Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive162
GodBlessYou2
[edit]| Topic-banned for six months. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2015 (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 GodBlessYou2[edit]
Subject of a WP:FTN thread started by the initiator of this request that contains additional discussion: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#GodBlessYou2. He was notified of this discussion: Jan 6. Please see the usertalk page of the user for more discussions as to the problematic behavior. Believe that a broad topic ban from all religion/science/pseudoscience/creationism related pages is in order.
Discussion concerning GodBlessYou2[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 GodBlessYou2[edit]I will confine my response to the original charges made above according to the diffs cited. 1. Jan 11 Edit-warring regarding creationism.
3. #Jan 9 The so called Edit-warring on a Jytdog's talk page first, does not fall under the fringe and pseudoscience arbitration rules.
Statement by John Carter[edit]Tend to support some sort of ban, indefinite or otherwise. I also tend to think that the topic area could use some more attention.
Statement by Adamfinmo[edit]
Statement by Capeo[edit]I'm not great with diffs so hopefully this is sufficient. On Dec 26th another user added this [16] which was quickly reverted. The talk page discussion led to an RFC . Two days into the RFC, with consensus clearly against the inclusion at that point on Dec 28th GBY2 added this section to [17] the article. It was reverted as there was an ongoing RFC covering similar material. On Jan 7 the RFC was closed with consensus against adding such a section [18] On Jan 11 GBY2 readded the section (even bigger this time) [19] against the consensus just a few days old which was again reverted. Here we have GBY2 edit warring on a user talk page [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], until finally stopping after being threatened with a block [25]. This can be chalked up to not understanding talkpage rules but it displays the tendentious attitude in almost all of GBY2's editing. On Jan 6 in Fine-Tuned Universe GBY2 added two books to further reading [26], this was reverted. They then tried to add one of the books as a ref [27], this too is reverted. They add a book back to further reading claiming vandalism [28] this is again reverted, this time by a different user who goes on to add it correctly in the right place. On Jan 11th GBY2 once again tries to add the further reading [29] and yet a different user reverts them. They try to add it yet again [30] and are once more reverted. All the while consensus was also against the inclusion of these books/sources on the talk page yet GBY2 forged ahead regardless. All of GodBlessYou2's contributions are in the realm of religion, mostly creationism and its offshoots. This mainly started at [31] where they displayed they didn't understand what constituted an independent reliable source in regards to scientific or fringe claims. Capeo (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by AndyTheGrump[edit]A further example of GodBlessYou2's refusal to accept consensus at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy - combined with a blatant misrepresentation of demonstrable facts: [34]. GodBlessYou2 writes that "...the only appeal is to a stale RfC. The RfC was about one reference and one proposed sentence." The RfC closed less than a week ago. It mentioned no reference, and made no specific proposal regarding text. [35] This gross misrepresentation, combined with a refusal to accept consensus, suggests to me that at minimum a topic ban is required. Though frankly, given that this refusal to accept consensus seems to be an ongoing issue with this contributor (see this [36] discussion on another topic entirely, where GodBlessYou2's reponse to a clearly-developing consensus was to make the same proposal again, slightly reworded, and insist that it be discussed again) I have to wonder whether we would be better off without such contributions at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by jps[edit]I echo what AndyTheGrump says about pseudoscience-relatedness, and argue strongly that the edits under discussion here are 100% pseudoscience-related contrary to the attempted demarcation offered by Sandstein below. To give a kind of seminar tutorial in this subject, the National Center for Science Education (I would argue the foremost authority on identifying pseudoscience in the context of the creation-evolution controversy) identifies the precise aspect of the fine-tuning argument which is pseudoscientific here: [40]. This is exactly the same aspect that GodBlessYou2 is pushing. Claiming that the conflict thesis of religion versus science is somehow a separate issue from science versus pseudoscience actually skids dangerously towards adopting the position of intelligent design pseudoscientists make in their Teach the Controversy — another argument that is itself rank pseudoscience promotion. In other words, it is clever propaganda meant to legitimize positions that are pseudoscientific — intending to make them look like a conflict of worldviews rather than pseudoscience. Remember, the discretionary sanctions are on topics that are "broadly construed" precisely because this kind of gaming is so common in contentious areas (of the "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" level of intellectual argumentation). jps (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Sławomir Biały[edit]Sandstein's argument seems to be that the edits in question do not fall within the mandate of the PSCI decision, because they concern the culture war rather than science. If that were truly the case, then Sandstein's argument would be quite convincing. However, it does not seem to me that the edits in question do concern the culture wars per se. Rather, they concern the Creationist claim (as advanced by one particular piece of unreliable propaganda) of exclusion the scientific process because, they allege, their "scientific" work is censored by the establishment. This is not a statement about religious belief versus science, but specifically that the Creationist agenda of "questioning evolutionary theory" (in the style of Teach the controversy) are legitimately scientific. For example, from [41], "This consensus is so embedded in academia that some critics believe it has created a chilling effect on scientists who might raise questions regarding the adequacy of evolutionary theory." Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Bishonen[edit]I recommend a topic ban from creationism-related pages for civil POV-pushing beyond the bounds of reason. Godblessyou2 has now got a third RfC, within a few weeks, going, on essentially the same issue on the talkpage of Creation–evolution controversy, ignoring that there has all along been solid consensus against what he wants to do. (Before somebody points out that he didn't start the first RfC, I'll mention it myself.) I gave him a pseudoscience discretionary sanctions alert a while back, and I have already warned him several times against uselessly wasting editors' time.[42][43] The first diff, from 31 December 2014, contains my reply to his (incredulous) question whether discretionary sanctions can be imposed for arguing for inclusion of material on the talk page: "yes, discretionary sanctions can be imposed for arguing on the talkpage, if it's taken far enough and uselessly exhausts too much of our most precious resource (=the time and energy of out volunteers). It's been done". To me, the amount of beating a dead horse and the level of civil POV-pushing GBY2 has demonstrated on that talkpage over several weeks is well ripe for a topic ban from creationism-related pages. I would already have instituted such a ban myself, except that when I went check out the article talkpage yesterday, to take stock, I realized I may be considered too involved (even though I've never edited the article), since I "voted" in the first RfC. But a topic ban is what I think should be done. This is the kind of thing that burns out good-faith competent editors. @Sandstein: Godblessyou2's whole argument is about whether or not creationist scientists are discriminated against by academe, as regards getting their papers published, getting hired to pursue their research in an academic setting, etc. Yes, creationism may be taken as simply religious, but this is all about creationism as science — GBY2 is pushing it as science. In that context, it is certainly pseudoscience. I don't think the OP has the emphasis right — e. g., never mind the mistake about