Objective3000 (talk | contribs) |
Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) borked, fix comment |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 733: | Line 733: | ||
===Result concerning Neilen=== |
===Result concerning Neilen=== |
||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
||
:Given that this is an absolutely crystal clear case and the disruption is still ongoing, I am imposing an indefinite topic ban on {{u|Neilen}} from post-1932 American politics, broadly construed. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 01:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
* |
* |
Revision as of 01:57, 9 April 2018
R9tgokunks
R9tgokunks is now fully aware of the editing restrictions existing in this area and is expected to edit accordingly. --NeilN talk to me 04:23, 8 April 2018 (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 R9tgokunks
The sequence above has two forbidden reverts per ARBPIA 1RR - the first an "original authorship" violation (which is, perhaps, a finer policy point), the second is a plain simple revert - a straight up violation, coupled with a problematical edit summary. There are also decorum/civility issues with the response. Yigael Yadin - a Haganah military leader and chief of staff of the IDF (active 1932-52 - through much of the early conflict) is clearly ARBPIA related. Also relevant, a prior 1RR incident. The 1RR may not be sanctionable as done immediately prior to the DS alert, however the user's response to the DS alert and request to self-revert are relevant regarding decorum and civility (and would fall under the DS regime as it is after the alert):
18:08, 29 March 2018 - DS alert.
As I was accused of wiki hounding (even though my interaction with this user has been quite limited) and since this is relevant to the nature of the edits here, I got to these articles following a NPOV/n post by R9tgokunks. I was particularly concerned by this diff in which Haifa was incorrectly described as Palestinian territories (it was part of Mandatory Palestine - however never part of the West Bank or Gaza!), which R9tgokunks described as non-neutral (saying that the redaction of Palestinian territories was incorrect). This led me into some of these pages (e.g. Ireland–Israel relations). As the 1RR restriction was applied directly by the Arbitration Committee it is not subject to the special awareness criteria for page-level sanctions. In any event, the user was amply notified by a request on their talk-page.
Discussion concerning R9tgokunksStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by R9tgokunksIt is highly inappropriate and misleading that user is trying to bring up numerous edits I made BEFORE being privy to sanctions on the two articles. This whole thing stems from there there were not being notices of sanctions on the articles when I edited them. I was also mostly unaware/unclear on sanctions to articles on the A-I conflict. I am still unclear why they apply to Ireland-Israel relations, the first one I was warned about. I also had no idea the closeness of Yigael Yadin to the A-I conflict/sanctions.
I have not edited Israel-related articles since then; 2 days ago; and Icewhiz has not taken part in discussion on my TP that was started yesterday, where @Bellezzasolo: has been attempting to mediate. Icewhiz also claims to have had "minimal interaction" with me. This is false. In the past week he has reverted at least 4 of my edits on at least 3 articles (1, 2, 3) & commented on post I made to NPOV noticeboard and ANI, as well as leaving 3 TP messages and filing this report. It was accused in private emails to myself from 2 other users who saw my ANI post that they believe user has a history of wikihounding, and POV-based editing, so I backed off and decided not to deal with the user as much as I could, aside from my talk page. (I have tried to make all afforementioned edits to these articles per this incident in which an IP made clearly biased edits. After this, Icewhiz seemed to patrol my edits on Israel topics, which I felt was intimidating. I complained about this at above ANI post, but retracted complaint within 1-2 hours, right after recieving the emails.) I'm Jewish, but my goal was/is truth/removing POV and adding facts. For instance, Cakerzing reverted this because IP was making other disruptions. But I did research and found IP was right. I amendened it, and Icewhiz somehow disagreed, which removed a fact from the article. I reverted & assumed it was a "test" per WP:Assumegoodfaith, which I have increasingly tried hard to do with this user. I did not look into the subject of the article so I didn't know Yadin was closely associated with the conflict. All I looked to do was include the fact that he was born in the Ottoman Empire. Also, I felt that the first instance of warning me for my reversions of the IP + Icewhiz's addition of the unencyclopedic WP:WEASELWORD "alleged" here was unwarranted. My additional rationale was that the content dealt with had nothing explicitly to do with the A-I conflict, but Israel-Ireland. I assumed user was initially giving a false warning. It wasnt until my second complaint about User, after the edits that other users started to actually clarify to me more in depth, and