Dispute resolution (Requests) |
---|
Tips |
Content disputes |
Conduct disputes |
|
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page trancludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
|
Contents
- 1 Requests for arbitration
- 2 Requests for clarification and amendment
- 2.1 Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms
- 2.1.1 Statement by Tryptofish
- 2.1.2 Statement by David Tornheim
- 2.1.3 Statement by Aircorn
- 2.1.4 Statement by Kingofaces43
- 2.1.5 Statement by Petrarchan47
- 2.1.6 Statement by Spartaz
- 2.1.7 Statement by Alanscottwalker
- 2.1.8 Statement by Laser brain
- 2.1.9 Statement by JzG
- 2.1.10 Statement by The Wordsmith
- 2.1.11 Statement by SMcCandlish
- 2.1.12 Statement by Sunrise
- 2.1.13 Statement by {other-editor}
- 2.1.14 Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes
- 2.1.15 Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion
- 2.2 Amendment request: Doncram
- 2.2.1 Statement by Doncram
- 2.2.2 Statement by TheCatalyst31
- 2.2.3 Statement by Seraphimblade
- 2.2.4 Statement by Dudemanfellabra
- 2.2.5 Statement by JzG
- 2.2.6 Statement by Ammodramus
- 2.2.7 Statement by Beyond My Ken
- 2.2.8 Statement by Einbierbitte
- 2.2.9 Statement by Station1
- 2.2.10 Statement by {other-editor}
- 2.2.11 Doncram: Clerk notes
- 2.2.12 Doncram: Arbitrator views and discussion
- 2.3 Clarification request: Interaction ban
- 2.4 Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3
- 2.5 Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88
- 2.5.1 Statement by Hijiri88
- 2.5.2 Statement by CurtisNaito
- 2.5.3 Statement by Sturmgewehr88
- 2.5.4 Statement by TH1980
- 2.5.5 Statement by Kingsindian
- 2.5.6 Statement by John Carter
- 2.5.7 Statement by {other-editor}
- 2.5.8 Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes
- 2.5.9 Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion
- 2.1 Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms
- 3 Motions
- 4 Requests for enforcement
- 4.1 FreeatlastChitchat
- 4.2 ArghyaIndian
- 4.3 Sailor Haumea
- 4.4 Wikiwillkane
- 4.5 Arbitration enforcement action appeal by STSC
- 4.5.1 Statement by STSC
- 4.5.2 Statement by The Wordsmith
- 4.5.3 Statement by (involved editor 1)
- 4.5.4 Statement by TheBlueCanoe
- 4.5.5 Statement by John Carter
- 4.5.6 Statement by Rhoark
- 4.5.7 Statement by Shrigley
- 4.5.8 Statement by Zujine
- 4.5.9 Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by STSC
- 4.5.10 Result of the appeal by STSC
- 4.6 Jonniefood
- 4.7 Abbatai
- 4.8 AmirSurfLera
- 4.9 MarkBernstein
- 4.10 Gala19000
- 4.11 HughD
Requests for arbitration
Requests for clarification and amendment
Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms
Initiated by Tryptofish at 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Genetically modified organisms arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by Tryptofish
An unresolved locus of dispute remaining after the case concerns how Wikipedia should describe the views of scientists about the safety or lack of safety of eating foods derived from GMOs. Many pages within the case scope include a sentence or two, usually in the lead but sometimes in other sections, that are similar in wording. For example, the lead of Genetically modified crops says: There is general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis. Editors are generally dissatisfied with this wording, but disagree about how to revise it. This is probably the most intractable question that remains.
Previously, ArbCom successfully dealt with an entrenched dispute at Jerusalem by establishing by motion (motion 1, motion 2) a community RfC (link) with a binding consensus. Here, I request that ArbCom enact by motion a similar binding community RfC to resolve this dispute about GMOs.
As with the previous case, ArbCom should appoint a panel of three uninvolved, experienced editors to determine the consensus at the end of the RfC, and ArbCom should order that this consensus will be binding on all pages in the case scope for three years.
In the previous case, ArbCom also named a "moderator". Here, there should be at least one uninvolved, experienced administrator appointed as a "moderator" or "supervisor". There will be some differences from the last case here. The editors who are most involved in the dispute have already created four proposals that seem to represent the main options that the community should evaluate in the RfC; these four proposals can be seen at Talk:Genetically modified crops. Of course, anyone can present additional proposals during the course of the RfC. Thus, there is no need for a moderated discussion prior to the RfC this time. Instead, the moderator/supervisor will need to oversee the construction of the RfC page and determine when the RfC is ready to be opened. Also, it is vitally important that this RfC not succumb to the disorganization and tl;dr of previous RfCs about GMOs (link). Therefore, the moderator/supervisor must be assertive and effective throughout the RfC in preventing badgering and in refactoring excessive threaded discussion that amounts to filibustering, in addition to enforcing the existing DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, I want to sincerely thank David Tornheim for the way he has worked with me on developing proposals for the RfC. That said, his objections just below indicate exactly why ArbCom cannot pretend that the GMO case solved our problems and the community can now deal with it ourselves. I was very clear from the start that the RfC would be based on the one about Jerusalem: [1] (preceded by [2]). That's about as clear as can be about ArbCom supervision, and it was a direct reply to David. And David's citing of sources here is a textbook example of what will go off the rails in a traditional unsupervised RfC (which no doubt would suit some POV-pushers just fine). I agree that the science can change in fewer than three years. That's why the consensus could still be changed – but only with prior approval by ArbCom, just like Jerusalem. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: It isn't novel, and I would not have suggested it if it were. ArbCom did it before, with a 3-year binding consensus, as my links above about the Jerusalem dispute show. This would not create new policy in any way, and ArbCom would not decide anything about page content. You would be leaving that to the community. Please look at my link to the last time the community tried a conventional RfC: link. It spun out into badgering and filibustering, and resulted in no consensus. It would be a mistake to do the same thing again and expect a different result. Please look at the administrator's closing statement at the most recent AE to arise from the GMO case: [3]. He is telling you that, despite a spate of AE cases ([4], [5], [6], [7]), "[t]his seems something for arbcom to sort out. There is a sense that GMO is still not settling...". Your colleagues left a lot on the table after GMO-1. Turn this down, and you will get a full-case request for GMO-2. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: I see what you are getting at, and you are right to insist that we resort to this approach only under extraordinary circumstances. Let me, first, invite you to follow the link I just gave to the most recent AE, and open up the collapsed discussion, particularly to read what editors said about a possible blanket topic ban aka "nuclear option". And look at what the various administrators said in the "result" subsection there. It will give you a good feeling for how the community regards this situation, post-GMO decision, as one of the most intractable problems in years. Second, look at my link just above to the previous community RfC. To the extent that you can stomach reading through it, you will find that there was no consensus – but that was because the discussion was overtaken by badgering and filibustering. Third, please skim through the post-decision discussions at NORN and Talk:Genetically modified crops/Archive 3. Even after subtracting the two editors who were shortly later topic banned at AE, you will still see others claim that the previous "no consensus" was a "consensus against" content they don't like – whether or not there is a "clear consensus" depends upon which editor you ask. You should believe what the administrators at the last AE are telling you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think Spartaz hits the nail on the head in suggesting the RfC "as an intermediate step to see if GMO2 can be avoided." (But ArbCom doing nothing now would be the worst possible outcome.) And since Gamaliel asked me for suggested (unpleasant) reading, it occurs to me to point out how some AE administrators have also commented on "enablers" as part of the problem, and one can see how the dispute was "enabled" shortly after the case at this ANI thread, opened by someone who was shortly later topic banned at AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Having read the most recent comments, I have no objection to MedCom providing structure for the proposed RfC. However, I can guarantee you that there are editors who unfortunately will absolutely refuse to abide by community consensus following an RfC unless the outcome is made binding, and the community including AE will be unable to adjudicate the disputes that will then ensue. Also, it is false to say that I am asking ArbCom to determine content. ArbCom would merely be ordering that a community consensus about content be protected against extraordinary disruption. I've pretty much decided that I will file for GMO-2 if ArbCom declines to make the RfC binding, and I see no good in attempting a non-binding RfC without first having GMO-2. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith: (For some reason, the ping didn't reach me, but I'm watchlisting.) Thanks for your very helpful ideas. First, please let me clarify that ArbCom has already done this with the Jerusalem RfC I linked to above, so this would not be a precedent. I would be very happy with you doing what I described as "supervisor" (within MedCom or not) and subject to DS (up to the Arbs). You can see at Talk:Genetically modified crops that editors have already created four proposals for an RfC, so any mediation should take up from there, rather than restart at the beginning. Traditionally, MedCom has treated mediation as a sort of safe space for conduct and has explicitly prohibited citing conduct during mediation as evidence before ArbCom. I think that won't work here. If AE is willing to be firm about enforcing the need for a genuine new consensus before change, even in the face of editors trying to game that, then that could be a workable alternative to a three-year binding period. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Would you be agreeable to having three experienced, uninvolved members of the community determine the consensus at the end of whatever process we use? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Laser brain: I agree it's about admin enforcement rather than a limitation of RfC, and I would welcome both you and The Wordsmith helping with this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Having read the most recent comments, I have no objection to MedCom providing structure for the proposed RfC. However, I can guarantee you that there are editors who unfortunately will absolutely refuse to abide by community consensus following an RfC unless the outcome is made binding, and the community including AE will be unable to adjudicate the disputes that will then ensue. Also, it is false to say that I am asking ArbCom to determine content. ArbCom would merely be ordering that a community consensus about content be protected against extraordinary disruption. I've pretty much decided that I will file for GMO-2 if ArbCom declines to make the RfC binding, and I see no good in attempting a non-binding RfC without first having GMO-2. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think Spartaz hits the nail on the head in suggesting the RfC "as an intermediate step to see if GMO2 can be avoided." (But ArbCom doing nothing now would be the worst possible outcome.) And since Gamaliel asked me for suggested (unpleasant) reading, it occurs to me to point out how some AE administrators have also commented on "enablers" as part of the problem, and one can see how the dispute was "enabled" shortly after the case at this ANI thread, opened by someone who was shortly later topic banned at AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: I see what you are getting at, and you are right to insist that we resort to this approach only under extraordinary circumstances. Let me, first, invite you to follow the link I just gave to the most recent AE, and open up the collapsed discussion, particularly to read what editors said about a possible blanket topic ban aka "nuclear option". And look at what the various administrators said in the "result" subsection there. It will give you a good feeling for how the community regards this situation, post-GMO decision, as one of the most intractable problems in years. Second, look at my link just above to the previous community RfC. To the extent that you can stomach reading through it, you will find that there was no consensus – but that was because the discussion was overtaken by badgering and filibustering. Third, please skim through the post-decision discussions at NORN and Talk:Genetically modified crops/Archive 3. Even after subtracting the two editors who were shortly later topic banned at AE, you will still see others claim that the previous "no consensus" was a "consensus against" content they don't like – whether or not there is a "clear consensus" depends upon which editor you ask. You should believe what the administrators at the last AE are telling you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you to the admins who have been making very helpful suggestions, and there are plenty of options here that I would be happy to work with. Here is what I perceive as key after the most recent comments.
- We agree that some sort of community RfC is preferable to having a GMO-2 case, but that doing nothing at all would be a mistake.
- No one is asking ArbCom to decide about content. Whatever the format of the RfC, it will be the community that decides content.
- No one is asking ArbCom to create a new precedent. ArbCom already ordered an RfC about Jerusalem. The sky did not fall.
- I think it's important to have a process for determining the consensus after the RfC, in a manner that the community will trust. I think it's best to name a panel of 3 experienced, uninvolved editors, before the RfC begins, who will be responsible for deciding the consensus.
- I appreciate the willingness of some admins to take responsibility for protecting the consensus under the authority of the existing DS. But I want to make sure that you are not over-estimating your abilities to handle what will come your way. Please consider: Several months after the RfC is over with, a source appears that looks, on the face of it, to change the consensus that was achieved. But it is not a reliable source. (There is a ton of that kind of stuff out there.) A POV-pusher posts about the source on an article talk page, and a few like-minded users show up quickly and agree that the page should be revised. An uninvolved admin looks at that discussion and figures, OK, it looks like there is a new consensus, and the page is changed. Then a few hours later, an experienced editor comes along and realizes that the source is not reliable, and reverts. Then there is a drama, at AE because this is governed by the DS, over who was violating consensus. And that will put AE admins in the position of having to decide whether the source was reliable or not. That won't work. I see two possible ways to prevent that. One is my original proposal for ArbCom to make the consensus binding for a period of time, and only allow change via a request for amendment. The other is to require the community to have a regular RfC, open for at least 30 days, before it can be concluded that consensus has changed. But that needs to be explicit from the start. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Seeing the most recent comment (by SMcCandlish), I am having concerns about the growing number of editors who would prefer to have no role for ArbCom here. This isn't a "constitutional separation of power" issue. It's an issue of ending long-ongoing disruption. It became an ArbCom matter when ArbCom accepted GMO-1. I've linked to the most recent RfC, and demonstrated that the community was not able to handle it. We can solve the issue of a "rapidly changing subject" (and it isn't really changing that rapidly, because the science is pretty much settled) by doing what I just said above in #5. It's false to say that users will flock to ArbCom to demand binding RfCs, because that hasn't been happening in all the time since the Jerusalem RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim: I promise that I read what you said to me here, and I want to repeat something I said earlier: that I sincerely thank you for the helpful way that you have worked with me in developing proposals for the content. On the other hand, the way you just described the history here is inaccurate, and illustrates why we continue to have a problem.
- @Drmies: Thank you for what you said. (Did you mean that I failed to answer any of Gamaliel's questions??) However, there are some details where I want to draw your attention to some errors of fact in what you said. You seem to say that the Jerusalem dispute was resolved without ArbCom getting involved. Not true: please see my links to motions, above. ArbCom ordered that the consensus of the RfC would be binding for three years. ArbCom also appointed three people to determine the consensus of the RfC, and a fourth person to mediate the RfC process. You are also now the second Arb to endorse turning this dispute over to MedCom. However, you also said that if there are problems in the RfC, there will be topic bans a-plenty. I agree with you about the topic bans, but: please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide#Assigned cases. Conduct during mediation apparently cannot be used in ArbCom proceedings to issue topic bans, so you and ArbCom cannot have it both ways. And we don't really need a typical mediation. There are already 5 proposals for the content at Talk:Genetically modified crops. We need an RfC to let the community to choose among the proposals, and we need it to not be a mess like the last one. It sounds like you really mean a community RfC where the existing DS will be strictly enforced.
- You've indicated that you might want to start with an ArbCom-free RfC, then see if there are problems, and if there are problems, then use AE and/or GMO-2. I can work with that, but it's my honest opinion that it will not work and we will probably end up with GMO-2 followed by a second, more carefully controlled RfC. Seems kludgy to me. I'd rather wrap things up sooner, not later, and that's what ArbCom is supposed to make happen. But if ArbCom decides to take the scenic route, then you will be placing a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of the admins who have offered to step up under DS. So my next comments are to them, but you and the other Arbs need to read closely too.
- @The Wordsmith: @Laser brain: Thank you both for offering, and it's starting to sound like we will all take you up on it. You've both offered to enforce DS, and The Wordsmith has offered to guide the RfC process. Questions: would you be willing to recruit and name three experienced, uninvolved editors to determine the consensus following the RfC, or would you prefer that ArbCom would do that? Assuming that the RfC arrives at a consensus, are you confident that you can make sure that it does not subsequently get overthrown against consensus? It is starting to sound unlikely that the consensus will be made binding for a period of time. So, as I explained above, we need to have an enforceable agreement that the consensus can only be revised later by way of a (regular) community RfC, open for 30 days, and not just by a brief talk page discussion. Do you feel empowered to require something like that, or would you prefer that ArbCom would require it? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @The Wordsmith: Thank you very much. It seems to me that the 3 users who would decide the consensus at the end of the RfC should not be involved in any way during the RfC, and that would mean that you could either be one of the 3 closers, or be involved via DS during the RfC itself, but not both. Given the need for one or more admins to supervise the RfC while it is in process, please let me suggest that you help in moderating the creation of the RfC page and be a sort of supervisor during the RfC by enforcing DS, because that is most consistent with what you said before. And other uninvolved admins could also help enforce DS during the RfC. But I would suggest that it would disqualify you from being one of the 3 consensus-deciders.
-
- I very much like your idea of declaring via DS that the consensus can subsequently be revised only via a regular RfC, but not by less than an RfC, and that this could be announced by talk page notices as part of DS. I think that works, and does not require anything further from ArbCom.
-
- @ArbCom: Please note however that The Wordsmith says that he does not feel empowered to name the 3 users who will evaluate the consensus at the end of the RfC. Perhaps ArbCom could do that, without any other ArbCom involvement in the RfC process. Alternatively, I suppose 3 volunteers could be recruited via WP:AN prior to the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kelapstick: Where you said that you are "not fussy about" ArbCom mandating some sort of binding decision, do you mean that you are potentially receptive to doing that, or do you mean that you consider it too fussy for ArbCom to get involved in doing that? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Seeing what Petrarchan has now added, I guess I should say that I disagree with her characterization of me as someone who ignores consensus and edit wars. But I agree with her that editors should move away from seeing the dispute as being between two camps, which only makes me wonder why she then says of me, Kingofaces, and Aircorn, that "it makes sense for their side to try and frame the story". But I very much agree with her that it has become unpleasant to edit in this topic area – it's certainly unpleasant for me. Which is all the more reason to acknowledge that GMO-1 did not solve the problems. Anyway, please see: Talk:Genetically modified crops#Third Proposal (a non-SYNTH, sourced, one-liner). One of the five proposals for the upcoming RfC was prepared by Petrarchan herself, and it's not exactly like other editors are doing anything to prevent her proposal from being considered on an equal basis with the other four. In fact, proposal 2 was submitted by the editor Petrarchan quotes as being unhappy about the editing environment, and that proposal is getting a fair hearing too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- At this point, I want to let everyone know that it looks like the community is going to be able to implement an RfC under the existing DS, without any further action needed from ArbCom. I think that this is in accordance with what the Arbs have been saying, and it is also my personal opinion that I have good reason to be optimistic that this will be a solution that satisfies my concerns. I want to thank The Wordsmith for taking the lead in it, and also Laser brain for helping. For anyone interested, please see User talk:The Wordsmith#GMO RfC and User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC. Please let me suggest to ArbCom and the clerks that you leave this request here a few days, so that editors can see what I posted here, and then you can close it. Thanks, --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by David Tornheim
I did participate in the discussion about Tryptofish's plans for RfC. I was under the impression this would be an RfC similar to the other two that preceded it. I do not remember any indication that there was a plan to take it to ArbCom. I wish Tryptofish had first suggested this plan at the talk page rather than going straight here without telling us first this was his/her plan, or giving us the opportunity to discuss the proposed instructions above.