restoring posts to user talkpages — but I do believe sanctions under the pseudoscience DS purely for the way GBY2 has acted on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy would be wholly appropriate. We need to give some protection to the protectors of articles. Bishonen | talk 07:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC). Statement by Dominus Vobisdu[edit]Since this case was started, User:GodBlessYou2 has continued to pursue his "proposal" by launching another RfC on the article talk page, which has been characterized by numerous responders as serious flawed and tendentious. See [[44]]. He also appears to be canvassing: [[45]]. This editor is deeply unsatisfied with the rigor of our sourcing policies. He has tried to loosen the notability guidelines for fringe films: [[46]] And has proposed that sources should be considered reliable if they appear in Google News searches: [[47]] He refuses to accept the fact that our policies forbid the additions that he wishes to make to this and other articles, and has a serious case of WP:IDHT. He also has a penchant for accusing fellow editors of working against him, and resorts to appeals to WP essays, which he himself tried to alter, to back up his behavior, blithely ignoring our core policies and overwhelming consensus by many editors in the process. He (not so indirectly) accused his fellow editors of being "lazy" his edits to one of the essays, in that they should try to "preserve" something of his additions, even though they violate our core policies: [[48]] This is indeed a pseudoscience related case, as the material he is trying to insert pertains to how pseudoscientists feel "persecuted" or "suppressed". He bases this all on in-universe fringe sources which he persists on insisting are reliable despite being told by many fellow editors that the contrary is the case. WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR apply here, and I see little hope that this editor will ever be able to edit productively, particularly on controversial topics. He has squandered lavish amounts of his fellow editors' time, and will undoubtedly continue ad infinitum. I see no other viable option than an indefinite block under discretionary sanctions. Trying to reason with him has gotten me, and many other editors, precisely nowhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (User)[edit]Result concerning GodBlessYou2[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Three diffs of three different edits aren't evidence of edit-warring. We'd need dated diffs of each and every edit making up the edit war for that. This report may be quickly shelved if the evidence is not supplemented accordingly. Sandstein 18:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
In agreement with AndyTheGrump and jps, and contra Sandstein, I view these edits as falling into the area of pseudoscience (excluding the talk page edit warring ones, which appear to be based on a misunderstanding of policy and for which DS seem like the wrong tool). The edits, from what I can see, are about an attempt to use scientific reasoning to support creationism, thus making it fall under the topic of pseudoscience. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ashtul
[edit]| Appeal declined. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 23 January 2015 (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 Ashtul[edit]First statement[edit]Sandstein, my reverts on Carmel were a misunderstanding of the fact it was subject to WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction as well. It wasn't even part of the first appeal b/c it happened after. I am not that stupid to do a violation again after being reported. While I understand that 1RR rule should be enforce, I don't see anywhere how long it should be. For an honest mistake, I think 7 days is too severe. Thanks, Ashtul (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)}} Second Statement[edit]I just stumbled upon this so I thought I will give a 2nd appeal a chance. Seems like Zero who claimed here @Sandstein:: The general 1RR restriction for Palestine-Israel articles was imposed by the Arbitration Committee, not by a single administrator. Zerotalk 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC) hold a different standard for Nishidani, (who was blocked in the past several times) a different standard here. The fact of this case is that N is a good editor who broke 1RR. He should get a short block like anyone should expect when they break 1RR. The rest is hot air. A block doesn't appear on Nishidani's block log so I guess the 1RR blocking rule didn't apply to him. In addition, as Callanecc noted on my appeal, Cathar66 wasn't blocked. Last, my revert is 200% justified which wasn't taken into account either. On Carmel, Har Hebron article, Hammerman's quote isn't about Carmel at all but rather about Umm al-Kheir. Nicholas Kristof's quote is partially about Carmel but then move to Umm al-Kheir thus WP:IRRELEVANT or at least WP:INAPPROPRIATE. The quotes are WP:BIASED and not even connected to the article itself. Just standing there to say Israel/settlers are horrible. Now, to make things worse, a picture of Umm al-Kheir is present (added by one of Nishidani advocates) since -"In the background: Carmel." Regards, Ashtul (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by PhilKnight[edit]I've copied the unblock request to this board. Anyway, I think the edits in question were under WP:ARBPIA, so a block could be applied. A 7-day block for a first block is fairly long, but within admin discretion. PhilKnight (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein[edit]I've commented in the related enforcement request section below that I think that the topic-wide 1R restriction isn't well thought through as written, but it does seem to have been adopted by ArbCom, so it is to be enforced. It does not appear to be contested here that the edits at issue violated the 1R restriction. Considering that the wording of the restriction reads "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense", it appears to be the intent of the author(s) that no particular consideration should be given to the possibility of a violation resulting from a mistake or misunderstanding. This may be because the intent of the reverter does not affect the disruptive effect of edit wars, which the sanction appears to be intended to suppress. In any case, a mistake or misunderstanding appears improbable here: the edits at issue occurred while a request for arbitration enforcement was pending against the same editor for the same reason, which would have given them ample opportunity to familiarize themselves with the sanction. As to the block duration, I believe that given the persistently contentious nature of the topic area, a duration of seven days is appropriately long to encourage Ashtul and perhaps others to be significantly more cautious in their editing in the future. In any case, blocks should generally last as long as they are needed to prevent problematic conduct, and I'm still not confident that Ashtul really understands the scope of the restriction and what sort of (particularly restrained) conduct is expected from editors in this topic area, based on their prior statements. The appeal should therefore be declined. Sandstein 22:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by involved Nomoskedasticity[edit]While the AE discussion was taking place, Ashtul reverted again [49] -- not another 1RR violation, but an amazing action for someone who was at that time being discussed for an obvious earlier 1RR violation on the same article (and the history gives the other previous reverts, if anyone is wondering whether the most recent one is actually similar). This comment accuses me (falsely) of being involved in BDS and shows a more general tendency to cast other editors as enemies -- something this topic area really doesn't need. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by involved Cptnono[edit]You increased your length of blocks for first time offenses, Sandstein. I'm also concerned that the editor was just about to "get it" and a 24-48hr would have sufficed. In regards blocking without warning, my understanding from reading the case was that it was intended to stop socks/meats/infrequent editors, not editors who are continuously editing in good faith. Why else would such a harsh restriction be implemented. It seems like an oversight to enforce a standard when it was meant for something else. That being said, there have been questions of socks in the area and there is a new editor poking around. I guess just take this as constructive criticism, Sandstein.
