Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Debresser
Appeal declined. All admins who commented made clear that they would support an unblock only if Debresser understood and agreed to abide by their topic ban, but if anything, we've seen statements to the contrary. ~ Rob13Talk 14:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by DebresserI was apparently blocked for this edit, making a note on my talkpage regarding an article I can not edit, however, and as I said very clearly in the edit summary of that edit "I am not commenting on anything specific", rather made a note that there are various (technical) issues with that article, so there should be no reason to block me. In general, I think this block is taking bureaucracy too far. If need be, I am perfectly willing to do what User:Nishidani always threatens with but never delivers, and stop editing Wikipedia in my tenth year of editing. I have fun editing (as you can see from my active editing even when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area), and I think I made valuable contributions, but this witch-hunt bureaucracy type of attitude towards me is really ruining the fun for me. I never saw any justice on Wikipedia, starting with the first time I reported an editor for using the f-word and received a few more on WP:ANI, and things have never become any better. If admins do not want to deliver justice, at least they should not deliver injustice! And to those who will say that these kinds of "arguments" do not help, or even may be detrimental to my main argument, I say: I will say the truth as I see it. I see no reason why your opinion about Wikipedia is more true than mine, just because you are an admin. I have edited here almost ten years and have almost 100,000 edits on my name, and am entitled to my opinion, and to express it. Now you do whatever you think is right. At most you will disappoint me once more. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC) My reply to the argument that I should makes notes on my computer and not on Wikipedia. That is going too far. I will make notes wherever I please. For me, Wikipedia is an on-Wikipedia thing. I am not leading a double life. Debresser (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by GoldenRingI'm very happy to have my enforcement action reviewed here and to reverse it if there is significant opinion that I have erred. I'm on a tablet at present so this will be quick notes to which I will add diffs tomorrow morning. Debresser was topic-banned for two months, by me, which he appealed unsuccessfully. He started collecting notes on his talk page for things to do once the ban was over ([1]). Someone pointed out that this was a ban violation, so Debresser asked me for clarification. I think I was unambiguous in my response that such edits are not allowed. He continued making his list, including an article that very clearly falls within the scope of his ban, so I blocked him for 72 hours to enforce the ban. GoldenRing (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by HuldraDebresser writes "when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area". I strongly disagree with this statement. Debresser was topic-banned from the Israel/Palestine for calling me "anti-Jewish", without any proof whatsoever. That Debresser still doesn't see that his behaviour is troublesome, is very worrying. Huldra (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosephJust a comment that I think bans should never apply to a user talk page. It's not disruptive and nobody is forcing anyone to read it.
Statement by NishidaniDebresser in his unblock request challenged my bona fides, as if I were aiming to get him off Wikipedia, when I warned him 3 times not to violate his Tban, without recourse to AE. When he sought to take this to AE I advised Debresser not to do so. He reverted that advice, as is his right. Just for the record, this is not about just 1 infraction, but several.
Statement by Capitals00I think Debresser should be unblocked since its the first violation of recent topic ban. Capitals00 (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by NableezyI suggested on Debresser's talk page that he just make his notes on his computer, as he is presumably using a computer to make the notes on his talk page he could just as easily open up notepad or an equivalent program and make notes to his heart's desire. The response is My reply to the argument that I should makes notes on my computer and not on Wikipedia. That is going too far. I will make notes wherever I please. That right there is the problem, the belief that he is entitled to do whatever he wishes whenever and wherever he wishes. He got off light with a time-limited topic ban, seeing as at least one admin was going to make it indef, and he had been warned against making notes on the topic area prior to the block. But the need to keep pushing the limit, to prove that he is entitled to do what he wishes where he wishes, that is the same attitude that led to the past topic bans. Debresser, all you have to do is say I understand I may not comment on the topic area and I will refrain from doing so, in any way, anywhere on Wikipedia for the duration of the topic ban. And boom, block lifted. But you want to assert your right to ignore the parts of the ban you dislike. That's your choice obviously, but I cant imagine that its going to be successful. nableezy - 16:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (editor)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by DebresserResult of the appeal by Debresser
|
JFG
Article not under 1RR. ~ Rob13Talk 19:19, 3 August 2017 (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 JFG
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JFG/Archive_Drama#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction
1rr violation after previous 1rr violations on Russian interference articles.
