| Consensus is to grant the appeal. The restriction is lifted effective immediately. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:11, 3 September 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 No More Mr Nice GuyIt has been 3 years and this sanction was imposed for a one time incident on my otherwise completely clean record. It is not serving any preventative purpose per
WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE at this point so can only be punitive. @The Wordsmith: I didn't have any particular participation in mind, to be honest. It's just that not only is this the only blot on my record, which I would like removed, I also got a little tired of people trying to use it against me, like here. It's been 3 years, this sanction can't possibly be serving a preventative purpose, if it even did to begin with. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 18:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC) @Zscarpia: Thank you for illustrating the chilling effect this sanction has had on editors' willingness to complain about certain types of harassment. I didn't connect the two until now. Statement by SandsteinPlease refer to my comments on my talk page linked to above. I haven't followed AE for some time now and leave it to more active admins to determine whether any grounds for granting this appeal exist. I haven't seen any so far. Sandstein 05:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianSurely a sanction imposed three years ago ought to be removed without any requirement to grovel. Compare WP:SO. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by NomoskedasticityPerhaps there's no need to grovel, but given the nature of the contribution(s) for which NMMNG's AE ban was imposed, it might help to know what sort of recent discussions NMMNG would have wanted to contribute to if he had been able. I'm not sure AE discussions are suffering from lack of input from highly-partisan editors, and it might well be worth looking for evidence that the nature of the proposed contributions would in fact be different from what we saw. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosephI think this appeal should be granted. A 3 year ban from AE for a very weak reason is enough time served in my opinion. Looking at past AE actions, I can see many actions that should not have been brought and not sure why this one warranted a block. Regardless, even if it were 100% warranted and NMMNG was a horrible rotten person, it's been three years and it's time to give him a break. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by NishidaniI would have preferred not to comment, but Four Deuces below more or less espouses NMMGG's endlessly repeated thesis that I am a Jew baiter. That has been exhaustively reviewed, and dismissed, and protesting the decision is not material to NMMGG's request, which I have no problem in endorsing. Modern legal process, since Cesare Beccaria has rightly buried the religious idea that punishment is eternal, and even permabans, as in my case, can be revoked. I would appreciate however that The Four Deuces read my evidential reply to the nonsense jerry-rigged in the original complaint. This is no place to rehearse it, but it was so unfocused that, NMMGG could claim as evidence of my having symptoms of that pathology things like:
the cornerstone of Judaism: the idea of bechira. We believe that we are an am hanivchar, a chosen people, an am segula, a treasured people. I believe collectivist statements like this are incorrect, since it is obvious that there is no such thing as an ideologically inclusive definition of ethnicity, meaning 'Jews/Arabs/Eskimos/Americans/Russians/Chinese/Catholics/shamans all think or do this or that' are hot air, vapidly empty propositions, diagnosed as a category mistake with perduring inciveness by Gilbert Ryle in his masterpiece, The Concept of Mind. For several years, NMMGG has repeated his conviction that wiki arbitrators are tone-deaf to anti-Semitic utterances, most recently here and here, and is keen to rally back users disenchanted with the place, I don't know whether to that end or not. Precisely because sanctions, however harsh, should have a use-by expiry date if evidence exists of an ability to return and participate positively in constructing Wikipedia, and because refusal to repeal this would probably only confirm the, I believe, parlously flawed conviction arbs are intrinsically 'anti-Zionist' and complicit with anti-Semitic people (like, in his view, myself), the appeal should be accepted. Nishidani ( talk) 10:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by ZscarpiaSpeaking as an editor whom No More Mr Nice Guy seems to be currently lining up for accusations of antisemitism [2], perhaps this is what he means by his current ban serving no useful purpose. (Apologies for the slightly tongue-in-cheek nature of this comment) ← ZScarpia 13:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by No More Mr Nice GuyThe original ban does not seem to make any sense. No More Mr Nice Guy had complained about an editor for "Jew-baiting, trolling and soapboxing." In their first example, the editor referred to Jews as the "Chosen People." It was an ironic reference, since s/he was mocking the Jewish claim to Israel. He called the Jewish holiday Purim a "a double story of attempted and successful genocide." S/he makes many other allusions references to Nazi Germany when discussing Israel, thereby implying that what Israel does today is the same thing. While a comparison could be made between racial policies of Israel and Nazi Germany, they are only relevant in a talk page if there is a proposal to add them to an article. Otherwise they are merely intended to provoke other editors. I do not know if the edits were so objectionable they should have resulted in action by AE. But at least they were sufficiently inflammatory that a reasonable editor could complain about them. TFD ( talk) 03:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy
|
| SashiRolls topic banned from Jill Stein and related pages for six months. NW ( Talk) 19:30, 3 September 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 SashiRolls
These edits are all at Jill Stein (clearly in scope for American politics): Violation of 1RR restriction on GMO content:
Against a background of repeated slow edit warring: And POV-pushing:
Continues WP:Battleground after this AE has opened, blames everyone except self:
I leave it to the patrolling administrators to assess how much SashiRolls is self-aware about the issues here, how well TFD understands what was determined about DS for GMOs after such a very long struggle, and whether there is any truth to the silly claims that I have been disruptive at the Stein page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 13:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Laser brain: Please note that I just added diffs of continued edit warring today, and weigh that in whether a warning will prove effective. Also, although I accept that, in terms of possible sanctions, AP2 is more central that GMO, please consider that GMORFC was intended to put an end to arguments, and without a clear statement now at AE, some editors will continue to argue that anything goes on pages other than the pages listed at the RfC. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC) A warning will be fruitless, and ANI would be a drama-fest of arguing content. Either DS mean something, or let's shut AE down. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SashiRollsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SashiRollsGiven Snoogannsnoogans' invective laden and patently false accusations, I will ask until Monday at 17:00 to respond completely, as Snoogannsnoogans hasn't really understood that Tryptofish may well be making a larger WP:Point, not entirely involving me, by bringing me here. Snooganssnoogans first censored me on the 13 Aug, here. Between the 11 Aug and 16 July he made 16 reverts (all of other people). His first revert on the page was the 29th of June. His reverts are of two types: to delete content that he feels support a positive image of Stein, or to do defend as the status quo content that he feels support a negative image of Stein. These are the facts concerning the user's interventions on the article. Concerning Tryptofish's assertion that the 1RR applies in the GMO section, I solicited input from the closing admins of the GMO debate who declined to comment. The Four Deuces and I both looked into his assertion and do not find it credible. Tryptofish, who is apparently somewhat famous, is clearly a very experienced Wiki-warrior given his past interactions with the Arbitration Committee. Having learned this from a google search trying to find clues as to what the "trypto" could mean, I decided to proceed cautiously, including the entire "proposition 1" of that debate in the article (3-4 lines of texts with lengthy references), because Tryptofish seemed like he wanted to create trouble in that section. He reverted this commonsense peaceful solution here. I'm also not sure why s/he wanted to include this article ("Media coverage thin for presidential candidates’ science awareness and views"), almost entirely about Clinton & Trump (with one sentence dismissing his own Weissmann reference) and pointing fingers at ScienceDebate.org to support his claim that many articles are calling Stein "contrary to science" ( diff). This, in the context of a great deal of pushback concerning normal wikipedia spin-off procedures for political candidates pages ( afd that he encouraged, but hasn't yet voted in (4 delete, 3 keep, currently)...) POV-pushing (ref-name change): Tryptofish's 2nd and 3rd diffs in this section do not refer to my edits (cf. the chaotic (& snarky) removal of material and vast operation of multiple reference renaming, which added confusion to the page (I was not involved in these decision to snark with significant chunks of content). In sum I changed one reference name in the first "diff", waiting for the "stray link fixed bot" to come and pick it up. I stayed on the page to see if it would. It didn't. I fixed what I had done by replacing all 16 references to the same article, introduced all in one edit by another editor here. I admit this was to make a point after having seen yet another bit of (what I consider to have been) trolling cluttering the head of a sub-section that has caused much grief and hard work in the last month with a gossipy quote that had nothing to do with anything: ( diff). I figred if Tryptofish could troll with impunity I could draw attention to a serious problem: Snooganssnoogans's particularly lopsided edit here, in which introductions and conclusions of Jill Stein's arguments were cited, but the argument itself strangely disappeared from at least some of the 16 quotes s/he added from the WaPo. (cf. talk here). Tryptofish does not mention this context of consistent disruptive editing, nor does he mention his own, somewhat more troubling, history of it: he came to the Jill Stein thread on the 20th of August, with very pointed stated goals (vaccines, GMOs and pesticides interventions in the article) and added lots of "menacing" warnings about AE in his/her participation in the talk thread. I will not comment on the POV that Tryptofish may or may not be pushing, as I don't understand his actions. Regarding the diffs that are said to relate to "slow edit warring". In an environment of (occasionally) diametrically opposed viewpoints, and on a page where one editor has been going up to 3RR frequently on a regular basis in July and August (I came to the thread only in August myself), it is not surprising to find that I made 2 reverts on a section recently marked by another user as non-neutral precisely because of the text concerned. Repeated requests have been made to the editor to rework the paragraph he has added and reworked over time, to no avail. [5]. I have likewise had to remove an unreliable source that the user deliberately smuggled back into the article at [ 15:10 27 Aug 2016, after admitting the source had failed a basic fact-check talk 15:04 27 Aug 2016 and should not be included.
I have responded at length on my talk page and at Talk:Jill_Stein#WP:DUE + cite Talk:Jill_Stein#from_WP:Edit_warring + diff of earlier menacing thousand-year comment from notifier, which I chose to remove from my talk page. SashiRolls ( talk) 15:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by clpo13I take full ownership of this edit. In my defense, SashiRolls felt that the interview was accorded undue weight, so I figured I'd see what all would have to go if the source wasn't used. Turns out there was a lot. Well, I put it all back and received a (rightful) admonishment about being WP:POINTy, which I've taken to heart. Anyways, SashiRoll's original complaint was vague, and a follow-up response clarified that the real issue was WaPo's apparent bias against Sanders (and by extension Stein, I guess). But that still comes across as "WaPo doesn't like my candidate so we shouldn't use it as a reference". It took a fair bit of needling to get any further explanation. I can understand the sentiment that no Wikipedia article should rely so much on a single article, but this wasn't a good way to go about making an objection since it wasn't clear to many people what the issue actually was. As a final note: relying on the bot to fix the reference names probably wasn't the best idea, since over an hour passed between the first change and my fix, during which time the source was inaccessible to readers. clpo13( talk) 23:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by The Four DeucesJill Stein is not a "page[] relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed." Earlier, it was determined in a request for clarification in which Tryptofish participated, that Bernie Sanders was not a page related to GMOs. (See: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms.) Both Stein and Sanders are or were 2016 presidential candidates who are critics of GMOs. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms applies to 11 named articles and "will be implemented, broadly construed, for other articles in the subject area." Furthermore, there is no template for GMO on the talk page, although there is one for "American politics 2." 1RR is not part of U.S. politics general sanctions [6] and would be too draconian for such a wide topic area. Trypofish falsely claimed at Talk:Jill Stein, "I want to make it very clear to editors that the content that I reverted violates the [GMO] Discretionary Sanctions linked above, because it alters the language that was established in the community RfC about GMOs. Editors must not make up alternative language, and doing so will result in Arbitration Enforcement." [20:55, 27 August 2016 [7]] While the closing adminstrator determined the consensus of the RfC and set discretionary sanctions, those sanctions were not for disgreeing with the determination of facts in the RfC. Ironically, Stein has not said that currently manufactured GMO food is unsafe. The articles in The Washington Post and others are cited in the article as the opinions of their authors, not as statements of fact. While SashiRolls unfortunately says the paper is not rs, he actually argues that it is biased, and provides an article originally published in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting ("Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours") as a source. [8] [22:43, 31 August 2016 [9]] The paper's editorial board has called Trump a "clear and present danger." [10] although it has not yet endorsed Clinton. It is not a stretch of the imagination to assume that at least some of the opinions expressed in the paper have a partisan tinge. The article by Steven T. Corneliussen, " "Media coverage thin for presidential candidates’ science awareness and views", in Physics Today, does not "clearly agree[] with the criticism" of Stein, as Tryptofish says. [1 September 2016 [11]] It says only, "An opinion piece at Slate dismissed Green Party candidate Jill Stein as “a Harvard-trained physician who panders to pseudoscience” concerning genetically modified organisms, pesticides, “quack medicine,” and vaccine efficacy. If anything it draws into question the extensive concentration on science issues that Trypofish has shown. Tryptofish was an involved party in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. It appears that his interest in that topic has brought him to the Jill Stein article and blurs his neutrality. S/he has not provided edits on any Green-related articles except to add opinions that they are anti-science. TFD ( talk) 00:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Timothyjosephwood
Statement by snooganssnoogansThe user SashiRolls has for the last few weeks engaged in constant disruptive editing on the Jill Stein page. I'll try to limit this text to just recent examples of disruptive behavior. The user repeatedly:
References
- Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by NeutralityI agree completely with Snooganssnoogans and Timothyjosephwood others who have commented. On Stein and Stein-related articles, SashiRolls' sustained course of conduct has been completely unacceptable, and the array of problems is broad: everything from casting aspersions to personal attacks to POV-pushing. I also agree with Timothyjosephwood that it would be wise to act on this report relatively rapidly. If this file weren't open, this matter might well be up at ANI for discussion of a possible topic ban of SashiRolls. Neutrality talk 18:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Result concerning SashiRolls
|
| Orasis ( talk · contribs) is banned from the WP:ARBPIA topic area, broadly construed, for 6 months. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 22:36, 6 September 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 Orasis
Discussion concerning OrasisStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by OrasisI will not appeal shit, I will change my IP. The fact that only the Israeli view is allowed here is apparent. I will return, eat shit. Statement by (username)Result concerning Orasis
|
| User:Sahrin is warned for personal attacks and reminded that edits about gun control are expected to be neutral. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Sahrin
The following starters are from the EWN case just a couple days ago the EWN case closed just a day ago
The EWN notice resulted in Sahrin being blocked for edit warring by User:Someguy1221. First three contribs upon returning:
I took at shot at talking with them, ignoring the attacks and strangeness: dif
I have to imagine that this is why Arbcom sets up enduring DS on this topic; I don't even edit gun topics, but I am a "Gun zealot"? It is crazy. Every edit they have made since this started has been laden with personal attack and emotion; typical of these issues that have DS on them. But this is over top; there is no room to work here. I don't want to bring content into this, but there is also a WP:CIR thing going on here, as the Dickey Amendment doesn't say what Sahrin thinks it does, - this is really simple;
It is/was not even a hard issue to resolve in some ways. I ~think~ maybe Sahrin wants to say something about the effect of the Dickey Amendment on researchers but with all the aggression, attacks, and demands, and tangle, I can't figure out what that might be. The behavior and approach to other editors makes working it out way uglier than anything has to be in WP and there is no reason to put up with this. This is what DS are for; please apply them.
