by STSC in this process, I would echo @ User:Seraphimblade and @ User:Dennis Brown and recommend that the appeal be declined. I would also welcome administrator's views on whether a warning is in order for Shrigley. On numerous past occasions at AE, this user has come to the defense of clearly disruptive editors in this topic area (for example, see cases against User:PCPP [99] [100] and User:Bobby fletcher [101]). Although it may be a novel interpretation of policy—and certainly one that would need to be applied with great caution—I wonder whether repeated attempts to shield obviously disruptive editors from much-deserved censure may itself be a form of disruption. And though it's pretty stale, the user's conduct at this DYK nomination [102] is troubling. Shrigley acted as a neutral reviewer for the DYK nomination, despite prior involvement in the topic area and clear animus toward Falungong [103]. He approved the review on the condition that his heavily edited version of the article be accepted. If anyone rejected his edits, he would declare the page "unstable" and thus withdraw approval for the DYK (uninvolved editors ultimately overturned his arguments). I have a hard time believing this was anything other than a deliberate abuse of process meant to derail a legitimate nomination.—Zujine| talk 18:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by STSCWhat Was SaidThe critical edit here, apparently, is this:
This is neither very clear or grammatical, but of course Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and some editors are not native speakers. If I were copy-editing this, my assumption is that the intended meaning was that "Falun Gong was considered [by the government] to be a danger to Chinese society; therefore, [the government] believed it must be eliminated from China." I would then have inverted the order to remove the passive: "The government considered Falun Gong to be a danger to Chinese society, and that it ought to be eliminated from China. This is not, I think, a strained or unreasonable interpretation, and seems to me to be a reasonable summary of one received narrative. Even if the sentiments ought to be ascribed to the editor, which I think is doubtful, we have "Falun Gong is a danger to society and must be eliminated from China." This is intolerant and un-American, but I’m not entirely certain that we should be banning people who hold un-American beliefs. I would observe that the Court of Massachusetts felt much this way about Roger Williams in 1636, that American Nativists expressed much the same about Catholic immigration, and that a current candidate for the US Presidency has called for a moratorium on Moslem immigration. Even if policy prohibits the practice of religious intolerance, I doubt that it prohibits its description. STSC is incorrect in asserting that this "should not be described as "persecution" as if the elimination is undesirable." Persecution is precisely the right word. An non-native speaker, or simply an editor with a limited background, might recognize only the informal, colloquial sense of persecution, and not understand that this is precisely its technical meaning. Otherwise, STSC’s statement makes no sense at all. I don’t disagree with Seraphimblade -- I’ve not examined the rest of the history -- but I suggest this ill-composed passage has been misinterpreted. MarkBernstein ( talk) 21:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Previous ANI filingsI also note the following filings at WP:ANI - December 2015 [104]; February 2016 [105] - which would seem to indicate that the behaviours discussed in the original WP:AE filing are both long standing and wider spread than the Falun Gong topic space. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by STSC
|
| Jonniefood topic banned 90 days from the topics of The Troubles and the Ulster Banner, broadly construed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:57, 3 May 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 Jonniefood
Diff of notification of sanctions
Clear breach of the 1RR that is enforced on all articles related to The Troubles. This editor is a single purpose account in the area of the Ulster Banner and the Northern Ireland flag issue..
Diff of notification of this request Discussion concerning JonniefoodStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Jonniefood
Statement by (Miles Creagh)The diffs presented by the reporting editor don't seem to show true reverts, as each deals with different material and distinct language in the article in question. Also not sure it is appropriate to comment on the editor rather than content, by mentioning SPAs etc. Miles Creagh ( talk) 17:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourth@ Miles Creagh: Regardless of whether the reverts were each for different material, if they were both within 24 hours of each other and both reverts, that's still a violation of 1RR. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 14:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (Uninvolved Editor)Result concerning Jonniefood
|
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 Abbatai
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- OptimusView ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
-
Abbatai (
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:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 14:20, 1 May 2016 1st revert
- 15:17, 1 May 2016 2nd revert
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- [108] Blocked 3 times for editwarring and disruptive editing
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- *Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [109].