Statement by involved Zero000[edit]Since Ashtul has done hardly anything except edit-war, I think a 7-day block is light. Zerotalk 06:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ashtul[edit]
Result of the appeal by Ashtul[edit]
|
Eric Corbett (2)
[edit]| Consensus is clearly that this request be declined. Any further issues arising from this request should be taken to the appropriate venue, which is clearly not here. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Eric Corbett[edit]
Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion.
I admit that this was a mistake, but an admin advised me to bring this here instead of their talk page, where I originally broached the topic, and I assumed that such an obviously bad idea would have been discouraged. I'm not trying to throw Sandstein under the bus, but as a user not familiar with these processes I looked to them for guidance. Perhaps my thinking was overly simplistic, but saying that an editor is "filth" is an insult in my book. How was I to understand that the ArbCom restrictions are not to be strictly enforced? I would also assume that an editor who had only moments early gotten off a block for related violations might be scrutinized more closely when breaking the sanctions for a second time in three days. I see now that I was wrong, and that sympathy for EC outweighs the abuse he heaps on others. If it didn't, he would already be banned as 99.99% of any other editors who acted like he does would be. As far as the meatpuppet/sockpuppet accusations, I call bullshit and lying. Folks here are too quick to accuse others of impropriety when they ought to be making a strong argument against the actual topic at hand. I see this as a lazy way to discredit anyone who rocks the boat, and I think Wikipedia has lost many editors to this tactic. These accusations are personal attacks. Sitush is lying, because I don't edit any message boards, nor do I know anything about the "mailing list". If I was in a secret cabal I'd have my goons review articles I've written, not help me "trick EC into making an attack", and the idea that EC needs goading to make attacks is spurious at best; he has a long history of unprovoked attacks on unsuspecting editors. Nevertheless, I won't be confronting him ever again, which is what I assume is the response of the vast majority of editors who do. They get ganged up on and realize that the anarchy of this place is aggressive and hostile, and each insult is open to debate. I've never filed here before, and I won't ever file here again, but there was no need whatsoever to personally disparage me for making an honest mistake. An obvious insult is obvious, but I had no way of understanding that the ArbCom sanctions are subject to Wikilawering; I thought it was much more absolute, but that was my mistake, and it won't happen again. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Sitush, you claim to have evidence, which might be moot "due to naming issues", so I call that a lie, because there can be no evidence of something I didn't do, and to imply that you have evidence you can't use because it might "out" me is a bold-face lie. This is a bullshit effort to discredit me as a person, that is obvious. You could have easily said that this report should have been closed without action without personally attacking me, but that wouldn't serve the long-term goal of silencing my dissent. You're so close to EC your comments should be disregarded anyway for lack of objectivity. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC) EChastain, is it at all possible that EC was reported twice in three days because he violated his sanctions twice in three days? And is it really necessary to have a behind-the-scenes conspiracy to goad him? Per Occam's Razor, that's a complicated and unlikely scenario, but if you accuse everyone who stands up to him of conspiracy, people will eventually stop standing up to him, which is suspiciously the exact result you apparently want. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Karanacs, why would I report Cassianto here? He is not under any ArbCom restrictions against insulting editors, at least none that I am aware of. And FTR, EC explicitly edited his comment to clarify that he meant to say, "they are indeed filth", so regardless of what this report finds that is an insult and a personal atack, which he is supposedly prohibited from making. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Eric Corbett[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 Eric Corbett[edit]Statement by DeCausa[edit]It's a pity that WP:BOOMERANG doesn't seem to apply to this Board as a block for Rationalobserver for this request, which is at the same time frivolous and vexatious, would be richly deserved. EC was merely "seconding" a widely held view. He followed an admin who had agreed with the view. It wasn't a breach of the spirit of the DS; moreover it wasn't a breach of the letter either: "it was 'filth'" (i.e. using the word it) can only be in reference to the edit not the editor. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by MONGO[edit]Eric does not appear to be calling any editor filth...only that he is agreeing that a comment is filth. What is this kindergarten? This needs to be shut down...I would say this complaint is harassment.--MONGO 23:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC) This looks like some kind of vendetta. Eric just came off a block...you cannot expect him to be in a cheery mood after all. This was not in article space nor was it disruptive to article improvements. Great latitudes should be permitted on talkpages...and there is always room on usertalks to vent ones frustrations.--MONGO 23:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by No such user[edit]And how do we sanction editors who inject themselves into disputes that don't concern them in the least, for the apparent reason to only stir trouble and increase the drama? At some point, one of these needs to be sanctioned for a future reference. And this really seems like a fine occasion to exercise a WP:BOOMERANG. Latest actions by Rationalobserver present a WP:CIVILPOV at its lowest. No such user (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Cas Liber[edit]My understanding is that gangbanger is as much an American term as it is for other English speakers, which is why I can't accept this comment in good faith. At all. In fact it has a such a startling similarity to this comment by another user (where a user pleads ignorance to a very common idiom), which makes me think there is meatpuppetting or possibly sockpuppeting going on. I think we are all being played. Alot of editors are being goaded and baited I feel.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
NE Ent[edit]I'm proud to be an American where least I know I'm free: Gangbang would generally refer to group sex, not necessarily non-consensual. Gangbanger would refer to a member of a gang, not necessarily having to do with rape and/or intercourse. NE Ent 23:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Sitush[edit]It seems possible that there is a concerted campaign going on here. Given the present environment, it would be unwise for me to link to evidence that might support that but it does exist on WMF-hosted mailing lists. If any reviewing admin can't see the obvious, they are welcome to email me for an off-wiki diff that is particularly disconcerting because it involves another admin, although whether it involves the complainant is moot due to naming issues. Regardless, this complaint has no merit and is effectively yet another example of the piling-on that has been occurring. Sandstein made a poor decision with the last block, so please don't make things worse and please try harder to see the elephant in the room. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC) @Rationalobserver: rather than outright accuse me of being a liar, why not read what I actually said above? Possible ... although whether it involves the complainant is moot. Regardless, ...' - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Georgewilliamherbert[edit]