Discussion concerning SahrinStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SahrinI can only laugh bemusedly at this entire affair. From day one Jytdog has behaved aggressively and harassed me. Based on the evidence that is available in the logs, it can be seen that Jytdog's initial and repeated effort was to revert a consensus version of the article that was achieved a few weeks before this incident. He was saved from a 3RR violation only by brigading the article (ie, summoning either a like-minded user, or a sock puppet account to revert so that he did not jeopardize his own account). I admit I was not aware of the "bright line" 3RR rule, but overturning an existing consensus (which contained both the content of the law in question; as the initial 'other side' advocated; as well as the actual cause of the controversy (the effort to censor researchers) seemed grounds for aggressive action. I was banned, and was wrong to revert three times without logging into an alt account as Jytdog did. The issue began, though, when Jytdog, after seeing my reverts, initiated an aggressive program of harassment - making three separate edits to my user talk page (all evidenced in his links above so I won't reproduce them) in response to a *single edit.* His every effort appeared to be to entrap me into a 3RR violation, including very strong language in comments in edit notes like "This is not optional." I admit, I was frustrated, and reverted three times. But the notion that anything is being done but normal revision of an article that is being interfered with by Jytdog is absolutely hilarious. His behavior has gone over the line time and again, and when this is pointed out to him (that he is harassing me and brigading an article) he responds with "personal attacks! personal attacks!" That's all fine, but the evidence just isn't there for that behavior. With the exception of the 3RR I have remained civil and results oriented at all times, meanwhile Jytdog seems to be interested in carrying out a personal vendetta against me...why I cannot say. There are a number of problems with Jytdog's version of events:
In short, I don't have a comprehensive understanding of all the WP:Policy bits. I made an error before in the 3RR situation, and I apologize for that. But what going on here is a very passionate editor has lost perspective on a situation, and is trying to push his own feeling too far. I've been editing WP for...13 years now, I believe. If the Arb committee decides it's my time to go, then it's my time. Thanks for the good times, it was a fun project to contribute to.
Added 21:30 UTC: So I have reviewed Jytdog's block log. It appears he has been banned permanently on two separate instances for similar behaviors, only to be unbanned after appealing to the Arb Committee. I can't see into the committee's deliberations myself, but if I've ever heard of a case of misplaced aggression/transferrance this appears to follow it to a textbook. In my entire history with WP I have never had any interaction with Admins or disciplinary groups, until Jytdog. Sahrin ( talk) 21:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Added 2016-19-05 1746 UTC: Comment on the admin's page *was not about this issue.* This was stated several times and for the record above. Comments regarding neutrality of other editors were made only after my neutrality was questioned, and repeated reverts were made without substantiation for the revert. As I noted, I became frustrated and committed the 3RR. I have already backed away from the dispute; I made a further comment on the talk page which failed to achieve consensus and have not said anything further on the topic. The evidence for "whitewashing" is readily available - there were repeated attempts to remove factually true information from an article to present a particular viewpoint (that there was no controversy), I must admit I find it frustrating that the admins in question have not seen this in the record; if agreeing to remove myself from the situation is what causes this to blow over then I'm totally down with it. As far as de-escalating, I will not have anything further to do with the topic or certainly the editor in question. I have received messages from several other editors criticizing the neutrality/behavior of the editor in question in the past, and need no further convincing that he is not someone I want to be involved with. Sahrin ( talk) 21:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Added 2016-09-06 1000 UTC: The editor in question did not follow the editorial process. If it is against Wikipedia policy to point this out, it seems like it would be impossible for me to end up in this situation (ie, accused of not following processes). This is the point that is unclear to me, and the reason that such comments can't be 'withdrawn.' The evidence is strong, and while I'm eager to work with all editors I can't ignore strong evidence. My question is: If it is acceptable for the editor in question to accuse me of violating wikipedia policy, why is it unacceptable for me to do the same? An answer from any neutral party could profitably resolve the dispute. Failing an answer, as I have said I will have nothing further to do with the editor in question so it's a moot point in either case. Sahrin ( talk) 10:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by OIDPlease note in the above statement where Sahrin accuses Jytdog of socking to avoid 3rr ("I was banned, and was wrong to revert three times without logging into an alt account as Jytdog did."). Dont think anything more needs to be said. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Sahrin
|
| No action taken. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 19:07, 10 September 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 Volunteer Marek
The following comments are in explanation of the edit differences provided above: Clinton Cash is a book by Peter Schweizer and published by HarperCollins. The book was reviewed in the New York Times [19] and other mainstream media. The Times review said, "“Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling [than other books about the Clintons], both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book." While the author is a conservative and his analysis of the Clintons may differ from liberal observers, there is no suggestion that he is far right, a conspiracy theorist or a nutjob. Volunteer Marek's tone has also been abrasive and dismissive in speaking about other editors and the Republican presidential nominee. I asked Volunteer Marek to remove his comments on Clinton Cash, [20] which he rejected. [21] TFD ( talk) 23:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer Marek, referring to an established journalist and author as a nutjob right-wing conspiracy theorist is in my opinion defamatory or at least a violation of biography of living persons policy since it impugns the integrity or judgment of someone whose career is based on a reputation for integrity and judgment. It is also an attack on the publisher, because reputable publishers do not publish such works, which is why they are reputable and their reputation is a key element in their success. Ironically, your objection to Clinton Cash was that "BLP applies," in that case that we could not "add this junk" which you saw as prejudicial to living persons. ( 18:16, 14 August 2016) Your comments on Trump ("Man, this guy makes the life of a Wikipedia editor hard.") shows a personal preference against him, yet in the previous edit above, you accuse other editors of being so influenced by political bias that it affects their judgment. TFD ( talk) 02:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Volunteer MarekStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Volunteer MarekSigh. So you can get dragged to AE now for criticizing a ... book. While other editors run around Wikipedia creating POVFORKs and game the DS system. Right. Here's links about the book (already provided in relevant discussion plus some more) Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes Clinton Cash: errors dog Bill and Hillary exposé – but is there any 'there' there?, [22]. According to the Guardian "the book is an unrestrained attack on the former president and first lady." Sources - though obviously not all - do call it a "conspiracy theory" Anyway, why is this even being brought up to AE? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC) And I genuinely have no idea what is suppose to be wrong in this diff presented by The Four Deuces. I'm sorry, you lost me. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Dude, it's expressing an opinion about the quality a source. An opinion which is actually shared by other reliable sources. Stop being silly. Or WP:BOOMERANG for obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by TimothyjosephwoodI Statement by MrXWP:ARBAPDS remedies are intended to address behavioral issues like edit warring, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system. The diffs presented as violations of these remedies don't nearly justify arbitration enforcement. What I see here is legitimate criticism of sources and pushback on what is arguable a fruit salad of an article, the purpose of which may be to cast a living person in a negative light. While Marek's passion could stand to be dialed down a notch or two, nothing evident here, in the article talk page, or the article edit history, rises to the level of a sanctionable offense in my opinion.- Mr X 14:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishesI think Marek was right on the essence of the issue. In particular, Peter Schweizer was described by Media Matters for America as someone who "has a disreputable history of reporting marked by errors and retractions, with numerous reporters excoriating him for facts that "do not check out," sources that "do not exist," and a basic failure to practice "Journalism 101." (see here). My very best wishes ( talk) 18:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICOThe article in question is crap and it was created by experienced editors whose history shows they're smart enough to understand the SYNTH, OR, BLP slams, and failed Verification they put up. They were also well aware of ARBAP2 and BLP discretionary sanctions. What's infuriating is that Arbcom/Admins are looking the other way while preposterous POV-pushing is proliferating. Even the few Admins who venture a peek say "just a content dispute" or some other reason to turn their backs. This article should have been aborted as soon as it went up. Who really wants to waste time pretending this is normal content editing editors who should long ago have been TBANned from American Politics continue to game the system? We're nowhere near the election in WP-time and if the sanctions are not enforced 2016 is going to make past political dust-ups look like a picnic. Kudos to Marek for trying to do the right thing. Oh gee, he's peeved. We should all be peeved and worse. SPECIFICO talk 11:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Volunteer Marek
|
| Closed with no action taken. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 04:05, 11 September 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 Philip Cross
The second revert uses a different source (i.e., not the same as with his first attempt to add this material on 2 Sept.). But it is a revert all the same insofar as it attempts to have the Jeremy Corbyn article include implication of the idea that he is an anti-Semite (has been accused of, is indifferent to, etc.). Different sources and different ways of expressing the idea don't hide the underlying impulse here. Also worth noting is that the issue is under discussion on the talk page ( [24]), where it's entirely evident that there is no consensus to add a particular passage along these lines. Finally, attempt to raise the point with the editor on his talk page did not succeed: [25].
Discussion concerning Philip CrossStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Philip CrossMost of the other users on the talkpage opposing any mention of the issue of Jeremy Corbyn and the antisemitism issue are stonewalling in my opinion, and unable to acknowledge any other viewpoint as being valid. The citation Nomoskedasticity mentions was on 2 September, not within the last 24 years. In the 2 September addition, I did not claim Corbyn is "indifferent" to the issue in the article itself, nor make a direct claim about his attitudes. The objection of other users is to a tweet I added by the Times journalist Oliver Kamm (cited to a reliable source) and is a matter of interpretation over which there is disagreement. The issue of Corbyn's past association with (quoting from my edit today which Nomoskedasticity cites) "alleged antisemites and Holocaust deniers" has repeatedly been referred to in the British media, and internationally, yet other editors cannot accept this is notable and should be included in the main Corbyn article. My new mention of this issue consists of one sentence, and a citation. Hardly excessive. There is a related issue concerning the talkpage discussion. Many editors are unwilling to countenance the inclusion in the article of the issue of online sexist and homophobic, as well as antisemite abuse, by people who claim to be Corbyn's supporters. The issue of Corbyn's apparent inability to deal with the abuse issue has again frequently been raised. For instance, by many of the former shadow ministers who resigned from Labour's shadow cabinet last June, other Labour MPs who were among the 172 who supported a motion of no confidence in Corbyn, and commentators in the media. Since this complaint was filed, I have added Corbyn's responses. I usually add opposing views, or opinions I do not share, in such instances. The Labour Party is split over the issue of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, probably the most serious crisis the party has faced in more than 80 years (the party had a major split in 1931, and a more minor one in 1981), with a new split being openly discussed because of Corbyn's leadership, yet this article barely touches on any of this. Philip Cross ( talk) 12:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianIf this was a WP:1RR violation, it was pretty minor and borderline. There's lots of discussion on the talkpage, both before and since. Normal content dispute procedures are being followed. Suggest closing with no action. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Philip Cross
|
| Appeal declined. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 22:47, 12 September 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 SashiRollsOn 01/09/2016, Tryptofish asked for Arbitration Enforcement against me because 1) I deleted an article that s/he claimed supported the contention that Jill Stein had made statements that were "contrary to science". The article does not support this claim, but notes that Jordan Weissmann (a business and economics editor), author of "an opinion piece at Slate[,] dismissed Green Party candidate Jill Stein as “a Harvard-trained physician who panders to pseudoscience” concerning genetically modified organisms, pesticides, “quack medicine,” and vaccine efficacy." This is the only sentence in the article pertaining to Stein, and so -- in my view -- should not be added as a separate indictment since the text (quoted in full above) is hardly a recommendation of the article by Mr. Weissmann and takes no explicit position on Jill Stein's positions (though the language suggests the author does not concur with Weissmann. Farther down in his complaint, Tryptofish accuses me of inserting a "disparaging remark" about Jordan Weissmann in the Wikipedia article, referencing the text: "Weissmann subsequently wrote a retraction of one part of his article related to the effects of pesticides on honeybee populations." [1] I do not see how this could be disparaging, as both the title and the content of the article indicate that Weissmann (a business and economics editor) is making a retraction of a significant error about science in his original article. Next, I was called out for 2) changing the name of a reference from :03 to WaPoArticleCitedSixteenTimes and waiting for a bot to come correct the other 15 references to the article. I plead guilty and apologize for the error of judgment. An editor quickly objected to this change so I changed all sixteen references to avoid links becoming unavailable. Waiting for the bot was a regrettable technical mistake, as was the polemical name I chose for the over-cited reference. The legitimate point on the oversourcing of the article to half-quotes from the Washington Post interview the day after it appeared (a move which was criticized here, here, here, here, and here) got lost in the process. The error I made was made shortly after I had to revert Tryptofish's non-constructive edit diff in the science section, an attempt to discredit Jill Stein's peer-reviewed published views on science in the preceding sentence, which subsequent to my ban from the topic Tryptofish removed. I admit that my view of legitimate editing behavior was influenced by my accuser ( Tryptofish's) addition of this (IMO unhelpful) citation for the section "science":
Nevertheless, my error was an error, despite the fact that it was motivated by frustration with the inappropriate behavior of two other users. Three wrongs don't make a right, I concede. Finally, Tryptofish accused me of 3) slow edit-warring, adducing as evidence two reversions (which are reversions of reversions made by Snooganssnoogans) on a subject that AndrewOne suggested (correctly in my view) needed urgent correction and contextualization here and here. Since Snooganssnoogans continued to ignore the sensible call for balancing perspective, I read all of the source material provided by AndrewOne, found another article from a source that Snooganssnoogans had previously argued was an RS in an effort to address the neutrality problems in this section (cf. non-neutral POV tag added to the section on 31 Aug ( diff)). The editor objects to information being added from Forbes, the Atlantic, the Roosevelt Institute, and Yes! magazine here to provide context concerning the economic argument about quantitative easing, and has used the Arbitration Enforcement discussion (concerned primarily with Tryptofish's distracting actions in the GMO section of the article) to delete this balancing information suggested by AndrewOne, but which only I was "bold" enough to add ( here), given the polemical atmosphere that has been created by Snooganssnoogans' 30+ reverts in the last two months. This will be the subject of a separate call for disciplinary sanctions against Snooganssnoogans (see context I deleted [27] to show Lord Roem good faith). I would like to complete my appeal by noting a few procedural elements related to this disproportionate 6-month topic ban. First, two administrators ( Laser brain and NeilN) spoke of possibly warning me, the former saying that my behavior did not rise to the level of sanctions (calling the actual motivation for bringing me to DS (GMO) a "red herring"), and the second stating that any warning should mention 1RR. (NB: the administrators had not yet looked into the context of Snooganssnoogans' consistent pattern of edit-warring since mid-July). I asked to be given until the 5th of September 5pm to formulate my defense. However, NuclearWarfare chose to go well beyond their suggestions and sanctioned me for 6 months on the 4th of September, before I could finish formulating my defense. I subsequently asked NuclearWarfare (on the 7th of September) to explain the grounds for his/her decision here, but as of the 10th of September I have not received any acknowledgment of my request. Based only on what s/he wrote in the decision, his/her concern was with my contention that the Washington Post article was being given undue weight on Jill Stein's WP:BLP, saying that I "just didn't get it", concerning this specific reversion concerning NPOV and RS. It is worth noting that I was reverting an entire paragraph that had been deleted by Snooganssnoogans, and not just a single reference to the sources that NW considers partial (articles written by Kevin Gostola and Peter Lavenia). Articles appearing in Al Jazeera, Democracy Now! and the Free & Equal Elections Foundation were also deleted, as well as any reference to Media Coverage / Media Access. It would seem logical that if an editor has a problem with a reference to an article published in Counterpunch or Shadowproof that they should eliminate the sentence that cites those sources (only) rather than all of the surrounding material unrelated to these sources. It is certainly not narrow POV-pushing to note that a major and widely reported concern of Jill Stein's is that she does not have equal media access. Concerning the bias of the Washington Post (which is the subject of contention), it is worth noting that there have been numerous claims related to its bias, some of the (older) sources of which have been included on Wikipedia (Cf. The Washington Post#2000-present), though not yet the newest claims / evidence, including the article from the independent Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting about 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours on March 8, 2016.. [3] Finally I would note that I have never before been accused of any inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia, which is not the case for either Tryptofish (who brought the complaint), or for Snooganssnoogans (who has been WP:Bludgeoning the process at Jill Stein for over two months (preventing over a dozen editors from balancing the POV s/he is pushing) and engaging in edit wars elsewhere... cf. the warnings from 22 May, 5 June, 30 June, 18 July, 20 Aug, 27 Aug, 28 Aug, 30 Aug on the user's Talk Page here.) References
Statement by NuclearWarfareStatement by NeutralityI would strongly urge that this appeal not be granted. For brevity's sake, I note only a few points:
-- Neutrality talk 16:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by TryptofishThis request is without merit. Almost all of the request completely misrepresents the facts, and it is fundamentally a demonstration of unwillingness or inability to understand SashiRolls' own misconduct that resulted in the sanction in the first place. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SashiRollsResult of the appeal by SashiRolls
|
| User:Makeandtoss is advised that marking places as being in the State of Palestine may expose him to ARBPIA sanctions unless he gets consensus. Warring about the scope of designations such as Israel, the West Bank, or Palestine is not recommended for anyone. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This is about a site located in the West Bank. Since calling it State of Palestine is POV, I changed it to West Bank since that is technically where the location is. I then continued to expand the page finding live links, adding more refs, etc. User then came back with his NPOV edit and edit summary.