that I was able to fully understand the sanctions rulings more clearly. I have not edited on those articles since then out of trying to adhere to this, but also out of lack of wanting confrontation and fear that User will try to continue to to incorrectly single out my edits as malicious. Now I will be avoiding the content pretty much entirely. I didn't understand fully at first, but now that it has been clarified to me, I assume 1RR on any article on Israel per the feedback & sanctions, which I have ceased editing as of 2 days ago. R9tgokunks ✡ 22:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by BellezzasoloI've been trying to mediate this dispute on R9tgokunks' talk page. My understanding of the issue is a disagreement on the meaning of this amendment. Icewhiz understands it as not appertaining to restrictions directly imposed by ARBCOM, R9tgokunks is expecting an edit notice on pages under sanctions. Per WP:ACDS#Authorisation, my understanding of this amendment is that an edit notice must be placed, however that is only my personal interpretation- clearly there is some confusion on the matter. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Capitals00Reverting constructive edit as "test edit",[3] is clearly misleading. Capitals00 (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Cbs527It doesn't appear this is a enforceable offense. There shouldn't be any confusion - Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages fall under standard discretionary sanctions. "Palestine-Israel articles - Standard discretionary sanctions". The 1RR restriction stated in the complaint was an amendment to this sanction.
There was not a (ds/editnotice) on the page at the time of the 1RR violation which is required before sanctions can be issued. WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts clearly states in addition to editor receiving an alert "There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions." The "additional requirements" links to the requirement for the (ds/editnotice) WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions.
Statement by (username)Result concerning R9tgokunks
|
Captain Occam
I have indefinitely blocked Captain Occam (talk · contribs · count) with email disabled as a standard admin action per the emerging consensus here that his actions both on-wiki and his use of the Wikipedia email feature were inappropriate, and that as such, an indefinite block was necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (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 Captain Occam
I cannot supply many diffs, because this complaint concerns Captain Occam using the Wikipedia-provided e-mail service to contact me in violation of his topic ban against Race and intelligence. The timeline:
I've been here for over 12 1/2 years now, and I've managed to avoid filing an AE complaint, or being the subject of one. I guess there's always going to be a first time. Obviously, my complaint against Captain Occam hinges completely on whether his use of the Wikipedia-provided e-mail system to discuss Race and intelligence, a subject he is topic banned from, in an unsolicited e-mail to an editor he considers to be an antagonist [6], is a violation of his topic ban or not. My contention is this: I provide my e-mail to the Wikipedia system in order to facilitate communication to me from editors that would be better off not spread out publicly on Wikipedia, but one can only get to me at that specific e-mail address by way of the Wikipedia system. Therefore, it is part and parcel of the Wikipedia system, and Captain Occam's use of it to discuss Race and intelligence with someone he should have know would be an unwilling recipient of his message is perforce a violation of his topic ban. His then continued use of the email system to contact me after I had specifically told him not to do so again, is also a direct violation of my right of privacy. Captain Occam has no inherent right to write, talk, whisper, sing, or emote at me through a private e-mail gateway once he has been told by me not to do so. If he had my personal e-mail address, I couldn't stop him from using the (quasi-)public Internet to do so, but since the only way he could contact me was through Wikipedia's e-mail system, Wikipedia is responsible for the proper regulation of that system, and to see that it is not being misused. In this case, since the topic ban in question was related to an Arbitration case that resulted in a site banning, and then an unbanning, AE is the proper authority to decide whether there has been a violation. In my view, the first proper remedy in this situation is to cut off Captain Occam's access to e-mail. Further, I would argue that his topic ban's statement "If he behaves disruptively in any discussion, any uninvolved administrator may ban him from further participation in that discussion", which does not in any way specify where the discussion might take place, is pertinent to his unsolicited "discussion" with me via e-mail, regardless of the faux politeness of his response on his talk page. I suggest that in regard to this portion of his topic ban, he be re-blocked for a substantial period of time, considering that his unbanning was conditional on good behavior.