Statement by Two kinds of pork[edit]
Statement by Montanabw[edit]This is patently ridiculous. Seems to me we have a concerted effort to run EC off WP altogether and that sort of baiting needs to stop. Now. Montanabw(talk) 07:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Giano[edit]For Heaven's Sake! We all know perfectly well what a 'Gangbang(er)' is, just as we all know perfectly well what a vexatious stalker is. And as for the "fucking victim" - I recently, following storm damage, referred to my house as 'my fucking house' - does anyone seriously believe that I'm now running a brothel? Has the Arbcom really nothing better to do with its time than waste it discussing this? Giano (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Ritchie333[edit]Is there anything at all here that relates in any way, shape or form to improving an encyclopedia, or is it just a bunch of grumpy editors wanting to gain their pound of flesh over an editor they don't like? Well, in the real world we have people we don't like too, but we can't simply wish them away with a ban hammer. This should be tossed out and the filing parties warned not to do it again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by EChastain[edit]Even if Rationalobserver was not directly influenced by comments made on WMF-hosted mailing lists, I've seen comments there specifically naming Eric Corbett. One links to EC's comments on WER that resulted in his last block, so it's is not "lying" to suggest the possibility of coordinated attacks. The two requests here in as many days regarding him and utilising the same ds sanction may be coincidental. [edited] EChastain (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Hafspajen[edit]
Comment by GoodDay[edit]People, would a trip to WP:ARCA? help things out? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Knowledgekid87[edit]Rational made a mistake here and she acknowledged it [51]. I think this should just be closed and we all move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Davey2010[edit]No good faith here whatsoever. With all respect there's far more important things on the 'pedia than this pointless report, Close it down and move on. –Davey2010Talk 18:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Lightbreather[edit]The series of events, condensed:
Cassianto got angry that Eric was blocked and said some pretty nasty things. OrangesRyellow misinterpreted, Cassianto got angrier and called OrangesRyellow "filth." At least two editors ask Cassianto to calm down. Cassianto re-asserted his angry insult; Eric seconded it. Rationalobserver, having already seen two insults by Eric since his block was enacted, reported them plus the "filth" comment to the blocking admin, Sandstein. She also asked Cassianto, on his talk page, to accept that OrangesRyellow had screwed up. Sandstein shut down the argument on his page about Eric's possible violation of his sanctions; Sandstein advised Rationalobserver to take it to AE if she thought it was actionable. The evidence shows that 1) Cassianto was out of control and doing the baiting. 2) OrangesRyellow took the bait, but it was agreed that he misunderstood what Cassianto had said. 3) Rationalobserver also took the bait. Her only sin was not ignoring Cassianto's continued rampage against Lightbreather, OrangesRyellow, and Sandstein. She tried first to get help from Sandstein, and then she tried to reason with Cassianto. Coming to AE was not her first choice, but others want this to boomerang on her because she came here anyway. Looking at the evidence, yes, Eric did violate sanctions against him, and probably Cassianto ought to have some action taken against him, too, IMO. --Lightbreather (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Result concerning Eric Corbett[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
"They are filth if they liken me to someone who wishes rape upon a female editor. What would you call them, misunderstood? CassiantoTalk 18:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC) I have to agree with Cass on that. It's worse then trying to play the race card with no basis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Seconded, they are indeed "filth". Eric Corbett 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Thirded. It's hard to imagine a filthier lie. Writegeist (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)" Note the if in Cassianto's original statement, which is implied, if not stated outright, in the agreements that follow. Rationalobserver didn't report Cassianto or the other two who agreed - just Eric. I don't see anything worth sanctioning over. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Honestly people, be less opaque with your statements. There are lots of statements that I read one way (say, critical of EC) which, based on the response it receives or the person it's aimed at, I can only assume is actually the opposite of how I read it. (For what it's worth, I don't see this as in any way worth the 2700 words that have been dedicated to it. Close this an move on.) Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
|
67.163.88.57
[edit]| Section hatted and archived, IP blocked as an open proxy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 29 January 2015 (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 67.163.88.57[edit]
I have named the IP as a formality but this is a request for " I do not recall editing or commenting in this area, but I recently noticed a related WP:AE case and commented there (see WP:AE archive). A few hours ago I responded to a request for editor assistance (diff). The issue concerned a section at Talk:Gun show loophole which can be seen at this permalink. The issues of desirable talk page usage and whether WP:TPO allows removal of comments are contentious, but particularly given that the topic is under discretionary sanctions, my judgment was that the talk-page section violates WP:TPG which tells us that " I ask for an administrator to remove the section from the talk page and follow up if it is restored. It would obviously be fine for someone to write a new section with a paraphrase from the original in order to record any desired on-topic content (although I don't see an actionable proposal for improving the article in the commentary). However, it is not acceptable in this contentious area for a section to address a particular editor whether or not the editor's name appears in the title. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 67.163.88.57[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 67.163.88.57[edit]Statement by Darknipples[edit]
I am fine with that, just keep in mind, I am still a novice. Thank you. Darknipples (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning 67.163.88.57[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Previous comment moved to my personal TP. Darknipples (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by DarknessSavior
[edit]| Out of scope for AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 29 January 2015 (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.