Discussion concerning MakeandtossStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Makeandtoss
Statement by TracyMcClarkHow about turning the focus on the filer's 3 reverts within 24 hours? Initial revert/content here 1st revert here 3rd revert here ( added twice today) Statement by NishidaniSir Joe, you have a right to challenge editors who prefer ‘State of Palestine’ for anything in the West Bank. But when you reverting them on this, while adding a cat for Tourism in Israel you are contradicting yourself, and reality. All Israelis know that the West Bank is not in Israel. Nishidani ( talk) 17:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by PolentarionI would prefer if the parties involved referred to a Wikipedia:Third opinion or other peaceful means instead of asking for a Enforcement. Thnx. I succeded in cooperation with Makeandtoss on the other sice of the Jordan, at the Al-Maghtas article. I think that both sides of the debate here have not been acting properly. Don't go into detail of the overall conflict, check what the category means. I guess that 'Tourism in israel' is just about the tourism managed by the Israel ministry of tourism and does not imply a decision about the appropriate ruler of the territory. Polentarion Talk 14:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Makeandtoss
|
| Appeal declined, though the topic ban expired during the time the request was here at AE. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:56, 14 September 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 Kamel TebaastAs I understand, Wikipedia’s appeal process is similar to a parole hearing. The prisoner/editor should take full responsibility for his/her crimes/policy violations, not blame anyone, embody full contrition while showing an eagerness to improve, and promise not to repeat the crimes/disruptive patterns that led to the imprisonment/block or ban. However, I still do not understand how I violated policies in order to be sanctioned, let alone given a 30-day topic ban. I suggest that getting banned while not understanding why only promotes recidivism. I believe that I stayed within Wikipedia’s WP:BOLD and WP:BRD policies, while it seemed that policy guidelines were not followed in terms of possible (uninvolved editor/administrator) warnings, intervention, or proper discussion about any editing problems prior to my being sanctioned. I brought an editor to AE, and I ended up being topic banned. Experiencing WP:BOOMERANG firsthand is like living Kafka’s The Trial. During the AE, Nishidani leveled many accusations against my editing and me. I will address only two specific areas of editing prior to my being topic-ban: 1.Kibbutz Beit AlphaA persistent thread runs throughout Wikipedia that Jews illegally stole Arab land in (pre-1948) Palestine (and that it continues today in Israel, but that discussion is for another forum). With that background, there was a sentence in Kibbutz Beit Alpha’s lede that read:
In examining the source, I learned that the exact quote is:
In other words, the kibbutz does not sit on top of what was once an abandoned Arab village. Subsequently, I deleted the sentence. In Talk, more sources were provided ( confirmed by Nishidani here) that the village of Khirbet Beit Ilfa was nearby Beit Alpha, not below (as was written in the previous article). In the same discussion I learned from Nishidani that had I simply changed 'that once stood on the site' to 'nearby’, my edit would have been acceptable. In any case, I dealt with those issues in Talk, acquiesced, became a catalyst for change to improve the article, and I added the following line in the Geography section (that still stands):
However, a recent Nishidani edit in the History section reads:
The sources state that the abandoned village was “nearby” and Nishidani knows it. Is this not POV-pushing? Is that not disruptive editing? Is Lord Roem not “troubled” by this? I believe that my edits in the Beit Alpha article do not in any way exhibit a pattern of disruptive editing, and further show that I am willing to engage in dialogue and edit with consensus while improving articles. 2. Yasser ArafatTo many people globally, not just Israelis, Yasser Arafat was first known as a terrorist before he marketed himself/was elevated (however one views it) as a statesman of peace. I also understand that consensus trumps facts on Wikipedia. Yet Arafat’s lede is written and sourced to portray him almost entirely as a humanitarian. That is hardly neutral. His Nobel Prize is highlighted with virtually no violent history preceding it. The entire lede is POV, pushing toward a Palestinian nationalism viewpoint: “popularly known as”, “was a Palestinian leader”, “He was Chairman of…”, “ President of…”, “and leader of…”, “he founded”, “he modified his position”, “faced off with”, “...engaged in a series of negotiations with the government of Israel to end the decades-long conflict between it and the PLO”, “received the Nobel Peace Prize”, “after effectively being confined within his Ramallah compound for over two years by the Israeli army”, and “The majority of the Palestinian people—regardless of political ideology or faction—viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter and martyr who symbolized the national aspirations of his people”. Where is the neutrality from this career? Even when there is a hint that Arafat had a violent history, his organization, Fatah, is given the modifier “former paramilitary group”. In the entire 350-plus-word lede, the term for what Arafat was known as, “terrorist”, appears once—the last word. Even then it was “balanced” by framing it that only Israelis (the bad guys) believe it. With this background, my first edit on Arafat’s page read:
Nishidani reverted my edit for, “Fails RS; adopts the nonRS POV; duplicates higherup the POV given below, without the other POV for balance”. I did not revert Nishidani’s edit nor did I edit-war with him. Rather, I took his direction and I reviewed the sentence that he referred to in his revert. It read: “Arafat remains a controversial figure. The majority of the Palestinian people—regardless of political ideology or faction—viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter and martyr who symbolized the national aspirations of his people, while many Israelis have described him as an unrepentant terrorist.[8][9]” That sentence’s POV, as I discussed with Nishidani in the Talk page, is heavily weighted toward the Palestinian nationalism cause. Here are the reasons:
Only one was given from a large and opposing and viewpoint: “unrepentant terrorist”. Other than “many Israelis viewed him as an unrepentant terrorist”, there was virtually nothing in the lede to give any context as to why they viewed him as such. There was virtually nothing written about his decades of murderous attacks, primarily aimed at civilians, which led to the loss of thousands of innocent lives. Therefore, two days following my previous edit in another section, I tried to bring neutrality with this edit:
Ohnoitsjamie reverted me here with “unnecessary POV.” I reverted Ohnoitsjamie here based on “Limiting to just Israelis is POV“ Nishidani reverted me here. Most importantly, I discussed this in Talk here and I made no further edits. In comparing the aforementioned edits to another editor and his/her edits in the Jewish Voice for Peace article, I made this initial edit:
Malik Shabazz followed up with what I believe was a revert, adding his/her POV “fixing hyperbolic addition”:
More importantly--not stated by Epson--M.Shabazz changed Black Lives Matter to the Movement for Black Lives, an entirely different organization. The source did mention that Black Lives Matter endorsed this platform and that BLM is one of the participating organizations in the Movement for Black Lives. However, to paraphrase User:Kingsindian here, had MShabazz simply added the “Movement of Black Lives”, with Black Lives Matter as one of the 50 participating organizations, that would have been an edit. He didn’t. He completely deleted the (household and sometimes controversially recognized) name of Black Lives Matter. In any case, according to Softlavender, Kingsindian, Nishidani, Drmies, and Lord Roem, M.Shabazz’s edit was not a revert, rather only an edit, yet these same editors and administrators found that my addition on Yasser Arafat was a revert, not an edit. To be specific, adding “one of its many points” and “to describe Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians” (and deleting and replacing the name of one organization with another) is “editing” while adding “and people worldwide” and “because of his decades of violence, aimed mostly at civilians” is a “revert” and POV-pushing. This inconsistency that persists throughout Wikipedia regarding a lack of clarity among policies and sanctions, varies among editors and administrators. Even Nishidani wrote: “Now I have always admitted that I have no understanding of 1R, except to think that...I know it's simple, but I can't figure it out.” I surmise that Nishidani’s inability to understand the 1RR is due to the difficulty to differentiate between an edit and a revert. Wikipedia’s definition of a reversion is “an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. The typical way to effect a reversion is to use the "undo" button in the article's history page, but it isn't any less of a reversion if one simply types in the previous text.” My entire appeal comes down to two things: 1) Did my initial edit reverse the sentence? 2) Was I POV-pushing? Another problemIn following WP:BRD, it seems to go in one direction. Edits are made and editors are revert-happy, while the policy clearly states:
Were there zero merits to my edits? Was there not a way to refine them? Only reverts were made and I, who was simply trying to bring neutrality, was sanctioned for, among other things, disruptive editing. Sockpuppet: the elephant in the roomObserving the flow of the proceeding when it veered from complaints against MShabazz and turned into an assault on me was an interesting case study that seems to justify legitimate criticism about Wikipedia in general and against administrators in particular. Ironically, it began with a contribution here by Johnuniq, writing: “There is an ANI report where Kamel Tebaast ( talk · contribs) (account created on 30 May 2016) uses perfectly formed procedures. Naturally no one can prove anything except for the obvious: WP:ARBPIA is not working.” I wrote “ironically” because Johnuniq reverted my revert of another revert regarding this exact criticism of Wikipedia. [Johnuniq was later reverted and the quote still stands.] Johnuniq made no comment regarding my editing, just popped in to push forward unfounded accusations against me from another proceeding that I am a sockpuppet, or someone else is a sockpuppet of me. [That gossip was started in another proceeding by an editor who was later banned indefinitely. You can’t make this stuff up.] During the previous ANI, four editors or administrators agreed with each other to stop unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry:
Yet, what happened? Two administrators not only picked up Johnuniq’s statement, but carried it forward. Softlavender wrote:
Bishonen’s entire deliberation revolved around everything other than my editing:
At least Admin Drmies took his/her own advice and didn’t engage in the sockpuppetry accusations. So, is my 30-day topic ban based on unfounded speculation that I am a sockpuppet, or because of the editing, or both? This is the exact Kafkaesque nonsense that permeates Wikipedia. The sanctionIn terms of the sanction, Kingsindian wrote: “In general, Kamel Tebaast seems amenable to reason and willing to compromise, so I see no reason they can't continue to work productively in this area.” Nishidani--who leveled most of the accusations against me--wrote: “...there is no need for draconian measures, and we should heed Kingsindian's point that he does use the talk pages, (if only, too often, after an editorial fait accompli on articles). I think a verbal slap on the wrist insufficient, because there is a repetitive pattern even after warnings. Probably a week or two in porridge would get the message over, that, whatever the POV and its strength any editor may have, high standards, detachment and care in sourcing are fundamental.” Yet, based on those three edits, I was given a 30-day topic ban. I believe that my ban was unjust and did not follow the spirit of Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive: Consistency in sanctionsIt is interesting that Nishidani--who brought most of the complaints against me and my editing--received an 8-hour block for Disruption by revert-warring and breach of three-revert rule; two months later a 24-hour block for Three-revert rule violation; and just two months after that a 72-hour block for Edit warring, yet I received a 30-day topic ban for allowable edits at best, and questionable at worst. Because I have virtually no interest in editing on Wikipedia other than in articles that tend to fall under the Arab-Israeli conflict, a 30-day topic ban is tantamount to a 30-day block. Based on all of the above, I formally request a complete reversal of my sanction (even if the sanctioned time elapses). Thank you. Kamel Tebaast 00:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
References
Statement by Lord RoemIt should be noted that the sanction expires on Tuesday (it was only for one month). It was imposed after a disruptive series of edits; the sanction was and still is proportional to a first-level remedy. The appeal should be rejected. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 02:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000Kemal Tebaast thinks that the way to appeal a sanction is to attack other editors. At Beit Alfa, a fairly minor dispute it must be said, Kemal's main objective was to remove the statement that the Kibbutz was named after the Arab village. See the talk page section "Kibbutz Beit Alpha was not named after an Arab village" that he/she created. On Yasser Arafat, it is obvious that someone who wants to repeatedly add text like "people worldwide have described him as an unrepentant terrorist because of his decades of violence, aimed mostly at civilians" is a problem for the project. The presence of unacceptable text in an article has never been an excuse for adding more unacceptable text, but that is the only argument I see here. Zero talk 02:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Malik ShabazzI can only echo what Zero0000 has written and wonder what Kemal Tebaast is thinking when her/his "appeal" consists mostly of attacks on other editors. Has Kemal Tebaast still not learned that copy-editing a sentence is not a revert, no matter how many times she/he and her/his best buddy call it one? Perhaps reading WP:Reverting might help. Or maybe not. Evidently Kemal Tebaast also cannot see the log in her/his own eye and recognize her/his own POV-pushing in saying that a group "accuses Israel of 'genocide'" when it made no such accusation. (Yes, Kemal Tebaast, that sort of exaggeration is called hyperbole, and your sentence was a "hyperbolic addition".) As I wrote, in accordance with both the facts and NPOV, the group "use[d] the word 'genocide' to describe Israel's treatment of the Palestinians". Needless to say, I think this appeal should be rejected. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 3)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Kamel TebaastStatement by uninvolved User:BlackmaneI make no comment about the appeal nor the initial application of sanctions. I'm just leaving a note, with regards to my name begin quoted by Kamel Tebaast, to say that at no time have I claimed to be an administrator. Blackmane ( talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Kamel Tebaast
|
| In view of the self-revert, no action taken. Bolter21 is reminded to be cautious of revert limits in areas covered by arbitration remedies. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 17 September 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 Bolter21
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Bolter21&diff=739770589&oldid=739665073 Discussion concerning Bolter21Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Bolter21As it seems while I was away from keyboard, my dear colleagues simply explained I self-reverted myself the moment I saw his notice, but he didn't bother to tell me he reported me here. I needed User: Epson Salts to tell me I was reported, which is not a thing I bothered to check, considering the fact I self-reverted.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 01:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Number 57I notice Bolter self-reverted as soon as they were notified about their violation. Given this, I think it would be very harsh to invoke any form of sanctions. This does, however, highlight one of the flaws of the 1RR rule, in the fact that it effectively means editors don't have to bother respecting BRD as they can always out-revert someone who undoes their edit. Number 5 7 00:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by JzGThis looks like a hair-trigger response. I don't see anything here warranting sanction. It's fair to watch future edits by this editor, but there is really nothing demanding robust action right now. Guy ( Help!) 00:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Kamel TebaastI agree with Number 57. Bolter self-reverted and, as Chick Hern made famous: "No harm no foul." Does not deserve a sanction. Kamel Tebaast 00:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000Bolter21 is a good editor and this is at most a minor infraction. I think it would be inappropriate to apply a sanction. Zero talk 08:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by NishidaniBolter is a very good editor, the error was an oversight immediately self-reverted. We all do that. This is a nuisance complaint, and the case should be closed immediately. Nishidani ( talk) 09:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Bolter21
|
| Editors are reminded that Arbitration Enforcement does not rule on content disputes. The question of if and how to include census data is remanded to the community for resolution through the normal channels. The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:12, 17 September 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 Monochrome Monitor
Discussion concerning Monochrome MonitorStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Monochrome MonitorI'll repeat what I said on my talk page.
