Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive146
Blippy
[edit]| Blippy is topic banned from all fringe and pseudoscience-related topics on all pages of Wikipedia for a period of 6 months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:52, 29 January 2014 (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 Blippy[edit]
Blacklight Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article about a company that claims (and has claimed for a couple of decades, now) to have developed remarkable new technology to extract energy from hydrogen atoms using a non-standard theory of physics. The topic falls squarely within the bounds of fringe science and arguably falls under 'cold fusion' as well.
In a long series of edits around 15 and 16 January, Blippy edit warred extensively to include favorable content and claims from a Blacklight Power press release. This edit warring resulted in 72 hours of full protection of the article. While the article was protected, it was discovered that Blippy's additions included a substantial copyvio. As a result of the ensuing AN/I discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Breach of copyright in a locked article) several revisions of the article were deleted, and Blippy's edits were removed by an independent admin while the article remained fully protected. Over a period of just under four days, Blippy engaged in slow edit warring by making daily reverts to re-add certain claims to the article. These scientific claims were sourced, rather dubiously, to The Village Voice (a tabloid newspaper). This edit warring began less than a day after the previous full protection of the article had expired. Four separate editors disagreed with the use of the source and independently removed the claim from the article: Bhny, Noformation, Alexbrn, and AndyTheGrump. Several editors tried, and failed, to explain their concerns to Blippy at Talk:Blacklight Power#Village Voice addition. When Blippy was cautioned (by me, TenOfAllTrades; see diff below) about edit warring on the content, he decided instead to start edit warring to add a {{POV}} template to the article. So far, we're up to three attempts – in less than 24 hours – to 'spite tag' the article since he couldn't get his way. On the talk page, he justifies his action by claiming that "many of the editors [t]here seem to be justifying their removal of such material based on personal animosity toward BLP [Blacklight Power]": Talk:Blacklight Power#NPOV. Once again, on the matter of the tag he is a lone holdout against the consensus of several different editors, including Alexbrn, Roxy the dog, and Jim1138.
At this point, it doesn't seem likely that this editor will be able to contribute positively on this topic, as he has been edit warring continuously and making baseless insinuations of bad faith ever since the article's full protection expired—protection which was the result of Blippy's own earlier edit warring. While Blippy's only recent edits have been to Blacklight Power and its talk page, I very much doubt that encouraging him to bring his approach to any other articles in this topic area would be helpful. I would therefore recommend a topic ban on cold fusion and fringe energy topics, broadly construed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Blippy[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Blippy[edit]This disagreement revolves around the second & final lede para which reads (with my proposed addition in italics):
My proposed edit attempted to provide a summary of relevant material that appears further down in the article (that some scientists consider BLP's claims worthy of investigation) which is not otherwise represented in the lede viz.:
I believed that adding something along the lines of however other scientists have expressed interest in exploring [BLP's] work further was a reasonable summary of this content. The fact that BLP have had independent investigators supportive of their claims, and they (and others) have published many articles in peer reviewed journals, are some of the most notable things about BLP (as compared to other 'free energy' types), and this information is an important part of the BLP story which I believe should be reflected in the lede of any fair WP article on them. I have engaged with other editors on the Talk page, but often they would revert and/or make broadly dismissive comments - often ad hominem in nature - but then not respond to the responses I made to their criticism (the editor lodging this complaint being a case in point). I accepted that the consensus was not to include my (or a similar) edit in the lede, but I believed this consensus to be in violation of NPOV, so introduced the POV tag in the hope of attracting the attention of more editors beyond those who - in their comments - had been expressing hostility toward BLP in a way which seemed to colour their perspective on my proposed edit. However, the tag was also deemed inappropriate. I was half way through seeking some different views via the dispute resolution form when I received notification of this process, which I believe means that avenue can no longer be pursued. Hopefully this process will generate sufficient interest from disinterested editors to resolve the matter one way or another - I'm always open to learning from mistakes I make (the copyvio business for instance), and readily acknowledge that being in the midst of a disagreement can skew one's perspective and judgement beyond what is reasonable, so I am very open to the advice of those who have no strong views either way on BLP. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Statement by Alfonzo Green[edit]TenOfAllTrades not only fails to demonstrate edit warring in the diffs provided but doesn't seem to be understand WP:Consensus. "After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it." Simply reverting the edit at this stage is not an option. "When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus." Before reverting, editors are to discuss the added material. Yet Bhny reverted the edit in question without prior discussion. In his comment he justified the revert with the claim, "(need better source than Mills...)" indicating that he didn't know Blippy's source was a major US urban weekly, The Village Voice, which is cited in countless articles throughout Wikipedia and undeniably a reliable source (and no, WP:RS doesn't set a different standard of reliability for science articles). Yet TenOfAllTrades carries on the charade, claiming in his request that the material is "rather dubiously" sourced, though he knows it's the Voice, not a press release from Mills, as Bhny apparently believed. Bhny additionally claimed in his revert that he "removed weasely 'some scientists.'" Again, WP:Consensus: "An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording." One way to fix the problem would simply be to quote from the cited article, which reads: "More quietly, however, some scientists are taking notice." This way the reader knows the "weasel word" is in the source itself and not a poor characterization on Blippy's part (and yes, "some" is a useful word, meaning neither "none" nor "all"). Instead of leaving the added sentence alone or changing it into a direct quote, Bhny chose to edit war. Not content to see Bhny have all the fun, Noformation jumped in and reverted with the same (weaselly) non-justification. 91.221.58.5 later supplied the third revert with no comment whatsoever. Seems that once a couple of reverts have occurred, the fact that they're not based on policy is no barrier to adding more. The final member of the tag team was AndyTheGrump, who justified his revert by noting a failure of consensus on the talk page. Yet the talk page discussion reveals no willingness on the part of the dissenting editors to base their objections on actual policy. Aside from declaring himself "a little uncomfortable with using the Village Voice" as a source, Noformation claims we need to know why "any particular scientist is interested in this technology," implying that the editor, Noformation, is more of an expert on this sort of thing than the scientists in question. It goes without saying that no Wikipedia policy justifies Noformation's demand for extra information. According to Jim1138, "one can almost always find 'other scientists' who support a dubious claim." The point, however, is that a reliable source reports that some scientists, even if Jim1138 knows better, aren't convinced that Mills' claim is dubious. TenOfAllTrades steps into the breach with the following zinger: "The problem with 'some scientists believe' and variations on the theme is that it is true for virtually any assertion you might wish to make." Guess what, Ten, the claim is legitimized by the presence of a reliable source. By contrast, "virtually any assertion" doesn't have sources backing it up, so we don't have to worry about "virtually any assertion" worming its way into Wikipedia. Alexbrn chimes in to claim the edit is "not neutral," as if accurately paraphrasing a reliable source could somehow be construed as POV. It's POV when it's not sourced, when it's the editor's opinion. Again, what we have here is a complete failure to comprehend policy. According to Andy, the "viewpoint isn't 'significant' if it is held by a tiny minority, by definition." And this takes us right to the heart of the problem. The defining characteristic of science is that no final answers are ever given (and no deity exists to ladle them out). The assumption is always that some of what we think we know will turn out to be false. It's because scientists can sometimes get it wrong that we don't call them priests. Scientists are all too aware of how easily orthodoxy crumbles in the fact of continued questioning and investigation, and it appears that in this case at least a small number of them think they may have found a crack in the wall. Thanks to Blippy, Wikipedia is now in possession of a source making this claim. The other editors' job was to make sure the sourced material was accurately conveyed in the article. Instead they engaged in pointless chatter while brazenly triggering an edit war and, worse, blaming it on the injured party. "Edit warring," according to WP:EW, "is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus," or in this case impossible since the dissenting editors plainly refuse to rationally engage Blippy's edit. At the very least, they should receive a warning that blocking consensus is unacceptable. No rational observer would grant this request. To rule in favor of the dissenting editors is to demonstrate contempt not only for Wikipedia policy but the scientific project. Appeals to WP:ARB/PS only serve to distract from the real issue. This isn't about pseudoscience; it's about a clique of clueless editors misrepresenting science. Discretionary sanctions, intended to "tackle misconduct," are instead applied by administrators at the behest of science-confused editors so as to preempt usual Wikipedia policy and remove editors who don't share their ignorance or tolerate their misconduct. Alfonzo Green (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by vzaak[edit]Blippy warred extensively at Rupert Sheldrake.