Discussion concerning Captain OccamStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Captain OccamI sent Beyond My Ken e-mail a few hours ago expressing concern about him showing what appears to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. In retrospect I suppose that doing so was a mistake, but his threat to go to ArbCom over it seemed so ridiculous that I didn't think he was serious about it. I'm willing to describe the contents of my e-mail, but only with AE's permission, since it involves an article from which I'm topic banned, and I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to discuss that here. I also should note that the Wikipedia e-mail function has a feature to block e-mail from specific users, which Beyond my Ken appears to have not used. If he really cared about not receiving e-mail from me, blocking me from sending him e-mail would have been a much easier solution than reporting me at AE. The background of this situation is a trio of edits that Beyond My Ken made directed against me shortly after I was unbanned. [15] [16] [17] (Note that I am not, in fact, a creationist.) These edits are what initially made me concerned about his attitude, and how his attitude potentially affects other editors. I e-mailed BMK because I was concerned about his behavior towards user:Deleet, who is currently helping me with a separate on-Wiki project related to the measurement of personality and intelligence in general (but not to the R&I topic). It will be a loss for Deleet's and my collaboration if Deleet eventually quits Wikipedia out of frustration, which is something I've seen happen to other editors as a consequences of their bad experiences on R&I articles. In general, BMK's reaction to my e-mail is confirming my concerns. In his response here, he referred to me as a "massive discredit to Wikipedia" and a "son of a bitch". I have no intention to participate in articles related to race and intelligence as long as my topic ban is in effect. However, it's happened in the past that the toxic editing environment on those articles has spilled over into other areas, and this is a situation where that outcome has the potential to affect an area that I'm currently involved in. My understanding is that if an area I'm currently editing is potentially affected by a situation on an article from which I'm topic banned, trying to resolve the situation by e-mail is the correct course of action. I've e-mailed ArbCom about these sorts of issues arising from the R&I topic a few times since my unban, and they've consistently indicated that I was allowed to do so. If there is anything AE admins can do to address the more general issue of the battleground environment surrounding this topic, to which I think Beyond my Ken is contributing, I'd appreciate that. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Response to MaunusArbCom has been very clear what the scope of the "race and intelligence" topic is. As per this motion, it is defined as "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed". Arguing that my topic ban covers all individual differences in psychological traits, even when they have nothing to do with race, is interpreting this topic area far more broadly than how ArbCom interprets it. I also should note that until my topic ban is lifted, I intend to limit my involvement in the task force to organizational tasks such as making sure the templates work properly--I don't intend to make any substantive edits to the articles themselves. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Responses to Sandstein@Sandstein: Could you please address my point about how ArbCom has defined the scope of the "race and intelligence" topic area? As I pointed out to Maunus above, they have defined it as "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed". I haven't read Oliver James' book, so I don't know whether it discusses race or not, but race also isn't mentioned in any of the reviews of his book that I've read (for example: [18] [19]). I am skeptical of Maunus's claim that this book "features the race and iq question prominently". If it does, why is that not mentioned in either of these reviews? If AE wishes for me to avoid editing anything related to the heritability of psychological traits in general, I'll follow that restiction, but I don't believe that my topic ban as it currently stands applies to the heritability of psychological traits if race isn't involved. This distinction isn't splitting hairs--there is something like ten times more research (and coverage at Wikipedia) about genes and psychology in general than there is about group differences. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein: Can you accept that I honestly believed the scope of my topic ban to be the same set of articles that are covered by discretionary sanctions? I think this would be a natural thing for most editors to assume, whether it's correct or not. If in your view this assumption was incorrect, and you close this report with a warning for me, I'll avoid all articles related to the heritability of psychological traits for as long as my topic ban remains in effect. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein: and @GoldenRing: I've just remembered one other important line of evidence about how ArbCom interprets the scope of the R&I topic bans. In September 2016 user:Ferahgo_the_Assassin, who is covered by the same topic ban as me due to our history of sharing an IP address, appealed a set of additional editing restrictions she was under. In her request, she stated that if these restrictions were lifted she intended to edit the mental chronometry article, which is a topic related to the measurement of intelligence. (There also is a fair amount of research about mental chronometry and genetics, although the article doesn't currently mention that.) So ArbCom was fully aware that Ferahgo intended to edit this article if her additional restrictions were lifted, but they still granted her appeal. This decision doesn't seem consistent with your view that topic bans from the R&I topic extend to articles about the measurement and genetics of intelligence in general. If ArbCom intended the scope of R&I topic bans to be that broad, then they would have considered the mental chronometry article to be within the scope of Ferahgo's topic ban, and would have either denied her appeal, or at least granted it with the instruction to not edit that article. (They didn't give her any such instruction.) --Captain Occam (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein: @GoldenRing: For the record, my contacting of other editors who I thought would be interested in joining the task force was something suggested to me by Everymorning. [20] However, I don't blame Everymorning for my making this mistake; I should have realized that my doing this would look like canvassing. Whether I get blocked or not, I'll be more careful in the future to abide by the spirit of my topic ban, rather than just the letter of the law. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by MaunusI have been subjected to the same type of attempts to influence my editing in the R&I topic area in the period before Captain Occam's ban was lifted. Here he also used an odd combination on flattery and thinly veiled threats to attempt to make me try to reverse edits he disliked. He implied that he had been instrumental in influencing the process that lead to the banning of Mathsci, and that he could do the same to me or other editors that he didn't find to be "reasonable". It seems to be the same kind of implied threat he uses when he tells BeyondMyKen that "it is about time Arbcom takes a look at your behavior". Captain Occam has neither been willing or able to leave the R&I topic area but monitors it regularly and writes about it off-wiki, in what could be seen as attempts at canvassing. Occam has himself published part of an email he sent to me in an off-wiki forum, for which reason I also would not mind sending the email to arbitrators as evidence. It seems very odd to me to enact a topic ban, but not react to evidence of off-wiki attempts to influence wikipedia's coverage of that topic. It seems even odder to allow a topic banned user to use wikipedia's email system to influence other users' edits in the topic area.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Johnuniq
I have not looked at Captain Occam's psychometrics edits but that topic is part of the race and intelligence battle which focused on differences in the IQ scores achieved by people from various "races". For example, consider this July 2010 permalink which included:
Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by EdChemSandstein, Captain Occam is most definitely still under a topic ban that was imposed as a condition of unbanning on 1 January 2017. Here is the WP:ACN notification of the conditions and here is the related WT:ACN discussion. For the record, I share the concerns about Captain Occam editing on psychometrics when that area has been an integral part of R&I discussions / debates. I also note that, whether the use of email was explicitly prohibited or not, Captain Occam using emails to discuss the R&I area with WP editors and potentially seeking to influence content is very much something that a topic ban should be preventing. EdChem (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Further thoughts... I agree with Mastcell and others that this situation is more serious than is reflected in the AE-authorised actions. I think a discussion is needed where the AE-allowed actions are considered, but not as the only options. I ask that no one take action and close this report before consideration is given to moving the discussion to ARCA or AN. ArbCom could re-impose the site ban or tailor other restrictions which it sees as a fit response to canvassing / lobbying via email near to / in the R&I area. Alternatively, the community could ban or place restrictions in line with consensus. A discussion lacking consensus would not preclude an AE action, but if a site ban is seen by others as a reasonable response then CO should have the opportunity to participate in the discussion. EdChem (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by EverymorningI also have received numerous emails from Captain Occam recently regarding intelligence, most of which I have replied to myself. The gist of these emails (the first of which I received on March 15) was that Captain Occam wanted me to start a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology dedicated to intelligence, which I thought was a good idea; as a result, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Psychometrics task force. As it happens, the issue of whether Captain Occam might be violating his topic ban in doing any of this was raised by me in an email I sent him in which I wrote "Not that you can join [the task force] anyway of course since youve been topic banned." to which he replied, "I'm allowed to edit pages that are about human intelligence in general, I just can't edit them if they're about race differences. I probably will be joining the psychometrics task force eventually, but I'll have to limit my involvement to aspects of the task force that aren't covered by my topic ban." In short, I was aware he had been topic banned from race/intelligence but also thought he was avoiding such topics to the extent that it was necessary to avoid violating his topic ban. Every morning (there's a halo...) 13:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by rvcxDespite not editing in close to a decade, I also received an email from Captain Occam asking me to "help improve Wikipedia's articles related to personality and intelligence". I've given up trying to understand WP's rules, but going off-wiki to recruit a strike force to outnumber people you disagree with seems more than a little shady, even if the target weren't an area you were banned from. This isn't the first time Captain Occam has asked me off-wiki to publicly support him on the pretence that it was my own independent idea. Rvcx (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by RegentsParkAttempting to influence the on-wiki editing in an area from which they are banned should be construed as a violation of that ban. Whether that influence was applied on-wiki or off-wiki. Also, doesn't "broadly construed" mean no edits on race AND no edits in the area of intelligence? --regentspark (comment) 15:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Result concerning Captain Occam
|
Nishidani
No action taken. I remind Nishidani and יניב הורון to keep calm and remember that talk pages are not to be used as a forum for one's general views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its actors. Sandstein 11:12, 6 April 2018 (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 Nishidani
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, specifically Decorum and Editors reminded.
