Darkfrog24 (talk | contribs) |
OneClickArchiver archived 1 discussion to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189 |
||
Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
*{{ping|Spartaz|The Blade of the Northern Lights|JzG|EdJohnston}} I know little about this topic area but I respect you all a great detail as uninvolved(?) administrators so that's what I'm directing my initial question to you. I've read Ollie's statement and the original AE request. I take it you all would disagree with his description of this "Gerontology Research Group". Could you please either describe a little more as to why or point me to past discussions? Thanks, '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 23:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
*{{ping|Spartaz|The Blade of the Northern Lights|JzG|EdJohnston}} I know little about this topic area but I respect you all a great detail as uninvolved(?) administrators so that's what I'm directing my initial question to you. I've read Ollie's statement and the original AE request. I take it you all would disagree with his description of this "Gerontology Research Group". Could you please either describe a little more as to why or point me to past discussions? Thanks, '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 23:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
:*Thanks all for replying. I did some reading this morning (apparently, I was the case clerk for the Longevity case way back when; who knew). The given rationale for the topic ban was primarily POV pushing with a dash of incivility and tendentious editing. I haven't read anything that would make me disagree with that analysis. As per [[WP:AC/DS|policy]], a clear and active consensus is required to overturn a discretionary sanction. I would view that as functionally being impossible if one other uninvolved administrator agrees with me and would suggest that the appeal can be closed if that situation occurs. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 18:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC) |
:*Thanks all for replying. I did some reading this morning (apparently, I was the case clerk for the Longevity case way back when; who knew). The given rationale for the topic ban was primarily POV pushing with a dash of incivility and tendentious editing. I haven't read anything that would make me disagree with that analysis. As per [[WP:AC/DS|policy]], a clear and active consensus is required to overturn a discretionary sanction. I would view that as functionally being impossible if one other uninvolved administrator agrees with me and would suggest that the appeal can be closed if that situation occurs. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 18:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
==SageRad== |
|||
{{hat|SageRad has agreed to avoid [[Yvette d'Entremont]], [[Charles Eisenstein]] and [[Bhopal disaster]], and not to discuss Bhopal on other pages. He has been asked to make more effort in general to avoid pages related to GMO, including meta discussions. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 01:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning SageRad=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Edward321}} 01:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|SageRad}}<p>{{ds/log|SageRad}} |
|||
<!--- SageRad ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#SageRad_topic_banned]] : |
|||
<!--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#SageRad_topic_banned ---> |
|||
"SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed." |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Eisenstein&type=revision&diff=701863623&oldid=695258208] SageRaded removes tags from [[Charles Eisenstein]]; according to the article, Eisenstein has a column where they write "on topics including genetic modification and the patenting of seed". |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DuPont&type=revision&diff=699147242&oldid=698419813] SageRad edits [[DuPont]]; according to the article, DuPont "makes and sells hybrid seed and genetically modified seed" and has made and sold pesticide. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DuPont&type=revision&diff=699751103&oldid=699750877] Further edit by SageRad to the Dupont article. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DuPont&diff=next&oldid=699751103] Further edit by SageRad to the Dupont article. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADuPont&type=revision&diff=698977989&oldid=698274769] SageRad edits [[Talk:DuPont]] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADuPont&type=revision&diff=699755346&oldid=698977989] SageRad further edits [[Talk:DuPont]] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dow_Chemical_Company&type=revision&diff=699307396&oldid=699253661] SageRad edits [[Dow Chemical Company]]; according to the article "Dow’s Agricultural Sciences segment provides crop protection and seed/plant biotechnology products and technologies, urban pest management solutions and oils". |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADow_Chemical_Company&type=revision&diff=698978061&oldid=698382964] SageRad edits [[Talk:Dow Chemical Company]] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADow_Chemical_Company&type=revision&diff=699307620&oldid=698978061] SageRad further edits [[Talk:Dow Chemical Company]] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADow_Chemical_Company&type=revision&diff=699474019&oldid=699329476] SageRad further edits [[Talk:Dow Chemical Company]] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADow_Chemical_Company&type=revision&diff=699477355&oldid=699474908] SageRad further edits [[Talk:Dow Chemical Company]] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADow_Chemical_Company&type=revision&diff=699488624&oldid=699483392] SageRad further edits [[Talk:Dow Chemical Company]] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYvette_d%27Entremont&type=revision&diff=698155878&oldid=698154146] SageRad edits [[Talk:Yvette d'Entremont]]; according to the article, d'Entremont "works on debunking ideas about alternative medicine, the anti-vaccination movement, and the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement". |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
*SageRad was mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. |
|||
*SageRad was reminded of their topic ban by Looie496.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SageRad&diff=prev&oldid=695492350] |
|||
*SageRad was reminded of their topic ban by HighInBC.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SageRad&diff=prev&oldid=699489024] |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
I'll requote the decision against SageRad, emphasizing the parts some people are missing "''SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from '''all pages''' relating to genetically modified organisms '''and agricultural chemicals''', broadly construed''; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed." |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
<!-- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASageRad&type=revision&diff=702517041&oldid=702372022 --> |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASageRad&type=revision&diff=702517041&oldid=702372022] |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning SageRad=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by SageRad==== |
|||
'''Yes, i agree.''' {{u|SlimVirgin|SarahSV}} and others, yes, i will agree to this absolutely. Let me explain that with [[Yvette d'Entremont]], i didn't know her as a GMO activist but now i do, and i will never edit her article again. With [[Charles Eisenstein]], i never knew him to be a GMO activist and i still don't, but i'll take your word for it and never edit his article again. As for anyone else who i know to be a GMO activist, i will not edit their articles going forward either. As for [[Bhopal disaster]], i don't believe i've ever edited that but i won't now that i know that disaster involved an agrochemical precursor. I think the only reference i made to it was to say that perhaps the section on [[PFOA]] at [[Dow Chemical]] should look like the section on the Bhopal disaster in format. But i'll not refer to it again anyway. I will continue to obey the topic ban as i have been, and not edit any pages that are ''about GMOs or agrochemicals'' and not edit any parts of other pages that may be about GMOs or agrochemicals. I've been editing according to those principles, and i invite anyone to point out if i unwittingly stray into any other topic that is about GMOs or agrochemicals. I hope this will please the interpreters and enforcers of policy to allow me to edit on other topics conscientiously. [[User:SageRad|SageRad]] ([[User talk:SageRad|talk]]) 23:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Seeing closing comments. Thank you for taking this time to do this. |
|||
* As for "Science Babe" -- I will never touch that page again. That was too close for comfort although let me explain that i only understood her as being a commenter about food additives generally, but she was an attacker of one person who is considered within the topic ban. I don't know how to say it but my edit there on the style of the page about her was solely that. I didn't know she is considered a pro-GMO person. All i knew about her is she's got a lot to say about "chemophobia". And all i did for goddess's sake was to make a '''single comment on that talk page''' saying that the article had too much of a "promotional tone" and "peacocky language" -- i didn't edit the '''''article itself''''' and i didn't comment on anything related to GMOs or agrochemicals at all. So please, calm down people. I'll never edit her page again but seriously, what's the big tempest in a teapot about this? |
|||
* As for other chemicals, i can still edit about other chemicals like [[PFOA]] and that is not in any way any attempt to "skirt the topic ban" at all -- you can't see into my head but i can assure you that my interests in this world include chemical contamination of rivers and land, and always has included these, and previous clarifications have made it clear that i can edit on chemicals other than agrochemicals. [[Polystyrene]] for instance. Completely unrelated to agriculture, to GMOs, to agrochemicals, unless you consider the little balls of Styrofoam in houseplants potting soil mixture to be part of agriculture. |
|||
* As for Charles Eisenstein, that's so unrelated to GMOs and agrochemicals as to be laughable. I don't know anything about why anyone would even consider this too close for comfort, and it's a sign that this is really more about knocking me out for ideological reasons than any sense that i am causing problems in Wikipedia or making bad edits. That's laughable... i am seriously laughing at the attempt to make it seem like editing an article about Charles Eisenstein solely to remove a three-year old notability tag, was part of my "sinister agenda to skirt the topic ban and pursue my addiction of bad editing about GMOs (''sic'')" ... i have no such agenda or need or anything. This whole thing was a hardly-funny joke and i will be so happy to just be on my way and continue to edit about human history and experimental evolution and microbes, etc. [[User:SageRad|SageRad]] ([[User talk:SageRad|talk]]) 11:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[I Shall Be Released]] please? [[User:SageRad|SageRad]] ([[User talk:SageRad|talk]]) 14:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Could we please be done with this? It's bad for my ability to sleep through the night. I'm observing the topic ban to a strict degree. I am a conscientious editor and i respect the policies more than most editors i know. I have not edited anything about GMOs or agrochemicals '''at all''' since the topic ban. Period. I'm not stupid. I know that violating my topic ban would be suicide. Someone obviously spent a '''lot''' of time trying to compile a case. I'm editing with integrity and not touching the areas from which i am topic banned. |