I had implored everyone to read the instructions for the POV tag[20][21], but despite the instructions saying Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article, Blippy added the tag with comment, "we should warn readers".[22] There was a competency issue as well: syntax problems in wikitext, adding a quote that appeared in the very next section, and basically warring without understanding what is being warred.[23] Blippy had also jumbled up the timeline, introducing errors, which was very time-consuming to fix.[24] Please consider extending this request to cover pseudoscience and fringe science. vzaak 02:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[edit]Vzaak (talk · contribs) summarises the issues at Rupert Sheldrake above, but there appears to be a wider problem. Looking at special:contributions/Blippy it is apparent that Blippy (talk · contribs) is either unwilling or unable to understand and implement WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:MAINSTREAM, and therefore anti-Wikipedia per WP:NOTHERE, and I think a ban on all fringe and pseudoscience-related articles broadly construed is unfortunately necessary. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by Enric Naval[edit]in BlackLight Power[edit]Blippy edit-warred to keep his changes to the article. Later he edit-warred again to put a POV tag (diffs were already provided by TenOfAllTrades). If you look at his changes, he is removing negative material and introduceing promotional material. One of his removals of negative material[40] was not noticed by other editors, and the material was absent from the article during 14 days. Note the snarky and unhelpful replies [41][42]. The assumption that editors who oppose his edits are "hostile"[43]. He broadly dismisses all arguments, saying the editors are not being intellectually honest: "(...) yet so far the responses to my NPOV concerns have included personal attacks ("POV-pusher", "credulous"), broadbrush dismissal (WP not a platform for nonsense), whimsy, and unilateral declarations of truth ("there is no neutrality problem"). How about some intellectually honest engagement with the issue?"[44]. This is a battleground mentality. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC) in Rupert Sheldrake[edit]See Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_12#Snowstorm_of_drive_by_edits_by_Blippy. Blippy provides 3 sources, and other people tell him that there are problems with his suggestion. Blippy displays WP:ICANTHEARYOU the whole section, and uses snarky and unhelpful replies near the end. Other editors give up on reasoning with him. He gets told to go to WP:RS/N, but he never does it. When challenged about it, he plays the victim [45]. Soon, the thread died down without any improvement to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC) in Arthur_C._Clarke[edit]Looks like a long-term problem. Back in August 2009, he gets told that his last edit has a lot of issues, and he plays the victim "I shall endeavour to ignore your hostility and provide a civil response. "[46]. When he gets told of a lot more issues, he dismisses all of them and tells the other editor that he is assuming bad faith, then makes a condescending comment that he will take the suggestions into account [47]. Later, his proposed edit keeps being rejected and he makes unconstructive comments on the other editor [48]. In the end, the other editors re-wrote the discussed paragraph. My impression in general[edit]Always attempts to give undue weight to quotes and sources that are positive towards fringe subjects. Maybe he feels they are treated unfairly in wikipedia, or something. When told about weight and POV, he reacts badly (see diffs above). When he can't counter the other editor's arguments, he seems to resort to civil accusations of bad faith and non-neutrality. The ones I have seen were enveloped in exquisite civility, and they were baseless. They feel like a technique to avoid discussion and get his edits introduced despite the objections. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by Johnuniq[edit]Blippy is unable to discuss issues in the terms required at Wikipedia, as shown in my recent interaction at Talk:BlackLight Power#NPOV. At "00:18, 25 January 2014" (diff) my brief comment focuses on a single policy link (WP:SYNTH). After a reply by Blippy, I asked for a response to the substance of my comment. Blippy then replied "It's hard to know which of your claims you think is substantive" (diff) in a comment that again deflects from the point, namely that an article should not be padded with text that suggests there may be scientific support for the claim that the company has a new energy source. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by 76.107.171.90[edit]As of the moment I am writing this Blippy has made 150 edits to articles since he returned to Wikipedia in early November. Of those edits: 88 (58.6%) are POV pushes 23 (15.3%) are arbitrarily rearranging articles and rephrasing sentences 19 (12.6%) have been redacted 11 (7.3%) were actual edits 8 (5.3%) fixed errors (many of which were his own errors) 1 (0.6%) tried to fix an error, but failed. I would also like to point out that some of his edits have rather dishonest edit summaries. [[49]] Changed scientists to some scientists. Marked it as a copy edit. [[50]] Changed journal to journals (implying more than one). Marked it as a copy edit. [[51]] Called Sheldrake a “Research Fellow of the Royal Society”. Marked it as a copy edit. [[52]] Called morphic resonance a theory. Marked it as a copy edit. [[53]]. Changes “advocacy” into “research”. Marked it as a copy edit. In determining Blippy’s future on Wikipedia please consider the fact that he has done more harm than good. Though he certainly doesn’t approach User:Abd in terms of magnitude or length of disruption, Bilppy’s combination of POV-pushing, incompetence, and a generally foul attitude make him a textbook WP:RANDY. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC) comment by User:TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]As context for why IP 76.107.171.90 would classify some the edit summaries as "rather dishonest",
the others are pretty clear in their effect to create the impression that Sheldrake's work is more highly regarded than it actually is and are not merely copyedits for grammar or clarity. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom Result concerning Blippy[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. In arbitration enforcement, we cannot resolve content issues, such as whether the article should be modified the way Blippy wants it to be. What we can address is editor conduct, and the complaint demonstrates that Blippy has engaged in edit-warring, in violation of WP:EW. On these grounds, I believe a ban from the article Blacklight Power and its talk page is appropriate. A broader topic ban, such as the sanctions TenOfAllTrades and Vzaak suggest, might be considered if there is evidence of recent disruptive conduct with respect to other articles. Vzaak's evidence concerning Rupert Sheldrake is from November 2013 and therefore probably too old to be actionable now. Sandstein 09:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Blacklight Power is proposing to generate power through a mechanism that contradicts well-accepted physics. If this really happened, it would be epochal. The fact that no mainstream publications give their hypothesis credence is what should matter for Wikipedia. It's well within the domain of WP:ARBPS to issue sanctions to an editor who insists on wanting our articles to recognize a scientific hypothesis that hasn't received mainstream notice. If people working for Blacklight Power get an article accepted in the Physical Review then we should start paying attention. I support Sandstein's proposal for a ban of this editor from fringe and pseudoscience-related topics on all pages of Wikipeda, including Blacklight Power. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by HouseOfArtaxiad
[edit]| HouseOfArtaxiad's appeal is declined. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:11, 31 January 2014 (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.
