A Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs) m →No reason to believe?: Spelling. |
Mkativerata (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
::Mkativerata...the editor is well known for being meek...I've edited with Tom harrison for many years...his comments on the arbcom enforcement issue are about as much as he will ask...the man isn't going to beg you...but an INDEFINITE BAN is extremely excessive force.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 01:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
::Mkativerata...the editor is well known for being meek...I've edited with Tom harrison for many years...his comments on the arbcom enforcement issue are about as much as he will ask...the man isn't going to beg you...but an INDEFINITE BAN is extremely excessive force.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 01:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Both the broad scope and the indefinite duration appear to be inappropriate. Tom's edits in my opinion were synthetic and polemical, and pushed the sources too far: that was poor judgment. However, the article gives short shrift to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that dominated in the period 2001-2003, until the Iraq War gave conspiracy theorists a broader canvas on which to speculate. That should be corrected, just not as boldly. The comments on the ''Dummies'' book are troubling: while I wouldn't have chosen it as a source because the title makes it too easy to disparage and because their writing style isn't particularly academic, I'm not aware of any concerns about their factual reliability. The characterization of ''Among the Truthers'' as a "hit piece" is a similarly casual and simplistic dismissal. Tom was out of line, but the sanctions are disproportionate: indefinite sanctions have previously been imposed for long-term intentionally disruptive behavior, sockpuppetry or hit-and-run disruption. '''<font face="Arial">[[User:Acroterion|<font color="black">Acroterion</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<font color="gray">(talk)</font>]]</small></font>''' 03:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
::Both the broad scope and the indefinite duration appear to be inappropriate. Tom's edits in my opinion were synthetic and polemical, and pushed the sources too far: that was poor judgment. However, the article gives short shrift to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that dominated in the period 2001-2003, until the Iraq War gave conspiracy theorists a broader canvas on which to speculate. That should be corrected, just not as boldly. The comments on the ''Dummies'' book are troubling: while I wouldn't have chosen it as a source because the title makes it too easy to disparage and because their writing style isn't particularly academic, I'm not aware of any concerns about their factual reliability. The characterization of ''Among the Truthers'' as a "hit piece" is a similarly casual and simplistic dismissal. Tom was out of line, but the sanctions are disproportionate: indefinite sanctions have previously been imposed for long-term intentionally disruptive behavior, sockpuppetry or hit-and-run disruption. '''<font face="Arial">[[User:Acroterion|<font color="black">Acroterion</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<font color="gray">(talk)</font>]]</small></font>''' 03:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::Acroterion, you seem to confuse 'indefinite' with 'permanent' in your comments about the severity of the sanction. An indefinite ban was imposed here because of the nature of the violations (unlike, say, edit-warring, which usually gets you short, then escalating, sanctions). The indefinite ban might last weeks, months or years. All will depend on, ''as I said in the AE thread'', Tom harrison's demonstrated ability to comply with NPOV in other areas. The indefinite ban is therefore in a sense less grave than a fixed-term ban, because its length is largely in the hands of Tom. He's already started that process well: editing away quietly in other areas. No-one's interested in locking him out of the topic area for any longer than is necessary. But the violations were just so severe that he had to be removed from the topic area pending evidence that he is ready to return.--[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 05:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
=== No reason to believe? === |
=== No reason to believe? === |
||
<p>@Mkativerata: I know you said that you weren't going to comment further, and that's fine, but you can at least read this. You said that you have "''no reason to believe that the editor concerned is capable of editing neutrally within the topic area.''"</p> |
<p>@Mkativerata: I know you said that you weren't going to comment further, and that's fine, but you can at least read this. You said that you have "''no reason to believe that the editor concerned is capable of editing neutrally within the topic area.''"</p> |
Revision as of 05:28, 10 February 2012
Arbitration talk page archives |
---|
WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
Various archives (2004–2011) |
Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
WT:RFAR subpages |
Archive of prior proceedings |
This is just an informal FYI, rather than a noticeboard filing. Two IPs have replaced "Israel" with "Palestine", which I have reverted, citing the source which uses "Israel". I noted that such edits may fall under the scope of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Arbitration ruling, and provided links to the ruling using the associated templates.
An outside review of my edits wouldn't hurt. (I trust that this is a quickly resolved issue.)