Nishidani received an indef topic ban in the first Arbcom PIA ruling for "repeated and extensive edit-warring, as well as incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith". A couple of years later the topic ban was lifted, under the assumption future such behavior will be dealt with on this board. See [25]. Since then he has been reported here literally dozens of times for the exact same behavior. In the first diff above, he tells an editor he is "spout[ing] nonsense" which is a clear personal attack. He then goes on to say that the other editor is a "beneficiary" of "misappropriation of US taxpayer funds" by a "elephantine wastrel sponger", based solely on the other editor's nationality, personalizing their dispute. By the way, does BLP apply to editors? If yes I'd say calling someone the beneficiary of misappropriated funds is probably a BLP violation as well. In the second diff he says an editor has a "conflict of interest" because of his nationality, and he can't judge if the other editor is acting neutrally based on this alleged conflict of interest and then goes on to say that Zionism is "all about" "Israel's right to be uniquely exempt from standard norms or judgements" as the motivation for other editors' arguments. A longer topic ban than last time (less than a year ago) seem to be appropriate.
Here's another one from an article that popped into my watchlist - I see the inevitable POV eraser Shrike has just struck again, without a rational thought. I assume calling someone a
Discussion concerning NishidaniStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NishidaniI am bedridden with a fractured vertebra (I can get a nephew to scan the hospital docs if scepticism prevails) and will be so till May2. If Bishonen's close reading is not convincing nor my insisting my words be Unhockey are fair since it is a specific instance of a general rule I won't ask for a postponement until I can argue my defense. My point is, no admin who lives in one of two countries that are in bitter ethnic dispute should intervene in any way, especially over names, where edit-warring occurs, in such a way that gives the appearance of partisanship. Nothing personal. I will always view that as improper whatever the conflict area. I only noticed this because I asked my niece to check my internet page today, and I am writing it on her tablet, in my bedroom, which is not in sending mode except upstairs in my study where I hopre my wife can take this, and press the right tabs (she is computer-illiterate) Please don't take the above as a sympathy pitch. and no enmity if admins think I stepped overboard. CheersNishidani (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by HuldraRemoved as an admin action – discussion about content not pertinent to this thread about user conduct. Sandstein 16:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosephNishidani has been warned time and time again that his uncivil posts are not tolerated here, yet he continues. He makes a statement about an admin, and others merely for being pro-Israel, or Israeli or whatever, as if that means they can't edit here, yet does he do the same for admin Zero? There are plenty of people on "his side" of the debate that edit in a polite and civil manner. We don't need someone stoking the flames with almost all of their posts in the area. He has also been warned that his behavior needs to stop and I do think action should be taken. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Result concerning Nishidani
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Roxy the dog
Block lifted by MastCell. Sandstein 08:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Roxy the dogNo explanation for the block has been provided, I have done nothing wrong. Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) After a request for explanation following the block, John said it was for edit-warring at Ayurveda. A casual glance at the page history will show this is not true. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) [32]
Statement by JohnGosh, we're going back a few years with this one! It's a long story; I'll limit myself to some key data points.