Statement by HouseOfArtaxiad[edit]I would like to appeal a six month ban I was given three months ago. The requester cites a dispute on the Shushi article. He says I was ignoring the discussion on the talk page, but I was very active in it. He also claims I was edit warring, but I had only undone two edits, the same amount as he himself, and did not violate the three per day rule or anything that directly merited punishment. I feel the request to ban me was more like a ban for having a different opinion and EdJohnson rushed to place a ban. I think this was a relatively small incident that was reacted to too harshly. Considering almost all of my edits are focused around Armenian topics, most of which aren't controversial, I think half a year is too long of a sanction and that three months is plenty. Having already spent half the time banned, I want to request it be removed now. I promise I will not do any undoing during my next talk regardless of if the other editor does it or not. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by EdJohnston[edit]HouseOfArtaxiad has done very little editing since the closure of the original AE in November 2013 that led to his ban. So this should be viewed as though it was an immediate appeal in which he challenges the grounds presented at AE for the sanction.
In my opinion, the appeal should be judged on whether HouseOfArtaxiad effectively refutes the points raised in the above two discussions. To save following a lot of links, here was the original argument I presented:
Regarding HoA's claim that 'EdJohnston rushed to place a ban', please note that User:Sandstein and User:Drmies also supported this action. In terms of 'rushing', the complaint was opened on 8 November and closed on 15 November. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HouseOfArtaxiad[edit]Result of the appeal by HouseOfArtaxiad[edit]
This appeal isn't going anywhere, and may be archived, if the sanctioning administrator is not notified of the appeal by the appellant, as instructed in the template. Then we normally wait for the sanctioning admin to make a statement. Sandstein 09:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Wavyinfinity
[edit]| Wavyinfinity is topic-banned from everything related to astrophyics or cosmology. Sandstein 13:43, 11 February 2014 (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 Wavyinfinity[edit]
This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia WP:NOTHERE. See their userpage for their planned war on astrophysics etc. He, according to his edits, believes the big bang theory and black holes are pseudoscience [54] (29th November 2013) and he is pushing that in articles. He has made several article creations which clearly violate WP:FRINGE, and has continued to POV push despite being warned about discretionary sanctions. Fringe examples (in approximately reverse chronological order):
I think its quite clear that the editor has been pushing crank theories on wikipedia, despite warnings, and an indefinite topic ban is required considering the duration of the issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Wavyinfinity[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Wavyinfinity[edit]Statement by vzaak[edit]User is explicitly advocating a warfare mentality: "The War on Astrophysical Scientism: For those students who have resisted the conditioning of the thousands of astronomy professors a method for battling the dogma I have shown to be most effective is provided below. [...] We have a lot of un-brainwashing of the masses to do."[59] Also on the user's page are statements such as "The neutrino does not exist", "The Higgs Boson is political propaganda", and "Mathematical physicists are very dangerous". The page was deleted before and should be deleted again. vzaak 18:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by IRWolfie-[edit]@Sandstein: Considering their creation of clearly inappropriate fringe material in astrophysics topics like Stellar metamorphosis and their comments about particle physics, can this be extended to physics broadly? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by olive[edit]While this request seems to have merit, I would like to make sure that a sanction is for actions that fall under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Competence might be preferred, but unfortunately especially in some cases, incompetence is not a sanctionable offense. "Crank" theories are allowable if notable, so a sanction of whatever time period the sanctioning admin thinks necessary seems to be per the pushing of those theories and the battleground behaviour while trying to include those theories rather than writing about the theories themselves in an incompetent manner. This is perhaps a subtle but necessary clarification?(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC))
This is an AE which specifically asks for input from involved and uninvolved editors. I note your actions here and am on to other things.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC))
Statement by Montanabw[edit]A read of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision indicates to me that we focus on the content first. While in this case, I happen to agree that yes, denial of the Big Bang Theory and the existence of the neutrino (etc.) IS indeed a WP:FRINGE belief, and yes WP:COMPETENCE is "required", nonetheless, caution is in order here. If someone has a blatent POV that they are pushing and it can be clearly identified as fringe, then of course that material need not be included and they just need to get over it. But sanctioning the person for their beliefs, however mistaken, may not be needed. A person's user page is evidence of a POV, but not necessarily evidence of their approach to editing, diffs of specific behavior are more at issue. The person's behavior needs to be evaluated separately and in view of their total participation on wikipedia; a simple "ban them from the topic just because they are interested in it" approach is seldom helpful and generally generates more heat than light. Obviously, a one-topic/article account is a near-automatic red flag, but this person has been around for several months and while I do not agree with his/her views, they seem to be engaging in mostly harmless-if-fringe free speech. Similarly, if the individual merely argues a non-mainstream viewpoint in an appropriate fashion but ultimately cannot express their POV without attacking others; then appropriate wiki-wide sanctions may be appropriate. (Occasional flareups of temper being understandable, particularly when WP:BAITed, though WP:ROPE applies as well) But a topic ban for having a POV is generally a poor solution and usually just leads to more people running to the teacher, crying, "I'm telling." (Offtopic content suppressed, Sandstein 21:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)). Montanabw(talk) 17:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC) (Further offtopic content suppressed, Sandstein 21:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)). @Sandstein, I