|||
'''None''' of the diffs provided show me discussing GMOs or agrochemicals '''at all''' -- because i have not. There are misrepresentations in the allegations that ought to qualify for them to be thrown out summarily. For example, when Kingofaces writes: |
|||
{{talkquote|SageRad has also been commenting directly at ANI on a discussion on GMOs}} |
|||
he's actually speaking of a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=702528108#Editor_KingOfAces_casts_aspersions conversation] that begins with: |
|||
{{talkquote|Editor KingOfAces casts aspersions |
|||
Kingofaces43 is casting very serious aspersions, and here - where he essential frames everybody participating in a OR noticeboard discussion as a climate change denier, among his common theme as fringe.}} |
|||
In other words -- it's '''not''' "a discussion on GMOs" -- it's a discussion on meta-level aspects of Wikipedia culture, mainly about the use of "fringe" as an aspersion, and how we deal with name-calling, and all that. It is '''not''' a discussion on GMOs, and his trying to frame it as such is a lie. |
|||
And, Kingofaces says: |
|||
{{talkquote|They also responded directly to me at WP:FTN when I asked for more eyes on this GMO discussion}} |
|||
but this links actually to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=702147049&oldid=702132711 this diff] which has '''nothing''' to do with GMOs. Again, a lie. |
|||
And most of his issue seems to be that i speak against a harmful dynamic that i see going on. |
|||
As for DuPont -- my edits on that company (and Dow who have merged with them, hence [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADow_Chemical_Company&type=revision&diff=698978061&oldid=698382964]) have been about the chemical [[PFOA]] (like this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DuPont&type=revision&diff=699147242&oldid=698419813]) which is ''not'' an agrochemical. It's a Teflon additive that did pollute water in West Virginia and in the Ohio River. That's not under my topic ban. And i also edited about [[Styrofoam]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Styrofoam&diff=698679093&oldid=698631518] to correct a trade name. Styrofoam is made by Dow but Thermocol is made by another company. I also made the same change at [[Polystyrene]] to correct that trade name ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polystyrene&diff=698678921&oldid=697788692 my edit]). I made a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polystyrene&diff=703267080&oldid=702317764 further edit] at [[polystyrene]] about biodegradation at another editor's request. I'm allowed to do this and it's good for the encyclopedia. |
|||
Seriously, my edit to [[Charles Eisenstein]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Eisenstein&type=revision&diff=701863623&oldid=695258208] ???? This is out of control. Eisenstein is a wonderful thinker, author of ''Sacred Economics'' and many other books. He ''probably'' wrote something about GMOs sometime, but i've never seen it if he did. This is stretching. This is looking like McCarthyism. It's looking like an attempt to harm me for other reasons. |
|||
So, even though i said i wouldn't, i just went through all the diffs provided, and as i know, they do '''not''' show me editing anything '''at all''' about GMOs or agrochemicals. I know this because my conscience is clear. I have '''not''' edited anything about GMOs or agrochemicals '''at all''' since the topic ban. I ask for this case to be summarily dropped, as it's onerous and seems to be intended to "get me" for being outspoken on cultural issues within Wikipedia. |
|||
Note that i was quite aware of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Motion:_Genetically_modified_organisms_(Topic_Bans) this decision] which explicitly did ''not'' prohibit editing about companies that may '''also''' make agrochemicals or GMOs. Those were subject to DS and not the ban, and that was already clarified. I operated under that clarification when i edited about PFOA and Styrofoam. If anyone was unaware of this clarification, then now they are aware. |
|||
@Only in Death's comment: I have '''no "MO"''' except to edit articles well. |
|||
@DHeyward's comment: The only one being '''tarred and feathered''' here is me, and it's a joke. |
|||
@JzG's comment: Thanks. |
|||
@BMK, it's not okay to call people names who write in my support "''' peanut gallery to egg them on'''" |
|||
@Kingofaces43 -- I'm not "testing the boundaries". I disagree with the topic ban but i've obeyed it. |
|||
[[User:SageRad|SageRad]] ([[User talk:SageRad|talk]]) 20:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by AlbinoFerret==== |
|||
Having commented on the recent WP:ARCA section on increasing the topic bans to "companies that produce them" for the topic banned editors from the GMO case. I would like to point out [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Motion:_Genetically_modified_organisms_(Topic_Bans) the motion in section 11.25.1 that would have added the companies failed]. As a result, SageRad is not topic banned from editing articles of companies that produce agricultural chemicals as long as he is not editing about agricultural chemicals/GMO's. None of the diffs provided are on agricultural chemicals/GMO's. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 03:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
I would also like to point out that that the warnings predate the close of the ARCA section and one was specifically about that section and should be covered by [[WP:BANEX]] [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 03:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
The "broadly construed" argument to include companies when editing non GMO and agricultural chemicals was rejected by Arbcom.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Motion:_Genetically_modified_organisms_(Topic_Bans)] Continuing the argument on AE (a Arbcom page) so soon after the motion failed is going against that finding. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 18:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Kingofaces43==== |
|||
SageRad has also been commenting directly at ANI on a discussion on GMOs starting with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=702265176&oldid=702263434 this] scaled back to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=702326184&oldid=702325578 this], quite obviously so they could claim they weren't directly entering discussion on GMOs. |
|||
Followed by:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=702385280&oldid=702383526][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=702322011&oldid=702321594][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=702263434&oldid=702263027][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=702386067&oldid=702385865] |
|||
With this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=702386155&oldid=702386067 gem] of an edit summary, "There is a reason that i continue to compare the anti-fringe movement to McCarthyism." All these above occurred in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=702528108#Editor_KingOfAces_casts_aspersions this ANI thread], which was explicitly focused on genetically modified organisms, the scientific consensus around it, and how we deal with [[WP:FRINGE]] aspects in content discussion around it. |
|||
They also responded directly to me at [[WP:FTN]] when I asked for more eyes on this GMO discussion[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=702147049&oldid=702132711] with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=702322808&oldid=702321496 this referring to McCarthyism again], which is another unambiguous violation followed by more [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=702323334&oldid=702322808 commentary] Regardless of meta-discussions popping up within the specific incidents, there they have been plenty of discussions on topic banned users in this topic to not even be commenting from the sidelines at admin boards when they are topic banned. |
|||
There have been some previous instances where SageRad has been chaffing against their ban[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SageRad&oldid=699750865#Topic_banned.3F][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SageRad&oldid=699793417#Absurd_allegations_of_topic_ban_violations], though not quite as bad as others sanctioned at the case. There still have been issues going on though with a previous AE case[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#SageRad]. I won't even suggest any particular actions to admins, but SageRad needs to stay out the topic plain and simple without finding ways to skirt the ban. I'm concerned there's a lot of the same soapboxing and hyperbole related to [[WP:FRINGE]], etc. that got them topic banned from GMOs, but that might be something ANI handles if they can respect the topic ban. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 04:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Just a note on AlbinoFerret's characterization of ArbCom [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=703300440&oldid=703293333 here], but ArbCom did not outright reject the idea that companies should be included. The votes outlined that they'd give editors a chance, but said topic ban broadening and DS should be considered when the editors start engaging in conflicts in the adjacent topics. That's very different than saying it was outright rejected and is some guidance in the votes that admins should read over when it comes to enforcement in this case. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 18:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Beyond My Ken==== |
|||
In response to Liz's warning about word limits below, I believe I can re-state my position more concisely: |
|||
*SageRad's topic ban should be viewed by the "broadly construed" standard as it has stood for quite some time now. |
|||
*By this standard, a number of their edits are clear violations, as the articles in which the edits were made deal with GMOs as a subject, and in some cases the subjects are focused on GMOs. |
|||
*I associate myself with Sarah SV's comments below. |
|||
*SageRad's general behavior pattern is to complain about any action taken against his POV-pushing being "bullying" (upped above to being "tarred and feathered") . I believe this constitutes a state of mind which supports the contention that his edits were deliberate boundary-pushing. |
|||
*If so, then something more serious than a stern warning is needed. I leave it to the uninvolved admins to determine what that is. |
|||