= Site ban logged at [[65]]
Statement by DarknessSavior[edit]DarknessSavior was making edits to Kamen Rider improve the translation, then got banned by Guerillero with the stated reason "Looking over your edit history, you appeared after 2 years to edit a gamergate ANI thread and then you proceeded to mess with Ruylong. Ya, no." This seems a clear violation of WP:OWN, with Guerillero enforcing Ryulong's ownership of the Kamen Rider page. Statement by Guerillero[edit]Neither courcelles nor my blocks were done using discretionary sanctions. Any admin can reverse me if they want to; I do suggest that the cowboy admins watching this think before reversing and maybe even consider starting a discussion on AN. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor Protonk)[edit]No. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by DarknessSavior[edit]Result of the appeal by DarknessSavior[edit]
|
Loganmac
[edit]| Request is premature given timing with respect to case close and that a normal admin block was applied promptly anyways. Repeat behavior will be appropriate for AE action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2015 (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 Loganmac[edit]
Mentioned in final decision - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Loganmac
User was blocked for 24 hours for this behavior as a standard administrative action. This is not enough (it is, however, the most that could be done as a standard administrative action). User should be unilaterally and indefinitely prohibited from interacting with anyone mentioned in the Gamergate Case, if not just shown the door. AE was given authority over this action which took place just before the closing of the case per [69]. GoodDay Arbiters specifically permitted AE action per my above link. Hipocrite (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Gamaliel 1 day is not sufficient because spitting in someones face as they are hopefully trying to exit gracefully really makes the whole departure process harder for everyone. Loganmac won. He got Ryulong kicked off Wikipedia for at least a year (and we all know those 1 year bans always last longer). Nothing is worse than a winner who kicks an opponent when they are down - nothing. Those of us trying to get Ryulong to walk away gracefully are tremendously harmed by the gamergate sleepers and partisans showing up on Japanese toy articles. Nip this in the bud. Hipocrite (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Loganmac[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 Loganmac[edit]Statement by DHeyward[edit]This seems moot considering the remedy imposed on Ryulong and the block imposed on Loganmac. The block prevented interaction until the case was settled and the site ban on Ryulong prevents interaction for at least a year. Disruption through interaction appears impossible at this point. If I'm not mistaken, the letter of the rules would allow a revert of Ryulong to Loganmacs version though I wouldn't recommend it. --DHeyward (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC) An ex-post-facto reading of enforcement would also allow ex-post-facto reading of the site ban. Banned users are subject to being reverted with regard to any other provision. Let's just drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. The Arbcom case is finished. Interaction between the two editors has been solved presently. Loganmac is also unable to comment here. --DHeyward (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC) @TRPoD, blocking people on the basis of an essay is weak sauce and the edit wasn't under GamerGate sanctions. --DHeyward (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Per Gamaliel, this seems to be a request to increase a block under the auspices of GG. It's clear that Loganmac was baiting Ryulong, but it was outside GamerGate. The reality today is that increasing the block will do nothing to further limit the baiting. Ryulong is banned. Extending Loganmac's block does nothing productive. He can no longer bother a banned editor. Maybe ban him from Ryulong's talk page but there is no reason to believe an extension of a block is anything but punitive. --DHeyward (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Ries42[edit]Two notes. First, how can LoganMac know about discretionary sanctions that hadn't officially taken effect yet, as by your evidence they were informed of them 1/29/15 @ 00:38, when he made that edit @ 1/28/15 @ 13:18. Seems you're jumping the gun. Second, Hipocrite has a history of being uncivil and battleground mentality in this subject area. He makes mountains out of mole hills. In this case, moving toward getting another editor punished twice (as it appears he was already blocked for this occurrence), despite not procedurally being the best place to take this. That place already ruled. At best this is forum shopping. Bounce this. WP:BOOMERRANG it. Ries42 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]If Loganmac did not know their edits were deliberately provocative and disruptive, then they obviously lack the WP:COMPETENCE to work in the collaborative environment. Either way the 24 hour block is inappropriately short. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment by GoodDay[edit]I'm not certain that any Enforcement action can be taken, when remedy wasn't in effect at the time of the reported situation's occurance. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by GoldenRing[edit]Let's be clear, this was not clever editing by LoganMac. It's hard to think of a clearer example of tendentious editing. However, I don't see what AE can do about it; the scope of the sanction this request is made under is "all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. It's hard to see how an obscure Japanese cartoon series falls under GamerGate, gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with either of them. Do the sanctions extend to every article ever edited by any editor who's ever been involved with GamerGate now? All in all, a very unattractive piece of grave-dancing, but outside the scope of the quoted sanction. GoldenRing (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by coldacid[edit]Are we saying that pages for which Ryulong acted as owner for are considered covered as per "all broadly construed"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to hinge on 1.1(c) encompassing not just articles on persons involved in GG or gender-related controversies, but also editors involved in those articles, and from there the articles that they camp as well. I'm not sure if that's a valid interpretation. That said, Loganmac really made a bone-headed move with that edit, and perhaps if there was an I-ban put in place between him and Ryulong via GS/GG it could be something actionable here, especially given how baiting that was. That alone is probably cause for further warning him, even if Ryulong is gone. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 03:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel: I believe so. He also stated, though, that it's not an AE or community sanctions block[71]. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 03:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC) @Ries42: WP:BOOMERANG is a bit far considering that one of the arbs even said that Hipocrite should bring this here. The AE request isn't actionable, but it's not worthy of boomeranging either. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 12:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by <IP user>[edit]@Coldacid: Agreed. If we construe the scope of the topic ban in that way, then Arbcom would be forced to endorse the finding of WP:OWN regarding a page/topic that didn't come up in the proceedings until the later stages of bickering over the PD, and certainly had no real evidence presented concerning it. I also rather doubt that there's precedent for this kind of tying-together of topics - certainly not without a finding (which I would have to oppose on principle) that Ryulong is himself a notable figure in the Gamergate controversy. @Ries42: While the Arb's statement is certainly no guarantee that the case is actionable, it seems to me to be unreasonable to WP:BOOMERANG an action that was explicitly proposed by Arbcom. Reminds me of the nonsense AuerbachKeller (talk · contribs) was subjected to, being redirected various places to voice his complaint only to be accused of forum-shopping. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by starship.paint[edit]It's just one (or two immediate) edits and Loganmac has already been punished. Think no further action is needed without further provocation from Loganmac upon return. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Loganmac[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 Protonk