Discussion concerning JFGStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JFGUnfounded complaint: this article is not under 1RR. Editors are discussing the content issue on the talk page. — JFG talk 17:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning JFG
|
E.M.Gregory
E.M.Gregory is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from editing anything related both to living persons and the politics of Venezuela for three months. Sandstein 07:36, 8 August 2017 (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 E.M.Gregory
After his and my third reversions, I left a third message for E.M.Gregory, explaining that one does not add or restore poorly sourced garbage to BLPs and then "improve the sourcing"; one fixes the sourcing and then adds or restores the material. I also asked that he self-revert to avoid this filing. Obviously, he refused to do so. Although he will argue that he is a new editor who wasn't aware of the rules, E.M.Gregory has been editing Wikipedia for nearly three years and has made more than 25,000 edits, of which roughly 14% have been to BLPs. No, he is not unaware of the rules, he is willfully ignorant of the rules. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning E.M.GregoryStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by E.M.GregoryContext here is that Malik Shabazz and I disagree and have interacted about I/P, Islamist terrorism, and many other political issues. Recently, we have locked horns in a series of AfD discussions regarding terrorist attacks. Another bit of context is that Klein had made defending and admiring Hugo Chavez's and his program for Venezuela as a new path to a bright future a major part of her career. Commentators such as Terence Corcoran who have disagreed with Klein on Venezuela since she spoke glowingly of his repression of the media in 2003 have been beating up on her all year as the Venezuelan economy collapses. Corcoran's January 2017 article "Terence Corcoran: Chavez’s Canadian fan club is awfully quiet about Venezuela’s utter meltdown", which ran over a photo of Klein, [2] is one of many articles I could have added to support the assertion that I had started with, then removed, that Klein's praise of Chavez has been "fulsome" and that it is noteworthy. I was shocked when Malik Shabazz responded to my first, brief addition to to Naomi Klein. The edit was sourced to an by James Kirchick entitled " "Remember all those left-wing pundits who drooled over Venezuela?"" using Klein as his leading example and quoting her statements in detail. I responded on my talk page: "Sourcing a section to bluelinked commentators citing direct quotes from Klein is not POV-pushing. Here: is the edit: [4]. However, I will enhance the sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)" "For the curious, this is an editor objecting to adding a section to Naomi Klein discussing her long-standing promotion of Venezuela (a country where the economy has collapsed, the government is close to collapse, and the conditions of life are plummeting to appalling depths,) as a shining model of the great success of a new model 21st century socialism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)" and next made a rapid series of edits improving section on Venezuela that I had added ot her page, a section that I had placed in chronological order between sections on Klein's opinions about the Iraq War and Israel. My edit notes read: (Undid revision 793862330 by MShabazz (talk) expanding sourcing, but these are well-known columnists giving direct quotes, also one of the sources is Klein's own statement) (Undid revision 793864118 by MShabazz (talk) as I said before, enhancing sourcing now.) (→Venezuela: expand, source), (→Venezuela: tidy up), (→Venezuela: expand, tweak, source), (→Venezuela: 2nd source, Robert Fulford (journalist) book review), (→Venezuela: tweak), (→Venezuela: tweak), (→Venezuela: grammar), (→Venezuela: typo). I then returned ot my talk page and responded to Shabazz: "*Venezuela section cleaned-up, sourced. Certainly a significant part of her ouvre and a useful addtion to her page. Feel free to expand or tweak.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)" I believed that with this last edit I was signalling to Malik Shabazz that I was finished editing the Naomi Klein page. Then he started this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC) I do acknowledge that I lost my cool here. I made a careless, hasty edit, lost it when my hasty edit was immediately pounced upon by Malik Shabazz, then totally lost my cool when he was seconded by GracefulSlick, and Nishidani. And as I said, I lost it in my first two responses here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Responding to comments by GracefulSlick
Statement by NorthBySouthBaranofThis seems a pretty clear-cut issue; while opinion columns may be reliable sources for attributed opinions of the columnist, if relevant, they are absolutely not to be used for encyclopedia-voice statements of fact about living people. To the extent E.M. Gregory has violated this rule (and it can hardly be said to be an accidental mistake), they need to be, at the least, admonished about their use of sourcing in a biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianThis probably reflects poor practice rather than anything else. One can separate out two things. Klein has made favorable statements about Chavez. This is not in doubt. How one should describe the matter, should be decided by NPOV. Clearly, the original phrasing "noted for her fulsome praise of the Venezuelan dictator" rather badly fails NPOV. The current phrasing in the article is a bit better, but basically all it's doing is to take the statements from the op-ed piece, softening them a bit, and then Googling for supporting evidence. This kind of stuff is actually bad practice for NPOV: one is supposed to look at a broad array of sources and summarize it, not simply Google for things which one wants to add into Wikipedia. But I see this all the time, and I doubt it can be cured, or if it is even desirable. Perhaps I'm too cynical. I don't think this is a BLP issue as such. I would treat it like an NPOV issue. As such I don't think any sanctions are warranted. Perhaps a warning. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by MarkBernsteinThough @NorthBySouthBaranof: is correct that opinion pieces can be useful and reliable sources for the opinion expressed by their author, it is my understanding that they may also be used as a source for an assertion of fact. For example, if a New Yorker Talk of the Town quoted a cab driver as saying, “LaGuardia is a bum!” that’s not a reliable source for stating that LaGuardia is a bum; it's just an opinion. But if the same piece asserted that midtown cabdrivers typically worked 48 hours a week and that many were members of Teamsters’ Local 666, these would be reliably sourced since (a) they are facts, not partisan opinions, and (b) they can be checked, and the reputation of The New Yorker assures us that they would have been checked. It is increasingly common for newly-recruited editors (and sock puppets) to claim that all current mainstream sources are inherently biased, and that all bylined reporters are partisan, and therefore cannot be used even for sourcing facts. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC) NishidaniI'm only commenting because I thought, after Colin Powell was roasted for using the word 'fulsome' not in its primary sense of 'offensive to good taste' but in its more recent sense of 'abundant', journos would be more careful. The edits reversed are of course attack dumping by opening up sections to list badmouthing comments about any ('leftist') controversialist. On an encyclopedia, and BLPs, one should spend energy on (a) outlining precisely what the person thinks, and then (b) what intelligent critics say in response. This is usually not done: one trawls for 'fulsome' praise or 'dirt' so that readers are swamped with haphazard 'opinions' that are as useless as tits on a bull. This is getting characteristic of too much editing on bios, Gregory. The next logical move would be to go sequentially to the pages on Ken Livingstone, Ken Loach, Jesse Jackson, Howard Zinn, Dennis Kucinich, Perry Anderson, Tony Benn, Eric Hobsbawm, Alexander Cockburn, Tariq Ali, Oliver Stone, Harold Pinter etc., etc., and note some commentator abhorring the fact that each 'praised' Chavez (or his programmes) or on one of his presidential bids. ('dictator' is opinionable: he was elected etc.) So what? What were they praising about Chavez's programme? Futile, irresponsible and uninformative. Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by TheGracefulSlickI wanted to present to this case more incidents of Gregory violating BLP and POV to avoid the misconception that this is a secluded incident. Here at this discussion Gregory advocated for a version of an article that uses WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to seemingly attempt to override a ruling of not guilty by a Swedish court of law, regarding a BLP subject. Further below he supported the inclusion of the opinion from a filmmaker, despite concerns about its authenticity and the fact the video interview (where the quotes originated from) never actually addressed the incident in question. At this AfD Gregory, again, wanted to retain an article and use sources to insinuate the guilt of innocent men. Worse still, when the AfD was not going in his favor, he included the material with WP:UNDUE weight at the Lars Vilks article (twice), knowing consensus at the AfD was the incident was not terror related, and any mention of the non-plot needed to be brief as well as neutrally phrased.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Statement by JytdogAm bummed to see this. E.M.Gregory you are probably correct that there is a hole where content about Chavez should be in the Klein article, but the initial edit, sourcing it on an op-ed piece attacking her is just... not good.... And then the expansion using more content from the same source and adding an additional opinion piece that was also critical of her --Venezuela’s collapse and the ‘useful idiots’ of the Canadian left -- just dug that hole deeper.. especially when your editing had already been flagged as a BLP issue. Granted from someone you have had past disputes with, but you have no leg here. Even more so because of the immediate clash, which should have caused you to rethink. If you were aiming for NPOV content based on strong sourcing you would have taken a very different approach. One would have been to to very clearly WP:ATTRIBUTE and use the Kirchick and Macleans opinion pieces to describe criticism, and cite... oh Socialist Review and Daily Kos to provide content and refs for further reading for how people on her "side" view her support for Chavez. And cite something from her maybe, like this Nation piece. Best of all would have been to avoid either kind of partisan source and look for high quality reporting (not opinion) discussing Klein's views. Which is hard to find (not in NYT, New Yorker, or Atlantic for example). this book reveiw is not terrible and probably would not have drawn the initial revert... it also provides enough discussion of how Chavez fits into the rest of her thinking about the world, that you could have written some more nuanced content instead of just sticking an inflammatory factoid into the article. But please step back and consider that your initial approach as well as your subsequent restorations were coming at this the wrong way. It is hard to write about this stuff and the BLP DS are there for a reason. Please. If you cannot see this and acknowledge it I can only support some action being taken. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning E.M.Gregory
|