I can only apologise for omitting the block reason in the block notice. In the circumstances it must have seemed obvious that the complainant was consciously trying out the limits. I absolutely stand by the block. --John (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Capitals00Roxy the Dog got blocked after I had reported about his disruption to John[33], the report said:
You can observe that I had pinged RtD in my comment, he was aware of it. This page has discretionary sanctions and RtD has intentionally violated 3rd point ("Any major changes to the article must be agreed here in talk beforehand.") of the sanction at least 3 times with these 3 reverts that he made. Even if we agree that he did no edit warring, he still violated the sanction, noting that you are not allowed to make disputed edits without gaining consensus. RtD made only 1 small comment on talk page throughout these reverts, and his comment[37] indicates that he was reverting only for fun. Though I had removed the report from talk page since I had already requested page protection,[38] but RTD reached to WP:RFPP after that and there he said that "Except that the content is badly sourced, and many shitty admin sanctions are already in place, no more are needed. In fact ..."[39] It is not only a battle ground mentality but clear misrepresentation of situation, despite Roxy the dog had been restoring an edit that has too many problem, not only it removes reliably sourced information standing for over 5 years but it is using sources that makes no mention of Ayurveda. Recommend declining this appeal or just extend the sanction, given RtD's total failure to recognize the problems he is causing, continued WP:GAMING,[40] and also for making unfounded allegations of ulterior motives on John. Capitals00 (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Roxy the dog
Result of the appeal by Roxy the dog
|
Niteshift36
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Niteshift36
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Cinteotl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Discretionary_sanctions :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 11:23 5 April 2018 Personal attack, failure to work toward agreement
- 11:19, 5 April 2018 Incivility, failure to work toward agreement
- 14:25, 4 April 2018 Ignoring a reasonable question. I asked 3 times if he could provide a reliable source. He evaded the question, failing to work toward agreement.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 00:11 26 February 2018, see also log 20521221
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
From what I've read of Niteshift36's behavior, I could argue that he should be permanently topic banned. But let's keep it simple this time: Please give him a slap on the wrist, and tell him to stop chasing away editors with whom he disagrees.
Reading Niteshift36's response, it appears he's set on counterpunching without providing the necessary diffs. I'm not going to defend myself against groundless complaints, not am I going to turn this into a boomerang game. So I'll go on record that I will be willing to subject myself to the same sanctions that are placed on Niteshift36 in this matter, irrespective of whether I've done anything wrong. Cinteotl (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Let me clarify that my concerns regarding incivility are secondary to my concerns regarding other more objective violations of WP policies.
Update: I asked Niteshift36 a fourth time for a reliable source which ranks the deadliest mass shootings. 12:56 6 April 1918, and finally, he proffered a source (CNN), but not a citation. This might not seem significant, except that CNN does not publish the information in question. In the above diff, when explaining how he/we could add our own rankings (something that should raise alarms about original research), Niteshift36 referred to this CNN article [67], saying "we could use the CNN listing as the basis to start with." So, there is no doubt that Niteshift36 knows that CNN isn't a source for ranking information, and isn't a responsive answer to my question.
The following facts are indisputible: I asked Niteshift36 at least 4 times to provide a reliable source for rankings of the deadliest mass shootings, in support of content he is seeking to include in the Mass shootings in the United States article. He has, to this moment, not not provided a responsive answer.
