→Statement by Bradv: statement |
Winged Blades of Godric (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 322: | Line 322: | ||
Icewhiz's I-Ban "partner", {{u|Volunteer Marek}}, reverted content added (or re-added) by Icewhiz last month ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Poland&diff=909193840&oldid=909193768&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Poland&diff=910040899&oldid=910038226&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Poland&diff=910336391&oldid=910335557&diffmode=source] → [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Poland&oldid=prev&diff=913585609&diffmode=source]), and commented on threads where Icewhiz is heavily involved ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Poland&diff=909446193&oldid=909445876&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Poland&diff=909446802&oldid=909445771&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Poland&diff=909781059&oldid=909764532&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Poland&diff=909781781&oldid=909781059&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Poland&diff=910071978&oldid=910071668&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Poland&diff=910767383&oldid=910766053&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Poland&diff=911550267&oldid=911528139&diffmode=source] → [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=912531099&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=912531099&diffmode=source]). This is much closer than what Icewhiz was blocked for (reverting a year old change with >50 intervening edits), but no one reported him as, just as before, there were intervening edits and no direct interaction. Editors under an I-Ban should not be required to "Wikiblame" their edits to make sure they're in the clear. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 09:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC) |
Icewhiz's I-Ban "partner", {{u|Volunteer Marek}}, reverted content added (or re-added) by Icewhiz last month ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Poland&diff=909193840&oldid=909193768&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Poland&diff=910040899&oldid=910038226&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Poland&diff=910336391&oldid=910335557&diffmode=source] → [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Poland&oldid=prev&diff=913585609&diffmode=source]), and commented on threads where Icewhiz is heavily involved ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Poland&diff=909446193&oldid=909445876&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Poland&diff=909446802&oldid=909445771&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Poland&diff=909781059&oldid=909764532&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Poland&diff=909781781&oldid=909781059&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Poland&diff=910071978&oldid=910071668&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Poland&diff=910767383&oldid=910766053&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Poland&diff=911550267&oldid=911528139&diffmode=source] → [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=912531099&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=912531099&diffmode=source]). This is much closer than what Icewhiz was blocked for (reverting a year old change with >50 intervening edits), but no one reported him as, just as before, there were intervening edits and no direct interaction. Editors under an I-Ban should not be required to "Wikiblame" their edits to make sure they're in the clear. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 09:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC) |
||
===Statement by |
===Statement by WBG=== |
||
What SoWhy says. Pathetic to be mild and I hope we don't have another Sandstein in the making. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|<span style="color: red">∯</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#070">WBG</b></span>]][[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|<sup><span style="color:#00F">converse</span></sup>]] 15:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Icewhiz === |
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Icewhiz === |
Revision as of 15:09, 2 September 2019
CMTBard
CMTBard is indefinitely banned from any article or page related to the topics of vaccines and/or autism, and from any discussion on any page on English Wikipedia about either or both of those topics. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning CMTBard
On Jenny McCarthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Vaccines and autism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), SPA editor CMTBard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been promoting an Antivax POV against consensus and misrepresenting sources to claim that they say the opposite of what the sources actually say.
This violates principle 1A: Neutral point of view as applied to science Attempting to make Wikipedia say that scientific studies have remained unable to confirm or refute a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism is not a legitimate scientific disagreement. Scientific studies have refuted a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism. To say otherwise is to replace science with pseudoscience. This also violates principle 14: Serious encyclopedias No respected scientist agrees that vaccines cause or contribute toward autism. It is a discredited idea from a scientific fraud.
Please read the talk pages for those two articles to see the behavior. Some quotes:
(That would be antivax fraud Andrew Wakefield).
(CMTBard keeps mischaracterizing sources that explicitly reject vaccines causing autism.) In my considered opinion, CMTBard should be topic banned from any page related to Vaccines, Autism, or Jenny McCarthy.