am confused; you say that I cannot make statements without evidence, but when I present evidence, it's "suppressed," along with my original concerns. Yet the actions leading to the issues that I raised regarding a different editor's comments, and that editor's responses above, are not similarly suppressed. So do clarify. If links as diffs is all you need, then I shall supply them. If you wish to rachet down the heat, then also suppress the comments of the user who I addressed. I have no desire to be banned from discussing this topic, I seek guidance. Montanabw(talk) 02:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC) @IR Wolfie- and Sandstein, I happen to agree that the views of Wavyinfinity are very much WP:FRINGE. Just so there is no misunderstanding of that issue. It's the tone that's my concern. And indeed, I have never been involved (to my recollection, though correct me should I err) with any of the articles that gave rise tp the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions until today. Full disclosure: Wolfie and I have spatted over animal-assisted therapy article(s), but after some debate, I have acquiesced in having his edits/views on those articles stand per MEDRS until or unless I get the motivation to do more MEDRS editing on those articles. Montanabw(talk) 02:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC) @Mastcell, your statement is understood by me and I can accept your initial comments. That said, Sandstein's "warning" is inappropriate, as I have never edited in any of the articles I understand to have been part of the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions discussion. I still think he needs to strike his "warning" Montanabw(talk) 02:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Statement by (user name)[edit]Result concerning Wavyinfinity[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Closing: Per the above discussion, Wavyinfinity is topic-banned from everything related to astrophyics or cosmology. Sandstein 13:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
Mathsci
[edit]| Mathsci confirms that they now understand the conditions of the ban, if there are any further violations talk page and email access should be revoked without need for further discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:26, 12 February 2014 (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 Mathsci[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Request for clarification (October 2013) Sorry about that NE Ent 23:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mathsci[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mathsci[edit]Statement by Deltahedron[edit]Here is what I wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Banned_user_suggesting_edits
I then added
It seems to me that Mathsci is intent on continuing the fight he was trying to pick with me last April. I refuse to play these games. Deltahedron (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge[edit]This is a clear and obvious violation of the site ban. At a bare minimum, I would suggest that an account block (including talk page access and e-mail access) and a reset of repeals (originally six months) to the date that this request is closed is in order. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Mathsci[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Momento
[edit]| Consensus is that the appeal against the topic ban of Momento is declined. Sandstein 12:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Appealing user[edit]
User imposing the sanction[edit]
Notification of User imposing sanction[edit]
Sanction being appealed[edit]
Statement by Momento[edit]On November 15th 2012 I was indefinitely topic-banned by The Blade of the Northern Lights, for “persistent battleground behaviour” but he provides no evidence or diffs to support that charge or any other. HISTORY In the second half of 2012 the Prem Rawat article resembled a battleground but I did not instigate it nor did I participate in it. On the contrary the main reason for that situation is the behaviour of one editor, PatW who has been warned for incivility and battleground behaviour nineteen times on his talk page and countless times on the PR talk pages.[74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91] In the three months before I was topic banned PatW was warned twice by The Blade of the Northern Lights for his incivility. On August 25th - ‘'everyone, especially you PatW, needs to cool it. I get that each "side" here is frustrated with the other, but it's not that hard to review what you're saying and remove the invective from your post before hitting the save button”.[92] And again on September 3rd on PatW's talk page - “(Pat) you have to be more tactful in your approach. I came very close to banning you from the topic, but I've decided I should give you at least one personal note to alert you to the fact that you're on my radar screen" but to no avail.[93] On the same day on the Prem Rawat talk page a new uninvolved editor had this to say - “I came to this page to see if the allegations being made about Memento's editing were true, but what strikes me as more egregious are the constant personal attacks by PatW and Surdas. Because of the hostility and unconstructive comments by those two, I'm unwilling to get involved at this point.[94] And on September 9th a new uninvolved editor had this to say - “PatW's incivility and accusations are somewhat beyond the pale. What he has done in the discussion…is attack”.[95]. “Pat I don't like being attacked, don't appreciate it at all…Attacking other editors out of hand whatever the history on that article will only bring you problems”.[96] And “Lets be clear (Pat). You have insulted me from the moment I stepped on the PR page…I removed myself from the PR article , but you continue to attack me as if the article and its problems are my fault…I won't continue to work on a page where I am consistently attacked".[97] On November 14th 2012 PatW expanded his battleground to Jimbo Wales talk page calling me an “unconscionable idiot” [98] Rather than take exception to PatW’s disgraceful attack on a very public page The Blade of the Northern Lights decided to ban me. And then, after telling Rumiton that it wouldn't be fair to topic ban him since Rumiton hadn't returned "to what got him banned” in April, TBOTNL banned him anyway despite seven months of non-battleground editing.[99] PatW described his banning as “I have managed to get myself 'blown up' by my own bomb”. Exactly, PatW has been hurling bombs for years. Despite being Topic Banned, PatW continued his war on Jimbo Wales talk page and on November 20th 2012 he was blocked "for deliberately attempting to link a Wikipedia editor to his real life identity". [100] SUMMARY: No evidence was presented that shows me involved in “battleground behaviour” or incivility. No evidence was presented that show me editing in a POV or inappropriate way. In fact, no evidence of any sort justifies this ban.