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The article is placed under 1rr, and Abbatai already made 2 reverts of his edit of April 20th ( [110]).
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [111]
Discussion concerning Abbatai
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 Abbatai
The first edit above was not a revert at all. I added the word "separatist" with reference to NKR, previously it was stating NKR Forces in the lead.
And this one: 15:17, 1 May 2016 was my first and only revert in which I explained why? on talk page and invited users to discussion. See [112] and [113] Thanks Abbatai 18:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Abbatai
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- As Abbatai had previously added the "separatist" wording on 20 April, both edits were clearly reverts to a previous version, so this is a 1RR violation. The previous edit warring sanctions were many years ago, so I'm not inclined to factor them too heavily, but I think some time away from the topic area might be in order. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- The blocks were so long ago as to be almost meaningless here. While Seraphimblade is correct that the same "separatist" verbiage was added 10 days prior with the same citation (which looks to check out), and it was technically a revert, to me this fades a bit with time. Still sanctionable, but not as severe as other 1RRs I've seen that happen over a day or two. He might have thought it really wasn't a 1RR violation, even though it technically was. Since he hasn't been sanctioned in a very long time, and never for this particular Arb restriction, I would lean towards a very short topic ban, say 30 days, which would probably be adequate to prevent problems in the future. I won't argue against something somewhat longer, I just think that is proportional to the disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:58, 2 May 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 Abbatai
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- OptimusView ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
-
Abbatai (
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:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 14:20, 1 May 2016 1st revert
- 15:17, 1 May 2016 2nd revert
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- [114] Blocked 3 times for editwarring and disruptive editing
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- *Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [115].
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The article is placed under 1rr, and Abbatai already made 2 reverts of his edit of April 20th ( [116]).
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [117]
Discussion concerning Abbatai
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 Abbatai
The first edit above was not a revert at all. I added the word "separatist" with reference to NKR, previously it was stating NKR Forces in the lead.
And this one: 15:17, 1 May 2016 was my first and only revert in which I explained why? on talk page and invited users to discussion. See [118] and [119] Thanks Abbatai 18:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Abbatai
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- As Abbatai had previously added the "separatist" wording on 20 April, both edits were clearly reverts to a previous version, so this is a 1RR violation. The previous edit warring sanctions were many years ago, so I'm not inclined to factor them too heavily, but I think some time away from the topic area might be in order. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- The blocks were so long ago as to be almost meaningless here. While Seraphimblade is correct that the same "separatist" verbiage was added 10 days prior with the same citation (which looks to check out), and it was technically a revert, to me this fades a bit with time. Still sanctionable, but not as severe as other 1RRs I've seen that happen over a day or two. He might have thought it really wasn't a 1RR violation, even though it technically was. Since he hasn't been sanctioned in a very long time, and never for this particular Arb restriction, I would lean towards a very short topic ban, say 30 days, which would probably be adequate to prevent problems in the future. I won't argue against something somewhat longer, I just think that is proportional to the disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
| AmirSurfLera blocked three months and will be given a final warning to abide by the topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:51, 7 May 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 AmirSurfLera