I am strongly opposed to making the content of the RfC fixed for three years. GMO's are fairly recent and regulation of them is still developing and constantly changing, varying widely by country.[1] Only recently 16 countries informed the E.U. of their desire to opt-out of accepting the E.U.'s GMO approvals [8]. Despite the large number of studies very little is known about long term effects on health. [2][9], [10]. [11]. A major review article cited 150 times according to Google Scholar by toxicologist Jose Domingo (2011) stated "more scientific efforts are clearly necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods/plant by both the scientific community and the general public." [3] Our duty is to report the state of the art, and it could easily change. If this were about something as stable and accepted as Netwon's laws of motion or Maxwell's Equations, or the alphabet, fixing the content for greater than 1 year would unlikely present any foreseeable problems. The fact that GMO's are so new and evolving is why there are disagreements. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- ^ "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms". The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center. March 2014.
- ^ United Nations Environment Programme, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Report: Report. "Agriculture Crossroads",English version, 2009.
- ^ Domingo, José L.; Giné Bordonaba, Jordi (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (5 February 2011)." (PDF). Environment International 37 (4): 734–42. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423.
Comment by Tryptofish
- I find this comment by Tryptofish troubling, because of these two comments:
- (1) "I can guarantee you that there are editors who unfortunately will absolutely refuse to abide by community consensus following an RfC unless the outcome is made binding"
- (2) "I've pretty much decided that I will file for GMO-2 if ArbCom declines to make the RfC binding, and I see no good in attempting a non-binding RfC without first having GMO-2."
- Comment (1) is disingenuous. After this 2nd RfC, the closer found no consensus for the old language and a new consensus was established here (8/26/2015) after this lengthy discussion. The decision was to change the language from "broad scientific consensus" to "general scientific agreement". In late January 2016, Tryptofish and other editors did not respect the 8/26/2015 established consensus language that had been stable for five months. (See diff) I explained the situation in more detail here. In fact, he had another editor topic banned for defending the 8/26/2015 established consensus [12].
- The same editors who tried to change the 8/26/2015 consensus language are pushing hard to get the pro-industry language saying "scientific consensus" back in (while preventing any language nearby that explains that countries ban or require labeling of GMO's or giving voice in the main text to experts in toxicology who express skepticism, e.g. [13]). They are hoping to force this non-NPOV language in for 3 years and use the admins as a police force to prevent anyone from being able to question it.
- Comment (2) seems like a kind of Wiki-extortion. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Mediation: Mediation might be an option. I would like to see Sunrise's example that meditation broke down. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Aircorn
This has been the major sticking point with editors from all sides of the debate for a few years now and in my opinion having some form of binding resolution about the scientific opinion on GMOs would calm this contentious area down considerably. AIRcorn (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
List of articles where the "scientific consensus" or "scientific agreement" statement is made:
- Genetically modified food controversies (lead and health section)
- Genetically modified crops (lead and controversy section)
- Genetically modified food (lead and health and safety section)
- Genetically modified organism (controversy section)
- Genetically modified maize (controversy section)
- March Against Monsanto (background section)
- The Non-GMO Project (mission section)
- Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms (lead)
There may be more, but at least it gives an idea of the current scope. I guess if this goes ahead it would be binding on appropriate new articles (for example Scientific opinion on the safety of genetically modified organisms). AIRcorn (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- @David. We need some time limit otherwise things will just degenerate straight after the RFC finishes. Maybe there should be some caveat for reassessment if major new information presents itself, but as any new study would have to go through the normal scientific processes (which can take a long time) before it leads to a change in consensus three years seems reasonable. A version of the current statement has been in the article for longer than three years anyway. Also the use of ARBcom was discussed previously (see Talk:Genetically_modified_crops/Archive_2#Potential RFC) AIRcorn (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- While in theory we should be able to hold a normal rfc and resolve this issue the problem is that we have two strongly entrenched "sides" that are both sure they are right. Any discussion on this issue tends to devolve into editors from each side debating the same points with the same conviction at each other. The recent NOR noticeboard discussion is a prime example of this, but it tends to move from noticeboard to noticeboard and article to article. Even here discussion is turning to rehashing old points that have been hashed to death. This tends to drive the neutrals away and I fear the same thing will happen if we run our own RFC. This will put all the hard work done by Tryptofish and others getting this proposal polished to waste. If an Arbcom run rfc keeps a lid on proceedings and encourages outside input then it is a very good thing. I do believe that resolving the scientific consensus issue will make editing GMOs a lot easier and surely it is better than the blanket ban that was getting decent support at AE. It still remains an option (along with a second case) if this fails. Tryptofish has already done most of the legwork in getting the proposals up and running, we can even probably all agree on the advertising, wording and design of the rfc, but we do need some oversight to stop it being derailed with long threaded discussions and most importantly the closing and enforcement of it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Kingofaces43
Tryptofish has done a great job trying to organize this RfC and has been upfront from the start that we'd ask for ArbCom's help in implementing it from the start.[14]. No one involved can act surprised about this.
This really is the backbone of the GMO dispute where numerous editors have tried to fight tooth and nail to claim there isn't a scientific consensus on GMO safety. Often we get cherry-picked fringe sources trying to dispute the consensus just like in climate change denial. These WP:ADVOCACY actions trying to further a fringe point of view to this degree technically should be sanctioned as ArbCom has repeatedly ruled that advocacy related to fringe theories needs to be dealt with to calm subject areas (which also contradicts the claim that is only a content dispute and admins/ArbCom can't do anything in that realm).
In reality though, it's extremely tough for uninvolved admins to gauge advocacy, so we get "proxy" topic bans when those editors really stick their heads out there and edit war, engage in personal attacks, etc. as we can see at WP:AE since the GMO case closed. A lot of advocacy editors keep under the radar though as long-term advocacy doesn't get handled well at AE. Further solidifying the scientific consensus language should be a longer-term solution than trying to tackle editor advocacy directly, but we do need both to settle the topic area like other parallel cases such as climate change.
Tryptofish pointed out the problem with the last RfC where some would WP:BLUDGEON the RfC process with walls of text trying to cast doubt on the consensus while expert editors trying to respond to that only further compounds the lengthiness. Word limits might cause more problems though, so the only thing I can suggest for an appointed admin watching the RfC besides obvious uncivil behavior is to keep an eye out for general bludgeon and advocacy behavior. Whoever administers the RfC and admins/ArbCom in future actions should be reminded that advocacy against a scientific consensus has specifically been spelled as a sanctionable offense through ArbCom and discretionary sanctions in well known cases ranging from alt-med to climate change. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Seeing some of the most recent comments by uninvolved editors, I think quite a few that want ArbCom to play no role here seem to be misunderstanding the nature of the request. This is not a request for ArbCom to rule on content. It is a request for it to sanction some type of moderation for the upcoming RfC to deal with behavior issues that have plagued previous RfCs. ArbCom can however step in when content and behavior intermingle in fringe topics, but that's not quite the request here. Having the decision be binding for X amount of time isn't as important as simply preventing the RfC from being disrupted. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Petrarchan47
The science on whether GMO's are safe or not remains fluid and unsettled. What is causing contention here is that you have some very committed editors unwilling to represent the science fairly, and who engage in spindoctoring. The suggestion that Wikipedia, with the help of ArbCom, create a claim about GMO safety that isn't found in RS, and then lock in it for any period of time, regardless of emerging science, is ludicrous. This is a PR statement, not an encyclopedic writing, that is the sole focus of more than a few editors.
The last RfC found that Jytdog's "scientific consensus" claim was unfounded. We were asked to look through upwards of 18 sources, a number which kept increasing as the RfC went along, but none of them alone, nor in combination (ignoring WP:SYNTH), was sufficient support. There has not been any great advance in GMO safety information that would justify a new RfC.
The truth is we don't know about the long term safety, and short term studies have indeed found problems. Wikipedia editors who are loudest suggest that every study that has found any harm was flawed, and aren't very neutral regarding the scientists. But Domingo 2011, the most definitive review of GMO food safety studies to date, says that roughly half of the literature shows "serious cause for concern". This review meets WP:MEDRS and has not in any way been discredited, though that claim has falsely been made by Jps.
King has tried to write off Domingo with a display of scientific illiteracy or outright ill intent that should have him banned from the topic altogether.details / ensuing thread
If you assigned neutral editors to write this "statement", that could work. It would reflect RS, and would sound something like "There is debate about GMO food safety" and then views from various organizations, governmental bodies, and scientists would be listed. The reader will be allowed access to information. Whereas now, Trypto's suggestion for including Domingo was to mention the paper with only two words: "and see". Neutral editors wouldn't have a problem elucidating both sides, and with the cover of ArbCom, wouldn't be abused, bullied, attacked or banned for trying to do so.
These are my initial comments, I'll probably have a few more. petrarchan47คุก 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- New rule If you mention "climate change deniers" when the topic is GMO science, you are admitting you don't really have an argument.
As I've stated, the problem in the GMO suite does not involve two opposing camps, although you've been sold that story, and the outcome of the Arb case might seem to support the theory, with only Jytdog banned versus four or so of his challengers. Jytdog and King were challenged by normal, everyday WP editors (not a band of anti Monsanto fanatics) for literally misrepresenting the WHO by including them as a source for their SC. Nearly every editor who spoke out against this is no longer at WP due to the ramifications. I believe the GMO suite is an ugly scene on purpose, and editors have been made to feel intimidated about challenging Jytdog et al, due to the runaround and ineffective noticeboards that follow, along with the wrong people being blocked and banned. Any tactic to ensure their chosen wording and content remains live is fair game from what I have observed.
Jytdog could not properly answer complaints about misquoting the WHO, so right in the middle of the conversation about it, he launched, as a distraction the now infamous RfC, which led to the ArbCom case.
The 'side' of the GMO scuffle that is constantly bringing you new noticeboard threads, loads of diffs, accusations and top notch wiki-lawyering is the same exact side responsible for abusing the encyclopedia and fellow editors. That, my friends, is the central issue. It was Tryptofish, King and Aircorn who tried to ignore the RfC result and erase months of good faith effort by the many editors who took part in the RfC. So it makes sense for their side to try and frame the story, but it should also raise eyebrows.
I momentarily came out of retirement to weigh in when I first noticed what they were doing:
- The "scientific consensus" wording requires extra diligent sourcing. Normally editors add content and try to summarize it afterwards. This "scientific consensus" was created by Jytdog and added, without ever fleshing out the supportive material in the bodies, to roughly 15 GMO articles. Skip to today: Aircorn, Tryptofish and KingofAces43 suddenly begin defending the use of this wording, group-edit-warring it back into the GM Crops article. Pro had been trying to align the article with our RfC and with RS, and is now enemy #1 for doing so. Editors are still refusing to add content to the articles, and are insisting on coming up with a "statement" based on their favoured sources. I regret to say, it appears to me that if the POV pushing is indeed on the "pro-GMO" side of this, it is doubtful this will ever be formally acknowledged due to group-think and intimidation for having an opposing view, or being labelled "fringe", etc.*
One last quotation from a fellow editor who has been as involved in the GMO suite/RfC as I, and who is always worth reading:
- In the past, I've worked on Wikipedia for short spurts; I stuck around for over a year this time because I got caught up in the GM food craziness, kinda fascinated by how a tiny number of editors could so successfully defend such overall poorly sourced, unbalanced, incomplete content for such a long time. But much of the involved discussion around here, GMO and otherwise, gets mired down in toxic, petty argument that has little to do directly with content, and I suddenly hit saturation from one moment to the next, and stopped posting. It had become all disagreeable work, and no fun.* - Tsavage
Statement by Spartaz
The last couple of GMO AE discussions have been really hard to resolve. The level of bickering, claim and counter-claim mean that its almost impossible to understand the issues well enough to form a proper opinion. It does feel that the current batch of GMO editors are at the point where they can no longer work productively together and there isn't clear enough evidence of poor behaviour to ban enough people to allow progress to happen. This proposal seems like a reasonable way to try and form a consensus on something that might resolve the bickering. I feel that there is pressure building up and that this needs to be let out somehow. This RFC could do that - otherwise you will be at GMO2 and effectively banning everyone. I'd therefore cautiously support the RFC as an intermediate step to see if GMO2 can be avoided. Spartaz Humbug! 12:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC) No longer participating in AE.Spartaz Humbug! 17:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Alanscottwalker
I am uninvolved in GMO, but it is indeed sometimes useful for this committee (the only body with binding authority) to include as a remedy, Wikipedians holding an RfC: eg.,The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad. From my experience, the way to do it is to have a Mediation Commission proceeding to construct the RfC. The alternative here appears to be endless dispute (with all the bad things that spins off), and one of the purposes of this committee, it is often said, is to 'break the back' of such endless dispute.
- Wordsmith and Typtofish's discussion has reminded me that the Muhammed RfC construction was not Mediation Commission, but under the old Mediation Cabal (MCab) project (which is now closed for lack of activity) - in the MCab no one had to participate - but as with anything if you did not, you would not be heard. It seems that because MCab is now dormant then this committee is perfectly placed to lay out similar occasional process (not decide content). The involvement of Arbcom just raises the profile and hopefully leads to everyone minding the business and, hopefully, gets uninvolved to eventually thoughtfully weigh in, in the RfC. One way to go is for Arbcom to select the mediator, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wordsmith: the Commission should probably just consider merging the lighter weight process as an alternative for occasional use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Laser brain
I've participated in AE cases regarding GMOs and have done quite a bit of research on the behavior surrounding these disputes. I simply don't thinking a binding RFC is necessary, and I find the concept of a timer on any wiki content to be troubling and against the spirit of the project. The principle issue seems to be finding consensus without excessive journeys into the rhetorical weeds. As such, I'd support a moderated RFC where participants are required to respect a word count cap and to contain themselves to their own sections, much as we do at AE today. The community should be able to enforce consensus after the RFC is closed. Laser brain (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: I understand your concerns about editors on the page respecting the consensus. I believe that reflects a failure of more uninvolved admins to patrol the page than a shortcoming of the RfC process. I am willing to help in this regard. --Laser brain (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
ArbCom involvement is not necessary in order to have a centralised RfC. ArbCom is also not required in order to sanction anybody who disruptively refuses to abide by the consensus in such an RfC. Any RfC on content would normally stand until there is some substantive change in the evidence base on which it was formed, so any result would probably stand until a new high-impact publication shows a substantive change in the scientific evidence of safety of GMOs. Given that recent publications showing risk all turn out to be low quality and low impact, often in predatory journals, this is almost certainly not something we need to worry about in the short to medium term. I don't see why ArbCom needs to be involved, and I don't see this as anything other thana content dispute. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by The Wordsmith
@Gamaliel: has requested my presence here, so I will weigh in. I've seen this same sort of intractable dispute many times before, and each time the established processes were insufficient. However, I am not under any circumstances comfortable with giving Arbcom the power to establish consensus on content issues. That is not what Jimbo created them for, and I've been here long enough to know that this sort of precedent isn't one we want to set. Instead, I do have an alternative. As a member of MedCom and former Coordinator of the Mediation Cabal, I have a long history of resolving content disputes. If all major parties find me acceptable, I would be willing to help facilitate an RFC run under the MedCom umbrella, which was specifically created by Jimbo to resolve content disputes. I believe that I could keep reasonable standards of conduct and come to a consensus, which if necessary could be considered precedent at future AE incidents. As far as I know this is a novel approach, but it makes more sense than having arbitrators decide content issues. If any major parties believe I could not act fairly, I'm sure another mediator would be willing to step up.The WordsmithTalk to me 15:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish::If you believe editors would not accept MedCom oversight, I can offer to step in personally under my own authority as uninvolved Administrator to supervise an RFC. As per your concerns about enforcement, I would direct you to the Discretionary Sanctions procedure, "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)"(emphasis mine). It would seem that any uninvolved Administrator can impose a restriction on the topic area along the lines of "Consensus has shown that X is the best way to phrase Y. Don't reword Y without a new consensus.". Discretionary sanctions are not limited to blocks and topic bans; they can be restrictions on edits including imposing restrictions on a piece of an article (or multiple articles) when that one piece is what's being warred over. There are ways to work with existing policy to resolve this without giving Arbcom the power to decide what is and is not consensus and override WP:CCC. That power is reserved to the community alone, and giving it up this once would be setting a dangerous precedent. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish::I would be perfectly happy with an established group of admins (preferably AE admins who have some familiarity and mediation experience) collaborating to sort out this complex issue. @Alanscottwalker:: You are correct, MedCab was more flexible and more suited to this sort of issue than MedCom, and it is currently defunct. However, if there is interest from the community and Arbitrators believe it would help, I see no reason why I, as a former MedCab Coordinator, couldn't bring it out of mothballs (at least temporarily unless it generates more people willing to participate). There was never a formal binding decision to close it, there was just some discussion and then it was done. Being informal, we could just start it up again without having to jump through hoops. I'm willing to help resolve this issue, by any means necessary short of a new Arbcom case. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish:I would be willing to be one of the three collaborating admins. I don't feel comfortable handpicking the other two (I don't have that sort of authority and it would open the process up to claims of undue influence over the result), but if two other uninvolved admins, preferably with DR experience, step up then I would be happy to work with them. As for enforcement, Discretionary Sanctions gives enforcing admins more latitude than you think. It is true that they generally stick to things like topic bans and protection, but we've also gotten creative before. It would be well within DS rules to require a full RFC to overturn the previous one, and that could be enforced with a simple talk page notice and 0RR, backed up with blocks and topic bans (if necessary). Uninvolved Admins can (unless consensus or Arbcom overturns) essentially issue Remedies through AE much like Arbcom can, and i'm sure you've seen them get creative to solve an unusual issue. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish
I concur with several others above that this is not an ArbCom matter. WP does just fine having RfCs and sticking to them when consensus is clear in them. The twin dangers of a "binding RfC" like what's proposed here are a) this is a fast-moving area, and it could hamper our ability to cover the topic properly, and b) if the consensus were not absolutely clear and strong, making it binding would be arbitrary (in the negative sense that ArbCom is not supposed to be) and simply cause more problems than it solves. It could, in fact, lead to attempts to WP:GAME the system by running to ArbCom to impose binding RfCs, and then engineering the RfCs to get a desired result that would latter be extremely difficult to undo. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Sunrise
Since most of the other involved editors have already commented here, I'd just like to add my agreement that active moderation and enforcement is needed, especially to make sure that editors are using and citing sources appropriately. As I see it, the main paths towards a resolution are: a) a binding RfC actively moderated by uninvolved admins, as requested here, b) uninvolved admins actively moderating the topic area in general, potentially including an RfC, c) formal mediation as suggested above, or d) maybe AE will eventually be sufficient. Any unmoderated RfC is likely to be derailed, and the issue with AE alone is that patience there is already running out. I'm open to mediation, but I suspect that at least a couple of editors either would not participate or would not engage constructively (and based on past behavior, might also refuse to recognize any outcome, e.g. by making claims about the integrity of the process; examples available on request).