DAY 3 ROUND UP: Having failed to provide any evidence or diffs to justify the original sanction or deny this appeal, the focus has been shifted to ban me as an SPA despite no evidence of improper editing and clear evidence to the contrary..MOMENTO (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC) DAY 4 ROUND UP: We now have four editors who have decided to ignore the fact that we are at WP:AE to judge my appeal of a specific sanction (Indefinitely topic-banned by The Blade of the Northern Lights, for “persistent battleground behaviour”). Rather than accept the fact that no evidence or diffs have been provided to justify the original sanction and the ban should therefore be lifted these four editors have side tracked the appeal and turned it into an evidence free witch hunt. Two reasons for extending the ban are given, one that I was sanction in 2010 and therefore should be sanctioned again and the other is that I'm an SPA which means I should be sanctioned. No evidence is given for either.MOMENTO (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC) CONCLUSION: Since TBOTNL has not been able to present any evidence to justify “an indefinite topic ban for persistent battleground behaviour” my appeal is successful and my ban must now be lifted. If any editors would like to open their own AE against me, go right ahead but this AE is over.MOMENTO (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Statement by Blade of the Northern Lights[edit]My wiki-syntax is a little rusty right now, so I apologize in advance if my diffs are a little tough to navigate. When ArbCom looked at the bans I implemented in the days immediately afterward, in my statement there I pointed to a series of edits made in the days immediately before the topic ban; they're linked at said talkpage, I'll put them here for convenience. I'm not especially familiar with Rawat, but it's extremely obvious that these edits were removing criticism from reliable sources and slanting the article in a very pro-Rawat direction. The first several threads of Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 50 contain the discussion on the talkpage, and it makes it yet more obvious that this was the intent. If you click a few diffs ahead, you'll see DeCausa (talk · contribs) wholesale reverted said changes here and, later that day, Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) re-added some more criticism which Momento et al. had moved and removed. In his capacity as an editor Jimbo has spent some time handling the Prem Rawat article, which is an extremely long-running problem area, and the day that I implemented all the topic bans there was a fairly brief thread at Jimbo's talkpage wherein he expressed serious concerns about the state of the article as it was at the time. As with Rumiton's ban, I discussed this with @Steven Zhang:, who has years of experience mediating at this article. He and I saw pretty much eye to eye on the intractability of the problem, and he too agreed the edits referenced above were obviously not neutral. And just as a quick note to any admins unfamiliar with the situation, the article at the time was under article probation and not the standard AE sanctions. When ArbCom looked at the situation they explicitly noted that what I did was in keeping with the sanctions in place, and several of them expressed their own concerns about the editing which was occurring before implementing the topic bans. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by olive[edit]What is the issue here -asking that the sanction be reviewed or lifting the sanction? We should not use past sanctions to muddy the water on what the issue is here, but should deal with behaviour since the last sanction unless WP is indeed punitive. Disclaimer: I had very little prior knowledg of Prem Rawat or his organization but saw a comment on a talk page which led me to the article talk page where I then thought an uninvolved voice might be useful. These were my observations. My experience although short was that Momento was making good attempts to work collaboratively on the talk page. The battle ground sensibility and tone was not created by him but by two other editors. Blade's sanction was sweeping and did not delineate specific behaviours per specific editors. Jimbo Wale's addition was and should have been considered controversial, but he made that edit immediately editors were sanctioned so they could not discuss it with him, and he made the edit with out any discussion on the talk page, as I remember. What is happening here seems to me is that the lack of discrimination then, is necessary now. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC))
Momento consolidated positive content, reducing positive weight, [103][104], the same way he trims and consolidates here. Much of what he removes here is positive to Rawat. [105].. Why is this being used to show he removes negative to Rawat content rather than that his editing has become more neutral in how he deals with both pejorative and positive to Rawat content.
I remember clearly your support of Will Beback in the past. Given Will's position in reference to Momento I don't see you input here as being unbiased I think you have a very good idea in asking Momento what he plans to do if the ban is lifted, and perhaps even better to suggest what he could be doing. I would contest these comments made by Mastcell: But so far this exercise seems to be simply another complaint about the technical and legalistic aspects of the original topic ban, This editor was sanctioned with out a diff. With out diffs editors do not know exactly what they done to deserve a sanction nor what they can do to improve. With out asking for diffs how does an editor get a review. No editor should be criticized for asking for a review and for asking for diffs showing wrong doing. And no admin should first neglect to use diffs, but if they do, they should willingly be able to show them when asked. Wikipedia is not punishment based, apparently. People need to know what they can do to improve. coupled with a continuation of combative battleground behavior In my time on the page battleground and abusive behaviour was demonstrated by other editors. How Momento remained as collected as he did in that environment is hard to understand. Further, asking for a review of a sanction is not battleground behaviour. Wikipedia extends this right to editors. So, suggesting there is continued battle ground behaviour when there was no proof of battle ground behaviour to begin with is a circular argument and unfair.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC))
Statement by Rainer P.[edit]A little history: I am also a SPA and joined .enWP solely for the reason of protecting the Rawat articles from the doings of a small, but vociferous group of Rawat-“critics“, who have succeeded in creating a sustained false balance in the articels, that was cleverly designed to appear as innocent neutrality to in this regard uneducated editors and admins. Especially after that notorious Cade Metz attack there seemed to be a proneness to avoid any positive statement on Prem Rawat in WP, enforced by admins like Will Beback or Maelefique, who displayed a considerable bias toward a „critical“ view of the subject, as they perhaps innocently understood their stance. These editors systematically looked the other way, when Rawat-supporters were attacked by members of that group, who frequently boasted about their feats on their forum. Of course admins can not be expected to keep track of such goings and their dubious background, as that requires special proficiency that is acquired only through special interest, like Momento, Rumiton and I have, after observing very closely the subject's history. The frequent impunity, with which detractors were able to ride their innuendos and attacks in the face of those admins has created a tricky climate of wild-west lawlessness and self-defence that was certainly one condition for the development of a bad style in the interaction of involved editors, namely a "battleground" situation. It got better, after TBotNL had announced strict enforcement of WP rules, but then that „nuclear solution“ brought everything to a dead stop. It's like the gunfight at the O.K. Corral had been decided by dropping a bomb on the whole scene indisciminately. I am convinced that under a more conscientious supervision Momento would not have given reason to consider such drastic measures as an infinite topic ban, and I believe that in a future setting with strict and neutral enforcement of WP-rules Momento can make valuable contributions to the article, without tripping over the pitfalls of weak leadership. Putting the article under DS seems to be a step into that direction. He should be given a new chance. He may not be the only one who needs a chance to learn.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC) "Wikipedia is not censored". Maybe this high principle is sometimes hard to live up to. I feel it is being subtly eroded, when an editor gets banned, although he can not be convicted of misconduct. No person should be sacrificed on the altars of mediocrity.