Discussion concerning CMTBardStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CMTBard...I'm a brand new editor who joined Wikipedia because there was a box that popped up on my screen that said something along the lines of "anyone can edit", and "every edit increases accuracy!" So, I said, ok! I see some inaccuracies, I can help! I spent hours looking up references, made some edits, tried to figure out how to properly cite things... next thing I know, my edits are deleted with nothing to show for my efforts. Frustrated, I redo them. Same thing. After a while I figure out that there are "talk" pages and try to figure out how to use them. In the meantime, people are dismissive of my concerns and don't even respond to my actual points on the talk pages. It takes me logging in on a computer rather than a phone to realize how to add citations to talk pages. All along, I'm trying my best to figure out how the actual system works. Nothing in my initial joining of Wikipedia said anything about edits having to be approved by another editor, nor did they suggest that putting back what was undone would lead to being banned or anything. I joined expecting a group of equals who backed their changes up with good sources and logic... that is not at all what I am finding. Frankly it's a bit bewildering and very disheartening. I'm not encountering open mindedness nor desires to be accurate nor fair-- its seems far more about maintaining the status quo and allowing only senior editors to keep their articles the way they want them to be. CMTBard (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Just to summarize... my goals have been 1. to change the summary of Jenny McCarthy's position from "belief that vaccines cause autism" to "belief that vaccines can contribute to autism in some children" and to 2. change the word "disproven" to "disputed" when it comes to vaccines & autism. As I've been prompted, I've provided explanations and citations (from peer-reviewed medical journals)-- and I've gone to different pages as I was instructed to do. But really... sanctions are being discussed because I want to change 7 words in 2 separate articles- and I have tried to provide reasoning behind why I think it's important to change those words in order to be accurate and up to date. Let's just keep that in perspective. CMTBard (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC) Statement by Guy MaconAt the request of Sandstein, I have added specific links to the arbcom findings and how CMTBard has violated them, but I do not agree that this is a content dispute. There is no dispute. Vaccines do not cause autism. There does not exist a single MEDRS-compliant source that says that they do. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC) At the request of El C, I have condensed the evidence. In my opinion, the pattern of behavior I have described can still be easily seen by reading Talk:Jenny McCarthy and Talk:Vaccines and autism but is not clear from the condensed evidence I have included. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC) Regarding Bilby's statement about not enough recent edits after the DS warning, fair enough. I would be happy to withdraw this request and wait for more attempts to promote antivax by CMTBard. I do not believe that CMTBard has stopped his pattern of behavior, and I am convinced that I will be back at AE in few weeks if I withdraw the case, but I could be wrong. [I redacted my previous full disclosure of a previous conflict that may be causing me to have a bias (conscious or unconscious) at the request of Bilby.] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC) Re: Sandstein's comment "The sole conduct allegation - misrepresenting sources - is not substantiated by a diff". it was supported by diffs, but then I was asked to trim the evidence. I can either document everything at length with multiple diffs and explanations attached to each diff or I can keep the evidence short and ask that those evaluating it simply look at CMTBard's editing history (which isn't all that long), but I cannot do both. Here are some diffs showing the "misrepresenting sources" behavior: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Let me focus on one source. CMTBard keeps cherry picking sentences from deep within Adverse Effects of Vaccines Evidence and Causality (2012)[12] and misrepresenting them as supporting his antivax position. But that same page contains links to the following clear statements:
No editor who actually wants to properly represent what this source says would ignore these clear statements. CMTBard is misrepresenting The National Academy of Sciences as supporting his antivax claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC) Please note that this[15] is how CMTBard behaves when he is under scrutiny. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC) If the result is a topic ban from "All pages and edits related to both vaccines and autism, broadly construed", it should be made clear that this includes the Jenny McCarthy page and that it includes talk pages as well as articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC) [Moved this up as an admin/refactoring action - Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)]Re: "Has any admin taken ownership of this and taken action? Is there a consensus on what to do?"