That is all. -- Monochrome_ Monitor 00:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by (Bolter21)I agree it seems like a content dispute. It doesn't seem like something that requires any sanction and in my opinion there was no reason to rush here. I checked the edits in question and read the arguments in the talk and I think this is something that should be solved in the relevent talk pages.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 01:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani
Statement by KingsindianWP:AE is a blunt instrument: this is mostly a content dispute and it does not rise to WP:AE level. I only remind Huldra that they can revert MM themselves instead of waiting for her to do it, per WP:BRD. If there is disruption or edit-warring over the edit, then a complaint can be brought here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Monochrome Monitor
|
| There is no consensus to overturn the sanction, so the block remains in effect. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 18:36, 18 September 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 MarkBernsteinAs I have written elsewhere, though I no longer support the project I do keep an occasional eye on some topics for reasons of personal safety and to assist those seeking legislative or regulatory solutions to the threat that Wikipedia now poses to society. In doing so, however, it seems churlish to neglect to pick up litter I come across: typos, illiteracies, and blatant examples of harassment, racism, and anti-Semitism. In this case, an IP user with (I believe) no previous edits had blanked a section on Anti-Semitism and White Nationalism on a page about a discussion site that had been (and continues to be) widely reported as a hotbed for anti-semitic and racist memes -- in particular, racist imagery that has been retweeted by Donald Trump and his children. Blanking the section seemed indefensible, though the section itself has more prevarication than a bushel of weasels. I assumed that this was mere pointy vandalism. Similarly, I have reverted repeated attempts to claim Margaret Sanger to be a racist, a canard of which alt-right extremists are fond despite her life-long affiliation with W.E.B. DuBois and her eulogy by Martin Luther King. Neither Margaret Sanger nor Donald Trump’s anti-Semitic attack on Hillary pertain to Gamergate. Neither has anything to do with video game journalism or with Gamergate’s victims -- several of whom continue to be harassed through Wikipedia’s pages. The political nature of this action and it implications for the future of Wikipedia will not be lost on any observer. Is it disruptive to revert the blanking of a section on Anti-Semitism and White Nationalism when that topic has recently been discussed in a host of newspapers? Is it disruptive to revert the introduction of misleading falsehoods in a biography? This result was obtained through a concerted action, actively plotted off-site and immediately cheered there. As I said, I no longer support or condone the project, but I am perhaps willing to help clean out such litter as I happen upon. I submit this reluctantly at the request of people who retain more faith than I in Wikipedia. Any questions may be directed to me via email or correspondence to my office. MarkBernstein ( talk) 21:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by The WordsmithAs I've said on my talkpage, Mark is banned from editing pages related to Gamergate. 8chan has discussion of Gamergate in the lede, a subsection dedicated to Gamergate, the Gamergate navbox at the bottom, and a template on the Talkpage that specifically says the article is under Gamergate discretionary sanctions. The content of the edit doesn't matter, as it isn't covered under WP:BANEX. In fact, Mark's edit reverted back in material about a living person that was challenged by an IP as being defamatory, without consensus. A few editors here have questioned the length of the block. When deciding on 6 months, I took into account that this was Mark's third block for violating his ban in less than six months. I also took into account his block log, which shows 3 blocks in 2015 for violating his previous General Sanctions topic ban from Gamergate. Six violations show that Mark has no intention of complying with the terms of his restriction, and most other editors in DS areas would have been indeffed by this point (and many have been for less). The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourthFor what it's worth, I don't see the reversion of obvious vandalism (blanking a section with no explanation) as a violation of a topic ban if the material being blanked is not related to the topic ban. 8chan is related to Gamergate, but that does not mean all material mentioning 8chan automatically falls under the Gamergate topic ban (nor does all information regarding America fall under the American politics topic ban, etc.) PeterTheFourth ( talk) 21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC) The Wordsmith has elaborated more on the reasoning behind his ban of Mark Bernstein here on Reddit, discussing it with Salvidrim and Wikipediocracy member Vigilant. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 21:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by MasemWhile I don't touch the 8chan page, I consider myself involved from previous confrontation with MarkBernstein within the GG ArbCom actions 8chan was specifically As for the edit, while topic bans do not block editors from removing clearly contentious BLP-violating material nor combating vandalism per BANEX, this was addition of possibly contentious material (there should be discussion though about the inclusion of this on the talk page given that the sources are reliable). It's difficult to qualify the IP's edit that was undo as vandalism (the page didn't show a history of such, nor do we have enough on the IP beyond this single contribution to judge. Plus the reasoning the IP used does point to a valid issue of contentious material, so it wasn't like a trolling flyby that is easily judged. So the topic ban enforcement seems to be valid. -- MASEM ( t) 22:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Rhoark
Statement by GamerPro64Since I was the one who pointed out that Bernstein violated his topic ban to Wordsmith, I will admit that I thought the edit would be considered stale and nothing would be done about it. I do believe, however, that he that he is being intentionally ignorant about why he got banned. He's pretty much trying to game the system and avoiding the fact that he clearly violated his topic ban, somehow making this a anti-semitism/alt-right issue. He's been pushing peoples buttons for too long. I don't know how he thinks he's the good guy these days. GamerPro64 02:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Starke HathawayRecommend declining this appeal. MB is Statement by Ryk72MarkBernstein is a deeply disruptive and profoundly unproductive editor. He has been topic banned from Gamergate controversy related pages 3 times; has breached each of those topic bans, usually more than once; and has been blocked for those breaches 6 times. He has also been blocked or warned for personal attacks on other editors in this topic space multiple times. NOTE: See WP:DSLOG. In the 5 months since the topic ban was implemented, MarkBernstein has made 129 edits - Mainspace articles: 13 (including 9 reverts); Talk pages: 6; his own User_talk pages: 42; other editors' User_talk pages: 14; Wikipedia space pages: 56. Assuming all mainspace & Talk edits are productive, that's a rate of slightly less than 1 productive edit per week. As stated in the appeal, the maximum benefit that Wikipedia might receive from lifting this sanction is that MarkBernstein continue to gift us with litter collection of Should MarkBernstein decide that he wishes to actually contribute to the project, in a collaborative manner not as yet displayed, I would encourage some demonstration of that intent through productive editing of other Wikis. (Simple English would be the obvious choice). Until then, I urge that the appeal be declined. NOTE: Additional off-Wiki evidence indicating that disruptive editing is likely to continue available to Administrators on request. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by StrongjamJust to correct a misconception here. 8chan was founded October 2013, a year before Gamergate happened. It did however get coverage because of the number of users migrating from 4chan to 8chan after discussion of Gamergate was banned from the former. — Strongjam ( talk) 17:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by DHeywardA couple observations:
Statement by (involved editor)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by MarkBernsteinStatement by uninvolved User:clpo13
Statement of uninvolved User:LankiveilGiven that the article is marked as being under discretionary sanctions, I believe the blocking admin was technically correct with the action that they took. However, given that the edit in question did not affect material that was even indirectly related to GamerGate, and given that the edit was already over a week old when action was taken over it, I don't think that this block passes the pub test. My preference would be to reduce the block to time served. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC). Statement by CoffeeCrumbsGood block. The topic is explicitly labeled as being covered by discretionary sanctions, so this isn't a case of the editor stumbling into trouble in a tangentionally related topic. The standard for WP:BANEX is *obvious* vandalism for which "no reasonable person can disagree." This was a poor edit, removing a paragraph for the stated reasons of (and I again quote) "There is literally no reason to mention this. Nobody got hurt, no controversy was made, it's just another defamatory remark." The paragraph should not have been removed, but it's not *obvious vandalism* which is the bar that's needed to pass here. The editor is trying to make it into obvious vandalism through a typical mulligan stew of innuendo, skylarking, and black helicopters. If this is considered *obvious vandalism* by virtue of any connection the editor conjures out of thin air, then *any* edit he doesn't like on the topic can be made so. Given that the editor has failed to make his affirmative defense under WP:BANEX, this is a reasonable block, even if slightly on the trigger-happy side. Based on the history of this editor, it seems absolutely fitting for Wordsmith to err on the side of caution. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 03:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by DrmiesI'm not the hippest or smartest guy here, and that 8chan came out of GamerGate was news to me--I don't see it in the article either, though it does say "Several of the site's boards have played an active role in the Gamergate controversy". But this edit does not relate to that. And I don't see the GamerGate box at the bottom because I didn't scroll down that far--I don't see the need to, and at any rate that doesn't mean much anyway. I do believe this block came too quick, and is too long. In general, I think MarkBernstein is a bit too much of an activist for my taste, but by the same token it is disconcerting to see other editors trying to get rid of him on technicalities (couched in weasel words: "Some sources have connected the alt-right and Gamergate". In that case The Wordsmith said "no violation" since that article wasn't all that connected to GamerGate. In this case, as far as I'm concerned it's really not that obvious that this article is so GamerGatish and, as others have noted, the edit has nothing to do with GamerGate. So to see The Wordsmith just drop a six-month ban bomb, with no discussion, is disconcerting to me. I understand that MB has appearances against him, and I know that he is partly to blame for that being so outspoken, but this was too fast and too much for an edit that is in itself unproblematic, and any editor would (or should) have made the same revert--removal of sourced content by a drive-by IP editor, obvious POV and untrue edit summary ("Nobody got hurt, no controversy was made"--yes, there was and still is controversy, and that "no one was hurt" from a major party candidate's retweeting of Nazi symbolism is ..., well, you find the word). Should he have? It was maybe unwise, but given the circumstances I do not think this six-month block is just. Drmies ( talk) 15:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Calbeck8chan existed years prior to GamerGate and contains a multitude of unrelated boards. It is, and was always, presented as an alternative to 4chan (which they routinely refer to derogatorily as "halfchan"). Yes, many GamerGaters moved there after 4chan's then-owner expressly banned all talk of the topic, but its GamerGate content has never been more than a fraction of its total content. It is not "inherently" a GamerGate website. That said, Bernstein makes clear in his statement that he considers Wikipedia a "threat... to society". He also states he is involved in "assist(ing) those seeking legislative or regulatory solutions" against the site, that he "no longer support(s) the project", and that his only actual purpose here is to nitpick typos and otherwise accuse actual editors of "blatant examples of harassment, racism, and anti-Semitism". Collectively and partially, these statements demonstrate a lack of good will or honest intent regarding his ban. He seems instead intent upon skirting its technical boundaries, and given his existing attitude it is likely he will return to edit-warring the moment he has the opportunity. Calbeck ( talk) 06:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by MarkBernstein
|
| Consensus is to grant the appeal. The restriction is lifted effective immediately. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:11, 3 September 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 No More Mr Nice GuyIt has been 3 years and this sanction was imposed for a one time incident on my otherwise completely clean record. It is not serving any preventative purpose per
WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE at this point so can only be punitive. @The Wordsmith: I didn't have any particular participation in mind, to be honest. It's just that not only is this the only blot on my record, which I would like removed, I also got a little tired of people trying to use it against me, like here. It's been 3 years, this sanction can't possibly be serving a preventative purpose, if it even did to begin with. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 18:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC) @Zscarpia: Thank you for illustrating the chilling effect this sanction has had on editors' willingness to complain about certain types of harassment. I didn't connect the two until now. Statement by SandsteinPlease refer to my comments on my talk page linked to above. I haven't followed AE for some time now and leave it to more active admins to determine whether any grounds for granting this appeal exist. I haven't seen any so far. Sandstein 05:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianSurely a sanction imposed three years ago ought to be removed without any requirement to grovel. Compare WP:SO. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by NomoskedasticityPerhaps there's no need to grovel, but given the nature of the contribution(s) for which NMMNG's AE ban was imposed, it might help to know what sort of recent discussions NMMNG would have wanted to contribute to if he had been able. I'm not sure AE discussions are suffering from lack of input from highly-partisan editors, and it might well be worth looking for evidence that the nature of the proposed contributions would in fact be different from what we saw. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosephI think this appeal should be granted. A 3 year ban from AE for a very weak reason is enough time served in my opinion. Looking at past AE actions, I can see many actions that should not have been brought and not sure why this one warranted a block. Regardless, even if it were 100% warranted and NMMNG was a horrible rotten person, it's been three years and it's time to give him a break. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by NishidaniI would have preferred not to comment, but Four Deuces below more or less espouses NMMGG's endlessly repeated thesis that I am a Jew baiter. That has been exhaustively reviewed, and dismissed, and protesting the decision is not material to NMMGG's request, which I have no problem in endorsing. Modern legal process, since Cesare Beccaria has rightly buried the religious idea that punishment is eternal, and even permabans, as in my case, can be revoked. I would appreciate however that The Four Deuces read my evidential reply to the nonsense jerry-rigged in the original complaint. This is no place to rehearse it, but it was so unfocused that, NMMGG could claim as evidence of my having symptoms of that pathology things like:
the cornerstone of Judaism: the idea of bechira. We believe that we are an am hanivchar, a chosen people, an am segula, a treasured people. I believe collectivist statements like this are incorrect, since it is obvious that there is no such thing as an ideologically inclusive definition of ethnicity, meaning 'Jews/Arabs/Eskimos/Americans/Russians/Chinese/Catholics/shamans all think or do this or that' are hot air, vapidly empty propositions, diagnosed as a category mistake with perduring inciveness by Gilbert Ryle in his masterpiece, The Concept of Mind. For several years, NMMGG has repeated his conviction that wiki arbitrators are tone-deaf to anti-Semitic utterances, most recently here and here, and is keen to rally back users disenchanted with the place, I don't know whether to that end or not. Precisely because sanctions, however harsh, should have a use-by expiry date if evidence exists of an ability to return and participate positively in constructing Wikipedia, and because refusal to repeal this would probably only confirm the, I believe, parlously flawed conviction arbs are intrinsically 'anti-Zionist' and complicit with anti-Semitic people (like, in his view, myself), the appeal should be accepted. Nishidani ( talk) 10:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by ZscarpiaSpeaking as an editor whom No More Mr Nice Guy seems to be currently lining up for accusations of antisemitism [2], perhaps this is what he means by his current ban serving no useful purpose. (Apologies for the slightly tongue-in-cheek nature of this comment) ← ZScarpia 13:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by No More Mr Nice GuyThe original ban does not seem to make any sense. No More Mr Nice Guy had complained about an editor for "Jew-baiting, trolling and soapboxing." In their first example, the editor referred to Jews as the "Chosen People." It was an ironic reference, since s/he was mocking the Jewish claim to Israel. He called the Jewish holiday Purim a "a double story of attempted and successful genocide." S/he makes many other allusions references to Nazi Germany when discussing Israel, thereby implying that what Israel does today is the same thing. While a comparison could be made between racial policies of Israel and Nazi Germany, they are only relevant in a talk page if there is a proposal to add them to an article. Otherwise they are merely intended to provoke other editors. I do not know if the edits were so objectionable they should have resulted in action by AE. But at least they were sufficiently inflammatory that a reasonable editor could complain about them. TFD ( talk) 03:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy
|
| SashiRolls topic banned from Jill Stein and related pages for six months. NW ( Talk) 19:30, 3 September 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 SashiRolls
These edits are all at Jill Stein (clearly in scope for American politics): Violation of 1RR restriction on GMO content:
Against a background of repeated slow edit warring: And POV-pushing:
Continues WP:Battleground after this AE has opened, blames everyone except self:
I leave it to the patrolling administrators to assess how much SashiRolls is self-aware about the issues here, how well TFD understands what was determined about DS for GMOs after such a very long struggle, and whether there is any truth to the silly claims that I have been disruptive at the Stein page. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 13:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Laser brain: Please note that I just added diffs of continued edit warring today, and weigh that in whether a warning will prove effective. Also, although I accept that, in terms of possible sanctions, AP2 is more central that GMO, please consider that GMORFC was intended to put an end to arguments, and without a clear statement now at AE, some editors will continue to argue that anything goes on pages other than the pages listed at the RfC. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC) A warning will be fruitless, and ANI would be a drama-fest of arguing content. Either DS mean something, or let's shut AE down. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SashiRollsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SashiRollsGiven Snoogannsnoogans' invective laden and patently false accusations, I will ask until Monday at 17:00 to respond completely, as Snoogannsnoogans hasn't really understood that Tryptofish may well be making a larger WP:Point, not entirely involving me, by bringing me here. Snooganssnoogans first censored me on the 13 Aug, here. Between the 11 Aug and 16 July he made 16 reverts (all of other people). His first revert on the page was the 29th of June. His reverts are of two types: to delete content that he feels support a positive image of Stein, or to do defend as the status quo content that he feels support a negative image of Stein. These are the facts concerning the user's interventions on the article. Concerning Tryptofish's assertion that the 1RR applies in the GMO section, I solicited input from the closing admins of the GMO debate who declined to comment. The Four Deuces and I both looked into his assertion and do not find it credible. Tryptofish, who is apparently somewhat famous, is clearly a very experienced Wiki-warrior given his past interactions with the Arbitration Committee. Having learned this from a google search trying to find clues as to what the "trypto" could mean, I decided to proceed cautiously, including the entire "proposition 1" of that debate in the article (3-4 lines of texts with lengthy references), because Tryptofish seemed like he wanted to create trouble in that section. He reverted this commonsense peaceful solution here. I'm also not sure why s/he wanted to include this article ("Media coverage thin for presidential candidates’ science awareness and views"), almost entirely about Clinton & Trump (with one sentence dismissing his own Weissmann reference) and pointing fingers at ScienceDebate.org to support his claim that many articles are calling Stein "contrary to science" ( diff). This, in the context of a great deal of pushback concerning normal wikipedia spin-off procedures for political candidates pages ( afd that he encouraged, but hasn't yet voted in (4 delete, 3 keep, currently)...) POV-pushing (ref-name change): Tryptofish's 2nd and 3rd diffs in this section do not refer to my edits (cf. the chaotic (& snarky) removal of material and vast operation of multiple reference renaming, which added confusion to the page (I was not involved in these decision to snark with significant chunks of content). In sum I changed one reference name in the first "diff", waiting for the "stray link fixed bot" to come and pick it up. I stayed on the page to see if it would. It didn't. I fixed what I had done by replacing all 16 references to the same article, introduced all in one edit by another editor here. I admit this was to make a point after having seen yet another bit of (what I consider to have been) trolling cluttering the head of a sub-section that has caused much grief and hard work in the last month with a gossipy quote that had nothing to do with anything: ( diff). I figred if Tryptofish could troll with impunity I could draw attention to a serious problem: Snooganssnoogans's particularly lopsided edit here, in which introductions and conclusions of Jill Stein's arguments were cited, but the argument itself strangely disappeared from at least some of the 16 quotes s/he added from the WaPo. (cf. talk here). Tryptofish does not mention this context of consistent disruptive editing, nor does he mention his own, somewhat more troubling, history of it: he came to the Jill Stein thread on the 20th of August, with very pointed stated goals (vaccines, GMOs and pesticides interventions in the article) and added lots of "menacing" warnings about AE in his/her participation in the talk thread. I will not comment on the POV that Tryptofish may or may not be pushing, as I don't understand his actions. Regarding the diffs that are said to relate to "slow edit warring". In an environment of (occasionally) diametrically opposed viewpoints, and on a page where one editor has been going up to 3RR frequently on a regular basis in July and August (I came to the thread only in August myself), it is not surprising to find that I made 2 reverts on a section recently marked by another user as non-neutral precisely because of the text concerned. Repeated requests have been made to the editor to rework the paragraph he has added and reworked over time, to no avail. [5]. I have likewise had to remove an unreliable source that the user deliberately smuggled back into the article at [ 15:10 27 Aug 2016, after admitting the source had failed a basic fact-check talk 15:04 27 Aug 2016 and should not be included.
I have responded at length on my talk page and at Talk:Jill_Stein#WP:DUE + cite Talk:Jill_Stein#from_WP:Edit_warring + diff of earlier menacing thousand-year comment from notifier, which I chose to remove from my talk page. SashiRolls ( talk) 15:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by clpo13I take full ownership of this edit. In my defense, SashiRolls felt that the interview was accorded undue weight, so I figured I'd see what all would have to go if the source wasn't used. Turns out there was a lot. Well, I put it all back and received a (rightful) admonishment about being WP:POINTy, which I've taken to heart. Anyways, SashiRoll's original complaint was vague, and a follow-up response clarified that the real issue was WaPo's apparent bias against Sanders (and by extension Stein, I guess). But that still comes across as "WaPo doesn't like my candidate so we shouldn't use it as a reference". It took a fair bit of needling to get any further explanation. I can understand the sentiment that no Wikipedia article should rely so much on a single article, but this wasn't a good way to go about making an objection since it wasn't clear to many people what the issue actually was. As a final note: relying on the bot to fix the reference names probably wasn't the best idea, since over an hour passed between the first change and my fix, during which time the source was inaccessible to readers. clpo13( talk) 23:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by The Four DeucesJill Stein is not a "page[] relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed." Earlier, it was determined in a request for clarification in which Tryptofish participated, that Bernie Sanders was not a page related to GMOs. (See: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms.) Both Stein and Sanders are or were 2016 presidential candidates who are critics of GMOs. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms applies to 11 named articles and "will be implemented, broadly construed, for other articles in the subject area." Furthermore, there is no template for GMO on the talk page, although there is one for "American politics 2." 1RR is not part of U.S. politics general sanctions [6] and would be too draconian for such a wide topic area. Trypofish falsely claimed at Talk:Jill Stein, "I want to make it very clear to editors that the content that I reverted violates the [GMO] Discretionary Sanctions linked above, because it alters the language that was established in the community RfC about GMOs. Editors must not make up alternative language, and doing so will result in Arbitration Enforcement." [20:55, 27 August 2016 [7]] While the closing adminstrator determined the consensus of the RfC and set discretionary sanctions, those sanctions were not for disgreeing with the determination of facts in the RfC. Ironically, Stein has not said that currently manufactured GMO food is unsafe. The articles in The Washington Post and others are cited in the article as the opinions of their authors, not as statements of fact. While SashiRolls unfortunately says the paper is not rs, he actually argues that it is biased, and provides an article originally published in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting ("Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours") as a source. [8] [22:43, 31 August 2016 [9]] The paper's editorial board has called Trump a "clear and present danger." [10] although it has not yet endorsed Clinton. It is not a stretch of the imagination to assume that at least some of the opinions expressed in the paper have a partisan tinge. The article by Steven T. Corneliussen, " "Media coverage thin for presidential candidates’ science awareness and views", in Physics Today, does not "clearly agree[] with the criticism" of Stein, as Tryptofish says. [1 September 2016 [11]] It says only, "An opinion piece at Slate dismissed Green Party candidate Jill Stein as “a Harvard-trained physician who panders to pseudoscience” concerning genetically modified organisms, pesticides, “quack medicine,” and vaccine efficacy. If anything it draws into question the extensive concentration on science issues that Trypofish has shown. Tryptofish was an involved party in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. It appears that his interest in that topic has brought him to the Jill Stein article and blurs his neutrality. S/he has not provided edits on any Green-related articles except to add opinions that they are anti-science. TFD ( talk) 00:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Timothyjosephwood
Statement by snooganssnoogansThe user SashiRolls has for the last few weeks engaged in constant disruptive editing on the Jill Stein page. I'll try to limit this text to just recent examples of disruptive behavior. The user repeatedly:
References
- Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by NeutralityI agree completely with Snooganssnoogans and Timothyjosephwood others who have commented. On Stein and Stein-related articles, SashiRolls' sustained course of conduct has been completely unacceptable, and the array of problems is broad: everything from casting aspersions to personal attacks to POV-pushing. I also agree with Timothyjosephwood that it would be wise to act on this report relatively rapidly. If this file weren't open, this matter might well be up at ANI for discussion of a possible topic ban of SashiRolls. Neutrality talk 18:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Result concerning SashiRolls
|
| Orasis ( talk · contribs) is banned from the WP:ARBPIA topic area, broadly construed, for 6 months. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 22:36, 6 September 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 Orasis
Discussion concerning OrasisStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by OrasisI will not appeal shit, I will change my IP. The fact that only the Israeli view is allowed here is apparent. I will return, eat shit. Statement by (username)Result concerning Orasis
|
| User:Sahrin is warned for personal attacks and reminded that edits about gun control are expected to be neutral. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Sahrin
The following starters are from the EWN case just a couple days ago the EWN case closed just a day ago
The EWN notice resulted in Sahrin being blocked for edit warring by User:Someguy1221. First three contribs upon returning:
I took at shot at talking with them, ignoring the attacks and strangeness: dif
I have to imagine that this is why Arbcom sets up enduring DS on this topic; I don't even edit gun topics, but I am a "Gun zealot"? It is crazy. Every edit they have made since this started has been laden with personal attack and emotion; typical of these issues that have DS on them. But this is over top; there is no room to work here. I don't want to bring content into this, but there is also a WP:CIR thing going on here, as the Dickey Amendment doesn't say what Sahrin thinks it does, - this is really simple;
It is/was not even a hard issue to resolve in some ways. I ~think~ maybe Sahrin wants to say something about the effect of the Dickey Amendment on researchers but with all the aggression, attacks, and demands, and tangle, I can't figure out what that might be. The behavior and approach to other editors makes working it out way uglier than anything has to be in WP and there is no reason to put up with this. This is what DS are for; please apply them.