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Statement by Steven Zhang[edit]Commenting on this briefly as I was pinged by Blade. I think it's a really simple case here - Momento's editing over the last nine years has almost solely been regarding Prem Rawat. In my experience from my time mediating the Prem Rawat articles, I found some of the editors used tactics like stonewalling to prevent change, often being very unwilling to negotiate at all. Momento I believe has been one of these editors. He's had poor conduct in the past, and has been blocked several times due to this conduct. If he had an otherwise stellar record with edits to other articles then I'd recommend considering his topic ban. Looking at his editing since the topic ban being imposed, there's practically nothing other than talking about his topic ban, and has been keeping track of changes made to Rawat articles. In absence of redeeming conduct and past poor conduct, I recommend the topic ban remain in place, with it possible to be reconsidered if quality work is done elsewhere. Regards, Steven Zhang (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves[edit]I'm here because of Momento's wholly inappropriate canvassing on ANI (which, by the way, really just shows how out-of-touch they are). A typical AE removal of restrictions request requires that the appelant a) show proof of positive editing since, and b) provide a suggestion of their "way forward" if future disputes arise. None of these exist in this appeal. What the appelant does seem to be suggestion is that 1.25+ years later, the original topic ban should not have been applied anyway. It's FAR to late to make that arguement - especially considering past attempts at appeal. The appelant appears to be hoping a) we forget things and b) those involved in the original topic ban are absent. From what I can see, the topic ban was in lieu of an obvious site ban/indef block due to their behaviour. They're FORTUNATE to have only recieved a topic ban. Because it's way to late to appeal the original topic ban, we have to revert to the "appeal on time served/good behaviour" which is wholly absent. As such, I find the original topic ban to be valid, and no need to accept an appeal at this time. I would however suggest that Momento be topic-banned from further appeals for AT LEAST 6 months. ES&L 14:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Momento[edit]In the message with which they imposed the ban, The Blade of the Northern Light did not link to evidence of misconduct by Momento that would justify the ban. I would ask them to submit such evidence now in order to allow us to review this appeal. As concerns the rest of Momento's statement, what other editors may or may not have done is entirely irrelevant here because editors are sanctioned based only on their own conduct, not because of the conduct of others (see, by analogy, WP:NOTTHEM). The conduct of others should therefore not be discussed further here. Sandstein 06:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC) You cannot understand the situation at Prem Rawat without discussing the actions of the editors.MOMENTO (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Momento[edit]
|
ArtifexMayhem
[edit]| Submitter Prmct has been conventionally blocked as a sock by User:NuclearWarfare. No other action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning ArtifexMayhem[edit]
ArtifexMayhem is tag-teaming with Volunteer Marek to replace the article Nations and intelligence with a redirect to another article. I have tried to resolve the issues with this article on the talk page, but both of them are reverting without participating in the discussion. At present there is no consensus to turn the article into a redirect, and I would like to improve the article's sourcing, but their restoring the redirect in rapid succession makes it impossible for me to edit the article. I've looked through the edit histories of Nations and Intelligence and the Human Intelligence template, and ArtifexMayhem has never participated in either before his reverts today. I'm reporting ArtifexMayhem because his conduct is the worse problem, but be aware Volunteer Marek has been warned of the discretionary sanctions also: [116] This evidence presented against ArtifexMayhem in an arbitration case last year suggests that almost all of his edits to articles related to race have been blanking or reverts, and he usually does not discuss them on the talk pages. One example given there is that on the article that Nations and Intelligence now redirects to, all of ArtifexMayhem's edits have been reverts. [117] What he's doing now seems to be a continuation of the same behavior, and seems to be exactly what the tag-teaming ruling in the race and intelligence case was intended to prevent. Before someone asks, please be aware that I'm not a new user. I suggest admins read the discussion here if they wish to understand why I do not believe it's necessary to disclose my former account. I also encourage admins to examine the textbook I have been citing at Google books, if they wish to examine ArtifexMayhem's claims about WP:FRINGE in his edit summaries.
Discussion concerning ArtifexMayhem[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ArtifexMayhem[edit]I've supported redirecting that article for more than a year[119] due to its WP:FRINGE nature. So it's not really surprising that I agree with Aprock[120] and Volunteer Marek[121] (especially considering so of Prmct's pov pushing edits[122]).
— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Statement by Aprock[edit]I don't follow off wiki behavior, so I wasn't aware that Captain Occam had been discussing the topic area with The Devil's Advocate. If that is in fact true, it may be that The Devil's Advocate's disruptive edits are a case of proxy editing for a site banned user. aprock (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]I feel NuclearWarfare's action here is premature. Concerns about previous accounts should be given more consideration and not be met with an "editing generally favors bad POV so bad editor" argument. From what I have seen, this editor has not even been pushing a POV, but simply objecting to the POV-pushing by other editors. The content dispute noted here, over the Nations and Intelligence article, is one where the editing by Prmct was geared towards accommodating concerns about the article not sufficiently representing more mainstream scholarship on the subject. One of the only editors to give a cogent reason essentially argued that there is sufficient basis for an article but that it should incorporate more mainstream views. Wanting to improve an article on a noteworthy subject and objecting to it being repeatedly blanked while you are in the process of doing that is not problematic in itself.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Statement by IP[edit]@NW If that block was an AE block, you need to specify that it was. Presuming it was not, it would still be helpful to say so since the block originated from the AE page. Someone reviewing the block may think it was an AE action. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning ArtifexMayhem[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Appeal for arbitration enforcement action by Khabboos
[edit]| Incomplete request, see subsequent request below. Sandstein 18:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I made an arbitration request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Hinduism_in_Pakistan and have been directed here. Please rule that that sentence I inserted can be in that article (or tell me where to appeal).—Khabboos (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
|
AcidSnow
[edit]| No action can be taken here; AcidSnow and Khabboos are notified of discretionary sanctions (Wikipedia:ARBIP#Standard_discretionary_sanctions). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:20, 14 February 2014 (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 AcidSnow[edit]
Discussion concerning AcidSnow[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AcidSnow[edit]You have got to be kidding me. You realize that I am not the only one reverting your edits, as several other users have already done so? The ones I have reverted were either Original research, POV, misrepresenting of sources, using non reliable sources, lying about "sources", etc. Many of these were also more than one! Not just those, but this "dispute' you keep forumshoping about is a waste of time. I am not the only one that has told you that you are misrepresenting the sources provide nor was I "wrong" for doing so! As for the "stalking" (which I am not exactly doing exactly) I am justified as you wont stop your disruptive editing. I am not the only one that agrees as does Joshua Jonathan. As for people you have listed me to stop, NONE of them have said such a thing! If anyone of the admin want to see the ones I have reverted and the "discussion"please see the original discussion at ANI that he has refused to discuss his continues inappropriate behavior. As you can all see he would decided rather to see me banned than discuss anything! AcidSnow (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Khabboos[edit]I wrote that, 'In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera' and added this reference: "Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 29 January 2014. Statement by Toddy1[edit]I am not engaged in an edit war. I had a look at the article on Hinduism in Pakistan as a result of complaints at ANI by AcidSnow that Khabboos was posting fake citations (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#User:Khabboos.) Where there are issues I have explained them on the article talk page. I also raised the issue of the lack of citations for claims about the Taliban on User talk:Khabboos#Taliban and alleged persecution of Hindus in Pakistan. When parties to a dispute (AcidSnow and Khabboos) discuss issues in places like ANI, and various other forums (Khabboos has raised this in quite a few), then they should expect uninvolved editors to take a look at what they are doing. I am one of those uninvolved editors taking a fresh look.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Result concerning AcidSnow[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This is not actionable as submitted. As explained in a section above, we are not allowed to decide content issues such as whether the text at issue should be in the article or not. This must be resolved via the process described in WP:DR. We can only take action if one of you has acted in a way that violates our conduct rules, such as by edit-warring. In addition, imposing discretionary sanctions requires a prior warning with the contents prescribed in WP:AC/DS#Warnings, which doesn't seem to have happened.That said, the history of Hinduism in Pakistan does reflect an edit war between AcidSnow and Khabboos. I think that we can close this with a discretionary sanctions warning to both, and advice to read up on policies such as WP:EW and WP:DR. Sandstein 18:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Volunteer Marek
[edit]| Not closely related to the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions so outside the jurisdiction of AE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:43, 16 February 2014 (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[edit]
Note: This list is very incomplete: it is hard to find warnings against him because he deletes them immediately.