The safety statement has been the primary focus of dispute in this topic area. After the previous set of disputes ended in 2013, editors had accepted the sources as sufficient, but even when the statement was stable it kept consuming time and energy because new editors showed up fairly regularly to dispute it, primarily at the Controversies page. IIRC, the conflict fully resumed when several highly active editors happened to enter over a relatively short period of time, though it was probably inevitable for that to happen eventually. Some recounting of the statement's background, if it helps: A version of it has been in the articles since late 2012, shortly after the publication of a couple of strong sources, and a consensus supporting it was established in the 2013 RfC. It was stable on the RfC version until approximately May 2015, when the current disputes began, and it's had a few different forms since then. The RfC in June 2015 was derailed and ended as no consensus, which in my reading of the closure was primarily due to the procedural problems (though also see this comment by the closer). Eventually, of course, we had the Arbcom case, which I think did a great deal for the topic area, but the primary issue here is likely to remain unresolved unless the circumstances change. Sunrise (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- @David, my comment was directed to the Arbs - I didn't describe my examples because they already know what the topic area is like, and engaging in behavioral analysis and counter-analysis would be a distraction here. I'd like to add as little as possible to the adversarial aspects of this process in a context where I don't think it's necessary. But if you're still interested after this request is closed, come to my talk page and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Sunrise (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Why do you need us to hold an RFC? Can't the community enforce a consensus like it normally does? I don't think ArbCom should be in the business of deciding which RFCs are binding and which are not. It's a novel solution, but not one that I think should be elevated to binding policy by us. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Tryptofish: It's certainly not unprecedented, but I don't think it's something we should return to without extraordinary circumstances. These may be those circumstances, and may be preferable for all concerned to another full case or indefinite conflict. We all know GMOs are a contentious topic area, and there's plenty of evidence for that here. But I'm not sure I see evidence that this is the particular step that is required. We need to get into the weeds a bit more. Why have previous RFCs failed? Was it a failure to find consensus or a failure to respect consensus afterwards? Are editors ignoring a clear consensus? If so why are normal dispute resolution procedures and discretionary sanctions inadequate to address this? This is what we need to sort out here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Tryptofish: I have quite a bit of reading to do. Rest assured, having been an admin active on AE, I'm going to definitely listen to what they have to say as they have firsthand experience with these sorts of intractable conflicts. Gamaliel (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- @MastCell, EdJohnston, SlimVirgin, Spartaz, The Wordsmith, Bishonen, and Laser brain: Pinging some uninvolved admins who have participated in AE cases related to GMOs. Could we get some of you to provide opinions above? Your firsthand experience would be valuable. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Recuse from requests arising from the GMO case, as usual. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- While this would be nothing new for ArbCom (Ireland, Jerusalem, and Muhammad come to mind), I am 100% ok with turning this over to MedCom to try to do something here before we use the nuclear option. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm OK with the MedCom option as well. It's really the authoritay of ArbCom that seems to be asked for here, but given the Discretionary sanctions, the community (that is, uninvolved admins) have a broad range of tools with which to combat disruption. And now I could repeat Gamaliel's questions, but I won't; Tryptofish pointed to the last AE case, which I really didn't find all that problematic or intractable. That case proved to me, I think, that while it is still a pretty toxic environment, the accused didn't deserve to be punished with ban or block, and the plaintiff could have been hit with a boomerang. Boris's nuclear option ("I don't want to take anything off the table!" -- Donald T.) is not likely to be exercised soon, but if the proposed RfC leads to the kind of problems that the last AE suggested, we will see topic bans flying around like mini-drones. And if the proposed RfC leads to a solution, I do not think it takes ArbCom to act. A solution was reached for Jerusalem (and I don't think it required the threat [?] of serious ArbCom torture), a solution can be reached here. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, no, I didn't say or imply you didn't answer Gamaliel's questions; it's just that I agree with Gamaliel's concerns and while I read your answers (as I hope I indicated) you haven't made the case for me that this should be overseen by ArbCom. (BTW, let me add that as of yet ArbCom is completely GMO-free, and 90% gluten-free.) No, I know that ArbCom was involved with Jerusalem, but what I also think is that it didn't necessarily need ArbCom, and I think, right now, that a GMO RfC doesn't yet need ArbCom.
I see, to some extent, what you mean with the "Assigned cases" pointer, though I note also that "Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately subvert the mediation process", and "Blocking parties during Mediation" is appropriate here as well. But in a nutshell, yes, your point is well-taken, that I want an RfC with strict oversight. That this requires a lot from the admins who run it, I am well aware of that (and I will gladly draw up a list of volunteers for you), but some of the comments here (you pinged two editors already) make me think that this can be done. Thank you--and please don't think that I am trying to throw shade on your proposal by downplaying the seriousness of the disputes. Looking at the previous AE, I can see this can get real disruptive (and personal) real quick. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, no, I didn't say or imply you didn't answer Gamaliel's questions; it's just that I agree with Gamaliel's concerns and while I read your answers (as I hope I indicated) you haven't made the case for me that this should be overseen by ArbCom. (BTW, let me add that as of yet ArbCom is completely GMO-free, and 90% gluten-free.) No, I know that ArbCom was involved with Jerusalem, but what I also think is that it didn't necessarily need ArbCom, and I think, right now, that a GMO RfC doesn't yet need ArbCom.
- I think an RfC with strict moderation would be appropriate here. However, I'm strongly opposed to setting a time period during which the content cannot be changed from the version decided at the RfC. Not only is this "unwikipedian," but it puts the Arbitration Committee in an awkward position: if strong sources come out that would normally result in the content changing, the decision will need to be amended by the Arbitration Committee so that the content can be changed. Although stating that the outcome of a community RfC is binding would not be ArbCom making judgments on content, us deciding that the text is out of date or that the sources are sufficient to change the article would be. I would prefer the RfC be held without involvement from the ArbCom, and the content be changed to reflect the outcome, with normal enforcement measures being used to ensure consensus is being followed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with GorillaWarfare, see if this can be done without ArbCom managing it, and I am not fussy on a three-year (or other time-based) mandate on content, only appealable to the committee. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish:, it means I don't like the idea of it (maybe "not fussy about something" isn't as common a euphemism as I thought it to be). I particularly don't like the idea of a time-based restriction. ArbCom stating the outcome of an RfC is binding is fine, but us judging the merit of the content, and updates to the content is not. As per above, I would prefer that this be run through MedCom prior to having us step in, however. I hope this answers your question. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Arb com involvement is not needed. (And I agree with those who would not give a fixed time span--circumstsances can change (for example, conceivably a GMO product may be marketed that does indeed turn out to be a hazard) DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Amendment request: Doncram
Initiated by Doncram at 14:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#General editor probation (12 March 2013)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Article creation restriction (12 March 2013)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Sanctions (25 September 2013)
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
-
- Request release from probation
-
- Request removal of restriction on creation of new articles
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Sanctions (25 September 2013)
-
- Request removal of topic ban (topic = National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) articles)
Statement by Doncram
For years I have abided by the restrictions, and have not appealed them though I could have a year later. Instead I have participated in other areas of Wikipedia, including at wp:AFD where per wp:AFDSTATS I have voted in more than 600 cases since then. I'm proud of my influencing numerous AFDs in a good way (see User:Doncram/AFDs). A large number of edits of mine stem from my participation at wp:Disambiguation Pages With Links; I won its August 2015 competition by disambiguatimg 1,780 articles. I have created almost 800 articles since the arbitration case, complying by submitting articles through AFC. Early on I sought to compensate for the effort imposed on AFC editors by myself participating as a volunteer there, but dropped that when it was suggested that my promoting others' articles as part of AFC work was not allowed.
About the NRHP topic ban, I substantially complied. My compliance was questioned a few times by a non-logged-in editor in cases usually resolved by my modifying a comment that I had made in an AFD or at a Talk page. And I did respond directly at wt:NRHP to a suggestion that a huge amount of past work by me was suspect, when that was a misperception, and my response did completely settle the concern. (Technically I should not have responded there, and I was given warning for that, but it seemed more honest than posing a clarification request here stating the response and asking if I could communicate it, and thereby indirectly delivering it.) A reason for my preparing this request now is that I wanted to be free to address Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of courthouse buildings in the United States: A, although that is now closed. I acknowledged in that AFD the relevance of my topic ban and addressed that in part by stating I would report myself (which this does). An ironic effect of the NRHP topic ban all along has been that I cannot improve NRHP-related articles which I created when there is a complaint that they are not satisfactory in some way. The courthouses article is an example. During its AFD I reorganized but did not add new NRHP material, but I would have preferred to be free to complete the expansion that was needed. Also over time I have noted factual errors in watchlisted NRHP-related articles that I would have liked to address. I would like to fix those problems, and I would like to resume my practice of improving NRHP-related articles created by myself and others where more sources have gradually become available online, or where I am otherwise interested.
For anyone now or ever concerned about my creation of articles, I would like to point out that in my entire editing history, by my analysis there have been only a handful of articles I created that were subsequently deleted, even though the NRHP topic ban prevented me from participating in AFDs since 2013. Also the community never addressed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Stub content debate remanded to community, but for what it is worth I have no intention to antagonize editors focused upon stub articles in the NRHP area.
- I want to ask for some slack about the first comment I made in the recent AFD, in which TheCatalyst31 is correct in pointing out that I unnecessarily commented about my experience of the 2012 actions of another editor. I was embarrassed about the state of the article, and I reacted in part by putting fault onto them.
- I wish I had not opened my mouth that way. Being reminded of the article, I would have preferred simply to fix it without saying anything at all, but given the topic ban I could not. It screamed at me that some explanation was needed, when the nomination was correctly pointing out that the title bizarrely did not match the contents, and also I wanted to try for a suspension/withdrawal of the AFD by the nominator (which was declined) so I commented. When making the comment I recall feeling that I had split the difference between saying nothing to explain the article's condition (which embarrassed me) vs. saying more (I don't recall what), but I regret that I showed my thin skin and included any trace of personalized comment at all. Granting this request would allow me to return and fix some other NRHP-related articles that I know have deficiencies and avoid exactly this kind of situation from arising.
- As a mitigating factor, please note that after my initial comment, I think I acted reasonably:
- I tried to recharacterize the past more moderately: "I returned to the article in 2012 when my watchlist showed several changes starting with this one. As I recall I left the article again to avoid contention, until I came across it recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today or Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation), which I browse frequently." (Saying this much should not have been necessary to start with either, but I was trying to replace what I said in the first comment. Saying essentially "Yep, contention happened but we don't need to go into it. And I haven't been hanging on whatever the NRHP editors are doing, it's just random that I noticed this.")
- I suggested that I would seek some resolution / permission (which I could not immediately do, as it took time to figure out processes here and look for past relevant similar requests) which is what this is now
- I acknowledged validity of some concerns and I edited at the article, reorganizing it without adding new NRHP material, immediately addressing some of them. I crossed my fingers about this being okay, ban-wise.
- As one editor put it, I was "skirting rather close to" my topic ban, but no one directly objected and I edited some more to respond to further comments that I agreed were also valid
- In my final edit in the AFD i provided a diff to final cleaned up list-article (readable by admins only, I presume, not readable by me) which showed the article cleaned up, organization-wise
- At least one editor "granted" that organizational concerns had been addressed, but still compared it to a wp:kitten (a kitten could be "roughly framed out" but "left 97% undone for other editors to deal with") and questioned whether I could "see it through" to an acceptable state by doing the "heavy lifting" needed.
- That's what I would like to do, in any other articles that are at all "kittenish"--and there are a few, none as poor as that one though--I would like to do the "heavy lifting" that this editor suggested was necessary.
- Let me say more:
-
- I consider the 3 years since the arbitration to be more than a pause in contention. The time allowed me to disconnect from the area, and it may have allowed some others to let go of some stuff too. The continuing NRHP editors have done whatever they wanted, which is great. At this point, I would rather not revisit any of the pre-2013 drama, and I care less about what the NRHP editors do. I am quite happy to be out of various roles I used to play, like trying to accommodate new editors differently than others would. I appreciate not being blamed for anything new since 2013. I don't want to be blamed for anything else going forward either, and that includes my respecting the effective consensus that new short stubs are not wanted. (That's not so hard to abide by, either, as the short stubs that were needed for various purposes--like to avoid or settle contention from non-NRHP editors about disambiguation pages needed to support the NRHP area--were in fact all created.)
-
- I don't want the article creation ban continued because it gets in the way of my working effectively in completely unrelated areas. Like my creation of this was central in settling long-running contention between others about the Isle of Man area. Like allowing me to volunteer at AFC. And it is not necessary. I did in fact learn from using the AFC process, by my experiencing how uninvolved, non-NRHP editors viewed new draft articles. I likely will continue to use AFC or seek someone else's opinion when I am unsure whether a draft is mainspace-worthy, but the project is not served by requiring that.
-
- I don't want general probation continued because that is not necessary either. I have constructively participated for three years, including removing causes for contention in various areas. At this point I deserve to be allowed to get credit or not for my peace-making or other skills going forward, without anyone being able to characterize me later as doing okay but only because I was under special scrutiny, and without a cloud over me causing editors to have unnecessary concern.
- If I wanted to come back earlier, I and others might have still been too raw. Give me some credit for removing myself for longer. But three years is an eternity, and I request to be trusted without any of these three restrictions. --doncram 19:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Q: Just for fun: How many short stub articles, out of the 4,412 "NRIS only" articles that Dudemanfellabra links to below, would you guess were created by Doncram? An answer is here. --doncram 04:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by TheCatalyst31
I was one of the folks who asked for this topic ban in the first place, and I'd still be very reluctant to see this lifted. The issue is not just the quality of Doncram's articles (though that was a pretty big issue as of when the ban took place), it's that he can't seem to get along with other editors working on NRHP-related articles. Before the topic ban, the project seemingly had a major dispute every other month, and we lost several productive editors to it; since the topic ban, we've barely had any conflict at all. Given that Doncram recently accused another NRHP editor of sabotaging an article, I don't see a change in that behavior, and I'd still be pretty worried about disturbing the peace. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphimblade
Given the issue brought up by TheCatalyst31, accusing someone of "sabotaging" an article for a simple move as recently as last month ([15]), I'd be very hesitant to advocate lifting the restrictions at this time. That's awfully similar to the behavior that led to these restrictions in the first place. I'd like to first see that Doncram has stopped taking disagreements so personally and is able to participate in discussion about them in a civil manner. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- To reply to the request from Callanecc, while I said I would be hesitant, I'm not categorically opposed. I think the solution proposed here is a good way to test the waters, and I don't have any objection to it. Doncram, in the event it passes, I hope your return to this area is a successful one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- As a point of clarification, though, now that I think about it, the portion of the motion removing the topic ban allows Doncram to edit "stubs". Does this mean only stubs, i.e., articles tagged as such? It would seem to me to make more sense to word it to say "existing articles" if that's the intent. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Dudemanfellabra
Although I did not comment on the original arbitration request, my name was mentioned several times, and I was closely involved with Doncram before the ban/other restrictions. I believe, actually, at the time of the arbitration that I was taking an extended break from Wikipedia, largely due to the conflicts surrounding Doncram and WP:NRHP.
Personally I agree with TheCatalyst31 that the project has been running rather smoothly without Doncram for the past three years (wow, has it really been that long?!). Despite the recent comments that were pointed out above, I would be conditionally supportive of lifting the topic ban, though I would still like to see the article creation ban in place. We have way too many short articles (many of which were created by Doncram himself, which is relevant in my opinion) that can be expanded before we start worrying about creating new articles, especially the short template-esque stubs that Doncram was known for creating before the ban. I might support the idea of allowing Doncram to work on these stubs and otherwise re-integrate himself into the project. If the topic ban were to be lifted in this manner, I would still think the general probation requirement should stand. If he were to get into some contentious debate attacking the editor rather than the edits, I think the ban should be reinstated.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Doncram gives an estimate of the number of NRIS-only articles on this page that he believes were created by him. I have actual numbers here, generated by a script I wrote here. Of the 4386 articles currently listed on the page, he created 784, or roughly 17.9% of them. That's quite a lot higher than his estimate of 294, or 6.7%. Only two editors created more of the articles on that page than he did, Swampyank with 1169 (26.7%) and Ebyabe with 788 (18.0%). Just so everyone has the facts here.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
If the ban is lifted (which seems fair enough given the passage of time without further incident) I would suggest a restriction preventing (a) title-warring or (b) the creation of context-free stubs, which were the main problems before. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Ammodramus
I've been involved with WikiProject NRHP for some years, and have had a number of interactions, positive and otherwise, with Doncram. I'm inclined to concur with TheCatalyst and Seraphimblade: the project's talk page has been characterized by civil discourse and mutual respect over the past few years, and I question whether this would continue if Doncram's topic ban were removed.
One reason why Doncram's participation led to so much strife was his apparent unwillingness or inability to recognize that consensus could go against his position. When other participants joined in disagreeing with his chosen course, he tended to attribute it to "bullying" (e.g. [16], [17], [18], [19]). Unfortunately, he again deployed this trope in his recent "harassing, bullying" comment at AfD. A one-time lapse in AGF is understandable and forgivable, but the choice of words suggests that he still perceives the project as dominated by active and influential bullies who find pleasure in ganging up on those who're actually trying to build the encyclopedia.
Doncram's user page does nothing to alleviate my concern. Opposition to bullying is laudable, when bullying is actually taking place; and expressing an opinion on the incidence and severity of bullying at WP is certainly allowable on one's user page. However, Doncram's past use of the term suggests that his world picture is one of "Doncram trying to improve WP despite persistent attacks by bullies". This does not bode well for the future of constructive discussion at the project talk page.