BTW, Theodore Bikel played the Russian-born father of the Klingon Worf on Star Trek: The Next Generation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know why you needed to post this here instead of the article talk page, but I have reverted to "Palestine" as the source is clearly in error - Israel did not exist until 1948 - although the source itself does mention that the family "migrated to Palestine". Gatoclass (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Two IPs changed "Israel" to "Palestine", the first giving a contrary-to-policy motivation in the edit-summary and the other no edit-summary. Reverting two bad edits on Palestine-Israel promoted my asking for second opinions or guidance.
- Thanks for your edits, which caught the use of "Palestine" that I had missed. I updated and expanded the account. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Quick request
Would someone care to take a look at this discussion on WP:BLPN? When I notified User:Johnalexwood that I was discussing their edits, I noticed this warning from User:Sandstein about ARBSCI/BLP issues. (I asked Sandstein to take a look, but they said "I'm not currently active in arbitration enforcement because I consider it a waste of time due to insufficient support on the part of the Arbitration Committee". I can certainly relate to that.) Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Olive's post
I'll say up front I have no idea about the specific situation under review.
but I think Olive's points about this negative trend of interacting (to use a nicer word than what tends to happen) with other editors. are things which should be addressed by somebody.
Yes, there can a clique-ish nature to most boards and Wikipedia process areas. simply that those more involved in a specific area tend to have a better idea of what goes on there (for good or ill). But they also have the easiest route to abuse that knowledge for subtly (or even less than subtly) gaming the system. Or even if it's shoot first and ask questions later (or even no questions, just link some diffs out of context and rile up the masses).
Is every Wikipedian like this? I surely hope not. But we do have more than our fair share I think.
So I think discussion of this, and finding ways forward would be a boon. If we let the negative editors drive the positive ones away, we're going to be left with more and more negative, and less and less positive. And I would hope that that is not a situation that we're striving for.
I welcome anyone's thoughts on this. And better, any ideas to alter this seeming trend. - jc37 19:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I fully agree. This has become a major problem. A few negative editors have been able to drive away some of our best editors and many new editors with just a few out of context diffs. There are too many editors at AN/I that enjoy supporting sanctions/bans/indefinite blocks. There is no longer any tolerance for mistakes, which makes it very difficult for new editors to become long-term editors. Wikipedia is a wiki, mistakes can be easily fixed so there shouldn't be any problem with mistakes. Yes, many websites mirror Wikipedia, presenting potential difficulties in correcting offsite mistakes. However, it isn't our responsibility to make sure those mirrors are correct. We have Wikipedia:General disclaimer for this purpose. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Pertaining to the RfAr
- Fifelfoo. I'd suggest that before you go any further you start by presenting diffs supporting your accusations. I've been willing to think your actions were in good faith but I'm starting to wonder.
- My actions on the NB were in order, and your further insistence on anything else here on this thread which about improving Wikipedia rather than anything personal is concerning. I believe you made some mistakes. You don't. Lets leave it at that.(olive (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC))
- You have already seen the diffs at AN/I, the first five of them relate directly to inappropriate conduct by you on RS/N. If you have a continuing problem with COMPETENCE, in terms of being able to click on a diff link, it is not my problem. To assist you, here is the set of diffs again: [1]. Your continuous revisitation, misrepresentation and allegations perturb me. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've separated off Fifelfoo's accusations so the discussion can continue uninterrupted by other issues.(olive (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC))
"Professionalism"
Regarding the Muhammad images case: I have no issue with the substance of the decision, but I would like to gently urge future drafters to avoid casting principles or findings in terms of "professionalism". Wikipedia editors are unpaid volunteers, not professionals. Looie496 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean that we shouldn't behave as you would in a professional environment, (or, for a non-professional example, how you'd behave at a party when chatting up a pretty girl you hadn't met before), rather than how you would down the pub with your mates. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also unpaid volunteers act like professionals, all the time, that's basically what makes volunteer organizations work, at all.Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's a long discussion on the usage of this word on the proposed decision talkpage. My own view was, and is, that there was nothing wrong with this wording. Those interested should also read User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism, an essay by the senior member of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Link to section. The nutshell explanation is that unprofessional basically meant uncivil (or at least uncollegial or unbusinesslike demeanor/attitude) in the context used in this decision. This is a valid, dictionary meaning of "unprofessional", although there are others. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's a long discussion on the usage of this word on the proposed decision talkpage. My own view was, and is, that there was nothing wrong with this wording. Those interested should also read User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism, an essay by the senior member of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also unpaid volunteers act like professionals, all the time, that's basically what makes volunteer organizations work, at all.Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Oddly enough, this choice of wording by ArbCom has convinced a long term contributor, GiacomoReturned, to retire [2]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Anti-Semitism in 9/11 conspiracy theories