This user was with the EEML so this thread will be spammed by supporters and attacks against the messenger as always. These insults comes in response to a strongly founded but not uncontroversial diatribe that kept appearing on my watchlist [128]. The essay laid out how Volunteer Marek was almost enjoying a carte blanche in the Eastern European topic area, mentioning over a dozen cases of reports where Piotrus tried to save him from consequences, against which Volunteer Marek now lashes out fiercely, unsurprisingly. I know that in this topic area you can't criticize without the messengers being attacked in defense. Recently that a user got topic-banned for 6 uncivil or personal attacks with less history in that regard than Volunteer Marek fills me with the hope that this can be ended better very late than never.
Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]Statements 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 Marek[edit]And this has nothing to do with the DIGWUREN case. It's just another battleground account, filing another spurious request on a flimsy pretext.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC) To be more precise, these comments were made in response to completely unfounded accusations (only "implied" at first, then made explicit) by another user that I was planning or actually capable or possibly engaged in writing Encyclopedia Dramatica attack pieces on other users. Someone accuses you of that, you'd get mad too. Either way, they were made in response to these particular accusations, and not in relation with anything to do with DIGWUREN (and please take a look at filer's editing history. Shows up out of nowhere, knows all the ins and outs, etc.) Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Statement by Lukeno94[edit]
Statement by Giano[edit]I am completely and happily uninvolved with the EEML and any of its members. However, they have been under a lot of provocation lately. Piotrus had a perfect right to attempt to become an admin again; I'm less sure that an anon IP had the right to influence that attempt. That this has led to resentment and anger is understandable. I don't see Marek being totally abusive - I see some understandable anger and resentment. I don't see the point in penalising Marek, exasperation is not a crime in anyone's book. Blocking Marek for this will just lead to more festering resentment and animosity - who will that help? It's hardly an occurrence that's likely to be repeated. Giano 15:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]To me it seems that this matter falls within the scope of the discretionary sanctions. It is not as though this was some random dispute about some random people with some sort of connection to the Eastern European topic area. At the center of the ANI case was the repeated removal of evidence compiled against Piotrus showing that editor's misconduct with regards to Eastern European topics. Marek was apparently one of the people engaged in such removal and was connected to some of the misconduct in question. How Marek behaved during a noticeboard discussion about misconduct directly concerning the Eastern European topic area seems to fall within the bounds of the discretionary sanctions. Even if one were to argue that the link is too tenuous it does not mean that no action can be taken as any conduct issue raised here can be acted upon even if not through the discretionary sanctions. It would just be a normal administrative action subject to normal administrative review procedures.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Statement by Piotrus[edit]I am torn here. On one hand, I've always argued for enforcing civility and NPA; and I usually agree with Sandstein. On the other, to issue sanctions only because of an argument that C/E Europe arbitration sanctions apply here seems rather ridiculous, or an exercise in advanced wikilawyering; those sanctions apply to content namespace, not RfA or ANI. I wouldn't have a problem with enforcing CIV/NPA or such, but to do so using a next-to-nonexistent connection to content-area arbitration ruling as an excuse is simply not right. What I do have a problem is a logic that seemingly creates two groups of editors: once editing in content areas with ArbCom sanctions (C/E Europe, presumably few others) and the rest. In other words, if VM was not editing C/E articles, but another controversial but without discretionary sanctions area, such as, let's say, abortion, he could have said exactly the same things and there would be no reason to act? That's putting some twisted letter of the law so beyond any spirit that I am simply amazed. Then there's also the usually forgotten argument that sanctions should be preventative, not punitive (yeah, I know, dead letter). Plus an issue of WP:BOOMERANG (it takes two to tango...). And perhaps someone would be so kind as to consider whether referencing to an Encyclopedia Dramatica article, where information such as real life names, personal addresses and death threats have been posted, is not a more serious issue to consider (I am not saying this as a general snide at ED, I am saying this as mine and Marek's real life info was posted there, accompanied by the said death threats... Anyway, I'd suggest issuing a bunch of civility warnings, and/or "next time, interaction ban will be considered" warnings, for a number of parties, and moving on. On a closing note, it is not the first time that RfA has seen major and likely nonpunishable violations of CIV/NPA and such. Perhaps we should consider issuing a set of discretionary sanctions to RfAs in general, subjecting comments of editors in that forum to above-average scrutiny, and violations of NPA and such there, subject to serious sanctions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Comment by arbitrator: Roger Davies[edit]No view whatsoever on the facts, just a comment on the underlying principle, posted not as a party but as an individual arbitrator. It has never, to my knowledge, been the intention of the committee that DS attaching to topic morph into DS for any individual who has ever edited within it. Roger Davies talk 17:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Comment by Fut.Perf.[edit]I'm not going to take admin action here myself, but I'd like to point out that if V.M. were to be sanctioned here, then User:Lukeno94 would certainly have to be sanctioned too. It was Lukeno's attacks on V.M. that provoked much of his outbursts, and the underhanded way Lukeno was implying V.M. was inolved, or likely to be involved, in real-life harassment of opponents, was odious indeed. Quote: "… the abuse they would get from the likes of Marek, and, given the various underhanded tactics that this group of editors have engaged in, if their account easily leads to the finding of their real name, they may well be very nervous of real-life repercussions" – it may not be as overtly intemperate in its wording as V.M.'s responses, but it is no less serious as a defamatory personal attack. Indeed, it is nothing short of character assassination. One might say it deserved every bit of the heat it got in response. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Ronz
[edit]| Both users officially notified of discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:57, 18 February 2014 (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 Ronz[edit]
Latest revision as of 19:21, 14 February 2014 by NewsAndEventsGuy about summarizes the situation. Minor variations of objections keep being brought up and they require the whole business to be gone through without referring to the same thing before even with accurate pointers. And yet they will not give any accurate indication of their own objections just lists of whole policies without sections and not saying where they have explained themselves. They keep warning others to concentrate on the topic and warn about bringing them to here, yet they keep trying to divert discussions.