Since AmirSurfLera's appeal for their indefinite ARBPIA topic ban to be lifted was declined in January 2015, they made no edits to Wikipedia using this account until a couple of days ago. Since reactivating this account they have made what I regard as 5 topic ban violations so far. I contacted them ( User_talk:AmirSurfLera#Topic_ban_violations) to inform them that if they "make another edit that violates the topic ban I will file an AE report". Since I did not find the response satisfactory I have come here. The first 2 edits I listed above are unambiguous topic ban violations. The editor's explanation was "I made a mistake on Barghouti". Fine, they made a mistake. The last 3 edits listed all relate to Palestinian mufti Amin al-Husseini and the Israeli Prime Minister's stated view that a Palestinian was responsible for persuading Hitler to exterminate European Jews. AmirSurfLera's view is that "I didn't violate my topic ban with the rest of the edits, since they are related to Nazism, antisemitism and the Holocaust, not the Arab-Israeli conflict. I wasn't banned from all Jewish-related articles". I find this response unacceptable. Please ensure that this person cannot use this account to violate their topic ban. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning AmirSurfLeraStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AmirSurfLeraI'm not sure what Wikipedia means by ARBPIA. I interpret articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, an article about the economy of Israel, as far as I understand, is not part of this area, even though it's connected somehow. An article about Kiruv in Orthodox Judaism, is not related to ARBPIA, nor an article about a British politician. I wasn't expecting to be accused of violating my topic ban for editing about antisemitism, Nazism and the Holocaust. For example, this edit and this one are related to the Holocaust and antisemitism. In the first case I restored the picture of a neo-Nazi protesting in Berlin. In the second case, even though the mufti was an important actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict, I simply restored a caption about his meeting with Hitler (removed by Pluto2012 without previous discussion). The Mufti was other things besides an enemy of Israel (like a recruiter for the SS). If I made a mistake and I violated the ban with those edits, I offer my sincere apologies, I won't edit in those articles anymore. But I came back to edit in good faith (starting with Holocaust controversies), not to cause troubles in ARBPIA. I'm sorry that I edit on Jewish-related topics only, but I don't know anything about cars, bugs, trees and elephants.-- AmirSurfLera ( talk) 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC) I understand, although my knowledge of religion is limited. I'll be more careful. But what about antisemitism? (excluding Hamas, Hezbollah and things like that)-- AmirSurfLera ( talk) 21:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Reply to my comment moved from admin section to editors' section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000The violation is obvious and I can't imagine how anyone could dispute it. Zero talk 14:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by Pluto2012AmirSurfLera refused to selfrevert his edits on the article 'Antisemitism' despite he modified the caption on the Palestinian nationalist leader Haj Amin al-Husseini and that he re-inserted a picture in the "Palestinian section" with the portrait of Yasser Arafat. These are obvious violation of the topic ban. and he/she is perfectly aware of this. Pluto2012 ( talk) 16:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning AmirSurfLera
|
| HughD blocked for a period of one month. The existing topic ban is extended to indefinite and broadened to include climate change and post-1932 American politics. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:07, 8 May 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 HughD
Expanded on 26 April, 2016 [122], "Your topic ban is expanded to include a ban on editing everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed, on any article. Your topic ban is extended to Jan 1, 2017." (Talk page notification [123]) As part of the ARE closed on 26th April, it was noted that the way HughD has been editing climate change articles is a violation of his topic ban, ".Again, the topics themselves are not related to conservative politics but the nature of HughD's edits are within them related to conservative politics (Mother Jones categorizations at the very are conservative politics even if you don't consider climate change issues per se related). Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2016 " HughD was also warned, "The kind of playing round the edges of the previous ban (which was for the same area, but shorter) that led to this AE filing won't be tolerated. If you're in doubt whether the ban allows you a particular edit, please ask an admin before making it. There's a kind of logic in not blocking now, yes, but it also means the user has got away with a lot. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)."
The below edits may be considered political as they tend to further what appears to be an objective to cast Exxon's actions in the most negative light possible with respect to climate change. By them selves I do not believe these would be violations but they may be when considered in context with other edits.