[edit]| We only need one of these. Please see discussion on The Administrator's Noticeboard. I've chosen that one to keep open as the oldest one. Courcelles 04:35, 30 January 2015 (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 Protonk[edit]Please bear with me through a somewhat indirect appeal, as the justification for my block is so Kafkaesque I cannot diagram the single sentence which provoked it to defend my actions without inviting further sanction. I was blocked under the GG discretionary sanctions for this edit (admins can review the diff). The justification was (near as I can tell) "advocat[ing] ignoring policy" and "repeat[ing] an egregious BLP violation" (diff) while doing so. The statement that I made is unambiguously true, sourced to multiple reliable sources in the gamergate article, and central to the dispute at hand. Further, the only way to read defamation or denigration from that sentence is to rip words out from the incredibly limited context I provided. I'm not even making the half-assed claim that you have to read that sentence in light of my entire oeuvre or even a whole paragraph in order to gain context--you just have to read the entire sentence. Like I said above, I can't diagram said sentence here, so forgive me an analogy. We have on Wikipedia an entire article devoted to a scurrilous accusation, one which is obviously provably false. An accusation which not only violates BLP it caused the BLP policy to come into being. In it we state "The article falsely stated that Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy." We recognize that the embedded statement "...Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations..." is a BLP violation. It's a false, unsourced claim about a living person. The encompassing sentence is not a BLP violation because it is a true, sourced claim. It cannot be one regardless of the awfulness of the original claim. There is no transitive property of BLP. Further, the same basic idea is already present in our current article: "Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "rambling online essay", containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." Snipping out the meandering clauses we get "...Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post...[alleging]...Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." I'm really struggling here to see the substantive difference between that and what I wrote. If the distinction was that I didn't cite my source, a 3 month topic ban seems a bit harsh. As for the charge of advocating ignoring policy: fuck that. The interpretation of BLP which I decried in that edit is perverse and nonsensical (see this redaction for a good example, paying close attention to what was and wasn't retracted). If our policy is arbitrary enough that an admin (admittedly one who is pretty intemperate and not very smart) can get topic banned for three months over a single edit for content that is already in a wikipedia article then I have absolutely no regrets in advocating we ignore it. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by HJ Mitchell[edit]Statement by Strongjam[edit]Way out of my depth here I know, but I do want to highlight that HJ Mitchell has been very active in patrolling the page I personally do appreciate it. I think the block here was over-zealous, but no matter what the outcome I hope HJ Mitchell continues to help out in the topic area, and that more admins would join him in doing so. — Strongjam (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Question from Beyond My Ken[edit]Which is the operative appeal, this one, or the one at AN? BMK (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Protonk[edit]Result of the appeal by Protonk[edit]
|
Inthefastlane
[edit]| Inthefastlane blocked for 72 hours by HJ Mitchell. This is only the second edit warring related block and they aren't an SPA so let's see what happens next. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:59, 30 January 2015 (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 Inthefastlane[edit]
I am one of the editors who has reverted this editor on the article covered by restrictions. The editor has followed me to another article in which they have previously shown no interest, in a completely different topic area, and has started to edit-war to keep a poor edit by a spamming IP.[72][73]
Discussion concerning Inthefastlane[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 Inthefastlane[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Inthefastlane[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Rhoark
[edit]| Prohibited from editing the Gamergate controversy article and its talk page (including all sub-pages of both) until 10:00 pm, 2 May 2015, Saturday (2 months, 30 days from now) (UTC+10) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 Rhoark[edit]
Rhoark is a single puropose account focused on GamerGate, with a minor amount of near-vandalistic, but certainly pointy editing regarding feminist topics ([74], [75]), along with some very minor general edits. The first of the two major edits described above remove all descriptors from the Ejoni blog post. This is discussed on the talk page at Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Pruning_Superfluous_Additions. Beyond not evidencing any consensus to remove the topic, Rhoark's edit isn't an appropriate bold edit, as it makes no attempt to compromise with those that disagree with him, nor does it offer to revert on request. It is a pure "this is what I want, I ignored the talk page." The second of the two major edits includes the following language - "The number of game developers and journalists worldwide is significantly larger than seven." This statement is a textbook violation of SYNTH - it is a true statement included only to cast doubt on other statements by implication (As a parallel, imagine if every time we referenced an opinion poll, we said "This poll was conducted by asking 2,800 US Citizens. There are over 300 million people living in America). The count of game developers and journalists is nowhere in the story. Edits similar to this were substantially discussed at Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Cherrypicking, where there was near unanimous agreement that digging into the piece to discredit the piece was a violation. The edit did so anyway. I ask that this user be indefinitely topic banned from all topics related to Gamergate and Sexuality, broadly defined. Hipocrite (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Reviewing other recent edits by this user, I am struck also by this misrepresentation of sources (explained here).
Discussion concerning Rhoark[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 Rhoark[edit]General statements[edit]
Probably final statement[edit]Per Kaciemonster's suggestion, pinging the users I named above. @Thargor Orlando: @AnsFenrisulfr: @Shii: Having had a day to reflect away from any keyboards, I concur that the pace and volume of my activity at Talk:Gamergate_controversy was problematic. I still hold that the consensus against the Newsweek edit was a consensus against following policy. I still hold that the edit regarding "rambling" was a good-faith application of BRD in a case where consensus was more towards action than inaction. However, in the matter of the Newsweek article the pace of discussion made it difficult for others to participate. It's not a pattern I'm capable of or interested in sustaining. My intention as of this moment is to do the following:
Since administrative action is meant to be preventative rather than punitive, none should be required. I am open to trouting. Rhoark (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC) I have made my concluding statement on the talk page. starship.paint has made a new proposal, and I'll stand back and see where it goes. Self-imposed GG blackout begins now. Rhoark (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Statement by involved editor AtomsOrSystems[edit]As Roark "quoted" me in a diff [94], I feel it's appropriate for me to comment here. Beyond "meticulous attention," Rhoark seems to have a tendency to weaponize Wikipedia polica and essays on the talk page, I think shown most clearly here [95], as well as the diffs linked by both Hipocrite and Retartist above, and possibly others. While it's possible he is making a good-faith effort to hew closely to all established policies and guidelines (and essays), he certainly has a tendency to use them as part of editing combatively on the talk page. Regarding the two edits, I think the diffs of the edits and discussion on the talk page speak for themselves. In my opinion, they were at the very least non-constructive and done in a combative manner, with no attempts (and overt refusal) to wait for or be guided by consensus. As stated above, the edits seem to go some way beyond "bold," make no offer to revert on request, and indeed, he neglected when a request that he revert was made. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by 192.249.47.186[edit]I second Atoms' description, and would like to add that i have several times recommended that rhoark petition the or noticeboard for verification if he feels my arguments are incorrectly applying the or policy. I am appalled that rhoark decided it was appropriate to ignore talk page consensus or any other avenues for mediation before pushing through his desired version of the page.