[[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 22:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:My apologies to Hugh, in that my restatement removed the responses he was referring to. They can be found in the history. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 23:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Darkfrog24==== |
|||
Very uninvolved non-admin. Most of these edits don't specifically mention GMOs, but SageRad is also banned from "pages relating to genetically modified organisms." According to AlbinoF, that does not include DuPont or Dow, but my own take is that it would include d'Entremont. |
|||
*1. No GMO mentioned. Is it the filer's position that SR is trying to indirectly talk about GMOs by minimizing mention of one of their supporters or detractors? |
|||
*2. No GMO mentioned |
|||
*3. No GMO mentioned. |
|||
*4. No GMO mentioned. |
|||
*5. Mentions PFOA, not GMOs. Does the article that SR recommends talk about GMOs? If so, I ''guess'' it could be construed as a way to induce others to talk about GMOs, but it could also just be what it looks like. AGF. |
|||
*6. No GMO mentioned. |
|||
*7. No GMO mentioned. |
|||
*8. Recommending the same NYT article. Again, depends on what it says. |
|||
*9. The edits made by OnlyinDeath do not mention or involve GMOs. |
|||
*10-12. No GMO mentioned. |
|||
*13. Maybe this one. SR is talking about the article in general and it mentions GMOs in the opening paragraphs but SR him/herself does not. |
|||
IMO #1 and #13 are the only ones that can be construed as violations, but it is reasonable that the filer would not know that DuPont and Dow are not covered by the ban, so I wouldn't call it deliberate spam either. |
|||
Yes, SR mentions GMOs or more specifically the discussion of GMOs on Wikipedia in this AN/I discussion; self-removes this part of the post about twelve hours later. I don't see the problem with "Resent your calling my response 'hysterical'" or those other posts. |
|||
Bottom line: There is a ''lot'' of stuff in this complaint that's innocuous. The comment on the SciBabe article talk page <strike>could be</strike> <u>is</u> a problem, <u>and the fact that it appears that SageRad's claim not to know that D'Etremont was involved with GMOs is untrue casts doubt on his credibility</u>. The <strike>real</strike> <u>clearest</u> issue here is the participation in the AN/I discussion, which included GMOs even though it was not solely about them. I'd go with yes, SageRad was over the line here. If SR has been engaging in a pattern of such borderline activity, then action is warranted. If not, I'd just clarify the terms of the topic ban so that they explicitly state that SR is not allowed to participate in meta-discussions of GMOs on Wikipedia. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 15:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Only_in_death}} It sounds like ''technically'' SageRad's Dow and DuPont edits don't violate the ban, even though I'll agree with what I infer to be {{ping|Edward321}}'s opinion that one would think these pages would be covered. I'd say this: Do the edits cause or constitute a problem? Do they exacerbate a conflict or push a POV? If so, then the admins should consider extending the topic ban, but it should be acknowledged that SageRad did not violate its existing terms with these edits. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 18:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC) BMK, I would agree, but there appears to be an exception specifically permitting topic-banned users to edit articles on companies like Dow and Dupont so long as they don't mention GMOs. This is a case of three violations, not fourteen. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 01:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::For what it's worth, SR's promise sounds solid to me. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 00:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Only in Death==== |
|||
Re Darkfrog, SageRad is banned from agricultural chemicals, which are a major part of Dow's business. The only reason I did not report SageRad for those transgressions was they appeared to take the hint and backed off the article. The AE report I actually [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#SageRad filed previously] which was closed by EdJohnston despite being a blatant violation was a different matter, evidence of their attempt to canvass support for their POV pushing. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 17:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:DF, SageRads MO is to show up at an article, declare bias, and attempt to skew it towards their POV. (Their contribution history contains the evidence of that). As they hold a viewpoint that corporations (GMO affiliated ones mainly) are bad and up to no good, this generally means trying to paint them in an unduly negative light. By coatracking, unreliable sourcing etc. Not restricted to companies, individuals who are pro science (and so, anti fringe/pseudoscience) get the same treatment. As SageRad has a basic lack of understanding of how NPOV, Fringe/Pseudoscience policies work, this means they get into the same arguments in multiple venues with multiple editors who have to explain things over and over again. Take a look at the NPOV and fringe noticeboards (and archives) for a sample. Not to mention the rubbish at Veganism. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 19:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Of course, there is also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChemophobia&type=revision&diff=702753133&oldid=656930653 jumping into POV discussions from 2009]. Oh and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChemophobia&type=revision&diff=702753783&oldid=702753461 claiming intimidation] in order to not edit there. Seriously, why are we putting up with this rubbish? [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 17:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*SV's quoting of arbcom re Sanders is misapplied. Sanders is a politician who has made comments on GMO's (its difficult to find a current politician who wouldnt have been asked about them at some point.) His notability is completely unrelated to GMO's so could hardly be covered under 'broadly construed' unless someone directly edited his comments on GMO's. Yvette d'Entremont is another matter entirely, a huge proportion of her work and notability is tied up in her rebuttal of pseudo/bad science related to GMO's. Claiming she is in the same situation as Sanders is farcial. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 09:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by MarkBernstein==== |
|||
The complaint is vexatious, and is apparently intended to lure admins at AE into carelessly extending a topic ban into domains which ArbCom explicitly rejected, for the purposes of gaining advantage in a topic dispute and of further securing Wikipedia for the American right. |
|||
Is perfluorooctanioc acid an agricultural chemical? It sure sounds chemical, doesn’t it? Does it have something to do with GMOs? Kind of sounds like it would! DuPoint and Dow do make some farm products! Obviously, a breaching experiment: ring the alarms! |
|||
Unfortunately for this complaint, some Wikipedians have knowledge of a variety of domains, and others are remarkably willing to '''look stuff up.''' A long time ago, I earned a doctorate in chemistry. Also, a long time ago, I was employed by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., though by Central Research, not by the agrochemical division. I can say with some confidence that perfluorooctanoic acid is not an agricultural chemical, at least not on this planet! (Speculation on the slippery nature of perfluorinated wildlife might amuse arbitrators more than this complaint.) DuPont has long been a world leader in fluorocarbon chemistry, and its perfluorinated polymer, Teflon, is a household word. Perfluorooctanoic acid is used to manufacture Teflon and related polymers, as a water repellent, and for related applications. There’s quite a decent article on this on a Web site called [[Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Applications|Wikipedia]]. |
|||
The question of whether the topic ban extends to non-agricultural chemicals, or to other operations of these and other companies, was explicitly raised -- by myself and others -- at ARCA. ArbCom's rejection of this broad construction was clear and unambiguous. '''The editor raising this question should be topic-banned from discussion of topic bans for GMO''' in order to avoid future disruption. [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein|talk]]) 18:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Tryptofish==== |
|||
I have not looked at all the company-related edits, but the last edit listed in the opening filing, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYvette_d%27Entremont&type=revision&diff=698155878&oldid=698154146], is an unambiguous violation, because the lead section of [[Yvette d'Entremont|the page]] clearly notes that the subject is notable for criticizing "the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement". --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
I'll just say that the comments by Spartaz and by SlimVirgin seem very reasonable to me, as to an outcome. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
I support SageRad's assurances, and I support closing this as a result. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
==== Statement by JzG ==== |
|||
SageRad has been active at {{la|Vani Hari}}, discussed during the case, and the dispute between Hari and d'Entremont is well documented - the dispute explicitly includes Hari's GMO fearmongering and when this is taken along with Dow and DuPont I would say it's time to start making firm statements that no, we do not mean get as close to the topic as you think you can get away with, we mean, stay away from GMOs, broadly construed. |
|||
I would not like to see SageRad blocked this time, but equally I do think he needs to actually leave that area alone, and in fact it might be helpful if he was to drop the stick entirely (e.g. stop kvetching about use of a site associated with David Gorski, with whom he has a dispute over GMOs). <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 00:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by DHeyward==== |
|||
The result of "broadly construed" findings was to stop eactly this type of tar and feathering approach to GMO companies. Sorry but I find little coincidence in the editing of GMO company products in a negative tone and editing GMO products themselves. These editors need to get off the "ZOMG! these GMO companies are killing us in so many different ways!" treadmill and find a new hobby. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 00:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Hugh==== |
|||