Discussion concerning SahrinStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SahrinI can only laugh bemusedly at this entire affair. From day one Jytdog has behaved aggressively and harassed me. Based on the evidence that is available in the logs, it can be seen that Jytdog's initial and repeated effort was to revert a consensus version of the article that was achieved a few weeks before this incident. He was saved from a 3RR violation only by brigading the article (ie, summoning either a like-minded user, or a sock puppet account to revert so that he did not jeopardize his own account). I admit I was not aware of the "bright line" 3RR rule, but overturning an existing consensus (which contained both the content of the law in question; as the initial 'other side' advocated; as well as the actual cause of the controversy (the effort to censor researchers) seemed grounds for aggressive action. I was banned, and was wrong to revert three times without logging into an alt account as Jytdog did. The issue began, though, when Jytdog, after seeing my reverts, initiated an aggressive program of harassment - making three separate edits to my user talk page (all evidenced in his links above so I won't reproduce them) in response to a *single edit.* His every effort appeared to be to entrap me into a 3RR violation, including very strong language in comments in edit notes like "This is not optional." I admit, I was frustrated, and reverted three times. But the notion that anything is being done but normal revision of an article that is being interfered with by Jytdog is absolutely hilarious. His behavior has gone over the line time and again, and when this is pointed out to him (that he is harassing me and brigading an article) he responds with "personal attacks! personal attacks!" That's all fine, but the evidence just isn't there for that behavior. With the exception of the 3RR I have remained civil and results oriented at all times, meanwhile Jytdog seems to be interested in carrying out a personal vendetta against me...why I cannot say. There are a number of problems with Jytdog's version of events:
In short, I don't have a comprehensive understanding of all the WP:Policy bits. I made an error before in the 3RR situation, and I apologize for that. But what going on here is a very passionate editor has lost perspective on a situation, and is trying to push his own feeling too far. I've been editing WP for...13 years now, I believe. If the Arb committee decides it's my time to go, then it's my time. Thanks for the good times, it was a fun project to contribute to.
Added 21:30 UTC: So I have reviewed Jytdog's block log. It appears he has been banned permanently on two separate instances for similar behaviors, only to be unbanned after appealing to the Arb Committee. I can't see into the committee's deliberations myself, but if I've ever heard of a case of misplaced aggression/transferrance this appears to follow it to a textbook. In my entire history with WP I have never had any interaction with Admins or disciplinary groups, until Jytdog. Sahrin ( talk) 21:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Added 2016-19-05 1746 UTC: Comment on the admin's page *was not about this issue.* This was stated several times and for the record above. Comments regarding neutrality of other editors were made only after my neutrality was questioned, and repeated reverts were made without substantiation for the revert. As I noted, I became frustrated and committed the 3RR. I have already backed away from the dispute; I made a further comment on the talk page which failed to achieve consensus and have not said anything further on the topic. The evidence for "whitewashing" is readily available - there were repeated attempts to remove factually true information from an article to present a particular viewpoint (that there was no controversy), I must admit I find it frustrating that the admins in question have not seen this in the record; if agreeing to remove myself from the situation is what causes this to blow over then I'm totally down with it. As far as de-escalating, I will not have anything further to do with the topic or certainly the editor in question. I have received messages from several other editors criticizing the neutrality/behavior of the editor in question in the past, and need no further convincing that he is not someone I want to be involved with. Sahrin ( talk) 21:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Added 2016-09-06 1000 UTC: The editor in question did not follow the editorial process. If it is against Wikipedia policy to point this out, it seems like it would be impossible for me to end up in this situation (ie, accused of not following processes). This is the point that is unclear to me, and the reason that such comments can't be 'withdrawn.' The evidence is strong, and while I'm eager to work with all editors I can't ignore strong evidence. My question is: If it is acceptable for the editor in question to accuse me of violating wikipedia policy, why is it unacceptable for me to do the same? An answer from any neutral party could profitably resolve the dispute. Failing an answer, as I have said I will have nothing further to do with the editor in question so it's a moot point in either case. Sahrin ( talk) 10:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by OIDPlease note in the above statement where Sahrin accuses Jytdog of socking to avoid 3rr ("I was banned, and was wrong to revert three times without logging into an alt account as Jytdog did."). Dont think anything more needs to be said. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Sahrin
|
| No action taken. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 19:07, 10 September 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 Volunteer Marek
The following comments are in explanation of the edit differences provided above: Clinton Cash is a book by Peter Schweizer and published by HarperCollins. The book was reviewed in the New York Times [19] and other mainstream media. The Times review said, "“Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling [than other books about the Clintons], both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book." While the author is a conservative and his analysis of the Clintons may differ from liberal observers, there is no suggestion that he is far right, a conspiracy theorist or a nutjob. Volunteer Marek's tone has also been abrasive and dismissive in speaking about other editors and the Republican presidential nominee. I asked Volunteer Marek to remove his comments on Clinton Cash, [20] which he rejected. [21] TFD ( talk) 23:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer Marek, referring to an established journalist and author as a nutjob right-wing conspiracy theorist is in my opinion defamatory or at least a violation of biography of living persons policy since it impugns the integrity or judgment of someone whose career is based on a reputation for integrity and judgment. It is also an attack on the publisher, because reputable publishers do not publish such works, which is why they are reputable and their reputation is a key element in their success. Ironically, your objection to Clinton Cash was that "BLP applies," in that case that we could not "add this junk" which you saw as prejudicial to living persons. ( 18:16, 14 August 2016) Your comments on Trump ("Man, this guy makes the life of a Wikipedia editor hard.") shows a personal preference against him, yet in the previous edit above, you accuse other editors of being so influenced by political bias that it affects their judgment. TFD ( talk) 02:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Volunteer MarekStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Volunteer MarekSigh. So you can get dragged to AE now for criticizing a ... book. While other editors run around Wikipedia creating POVFORKs and game the DS system. Right. Here's links about the book (already provided in relevant discussion plus some more) Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes Clinton Cash: errors dog Bill and Hillary exposé – but is there any 'there' there?, [22]. According to the Guardian "the book is an unrestrained attack on the former president and first lady." Sources - though obviously not all - do call it a "conspiracy theory" Anyway, why is this even being brought up to AE? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC) And I genuinely have no idea what is suppose to be wrong in this diff presented by The Four Deuces. I'm sorry, you lost me. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Dude, it's expressing an opinion about the quality a source. An opinion which is actually shared by other reliable sources. Stop being silly. Or WP:BOOMERANG for obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by TimothyjosephwoodI Statement by MrXWP:ARBAPDS remedies are intended to address behavioral issues like edit warring, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system. The diffs presented as violations of these remedies don't nearly justify arbitration enforcement. What I see here is legitimate criticism of sources and pushback on what is arguable a fruit salad of an article, the purpose of which may be to cast a living person in a negative light. While Marek's passion could stand to be dialed down a notch or two, nothing evident here, in the article talk page, or the article edit history, rises to the level of a sanctionable offense in my opinion.- Mr X 14:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishesI think Marek was right on the essence of the issue. In particular, Peter Schweizer was described by Media Matters for America as someone who "has a disreputable history of reporting marked by errors and retractions, with numerous reporters excoriating him for facts that "do not check out," sources that "do not exist," and a basic failure to practice "Journalism 101." (see here). My very best wishes ( talk) 18:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICOThe article in question is crap and it was created by experienced editors whose history shows they're smart enough to understand the SYNTH, OR, BLP slams, and failed Verification they put up. They were also well aware of ARBAP2 and BLP discretionary sanctions. What's infuriating is that Arbcom/Admins are looking the other way while preposterous POV-pushing is proliferating. Even the few Admins who venture a peek say "just a content dispute" or some other reason to turn their backs. This article should have been aborted as soon as it went up. Who really wants to waste time pretending this is normal content editing editors who should long ago have been TBANned from American Politics continue to game the system? We're nowhere near the election in WP-time and if the sanctions are not enforced 2016 is going to make past political dust-ups look like a picnic. Kudos to Marek for trying to do the right thing. Oh gee, he's peeved. We should all be peeved and worse. SPECIFICO talk 11:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Volunteer Marek
|
| Closed with no action taken. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 04:05, 11 September 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 Philip Cross
The second revert uses a different source (i.e., not the same as with his first attempt to add this material on 2 Sept.). But it is a revert all the same insofar as it attempts to have the Jeremy Corbyn article include implication of the idea that he is an anti-Semite (has been accused of, is indifferent to, etc.). Different sources and different ways of expressing the idea don't hide the underlying impulse here. Also worth noting is that the issue is under discussion on the talk page ( [24]), where it's entirely evident that there is no consensus to add a particular passage along these lines. Finally, attempt to raise the point with the editor on his talk page did not succeed: [25].
Discussion concerning Philip CrossStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Philip CrossMost of the other users on the talkpage opposing any mention of the issue of Jeremy Corbyn and the antisemitism issue are stonewalling in my opinion, and unable to acknowledge any other viewpoint as being valid. The citation Nomoskedasticity mentions was on 2 September, not within the last 24 years. In the 2 September addition, I did not claim Corbyn is "indifferent" to the issue in the article itself, nor make a direct claim about his attitudes. The objection of other users is to a tweet I added by the Times journalist Oliver Kamm (cited to a reliable source) and is a matter of interpretation over which there is disagreement. The issue of Corbyn's past association with (quoting from my edit today which Nomoskedasticity cites) "alleged antisemites and Holocaust deniers" has repeatedly been referred to in the British media, and internationally, yet other editors cannot accept this is notable and should be included in the main Corbyn article. My new mention of this issue consists of one sentence, and a citation. Hardly excessive. There is a related issue concerning the talkpage discussion. Many editors are unwilling to countenance the inclusion in the article of the issue of online sexist and homophobic, as well as antisemite abuse, by people who claim to be Corbyn's supporters. The issue of Corbyn's apparent inability to deal with the abuse issue has again frequently been raised. For instance, by many of the former shadow ministers who resigned from Labour's shadow cabinet last June, other Labour MPs who were among the 172 who supported a motion of no confidence in Corbyn, and commentators in the media. Since this complaint was filed, I have added Corbyn's responses. I usually add opposing views, or opinions I do not share, in such instances. The Labour Party is split over the issue of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, probably the most serious crisis the party has faced in more than 80 years (the party had a major split in 1931, and a more minor one in 1981), with a new split being openly discussed because of Corbyn's leadership, yet this article barely touches on any of this. Philip Cross ( talk) 12:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianIf this was a WP:1RR violation, it was pretty minor and borderline. There's lots of discussion on the talkpage, both before and since. Normal content dispute procedures are being followed. Suggest closing with no action. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Philip Cross
|
| Appeal declined. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 22:47, 12 September 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 SashiRollsOn 01/09/2016, Tryptofish asked for Arbitration Enforcement against me because 1) I deleted an article that s/he claimed supported the contention that Jill Stein had made statements that were "contrary to science". The article does not support this claim, but notes that Jordan Weissmann (a business and economics editor), author of "an opinion piece at Slate[,] dismissed Green Party candidate Jill Stein as “a Harvard-trained physician who panders to pseudoscience” concerning genetically modified organisms, pesticides, “quack medicine,” and vaccine efficacy." This is the only sentence in the article pertaining to Stein, and so -- in my view -- should not be added as a separate indictment since the text (quoted in full above) is hardly a recommendation of the article by Mr. Weissmann and takes no explicit position on Jill Stein's positions (though the language suggests the author does not concur with Weissmann. Farther down in his complaint, Tryptofish accuses me of inserting a "disparaging remark" about Jordan Weissmann in the Wikipedia article, referencing the text: "Weissmann subsequently wrote a retraction of one part of his article related to the effects of pesticides on honeybee populations." [1] I do not see how this could be disparaging, as both the title and the content of the article indicate that Weissmann (a business and economics editor) is making a retraction of a significant error about science in his original article. Next, I was called out for 2) changing the name of a reference from :03 to WaPoArticleCitedSixteenTimes and waiting for a bot to come correct the other 15 references to the article. I plead guilty and apologize for the error of judgment. An editor quickly objected to this change so I changed all sixteen references to avoid links becoming unavailable. Waiting for the bot was a regrettable technical mistake, as was the polemical name I chose for the over-cited reference. The legitimate point on the oversourcing of the article to half-quotes from the Washington Post interview the day after it appeared (a move which was criticized here, here, here, here, and here) got lost in the process. The error I made was made shortly after I had to revert Tryptofish's non-constructive edit diff in the science section, an attempt to discredit Jill Stein's peer-reviewed published views on science in the preceding sentence, which subsequent to my ban from the topic Tryptofish removed. I admit that my view of legitimate editing behavior was influenced by my accuser ( Tryptofish's) addition of this (IMO unhelpful) citation for the section "science":
Nevertheless, my error was an error, despite the fact that it was motivated by frustration with the inappropriate behavior of two other users. Three wrongs don't make a right, I concede. Finally, Tryptofish accused me of 3) slow edit-warring, adducing as evidence two reversions (which are reversions of reversions made by Snooganssnoogans) on a subject that AndrewOne suggested (correctly in my view) needed urgent correction and contextualization here and here. Since Snooganssnoogans continued to ignore the sensible call for balancing perspective, I read all of the source material provided by AndrewOne, found another article from a source that Snooganssnoogans had previously argued was an RS in an effort to address the neutrality problems in this section (cf. non-neutral POV tag added to the section on 31 Aug ( diff)). The editor objects to information being added from Forbes, the Atlantic, the Roosevelt Institute, and Yes! magazine here to provide context concerning the economic argument about quantitative easing, and has used the Arbitration Enforcement discussion (concerned primarily with Tryptofish's distracting actions in the GMO section of the article) to delete this balancing information suggested by AndrewOne, but which only I was "bold" enough to add ( here), given the polemical atmosphere that has been created by Snooganssnoogans' 30+ reverts in the last two months. This will be the subject of a separate call for disciplinary sanctions against Snooganssnoogans (see context I deleted [27] to show Lord Roem good faith). I would like to complete my appeal by noting a few procedural elements related to this disproportionate 6-month topic ban. First, two administrators ( Laser brain and NeilN) spoke of possibly warning me, the former saying that my behavior did not rise to the level of sanctions (calling the actual motivation for bringing me to DS (GMO) a "red herring"), and the second stating that any warning should mention 1RR. (NB: the administrators had not yet looked into the context of Snooganssnoogans' consistent pattern of edit-warring since mid-July). I asked to be given until the 5th of September 5pm to formulate my defense. However, NuclearWarfare chose to go well beyond their suggestions and sanctioned me for 6 months on the 4th of September, before I could finish formulating my defense. I subsequently asked NuclearWarfare (on the 7th of September) to explain the grounds for his/her decision here, but as of the 10th of September I have not received any acknowledgment of my request. Based only on what s/he wrote in the decision, his/her concern was with my contention that the Washington Post article was being given undue weight on Jill Stein's WP:BLP, saying that I "just didn't get it", concerning this specific reversion concerning NPOV and RS. It is worth noting that I was reverting an entire paragraph that had been deleted by Snooganssnoogans, and not just a single reference to the sources that NW considers partial (articles written by Kevin Gostola and Peter Lavenia). Articles appearing in Al Jazeera, Democracy Now! and the Free & Equal Elections Foundation were also deleted, as well as any reference to Media Coverage / Media Access. It would seem logical that if an editor has a problem with a reference to an article published in Counterpunch or Shadowproof that they should eliminate the sentence that cites those sources (only) rather than all of the surrounding material unrelated to these sources. It is certainly not narrow POV-pushing to note that a major and widely reported concern of Jill Stein's is that she does not have equal media access. Concerning the bias of the Washington Post (which is the subject of contention), it is worth noting that there have been numerous claims related to its bias, some of the (older) sources of which have been included on Wikipedia (Cf. The Washington Post#2000-present), though not yet the newest claims / evidence, including the article from the independent Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting about 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours on March 8, 2016.. [3] Finally I would note that I have never before been accused of any inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia, which is not the case for either Tryptofish (who brought the complaint), or for Snooganssnoogans (who has been WP:Bludgeoning the process at Jill Stein for over two months (preventing over a dozen editors from balancing the POV s/he is pushing) and engaging in edit wars elsewhere... cf. the warnings from 22 May, 5 June, 30 June, 18 July, 20 Aug, 27 Aug, 28 Aug, 30 Aug on the user's Talk Page here.) References
Statement by NuclearWarfareStatement by NeutralityI would strongly urge that this appeal not be granted. For brevity's sake, I note only a few points:
-- Neutrality talk 16:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by TryptofishThis request is without merit. Almost all of the request completely misrepresents the facts, and it is fundamentally a demonstration of unwillingness or inability to understand SashiRolls' own misconduct that resulted in the sanction in the first place. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SashiRollsResult of the appeal by SashiRolls
|
| User:Makeandtoss is advised that marking places as being in the State of Palestine may expose him to ARBPIA sanctions unless he gets consensus. Warring about the scope of designations such as Israel, the West Bank, or Palestine is not recommended for anyone. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This is about a site located in the West Bank. Since calling it State of Palestine is POV, I changed it to West Bank since that is technically where the location is. I then continued to expand the page finding live links, adding more refs, etc. User then came back with his NPOV edit and edit summary.