If Doncram's topic ban is removed, I'd support Dudemanfellabra's recommendation of a continuing article-creation ban. Although it was hardly the only source of strife, much of the contention at the WikiProject revolved around Doncram's mass-creation of what most members regarded as subminimal stubs. I don't share Opabina's optimism that Doncram will abide by "the minimal expectations for a reasonable stub", absent a strong and unequivocal policy to compel him to do so: while he was active in the project, he continued to create two-sentence robo-stubs despite fairly strong consensus against them. — Ammodramus (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken
I agree with Ammodramus, Dudemanfellabra and JzG that if Doncram's topic ban is lifted, it needs to be replaced with either a ban on creating articles entirely or, at the very least, a ban on creating basically contentless stubs. Whether Opabina's perception is true or not in the general case (I certainly haven't noticed any general movement away from the creation of "sub-stubs") really doesn't necessarily follow in this specific case. The determination of ArbCom was that Doncram was not helping the furtherance of the encyclopedia by creating such articles, and years of other activities says very little about what their behavior would be like in their preferred subject area if sanctions were lifted entirely. BMK (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just a non-Arb agreement that Doug Weller's proposal seems apt. BMK (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Einbierbitte
I have been with the project practically from its inception. I have never had any acrimony or conflict with Doncram, but I note that he has acted against consensus. I think that the ban should be lifted with the caveats mentioned by Beyond My Ken. Einbierbitte (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Station1
Late on 25 April, Doncram made edits to Chicago Boulevard System that added information about a NRHP historic district and a proposed NRHP historic district.[20] He has also made several comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Boulevard System that rely on his link to a web page about the proposed district, as well as comments at User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya#source denial?. Also on 25 April, he made edits to Taliesin (studio), a NRHP property. All these edits seem to me to violate the topic ban. Perhaps others disagree. I also noticed this edit summary includes an incorrect accusation. Station1 (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Doncram: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- @Kirill Lokshin: Done. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Doncram: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Given the age of the sanctions and the absence of any obvious conduct issues for the past several years, I'd be inclined to lift them. However, I'd like to hear from some of the other editors who would be affected by this. @Clerks: Please invite Seraphimblade and WikiProject National Register of Historic Places to comment here. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- It appears that these sanctions were last used in 2013, and Doncram's most recent block was a brief one for edit warring in 2014. Given the time that's passed, I'd be inclined to relax or remove the restrictions. I'm not convinced that one recent incident of frustration, with a reasonably constructive follow-up response, is a major concern. The community may not have had a formal discussion about stubs as recommended in the case, but standards have drifted upwards over time in any event. The minimal expectations for a reasonable stub created by a long-term editor are certainly much higher than they used to be, so I'm not sure that an explicit restriction on article creation is needed. However, I wasn't active at the time of this case, so I'd like to hear more input before making any suggestions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Also agree with Doug. Pinging Doncram to make sure you see this, since this request has been sitting for a bit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Good point, Seraphimblade. Since no one's voted yet anyway, I made the change from "stubs" to "articles". Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- It seem to me that enough timehas gone by to grant the appeal. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to propose this:
- remove the "general probation", unused since 2013
- allow creation of non-NHRP articles
- revise the NHRP topic ban to allow him to edit existing stubs but not create new articles.
- Comments? Doug Weller talk 15:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- I support Doug's proposal. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Doug's proposal sounds like a good compromise. Seems reasonable. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Doncram: Motion
- For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
- Support
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Doug Weller talk 14:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Comments
- Proposing this to get the request moving, I'm still deciding. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Clarification request: Interaction ban
If I have an ArbCom imposed interaction ban with another editor and I believe this editor has violated an Arbcom imposed Topic Ban, am I allowed to report this? DrChrissy (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Suggest you read WP:BANEX. BMK (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to insert myself into this, but I would worry that a misreading of BANEX might lead one to think that reporting the other editor falls within dispute resolution. It doesn't, unless that other editor violated the IBAN. DrChrissy, I suspect that the Arbs are just not bothering with your question, but the answer is a very obvious "no". You should not even be aware of what that other editor is doing, much less be in a position to opine on whether or not they violated a restriction of their own. If there is a violation, other users will likely report it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Your caution is understandable, but BANEX seems very clear on what is allowed and what is not, so if a person were to read it and decide -- contrary to the obvious meaning of it, which you have explicated -- that reporting the other editor was an acceptable thing to do, that, in itself, would be an indication of either a serious reading comprehension problem, or a willful mis-reading tantamount to WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM. Be that as it may, your advice to DrChrissy is sound: staying as far away as one can from the editing of the other party to one's IBan is the best strategy to avoid any possible interaction. BMK (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't going to insert myself into this, but I would worry that a misreading of BANEX might lead one to think that reporting the other editor falls within dispute resolution. It doesn't, unless that other editor violated the IBAN. DrChrissy, I suspect that the Arbs are just not bothering with your question, but the answer is a very obvious "no". You should not even be aware of what that other editor is doing, much less be in a position to opine on whether or not they violated a restriction of their own. If there is a violation, other users will likely report it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Basically agreeing with the other answers -- if the topic ban violation causes a problem for you by bringing the editor into an area you edit extensively (and therefore makes it hard for you to obey the interaction ban) then you can report it. But not otherwise. Looie496 (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- (e/c)Thanks all for your comments. Just so you do not think I am trying to game the system, it might help to understand why I posted this question. I recently received permission at ArbCom to openly discuss a TBan, even though this was not the topic being considered by ArbCom. This exemption does not appear to be covered by WP:BANEX. I was unclear whether ArbCom had a similar ability to allow discussion of an IBan. Clearly they do not, and I accept your interpretations. By the way Tryptofish, I can easily explain why I am aware of what the other editor is doing - we sometimes edit the same pages, which is perfectly allowed per WP:IBAN. DrChrissy (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, and that's fine with me. Then again, I'm not an Arb. @ArbCom: you can send payment for services rendered to BMK, Looie, and me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- (e/c)Thanks all for your comments. Just so you do not think I am trying to game the system, it might help to understand why I posted this question. I recently received permission at ArbCom to openly discuss a TBan, even though this was not the topic being considered by ArbCom. This exemption does not appear to be covered by WP:BANEX. I was unclear whether ArbCom had a similar ability to allow discussion of an IBan. Clearly they do not, and I accept your interpretations. By the way Tryptofish, I can easily explain why I am aware of what the other editor is doing - we sometimes edit the same pages, which is perfectly allowed per WP:IBAN. DrChrissy (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3
Initiated by Nableezy at 22:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Nableezy
The longstanding practice on what edits are governed under the prohibitions passed as part of ARBPIA and ARBPIA2 was that it applied to all edits within the topic area, meaning pages that as a whole are a part of the topic area and any edit to them is covered (e.g. Hamas, Israeli-occupied territories ...) and individual edits that are about the topic to pages that as a whole do not fall within the topic area are also covered while edits to those pages outside of the topic are not (eg editing the Barack Obama page to edit material on his views and or actions regarding the conflict are covered but edits regarding his election to the presidency are not). The prohibition WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 however says that IP editors and named accounts with less than 500 edits/30 days of tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. That on its face leaves out edits to pages that are largely outside the topic area but edits that very much are within the topic area. I'm requesting clarification on whether both sets of edits are covered under the prohibition, and if so suggest an edit along the lines of are prohibited from making any edits that could be ... replacing are prohibited from editing any page that could be .... This came up on AE, so thought it wise to ask for clarification here. I'm not entirely sure who needs to be a party here, I just added the admin dealing with the AE complaint.
- @Kirill Lokshin: Sean's comment below has several examples, the ones I think are the least ambiguous are [21], [22], [23], and [24]. None of those articles can reasonably be said to be, as a whole, part of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, but each of the edits unambiguously are. Maybe Ed is right and this is premature, but I'm not too concerned about that specific AE. Regardless of how that is closed I'd prefer a crystal clear prohibition one way or the other, and this seems like an easy thing to make that clear. nableezy - 16:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by EdJohnston
- User:Nableezy probably opened this due to some comments made in the thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wikiwillkane. The AE thread is still open. At the moment it appears that the AE complaint might well be closed due to an agreement by Wikiwillkane to cease all edits in the Arab-Israeli topic area until he has reached 500 edits. In my opinion this request for clarification is premature. In the past it has been agreed by the committee that some articles are under a topic ban only in part. Whatever the decision reached about partially-banned articles, the AE can go forward anyway since several fully-banned articles are named in the diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- The thread at AE about Wikiwillkane has now been closed with a warning against any further violations of the 500/30 rule. I am unsure whether it makes this ARCA moot or not, since I think Nableezy would like the committee to issue a general ruling. The question (I think) is whether the General 500/30 prohibition and a typical ARBPIA topic ban have the same scope. That is, they both restrict all A-I-related editing across all of Wikipedia even when the entire article (such as Roseanne Barr) is not otherwise an ARBPIA topic. In the AE I found myself rejecting the arguments by Wikiwillkane who believed that adding mention of Roseanne Barr's speech to a BDS meeting was not an A-I violation. My view was based on what I consider to be common sense. The matter is sufficiently obvious that I don't think the committee needs to pass any motion to revise the wording of the 500/30 prohibition. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Sean.hoyland
Recent examples: [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]
- ARBCOM authorized the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 restriction for the ARBPIA topic area as everyone knows.
- The restriction can now be implemented automatically by the server via extended confirmed protection (see WP:BLUELOCK). This automates the task of ensuring IPs and accounts that are not allowed to edit certain articles cannot edit those articles.
- Extended confirmed protection has not been rolled out across the topic area for reasons that are unclear to me at least. It has only been implemented on articles on request after the articles have been subjected to disruption. The ARBCOM authorized restriction will be enforced whether or not an article is given extended confirmed protection. If the restriction is not enforced by the server via extended confirmed protection, it will be enforced by editors. The effect will be the same but the cost is different. Extended confirmed protection automates the enforcement of a restriction that already unambiguously applies to thousands of articles.
- Extended confirmed protection is limited in the sense that it only works at the article level. So it could be argued that it can only reasonably be implemented on any page that "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". If extended confirmed protection had been rolled out across the topic area, Wikiwillkane, an editor recently brought to AE, would not have been able to edit the Israeli-occupied territories, Palestinian political violence, Omar Barghouti and the Judea and Samaria Area articles and no one would have had to waste their time reverting them.
- Extended confirmed protection could not have prevented the creation of the Dafna Meir memorial article created for one of the 230+ victims of the latest wave of violence and the associated image copyright violations. Editors have to enforce extended confirmed protection in cases like that and they will.
- Extended confirmed protection is also not yet smart enough to help with the examples above where content unambiguously related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is added/updated/removed by people whose edits would have been rejected by the server if they had made the same edit in a protected article. The 500/30 rule needs to be implemented at the content/statement level to provide the kind of protection it is intended to provide. Any weakness will be exploited by people who lack the experience or integrity to comply with Wikipedia's rules. Editors who ignore WP:NOTADVOCATE will relentlessly exploit gaps in the protection, gaps that currently have to be plugged by people rather than the server.
Sean.hoyland - talk 13:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Nableezy, can you provide some examples of the types of edits in question? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Amendment request: Catflap08 and Hijiri88
Initiated by Hijiri88 at 00:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- CurtisNaito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Sturmgewehr88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- TH1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- Proposal to amend Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Locus of dispute to read as follows:
-
- "1) This case focuses on the conflict between and conduct of Catflap08 (talk · contribs) and Hijiri88 (talk · contribs). The conflict between the two users began on the Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchūkai articles, and has spilled over to various noticeboards. Another conflict took place between CurtisNaito (talk · contribs) and various users including Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) on other articles in the Japanese culture topic area, and this conflict also spilled onto various noticeboards."
Statement by Hijiri88
This wording bothered me from the start, but I didn't want to ask for an amendment immediately, and during the "proposed decision" phase I focused on the remedies more than the findings of fact.
"has spilled over to other articles in the Japanese culture topic area" was not supported by any evidence, and is chronologically problematic, as the dispute between CurtisNaito and various users, including myself, on articles like Korean influence on Japanese culture, Emperor Jimmu and Soga–Mononobe conflict predates my conflict with Catflap08 by at least several months, and arguably as much as two years.
Strictly speaking, the conflict between me and Catflap08 had its origins in June 2014, but (as ArbCom observed) almost all of the diffs come from after February 2015, as the initial interaction was small-scale and simmered out quickly. The "Korean influence" conflict started in December 2013, July 2014 or October 2014, depending on how one views it. (My first involvement in the dispute area was in December 2013, my first post on the talk page of the article that was the primary locus of the dispute was in July 2014, and CurtisNaito's first involvement in the dispute was in October 2014.) The "Jimmu" conflict began in May 2014 (I emailed ArbCom last month explaining why I was editing logged-out; it is unrelated to this dispute). Most involved users would say the dispute between CurtisNaito and myself first started on the "Soga-Mononobe" talk page beginning in September 2013. But it's also possible to date the dispute back to December 2012, when I nominated an article he had written for deletion.
I fear there has been a misunderstanding here as to the "link" between the Nichiren Buddhism dispute involving me, Catflap08, and a number of other users, and the "Japanese history/culture" dispute between me, CurtisNaito, and a number of other users (Sturmgewehr88 and TH1980 were two; the other recurring players such as User:Phoenix7777, User:Nishidani and User:Curly Turkey did not appear to want to be involved in this Arbitration case, so I didn't push it). The only common threads are that they both broadly fit under the "Japanese culture" net, and that I accused both CurtisNaito and Catflap08 of the same kind of misbehaviour.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- @TH1980: Do you have an opinion on the proposed amendment to the "Locus of dispute" wording? Requesting an amendment to the wording of the ArbCom decision is practically the definition of WP:BANEX. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Sturmgewehr88: What will happen is that the Arbitration case's "findings of fact" will reflect the facts of the case rather than a confusing misconception. I don't know how the misconception came about to begin with or how it may or may not have affected the" remedies", but that's really beside the point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- @John Carter: The interactions were between CurtisNaito (and much, much later TH1980) on one "side" and several other users on the other, including me and Sturmgewehr88 (the others were not named as parties to this Arbitration case, as they had nothing to do with my separate dispute with Catlfap08). The timeline is pretty clear, as is the lack of any relationship to Catflap08 or, for that matter, you. It also isn't clear what evidence you are referring to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by CurtisNaito
Statement by Sturmgewehr88
While I agree with Hijiri that the original locus of dispute statement is inaccurate, I don't see what difference it would make to correct it. @Hijiri88: You've explained how it is inaccurate and provided a more accurate statement, but what exactly will happen if this change is accepted? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: No offense to the Arbs, who I applaud for actually doing some investigation of this and doing something about it, but the misconception came about because of ignorance. The Arbs did not look in-depth at the disputes before last February (even calling May "too old" to consider), and the fact that both disputes were in the unneccesarily broad topic of "Japanese culture" led them to believe that these were connected and resulted with where we are now (2 years of consistent OR/SYNTH and IDHT issues, results in 1RR restriction for the two edit wars during the case). I don't believe they will admit that they were wrong or be willing to go through the pains of reexamining this, it's just the nature of the beast. I'm sure you'll do fine with appealing the TBAN in 8 months either way. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by TH1980
What exactly is this about? Hijiri88 was topic banned from the subject of Japanese culture because of disruptive edits he made to numerous articles in that field. That's what all the arbs agreed upon. What is left to discuss?TH1980 (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Kingsindian
Even during the case, I raised the point about the absurd finding "Locus of dispute", which does not even mention the dispute between Hijiri/CurtisNaito/TH1980. However, all this is water under the bridge. I fail to see what difference it makes now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by John Carter
I have some questions regarding what exactly is being proposed here. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the locus section changed to perhaps to roughly approximate that indicated above, if the arbs would support that. I might personally possibly suggest as alternate phrasing changing the proposed second sentence to something along the lines of "over the course of the arbitration, evidence was introduced regarding problems regarding the interactions of Hijiri88 and other users, including Curtis Naito and TH1980, in the broader topic area of Japanese culture" or something similar. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Catflap08 and Hijiri88: Arbitrator views and discussion
Motions
Extended confirmed protection and arbitration enforcement
Statement
A1)
- Support
- Just a factual summary to accompany the proposals below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oops, I missed this subsubsubsection completely. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- As a statement of fact, I suppose. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not entirely sure it's necessary, but no harm to it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- per GW. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- procedural confirmation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain
Discussion by arbitrators
- @Izno: Indeed, thanks, fixed :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Community comments
- " can be added by administrations to accounts that do not yet meet the criteria" - While "administrations" isn't particularly incorrect, I think the expected word is "administrators". --Izno (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please find my comments in the Comments by Ryk72 section below. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Anita Sarkeesian was 30/500 protected by Ymblanter as a discretionary sanction (log) following the precendent of Brianna Wu. You may wish to amend the motion to account for this. BethNaught (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
Imposition
This provision cannot pass. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
---|
B1) Extended confirmed protection may only be applied as a discretionary sanction where there is a consensus of uninvolved administrators supporting its use. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.
|
B2) Extended confirmed protection may be applied as a discretionary sanction by any uninvolved administrator at their discretion. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.
- Support
- kelapstick(bainuu) 22:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weakly - I would be much more comfortable supporting this conditional on D1 (
extendedconfirmed
cannot be revoked under DS). Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC) - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Doug Weller talk 14:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
- per above --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- See my comments below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- At the very least it should require prior consensus among uninvolved admins. it is unlikely to ever need emergency action. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Abstain
- Drmies (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- As above. I think too novel to be applied by a single admin. However, discussion might make it useful Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Requirements for use
C1) Extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.
- Support
- I think it's important to hold the line on this. I would like this protection level to be used - at least at first - specifically where there is persistent socking, SPAs, meatpuppets, etc., and not merely for "disruptive editing" that happens to be coming from relatively inexperienced users. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weekly my first preference, I'd like to see 30/500 used on pages where there is consistent socking and use of throwaway accounts rather than just new accounts occasionally breaking through the autoconfirmed barrier. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- very weakly, but if we are going to let admins do this in our name then we need real criteria --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- First choice. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Second choice. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, needs to be spelled out. This is main reason it would be used. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- If individual admins are going to be doing it, as seems likely to pass, it needs definite limits. The ones set forth here are appropriate. Other cases if necessary can be dealt with by arb com. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Don't think it needs to be spelled out this thoroughly. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- We already have a standing rule that this be applied to all pages in the I-P topic area. Doing this article-by-article with these rules is too burdensome to enforce an existing decision. Courcelles (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- See my comments below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Abstain
The above provision passes in preference to the two I'm hiding. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
---|
C2) Extended confirmed protection may only be applied where other methods (such as semi protection) have not adequately controlled disruptive edits. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.