[16] It appears that CMTBard has tumbled on to the fact that if you stop posting when ANI or AE starts looking into your behavior, nobody is motivated to take immediate action. Eventually the archive bot will archive the discussion with no decision, and CMTBard will be free to continue pushing his antivax POV, ignoring consensus, and misrepresenting sources. Unless someone here thinks that CMTBard has Statement by BilbyUser:CMTBard was given a discretionary sanctions notification on August 10 [17]. Since then, CMTBard has made no edits to mainspace, and has only discussed content concerns as part of ongoing discussions on their talk page and (briefly) on the two article talk pages. - Bilby (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC) Statement by TylerDurden8823I am inclined to agree with Guy. CMT has shown exclusive interest in editing in this particular domain and unequivocally espouses and vigorously advocates for the inclusion of clearly pseudoscientific anti-vaccination information in the aforementioned articles. The dialogue on the affected talk pages does not demonstrate a willingness (on CMT's part) to really consider other (AKA reality-based) viewpoints and as Guy stated, CMT grossly mischaracterizes what reliable sources say. CMT has also tried to soften descriptions of Jenny McCarthy's stance on being anti-vaccination from multiple reliable sources on the basis that she does not view herself as "anti-vaccine" and personally rejects that label (even though it's absolutely applicable to her). S/he continues to mischaracterize the relationship between vaccines and autism as one that is actively disputed and not firmly rejected by the scientific consensus despite being strongly refuted by numerous well-sourced documents. CMT has not provided any substantial evidence to overturn the established scientific consensus that there is no link, causal or otherwise, between vaccines and autism. Furthermore, s/he rejects very clear conclusions from noteworthy reports (e.g., the Institute of Medicine report) on vaccines and autism. S/he is simply espousing outdated, disproven ideas and it is disruptive and not in line with Wikipedia's policies. S/he doesn't seem to understand WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, etc. It's clear they are very passionate about this topic, but his/her actions only seem to spread misinformation and nonsense rather than provide meaningful contributions to the encyclopedia. I would support a topic ban on articles pertaining to vaccines, anti-vaccine ideas, vaccines and autism, etc. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC) So...has anything happened? I see a lot of discussion amongst the admins below about a possible topic ban vs alternate courses of action but I don't see that anything has actually occurred. Has any admin taken ownership of this and taken action? Is there a consensus on what to do? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Statement by JzGNormally I am inclined to apply WP:ROPE for newbies who are restricting their activities to Talk, but today CMTBard posted a wall of text supposedly showing that the area of vaccines as a cause of autism is still a live scientific inquiry, and this included lots of old studies still citing Wakefield, some synthesis, some antivax websites, and some antivax studies citing the likes of Mark and David Geier (the former struck off and disqualified as a vaccine witness and the latter never having had any qualifications art all as far as I know). This is a monstrous waste of everyone's time. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC) Statement by Kingofaces43This is the type of situation the pseudoscience DS were exactly put in place for in order to swiftly deal with editors who have or obviously will waste a lot of the community's time in scientific subjects. Admins are on the right track with a topic ban here given the most recent discussion in terms of preventative action. I understand the filing has changed a bit over time, but even in the initial filing, this should have never been initially labeled just a content dispute when Guy provided evidence CMTBard was promoting an antivax POV. A general problem I've seen at AE in science topics is reported behavior being dismissed with "just a content dispute" comments, and requests dragging on because of it unless later admins are quick to correct it. Most sanctionable behaviors, especially in pseudoscience topics, are related the content or views being pushed, and being Statement by DicklyonCMTBard needs to understand that his goal "to show that the discussion is far more nuanced and less settled than the article implies" is not compatible with how WP:MEDRS works. In the Med field, WP:NPOV means western medical POV is the only one that should be represented in articles. A short block will bring home the point. Dicklyon (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC) Statement by Levivich"All pages and edits related to both vaccines and autism, broadly construed" – Levivich 17:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC) Result concerning CMTBard
|
TimothyHorrigan
No discretionary sanctions, but a one-week block for vandalism as a normal admin action. Sandstein 08:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning TimothyHorrigan
Discussion concerning TimothyHorriganStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TimothyHorriganStatement by (username)Result concerning TimothyHorrigan
|
PeterTheFourth
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 PeterTheFourth
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Pudeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- PeterTheFourth (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/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#May 2014
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 13:54, 28 August 2019 re-added Twitter link to sexual assault allegations
- 17:24, 28 August 2019 re-added Twitter link to sexual assault allegations
- 03:28, 29 August 2019 posted the Twitter link to their talkpage after being told it's a BLP violation
- 04:05, 29 August 2019 WP:IDHT approach to BLP concerns on his talkpage
- 15:31, 1 September 2019 WP:IDHT approach to BLP concerns on his talkpage
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 5 October 2018 AE caution: "PeterTheFourth is cautioned to be more careful when making edits concerning living people"
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- alerted on the Gamergate discretionary sanctions last time on 2 October 2018: [19]
- alerted on BLP discretionary sanctions on 8 April 2019: [20]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
On August 27, EverGreg mentioned sexual assault and harassment allegations with a direct Twitter link and no reliable source on Talk:Alec Holowka. He almost instantly understood this was wrong because it's a primary source, and later called his attempt "misguided". No complaints about him. An IP, 65.183.99.29, removed the Twitter link and discussion, correctly citing WP:BLPTALK.