Response to Ries42[edit]Ries, we're here to talk about Rhoark's behavior, not anyone else's. I think your post would be better served as a separate request for enforcement against Hipocrite.192.249.47.186 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Ries42[edit]
Statement by starship.paint[edit]I think two months will be long enough for Rhoark to disengage and reflect on GamerGate, and to edit other subjects as well. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Kaciemonster[edit]From the "Regarding the second and miscellaneous diffs" section: " A plurality of editors, including (again) Thargor Orlando, AnsFenrisulfr, Shii, Kaciemonster, and an IP editor concurred that describing the prose in this way was unwarranted" I'd just like to mention that this was a misinterpretation of my comment. I think they took me saying "Honestly though, I don't see the big deal with just removing the quote entirely and leaving it as is. We already describe the allegations made by Gjoni and the harassment Quinn faced as a result, I don't think any reader will look at that and not understand that the blog post was an attack on Quinn and her integrity." as agreement, when I meant it to relate to the sentence I wrote directly before it, where I said we should remove the quote and write our own sentence about it, "I think replacing the quote with a sentence describing it is the best option. There are enough sources that describe it in similar ways that I think we can get a good descriptive sentence without relying on a single source's description." I was suggesting we remove the quote from that sentence and leave it as-is, and add on a sentence describing the blog post. Rhoark, please ping me next time you're going to use me in a discussion, especially if it's about certain points of view that I endorse or don't endorse. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourth[edit]I post here because Rhoark has continued to advocate for his proposed changes to the page. His edit here [96] seems to be highly problematic, and continuing an issue where he uses policy as a weapon and disregards consensus. His closing words are especially unpromising in regard his continued editing- he writes "Rather than fighting change, editors' attention would be better spent discussing the best wording for the change." That is, it seems he is not going to stop until he is stopped or he gets what he wants. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Rhoark[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 Ubikwit
[edit]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).
- Appealing user
- Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
Per this Arbitration case, this discussion and your previous warning, I am invoking discretionary sanctions and topic banning you from editing any articles (and their associated talk pages) relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, with immediate effect. Note that any violation of this ban may result in an immediate block from any administrator with no further warning given, as this notice has already explained the sanctions you are subject to and served as sufficient notice. This ban has no expiry, although this ban may be revisited by the community at a later date.
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
Statement by Ubikwit
[edit]The topic ban was largely the result of my having been trolled and not knowing how to handle it by disengaging, instead of engaging. I would like the ban overturned. The counterparty of the concurrently imposed interaction ban was a self-avowed activist that has subsequently been topic banned from all topics related to Judaism and appears to no longer be active on Wikipedia.
@NuclearWarfare: I've been in a couple of disputes, three or four that I can recall. One was related to sourcing used in relation to the Ukraine crisis; more specifically, a blanket rejection of sources from Russia. That ended up with my starting a thread on the Identifying RS Talk page, which was inconclusive but productive. Another related to a promotional article about "Jews in Nepal", which was eventual resolved satisfactorily thanks to the participation of Nishidani and Ravpapa, who found some reliable sources and almost single-handedly created an encyclopedic article from scratch. Finally, there is a current dispute I've been involved in for some time now related to the Soka Gakkai, which also involves huge amounts of promotional bloat and sourcing questions. I recently notified one editor of the ADVOCACY policy, due to repeated attempts to find a work around in a content dispute and insert content against consensus, which resulted in this AN/I thread. That seemed to be heading toward a BOOMERANG, but looks like it will be inconclusive, though a couple of editors have voluntarily withdrawn from editing the article itself. There is a series of related articles around that NRM that probably need discretionary sanctions to prevent such long-term disputes from consuming peoples time. The dispute addressed in that thread started back in August, approximately.
It has just dawned on me that I forgot to list the Arbcom Teaparty case, during which you were serving on the Committee, and which occurred after the sanction being appealed.
@Deskana: I do understand that it was disruptive to edit war, regardless of the status of the content dispute. I've since learned a significant amount about policy and dispute resolution and have done my best to adapt my approach accordingly.
@HJ Mitchell: That would be fine. I don't even have any specific articles I want to edit in the area at present, so a random selection or the like would suffice.
- I think that the comments added by Is not a (talk · contribs) below are illustrative of editing in a contentious area.
- First, it should be pointed out that the editor is a new account with a fairly high degree of familiarity with WP policy.
- Second, Is not a (talk · contribs) casts aspersions on the Talk page and here, where he refers to anti-semitism, apparently linking that to his accusation that I "restored a citation of an attack site". A search of RS/N appears to reveal that the site is not an attack site, but a reliable source falling under news organizations, as I've commented on the relevant Talk page thread of the Kagan article. Is not a (talk · contribs) has attempted to dismiss RS documenting connections to the Project for the New American Century and the The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), reference to which has been completely removed from the article, despite numerous RS readily accessible, online, such as this. In fact, this series of edits sees a plurality of passages that appear to be adequately sourced being removed.
- I spoke about being trolled, and the conduct of User Is a would seem to typify aspects of that type of behavior. It is not pleasant, but I have learned to respond in a more cool, calm, and collected manner.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- The plot thickens, it turns out that there was a subplot to the subterfuge at the Kagan Talk page regarding the editor with the tricky Wikiname Is not a (talk · contribs) "is a", with this source being purported "attack site", which is on a website hosted by Institute for Policy Studies, to which he was indirectly referring to using the acronym "IPS" (there is no actual mention of that organization or its acronym in the multiple passages he deleted), while also deleting the text sourced to an article from the news organization "IPS" (the only direct reference to "IPS" on the page). The so-called "attack site" piece is a profile that would probably be categorized as a tertiary source, with 24 citations, including many to pieces in the NYT and WP. I don't have time to read the piece itself but would assume it has a liberal POV. I've inquired whether the editor might have a COI regarding the Kagan and Nuland articles. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:34, 05:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Is this trolling? Harassment?[97] It's certainly not engaging in the discussion at hand in that thread, rather, trying to prevent the discussion from progressing in a manner such as to evaluate the sourcing questions at issue. The editor also linked to their post here in that post on BLP/N.
- Note that the edit summary is to the IP rant in which that diff occurs, which has been hatted as trolling.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- What is the recommended course of action to stop this type of continual disruption/harassment LaRouche thread aimed at me. Is not a (talk · contribs) has gone from making oblique accusations of anti-semitism to making a not so subtle representation attempting to link me with LaRouche.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to request that the appeal be decided in my favor and closed, with or without a limitation on the scope of articles.