C3) <no restrictions on use>
|
Discussion by arbitrators
- Note that this is, in my mind, only applicable to the use of 30/500 when used as a Discretionary Sanction/Arbitration Enforcement. Should the community decide to extend the use of this protections use beyond DS/AE (and amend the protection policy), that is outside our remit. In other words, the committee does not own this protection level on the whole, but we can determine how it is used to for DS/AE. If that makes sense.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BethNaught: They don't affect the ARBPIA3 remedy. As Kelapstick says, the aim is to develop a structure for how to use this tool going forward in the DS/AE area. @Liz: The intention is to distinguish the PIA3 case - where this is already authorized and no consensus is needed - from other areas. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Liz: I've clarified that, it was supposed to be as a discretionary sanction rather than as an AE action. Fixed now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Courcelles: I think you may have misinterpreted, these provisions don't apply to a page or topic area which is placed under 30/500 by the Committee but rather to admins imposing it on their own cognisance in an area subject to discretionary sanction. I've (hopefully) made that clearer in the provisions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- We should ensure that people are not removing 30/500 protection from articles where we have imposed it; now that the technical restriction is in place, there is no reason to remove it and go back to the earlier state of affairs where edits were being undone if the editor did not meet requirements. That said, I feel strongly that the Arbitration Committee should not be creating new policies as we would be doing if we pass B1, B2, C1, or C2. The community is entirely capable of deciding how they want this new feature to be used, and codifying it in policy. The Arbitration Committee should not do this for them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think it advisable to go cautiously on this until we get experience. While GorrilaWarfare is correct that we should not in general be making new policy, this is so directly related to those matters which are under our specific control, that it is the most feasible way to proceed. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Community comments
- DS already allows that any "uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)". 30/500 is actually a step down from full protection. It allow admins to apply a protection to an article or topic at a level that is less restrictive than what is currently allowed. In other words, it adds a new scalpel to the tool tray that cuts slightly finer than one already on it. And, 30/500 isn't particularly exotic. It is the existing semi-protection, which is 4 days/10 edits, with somewhat more restrictive parameters. 30/500 should just be another option available to admins at AE, in addition to all the other ones already available.
Zad68
14:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC) - Comment on B1 and B2. The alternatives offered are that "Extended confirmed protection may only be applied as an arbitration enforcement action where there is a consensus of uninvolved administrators supporting its use" versus "Extended confirmed protection may applied as a discretionary sanction by any uninvolved administrator at their discretion." There's an abyss between those alternatives, and I'm not 100% sure about leaving it all up to individual admin discretion, as Zad proposes, but I think it should be tried and then perhaps assessed in six months or so months. Also, I want to point out that caste articles are a special case (as are Gamergate articles, but that's not my baby). Bear with me and I'll explain:
- After Zad68 had the first brainwave about Gamergate,[48] in May 2015, some of the caste editors and admins took up the idea with respect to caste articles. Please look at the caste AE decision, and you will see that four caste articles and one talkpage were immediately placed under 500/30 restrictions (Nair, Jat people, Vanniyar, Bhumihar, and Talk:Nair), and it was emphasized that any placing of further caste articles under 500/30 should be within admin discretion. If it was to involve asking for consensus, going to AE, or any other of the usual pushing-a-locomotive-up-an-incline effort, there would be little point to the whole thing. It was so decided. Therefore, I'm a little alarmed to see ArbCom not only taking over the community's idea (you're welcome) but proposing in B1 that extended confirmed protection (from now on?) requires a consensus of uninvolved administrators supporting its use. I hope that's not meant to imply that admins in caste areas should henceforth be constrained by a consensus requirement. Caste articles are something so exotic to most admins that it's cumbersome and timeconsuming to try to get consensus for anything in the area. The original AE discussion, with its carefully detailed decision, should be enough. Note incidentally that there has not been a bonanza of 500/30 restrictions on caste articles since the decision in September 2015 — in fact I'm not aware of a single caste page being placed under the restrictions since then, beyond the original five. Caste admins haven't shown themselves to be trigger-happy. Bishonen | talk 16:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC).
-
- Hi Bishonen, I share your concerns around unilateral admin action; especially as a discretionary sanction would not be reversible by other admins. Would "a consensus of 3 uninvolved administrators" bridge the gap? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 17:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I share some of Bishonen's concerns above. The matters of getting enough admins involved, and, maybe, determining who might and might not be "uninvolved" in some way could maybe be clarified. If we were dealing only with 3 such admins, for instance, 2 new admins coming in with opinions based on a poorly phrased story or article could basically overturn the reasonable prior consensus, and, maybe, screw up everything for a while. Also, meaning no disrespect to any admins involved, would possibly any admin who is from India, or of Indian descent, or similar, qualify as "involved" based on their involvement in the Indian cultural milieu in which the caste system was created? John Carter (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- John Carter, it would be a very terrible idea to sideline Indian admins, i.e. those few admins in this thinly-adminned area who know the subject best, as involved. I only wish we had more Indian admins active on caste pages, and more Indian admins altogether. Bishonen | talk 10:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC).
-
- Wholehearted agreement with you for the most part. However, like with some of the religion articles and topics, there is a reasonable possibility that in some cases, like breaking or controversial stories or sources regarding such a topic, any individual's pre-existing biases might cause them to react more forcefully to a potentially dubious story than circumstances warrant. The same has been known to happen a lot in religion topics. One thing which I think might help a hell of a lot would be to have someone review the comparatively few obvious reference works out there that deal with the topic and find what they cover and where, similar to some of the pages at Category:WikiProject prospectuses. I looked at the list of such works, and libraries holding them, generated at WorldCat, and, unfortunately, don't find any copies within a few hundred miles of me. If anyone with easier access to them would review them, though, that might be very useful. John Carter (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- John, how do you define pre-existing bias? Are we now going to require admins to identify themselves on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, language, race, caste, religion, tax filing status etc? Would this same yardstick be applied to American admins on WP:ARBAP2, all humans in the case of abortion, anyone who has filed an IRS tax return on WP:ARBSCI? —SpacemanSpiff 14:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- How do these motions affect the general prohibition in ARBPIA3? Do they forbid the use of 30/500 protection on relevant pages which have not yet been subject to disruption? If so, that contradicts the universality of the prohibition. BethNaught (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
30/500 is a new policy to Wikipedia, I think that it is very good, ArbCom should open a public vote about this group and its protection and policies. 333-blue 11:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- I feel as if I missed something here. The last community discussion I remember approved 30/500 as a protection level to be applied by Arbcom decision only. All of the proposals here seem to be assuming that it will be applied without explicit Arbcom decision as part of AE, or even without AE. I have two questions. First - has there been a community discussion approving the extendedconfirmed/30-500 protection for general use, not as an Arbcom-imposed remedy? If not, there needs to be before this discussion takes place. Second - if I missed something and 30/500 has been approved by the community for general use, why are there discussions pertaining to it tucked away here instead on at VP? This is a really important discussion with wide-ranging consequences, and it seems really inappropriate to hash it out on this sub-subpage only frequented by a very select community. Taking myself as an example, I take interest in policy and particular interest in protection levels and watch the VP as a result, but only discovered this page accidentally by clicking through links from the Signpost. Given how few comments there have been on such important questions, I imagine there are many others like me. These discussions desperately need a broader forum and any decisions reached in this rarefied environment should be taken with a big grain of salt. A2soup (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment by Liz
-
- B1) Extended confirmed protection may only be applied as an arbitration enforcement action where there is a consensus of uninvolved administrators supporting its use. This provision does not apply to a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee.
- I don't understand this. I would think that extended confirmed protection provision could only apply to "a page or topic area which has been placed under 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee." This provision seems to say that a consensus of uninvolved administrators can apply extended confirmed provision on any article topic they wish, whether narrowly defined (by page, as in caste restrictions) or broadly defined (anything having to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict).
- It seems uncharacteristic of ArbCom to encourage the regular application of a new restriction that has only now been implemented across several areas. I would think that ArbCom would prefer to see how the 30/500 restriction works in practice and then, later, consider it as a regular remedy admins can turn to in AE discussions. I would be remiss not to point out that sometimes AE cases have the participation of one or two admins and rarely more than four or five. So, a consensus of uninvolved administrators could, in practice, be one or two admins who are weighing in on a complaint. Personally, considering the wide impact these restrictions could have (especially on uninvolved IP editors since, thus far, these restrictions have never been lifted once they are imposed), I would urge the committee to set a higher bar for approval. Liz Read! Talk! 19:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe, at least specifying a minimum number of required admins to be involved to determine consensus, for instance? John Carter (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I fully agree with Liz on this point. My impression was that the community had only okayed 30-500/extendedconfirmed protection as an Arbcom (not AE) remedy. Am I mistaken? If not, can someone point me to the community discussion in which this protection level was approved for general use? A2soup (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Extendedconfirmed user group
D1) Administrators are not permitted to remove the extendedconfirmed
user group as a discretionary sanction.
- Support
- I agree with the statement by NE Ent, and my preference would have been for this to be similar to autoconfirmed, where it was automatically added, but could not be taken away. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- My far-and-away first choice on how to manage this is to make the extendedconfirmed usergroup technically impossible for admins to revoke. Failing that, I think it should be absolutely prohibited for any reason other than the explicit request of the affected user. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Removing it shouldn't be needed, topic bans would be much more preferable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per kelapstick, Opabinia regalis, and Callanecc. 30/500 is a very binary thing: either a user meets the 30 days/500 edits criteria, or they don't. While I see the benefit to adding it (in the case of alternate accounts), I do not think it should be removed. If a user cannot contribute constructively to a subject under 30/500 restriction, they should be topic banned. Otherwise we end up with a confusing scenario where someone who is, say, disruptive in the Arab-Israeli conflict suddenly finds themselves banned from editing Brianna Wu. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Drmies (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Doug Weller talk 10:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
- This should be a community policy decision. Courcelles (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- I also think this should be up to the community; there is merit in both positions. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Abstain
- Undecided on this. can see both sides. am of a mind to have community-wide input on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
D2) Administrators must not remove the extendedconfirmed
user group as means of bypassing defined arbitration enforcement procedures (for example, removing the user group as a normal administrative action to avoid banning an editor from the Gamergate controversy article).
- Support
- @Kelapstick and Opabinia regalis: This proposal is different to D1. D1 is about removing it as a discretionary sanction, this proposal is about removing it as a normal admin action to avoid having to use arbitration enforcement procedures. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Callanecc I see what you mean, maybe all these options are just confusing me. I thought the first one was all encompassing "just don't do it". --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- We originally considered proposing this however the concern was that saying 'don't remove it at all ever, no, nope' would be stepping on the community's toes by creating policy for them rather than defining only how admins use it in our name (discretionary sanctions). Alternatively we can make another proposal stating that the user group is not to be removed except if the community authorises removal for an individual or a process for removal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I meant just don't do it as a means of AE/DS. And no more options, my head is already starting to hurt. If the community wants to develop a process for this, that's their prerogative. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- We originally considered proposing this however the concern was that saying 'don't remove it at all ever, no, nope' would be stepping on the community's toes by creating policy for them rather than defining only how admins use it in our name (discretionary sanctions). Alternatively we can make another proposal stating that the user group is not to be removed except if the community authorises removal for an individual or a process for removal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I also misread this (I blame Kelapstick, naturally ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per my comments on D1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Doug Weller talk 10:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- . Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- This at least is an obvious and necessary precaution. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
As redundant to supporting D1. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)- Hmmm, yeah this seems to make sense, I guess. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Per Kelapstick. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- This should be a community policy decision. Courcelles (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Abstain
These proposals are 0-5, suggesting they won't pass at all. Collapsing unless another Arb wants to support one of these. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
D3) Administrators must not remove the
D4) The
|
Discussion by arbitrators
- @Ryk72: The scope of this discussion is the usage of this tool in DS/AE areas - i.e., places that are already under arbcom's remit - and not to produce binding constraints on what the community might choose to do with it. My personal (strong) preference is to treat this as effectively a pilot project. Wait to see how this works in a few known trouble spots over the course of a few months - long enough for a few cycles of new users to pass the thresholds - before starting a broad community RfC informed by the experience gathered from the DS/AE applications. I don't think what we know so far from the previous implementations of the idea (manual reverting and edit filters) is enough information. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- To expand on my votes above: the implementation of this usergroup for the purpose of administering the PIA3 remedy comes with significant potential unintended consequences, one of which is the possibility to backdoor-enforce topic bans by technical means. This means that the entire editor base over the 30/500 thresholds has been newly exposed to an administrative "power" that didn't exist before, in a context where there is already common feeling that admins have too much power (regardless of whether that's true). Technically enforced topic bans have not explicitly been considered by the committee in this context, and IMO it would require an explicit affirmative community consensus before this user group could be used this way.
More generally, I strongly oppose any mechanism that gives admins the ability to eject users from the (ahem) "established editor" group, which in the context of a heated dispute will inevitably be read as deeply disrespectful of the affected user's contributions. As it is not possible to revoke user flags for predefined limited time, this action would effectively put that user in the position of going cap-in-hand back to admins in the hopes of being readmitted to the club. As tempting as it doubtless sounds - "surely it's better to be half-blocked than blocked altogether?" - I think permitting the revocation of this right would be socially toxic far in excess of the possible advantages in borderline cases. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- To the surprise of probably nobody who's read the above, I was the one who made the "nope not ever" proposal while we were first discussing this. I'm still unconvinced by the "creating policy" analysis; this user group exists entirely because an arbcom remedy effectively required it in order to be administered properly, and as a side effect, a new administrative power was created. Preventing the removal of the extendedconfirmed flag for any reason, pending development of community policy, would just be restoring the status quo ante. But "treat DS applications as a pilot project" has essentially the same effect. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- To expand on my votes above: the implementation of this usergroup for the purpose of administering the PIA3 remedy comes with significant potential unintended consequences, one of which is the possibility to backdoor-enforce topic bans by technical means. This means that the entire editor base over the 30/500 thresholds has been newly exposed to an administrative "power" that didn't exist before, in a context where there is already common feeling that admins have too much power (regardless of whether that's true). Technically enforced topic bans have not explicitly been considered by the committee in this context, and IMO it would require an explicit affirmative community consensus before this user group could be used this way.
- Re to NE Ent and Ryk72 admins are not permitted to remove the user group period was one of the things proposed in the original discussion however it wasn't included here given the issue with ArbCom creating policy for the community rather than defining how its/our discretionary sanctions are enforced. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Courcelles: The community can't really define what can and can't be done as a discretionary sanction or what can and can't be done as arbitration enforcement. So whether (even if) the community decided one way or the other we'd need to pass a motion or statement either confirming that the result of the community RfC applies to arbitration enforcement and discretionary sanctions or that it doesn't. These provisions only apply to 30/500 as it relates to arbitration enforcement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Community comments
Comment by Ryk72
Respected Arbitrators, I thank you for the opportunity to comment on these motions; but also must state that it would have been preferable for these decisions to be handed to the community as a whole.
Given that we have limited data of the effect of this type of sanction (and some of that data would suggest that it has not been a positive effect; serving only to entrench article WP:OWNership), I encourage taking the most cautious approach at this stage, by selecting the least permissive options (B1, C1, D1/D0*). The usage can be opened up once we have additional data & feedback (in 6-12 months).
I also encourage the removal of Talk pages, and of Brianna Wu, from A1. This level of protection for Talk pages is not required to protect the encyclopedia mainspace. Talk pages should remain open to allow good faith suggestions; bad faith comments by 30/500 banned editors can be simply ignored. The Brianna Wu article had no recent history of disruptive editing by 30/500 banned accounts, and was protected by a single admin acting unilaterally, explicitly on the basis of comments in unspecified Reddit threads. This would seem a poor, even quixotic, reason for such protection.
This level of protection will be used in topic areas which are subject to discretionary sanctions, where tempers are already heightened, and suspicion of admin actions can be high. To protect our admins from accusations of impropriety, I believe that it is important that we make the workings of this protection level as automatic as possible. I propose that we do not allow admins to either add or remove the user rights. Therefore, please add "D0) Administrators are not permitted to remove the extendedconfirmed
user group."
This would mean that users either qualify for extended confirmed or they don't, only on the basis of their history. Users gaming the system or proving disruptive can be dealt with as usual (blocks &/or topic bans).
Apologies for the length; please let me know if anything is unclear or if you have any questions. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC) - amended Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ryk72 at Brianna Wu I don't agree with your assessment of the history. Look here. On 11 April 2015 the article was at FULL protection. On 26 September HJ Mitchell tried stepping it down to SEMI, the only protection level available down from FULL. Two days later there was an article edit by an autoconfirmed but not extended-auto user that was so bad it had to be oversighted. HJM had to put it back up to FULL. On 10 March, 30/500 was applied via edit filter. Since then, there haven't been isues. The evidence shows that at that article, 30/500 is working great and allowing experienced editors to make direct edits to the article, whereas without it they had to wait for an admin to apply the edits for them.
Zad68
15:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC) - Hi Zad68, Minor observations - No changes were made while the article was under full protection, so no waiting for admin was required; 30/500 was applied 19 days before full protection was due to expire; we have no way of knowing if it was required - it's a long time from September to March. The unilateral decision is troubling, and "unspecified Reddit threads" remains a poor rationale for any protection. Caution is still preferred. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC) amended Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Commenting here as an administrator, not as an arbitrator, as it was in that capacity I applied the 30/500. Framing the rationale as merely "unspecified Reddit threads" is being willfully obtuse. As an experienced editor in this topic area, you know the many, many problems caused by new editors attempting to slur living individuals in this topic area and you know that it would be inappropriate to link to those specific threads due to BLP. When there is off-site coordination targeting the article of a BLP in a topic area where there has been frequent off-site coordination from the very same forums, it would be irresponsible to "wait and see" if further action was needed to protect a BLP who has already been the target of onsite disruption. As far as the usefulness of the sanction, I can think of at least two disruptive editors from the talk page off the top of my head who were prevented from editing the article. If this sanction was so obviously inappropriate, then you should have appealed this at WP:AE when it was imposed. Or now. Gamaliel (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- While my familiarity with Reddit is obviously not as great as that of those who actually use the site, as a casual observer, the whole "co-ordination of harassment" narrative seems terribly overblown - I have never seen a Reddit thread which suggests "let's go to Wikipedia and fuck shit up", far less one which suggests "let's go to Wikipedia and fuck this person's article up". I have seen a lot of disquiet with our articles; with admin actions or the lack thereof; and a good deal of satire (well deserved for the most part; and certainly no worse than WO or SLOWP).