I see no topic ban violation in the diffs in the complaint. Uninvolved with GMOs, minor interactions with SageRad. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 07:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:{{replyto|Beyond_My_Ken}} [[WP:ACDS]] authorizes topic bans constrained by [[WP:TBAN]]. I see no authorization for a page ban sanction animal. Topic bans are bans on topics not pages. Is your point that this sanction here is not a topic ban, it is some kind of page ban thing, exempt from [[WP:TBAN]]? Some read "broadly construed" as a sort of two degrees of separation, that is, any page that wikilinks to a article that is in scope is in scope, maybe some of that is going on in this complaint, topic ban creep. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 07:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:{{replyto|Beyond_My_Ken}} Thank you for your reply above. You emphasized the word "pages" in the topic ban notice. What is that word's significance to you? Our project's policy [[WP:TBAN]] provides guidance on how to interpret the scope of a topic ban, my understanding is ''all'' topic bans. Do you think the topic ban at issue in this complaint is constrained by [[WP:TBAN]], or does the use of the word "pages" in the notification make it into some kind of page ban or some kind of topic ban on steroids? Thanks again. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 06:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{replyto|EdJohnston}} It is simply not true that a precursor chemical to an agricultural chemical is necessarily an agricultural chemical. This analysis invokes a "two degrees of separation" interpretation of "broadly construed" to industrial chemical production processes and is clearly a misapplication of [[WP:TBAN]], which policy is specifically written to provide us with guidance on the detection of topic ban boundaries. Thank you. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 23:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Dow (talk) -> Bhopal -> methyl isocyanate -> chemical precursors -> pesticides -> agricultural chemicals -> bingo! topic ban. Really? [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 23:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{replyto|Spartaz}} "While none of the specific edits relate to GMO matters...I don't think SageRad has purposefully broken the ban..." We agree. "...the sanction was a ban from all pages related to GMO matters. This means that even non-GMO edits are violations...the specific ban relates to GMO related pages not just GMO edits." Please I would like to better understand your position, in particular with your application of [[WP:TBAN]]. To me it is clear that we are asked by written policy to consider that not all edits to given page are necessarily in scope of a topic ban. Do you believe an enforcing admin can toss some magic words like "all pages" into a topic ban notice and slap a topic ban that exceeds the authorization of policy? Doesn't [[WP:TBAN]] constrain the scope of ''all'' topic bans, no matter how cleverly worded the notice? What do you think? Thank you. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 23:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Cla68==== |
|||
As contentious as the GMO articles continue to be, I'd say a healthy dose of boomerang on some of the editors here following SageRad around trying to get him banned would probably help things out, but I doubt any of the responding admins will put any effort into doing so. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 16:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by DrChrissy==== |
|||
Given that this is an arbitration page, am I allowed to contribute here without violating my topic ban on GMO's (the same as SageRad)?<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]]</span></sup> 16:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===Result concerning SageRad=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- 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. --> |
|||
*While none of the specific edits relate to GMO matters, the sanction was a ban from all pages related to GMO matters. This means that even non-GMO edits are violations. I don't think SageRad has purposefully broken the ban but they should be aware that the specific ban relates to GMO related pages not just GMO edits. I'd be inclined to close with no action as soon as {{u|SageRad}} has confirmed their understanding of this point. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 18:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*The ArbCom has said that articles not essentially about GMO are not covered by the ban, so long as the edits themselves are not about GMO. The committee commented on this in relation to Jytdog's edits to [[Bernie Sanders]]; see [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms]]. Doug wrote: "As for Bernie Sanders, we've always said that if an article is not basically about the subject of the topic ban, it can be edited provided that the edits don't touch anything related to the topic ban." |
|||
:I think this is a problematic position because of the lack of clarity around the boundaries, but given this view we can't fault SageRad for editing [[Charles Eisenstein]], [[DuPont]], [[Dow Chemical Company]] and [[Yvette d'Entremont]]. But he did take part in an AN/I about Kingofaces' remarks about GMO editors, so I would say that he is skirting the boundary. I therefore support closing this with no action, but SageRad should be asked to make more effort to avoid articles and discussions related to GMO, including meta discussions. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 23:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::{{Ping|SlimVirgin}} We basically restated what [[WP:Topic ban]] says: {{xt|For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as: [...] weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not}}. --[[User:In actu|In actu (Guerillero)]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">My Talk</font>]] 14:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::The problem is in the wording of the sanction then. if you intended it to be standard topic ban than you should have used that language. Unless the committee actually intended to ban for any GMO related pages then the sanction should not say that. This is unfair on both SageRad and those concerned about their edits. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 15:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|Guerillero}} thanks. We should probably expand [[WP:TBAN]] to say more about articles not about the topic but related. If, say, a BLP subject is known for supporting X, where X is covered by the ban, a topic-banned editor might make edits unrelated to X to make the subject look good or otherwise. I would expect this to be a violation of the ban, but according to the current wording of TBAN it wouldn't be. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 20:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Ping|DrChrissy}} [[WP:BANX|No]]. --[[User:In actu|In actu (Guerillero)]] | [[User_talk:Guerillero|<font color="green">My Talk</font>]] 21:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*Just a warning notice to the discussants that ''Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs'' which is highlighted in '''bold''' at the top of this page. It has rarely been enforced but I'm going to start posting warning notices on talk pages in the future. Several editors here have exceeded these limits and if you add more content to your statement, you should remove content. One reason I believe admins stay away from AE are the constant walls of text that need to be parsed through. I encourage other admins to start reminding editors of this page policy. <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 21:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*As pointed out by Mark Bernstein, [[perfluorooctanoic acid]] is not an agricultural chemical. But methyl isocyanate *is* since it's a precursor used in synthesis of pesticides. Pesticides are agricultural chemicals. So I consider the [[Bhopal disaster]] (a leak of methyl isocyanate) to be covered by SageRad's ban. He should cease editing about Bhopal on the [[Dow Chemical Company]] talk page or anywhere else. Also, general comments about the value of an entire article, when the person has taken a clear position on GMOs that is a well-known component of their views, is a violation. That means SageRad should stop making comments about the notability of [[Yvette d'Entremont]] or of [[Charles Eisenstein]] (where he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Eisenstein&diff=701863578&oldid=695258208 removed the notability tag]. If SageRad agrees then I'd close this with no block. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 22:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{u|SageRad}}, can you say whether you agree? If so, we can close this. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 22:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::*SageRad has agreed, so I'm closing. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 01:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Darkfrog24== |
==Darkfrog24== |
Revision as of 13:30, 13 February 2016
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ollie231213
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
- Ollie231213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ollie231213 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Topic Ban from Longevity broadly construed, imposed at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186#Ollie231213, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015#Longevity
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- [1]
Statement by Ollie231213
The reason that I was topic banned was because, in the admins' words, I am "clearly here to advocate for a specific position on longevity articles rather than following our long standing policies and guidelines" and that I am "consistently editing articles, and voting in AfDs, to favor the position of the Gerontology Research Group [which] is incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia."
These are accusations which I strongly deny. The implications here are that I am not following Wikipedia policy and am affiliated with the Gerontology Research Group, both of which are false. I explained very clearly in my statement why I believed I was following Wikipedia policy, but these arguments appear to have been ignored.
Let me use an example here: we can probably all agree that an organisation like the New York Times is, generally speaking, considered a reliable source for many things on Wikipedia. However, what if we're dealing with a specialist topic area - astronomy, for example? Are you going to argue that the NYT is an equally reliable source on that topic as NASA is? What normally happens is that, for stories about astronomy, news organisations simply report what NASA has said. They don't do the research themselves. If the NYT published a story claiming that a new star had been discovered, but no authoritative bodies such as NASA had verified the claims, would we just add that to Wikipedia without even a footnote?
Well, the GRG is to gerontology what NASA is astronomy. Just look at how many times you see news organisations say "...according to the Gerontology Research Group" in stories about the world's oldest people - these are just a few: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Lots of other sources clearly consider the GRG to be an authority in the topic area. All I am saying is that Wikipedia should reflect this and base its articles on longevity primarily on this source and not on other less-reliable ones.