- The behavior that I consider to be trolling by Is not a (talk · contribs) is on the verge of becoming a conduct dispute, and I believe that the delaying of a decision of the appeal has emboldened him.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Deskana
[edit]I've not been very involved in this for a while now so I don't have any strong opinion about this appeal. That said, I would note that a good part of the reason why the sanction was imposed was because Ubikwit failed to realise that he was edit warring and instead tended to blame it on other people (see this example). The fact that the first sentence in his statement in this appeal is "The topic ban was largely the result of my having been trolled" would seem to indicate that he still hasn't really understood that his behaviour was disruptive. This, to me, would seem to indicate that the ban is still necessary. That said, I defer to those more active in this area to make a decision around this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)
[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)
[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ubikwit
[edit]Statement by is not a
[edit]Since 8 months ago, Ubikwit (talk · contribs)'s edits on Robert Kagan seem to violate WP:BLP and other guidelines:
- Ubikwit reinserted a meandering discussion of (Jewish philosopher) Leo Strauss,[98] despite Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)'s warnings about WP:BLP ([99], again [100] despite [101], [102] despite [103]) although finally he did respect the BLP-based consensus [104] I am happy to report.
- Ubikwit reinserted the "Jewish" categorisation of Kagan [105] [106] despite RayAYang (talk · contribs)'s warnings [107] [108] and Kagan's pleas since 2008 to stop this Jewish-labeling [109]. Related edits on the talk page of Kagan follow:
- On talk:Robert Kagan, Ubikwit accused Kagan of being close to "The Israel Lobby" adding a summary that explictly stated he was aware of blpcat" [110] and linking to this anti-semitic website discussing Zionists, Jews, donors, The Israel Lobby two edits after a talk-page warning (to all) by Volunteer Marek [111]. A thorough BLP:Cat warning was given by RayAYang (talk · contribs) [112], who also explained the anti-semitism associated with "The Israel Lobby" and accusations of "divided loyalty" between the US and Israel. Then Ubikwit wrote "there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc."[113]
- Today Ubikwit restored a citation of an attack site, calling Kagan a rightwing militarist [114].
This is just one page, but the pattern of edits suggests that the problematic editing is not just limited to edit-warring violation, which was Ubikwit's removal of Israeli Jews from a list of indigenous populations. Examination of Ubikwit's behavior on other articles related to Jews, Judaism, Israel, The Israel Lobby, neoconservatism, Leo Strauss and Straussians, Robert Kagan and family broadly considered as well as biographies of living persons should be done before making a decision about Ubikwit.
Second, Robert Kagan has had severe violations of WP:BLP since at least 2008. For example, the 128.95.217.149 (talk · contribs) with only vandalism edits targetting Kagan has never been blocked. The history of this article horrifies me. Somehow Kagan's article needs to be protected from further WP:BLP violations, particularly edits that may appear to have anti-semitism.
Thank you. is a 22:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Ubikwit's behavior over this weekend reinforces the concerns stated above. is a 20:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Deskana: Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban (and linked to an anti-semitic site), among other policies. is a 21:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell:,
- Blaming a cabal of American Jews for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the words mean anything. is a 19:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC) :The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) has similarly complained about the problem of this Ubikwit's citing weak sources on neoconservatism that allege that "a conspiracy of Jews took control of U.S. foreign policy so that its sole focus became the security and welfare of Israel", which is precisely why Ubikwit's campaign to label living persons as neoconservatives violates his topic ban (as well as numerous policies). is a 20:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Ubikwit
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Note for the sake of completeness: The topic ban (and interaction ban) were imposed 3 January 2013 in this edit by Deskana. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- No blocks within 2014 is promising. Would you say that you got into any editorial disputes since your last block? If so, could you please link to and describe them? Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- The required notification of the sanctioning admin is still lacking. Sandstein 22:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's okay. I figured it out. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear from the sanctioning admin, but this looks reasonably promising. The sanction was imposed a long time ago, Ubikwit recognises the error of their ways and states that they've changed their approach, they've been active in other topic areas, and they haven't been sanctioned recently. Certainly on the surface this ticks all the boxes that we look at when deciding appeals, but I haven't yet done a deeper review of their recent contributions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Ubikwit: How would you feel about having a relatively narrow range of articles to edit in the ARBPIA topic area for a few months, after which we could re-evaluate with a view to lifting the topic ban if you don't get in to trouble during that time? I'm keen to give some leeway because I don't like the idea that topic bans are forever, especially if the sanctioned editor abides by the ban and edits productively elsewhere, but I have to agree with Deskana that your opening statement doesn't fill me with hope. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Given the other user with whom Ubikwit was clashing has stopped editing I'd be inclined to hear this appeal further. It is disappointing (as Deskana) points out that their statement focuses on blaming other people rather than taking responsibility however I can see past that. It like HJ's idea, something like giving us some articles they wish to edit and after a few months coming back here to decide whether to lift it outright or not.
Given edit warring was a concern another possibility would be to replace the TBAN with 1RR and see how that goes.I'm not convinced which of these options I prefer at the moment, going to consider it for a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)- Israel-Palestine articles are under a blanket 1RR, so an editor-specific 1RR would be redundant. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I got the I and the P round the wrong way.
- Having thought about this some more I'm moving towards thinking that we should just lift the TBAN completely (especially given it's been 2 years with no major issues) but make it clear that there will likely be a fairly low bar to placing it again if need be. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Israel-Palestine articles are under a blanket 1RR, so an editor-specific 1RR would be redundant. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Despite continuing to edit in contentious areas, Ubikwit seems to have avoided trouble over the last year, and appears to have gotten better at staying cool in heated debates. Since I don't see any barrier to re-imposing it should things to awry, I'm in favour of lifting the topic ban. Guettarda (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'd still be happier if Ubikwit started off with a few articles or a relatively narrow subtopic so that we could evaluate how they get on there for a few weeks and then lift the ban completely if there were no issues, but in a choice between absolute acceptance or absolute rejection of the appeal, I'm more incline towards acceptance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not too difficult to TBAN them very quickly again if any undesired behaviour occurs, and if we do allow a small subtopic it's completely likely that it won't be enough to see whether the type of behaviour which will characterise their edits to the broader topic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Is not a: I don't believe those edits violated the ban. The ban was from the Arab-Israeli conflict, and precedent at this board is that that doesn't include edits about either Israel or Palestine/Arabia unless explicitly stated, only the conflict between them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)