Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) →Lsparrish: Closing, as previous. |
|||
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
==Lsparrish== |
==Lsparrish== |
||
{{hat|{{u|Lsparrish}} is given a logged warning to avoid edit warring or promotion of fringe material on articles under discretionary sanctions. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 18:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC) }} |
|||
===Request concerning Lsparrish=== |
===Request concerning Lsparrish=== |
||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|JzG}} 17:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC) |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|JzG}} 17:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
Line 238: | Line 239: | ||
::*I don't object to a caution. Maybe you could throw in some advice for him. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] ([[User talk:Haukurth|talk]]) 22:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC) |
::*I don't object to a caution. Maybe you could throw in some advice for him. [[User:Haukurth|Haukur]] ([[User talk:Haukurth|talk]]) 22:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
*I concur with Seraphim and Awilley above. Certain editors get very carried away when writing about these topics and forget to write informatively in neutral and dispassionate language. I miss the days when [[WP:MORALIZE]] was part of NPOV. – [[user:filelakeshoe|filelakeshoe]] ([[user talk:filelakeshoe|t]] / [[special:contributions/filelakeshoe|c]]) [[user:filelakeshoe/kocour|🐱]] 11:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC) |
*I concur with Seraphim and Awilley above. Certain editors get very carried away when writing about these topics and forget to write informatively in neutral and dispassionate language. I miss the days when [[WP:MORALIZE]] was part of NPOV. – [[user:filelakeshoe|filelakeshoe]] ([[user talk:filelakeshoe|t]] / [[special:contributions/filelakeshoe|c]]) [[user:filelakeshoe/kocour|🐱]] 11:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
Revision as of 18:20, 15 September 2019
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Buffs
Extended confirmed protection removed from the specific article. Discussion about the application of ECP more generally, including logging, is happening at WP:AN#Why is Ibn Saud under restrictions??. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2019 (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 administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by BuffsSee above @Newyorkbrad:, @Hut 8.5:: Thank you so much for your inputs. May I ask for comment about logging such ECPs? Is that not part of the requirements? While this may not exactly be the forum to use (or maybe it should be?...I don't know). I think a review of the articles under ECP is in order to make sure they've been properly logged. To be blunt, this seems like the proper forum to ask such a question/direct such questions, but I could be wrong. Buffs (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by YmblanterAs I said at AN, the case is similar to the one (AirBNB) which caused the currently pending PIA ArbCom case. For this article, I would be willing to unprotect. It will obviously need to be reprotected if PIA-related disruption starts, or if the outcome of the ArbCom case would require protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by BuffsWe should not be preemptively locking down articles that are not "broadly construed" to be in the conflict area. We should be as unlocked as possible to allow as many people to edit Wikipedia. If disruption occurs, then we have escalation steps that we can take, up to and including locking it down. But to lock it down when nobody ever edited it in the first place just seems so wrong. I think it should be unlocked and the edit notice be removed. If someone does edit in the article in a way that is disruptive to the IP conflict, then we can deal with it then the same way we deal with it now in other articles that are not locked down with ECP protection but where edits are broadly construed to be an IP area edit. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Buffs
|
Gbabuch
The General Prohibition is enforced, for preference, using extended-confirmed protection and this appears to have been effective in this case. If this user keeps editing A-I articles, please report to me, another admin, or back here; the result should be a longish block. GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2019 (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 Gbabuch
Discussion concerning GbabuchStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GbabuchStatement by BuffsRemoving a notice on your talk page should not be considered a detrimental or dismissive act. No one is required to keep such notices on their talk page. As a community, we need to abide by our own rules instead of casting aspersions on actions that are permitted under our own rules (see Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments,_notices,_and_warnings). "But he just removed it as soon as I posted it." So what? That he saw it is the important thing. It isn't your place to log wrongs on their user talk page. Buffs (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Gbabuch
|
Lsparrish
Lsparrish is given a logged warning to avoid edit warring or promotion of fringe material on articles under discretionary sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Lsparrish
Requesting a topic ban from fringe science topics.
Lsparrish is basically a WP:SPA advancing the fringe field of cryonics, an area which is a long-term focus of civil POV pushing by advocates of the commercially lucrative but scientifically insupportable freezing of recently deceased individuals, or parts thereof (normally the brain).
See [1]. Edits to:
These support fringe views pretty much consistently. Lsparrish has occasionally tried to make these articles less like sci-fi and mroe like an encyclopaedia (e.g. [2]) but the overall weight of contributions is consistently to advance a field that is, bluntly, a scam.
Discussion concerning LsparrishStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LsparrishHello everyone. It is good to see more eyes on these edits, as well as constructive comments from uninvolved editors. I fully acknowledge that cryonics is unproven and does not enjoy general acceptance. However, I feel I have raised reasonable concerns with the current text of the Cryonics article. I would be interested in resolving these in collaboration with others if permitted to to so. As you can probably tell, I'm still getting the hang of editing Wikipedia, and some of the rules as to what is considered edit-warring are still a bit opaque to me. I've been mostly puzzled by the very rapid (and often accompanied by snarky and/or accusatory comments) reverts to my recent changes on the article, which were (I thought) not particularly POV pushing, rather the opposite. I hoped that a few reverts here and there of these seemingly hostile reverts would draw additional scrutiny from uninvolved editors. Edit warring, according to my previous understanding of the concept, involves attempts to wear out the opposition with repetitive reverts, something I've never purposely done and have no intention to do under any circumstance. Regarding my comments on Talk being basically POV pushing, it may be that I've been a bit more verbose or stubborn than was merited. I've tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to strike a balance between pushing back on extreme POV (which seems to be that anything speculative must therefore be fraud) and the demands of brevity / Wikipedia's scope. Cryonics has been marketed as speculative from the beginning, and I'm hopeful that further sources will be found noting that this is actually okay, regardless of whether I'm involved in the article's future development. That being said, I'd be grateful for another chance to get this right, and welcome any feedback on how to do a better job and be a better editor. Lsparrish (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by David GerardLsparrish has an extensive history of attempting to edit-war WP:PROFRINGE edits into the article, and long-winded and tendentious justification of his edit-warring on the talk page - look at the history and talk for many examples. He has been warned several times, both on his own talk page and the article talk page, that discretionary sanctions exist in the area, and is quite aware. It would be good if this stopped, but he's been promoting cryonics online for at least the last nine years, and there's no visible reason to say he'll stop even if he were to claim he would - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by LevivichThoughts from an uninvolved editor:
Statement by BuffsI was going to add my two cents in here and had a list of things I'd found... Suffice to say "what Levivich said" is sufficient/spot on. Buffs (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by JFGThis is essentially a content dispute. The editor under scrutiny has been warned against pushing fringe POV, and s/he welcomes a civil debate on the wording of the article. No sanction necessary. — JFG talk 10:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by JzGLsparrish says Statement by Calton
Statement by Beyond My KenThe discussion below gives the false impression that the sentence "It is a pseudoscience,[3] and its practice is quackery" is the lead sentence of the article. It is not. The lede sentence is a technical description. It is followed by the very reasonable observation that mainstream science regards cryonics with skepticism. Only then does the above sentence appear. There is value -- even in a neutral encyclopedia -- in saying things directly and without caveats. Cryonics is indeed a pseudoscience, and its practice is indeed quackery. Saying anything less definitive would be deceptive and a disservice to our readers. I suggest that those below arguing that the sentence above is "unencyclopedic" or that there is some amount of doubt about the nature of cryonics would be better advised to do some research about it rather than to shoot from the hip. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Lsparrish
|