A request for admins involved in the previous discussion to review the 26 April edits prior to filing any ARE was made. Bishonen, [126], "I'm not sure. Sorry, Springee, I'd rather not make the call either." Dennis Brown, [127], "I don't have time to really look closely, but at first glance, I can easily see why you might be concerned." Laser brain was contacted [128] and followed up with HughD [129] resulting in an unsatisfactory explanation and Hugh's claims of nothing but civil behavior, "I am proud of my article space focus, my good articles, all my edits, and in particular my superb edit summaries, and my exemplary participation and focus on content in article talk page discussions... All of my edits are good faith improvements to our encyclopedia and respectful of the topic ban; I respectfully request specific diffs of edits you feel are not, and an opportunity to discuss and self-revert." The last comment was questioned by both Safehaven86 (end of section) and Anmccaff [130], "Anmccaff: I'm tired of dealing with him, to be honest. If you believe he's violating his topic ban, please open a report at WP:AE for wider input." Editors involved with the article in question have also expressed concerns with HughD's edits and behavior. [131] The ARE closed on 26 April originally suggested an edit block of 30 days but based on HughD's engagement in discussion an assumption of good faith was given and no block was included. The refusal to consider the concerns of others involved with the ExxonMobil articles and condescending replies do not support an assumption of good faith nor do they appear to support seeking consensus. (Comments directed at Beagel [132] [133] [134] )
/info/en/?search=User_talk:HughD#Notice_of_WP:ARE Discussion concerning HughDStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by HughDNo topic ban violation. No disruptive editing. Let us together examine each the reported diffs, in turn:
In summary, no topic ban violation, and no disruptive editing. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 02:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC) The rush to discuss how severe the sanction is deeply disturbing. I must insist on some demonstration of the ability to distinguish a vexatious filing from disruptive editing. I plan to appeal any sanctions from this filing. Please help. Respectfully I must insist that each responding uninvolved administrator very specifically identify an edit that is a topic ban violation, uncivil, or disruptive, and very specifically why, citing specific policy or guideline, before joining the chorus. Go on record, please. I must insist on some acknowledgement of the above "your own conduct may be examined as well"; respectfully I ask each responding uninvolved administrator demonstrate some due diligence, and include some comment on complainant's editorial behavior, even if it is only to say you see nothing actionable or to praise complainant's contributions to our project. Go on record. Thank you.
Respectfully, a reminder: I am not banned from politics, I am not banned from all topics on which two or more Americans may disagree, which of course is all topics. If you think Mother Jones (magazine), or ExxonMobil, or climate change is in scope of American conservative politics, please clearly say so and sign your name. Thank you. Izno, thank you for your suggested sanctions. Kindly explicitly state which edit or edits in your view are a topic ban violation and why it is a topic ban violation. Context matters. Be fair. You quote an excerpt from a source, not any content that I added to article text. Serial complainant, single purpose account harassment and noticeboard specialist again artfully juxtaposes edits to give the appearance of an edit war. Let's take a closer look. Article ExxonMobil
So string me up. When RfCs are criminalized, only criminals will use RfCs. RfCs are not disruptive, RfCs are the opposite of disruptive. 30 May 2015 EdJohnston challenged me to be part of the solution; since then I have embraced dispute resolution including our content noticeboards and requests for comment and have at all times been civil. Meanwhile SPA serial complainant is a fervent champion of the supremacy of the local consensus, often when the local consensus consists only of themselves, and has specialized in the application of behavioral noticeboards in content disputes, and in disrupting dispute resolution. Complainant hates any attempt to broaden community participation. Complainant wants to take RfCs away from me, in fact all editing privileges. It only takes one admin to help complete their year-long project. If you are so inclined I must insist you lay out your reasons very explicitly and very clearly and sign your name. Dennis asked for options. Some reasonable, measured options uninvolved administrators might consider in addressing this filing, were anyone interested in anything other than a witch burning.