Discussion concerning MakeandtossStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Makeandtoss
Statement by TracyMcClarkHow about turning the focus on the filer's 3 reverts within 24 hours? Initial revert/content here 1st revert here 3rd revert here ( added twice today) Statement by NishidaniSir Joe, you have a right to challenge editors who prefer ‘State of Palestine’ for anything in the West Bank. But when you reverting them on this, while adding a cat for Tourism in Israel you are contradicting yourself, and reality. All Israelis know that the West Bank is not in Israel. Nishidani ( talk) 17:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by PolentarionI would prefer if the parties involved referred to a Wikipedia:Third opinion or other peaceful means instead of asking for a Enforcement. Thnx. I succeded in cooperation with Makeandtoss on the other sice of the Jordan, at the Al-Maghtas article. I think that both sides of the debate here have not been acting properly. Don't go into detail of the overall conflict, check what the category means. I guess that 'Tourism in israel' is just about the tourism managed by the Israel ministry of tourism and does not imply a decision about the appropriate ruler of the territory. Polentarion Talk 14:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Makeandtoss
|
| Appeal declined, though the topic ban expired during the time the request was here at AE. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:56, 14 September 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 Kamel TebaastAs I understand, Wikipedia’s appeal process is similar to a parole hearing. The prisoner/editor should take full responsibility for his/her crimes/policy violations, not blame anyone, embody full contrition while showing an eagerness to improve, and promise not to repeat the crimes/disruptive patterns that led to the imprisonment/block or ban. However, I still do not understand how I violated policies in order to be sanctioned, let alone given a 30-day topic ban. I suggest that getting banned while not understanding why only promotes recidivism. I believe that I stayed within Wikipedia’s WP:BOLD and WP:BRD policies, while it seemed that policy guidelines were not followed in terms of possible (uninvolved editor/administrator) warnings, intervention, or proper discussion about any editing problems prior to my being sanctioned. I brought an editor to AE, and I ended up being topic banned. Experiencing WP:BOOMERANG firsthand is like living Kafka’s The Trial. During the AE, Nishidani leveled many accusations against my editing and me. I will address only two specific areas of editing prior to my being topic-ban: 1.Kibbutz Beit AlphaA persistent thread runs throughout Wikipedia that Jews illegally stole Arab land in (pre-1948) Palestine (and that it continues today in Israel, but that discussion is for another forum). With that background, there was a sentence in Kibbutz Beit Alpha’s lede that read:
In examining the source, I learned that the exact quote is:
In other words, the kibbutz does not sit on top of what was once an abandoned Arab village. Subsequently, I deleted the sentence. In Talk, more sources were provided ( confirmed by Nishidani here) that the village of Khirbet Beit Ilfa was nearby Beit Alpha, not below (as was written in the previous article). In the same discussion I learned from Nishidani that had I simply changed 'that once stood on the site' to 'nearby’, my edit would have been acceptable. In any case, I dealt with those issues in Talk, acquiesced, became a catalyst for change to improve the article, and I added the following line in the Geography section (that still stands):
However, a recent Nishidani edit in the History section reads:
The sources state that the abandoned village was “nearby” and Nishidani knows it. Is this not POV-pushing? Is that not disruptive editing? Is Lord Roem not “troubled” by this? I believe that my edits in the Beit Alpha article do not in any way exhibit a pattern of disruptive editing, and further show that I am willing to engage in dialogue and edit with consensus while improving articles. 2. Yasser ArafatTo many people globally, not just Israelis, Yasser Arafat was first known as a terrorist before he marketed himself/was elevated (however one views it) as a statesman of peace. I also understand that consensus trumps facts on Wikipedia. Yet Arafat’s lede is written and sourced to portray him almost entirely as a humanitarian. That is hardly neutral. His Nobel Prize is highlighted with virtually no violent history preceding it. The entire lede is POV, pushing toward a Palestinian nationalism viewpoint: “popularly known as”, “was a Palestinian leader”, “He was Chairman of…”, “ President of…”, “and leader of…”, “he founded”, “he modified his position”, “faced off with”, “...engaged in a series of negotiations with the government of Israel to end the decades-long conflict between it and the PLO”, “received the Nobel Peace Prize”, “after effectively being confined within his Ramallah compound for over two years by the Israeli army”, and “The majority of the Palestinian people—regardless of political ideology or faction—viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter and martyr who symbolized the national aspirations of his people”. Where is the neutrality from this career? Even when there is a hint that Arafat had a violent history, his organization, Fatah, is given the modifier “former paramilitary group”. In the entire 350-plus-word lede, the term for what Arafat was known as, “terrorist”, appears once—the last word. Even then it was “balanced” by framing it that only Israelis (the bad guys) believe it. With this background, my first edit on Arafat’s page read:
Nishidani reverted my edit for, “Fails RS; adopts the nonRS POV; duplicates higherup the POV given below, without the other POV for balance”. I did not revert Nishidani’s edit nor did I edit-war with him. Rather, I took his direction and I reviewed the sentence that he referred to in his revert. It read: “Arafat remains a controversial figure. The majority of the Palestinian people—regardless of political ideology or faction—viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter and martyr who symbolized the national aspirations of his people, while many Israelis have described him as an unrepentant terrorist.[8][9]” That sentence’s POV, as I discussed with Nishidani in the Talk page, is heavily weighted toward the Palestinian nationalism cause. Here are the reasons:
Only one was given from a large and opposing and viewpoint: “unrepentant terrorist”. Other than “many Israelis viewed him as an unrepentant terrorist”, there was virtually nothing in the lede to give any context as to why they viewed him as such. There was virtually nothing written about his decades of murderous attacks, primarily aimed at civilians, which led to the loss of thousands of innocent lives. Therefore, two days following my previous edit in another section, I tried to bring neutrality with this edit:
Ohnoitsjamie reverted me here with “unnecessary POV.” I reverted Ohnoitsjamie here based on “Limiting to just Israelis is POV“ Nishidani reverted me here. Most importantly, I discussed this in Talk here and I made no further edits. In comparing the aforementioned edits to another editor and his/her edits in the Jewish Voice for Peace article, I made this initial edit:
Malik Shabazz followed up with what I believe was a revert, adding his/her POV “fixing hyperbolic addition”:
More importantly--not stated by Epson--M.Shabazz changed Black Lives Matter to the Movement for Black Lives, an entirely different organization. The source did mention that Black Lives Matter endorsed this platform and that BLM is one of the participating organizations in the Movement for Black Lives. However, to paraphrase User:Kingsindian here, had MShabazz simply added the “Movement of Black Lives”, with Black Lives Matter as one of the 50 participating organizations, that would have been an edit. He didn’t. He completely deleted the (household and sometimes controversially recognized) name of Black Lives Matter. In any case, according to Softlavender, Kingsindian, Nishidani, Drmies, and Lord Roem, M.Shabazz’s edit was not a revert, rather only an edit, yet these same editors and administrators found that my addition on Yasser Arafat was a revert, not an edit. To be specific, adding “one of its many points” and “to describe Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians” (and deleting and replacing the name of one organization with another) is “editing” while adding “and people worldwide” and “because of his decades of violence, aimed mostly at civilians” is a “revert” and POV-pushing. This inconsistency that persists throughout Wikipedia regarding a lack of clarity among policies and sanctions, varies among editors and administrators. Even Nishidani wrote: “Now I have always admitted that I have no understanding of 1R, except to think that...I know it's simple, but I can't figure it out.” I surmise that Nishidani’s inability to understand the 1RR is due to the difficulty to differentiate between an edit and a revert. Wikipedia’s definition of a reversion is “an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. The typical way to effect a reversion is to use the "undo" button in the article's history page, but it isn't any less of a reversion if one simply types in the previous text.” My entire appeal comes down to two things: 1) Did my initial edit reverse the sentence? 2) Was I POV-pushing? Another problemIn following WP:BRD, it seems to go in one direction. Edits are made and editors are revert-happy, while the policy clearly states:
Were there zero merits to my edits? Was there not a way to refine them? Only reverts were made and I, who was simply trying to bring neutrality, was sanctioned for, among other things, disruptive editing. Sockpuppet: the elephant in the roomObserving the flow of the proceeding when it veered from complaints against MShabazz and turned into an assault on me was an interesting case study that seems to justify legitimate criticism about Wikipedia in general and against administrators in particular. Ironically, it began with a contribution here by Johnuniq, writing: “There is an ANI report where Kamel Tebaast ( talk · contribs) (account created on 30 May 2016) uses perfectly formed procedures. Naturally no one can prove anything except for the obvious: WP:ARBPIA is not working.” I wrote “ironically” because Johnuniq reverted my revert of another revert regarding this exact criticism of Wikipedia. [Johnuniq was later reverted and the quote still stands.] Johnuniq made no comment regarding my editing, just popped in to push forward unfounded accusations against me from another proceeding that I am a sockpuppet, or someone else is a sockpuppet of me. [That gossip was started in another proceeding by an editor who was later banned indefinitely. You can’t make this stuff up.] During the previous ANI, four editors or administrators agreed with each other to stop unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry:
Yet, what happened? Two administrators not only picked up Johnuniq’s statement, but carried it forward. Softlavender wrote:
Bishonen’s entire deliberation revolved around everything other than my editing:
At least Admin Drmies took his/her own advice and didn’t engage in the sockpuppetry accusations. So, is my 30-day topic ban based on unfounded speculation that I am a sockpuppet, or because of the editing, or both? This is the exact Kafkaesque nonsense that permeates Wikipedia. The sanctionIn terms of the sanction, Kingsindian wrote: “In general, Kamel Tebaast seems amenable to reason and willing to compromise, so I see no reason they can't continue to work productively in this area.” Nishidani--who leveled most of the accusations against me--wrote: “...there is no need for draconian measures, and we should heed Kingsindian's point that he does use the talk pages, (if only, too often, after an editorial fait accompli on articles). I think a verbal slap on the wrist insufficient, because there is a repetitive pattern even after warnings. Probably a week or two in porridge would get the message over, that, whatever the POV and its strength any editor may have, high standards, detachment and care in sourcing are fundamental.” Yet, based on those three edits, I was given a 30-day topic ban. I believe that my ban was unjust and did not follow the spirit of Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive: Consistency in sanctionsIt is interesting that Nishidani--who brought most of the complaints against me and my editing--received an 8-hour block for Disruption by revert-warring and breach of three-revert rule; two months later a 24-hour block for Three-revert rule violation; and just two months after that a 72-hour block for Edit warring, yet I received a 30-day topic ban for allowable edits at best, and questionable at worst. Because I have virtually no interest in editing on Wikipedia other than in articles that tend to fall under the Arab-Israeli conflict, a 30-day topic ban is tantamount to a 30-day block. Based on all of the above, I formally request a complete reversal of my sanction (even if the sanctioned time elapses). Thank you. Kamel Tebaast 00:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
References
Statement by Lord RoemIt should be noted that the sanction expires on Tuesday (it was only for one month). It was imposed after a disruptive series of edits; the sanction was and still is proportional to a first-level remedy. The appeal should be rejected. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 02:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000Kemal Tebaast thinks that the way to appeal a sanction is to attack other editors. At Beit Alfa, a fairly minor dispute it must be said, Kemal's main objective was to remove the statement that the Kibbutz was named after the Arab village. See the talk page section "Kibbutz Beit Alpha was not named after an Arab village" that he/she created. On Yasser Arafat, it is obvious that someone who wants to repeatedly add text like "people worldwide have described him as an unrepentant terrorist because of his decades of violence, aimed mostly at civilians" is a problem for the project. The presence of unacceptable text in an article has never been an excuse for adding more unacceptable text, but that is the only argument I see here. Zero talk 02:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Malik ShabazzI can only echo what Zero0000 has written and wonder what Kemal Tebaast is thinking when her/his "appeal" consists mostly of attacks on other editors. Has Kemal Tebaast still not learned that copy-editing a sentence is not a revert, no matter how many times she/he and her/his best buddy call it one? Perhaps reading WP:Reverting might help. Or maybe not. Evidently Kemal Tebaast also cannot see the log in her/his own eye and recognize her/his own POV-pushing in saying that a group "accuses Israel of 'genocide'" when it made no such accusation. (Yes, Kemal Tebaast, that sort of exaggeration is called hyperbole, and your sentence was a "hyperbolic addition".) As I wrote, in accordance with both the facts and NPOV, the group "use[d] the word 'genocide' to describe Israel's treatment of the Palestinians". Needless to say, I think this appeal should be rejected. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 3)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Kamel TebaastStatement by uninvolved User:BlackmaneI make no comment about the appeal nor the initial application of sanctions. I'm just leaving a note, with regards to my name begin quoted by Kamel Tebaast, to say that at no time have I claimed to be an administrator. Blackmane ( talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Kamel Tebaast
|
| In view of the self-revert, no action taken. Bolter21 is reminded to be cautious of revert limits in areas covered by arbitration remedies. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 17 September 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 Bolter21
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Bolter21&diff=739770589&oldid=739665073 Discussion concerning Bolter21Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Bolter21As it seems while I was away from keyboard, my dear colleagues simply explained I self-reverted myself the moment I saw his notice, but he didn't bother to tell me he reported me here. I needed User: Epson Salts to tell me I was reported, which is not a thing I bothered to check, considering the fact I self-reverted.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 01:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Number 57I notice Bolter self-reverted as soon as they were notified about their violation. Given this, I think it would be very harsh to invoke any form of sanctions. This does, however, highlight one of the flaws of the 1RR rule, in the fact that it effectively means editors don't have to bother respecting BRD as they can always out-revert someone who undoes their edit. Number 5 7 00:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by JzGThis looks like a hair-trigger response. I don't see anything here warranting sanction. It's fair to watch future edits by this editor, but there is really nothing demanding robust action right now. Guy ( Help!) 00:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Kamel TebaastI agree with Number 57. Bolter self-reverted and, as Chick Hern made famous: "No harm no foul." Does not deserve a sanction. Kamel Tebaast 00:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000Bolter21 is a good editor and this is at most a minor infraction. I think it would be inappropriate to apply a sanction. Zero talk 08:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by NishidaniBolter is a very good editor, the error was an oversight immediately self-reverted. We all do that. This is a nuisance complaint, and the case should be closed immediately. Nishidani ( talk) 09:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Bolter21
|
| Editors are reminded that Arbitration Enforcement does not rule on content disputes. The question of if and how to include census data is remanded to the community for resolution through the normal channels. The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:12, 17 September 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 Monochrome Monitor
Discussion concerning Monochrome MonitorStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Monochrome MonitorI'll repeat what I said on my talk page.