- "Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for sourcing content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it."[68]
- "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors." [69]
- "Does not engage in consensus building...repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits". [70] Cinteotl (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
GoldenRing - Please do me the courtesy of properly citing and explaining any concerns you may have with my conduct, so I have the ability to respond in a meaningful way. Cinteotl (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Usr Notified 02:47 6 April 2018
Discussion concerning Niteshift36
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Niteshift36
The reporting editor has been intentionally obstructive in this particular article. While he alleges a PA here [71], Cinteotl has been arguing in another thread that putting things in numerical order is "synth", then favors creating an addition to the table that has us adding numbers. I pointed out the inconsistency in that position. In his second example [72], he has repeatedly refused to address the simple point that putting numbers in order (or letters in alphabetical order) is not SYNTH. Another editor has even told him that's not an incorrect position, yet he repeatedly makes the same response. Was I getting irritated with it? Yes. Is in "incivility"? Probably not. And I've certainly been working towards a solution. In his third example [73], Cinteotl engages in a little "not the full story". He posts an exchange from 2 days ago, claiming that it is failing to work towards a solution. What he fails to add is that the next day, a very workable solution was presented [74]. This same editor has cast aspersions about advocacy. In short, some of the exchanges may have been terse, but there's no refusal to work towards a solution. Despite his assertion, I've been involved in a number of discussions that resulted in successful conclusions.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Cinteotl, unlike you, I'm not filing a complaint. You really don't have to "defend" the aspersions you cast [75] or the workable solution that was presented [76], despite the allegation of not trying to work towards one. Since this series of answers [77] happened after this discussion started, it's obvious why they weren't included. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Dr. Fleischman
- Uninvolved editor here. That's typical Niteshift36 snark, but I don't see any personal attacks or any other actionable conduct. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Niteshift36
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I can't see a single thing here rising to the level of enforcement (or even close to it). Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Per Black Kite. To the degree there is anything wrong with that thread, it is evenly spread. GoldenRing (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by iantresman
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
- iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Iantresman (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Topic ban from the subject of "plasma physics and astrophysics", imposed at Iantresman logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2012#Pseudoscience
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- [78]
Statement by iantresman
I would like my topic banned to be considered for lifting. Since my ban in 2012:
- I have had one appeal declined over a year ago, and this is summarised in my deferred appeal in Dec 2017 (described in the "Amendment request: Pseudoscience, Notes to @Newyorkbrad ).
- I have received no other sanctions from over 4000+ edits
- I have upheld the 1RR restriction on me[79], and will continue to do so
- I have also endured the current 4213 day topic ban without further penalty, despite being on a self-imposed 0RR at the time, thought that I had followed Discretionary sanctions guidance at the time to "adopt Wikipedia’s communal approaches" in my editing[80] and discussed the matter on the WT:IRS noticeboard
- I have made efforts to improve my editing, reaching out to Timotheus Canens for advice [81], and to the Help Desk[82],[83], and the Teahouse[84] (all without success)
- I am still open to suggestions on how I can improve my editing behavior, should there be a disagreement.
Since my time as a Wiki editor
- I have made over 21,000 edits, of which 96.8% are still live[85] a retention rate that is as good as all but two active members of the Arbitration Committee
- I appreciate ban avoidance more than most, having endured a 1,515 day Community Ban[86] (given without a single diff in evidence, and with such short deliberation that it contributed to the banning of the Community Sanctions Noticeboard[87] that was instigated by an editor who was described as having misled the community[88] by using multiple socks abusively.[89])
- I have also uploaded over 60 files to Wikipedia[90], over 100 images to Commons[91] created over 900 new pages[92], edited over 4000 pages (on average 5 times each)[93], and have been directly involved in the attainment of 4 good articles (one subsequently reassessed)
- I am always open to discussion with any editor regarding my editing
Notes
- @Sandstein: I don't know what the reasons were for my ban, as they don't appear to have been stated in the "Result concerning Iantresman". The original poster mentioned (a) Wikilawyering, [94] (b) that I "continued to argue", (c) "no consensus", (d) "Pushing", (e) "civilly POV push this fringe science", (f) "adding a burden on other editors". The banning editor mentioned that "I think the complaint has merit", but it wasn't clear to me whether he was referring to all criticisms, or whether there was something specific.
- I am happy to "address these concerns", but I don't think you want me to comment on every accusation against me, so your guidance would be appreciated.