For example: Yasutaro Koide, recognised by the GRG and Guinness World Records as the world's oldest man, died recently aged 112. However, the previous day, a man named Andrew Hatch died at the claimed age of 117, according to this source (which might generally be considered reliable). However, he was not able to prove his age so was not recognised by Guinness and the GRG. So what happens here? Do we treat both sources as equally reliable and say that both were the oldest man?!? No, Guinness and the GRG are clearly more reputable and widely-recognised as authorities in this topic area than the Contra Consta Times. I'm not saying don't include Andrew Hatch at all on Wikipedia, but include him as a "longevity claim" and not as if his age is definitely true.
So, just to summarise: I made it very clear in my statement in the initial request that I am following Wikipedia's policies. I just want Wikipedia's articles on longevity to based on the best sources, and don't want unverified information to be included as if it is fact. My edits in the past have been in line with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:NOR, and WP:RSCONTEXT. I don't see how I can be justifiably topic-banned when I've clearly explained why I am following policy and am acting in good faith. And, should the ban be repealed, I promise to act in a more civil manner in the future. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Ollie's assertion that we should "base its (Wikipedia) articles on longevity primarily on this (GRG) source and not on other less-reliable ones." goes right to the heart of why he must stay topic banned. GRG is not a super source of absolute WP:TRUTH that must be used to the general exclusion of all other RS. --> I have explained very clearly what my point of view is here and explained why it is in line with policy. I am not suggesting that other sources be excluded, just that they are not given the same weight as sources which are considered authorities on the subject according to mainstream consensus. It should be clear to anyone wishing to write good encyclopedic articles that you cannot treat all sources as if they are equally valid. Again, how on earth can I be topic banned for simply suggesting that the most reputable sources on a specialist subject should be the primary source used to write articles on Wikipedia? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. I don't understand how this works - how is this a "fair trial" if just some editors turn up and comment but not others? Am I allowed to request input from someone who will likely defend me? (And a number of respected users have, by the way). If not, how do we get both sides of the argument? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Spartaz If the only opinions that matter are those of the uninvolved admins, then why is anyone else even allowed to comment? I'm not going to canvass support but it seems totally unfair that there is no systematic way of dealing with appeals like this. Where's my lawyer? Other editors have expressed frustration at the behaviour of LegacyPac and others (see here). Now, can you please provide evidence that I am editing to "advocate for the GRG position"? The implication is that there is COI but I've clearly explained why that's not true. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- @The Blade of the Northern Lights: So yet another editor involved in the longevity WP:BATTLEGROUND, clearly biased against me, arguing in favour of a topic ban, who does NOT explain why my edits have violated policy. It's a strawman to claim that I am arguing that the GRG is the "only and only true source"; I am not. I am saying that other sources clearly recognise that the GRG is an authoritative body on the topic of the oldest people in the world and thus, Wikipedia's articles should be based primarily, but not solely, on that source. If we want to make an article of the top 100 oldest people ever, then it should be based on verified data from the most reliable source that deals with age verification, not on a mish-mash of other sources like news reports on people claiming to be 135 or whatever and then compiled in a jumbled WP:OR, WP:SYNTH mess. This really should be common sense. How can sourcing articles on a specialist subject primarily to specialist organisations, most reliable on the topic, in any way "degrade the quality of the articles"? It's madness. Are you going to topic-ban people who insist that astronomy-related articles should be based primarily on the WP:BESTSOURCES, like NASA, the ESA, etc.? I should hope not, because those editors are the ones following core policy. Now, I repeat again: how is this a fair trial? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Glrx You're quite right, I don't understand why this sanction was imposed, otherwise I wouldn't be appealing it! You also falsely represent my argument. My argument is that I was editing in line with policy. Do you contest this? If so, can you explain why? So far, no one has done so.
- @Guy: "All you are doing is reinforcing the impression of an externally coordinated campaign to manipulate Wikipedia in support of an ideology." --> Oh look, YET ANOTHER user who doesn't actually respond to any of the arguments I've made, but instead just accuses me of editing with an agenda. So who is it really who is editing with an ideology? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Glrx:
- You say "However, not being on the list does not contradict a claimed age. It doesn't even show that GRG investigated a claimed age and rejected it for some reason. So GRG's list is not "the oldest living people in the world" but rather "the oldest living people that GRG found and can document" --> My suggestion for the List of the oldest living people article was to have two separate tables: one table of the oldest people verified by the GRG and another table of other claims reported on by other sources but not included on the GRG table. It's true to say that just because someone is not verified by the GRG that they are not as old as they claim, but equally, there's a chance they may not be. The simple fact is this: if you try to compile one single list of the oldest people by adding in people reported on in different sources but whose ages have NOT been verified, then you will a list containing a number of people who aren't as old as they say they are. It is surely much better to have a list of the oldest people who whose claimed age is definitely genuine than a table of those who might or not be.
- "Now say the old lady in Pasdena dies, and the coroner issues a death certificate that says she is older than the oldest person on GRG's or anybody else's list. The Los Angeles Times then prints a story that includes the age on the death certificate. The Los Angeles Times may even claim she was the oldest known person in the world because it does not know of anyone older. What should WP do? It has some reliable sources, but apparently Ollie will take issue with the reliability of those sources." --> Well, which source is the authority when it comes to world records? Guinness World Records. And GWR work with the GRG. I think the solution is fairly clear: the titleholder as recognised by Guinness should be treated as the "official" world's oldest person, and any other claimants reported on in other sources should be treated as "claims". That's exactly why I suggested having two tables as mentioned above.
- "The original AE found that Ollie was violating WP policy in AfDs and articles by continually taking the view that GRG should be the most reliable source. In the appeal above, Ollie makes exactly that claim. There has been no change since the ban." --> And the ban was wrong. I've made my reasoning crystal clear and explained why my actions DO NOT violate Wikipedia policy. Plenty of other users (including administrators) share my view. This is a content dispute, nothing more. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- @NuclearWarfare: Neither The Blade of the Northern Lights or JzG are uninvolved. And this is why I repeat my concern: plenty of other users would support me here but they are not voicing their opinion possibly because they don't even know this is happening. It doesn't seem very fair that just any old editor can turn up and give evidence because at the moment we are only getting one side of the argument. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Glrx: "You were topic banned not for your beliefs about GRG's stature as a source but rather for your disruptive behavior with other editors" --> That's clearly not the case. The two admins who voted in favour of a topic ban in the AE discussion both did so on the basis that I was here to "advocate for a certain position", nothing to do with my behaviour. In my original statement in that discussion I addressed the issues that were put forward, and apologised for uncivil behaviour. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Spartaz: "We have had edit wars on BLPs because pro-GRG editors refuse to accept that alternative sources meet the standard to say that a famous Chinese linguist is 110 years old" --> So because someone is famous they should be given special treatment? I'm not saying don't include him at all, but don't include him on the same list as people whose age has been verified. But again, this is a content dispute. It's not "subverting standards" to insist the same rules apply to everyone. And no, the GRG don't charge a fee for someone to be verified, if that's what you're suggesting. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Guy: What utter, utter bollocks. Would you care to provide some evidence to support your assertions? Consensus in outside sources is very different to yours. It's absolutely astounding that senior editors on Wikipedia - the place where many people turn first to find information - have no concept whatsoever of the idea that not all sources can be given equal weight in certain contexts. The GRG is an organisation that attempts to build a list of the oldest people in the world, and other sources (news sources, Guinness World Records, etc) turn to them when reporting on supercentenarians. Just because someone goes to their local newspaper and says "I'm 115!" doesn't prove they're 115. From WP:RS: "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." To claim to be 115 years old is an extraordinary claim. The vast majority of such claims are actually false. What happens if a news source reports on someone who claims to have been abducted by aliens? Well, it's in a reliable source, so according to your logic we should write on Wikipedia that aliens must exist then! No reputable, scientific organisations recognise the claim as valid, but because we can't treat them as more reliable, that doesn't matter. AND BAN ANYONE WHO OBJECTS! -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Glrx 1. If dozens of newspapers are reporting the Guinness World Records titleholder and a few are reporting questionable claims, then Wikipedia's due weight policy would suggest that Wikipedia should go with what the majority of sources are saying. It's a total fallacy to think that we have to treat every single bit of information in every source equally, especially when the sources contradict each other.
- 2. My behaviour doesn't constitute a topic ban. The incivility issue went both ways with Legacypac and I've promised not to continue to be uncivil.