I oppose sanctions without specific edits clearly violating specific policy or guideline. Thank you. "I find it difficult to believe that you are so dense as to not understand..." Enough of that. I understand the topic ban very well and respect it at all times, thank you. You are responsible for explaining your administrative actions. You need to clearly explain how you believe an edit is in scope of conservative American politics. Do not shirk your responsibility by insulting your target and labeling them as unworthy of good faith and a well-reasoned cogent explanation demonstrating due diligence and careful reflection, respectfully request you strike through. I am a veteran productive content provider volunteer with multiple good articles, a good article in the pipeline at all times, an article space percentage of 68% and I deserve better from you. It is simply not the case that anything any two Americans might consider controversial is in scope to conservative American politics WP:COMMONSENSE. Thank you. "You'll inevitably cross it" Not true, no topic ban violation has occurred. I inevitable get reported. There is a difference, an important difference, I hope. As we are all here to build an encyclopedia I know you do not want to sanction lightly, absent harm to our encyclopedia. Please avoid the echo chamber, I must insist you please specify an edit that in your view violated the topic ban or was anything other than a good faith effort to build our encyclopedia and specifically why. Respectfully, a reminder: I am not banned from US politics, I am not banned from topics you may consider "hot button", I am not banned from American politics. Complainant is very excited about the recent traction of the idea that a ban on conservative US politics includes all of politics or all issues any two Americans may disagree on, but complainant is not an admin, so they need an admin to complete their year-long project, so go ahead, make a new friend. Or, why not try the simplest thing that might work first? Remind complainant they were asked to stop following by an admin, ask complainant to leave it to someone else, if I am as bad as all that, inevitably we will be back here in about a week, and you can mete out justice, right? Why are you bringing up Global Climate Coalition? None of the reported diffs involve GCC. Please focus. If you can't perhaps you should leave this filing to someone else. GCC was an industry trade group. It filed as a not-for-profit. It was prohibited from partisan political activities and was required to focus on the issues of its membership, it would have been illegal for them to pursue a political ideology of any flavor. GCC had a notable role in shaping our environment. GCC opposed regulation, and some conservatives oppose regulation, therefore, what??? On any given issue on which two Americans may differ, often one side may be labeled by some as conservative and the other as liberal; I am not banned from all such topics. It goes without saying, is that why our article doesn't say it? Doesn't seem much point to me in a topic ban on conservative US politics that includes all of politics and in fact all topics anyone might consider political, construed beyond all WP:COMMONSENSE, but apparently you agree with complainant, so you too have an opportunity to make a friend for life by delivering the capstone to a year-long project. Our article Global Climate Coalition is a good article nominee and I am proud of it. I worked hard on it, as a volunteer, unpaid. Will you delete it, work product in violation of a topic ban? Also, I note you have yet to comment on complainant's editorial behavior, anything jump out at you during your due diligence? "play dumb" No. There's very simple explanation for the reported diffs: good faith efforts to improve our encyclopedia. Viewed in its behavioral context, there's a very simple explanation for this filing: surprising even themselves with the traction of the idea that conservative US politics = politics = everything, there was nothing to lose, might as well take a shot. Last winter arbcom consolidated and simplified areas of dispute, if CC is a subset of AP2, make the suggestion, you may find it well-received. A given source may say many things, but in this case the Mother Jones article was used solely in an obviously good faith effort to support contended content regarding one of the most notable aspects of the subject of an article and to hopefully discourage future deletions. There was no edit war, no disruptive editing, only benefit to our encyclopedia. How about "anything any two Americans might disagree on" or "anything complainant disagrees with"? Please cite the topic ban notification or logging of Mother Jones (magazine) or climate change or all politics or all controversial issues. Thank you. Please state whether your sanction is authorized by community, or under DS, and if so which DS area. We have two admins who have gone on record that Mother Jones (magazine), climate change and/or all topics anyone might consider "political" are in scope to "conservative American Politics." Respectfully request addition uninvolved administrator input on this and on the proportionality of the suggested sanctions with respect to the actual disruption of our project reported here. As previously stated, I plan to appeal. Respectfully request any block be suspended pending outcome of appeal specifically so I may participate, with a voluntary suspension of article editing. Thank you. Statement by Only in death does duty endClimate change != American conservative politics. American politicians may make climate change an issue at times, however that does not defacto make climate change as a topic part of the american politics area any more than any other topic US politicians decide to talk about. If you are going to extend that reasoning to literally everything politicians talk about, you also need to *explictly* ban Hugh from abortion, gun control, immigration etc etc. Hugh is clearly topic banned from one, and not another. Since topic bans are specifically about the topic, not the article page so lets look at the two issues above listed by the filer:
Statement by IznoI rarely make a comment on a drama-related board, but I would tend to agree with the assessment that HughD is attempting to skirt his topic ban, given his focus on a certain set of sourcing in the context of certain articles Remedy suggestions (and thoughtsmithing welcome): topic ban HughD from editing any topics, broadly construed, related to the post-1944 era. You can probably go back to post-1933 era (when The New Deal started). That would cover most of the major American political points of recent times--gun control (only so problematic as it is since the NRA started being active in politics in the early 30s), climate change (most of the science of climate change starts after World War II), and etc. Using a modern source to discuss, say, Japanese art of 1850, would not be intended to be a violation, but I suppose you might consider that blurring the line... a view, which, if taken, probably means he deserves a block. -- Izno ( talk) 12:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SpringeeQuestion for admins: To avoid a potential future issue, would an AP2 (assuming a broadly construed clause) include topics such as the social/political back drop related to passing of a law or actions of the government? I ask to preemptively find out if such a TBAN would apply to several recent topic discussions. This discussion regarding the political backdrop that lead to the passage of a safety act by Congress [135] and this discussion related to why the NHTSA chose to take action [136]. I would assume the answers would apply to the same material in an article (or talk page) space. Ping: Dennis Brown, The Wordsmith, Seraphimblade, Masem Thank you, Springee ( talk) 13:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning HughD
|
| Reqest is moot. This particular sanction is pending appeal below (and likely to be overturned), and editor has been blocked for violating a different sanction. Any further action would be punitive rather than preventative. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:38, 15 May 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 MarkBernstein
Amended 23:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MarkBernsteinStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MarkBernsteinThe (modified) three-way topic ban between myself, Thargor Orlando, and DHeyward specifically allows participation in noticeboard and ArbCom cases in which one or all are a party. Moreover, asking an editor to confirm an interpretation of a statement, or to clarify a statement that might be ambiguous, does not infringe the topic ban. To make assurance doubly sure, I checked in advance with the administrator who composed and modified that topic ban whether it was intended to prevent my participation in a case to which DHeyward is a party.
MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The scope of the ArbCom case in question explicitly excludes Gamergate, and both arbitrators and clerks have repeatedly asserted that the case is not related to Gamergate. Nor does it involve gender-related controversies. I have commented in a general way about threats against Wikipedians, but not all threats derive from Gamergate. (Arbitrators interested in off-wiki harassment may want to take a look at the customary sites, which have not been completely inactive overnight.) MarkBernstein ( talk) 15:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by KingsindianIn the last AE
request,
MarkBernstein stated that
Statement by GoldenRingI'm also rather perplexed that MarkBernstein doesn't think that
1 and
2 are violations of his
more recent topic ban. Either he doesn't think they're violations or he just doesn't care. I'm struggling to see how discussing Gamaliel's restriction from enforcing GamerGate arbitration provisions doesn't fall within
Statement by Starke HathawayGiven that the relevant sanction between MarkBernstein and DHeyward is a topic ban and not an interaction ban, it's hard to see a direct reply from MB to DH as a violation per se. Nevertheless, MB has in recent days developed a habit of testing the edges of the topic bans to which he is subject, demonstrated by the following:
In fairness to Mark, he has generally reverted/struck these offending comments on his own initiative. But while that might excuse a single violation, it begins to look like a deliberate effort to opine on a prohibited topic while avoiding sanctions after three or four occurrences. I think Mark ought to be dissuaded from this course of action. Whether that takes the form of a stern warning (although warnings have had less than stellar effectiveness with MB in the past) or something more serious is for wiser heads than mine. -Starke Hathaway ( talk) 19:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Dennis BrownWhile I'm uninvolved when it comes to Mark, I (tried to) participate in that Arb case and mentioned Mark as the beneficiary of too much goodwill by an admin, which is not Mark's fault. The participation is still enough that I will stay on this side of the "results" line and just opine. I think if Mark had been named as a party to the case, it would be easy to overlook or even grant a temporary stay of the restriction while he participated in the case. Something to consider is the poorly chosen title of the case "Gamaliel and others", as Mark has been mentioned