PeterTheFourth, who has been cautioned to be more careful with BLPs, re-added the sexual assault allegation Twitter links twice despite no objection by EverGreg to their removal. Admin Deepfriedokra told PeterTheFourth that BLP-violating content should not be restored on his talkpage (permalink). He then again posted the Twitter link and told Deepfriedokra that You seem to have a poor grasp of BLP
. He was told that Twitter is not a reliable source, to which he responded again with hostility, claiming that Deepfriedokra has either a huge gap in understanding or an unwillingness to examine the situation at even the simplest level.
Lastly, I explained in simple terms how it is a BLP violation by pointing out that WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPTALK mean we remove contentious claims not supported by reliable sources. He reverted me and told I should go pick a fight in traffic.
The BLP subject Alec Holowka died on August 31. This is a Gamergate-related dispute because Zoë Quinn, whose blog sparked the Gamergate controversy, made the sexual assault allegations (Polygon). PeterTheFourth has 204 edits in Gamergate controversy. Now we have better sources covering it, but this wasn't the case when these Twitter links were posted. Given his shocking BLP interpretation, refusal to get the point and prior caution, I believe he should not be editing these controversial BLPs. --Pudeo (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Mr Ernie: the whole Twitter account is now deleted. The situation is extremely serious, as although it's not accounced how Holowka died, his sister referenced to the recent allegations and "mood and personality disorders" (PC Gamer). --Pudeo (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning PeterTheFourth
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 PeterTheFourth
Statement by Mr Ernie
I’m more than a bit concerned by the edit summary in this diff - [21], which seems to clearly advocate for violence. Peter has been skirting the line for a long time, and it seems a sanction is due. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- FYI the tweet Peter linked to several times has been deleted for some reason. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Aquillion
At the time when most of this occurred, that tweet was receiving substantial coverage in secondary sources (there was also some discussion of sources used in the article in the section that was being removed.) That doesn't mean it was necessarily enough to include in the article - I feel the sources in the article at that point weren't quite good enough, though they would be shortly - but talk pages are where we work that sort of question out; removing the entire section (rather than just, at most, the link to the tweet) was well beyond what WP:BLPTALK requires or WP:TPO allows for. When cautiously-worded, "here's a controversial thing about the article's subject that seems like it's likely to be an immediate focus of attention and which people might expect our article to have; does WP:BLP-quality sourcing exist to support it?" is the sort of discussion talk pages are supposed to have (and need to have, if only so we have a unified answer when people start arriving and trying to add that material.) As the policy says, Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate.
Provided it's reasonable to believe appropriate sources may exist, it's appropriate to (carefully) discuss an allegation so we can investigate the sources and determine if there's enough coverage to justify inclusion in the article - and that discussion, note, that seems to have reached a consensus to include little over a day later (even before the subject's suicide, which obviously made things more notable.) Restoring the link to the tweet after people objected to it wasn't ideal (though the sweeping nature of the deletions made it hard to see what the exact objection was at first), but the people repeatedly deleting the entire section (rather than just the link they found objectionable) weren't behaving ideally, either, especially given that as soon as people stopped deleting the section, editors were able to find like six or seven sources - some of which admittedly appeared during discussion, but some of which were already out there. --Aquillion (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by PeterTheFourth
I didn't call anybody a cunt, so I think I'm well within the established boundaries for civil conduct. I don't take kindly to random people showing up at my talk page to pick fights, and it seems my initial impression that they were itching for conflict was correct given they immediately ran to AE after being booted off my talk page.
Somebody on BLPN was complaining that an IP deleted a talk page section. Please note that they provided reliable sources for the allegations having taken place. I restored the talk page section. The talk page section did not violate BLP. People saying it did are wrong. The section I restored (here and here, the second of which has more comments) talks about abuse allegations. These allegations happened, and were covered in reliable sources. Whether or not this content was due for inclusion on the article itself is a matter for discussion, which is why we have the talk page.