- 3. The issue with the area of longevity is that some editors on Wikipedia have a strong dislike of the GRG and the so-called "longevity fanclub" because of past experiences with other editors. But I cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. People like Guy are coming up with all sorts of unfounded conspiracy theories that are unsourced (e.g. that the GRG are peddling pseudoscience) and claiming that I am COI-editing, but I've clearly explained why my actions are well grounded in Wikipedia policy, and that actually, it's those who think that due weight and good sources policies shouldn't apply. "I don't like it" isn't a reason to overthrow Wiki policy and rules which apply in other areas, including the three core assertions of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:RS. No one is saying that the GRG is the one and only source on supercentenarians, but what I am saying is that the larger issue is that science requires extraordinary claims to have extraordinary sources, and there is general agreement outside Wikipedia and within the scientific community that age claims to 110+ are enough to require age verification. Someone going to a newspaper and saying "I'm 115!" should be treated the same as someone who goes to a newspaper and says "I was abducted by aliens!". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- You can also run an IP check and see that I was not involved in the Zhou Youguang editing. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Blackmane Did you even bother to read my reasoning? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Blackmane: It is not up to Wikipedia to say "this source is better than these other sources so we're giving it its own list" --> It's not Wikipedia saying that, it's other sources saying that. It's Guinness World Records saying that. It's numerous media organisations saying that. What you are not appreciating is that the GRG actually attempts to 1. Verify the age of longevity claimants, and 2. Build a list of the oldest people in the world. Most other sources do not do that. Wikipedia's policies clearly state that different sources do not have to be given equal weight, and that more extraordinary claims require stronger levels of sourcing. Claiming to be 110+ is an extraordinary claim given the rarity of it, and the area of longevity is littered with fraudulent claims. As Norris McWhirter once said: "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity". If Wikipedia's list of oldest living people is to be of any value, emphasis must be placed on age validation. If someone is listed on the GRG website, we can be confident that their claimed age is true. On the other hand, if someone has just gone to their local newspaper and said "I'm 110", but no reasonable attempt to validate the age claim has occurred, then there are clearly some doubts as to whether the claim is true. It's believes that more than two thirds of claims to 110+ are false. All I am suggesting is that we have one list of validated claims (where we know the people are as old as claimed) and another list of unvalidated claims (where there is some doubt). But again - and this is my real point- this is just a content dispute. Whether you agree with me or not, my arguments are based on logic and on Wikipedia policy, NOT, as most people would have you believe, because I am trying to "advocate for the GRG position" in some COI situation. All I want to do is make sure that Wikipedia's coverage of the subject does not get filled with fraudulent age claims and false information, and I get topic-banned for it? It is absolutely outrageous, and the way in which these appeals are carried out - with no kind of fair judicial system - is frankly quite appalling. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Blackmane: Not going to challenge the arguement I've made then? Just like most others here haven't? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Spartaz
I don't have anything to add beyond what Ed and I said in the original AE. Ollie, the only opinions that have any weight here are the uninvolved admins. Everything else is just noise. Do not canvass others to come and support you. It won't affect the outcome but would be obvious evidence that you are not editing per our accepted norms. Spartaz Humbug! 18:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- For some reason I didn't get a ping from NW below. The issue with GRG is an entrenched view by a section of editors that the GRG takes precedence over our existing sourcing standards - to the point where we have had edit wars on BLPs because pro-GRG editors refuse to accept that alternative sources meet the standard to say that a famous Chinese linguist is 110 years old. See this previous AE, this discussion of Zhou Younguang's age and this other discussion. By actively promoting a pro-GRG stance Ollie is subverting our existing standards for article inclusion. His removal from the longevity area and the impact of similar AE to reinforce the fact that pro-GRG edit warring and acceptance of wider community norms appears to be allowing a more considered approach to Longevity areas. I have no doubt that without it, we could easily have seen Zhou_Youguang have his birth date excluded because being 110 makes him a super centarian and GRG hasn't (for a fee I believe) verified his age. Spartaz Humbug! 13:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Addendum - please see edit warring in history here of Zhou Youguang's article with a logged out editor trying to remove the date of birth to the point of protection because it is not GRG verified. Also [here] Spartaz Humbug! 13:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Legacypac
Ollie demonstrates a lack of understanding of wikipolicy in his appeal. If, as he say,s "GRG is to gerontology what NASA is astronomy" we can safely treat GRG as just one of many RS. Our Astronomy article does not even mention NASA (that I can see) and the lead says "Astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can still play an active role" NASA is definitely a great authority but hardly the primary or final authority in astronomy.
If someone wants to write up Andrew Hatch (super old guy) we have good sources and would report he claimed to be 117, has lots of id that verifies that, but did not have a birth certificate because birth certificates were not issued in his region (just as the contracosta times did), they should write it. For completeness, they should also note that GRG would not validate his age. But Hatch is a total red herring as no editor has tried to include him in any table or assert he was the world's oldest man (that I'm aware of).
Ollie's assertion that we should "base its (Wikipedia) articles on longevity primarily on this (GRG) source and not on other less-reliable ones." goes right to the heart of why he must stay topic banned. GRG is not a super source of absolute WP:TRUTH that must be used to the general exclusion of all other RS. (I commented on the AE request that led to the topic ban, not sure if that makes me involved or uninvolved) Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights
It will be quite unsurprising that I see no reason to overturn the sanctions here. The amount of energy that's been expended arguing that the GRG is The One And Only True SourceTM on this subject is so enormously wasteful that allowing editors back in who want to continue that fight will only degrade the quality of the articles on human longevity. I don't see where the implementation of sanctions violated any policies, nor do I see how lifting them will be in any way helpful. Therefore, I strongly recommend this be closed with no action and a reminder that brevity is actually a virtue. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- In response, 1. Wikipedia isn't a court of law and 2. my previous points, especially that one about brevity, are reaffirmed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Glrx has done an excellent job of summarizing the GRG; essentially it's a source which has a good deal of use in this topic, but does not have exclusive domain in the field. The fundamental problem is what I described above, that there has been a depressingly persistent campaign to elevate the GRG's importance as being above that of any other possible source material. Efforts to use the GRG research in proper context (e.g. not using absence on the list as evidence against a particular age, or that happening to be on a table does not inherently confer notability) are met with a massive amount of resistance from a horde of SPAs, and compounding their vigor is that many of these have some connection to the GRG and/or Robert Young (most of which is laid out at this AfD). The original case page lays out the gory details, and while the cast of characters is somewhat different the techniques are exactly the same. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
I am unsurprised that Ollie rejects the findings of independent admins reviewing his conduct - that is pretty much the definitive rationale for enacting a sanction, since people who accept independent views rarely end up here.
Ollie, find some other area to edit. Leave this topic completely, forever. All you are doing is reinforcing the impression of an externally coordinated campaign to manipulate Wikipedia in support of an ideology. We're bored with it. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- @NuclearWarfare: The Gerontology Research Group functions as an off-wiki gathering place for promoters of "agecruft" - they are convinced that achieving the age of 100 makes one inherently notable, and that the GRG is the fountain source of all wisdom on matters pertaining to age. We have had years of disruption by members and supporters of this site pushing their external agenda against Wikipedia consensus. Its focus on agecruft is less of a problem than its fringe activities in "life extension" - a field littered with blatantly pseudoscientific claims, playing largely to a market of old rich people whose judgment may not be what it once was (if you are thinking that there will be quite a few actual fraudsters involved, you're almost certainly right). Ryoung122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a leader of this group and was banninated for repeatedly making anonymous edits evading his topic ban. So: GRG think they are the sole authority on supercentenarians, and the sole arbiters of the notability of same (in practice, they always consider them notable, because that is all they are interested in), and there are also numerous other fields where this group can be considered to be offsite co-ordinators of POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Ricky81682
NuclearWarfare I'm an involved admin on this matter. To give you a perspective on this discussion about the Gerontology Research Group, see this lengthy RFC. The claim was made by Ollie and others that the GRG needs to be identified and separately marked as a different level of reliable source (along with other sources which by random "luck" are never actually used anywhere). This is was but one of many examples of lengthy and disruptive arguing (including an RFC Ollie proposed to ban all newspapers are unreliable sources but only for reporting the ages of very old people). That is why the "GRG is the equivalent of NASA" is frustrating nonsense. The extent and months and months of arguing and arguing on this topic were enough and we are all better off if we don't have to repeat the same arguments with people who clearly only view the GRG as accurate on these very minor factual points. See Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people where even today yet again there is another lengthy round of arguing by people who simply repeat the idiotic mantra that "all newspapers are unreliable for old people's birth dates" by bringing up complete garbage nonsense and to use the GRG again (the language in flavor now is "international bodies that specialize in longevity research" so there are other sources when pushed about it so they aren't just saying the GRG but everything else then gets deleted so it's really just the GRG yet again). Review the old ARBCOM case and you'll see that it's been a decade of problems like this: the only resolution came when ARE started topic banning the people who simply refused to accept the idea of other sources on the topic being considered reliable on a general level (not that the tables aren't just repeating the GRG anyways). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strike that. I don't need to reiterate the actual discussion. I'm involved here, I'm not going to deny that. The main issue is that it is one of many sources. Note that during this lengthy RFC, Ollie argued for a number of sources but when push came to shove, it is only the GRG that actually matters. Today, we have another, similar argument about the lede sentence at Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people where the term is now "international bodies that specialize in longevity research" and again citing numerous organizations which again will ultimately be the GRG. Even if the GRG were the equivalent of NASA, we wouldn't then say that anything the Cosmonauts did should be ignored, we'd treat them as equally reliable sources and lengthy and lengthy discussions to fight that issue again and again are not productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 3)
- Not sure whether this is the place to put this, but I wanted to react to Spartaz's statement that "promoting a GRG POV is harmful" regarding the Zhou Youguang case: I have searched the GRG website, but have found no comment or statement regarding Mr. Youguang on there. Therefore, I assume that the GRG has no point of view about the man, so I am not sure how anyone can claim that IPs are 'promoting a GRG POV' there; instead, I would rather argue that there are fancrufters who are now being confused with the GRG (or possibly used as its scapegoat). As a result, (by both sides) the GRG is once again dragged into a discussion which should, at its core, be about "validation" versus "reliable source". Fiskje88 (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ollie231213
Statement by Glrx
Ollie231213's appeal does not show an understanding of why sanctions were imposed. Instead the argument is that GRG should be as respected as NASA and therefore implies the sanctions were improper. The ban should stay. Glrx (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@NuclearWarfare:. I have not been following longevity topics, but here's my take.