in interactions with Gamaliel several times, including by myself, although never in any way that indicates Mark did anything wrong. Judging from past cases (and this one) he could theoretically be added to the case with no explanation, or simply sanctioned without being formally listed as a party. This assumes he did something wrong prior to the case that would warrant sanction, something I have no evidence of. It is simply saying there is at least a possibility that he would be mentioned for sanctions, and would feel the need to defend himself or participate. I say this only because I think this AE case is just a tiny bit in the grey area. Honestly, Mark should have asked for a temporary lifting first, he should have known this would be seen as violating the topic ban, and I don't there there is any question these are textbook violations, but if I'm fair, I have to admit the circumstances here are very different than arguing on an article talk page. How much that should play into sanctions, I leave to those that are totally uninvolved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by James J. LambdenThis is getting ridiculous. @ MarkBernstein: If “professional obligations” necessitate your posting to wikipedia, you must disclose any potential overlap - see WP:PAID and WP:COI. If not, it’s irrelevant. The spirit of the restrictions are straightforward: avoid Gamergate and DHeyward. If you can abide by that I’m sure you can be productive elsewhere. If not, the community has better things do than police this “I’m not touching youuuu” nonsense. Regarding “the instruction[s] received from the responsible administrator” you’ve been asked to clarify whether this came before or after you made the following comment (diff in Kingsindian’s section):
Despite several posts you have not clarified. Please clarify so we can wrap this up. James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC) @ MarkBernstein: Thank you for clarifying the dates. If that's the case the responsible administrator has given apparently conflicting instructions which you shouldn't be held responsible for. I suggest the complaints re: your interactions with DHeyward be dismissed and either the responsible administrator clarifies explicitly, on wiki, the scope of the interaction ban or another administrator applies a more straightforward restriction. James J. Lambden ( talk) 21:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
MarkBernstein: You tweet that the Arb case against Gamaliel is a “surrender to extortion” and request input from experts on internet extortion, citing the case of Alison Rapp (Gamergate). You then
post to
Go Phightins!’ page asking if the Signpost would be @ MarkBernstein: So there’s no ambiguity: your topic ban restricts you from the topic of Gamergate. It’s not a ban on the word specifically, so that by equivocation, you’re permitted to discuss it. Regardless of the supervising editor’s experience or respectability I can't imagine a scenario where writing an article on extortion you believe has been perpetrated by "Gamergate" doesn’t bring us right back here - assuming (hopefully) this request is closed by then. This isn’t a government-sponsored legal system where in exchange for tax dollars you’re provided inexhaustible bureaucratic recourse. Each edit is a volunteer donating time and effort - persistent boundary-testing is an abuse of these donated resources. Your actions have real costs to the community. Please recognize that and behave accordingly. James J. Lambden ( talk) 18:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by Ryk72The diffs provided by
NE Ent and
Starke Hathaway are clearly in breach of the respective topic bans. The advice provided by the
Admin imposing the "
DHeyward" topic ban explicitly states that commenting on the other topic banned person is within the scope of the ban; the diffs show comment on that person. Statement by CapeoCan we just be done with this now? Since MB's topic ban he's done nothing but dance around or step over the edges as the difs above show. The idea of TB is that an editor moves on to something else. MB is not moving on. It's endless innuendo and boundary pushing. We have a rather strange Iban from an admin who won't even respond that is basically unenforceable at this point and a Tban that has either has teeth or it doesn't. Capeo ( talk) 02:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by SitushAgree with Capeo. This is gaming the system, plain and simple. - Sitush ( talk) 09:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by DHeywardI didn't receive the latest reinterpretation where I can comment as long as it not about the other parties. This makes it very convoluted because the source of the topic ban was commenting in AE cases. I'd just as soon have the topic ban lifted. The admin that imposed it can't even interpret it any more per his ArbCom sanction. Please remove the 3-way topic ban so we don't end up here. It's already led to an enforcement in November that was overturned and led to the latest modification that is too convoluted to understand (see my block log) It's not helping the encyclopedia. -- DHeyward ( talk) 00:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by TorchiestIt's clear MB is doing everything in his power to push the limits of his topic ban. Even just yesterday, he posted this to Go Phightins!' talk page. There's no doubt that the "extortion" referred to is explicitly related to Gamergate, based on comments he's made elsewhere. MB is looking for a way to continue his advocacy and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It's getting to the point that I think WP:NOTHERE may apply. — Torchiest talk edits 16:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning MarkBernstein
|