- I would like to contribute to articles on plasma and astronomy which were covered by my topic ban; I have University Certificates in Astronomy, Cosmology and Radio Astronomy from UClan and Jodrell Bank at MU (scans available on request). I also want to contibute to more contentious articles, such as the one on Plasma Cosmology. The evidence suggests I am a good editor in these subjects, eg. I am the top contributor (even after a five year absence) to the article on Plasma Physics[95] Wolf Effect[96] and Pinch (plasma)[97] Birekland Currents[98] Critical ionization velocity[99], the 3rd top contributor to Dusty Plasma[100] and Plasma Cosmology[101] and the 2nd top contributor to the article on Redshift[102]. --Iantresman (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: Not impressed. I asked you for extra guidance as I could find no such "clear" conclusion, and indicated I was "happy to address these concerns"; I had also solicited advice from other editors, I even mentioned fringe science as one possibility, but was unable to pick it out from any of the other options. --Iantresman (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Timotheus Canens
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by iantresman
Result of the appeal by iantresman
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Iantresman: Please describe what the reasons for the topic ban were and how you would address these concerns in your future editing in the topic area if the ban is lifted. Please also describe in general terms which articles you want to create or which contributions you intend to make if the ban is lifted. Sandstein 14:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- I would decline to lift the ban. Iantresman writes that "I don't know what the reasons were for my ban". However, according to the link he provides, it is very clear that the reason was that Iantresman was considered to have been advocating the inclusion of fringe or pseudoscience content in violation of policies and ArbCom decisions applicable to such content. Given that the ban has remained in force without successful appeal for some 6 years, I must assume that these concerns were valid. In this appeal Iantresman does not indicate that he recognizes that his editing at the time was problematic, and why, and how he would now edit differently. It therefore appears to me that the ban is still needed to prevent the recurrence of the concerns that led to the ban being imposed in 2012. Sandstein 17:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
VendixDM
Blocked 72 hours. --NeilN talk to me 04:52, 8 April 2018 (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 VendixDM
Discussion concerning VendixDMStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by VendixDMStatement by (username)Result concerning VendixDM
|
Neilen
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Neilen
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Neilen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBAP2, WP:ARBAPDS
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Peter Strzok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 13:24, 7 April 2018 Initial addition
- 13:32, 7 April 2018 Revert; "
info on opening of investigation by strzok"
- 00:30, 9 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert. "
added RS
" - 00:52, 9 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert. "
checked the RS and you are correct, fixing the language
"
- Dismissal of James Comey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 07:30, 7 April 2018 Initial edit; marked minor.
- 13:19, 7 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert.
"incorrect: trump was not a target of either the investigation launched in july 2016 which comey oversaw or the mueller probe launched in may 2017"
- 13:44, 7 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert.
"sorry, just the facts"
- 00:16, 9 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert. "
quote is right there in the source, stop reverting
" - 00:48, 9 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert. "
it's mentioned in other places too, including RS
" - 01:09, 9 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert.
"what is there to take to talk? simply added some minor info about what Comey himself stated - why is this being repeatedly removed?"
- James Comey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 07:09, 7 April 2018
"added rest of statement"
- 07:21, 7 April 2018 Marked minor; revert.
- 13:19, 7 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert.
"incorrect: trump was not a target of either the investigation launched in july 2016 which comey oversaw or the mueller probe launched in may 2017"
- 00:18, 9 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert.
"info is RS stop reverting"
- 01:08, 9 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert.
"Added RS; cleaned up text, add date of testimony"
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
None
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 13:59, 7 April 2018
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Violating 1RR on multiple pages with DS after being alerted to said DS.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Neilen
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Neilen
Apologize for the minor edits. Wasn't doing it on purpose, didn't know I was doing anything wrong. Now that I know what to mark as minor and what not I will be more careful. As far as my other edits not sure what the problem is or why I'm being reported here by Evergreen. Everything I added was in good faith, and also RS. Neilen (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
NeilN you can check all of my edits to confirm the user below (O3000) is making false claims. Never claimed to know the "truth" about anything. Simply trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Not sure why users are complaining about me here, seems to be some sort of witch-hunt atmosphere. Neilen (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Objective3000
I'm involved. Was just about to file this myself. Editor refuses to take to Talk after many requests. Numerous 1RR vios. There are additional vios at James Comey. Editor appears to know the "truth", to which I am not privy. O3000 (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- If my eyesight is not failing me, the editor has continued this behavior after responding here: [111]
Statement by Valeyard
didn't know I was doing anything wrong
is rather hard to believe, given the massive "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." at the top of every edit. TheValeyard (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Neilen
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Given that this is an absolutely crystal clear case and the disruption is still ongoing, I am imposing an indefinite topic ban on Neilen from post-1932 American politics, broadly construed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)