Ollie represents that Gerontology Research Group should be the respected authority on the age of very old people. It and the Guiness Book of Records should be given more weight on the topic than other reliable sources.
Ollie apparently founds that belief in GRG's strict requirements for documenting age. This Smithsonian article describes GRG and its procedures. The article describes GRG's requirements for 2 to 3 pieces of documentation. The article also points out that people often make false claims about age, and GRG's documentation requirements often uncover or prevent such frauds. Unfortunately, the documentation requirements also exclude many potentially bona fide old people. For example, there are good records in Japan, but almost no records in Africa. Even in countries with good documentation, some people are not on the list because they want their privacy. If nobody tells GRG that a very old lady is living in Pasadena, then that lady won't be on the list. Or maybe the little old lady has a birth certificate but she doesn't have her marriage certificate, so GRG won't put her on the list.
Consequently, if someone is on the list, then there are presumably reasonable supporting documents for the individual's age. Volunteers, not professionals, validate these age claims. Wikipedia apparently accepts GRG's Table E as a reliable indication of an individual's age.[9] However, not being on the list does not contradict a claimed age. It doesn't even show that GRG investigated a claimed age and rejected it for some reason. So GRG's list is not "the oldest living people in the world" but rather "the oldest living people that GRG found and can document"; GRG calls the table "Validated Living Supercentenarians".
Now say the old lady in Pasdena dies, and the coroner issues a death certificate that says she is older than the oldest person on GRG's or anybody else's list. The Los Angeles Times then prints a story that includes the age on the death certificate. The Los Angeles Times may even claim she was the oldest known person in the world because it does not know of anyone older. What should WP do? It has some reliable sources, but apparently Ollie will take issue with the reliability of those sources.
The original AE found that Ollie was violating WP policy in AfDs and articles by continually taking the view that GRG should be the most reliable source. In the appeal above, Ollie makes exactly that claim. There has been no change since the ban. Glrx (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ollie231213: Editors don't get topic bans for their beliefs; they get topic bans for their behavior. Your behavioral issue was not following WP policies. You open with the claim that you were following WP policies, but the body of your appeal does not address WP behavior policies at all. You close with "I made it very clear in my statement in the initial request that I am following Wikipedia's policies." That is not the case either. The charge in the original AE was "Ollie231213's conduct at various AFD discussions is bordering into uncivil territory with numerous personal attacks." There were four diffs. Your response was not about the uncivil diffs, the original research issue, or your continued engagement at the RFC ("Apologies if I sounded patronising or disrespectful but part of the reason why I'm sounding repetitive is because I keep getting faced with straw man arguments, and I want to make sure we understand where we are both coming from here. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)"). You were not on topic for the AE. You did mention some WP policy, but they were not policies about behavior but rather sources. You believe GRG is the superior source. That's fine. Editors may believe what they want. Editors usually have a right to discuss their beliefs and persuade others to their position, but there are limits because other editors have rights, too. WP does not tolerate edit wars where one group keeps putting its version in an article and another group keeps replacing it with something else. Neither does WP want disruption on its talk pages. When there's disagreement, WP policy wants the groups to discuss the issues reasonably and adopt a consensus view even if that view is wrong. Maybe there is compromise; maybe one side prevails for now. The consensus view today is that GRG is a reliable source for some information but it is not the superior source that you want it to be. You were topic banned not for your beliefs about GRG's stature as a source but rather for your disruptive behavior with other editors. The issue at this board is not whether your viewpoint about weighing longevity sources is right or wrong but whether continued disruptive behavior is likely. You have not addressed your behavior at all. Instead, you continue to argue that GRG is the best source even though this is not the forum for a content argument. The implication is that you want this board to admit the original topic ban was wrong, approve of GRG as a great source (something that it cannot do), and give you license to edit war or demean editors who disagree with you. That's not what is done here.
I do not see an effective appeal here. The appeal should have addressed behavioral issues raised in the orignal AE. Looking at the original AE proceeding, I could conclude that the allegations were weak. I expect Legacypac has thick skin and some one-off ad hominem arguments can be forgiven. Extended and repetive engagement at any discussion is not desired, but it happens. Furthermore, it takes two (or more) to tango. I suspect NuclearWarfare's has that concern. The question is whether the behavior is typical. Furthermore, longevity has been found to be a contentious area, and discretionary sanctions are authorized. In the original AE, you claim, "I'm not on a pro-GRG campaign, on I'm an anti-anti-GRG campaign, which is not the same thing." For the purposes here, the double-negative distinction makes little difference because WP does not want campaigners. I haven't chased the sub-sub-discussion at RSN, but my guess is it is similar to the RfC. Consequently, I expect there is a long history of edit warring and disruptive engagement on many longevity articles. Spartaz has added colorable post-ban sock allegations. Glrx (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Striking text; I misread Spartaz's implication. Glrx (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Blackmane
I am somewhat peripherally involved as I've voted on a number of the AFD's that were raised largely by Ricky81682 among others.
I think a simple statement would suffice here. Ollie2312 was topic banned because of his advocacy for GRG. Naturally, he refutes the accusation of advocacy but is, in his words, on an "anti anti GRG campaign". However, from his statement above: My suggestion for the List of the oldest living people article was to have two separate tables: one table of the oldest people verified by the GRG and another table of other claims reported on by other sources but not included on the GRG table
is precisely advocacy that legitimises his current topic ban. One list that uses other sources and one list that solely uses GRG? This idea is basically asking WP to enshrine GRG. This one statement by Ollie2312 is, in my mind, the iceberg that sinks his appeal. Blackmane (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ollie231213: I read, re-read and re-read again your reasoning. My view does not change. I would not have written what I did if I hadn't read it. Again, having one list that is only for GRG as a source while another list has all other sources pushes forward the POV that GRG is singularly better or special compared to any other source. It is not up to Wikipedia to say "this source is better than these other sources so we're giving it its own list". What any list should say is "here is the claim, here is the source" no more, no less. If the claim is later discredited then the entry is removed. If a claim is weak or variable because sources disagree, then the entry should be adjusted based on a discussion. Blackmane (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ollie231213: WP has never made any pretenses at having a judicial system. It's a privately owned website and as far as has been discussed this is most obviously not just a content dispute. At this point, I will leave this as my last comment as further discussion will derail this appeal. Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Mabidex
@Ollie231213: I read your reasoning. I do believe that anyone achieving the age of 100 is very notable, as it remains rare. Which brings me to it's exceptional nature: What is more rare to humans who read Wikipedia than another of our own human species living longer than most others on this earth? According to the US Census, only 0.02% or 55,000 people in the US in all of the time between 2007 through 2011[1]. To reiterate, being a Super Centenarian is an extraordinary claim, and it surely requires extraordinary proof.