The biggest concern in this instance, however, would be that, at the time the sanction was imposed, only two active threads [redacted] were discussing that page in any manner; neither of these makes any suggestion of an attack on that page; both question the removal of a Talk page discussion about a potential COI, by the editor being discussed; which, in cynical minds, would raise the question of who exactly we are protecting. This comment would also, for those minds, raise the same concern that the person being protected is that editor, and not the article subject. I would prefer administrators, by virtue of making a decision collaboratively, be freed from the possibility of such cynical accusations. It may, of course, be that other Reddit threads exist which actually do contain evidence of an "off-site co-ordination of attacks"; if so, please feel free to contact me privately with details - I will be happy to sit in the corner wearing a funny hat - until then, I will maintain that we should be cautious in allowing unilateral administrative application of this protection level. Where we do have a well-founded apprehension of attacks against living persons that cannot be evidenced on Wiki, I'd prefer to see a decision involving more than one admin. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- While my familiarity with Reddit is obviously not as great as that of those who actually use the site, as a casual observer, the whole "co-ordination of harassment" narrative seems terribly overblown - I have never seen a Reddit thread which suggests "let's go to Wikipedia and fuck shit up", far less one which suggests "let's go to Wikipedia and fuck this person's article up". I have seen a lot of disquiet with our articles; with admin actions or the lack thereof; and a good deal of satire (well deserved for the most part; and certainly no worse than WO or SLOWP).
- I agree caution is preferred. But when it comes to a BLP, that may mean being more protective then we would be in a case where such concerns don't arise. In particular, if we get even a very small number of edits which require suppression, it may very well mean we need to look at greater protection. Particularly in a page where the requirement for 500/30 is not excessively problematic (unlike if we were to implement it at, say, ANI). Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Echong what was said above, Brianna Wu is a LP and so it's likely many of the comments on the talk page of her article will relate to her or other LPs. Even though comments on talk pages have less visibility then stuff that happens in article, we cannot simply ignore BLP problems but have to deal with them including by deletion when they are severe enough. If this happens often enough, this suggests we need to stop it happening. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment by Jo-Jo Eumerus
Just a brief comment before I return to images and articles; I'd say that this protection/permission system should be used in the same way as any other arbitration sanction. That also means that removing the permission should happen as a sanction like any other AE topic ban or block as an enforcement measure. For example, if an account is banned from editing a certain area where 500/30 protections apply, withdraw the permission. When the ban expires or is successfully appealed, the permission can be regranted. If the community decides to extend extendedconfirmed
and associated protection to non-arbitration uses they should have their own policy created. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment by NE Ent
Please no, don't let admins take away the extendedconfirmed permission, because one of the unwritten rules of Wikipedia dispute resolution is anything that can be removed will be argued about incessantly to get restored. If an editor reaches 500/30 and hasn't figured out how not to act like a dweeb, the appropropriate sanctions should be applied everywhere, not just the 500/30 articles. NE Ent 20:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment by T. Canens
There is at least one known incident in which two editors attempted to circumvent a similar restriction by creating articles with hundreds of edits, each adding a single word. The editors involved was indefinitely blocked as the actions were obviously in bad faith under the circumstances, but it is not inconceivable that a genuinely clueless new editor may attempt something similar, in which case removing the permission obtained from the artificially inflated edit count (until the 500 edits have been made in the normal course of editing) seems like an appropriate remedy. T. Canens (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment by Salvidrim
Has the committee considered the possibility that it shouldn't be the one to decide when and how 50/300-protection and the extconf user-right should be used, but that this decision should be left to the community (just like it was last time we discussed protection levels with PC1/PC2 and user-right levels with Template-protection and template-editors)? Of course, ArbCom is always free to place articles under protection as remedies (50/300 or otherwise), and such Committee actions would be unrevertable (as all Committee actions are), but I guess I'm just a bit uneasy at this decision being taken mostly out of the hands of the community. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Salvidrim!: We're not defining how the community can use it, in fact the provisions have been written in a way which allows the community to use the protection level however they wish. This discussion and voting is about defining how the extendedconfirmed user group and 30/500 should be used in arbitration enforcement where, once an admin action is taken, it is difficult to have it changed. And also to define what administrators are doing in the Committee's name. The community is absolutely able to define how and when 30/500 protection is used in its name and how and when the user group can be removed (and I sincerely hope that it does very soon). If the community decides that the user group can be removed then admins will be able to do this, just not (assuming that provision passes) as a discretionary sanction. When/If there is a community RfC, and the results of that are different to what ends up being decided here then I'd be very open to changing what we have done here, but until then some guidance from the Committee on what is done in its name and with its protection is needed IMHO. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment by Davidwr
Administrators should be allowed to remove this user-right as a less-severe substitute for a more-severe sanction that they are already authorized to implement, provided that the removal of this user-right, alone or in combination with other authorized actions, would be no more severe than the "more-severe" sanction or collection of sanctions that would otherwise be imposed.
For example, if an otherwise-well-behaved editor was repeatedly violating discretionary sanctions on an article related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and as a result is already topic-banned, violating that topic-ban would normally warrant a limited-time block. However, removing this user-right for the shorter of the duration of the topic band or the duration of the block he would get if removing this user-right were not allowed is better than imposing a block: It allows the editor to continue contributing in other areas of the encyclopedia that are not affected by this user-right.
In other words, think of removing this user-right as a "mini-block" - a way to enforce an existing topic ban where the editor has violated the ban and where a "regular block" would be worse for the encyclopedia as a whole than removing this user-right. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Implementation notes
For this (or these) motion(s) there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Statement
- Support: 9
- Oppose: 0
- Abstain: 0
- Status: Passed
Extended confirmed protection
Imposition
B1
- Support: 2
- Oppose: 7
- Abstain: 2
- Status: Six support votes needed to pass
B2
- Support: 4
- Oppose: 4
- Abstain: 2
- Status: Four support votes needed to pass
Requirements for use
C1
- Support: 7
- Oppose: 3
- Abstain: 1
- Status: One support votes needed to pass
C2
- Support: 6
- Oppose: 4
- Abstain: 1
- Status: Two support votes needed to pass
C3
- Support: 1
- Oppose: 8
- Abstain: 2
- Status: Can't pass
Extendedconfirmed user group
D1
- Support: 7
- Oppose: 3
- Abstain: 1
- Status: One support vote needed to pass
D2
- Support: 9
- Oppose: 1
- Abstain: 0
- Status: Passed
D3
- Support: 0
- Oppose: 5
- Abstain: 0
- Status: Can't pass
D4
- Support: 0
- Oppose: 5
- Abstain: 1
- Status: Can't pass
Requests for enforcement
FreeatlastChitchat
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 FreeatlastChitchat
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 4/18/2016 A comment which compares editors who disagree with them to "Holocaust deniers". Obviously WP:BATTLEGROUND, obviously personal attack. A quite odious personal attack at that.
- 4/18/2016 Response to request to strike the above mentioned PA. Some kind of unbacked accusation of meat puppetry or something. Even putting WP:ASPERSIONS aside, this speaks to the fact that the user has a battleground mentality and is WP:NOTHERE.
- 4/18/2016 Doubles down on the personal attacks with further personal attacks and further accusations that other editors are equivalent to "Holocaust deniers"
Per this also it appears the user is under a 0RR restriction, which would mean that these edits [49] and [50] are a violation of it.
Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by User:Spartaz [51].
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- [52] Blocked for a week for similar. Note closing admin's admonishment: "Imposition will depend on behaviour after return from block. Patience levels noticeably low so recommend keeping nose clean."
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- [53]
Basically the user's whole talk page is a billboard for warnings and sanction notifications.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
1RR didn't work. One week block didn't work. 0RR didn't work. Unless the user dramatically changes their approach to editing it's time for a topic ban at the very least.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
In response to SheriffsinTown's accusations (which are actually sanctionable as well since they fall under WP:ASPERSIONS) what I did is remove a whole bunch of POV text which looked like an attempt to turn the article into a WP:COATRACK. It's funny to be accused of "battleground" when I'm actually probably the one person on that article that is more or less uninvolved (I've edited it before in passing just in the course of my regular editing) and doesn't have a dog in this fight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh and Sheriff, can you point to exactly where "ARBPIA specifically prohibits such behavior"? Where does it do this "specifically"? And what behavior? I'm sorry but it looks like you're here just to support someone who shares your POV. And *that* would fall under WP:TAGTEAM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I feel compelled to also point out that despite FreeatlastChitchat's comment, no one ever said that "Biharis were just killed in the process". Go to the article talk page. Press Ctrl-F, search for "killed in the process", all you find is FreeatlastChitchat making that false accusation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, ffs. To those who are claiming that FreeatlastChitchat didn't accuse anyone of being a Holocaust denier - well, I guess you're right. He accused other editors of being the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. Which is what I said above in my statement (to quote myself: "compares editors who disagree with them to "Holocaust deniers"") . If you really think that makes it better than please, WP:WIKILAWYER to your hearts' content. Here is their statement:
"We have the same with Holocaust deniers ... So it is quite clear that some deniers are trying to whitewash the article by saying "oh, we cannot include biharis here even though they were killed in thousands". To these editors (genocide deniers) I ask only this".
Now obfuscate and battleground' onward.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchat
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 FreeatlastChitchat
@Seraphimblade I am removing everything from my statement except the bare bones.
- I have never called anyone a holocaust denier.
- I have stated that some people who are denying the Bihari genocide (multiple RS call it genocide) are comparable to holocaust deniers in view of wikipedia rules i.e. the same rules of topic bans and sanctions should apply to both.
- I stand by my statement that anyone who denies any genocide (Bihari or otherwise) should be treated as holocaust deniers are treated on wikipedia and he should be t-banned and sanctioned immediately. Not doing so will show that wikipedia is biased
- I have stated that saying 150,000 people who were killed and raped were just a few hundred people who were just killed in the process is a very crass and inflammatory statement and should lead to a topic ban immediately.
- I have stated that misquoting an editor or cherry picking their statements out of context is a very bad faith habit and should be avoided. I have given a detailed table below showing how KT has been guilty of misquoting and cherry picking.
KT's claim | Actual Statement/Context | Difference in meaning |
---|---|---|
fake POV pushing piece of WP:BULLSHIT | To be frank I am surprised that a hoax and fake POV pushing piece of WP:BULLSHIT is being given a dedicated RFC. As per WP:DENY we should not allow this to happen, the creator of the RFC should understand that if we start going through RFC's for every stupid hoax inserted by a vandal and a serail socker, then they actually win. | The actual target of the statement is the "vandalism" caused by a serial socker. KT or his editing has not been targeted. I am 100% clear in saying that the vandalism of a serial socker is the target of this statement not KT. |
Policy-based discussion is not enough, "consensus" is required (to make edits) | I said "you need consensus to re introduce a sockers contributions" You said "I am not buying that argument". Nothing more I can say here I am afraid, no matter how much I try to work with you if you disagree with basic wikipedia policies such as consensus there is nothing we can do. feel free to edit the page as you wish, you clearly think that you own this article and I am sick and tired of editors who think consensus is not required. So GL with editing the page I'll wait for someone else to revert you. | A clear case of bad faith misquoting, what I said is the exact opposite of what KT is trying to push forward |
you continue to make zero sense. | you continue to make zero sense. | An editor who only "comes alive" every three or four weeks to push nationalistic propaganda is trying to go against two RFC's and a long standing consensus and is edit warring on top of that. KT has failed to mention this teeny tiny fact. |
you are in a delusion about how consensus works | What exactly are you aiming for here? That no content should be created until every single editor says "YES"? If this is the case, then sorry to say but you are in a delusion about how consensus works. There will always be POV pushers around and other warriors who will want their own version inserted. Consensus is usually reached without their input, rather despite their input. So when you see four editors agreeing to a basic statement, you should calmly back away and rethink your own position. | KT fails to mention that anyone having the view that "every editor" must agree before content can be added, does have a skewed view of consensus. When two guys(or the same number of editors) disagree it is a dispute. However if an overwhelming majority supports an edit then disagreeing with that edit does not break consensus. |
you do not like to debate | you do not like to debate, you do not intervention. How would you like this article to be edited? | KT says he does not want anyone else to intervene in editing the article and he hats other people comments without their knowledge and goes against WP:TPO so of course he should be asked how he wishes for editing to happen. |
What exactly seems your problem?" ... "why all this drama here? | why are you telling me to "let it rest" when I have not even "started" anything? I just requested you to involve/ping more than one user next time there is a controversial discussion. What exactly seems your problem? And why did you open this thread style discussion here instead of my TP? I mean if you have to talk to me, use my TP why all the drama here? I really don't care if you are a nationalist or not. All I see is that you have pinged a user multiple times without pinging anyone else and he has taken your side, so I kindly requested you to stop. I am quite sure that from on you will never ping Ghatus without pinging another editor, so there is not even a problem to discuss. Why are you prolonging this? | KT pings Ghatus to a controversial discussion without pinging anyone else. When this happens again and again(You can see that they commented within hours of each other here as well) I kindly request him to stop with a single line "please do not canvass". KT starts the drama at ReagentParks TP with a Long drawn out thread style discussion. |
FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SheriffIsInTown
I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG as User:Volunteer Marek have been displaying battleground behavior which involved large-scale removal of sourced content from 1971 Bangladesh genocide and restoration of unsourced content. I am not sure what Wikipedia policies he is following to do all this. WP:ARBIPA specifically prohibits such battleground behavior. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: If you see comment by Freeatlast, he did not call Marek a "holocaust denier", he just mentioned in the context that if someone denies holocaust then they are banned for that then why it is so that if someone denies genocide against Biharis then they are not banned? I don't see any accusation or blame towards another editor and i do not see him calling another editor a "holocaust denier". Marek is taking it "out of context" here! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: Ghatus did say that "in that process some Biharis were killed". I am sure Freeatlast did not mean that you said it when he mentioned that. Please don't think that all replies are directed towards you, especially when multiple people are participating in a discussion. I think Freeatlast made a general statement about the whole discussion after seeing Ghatus's comment. You clearly don't think before you make an accusation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- This AE was filed taking a comment out of context and twisting it to make it look like worse than it was. The latest comment by Kautilya3 is also nothing but taking comments out of context and making them look as bad as they can be made but if you go through those comments, they do make sense and these attempts are just nothing but making an opponent shut up from those pages to turn the consensus in favor of a specific POV. I think issuing a t-ban in result of this request will be harsh and unfortunate. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Sir Joseph
Just a comment to clarify. I have no issue with the case or parties, but I don't think anyone called anyone a Holocaust denier. The statement was "we have the same with Holocaust deniers." In other words, the issue is similar to those who deny the Holocaust, not that anyone here is a HD. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by TripWire
A simple glance at Freeatlast's comment will tell the reader that he did not call anyone "holocaust denier" nor did he display any WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. So, that's that. But I am compelled to point out that the way VM is accusing everyone around him of WP:ASPERSION, he should be careful as he commonly violates this policy himself in routine:
- Accuses editors commenting on a RfC of tag-teaming despite the fact that OP invited editors on this RfC at "Notice board for Pakistan-related topics" diff
-
- "And so far I don't see any un-involved editors (except perhaps myself), just the usual WP:TAGTEAM" [55]
- Again call editors commenting against him at the RfC of being 'friends', implying that they are tag-teaming:
-
- "That's why your and your friends' attempts at hijacking this article" [56]
- Even casting aspersions right here at the AE board on editors for tag-teaming, even though all the editors are the same who were already involved in the RfC which caused this report:
-
- "I'm sorry but it looks like you're here just to support someone who shares your POV. And *that* would fall under WP:TAGTEAM" [57]
- And this really has to end. VM is continuously, despite being reminded and cautioned is casting aspersions and accusing everybody of everything that comes into his mind. It seems he is so sure that he'll get away with it that he consider himself immune to sanctions. I think he should be told that he isnt.
And before he accuses me of tag-teaming, I'd like to info that I am already involved at this board. A WP:BOOMERANG shall be in order here, I guess.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 19:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
VM, please stop WP:cherrypicking Freeatlast's words and synthesising a conclusion. What Freeatlast said was:
"Removing this (Bihari genocide) amounts to genocide denial, and I personally think that anyone removing this should be sanctioned (he says that those who deny genocide must be sanctioned). We have the same with Holocaust deniers (i.e. as Holocaust deniers are sanctioned, so must be Genocide Deniers, in this case ho deny genocide of Biharis - he is simply equating genocide deniers to Holocaust deniers and demanding equal sanctions for both), why won't these guys accept that Biharis were killed?"
He further says:
"It is quite clear that no one is removing ANY part of the article (i.e Freeatlast is not denying or removing info related to genocide of Bengalis - hence not denying it). So it is quite clear that some deniers (yeah, some [genocide, not Holocaust] deniers) are trying to whitewash the article by saying "oh, we cannot include biharis here even though they were killed in thousands". To these editors (genocide deniers) (who deny Bihari, not Bengali genocide) I ask only this, where exactly does it say that this article is exclusive to the killing of Bengalis? If Biharis were killed they should most definitely be included."
I dont think he is labeling VM or for that matter anyone as a Holocaust denier. At most what he suggested was that those who deny Behari genocide (i.e. say it didnt happen during the events of 1971), should also be equated with genocide deniers and as such must be sanctioned as is in the case of Holocaust deniers.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- ArghyaIndian, Volunteer Marek made 49 edits at Talk:1971_Bangladesh_genocide (more than any other editor involved at the RfC) and 33 edits at the main space of the article and you still think he is an uninvolved editor?! I am sorry, but you surely are not here to build Wikipedia—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 23:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- ArghyaIndian, didnt you claim to be a new comer?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 19:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment by My very best wishes
Several contributors blame VM of "genocide denial". What genocide? They tell about genocide of Biharis population. However, vast majority of sources tell about genocide of Hindu, not Biharis population (e.g. There is an academic consensus that this campaign of violence, particularly against the Hindu population, was a genocide - from good summary review). Even Rummel expresses concern that the violence against Biharis was a "democide" which is not the same as "genocide": "How much of this was democide (intentional killing by government or its agents) is a question". One can find very few sources which call violence against Biharis a "genocide". Hence the current description of this simply as "violence" was correct. That is what vast majorty of sources tell. It seems that several contributors are trying to push their nationalistic views by including fringe or poorly sourced materials/claims, and blame VM and other contributors of "denying" these materials/claims. This happens on a number of pages, such as Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, and Mukti Bahini. My very best wishes (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment by Rhoark
Though I find VM's positions on this article content unconvincing, FreeatlastChitchat's delcaration you deny one genocide, you deny them all. There should be no place on wiki for people who deny genocides is totally unacceptable. Editors must be prepared to continue working with those who reach different good-faith conclusions after examining the same evidence. Rhoark (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Rhoark but don't you think that in basic etiquette some things are universally respected? I mean shouldn't editors first try to be a teeny tiny bit civil about an issue before coming to their conclusions? Does the opinion that thousands of people were "just killed in the process" not cross that line? You can see from the said TP that I did not just start throwing around accusations nor was I bible thumping. I was just saying that troll-ish comments like the one i mentioned should not be made on wiki and if they are, the editors should be sanctioned. And as this is my personal opinion, I have already said I will accept any sanctions that may be enforced due to my expressing this personal opinion. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Kautilya3
Freeatlast seems to have been around the circuit for a while, but his participation in South Asian conflict pages is only about a couple of months old. The pages include Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, 1965, 1971, Siachen conflict, Kashmir conflict, List of Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, 1971 Bangladesh genocide, and possibly other pages he is still discovering. On all these pages, his edits to mainspace are minimal, mostly limited to reverts in support of editors that accord with his POV. He probably knows nothing of substance on these topics. Given how limited his contributions are, he certainly throws a surprising amount of weight around on the talk pages.