That is all. -- Monochrome_ Monitor 00:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by (Bolter21)I agree it seems like a content dispute. It doesn't seem like something that requires any sanction and in my opinion there was no reason to rush here. I checked the edits in question and read the arguments in the talk and I think this is something that should be solved in the relevent talk pages.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 01:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani
Statement by KingsindianWP:AE is a blunt instrument: this is mostly a content dispute and it does not rise to WP:AE level. I only remind Huldra that they can revert MM themselves instead of waiting for her to do it, per WP:BRD. If there is disruption or edit-warring over the edit, then a complaint can be brought here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Monochrome Monitor
|
| There is no consensus to overturn the sanction, so the block remains in effect. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 18:36, 18 September 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 MarkBernsteinAs I have written elsewhere, though I no longer support the project I do keep an occasional eye on some topics for reasons of personal safety and to assist those seeking legislative or regulatory solutions to the threat that Wikipedia now poses to society. In doing so, however, it seems churlish to neglect to pick up litter I come across: typos, illiteracies, and blatant examples of harassment, racism, and anti-Semitism. In this case, an IP user with (I believe) no previous edits had blanked a section on Anti-Semitism and White Nationalism on a page about a discussion site that had been (and continues to be) widely reported as a hotbed for anti-semitic and racist memes -- in particular, racist imagery that has been retweeted by Donald Trump and his children. Blanking the section seemed indefensible, though the section itself has more prevarication than a bushel of weasels. I assumed that this was mere pointy vandalism. Similarly, I have reverted repeated attempts to claim Margaret Sanger to be a racist, a canard of which alt-right extremists are fond despite her life-long affiliation with W.E.B. DuBois and her eulogy by Martin Luther King. Neither Margaret Sanger nor Donald Trump’s anti-Semitic attack on Hillary pertain to Gamergate. Neither has anything to do with video game journalism or with Gamergate’s victims -- several of whom continue to be harassed through Wikipedia’s pages. The political nature of this action and it implications for the future of Wikipedia will not be lost on any observer. Is it disruptive to revert the blanking of a section on Anti-Semitism and White Nationalism when that topic has recently been discussed in a host of newspapers? Is it disruptive to revert the introduction of misleading falsehoods in a biography? This result was obtained through a concerted action, actively plotted off-site and immediately cheered there. As I said, I no longer support or condone the project, but I am perhaps willing to help clean out such litter as I happen upon. I submit this reluctantly at the request of people who retain more faith than I in Wikipedia. Any questions may be directed to me via email or correspondence to my office. MarkBernstein ( talk) 21:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by The WordsmithAs I've said on my talkpage, Mark is banned from editing pages related to Gamergate. 8chan has discussion of Gamergate in the lede, a subsection dedicated to Gamergate, the Gamergate navbox at the bottom, and a template on the Talkpage that specifically says the article is under Gamergate discretionary sanctions. The content of the edit doesn't matter, as it isn't covered under WP:BANEX. In fact, Mark's edit reverted back in material about a living person that was challenged by an IP as being defamatory, without consensus. A few editors here have questioned the length of the block. When deciding on 6 months, I took into account that this was Mark's third block for violating his ban in less than six months. I also took into account his block log, which shows 3 blocks in 2015 for violating his previous General Sanctions topic ban from Gamergate. Six violations show that Mark has no intention of complying with the terms of his restriction, and most other editors in DS areas would have been indeffed by this point (and many have been for less). The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourthFor what it's worth, I don't see the reversion of obvious vandalism (blanking a section with no explanation) as a violation of a topic ban if the material being blanked is not related to the topic ban. 8chan is related to Gamergate, but that does not mean all material mentioning 8chan automatically falls under the Gamergate topic ban (nor does all information regarding America fall under the American politics topic ban, etc.) PeterTheFourth ( talk) 21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC) The Wordsmith has elaborated more on the reasoning behind his ban of Mark Bernstein here on Reddit, discussing it with Salvidrim and Wikipediocracy member Vigilant. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 21:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by MasemWhile I don't touch the 8chan page, I consider myself involved from previous confrontation with MarkBernstein within the GG ArbCom actions 8chan was specifically As for the edit, while topic bans do not block editors from removing clearly contentious BLP-violating material nor combating vandalism per BANEX, this was addition of possibly contentious material (there should be discussion though about the inclusion of this on the talk page given that the sources are reliable). It's difficult to qualify the IP's edit that was undo as vandalism (the page didn't show a history of such, nor do we have enough on the IP beyond this single contribution to judge. Plus the reasoning the IP used does point to a valid issue of contentious material, so it wasn't like a trolling flyby that is easily judged. So the topic ban enforcement seems to be valid. -- MASEM ( t) 22:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Rhoark
Statement by GamerPro64Since I was the one who pointed out that Bernstein violated his topic ban to Wordsmith, I will admit that I thought the edit would be considered stale and nothing would be done about it. I do believe, however, that he that he is being intentionally ignorant about why he got banned. He's pretty much trying to game the system and avoiding the fact that he clearly violated his topic ban, somehow making this a anti-semitism/alt-right issue. He's been pushing peoples buttons for too long. I don't know how he thinks he's the good guy these days. GamerPro64 02:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Starke HathawayRecommend declining this appeal. MB is Statement by Ryk72MarkBernstein is a deeply disruptive and profoundly unproductive editor. He has been topic banned from Gamergate controversy related pages 3 times; has breached each of those topic bans, usually more than once; and has been blocked for those breaches 6 times. He has also been blocked or warned for personal attacks on other editors in this topic space multiple times. NOTE: See WP:DSLOG. In the 5 months since the topic ban was implemented, MarkBernstein has made 129 edits - Mainspace articles: 13 (including 9 reverts); Talk pages: 6; his own User_talk pages: 42; other editors' User_talk pages: 14; Wikipedia space pages: 56. Assuming all mainspace & Talk edits are productive, that's a rate of slightly less than 1 productive edit per week. As stated in the appeal, the maximum benefit that Wikipedia might receive from lifting this sanction is that MarkBernstein continue to gift us with litter collection of Should MarkBernstein decide that he wishes to actually contribute to the project, in a collaborative manner not as yet displayed, I would encourage some demonstration of that intent through productive editing of other Wikis. (Simple English would be the obvious choice). Until then, I urge that the appeal be declined. NOTE: Additional off-Wiki evidence indicating that disruptive editing is likely to continue available to Administrators on request. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by StrongjamJust to correct a misconception here. 8chan was founded October 2013, a year before Gamergate happened. It did however get coverage because of the number of users migrating from 4chan to 8chan after discussion of Gamergate was banned from the former. — Strongjam ( talk) 17:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by DHeywardA couple observations:
Statement by (involved editor)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by MarkBernsteinStatement by uninvolved User:clpo13
Statement of uninvolved User:LankiveilGiven that the article is marked as being under discretionary sanctions, I believe the blocking admin was technically correct with the action that they took. However, given that the edit in question did not affect material that was even indirectly related to GamerGate, and given that the edit was already over a week old when action was taken over it, I don't think that this block passes the pub test. My preference would be to reduce the block to time served. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC). Statement by CoffeeCrumbsGood block. The topic is explicitly labeled as being covered by discretionary sanctions, so this isn't a case of the editor stumbling into trouble in a tangentionally related topic. The standard for WP:BANEX is *obvious* vandalism for which "no reasonable person can disagree." This was a poor edit, removing a paragraph for the stated reasons of (and I again quote) "There is literally no reason to mention this. Nobody got hurt, no controversy was made, it's just another defamatory remark." The paragraph should not have been removed, but it's not *obvious vandalism* which is the bar that's needed to pass here. The editor is trying to make it into obvious vandalism through a typical mulligan stew of innuendo, skylarking, and black helicopters. If this is considered *obvious vandalism* by virtue of any connection the editor conjures out of thin air, then *any* edit he doesn't like on the topic can be made so. Given that the editor has failed to make his affirmative defense under WP:BANEX, this is a reasonable block, even if slightly on the trigger-happy side. Based on the history of this editor, it seems absolutely fitting for Wordsmith to err on the side of caution. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 03:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by DrmiesI'm not the hippest or smartest guy here, and that 8chan came out of GamerGate was news to me--I don't see it in the article either, though it does say "Several of the site's boards have played an active role in the Gamergate controversy". But this edit does not relate to that. And I don't see the GamerGate box at the bottom because I didn't scroll down that far--I don't see the need to, and at any rate that doesn't mean much anyway. I do believe this block came too quick, and is too long. In general, I think MarkBernstein is a bit too much of an activist for my taste, but by the same token it is disconcerting to see other editors trying to get rid of him on technicalities (couched in weasel words: "Some sources have connected the alt-right and Gamergate". In that case The Wordsmith said "no violation" since that article wasn't all that connected to GamerGate. In this case, as far as I'm concerned it's really not that obvious that this article is so GamerGatish and, as others have noted, the edit has nothing to do with GamerGate. So to see The Wordsmith just drop a six-month ban bomb, with no discussion, is disconcerting to me. I understand that MB has appearances against him, and I know that he is partly to blame for that being so outspoken, but this was too fast and too much for an edit that is in itself unproblematic, and any editor would (or should) have made the same revert--removal of sourced content by a drive-by IP editor, obvious POV and untrue edit summary ("Nobody got hurt, no controversy was made"--yes, there was and still is controversy, and that "no one was hurt" from a major party candidate's retweeting of Nazi symbolism is ..., well, you find the word). Should he have? It was maybe unwise, but given the circumstances I do not think this six-month block is just. Drmies ( talk) 15:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Calbeck8chan existed years prior to GamerGate and contains a multitude of unrelated boards. It is, and was always, presented as an alternative to 4chan (which they routinely refer to derogatorily as "halfchan"). Yes, many GamerGaters moved there after 4chan's then-owner expressly banned all talk of the topic, but its GamerGate content has never been more than a fraction of its total content. It is not "inherently" a GamerGate website. That said, Bernstein makes clear in his statement that he considers Wikipedia a "threat... to society". He also states he is involved in "assist(ing) those seeking legislative or regulatory solutions" against the site, that he "no longer support(s) the project", and that his only actual purpose here is to nitpick typos and otherwise accuse actual editors of "blatant examples of harassment, racism, and anti-Semitism". Collectively and partially, these statements demonstrate a lack of good will or honest intent regarding his ban. He seems instead intent upon skirting its technical boundaries, and given his existing attitude it is likely he will return to edit-warring the moment he has the opportunity. Calbeck ( talk) 06:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by MarkBernstein
|