While the GRG is not the only source that verifies Super Centenarians it is one of the more prominent non-profit ones. I don't disagree that verification should be done, but commercial interests should be known for those on the lists that use the story to sell more newspapers (for example) and benefit the commercial interests because of it. Yes I agree that It is not up to Wikipedia to say "this source is better than these other sources so we're giving it its own list" but a verified claim of age should be supported of non-commercial claims over those of a commercial nature. What any list should say is "here is the claim, here is the (Commercial/Non-Commercial) source" no more, no less. I agree, If the claim is later discredited then the entry is removed. If a claim is weak or variable because sources disagree, then the entry should be adjusted. As for the topic ban, it should simply be lifted. I see no reason to continue it as this person should be allowed to make disagreements about weak sources.
@NuclearWarfare: I also see no reason to consider JzG's words here as an involved admin, as they are clearly of a libel nature and out of line as appeals to spite and ridicule to win over the Admins consideration. Mabidex (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Ollie231213
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Spartaz, The Blade of the Northern Lights, JzG, and EdJohnston: I know little about this topic area but I respect you all a great detail as uninvolved(?) administrators so that's what I'm directing my initial question to you. I've read Ollie's statement and the original AE request. I take it you all would disagree with his description of this "Gerontology Research Group". Could you please either describe a little more as to why or point me to past discussions? Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks all for replying. I did some reading this morning (apparently, I was the case clerk for the Longevity case way back when; who knew). The given rationale for the topic ban was primarily POV pushing with a dash of incivility and tendentious editing. I haven't read anything that would make me disagree with that analysis. As per policy, a clear and active consensus is required to overturn a discretionary sanction. I would view that as functionally being impossible if one other uninvolved administrator agrees with me and would suggest that the appeal can be closed if that situation occurs. NW (Talk) 18:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Darkfrog24
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 Darkfrog24
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Darkfrog24 (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/Article titles and capitalisation#Discretionary sanctions :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- DS topic ban from quotation marks (22 Jan. 2016)
- DS topic ban from all MoS matters (4 Feby. 2016)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is a clear violation of DF's topic ban from MoS matters, and is just another example of his trying to continue the dispute post-ban. Let's not forget that it was not long ago that his topic ban had to be expanded from "quotation marks" to "MoS matters" because of similar actions on his part. This, however, is the worst action yet. I don't think he should be allowed to continue skirting the topic ban.
To all other parties, please look at the corrected second diff. It is one thing to say "I cannot participate", but it is another thing to directly reference the dispute and cast WP:ASPERSIONS about members of a deletion discussion. Darkfrog24 should not be discussing the MoS at all, should not be writing anything about it, should not be expressing an opinion on "MoS regulars". Darkfrog24 was advised by the uninvolved administrators to avoid this area completely, and was told numerous times not get involved in this dispute again. If he were smart, he would not've responded at all, which is what he was told to do. I have done nothing wrong. "Note the identity of the filer", etc., had a clear subtext. I do not appreciate being subject to WP:ASPERSIONS from topic-banned editors.
Last comment on this matter: Ivanvector, if you'd like such an interaction ban, I have no objection. I never interact with this fellow. I was not a party to the original dispute that led to the AE filing. It would make absolutely no difference to me if such a ban were imposed, because I have no desire to interact with DF, and don't do so anyway. Such a ban would thankfully keep DF from dragging me into disputes where I have no place.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Darkfrog24
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 Darkfrog24
It is not a violation of a topic ban to tell people that I'm not allowed to participate because I'm under a topic ban. Smokey pinged me and said, "I find it odd that Wavelength, Darkfrog24 and Dickylon haven't commented," so I told him why I and possibly Dicklyon haven't commented. I don't remember which admin it was, but I've been actively told, "If someone asks you about X, you have to tell them you're under a topic ban."
The so-called "similar actions" were going to the talk pages of involved editors and asking them for constructive criticism on how to make the best of the topic ban.[12]
While we're here, I don't think it's appropriate for SMcCandlish to make such strongly negative and false claims about me in a forum in which I'm not allowed to respond.
This is the second time since the ban was put in place on January 22 that an uninvolved user has actively requested that I contribute to a MoS-related project or discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Laser brain: @TenOfAllTrades: The edit mentioning "MoS regulars" was immediately self-reverted; both edits are marked to the same minute, and that was the only part of the post that I even thought might come close to skirting the edges of the ban.[13] There is nothing in WP:TBAN or in any of the answers to any of the questions I asked that even suggests that posting a link to the complaint or saying who filed it is in any way undesirable. If that's is what's intended, someone needs to say so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Only in Death
Trouts incoming I suspect. Telling an editor who has effectively notified them by alert that 'I cannot talk about this since I am topic banned' is hardly an actionable edit. Talk about being petty. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Starke Hathaway
This is such an obviously unfounded and vexatious complaint that I think the filer ought to face sanction for it. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Ivanvector
It's difficult to assume this request is in good faith, in fact it's hard to see what the point of it is at all if not to try to cause trouble. The first diff shows Darkfrog24 responding to a direct question with an explanation of why they are not responding, in as neutral and cordial language as would be possible I can only assume. I have to assume the second diff is in error since it's RGloucester's own edit. How in the world this indicates "the worst action yet" is dumbfounding. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
In fact I agree with Starke Hathaway: if RGloucester cannot explain how this request has any merit at all and is not clearly and obviously vexatious, they ought to be sanctioned for it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@RGloucester: I think SmokeyJoe hit the nail on the head here, and in echoing his sentiment I believe I will make the fourth editor (third uninvolved) to tell you this is petty. But you seem to think petty is fine. I think if you were banned from interacting with Darkfrog24 you would have less petty things to do. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SmokeyJoe
I think the following two things are unacceptable:
- That Darkfrog24 should be not allowed even a single comment in a discussion (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support) on whether a page dominated by his contributions should be deleted. (I think he should be allowed a single comment, plus simple answers to any simple clarifying questions).
- That Darkfrog24 should not be allowed to answer informatively a direct question put to him. (and I don't consider a link to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=701104125#Dicklyon_and_Darkfrog24 to be sufficient, as it is too long).
If Darkfrog24 is not allowed to participate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support, then I think the page in question (Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support) should be referred to Arbs on the question of deletion. Or an Arb should contribute in the MfD in their capacity as an Arb. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Result concerning Darkfrog24
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- It appears that the second diff has been updated/corrected since the first round of comments. Darkfrog24's first edit is on its face not a conspicuous violation, but its invitation to "...Please note the identity of the filer and principal complainant and make of this what you will" is getting awfully close to commenting on a dispute at the heart of his topic ban, and has the feel of testing the ban's edges. Darkfrog24's expansion of that comment in the second diff ([14]) cements that perception: "... Please note the identities of the filer and principal complainant—and the degree to which other MoS regulars do and do not agree with them—and make of this what you will" is unambiguously commenting on a MOS matter, covered by Darkfrog24's ban. WP:AE takes a dim view of editors who play "I'm not commenting on the dispute, but here are some things you should note about the participants in the dispute"-type games. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Here we go again. Acceptable: "I am not at the moment permitted to share it with you, and neither is Dicklyon". Completely unacceptable: "Please note the identity of the filer and principal complainant—and the degree to which other MoS regulars do and do not agree with them—and make of this what you will." This is exactly why Darkfrog's topic ban was expanded recently. They seemingly cannot grasp the point that carrying on these disputes is disruptive and that making offhand remarks about the topic and people they have previously been in dispute with is a clear violation of the topic ban. Darkfrog24 is still trying to keep this going despite the original and now expanded TB. I can't believe this has to come to further sanctions, but I'm recommending a one-week vacation. Pinging Thryduulf for your feedback. As an aside, RGloucester, can you please find something else to do and leave the monitoring of Darkfrog's behavior to neutral parties? --Laser brain (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with User:Laser brain as to what kind of comment by Darkfron24 would be acceptable. Support LB's proposal to block the editor for one week. Regarding the above comment by User:SmokeyJoe: it may seem illogical but in fact it is a clear consequence of DF24's ban that they can't join in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support. The fate of the MOS:SUPPORT page will be decided by others. AfDs and MfDs are closed every day without dire consequences. User:Wavelength will allow the page to be userfied to his space if that is the decision. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)