- On Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, "fake POV pushing piece of WP:BULLSHIT"
- On Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, "are you a sock?", Policy-based discussion is not enough, "consensus" is required (to make edits).
- On Talk:Siachen conflict, you make "literally zero sense".
- On Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, "you are in delusion about how consensus works".
- On Talk:Kashmir conflict, "you do not like to debate",
- On User talk:RegentsPark, "What exactly seems your problem?" ... "why all this drama here?".
I am pretty sure that his idea of "consensus" is for a bunch of editors to gang up and CRUSH the others into submission. He feels entirely free to target editors with his cutting, pointed, sanctimonious remarks as if he is a prima donna veteran of Wikipedia. With his accusation of holocaust denial, he has clearly crossed the line and the pity is that he doesn't even realize it. We certainly don't need such prima donnas on conflict pages that are already dealing with difficult subjects that need to account for multiple nationalist POVs. I recommend that Freeatlast be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
In response to SheriffIsInTown, Freeatlast certainly knows ARBIPA standards and, if his remarks seem passable to him, it is only because the situation has degenerated to such an extent that this kind of behaviour has begun to look normal. We need to start somewhere in cleaning up the toxic culture on these pages, and let this be it. If we don't start enforcing them, ARBIPA sanctions become meaningless. By my own experience, such behaviour is almost never tolerated on India pages, where also all kinds of nationalists prowl, because loads of admins monitor them. In contrast, the South Asian conflict have become a lawless zone. We have to say "enough is enough." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Ghatus
This editor (FreeatlastChitchat) is a habitual battleground editor. He was trying to create a false equivalence between the real victims of genocide ( with academic consensus) and those killed in other ways. There is no academic consensus that killing of "a few hundred" Biharis was a "genocide" from any angle as against the killing of "a million" Bengalis by the state with impunity. Anyone who opposed that PoV pushing was insinuated as a "genocide denier", though the case in reality was the opposite. One can not say that Jews also massacred Germans in some places and hence both are equally guilty. Hence, like Kautilya, I also recommend that Freeatlast is to be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages. Ghatus (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by ArghyaIndian
I will like to draw administrator's kind attention towards SHERIFFISINTOWN's battleground behaviour (I also recommend that SheriffIsInTown should be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages). He said I think issuing a t-ban in result of this request will be harsh and unfortunate. clearly shows that he is just here to WP:TAGTEAM and defend a user who shares his POV (as VM said). A quick look here [58], [59], [60] will show that this user have long displayed an incomprehensible pattern of shielding editors (who shares his *POV*) from sanctions and downplaying their disruption. He's doing the same here! His comment adds no value to this discussion whatsoever. Maybe (*as also suggested by admin Spartaz*) administrators should consider banning him from commenting here at AE in the future. Contrary to what SheriffIsInTown said in their last lines, he reported me right here at AE asking a T-ban (when I have less then 6 edits to that page/talk page combined) just because I voted *Reject* in the RFC. He left no chance of threatening me and he intentionally targeted me again and again. Right here, he called User:Volunteer Marek (a completely uninvolved editor) a battleground editor, and on talk page he intentionally targeted User:My very best wishes [61]. Per Volunteer Marek and above users, this editor (FreeatLastChitchat) should be topic banned indefinitely. This user (Freeatlast) has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with over the top nationalist bias and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Based on the ample amount of evidences (I provided in my statement below in second report right here at AE), SHERIFFISINTOWN should also be Topic-banned (as also suggested by administrator SPARTAZ, but he is on wiki leave currently SEE.... Spartaz further warned this user on their talk page [62]). Also, SheriffIsInTown was previously t-ban by HighInBC for a period of one month from one page (It seems from his talk page) because of the same reason *POV Pushing* and *Edit Warring*. SHERIFFISINTOWN'S's long term Edit Warring (recent 3RR violation), large scale POV pushing on all the 1971 related INDIA-BANGLADESH pages, continuous violating WP:ASPERSIONS and his attempt of harassment are equally sanctionable as well. Please look at the edit diffs/evidences I provided below in my statement (right here at AE in the second report). Reviewing admin should take a look here at once (report filed by an uninvolved editor Mhhossein ). Also, Freeatlast is commenting on other's statement which as per the rule he cannot! In addition, his total word count is far more then 500 word. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- TripWire should be sanctioned per WP:ASPERSIONS for blatantlyattacking other editors right here at WP:AE. VM is a complete uninvolved editor who rarely have edited that page before. When a group of editors who shares same POV tries to hijack an convert a NPOV article into a POV COATRACK that matches with their POV, then uninvolved editor would come and oppose. Your long term pattern of TAGTEAMING and shielding each other, whenever anyone of you gets reported at noticeboard is soon going to WP:BOOMERANG on you. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC).
Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Ah, FreeatlastChitchat--one of my favorite battleground editors. Marek, 0R was suggested but not imposed, it seems from the DS log. I think I already blocked FreeatlastChitchat once and I really don't want to do it again, but you can't go around calling someone a Holocaust denier; FreeatlastChitchat, you have been skating on thin ice for a while, and you shouldn't be surprised if you fall through it this time, though I for one will be sad to see it. But calling someone a Holocaust denier does no service to the victims of another genocide. Sheriff, if you want to bring Marek up on charges you will have to do so in a separate section--I doubt that this will go very far, though. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see a comparison to Holocaust deniers rather than directly calling someone one, but for clarity's sake, that's still quite inappropriate. It seems there's a lot of issue here with "Comment on content, not the contributor." FreeatlastChitchat, it would be very helpful if you could trim your statement to focus on the behavioral issues raised here, we don't decide content disputes at AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
ArghyaIndian
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 ArghyaIndian
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- ArghyaIndian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 00:50, 19 April 2016 Left a highly nationalistic slur at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh using a proxied IP, This was also a bad faith message as well accusing a bunch of editors as Pakistani POV pushers. WP:ARBIPA specifically prohibits use of Wikipedia for political propaganda on nationalistic lines and instructs to display good faith to fellow editors while editing Pakistan/India topics. (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Wikipedia is not a soapbox)
- 12:59, 19 April 2016 Votes in the RfC signed in as ArghyaIndian using exactly the same nationalistic slur and bad faith message as was done using proxied IP at WP Bangladesh (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Wikipedia is not a soapbox)
- 04:54, 20 April 2016 Left the same message using the same proxied IP with exactly same text as was used in above two edits, difference is this message was left after he was alerted about WP:ARBIPA so this is a clear violation of WP:ARBIPA after him being alerted about that. (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Wikipedia is not a soapbox)
- 10:34, 21 April 2016 Continues making highly controversial edits to a highly controversial topic 1971 Bangladesh genocide even though an RfC is going on at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide to which he participated. Instead of waiting for conclusion, he goes in and removes a huge chuck of text along national lines
- 16:30, 21 April 2016 Does it again after being told that "Please refrain from major changes while the discussion is ongoing.", gets reverted again by an unrelated editor, Please note that this edit has an evidence of meatpuppetry in it as Arghya included the instructions issued to him by another editors in the edit. Meatpuppetry is sockpuppetry and sockpuppery was another decision covered by WP:ARBIPA#Sockpuppets.
- 16:56, 21 April 2016 But does it again! (Remember others are waiting for talk and RfC but he keeps editing along nationalistic lines
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 14:51, 19 April 2016
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Requesting a topic ban for ArghyaIndian in topic area of India/Pakistan broadly construed based on evidence of nationalistic propaganda and assuming bad faith along national lines.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Diff of notification to the editor
- Note: Requesting @Laser brain: or another admin to restrict ArghyaIndian statement to less than 500 words so i can reply them keeping myself under 500 words. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Reply
- Arghya claims to be a newcomer yet cites policies like WP:BITE, WP:BATTLEGROUND and know that meatpuppetry is reported under sockpuppetry, each of which i did not know until very recently. Arghya claims that he copied/pasted the content from WP Bangladesh to the RfC and IP was not him but you see the IP's comment from WP Bangladesh was removed by me at 09:00, 19 April 2016 and Arghya added the same comment at the RfC at 12:59, 19 April 2016 so he is kind of giving a very lame excuse of copy/paste. Please also note Arghya did not edit between 2 April 2016 and 19 April 2016 and his first edit after 17 days was the vote at RfC. That comment is a clear example of WP:DUCK. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ArghyaIndian
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 ArghyaIndian
This user is bullying me continuously from past one-two weeks. He is intentionally targeting me again and again. But lemme tell him, I'm not going to be bullied or threatened. He seems to be leaving no chance of WP BITING. I am not the only one whom this user has tried to WP:HARASS. This user has attacked and targeted many uninvolved users on article's talk page see and on their talk pages see. (*just because they opposed his strong POVish edits* (which are itself sanctionable since these pages are covered by ARBIPA and WP:NPOV is one of the Wikipedia's main pillar). Admins should take a look at the revision history of the page to get a better understanding of this user (along with his WP:TAGTEAM) attempt of hijacking and converting an NPOV article into a complete POV COATRACK, promoting fringe and preposterous theories. (All uninvolved users pointed out this on talk page including Ghatus, KT, Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes, and so on).
- To administrators; please note that this user is intentionally trying to present me as a edit warrior and as a nationalist user here in a sheer bad faith (which I am not).
- This IP is not myn. I just copy and pasted his comment at article's talk page because the IP was absolutely correct and a patrolling user Sminthopsis84 also agreed with the IP. They also suggested a topic ban for SheriffIsInTown. Again this IP is not myn as i already explained above. This Infact should be considered as obvious personal attack since this user is trying to connect me with unknown IP's based on his suspicion. They should report me at SPI noticeboard to clear their suspicion. Infact his unback accusations are sanctionable itself since they fall under WP:ASPERSIONS.
- SheriffIsInTown is intentionally distorting and mispresenting edit diffs as explained below.
- 04:03, 20 April 2016 I created a new section regarding misleading figures in the lead that was recently added without any discussion whatsoever at talk page [63]. Uninvolved editors Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes also agreed with me and Infact VM also asked me that which older version I have in my mind. Since the editors agreed with my objections, I tried to find an older stable NPOV version of the article's lead. I waited for a day and finally restored an old version 10:30, 21 April 2016, but by mistake I restored the wrong version but I quickly asked for the help on the article's talk page can be seen here. And I think that KT was aware of it and that is why he/she reverted me. I wanted to restore the old stable NPOV lead (as discussed and agreed on talk page) so that is why I made this edit (13:25 21 April 2016) but after realising that I did a mistake, I quickly self reverted this time within a minute (13:36, 21 April 2016). But as I wanted to restore the old stable NPOV lead, I made this edit again ([64]) but unfortunately I again made a major mistake and messed my notepad stuffs while editing but before I could self revert myself, an patrolling user already reverted me ([65]). This time I made this edit correctly ([66]) and I was correct too. Many uninvolved editors agreed with me [67], [68].
- To Administrators; please take a look here at once. [69], [70] MASS REMOVAL OF CONTENT by this user (that he doesn't like), large scale POV pushing and edit warring on all Bangladesh related pages (1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, Mukti Bahini, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War). He's doing this all from a long time now.
- SheriffIsInTown tried to WP:HARASS other users including me with 3RR templates when they hardly made two reverts [71] but he WP:EDITWAR on these pages from many months, as noted by other users ([72], [73]). But I'll give recent examples. This user went on to remove mass contents from Mukti Bahini. This user did not seek talk page to address issues but instead was engage in intense WP:EDITWAR with multiple users, same is the case here.
- As pointed out by uninvolved users [74] this person went too far in claiming that some parts were "irrelevant" and in saying that some parts were unsourced when the sources were there as external links. Other uninvolved users also pointed out the same, to quote; One thing I saw was your quest to remove certain relevant and sourced information from multiple pages like here.
- This user made around 7 reverts on Mukti Bahini within 1½ day just to remove mass contents from lead (that he doesn't like), which is still there. These back to back 4 reverts are Infact very well within 24 hours. Clear WP:3RR violation.
- He was told by atleast two users in edit summaries that lead material that is sourced in text is considered sourced and some of them are actually sourced [75], [76] and that he should stop removing mass contents from lead. He was further warned on his talk page by User:Thomas and User:LjL for the same can be seen here [77].
- For the sake of betterment and neutrality of this project area of India.Bangladesh.Pakistan, I highly recommend SheriffIsInTown be indefinite topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages (as reasons and evidences provided above). This user has a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with a strong nationalist bias and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by Administrator Spartaz. Spartaz warned this user right here at AE that they are strongly minded to impose a T-ban if this user continue to make nationality based slurs. They further warned this user on their talk page [78]. Spartaz did not replied further because they said, they are on wiki leave currently. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- His further accusations are not worth replying. However, since he made strong personal attacks directed towards me, I'll reply.
- I am on wiki from a while now. Many uninvolved editor called you a WP:BATTLEGROUND editor, so my knowledge of these policies is quite obvious.
- As I already said, that IP is not myn. You have all the rights to report me and clear your suspicions. Then why you're not reporting me and instead hurling accusations at me?
- This user further tried to WP:HARASS me by calling me a meatpuppet at ANI (but not reporting me at SPI, as I pointed out), clear personal attack, quite odious personal attack at that. Note that he called me a meatpuppet but is asking me how do I know about meatpuppet noticeboard (even though I gave him the meatpuppet/SPI noticeboard link through a google search). Clearly, he is trying to fool others here.
- This user doubles down on the personal attacks with further personal attack and with further accusations by calling me a meatpuppet again here, when I have replied him in straight and in befitting words at ANI. [79], [80], [81].
- Further personal attacks by calling me a DUCK. This user has crossed all the borderlines of WP:PERSONAL, WP:HARASS & WP:BITE. These unback extreme accusations falls under WP:ASPERSIONS. I'll say again, this user should report me at SPI to clear his suspicions and after the result comes negative, this user either should apology or should be indefinitely ban.
- If no administrator take actions against this user, then it will mean that such nationalist users like him have a free license to harass other users. Most importantly, this user is edit warring, pushing blatant POV across these ARBIPA articles (in an global source of knowledge) from many months now and his extreme POV edits has indeed gone unnoticed which has already ruined many articles (specially India. Bangladesh related). --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Rhoark: His RFC was premature (as noted by other uninvolved users). As MVBW said on on article's talk page RfC does not ask well defined question. If, for example, the RfC was about changes in one specific paragraph, then indeed, it would be best not to edit that paragraph. One can not "freeze" whole page by starting an RfC. Furthermore, I only tried to 'restore old NPOV lead. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes
This does appear to me as a battleground request because SheriffIsInTown edit war on these pages for months, but reported someone who only started. In addition, after looking at changes by SheriffIsInTown on this page, it appear that he inserts wording like "a number now universally regarded as excessively inflated" and "however some scholars consider this number to be seriously inflated" in introduction, instead of simply providing a range of numbers - as the more NPOV version preferred by ArghyaIndian. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Rhoark
Saying there are POV pushers in this area is calling a spade a spade, and no one involved appears to have any inhibition about editing while the RfC is open. This area needs more admin scrutiny than is seen through the keyhole of AE filings. Rhoark (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning ArghyaIndian
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @ArghyaIndian: Please try to cut down your statement to focus only on points relevant to this request, and to be concise and clear about what it is you're saying. @TJH2018: Please do not comment in other editors' sections. You're welcome to make a statement in a section of your own if you'd like to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Sailor Haumea
Sailor Haumea is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of longevity, broadly construed. Zad68 20:34, 29 April 2016 (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 Sailor Haumea
This is a long-running issue on longevity articles. Basically, there are some editors who believe that Wikipedia should only list supercentenarians that are verified by the GRG. However, a recent RfC resulted in the consensus that any reliable source is fine. Sailor Haumea showed up on List of oldest living people and removed all non-GRG sourced entries. They were reverted and engaged in talk page discussion (Talk:List of oldest living people#Reverted back to GRG-associated) where it was explained that all reliable sources are accepted. They rejected this and edit warred to their preferred version, reaching, but not breaking, WP:3RR. However, they have continued to state their rejection of consensus and reverted again, though they self-reverted immediately after. This pattern of behavior is clearly disruptive. Editors with similar attitudes have been blocked or topic-banned under these discretionary sanctions: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186#Ollie231213, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#930310, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#GreatGreen, not to mention those blocked or topic-banned under the original ruling. Given the behavior here and the fact that they appear to be a single-purpose account focused on longevity articles, I recommend a topic ban until such time as they can work with consensus instead of against it. clpo13(talk) 17:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Sailor HaumeaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Sailor HaumeaLongevity is a field requiring verifiable content. Sailor Haumea (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by EEngSince stating above that "I don't want to get banned, so I will follow consensus", SH has just gone back to the usual longevity-fan nonsense: What's with these people anyway? No evidence SH is interested in anything but longevity [86] so let's save time -- skip the topic ban and go straight to indefinite block. EEng 16:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by GlrxI believe I am uninvolved. I haven't been following longevity, but I did comment in Ollie231213's appeal of a topic ban in this area 3 months ago.[87] Ollie231213's appeal was declined 14 February 2016. The Sailor Haumea account has been active since 24 February 2016. From talk page comments,[88] Sailor Haumea seems well aware of the decision to use sources other than GRG by 22:23 18 April 2016, but SH believes that decision was wrong / had been "debunked". Comment also shows that SH knows editors are getting blocked for editing behavior wrt longevity. SH does 4 reverts on 18 April 2016[89] before an explicit 3RR warning on 18 April at 23;11.[90] Discretionary warning hits 23:13, 18 April 2016. SH continues to revert and speaks of "Establish a consensus".[91] SH appears to be a sophisticated user. DS allows a 1-year topic ban, and that is what I'd recommend at the minimum. I believe there is a colorable claim that SH is avoiding an existing topic ban. (First 2 diffs by EEng also show correlation with DN-boards1; see also User talk:DN-boards1#Blocked.) Glrx (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Sailor Haumea
|
Wikiwillkane
User:Wikiwillkane is warned to observe the terms of the 500/30 general prohibition. Further edits like those listed in this complaint may lead to a conventional ARBPIA topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Wikiwillkane
Not applicable
Not applicable
Informed by Huldra of the arbitration decision barring users with less than 500 edits from editing in the topic area on 25 April. Warned by me that continuing to edit in the topic area may result in being reported. Continued to edit in the topic area without responding. I dont know if its just they dont know to click on the link that says you have new messages or not, but something should be done to make sure the editor is aware that their edits are in violation of that decision (regardless of the general quality of the edits, which is bad) and that they agree to abide by the decision and refrain from editing in the topic area until they are allowed to do so. The last edit was following my warning, all the ones from the 26th were after Huldra's notification, which as the editor is here responding to this makes me think that it was not simply being ignorant of the big you have new messages link meaning something. But regarding Dafna Meir, its an article on a woman killed in Israeli settlement by Palestinians. I dont think it gets much clearer than that, but hey who knows, maybe Im wrong and this new account knows something I dont. Pretty sure I did not reference a Roseanne Barr edit, but hey as the user brings it up, material on BDS is fairly clearly within the topic area as well. nableezy - 20:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning WikiwillkaneStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WikiwillkaneI was given a warning from Nableezy regarding the 30/500 and heeded his/her advice, and have not edited since on a page that came up with a 30/500 warning. However, Nableezy seems to be unilaterally expanding the 30/500 to anything related to Israel. Editing Roseanne Barr's page with the simple fact that she was a keynote speaker at an anti-BDS conference in Israel seems well beyond the scope of the 30/500 and does not seem to be the original intent of the rule. If the 30/500 rule is placed on the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment (BDS) Movement, you will need to stop thousands who are presently editing on that topic without 30/500. Regarding the Dafna Meir page, it never mentions "Palestinians" or "Terrorists," so, again, it should not be part of the 30/500 rule. It was about the murder of an Israeli woman. Obviously, the 30/500 rule is not clear as some pages have the warning, others do not. What about Roseanne Barr? At what point does the 30/500 not exist? If the word Israeli, anti-BDS, is that entire article now part of the 30/500? Dafna Meir did not mention Palestinians at all. She was a murder victim. Statement by HuldraObviously, this editor does not believe that WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is valid for them. After being warned, they start the article about Dafna Meir (nominated for deletion), claiming that it should "not be part of the 30/500 rule." (!) Please, could someone make this editor understand that WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is also for them? Huldra (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Peter JamesThe restrictions specifically mention "page" and "article". If editors intend to apply it to related content in generally unrelated pages an amendment should be requested. Peter James (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC) @RolandR: @Wikiwillkane: I would regard the Dafna Meir article (and others mentioned) as related - perhaps the subject wasn't but the event that is the only reason for the article's existence is, and Wikiwillkane is aware of this. I was referring to the Roseanne Barr article. Peter James (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC) @EdJohnston: The Scientology case adds "or discussions on any page", should this case be amended to add that? Peter James (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by WikiwillkaneI agree to stay away from the Israeli-Arab conflict until I have reached the 500 edits. However, Wikipedia's 30/500 rule now seems to be extend an extremely board net over what is considered the "Arab-Israeli conflict." The 30/500 rule was on certain pages of that conflict, such as "Israel" the "West Bank," etc. Now it moved into an area that is discussed, especially regarding BDS, in almost every university campus today. Are you stating that a college student cannot write about a visiting lecturer who discusses BDS because they do not have 30 days or 500 edits on Wikipedia? Roseanne Barr is an internationally known celebrity who was a keynote speaker at a conference in Israel and it was written about extensively. This NOW is under the umbrella of 30/500??? Does that mean that nobody can write on the Students Justice for Palestine Wikipedia page because they discuss BDS? Hillary Clinton is a vocal critic of BDS. Does that mean that nobody can edit her page to reflect this or to write about a speech she gives? Wikipedia must look how many users are now using the 30/500 rule specifically to stifle the voices with opinions different than theirs. Deleting my comments that Roseanne was a keynote speaker at a conference in Israel based on 30/500 is such an example. When an administrator must do a search to see that one news article listed Dafna Meir's murder as terrorism in order to justify that she falls under the 30/500 rule is again an example of far-reaching.