Discussion concerning Ronz[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Ronz[edit]I'm having trouble identifying how the descriptions of the diffs actually describe what was going on, much less how addressing them is beneficial to Wikipedia. I disagree with Dmcq's interpretations of key areas of dispute with the article, and have found that trying to discuss them only brings out battleground responses (User_talk:Dmcq#CONLEVEL, User_talk:Dmcq#IDIDNTHEARTHAT). It seems that these disagreements are what are being brought here, just without the proper context. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Ronz[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. As submitted, this complaint seems to have no merit, and borders on the frivolous. The submitter doesn't explain how exactly these talk page messages are supposed to violate any conduct policy or guideline, and it is not apparent from looking at them how they might do so. Also, there's no diff of a warning meeting the requirements of WP:AC/DS#Warnings. Sandstein 21:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Yossiea
[edit]| Yossiea blocked for 24 hours (now expired) for breaching 1RR and notified of discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:24, 20 February 2014 (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 Yossiea[edit]
I am astonished by Yossiea's actions. This is not what I would expect from a user who has edited so long, even less by someone who has rollback and reviewer rights. She removed the Gaza Strip from the list of territories being occupied. This was sourced with this by UN. While it is acceptable to make changes, it is not acceptable to trying to enforce your own view, and keep in mind she is not offering any sources and has been informed that many still see it as occupied, as she has done by constantly removing the Gaza Strip from the list and demanding that we discuss it. She wrote this in her first edit summary about this: "Removing Gaza Strip, regardless of what the UN says, there is no Israeli military occupation of the Strip, it could be stated that Hamas is occupying Gaza, but I guess we can't go there". In her second edit, she wrote this "No matter what, there is no military occupation of Gaza". Then she reverted another time. I reverted her saying "You need sources for that. Presenting your own opinion is not enough". She responded by saying "Please see Talk Page and discuss first. Evidence? Are you saying Israel didn't withdraw from Gaza????". This was already discussed in the talk page, including by me who had wrote there and offered a soloution. She wrote this in the talk page after her last revert: "It's not disputed, the Israeli military withdrew from Gaza". Is it this she mean with discuss? On 02:34, 18 February 2014, she went to Sepsis II's talk page and warned him for "disruptive editing". I am not 100% sure if this is covered by ARBIA. She was warned on 02:53, 18 February 2014 by Sepsis II on the article's talk page that "The section is also under 1RR which you have broken and may be blocked for, please revert per BRD rather than edit war". She wrote to him there two hours later so she must have seen it in that small section and Sepsis had put up an ARBIA header. She should not have reverted again on 06:56, 18 February 2014 and had the time to self-revert. Yossiea did also canvass by writing "At List of military occupations Gaza Strip is being inserted under the "current" section of military occupations even though Israel withdrew. You might want to take a look and add your comments" in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC) How do you mean it is a violaton by Sepsis II? One revert was 03:14, 16 February 2014 and the other one 14:04, 17 February 2014. I do not think Sepsis II meant Yossiea was "clueless" but that he was for getting a warning by her for "disruptive editing". I was also clueless when I saw that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Yossiea[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Yossiea[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Statement by Sepsis[edit]I'll try to use words like astounded and flabbergasted when I think of the baseless attacks by editors like Yossiea and Magog. Sepsis II (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Yossiea[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Ivan Štambuk
[edit]| Ivan Štambuk (talk · contribs) blocked for a week by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 21 February 2014 (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 Ivan Štambuk[edit]
The user in question was an instigator of a couple of content disputes, most notably on Ivan Gundulić. Now I wouldn't usually mind it nor the long tirades on the talk page but this user has shown such a blatant incivility and made so many ad hominem personal attacks towards me (and other users) that I no longer can ignore this. He crossed the line as far as I am concerned. He was warned for this before [132]. I would also point out that he did a blatant attempt of WP:CANVASS here to a user recently topic-banned from Balkan related articles per WP:ARBMAC. Do note that I have also started a SPI as I believe he openly admitted to be a known sock-puppeteer PaxEquilibrium.
Discussion concerning Ivan Štambuk[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Ivan Štambuk[edit]If you are insulted by being called a nationalist (it's not an insult) you should have said so. Though I personally find it very hard to believe. I didn't canvass anybody - the message I left at User:Slovenski Volk's talkpage was related to an entirely different topic. Sockpuppet investigation is a joke, I'm not PaxEquilibrium or PravdaRuss. These reports that you keep making against me are nothing but harassment. You're the one that should have ARBMAC enforced for POV-pushing in Balkans-related topics. My edits were all done with NPOV in mind, while you were the one who removed NPOV notice from [[Ivan Gundulić]], and removed Serbian writer/language from the article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Statement by No such user[edit]So, we have another power trip by Sandstein, who took it upon himself to be God, Judge and Executor in AE matters. Blocking an experienced user for 7 days because he labeled another user 'nationalist' (which is a mere personal attack) using WP:ARBMAC as excuse is yet another misuse of powers. I think it is high time for the ARBCOM to thank Sandstein for his long-term abuse under the guise AE, preferrably by revoking his administrator privileges for good. Let me state that I don't have a beef in this dispute, and that I had my run-ins with Štambuk, who can be a pain in the ass and is quick to label others as nationalists and assume bad faith. Maybe he even deserved a short-term block. But that would be a block for personal attacks, not because he has done anything nearly approaching ARBMAC criteria. Except, of course, in interpretation, where "broadly construed" = "whatever springs Sandstein's mind at the moment". No such user (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]No such user, I think you are mistaken. WP:ARBMAC is under discretionary sanctions so an uninvolved admin can block and close an AE report. "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Sean.hoyland - talk 14:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Ivan Štambuk[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|