Please note the wording at WP:BLPTALK, from which I will quote- "For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating "This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?"". PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning PeterTheFourth
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Just at a glance, I'm not particularly impressed with passive-aggressive (or even outright aggressive) nature of PeterTheFourth's responses to this dispute. El_C 20:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Icewhiz
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- block - diff for IBAN violation (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision# Interaction ban)
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Bradv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- [22] - bradv notified by starship.paint
Statement by Icewhiz
The block was logged as an AE action. This appeal is in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications.
timeline/facts:
- 03:23, 1 September 2019 - Piotrus, involved in EEML and present case, posts on my user page saying "I think it might be prudent if you self-reverted"
- 03:31, 1 September 2019 - 8 minutes later Bradv blocked for IBAN infraction - claiming this 06:20, 31 August 2019 edit was an IBAN violation in relation to this edit - 16:18, 27 June 2018 - a blanket revert/rollback from over a year ago.
- The offending edit is currently 55 revisions back in the editing history, and is not visible in default history view.
- The most recent addition of this material is by 14:28, 9 July 2018 Piotrus.
- The material was also tagged by Francois Robere - 11:50, 19 June 2019. It is sourced to the "official mouthpiece" (per Grabowski, Jan. "Rewriting the History of Polish-Jewish Relations from a Nationalist Perspective: The Recent Publications of the Institute of National Remembrance." Yad Vashem Studies 36 (2008)) of an institution that promotes " historical revisionism" [23] and generally described in scientific literature as a "Ministry of Memory" or an institution involved in "memory games".[24]
I am appealing this sanction on the following grounds:
- I would've self-reverted (and stated so) if given the chance (more than 8 minutes), as I believe in better safe than sorry and self-revert in any situation with the slightest ambiguity.
- The arbitration enforcement action, beyond being selective and unfair, is not in accordance with the WP:IBAN policy and its usual interpretation per community norms and past enforcement. Users subject to an IBAN are generally supposed to avoid undoing (or editing) each other edits and/or comment on one another. They are also expected not to follow one another - usually the community has placed this at 30 days. A block for an alleged interaction - some 50 revisions (beyond default article history) and over a year ago - with many intervening edits on the same content flies in the face of standard IBAN provisions.
- Bradv's enforcement action is tantamount to a site ban (with an exception for creating new articles). which is not the proscribed remedy. Without a reasonable limit of past revisions to inspect (e.g. verifying not interaction/undo of IBAN party, not in past 30 days) - checking an arbitrary (and totally undetermined - so entire article history) - on every single article - is a Sisyphean task for any article with an extensive history.
Statement by Bradv
I'm not sure this matters, but I would like to clarify that Piotrus' warning to Icewhiz came while I was investigating this and preparing the block notice, and I did not see it until afterward.
The intent of the temporary interaction ban was to stop the disruptive editing and edit warring that was happening between these two editors. There is plenty of evidence that this article is a locus of that dispute in the history, on the talk page, and in the talk page archives. Icewhiz is taking advantage of the IBAN to rehash these disputes at a time when their partner in the dispute cannot respond.
I'm not aware of any sort of time limit on what counts as a "undo" for the purposes of an interaction ban. If there was a conversation that established this at some point in the past I would appreciate it if someone could point me to it. As we can see by the events here, such a time limit, whether adopted by policy or convention, can be easily gamed.