This topic ban[3] is overly broad. Why not just make it about this one article or about 9/11 conspiracy theories broadly construed (as opposed to 9/11 broadly construed)? Nobody has alleged or presented any evidence of issues beyond this single article (let alone beyond 9/11 conspiracy theories). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- A general topic ban is the default. There is no reason to depart from it here. The seriousness of the violations -- occurring on a core article within the area of conflict -- gives no reason to believe that the editor concerned is capable of editing neutrally within the topic area. I won't be commenting further other than if the editor concerned lodges an appeal. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's your prerogative if don't want to respond, but there's no doubt the claim that 4,000 Jews stayed home from work on 9/11 is anti-Semitic:
“ | Even when the Third Reich lay in ruins, and anti-Semitism became widely detested in its bald-faced Nazi-style form, the Protocols[of the Elders of Zion] would remain ensconced as a sort of universal blueprint for all the successor conspiracist ideologies that would come to infect Western societies over the next nine decades - right up to the modern-day Truther and Birther fantasies of the twenty-first century. In these conspiracy theories, the imagined evildoing cabal would come by many names - communist, globalist, neocon. But in most cases, it would exhibit the same five recurring traits that the Protocols fastened upon Jewish elders in the shadow of World War I: singularity, evil, incumbency, greed, and hypercompetence. | ” |
- Here's a peer-reviewed academic journal.[5]
“ | One conspiracy allegation that did achieve early prominence was the rumor widely circulated by e-mail and on the Web that not a single Jew had been killed in the attack and therefore that the attacks must have been the work not of Islamic terrorists but of Mossad. This conspiracy-minded urban myth with its anti-Semitic overtones rapidly spread through cyberspace, and although the rumor was soon rejected in the United States and Europe (in part because it was shown to have originated from an anti-Zionist Web site in Lebanon), it soon became widely accepted as fact in the Arab world. | ” |
- A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mkativerata...the editor is well known for being meek...I've edited with Tom harrison for many years...his comments on the arbcom enforcement issue are about as much as he will ask...the man isn't going to beg you...but an INDEFINITE BAN is extremely excessive force.--MONGO 01:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Both the broad scope and the indefinite duration appear to be inappropriate. Tom's edits in my opinion were synthetic and polemical, and pushed the sources too far: that was poor judgment. However, the article gives short shrift to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that dominated in the period 2001-2003, until the Iraq War gave conspiracy theorists a broader canvas on which to speculate. That should be corrected, just not as boldly. The comments on the Dummies book are troubling: while I wouldn't have chosen it as a source because the title makes it too easy to disparage and because their writing style isn't particularly academic, I'm not aware of any concerns about their factual reliability. The characterization of Among the Truthers as a "hit piece" is a similarly casual and simplistic dismissal. Tom was out of line, but the sanctions are disproportionate: indefinite sanctions have previously been imposed for long-term intentionally disruptive behavior, sockpuppetry or hit-and-run disruption. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Acroterion, you seem to confuse 'indefinite' with 'permanent' in your comments about the severity of the sanction. An indefinite ban was imposed here because of the nature of the violations (unlike, say, edit-warring, which usually gets you short, then escalating, sanctions). The indefinite ban might last weeks, months or years. All will depend on, as I said in the AE thread, Tom harrison's demonstrated ability to comply with NPOV in other areas. The indefinite ban is therefore in a sense less grave than a fixed-term ban, because its length is largely in the hands of Tom. He's already started that process well: editing away quietly in other areas. No-one's interested in locking him out of the topic area for any longer than is necessary. But the violations were just so severe that he had to be removed from the topic area pending evidence that he is ready to return.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
No reason to believe?
@Mkativerata: I know you said that you weren't going to comment further, and that's fine, but you can at least read this. You said that you have "no reason to believe that the editor concerned is capable of editing neutrally within the topic area."
Then consider this. At the main September 11 attacks, there was a long-standing content dispute over if and how conspiracy theories should be mentioned in the article. The debate was contentious and polarized. But one editor proposed a possible solution. It took 2 months of hard-work and consensus building to finally hammer out the wording, but in the end, a solution was reached that was acceptable to all.
You may be interested in learning the name of that editor who started the ball moving and was instrumental in building that consensus which resolved the content dispute:
Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_57#Proposed_wording
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)