It's also worth pointing out that this block is not designated as a clerk action, even though I likely wouldn't have investigated or acted here if I were not a clerk. This is subject to the usual standard provisions and therefore a review here is appropriate. – bradv🍁 14:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Piotrus
I wasn't going to comment until I've noticed that this appeal seems to be framed significantly with regards to my edits (and also a 10 year old arbitration case that some people seem to be dredging up every now and then to poison the well, sigh). (I also wasn't going to present evidence in the ArbCom case until my name was called out in a similar fashion, but clearly, some people don't learn...). Anyway, I'll leave it to others to decide whether the violation indeed occurred and whether the penalty was correctly applied. I will just note that I gave a friendly notice to Icewhiz when this popped up on my watchlist and I recommend that he (and his interaction ban 'partner', User:Volunteer Marek, who likely cannot even comment here) ask for clarification with regards to articles they jointly edited (and often, edit warred on) in the past. The edits on Bielski partisans are only one of several articles that they both disagreed on in the past that Icewhiz has edited since their mutual interaction ban was implemented few days ago (others include: Institute of National Remembrance, Act on the Institute of National Remembrance and Jew with a coin). I do not have time and will to see if he indeed did remove or restore any content that VM had disagreed on in the past, but this being a fourth article in the series I find the implication of the interaction ban restriction on the affected parties not being allowed to "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means" problematic, and this needs a clarification ASAP. Namely: 1) can the parties remove or readd content they disagreed on in the 'distant' past, like six month ago, or a year, or two years ago? 2) how big such an edit has to be to trigger a sanction? Word, sentence, paragraph? 3) Does it effectively mean that once one of them makes an edit to an article, they "own" it? I mean, in the case of Bielski partisans, VM and Icewhiz disagreed about numerous issues, big and small. Few days after the iban, Icewhiz revisits this, with edits that VM would almost certainly find problematic. But as the 'first mover, post-iban, he effectively locks VM from this article, doesn't he? Particularly if his edits are extensive. And if his wording is a bit different from edits of the past, who can judge if this is really a revert? Interaction ban is not the same as topic ban, but the practical aspects of this seem rather murky. In other words, we have to consider to what degree one can game the system by exploiting interaction ban to enforce a one-way topic ban on their iban partner? (Note: I am not saying iban was gamed in this particular case, it may be an honest mistake, I leave this for others to judge, but the scope for abuse of the policy as worded currently is imho rather big). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by François Robere
Icewhiz's I-Ban "partner", Volunteer Marek, reverted content added (or re-added) by Icewhiz last month ([25][26][27] → [28]), and commented on threads where Icewhiz is heavily involved ([29][30][31][32][33][34][35] → [36][37]). This is much closer than what Icewhiz was blocked for (reverting a year old change with >50 intervening edits), but no one reported him as, just as before, there were intervening edits and no direct interaction. Editors under an I-Ban should not be required to "Wikiblame" their edits to make sure they're in the clear. François Robere (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by WBG
What SoWhy says. Pathetic to be mild and I hope we don't have another Sandstein in the making. ∯WBGconverse 15:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Icewhiz
- I directly copied this appeal from User talk:Icewhiz#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Icewhiz as they are blocked. Per User talk:Icewhiz#Please copy my AE appeal, they wanted it to happen. starship.paint (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Icewhiz
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I admit I'm confused. Official policy is that blocks should not be punitive. It also says: "Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved." Thus I fail to see how blocking someone for something they did over a year ago, whether they were right to make that edit or not, is justifiable under the blocking policy. Same goes for the banning policy which also contains no exception to the blocking policy when enforcing IBANs. Regards SoWhy 08:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: The diff listed in the block notice is this edit (August 31, 2019). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @L235: Thanks! I had only seen the other date and missed that one. I stand corrected but not less confused. Maybe you or someone else can also explain to me how it qualifies as an "interaction" if a year and 50+ edits passed between addition and revert. I am not unsympathetic to Icewhiz's allegation that an IBAN doesn't mean that he (or anyone else) should be forced to check more than 50 diffs over a year to see whether some content might have been added by the IBAN partner. Piotrus raises a good point that this is easily open to gaming the system and also not really covered by the WP:IBAN wording that they serve to stop disruption, often caused by edit-warring or hounding, not to effectively bar one of the editors from ever editing a certain article again. Regards SoWhy 09:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Also, Icewhiz is correct to point out that the edit that they violated the IBAN with was itself only a revert to an earlier version, although I don't see a specific exemption in WP:IBAN for edits that are not-vandalism related reverts. Regards SoWhy 09:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @L235: Thanks! I had only seen the other date and missed that one. I stand corrected but not less confused. Maybe you or someone else can also explain to me how it qualifies as an "interaction" if a year and 50+ edits passed between addition and revert. I am not unsympathetic to Icewhiz's allegation that an IBAN doesn't mean that he (or anyone else) should be forced to check more than 50 diffs over a year to see whether some content might have been added by the IBAN partner. Piotrus raises a good point that this is easily open to gaming the system and also not really covered by the WP:IBAN wording that they serve to stop disruption, often caused by edit-warring or hounding, not to effectively bar one of the editors from ever editing a certain article again. Regards SoWhy 09:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: The diff listed in the block notice is this edit (August 31, 2019). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)