Statement by RolandRPeter James above engages in the most egregious wikilawyering with his quibble about "page" and "article". The sanction explicitly refers to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". Every one of the articles noted in the original complaint (Israeli-occupied territories, Palestinian political violence, Dafna Meir, Omar Barghouti, Judea and Samaria Area) is unequivocally related to the conflict. Indeed, it would be unreasonable to construe any of them as unrelated. RolandR (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Darwinian Aperant on "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." The problem comes from the sanction itself rather than the editor conduct. 500/30 restriction is the antithesis of Wikipedia, yet here we have a broad spectrum of (current and future)articles with that restriction. Wikipedia, encyclopedia anyone can edit, unless it's a contentious topic, then you have to first go edit articles about broomsticks and teaspoons. Oh and did I also mention you have to wait for a period of 30 days? Same as acquiring a gun! Yes editing Wikipedia and guns, totally the same thing. rant off If we put my little objection to the sanction aside, the problem is not adding the brand new extended protection to all pages that are "reasonably" construed as related to Arab Israeli conflict. Doing so will prevent this kind of AE requests to a degree. And it's only fair that we have a standard in preventing these lowly new editors and IP's from editing other than the involved editors of their respected articles.(What I'm trying to say is they may be unconsciously biased in their reporting.) That is my humble opinion on the matter. Darwinian Ape talk 18:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Wikiwillkane
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by STSC
Appeal declined at this time. The totality of the diffs initially provided were more than adequate to justify the ban and no evidence has been presented to show the ban is no longer needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:55, 2 May 2016 (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 STSCI appeal the sanction and I want it to be lifted. Based on this discussion on the neutrality of the article title [93], The Wordsmith wrongly determined that my comment "openly supports the elimination of a religious group as a good and necessary thing". I commented, "Falun Gong was considered [by the Chinese] as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore [the Chinese considered it] must be eliminated from China"... Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society." My comment was pointing out that "Falun Gong was considered as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore must be eliminated from China" is a Chinese internal policy. I used the wording "was considered" by a third party, the sentence as a whole was meant to be expressing the viewpoint of China. Further statement Admins are accountable to the Wikipedia community and they must properly explain their actions; and we certainly don't just accept some blanket statements as to what they think without showing any concrete evidence. It's a hasty and poor judgement by The Wordsmith who has not thoroughly investigated the complaint in a fair manner. STSC (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC) The Wordsmith's decision [94] was based on a comment in a discussion in June 2015, I have refuted his claim that my comment supports the elimination of a religious group. He then came up with other claims in his statement in this appeal but failed to provide any evidence as to when, where and how. I must ask the sanction to be lifted in the interest of accountability and fairness. STSC (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Review I would review here the diffs which were cherry-picked to build up the baseless accusations by TheBlueCanoe. (I can only input bit by bit here when time allows)
Replies
Statement by The WordsmithObviously I stand by the sanction I imposed. I believe it to be in the best interests of that topic area that STSC be removed from participation. Reviewing their contributions makes it clear that they have lost the ability to edit in accordance with our policies and guidelines. I believe their pattern of bias and POV pushing to demonstrate an agenda that is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia. Therefore, a lesser sanction or finite duration would not have been effective. I arrived at this conclusion after an in-depth review of all the evidence presented and after careful consideration of all the statements given, and I maintain that it is within the bounds of Administrator discretion allowed by Discretionary Sanctions. I take pride in the fact that of all the enforcement actions I have issued, only one has ever been overturned, and that was in 2010 (and by an editor who was later banned by the Arbitration Committee). However, I'm still human, and therefore fallible. I welcome a review of the sanction issued. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by TheBlueCanoeIt seems highly unlikely that anyone will overturn this topic ban, but here are some quick responses to the discussion:
Finally, this may be obvious, but Shrigley is not exactly "uninvolved"—at least not in the broader Falun Gong topic area. Some time ago I recalled that he fought vigorously (and unsuccessfully) to prevent an article about an apparent Falun Gong torture death from appearing as a DYK.[115] There too, he presented himself as a neutral reviewer—which he evidently was not.
TheBlueCanoe 18:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Responding to STSC:
Statement by John CarterOnly wishing to point out here that the elimination of a religious creed of any sort is not in and of itself in all cases definitely undesirable. If it were possible to retroactively eliminate heaven's Gate or the People's Temple, as groups, prior to the eventual suicides, I think most people might find that desirable. And there are or have been a few other religious groups over the years which have had core beliefs which have later been found to be without any reasonable foundation, and I rather doubt that the "elimination" they may have suffered when their beliefs were found baseless is one most people would necessarily find objectionable. Also, honestly, if Christian Identity or perhaps other groups tied to White supremacist ideology were "eliminated" in some way, preferably through means other than killing all of them of course, I wonder how many people would object. I also, admittedly belately, support a lot of Shrigley's comments below regarding the "political correctness"/"PRC is bad" attitude which tends to prevail relating to FG related matters in the West. By most medical standards, FG practices qualify as quack medicine, which a lot of people in China accept because it is (1) traditional to them and (2) a lot cheaper than more useful Western medicine, which doesn't have the same pseudoscience/quackery issues as FG and other Qigong practices do. The fact that FG is now the standard-bearer of Western criticism of the PRC is another issue. We have had editors here labelled as supporters of the PRC for disagreeing with FG, if I remember correctly, and that same tendency toward labelling of FG opposers seems to me to be even stronger in outside press. Right now, the assessment criteria of the Falun Gong work group at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Falun Gong articles by quality statistics indicate a total of 28 articles of stub class or similar here, not counting all the NA pages. Is there any sort of way to maybe put them all under pending changes or similar so that maybe the only way to bring really substantive changes to them is through broad consensus through an RfC? That is, admittedly, a rather draconian proposal, but with so few articles, and what is to my eyes a rather obvious Western bias in the issue, it might, maybe, be workable. John Carter (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by RhoarkI am unconvinced that STSC was describing only the perspective of the Chinese establishment, and not their own authentic views (or possibly if they are living in China, views that they are compelled to publicly adhere to.) It's plausible that the "must be eliminated" section was intended to imply "from the perspective of the Chinese authorities", but such an interpretation does not concord with the rest of the statement, "...such process should not be described as 'persecution' as if the elimination is undesirable. Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society." This strikes me as the perspective of someone who internalizes official Chinese diktat rather than just describes it. If I'm wrong though, STSC should have no trouble positively affirming that no one should be violently compelled to renounce religious beliefs. Anyone seized by a fashionable moral relativism should actually read the practices detailed at Persecution of Falun Gong, which is not so much analogous to Germany's treatment of Scientology as to Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, which I challenge anyone to describe as "internal policy for the good of its society." Rhoark (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by ShrigleyTheWordsmith's comment here, which justifies the sanction, does not show me that he critically considered whether TheBlueCanoe's diffs about STSC correctly impugned STSC's character. The filer of that original AE request is, as is obvious to anyone with experience in the Falun Gong editspace (it is necessary to drop certain cultural biases: more on that later), very motivated to see a sympathetic viewpoint to Falun Gong represented on Wikipedia, and to see unsympathetic viewpoints excised. I wish more people made specific comments analyzing the diffs and how they were presented. I don't have time now, but maybe I will if this appeal stays open a few more days. If this diff is considered the "smoking gun" of STSC's supposed animus towards Falun Gong, it is weak evidence indeed. In the first place, the sentence structure (admittedly, his grammar is not perfectly native) shows that STSC was describing a viewpoint -- of Chinese society in general or the Chinese government in particular, it is not clear but does not matter -- and not expressing it:
A cursory look at TheBlueCanoe's diffs reveals them to be deeply problematic for anyone with specialist subject knowledge. For example, TBC lists this diff as evidence of STSC's bias. However, as with many third world countries, torture happens in China by local governments, despite it being illegal on a national level (and prosecuted by the central government when these cases are exposed!), because of certain perverse incentives to improve crime statistics for increased funding: the idea that certain incidents of torture happened as a planned tool of a national campaign against Falun Gong is pretty controversial. Shrigley (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by ZujineIn view of the unfortunate lack of self-awareness or contrition demonstrated by STSC in this process, I would echo @User:Seraphimblade and @User:Dennis Brown and recommend that the appeal be declined. I would also welcome administrator's views on whether a warning is in order for Shrigley. On numerous past occasions at AE, this user has come to the defense of clearly disruptive editors in this topic area (for example, see cases against User:PCPP [118][119] and User:Bobby fletcher [120]). Although it may be a novel interpretation of policy—and certainly one that would need to be applied with great caution—I wonder whether repeated attempts to shield obviously disruptive editors from much-deserved censure may itself be a form of disruption. And though it's pretty stale, the user's conduct at this DYK nomination[121] is troubling. Shrigley acted as a neutral reviewer for the DYK nomination, despite prior involvement in the topic area and clear animus toward Falungong [122]. He approved the review on the condition that his heavily edited version of the article be accepted. If anyone rejected his edits, he would declare the page "unstable" and thus withdraw approval for the DYK (uninvolved editors ultimately overturned his arguments). I have a hard time believing this was anything other than a deliberate abuse of process meant to derail a legitimate nomination.—Zujine|talk 18:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by STSCWhat Was SaidThe critical edit here, apparently, is this:
This is neither very clear or grammatical, but of course Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and some editors are not native speakers. If I were copy-editing this, my assumption is that the intended meaning was that "Falun Gong was considered [by the government] to be a danger to Chinese society; therefore, [the government] believed it must be eliminated from China." I would then have inverted the order to remove the passive: "The government considered Falun Gong to be a danger to Chinese society, and that it ought to be eliminated from China. This is not, I think, a strained or unreasonable interpretation, and seems to me to be a reasonable summary of one received narrative. Even if the sentiments ought to be ascribed to the editor, which I think is doubtful, we have "Falun Gong is a danger to society and must be eliminated from China." This is intolerant and un-American, but I’m not entirely certain that we should be banning people who hold un-American beliefs. I would observe that the Court of Massachusetts felt much this way about Roger Williams in 1636, that American Nativists expressed much the same about Catholic immigration, and that a current candidate for the US Presidency has called for a moratorium on Moslem immigration. Even if policy prohibits the practice of religious intolerance, I doubt that it prohibits its description. STSC is incorrect in asserting that this "should not be described as "persecution" as if the elimination is undesirable." Persecution is precisely the right word. An non-native speaker, or simply an editor with a limited background, might recognize only the informal, colloquial sense of persecution, and not understand that this is precisely its technical meaning. Otherwise, STSC’s statement makes no sense at all. I don’t disagree with Seraphimblade -- I’ve not examined the rest of the history -- but I suggest this ill-composed passage has been misinterpreted. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Previous ANI filingsI also note the following filings at WP:ANI - December 2015 [123]; February 2016 [124] - which would seem to indicate that the behaviours discussed in the original WP:AE filing are both long standing and wider spread than the Falun Gong topic space. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Result of the appeal by STSC
|
Jonniefood
Jonniefood topic banned 90 days from the topics of The Troubles and the Ulster Banner, broadly construed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:57, 3 May 2016 (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 Jonniefood
Diff of notification of sanctions
Clear breach of the 1RR that is enforced on all articles related to The Troubles. This editor is a single purpose account in the area of the Ulster Banner and the Northern Ireland flag issue..
Diff of notification of this request Discussion concerning JonniefoodStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Jonniefood
Statement by (Miles Creagh)The diffs presented by the reporting editor don't seem to show true reverts, as each deals with different material and distinct language in the article in question. Also not sure it is appropriate to comment on the editor rather than content, by mentioning SPAs etc. Miles Creagh (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourth@Miles Creagh: Regardless of whether the reverts were each for different material, if they were both within 24 hours of each other and both reverts, that's still a violation of 1RR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (Uninvolved Editor)Result concerning Jonniefood
|
Abbatai
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 Abbatai
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- OptimusView (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Abbatai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 14:20, 1 May 2016 1st revert
- 15:17, 1 May 2016 2nd revert
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- [127] Blocked 3 times for editwarring and disruptive editing
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- *Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [128].
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The article is placed under 1rr, and Abbatai already made 2 reverts of his edit of April 20th ([129]).
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [130]
Discussion concerning Abbatai
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 Abbatai
The first edit above was not a revert at all. I added the word "separatist" with reference to NKR, previously it was stating NKR Forces in the lead.
And this one: 15:17, 1 May 2016 was my first and only revert in which I explained why? on talk page and invited users to discussion. See [131] and [132] Thanks Abbatai 18:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Abbatai
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- As Abbatai had previously added the "separatist" wording on 20 April, both edits were clearly reverts to a previous version, so this is a 1RR violation. The previous edit warring sanctions were many years ago, so I'm not inclined to factor them too heavily, but I think some time away from the topic area might be in order. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- The blocks were so long ago as to be almost meaningless here. While Seraphimblade is correct that the same "separatist" verbiage was added 10 days prior with the same citation (which looks to check out), and it was technically a revert, to me this fades a bit with time. Still sanctionable, but not as severe as other 1RRs I've seen that happen over a day or two. He might have thought it really wasn't a 1RR violation, even though it technically was. Since he hasn't been sanctioned in a very long time, and never for this particular Arb restriction, I would lean towards a very short topic ban, say 30 days, which would probably be adequate to prevent problems in the future. I won't argue against something somewhat longer, I just think that is proportional to the disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
AmirSurfLera
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 AmirSurfLera
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 08:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- AmirSurfLera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive161#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_AmirSurfLera :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 2016-05-01T16:27:41 Edit related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed".
- 2016-05-01T16:28:06 Edit related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed".
- 2016-05-01T16:43:00 Edit related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed". Editor added the following to the Ken Livingstone article - "Actually Netanyahu said that initially Hitler had no intention of exterminating European Jews, instead he wanted to expel them from Europe, but he changed his mind after being persuaded by the Palestinian leader at the time, the mufti Amin al-Husseini, who argued that the expulsion of the Jews would result in their arrival en masse to Palestine."
- 2016-05-02T12:50:24 Edit related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed". Edited the caption of an image in the Palestinian territories section of the Antisemitism article about Palestinian mufti Amin al-Husseini.
- 2016-05-02T12:51:45 Edit related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed". Added a template requesting a source for the same caption as above.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2014-07-08T06:27:20 by Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Since AmirSurfLera's appeal for their indefinite ARBPIA topic ban to be lifted was declined in January 2015, they made no edits to Wikipedia using this account until a couple of days ago. Since reactivating this account they have made what I regard as 5 topic ban violations so far. I contacted them (User_talk:AmirSurfLera#Topic_ban_violations) to inform them that if they "make another edit that violates the topic ban I will file an AE report". Since I did not find the response satisfactory I have come here. The first 2 edits I listed above are unambiguous topic ban violations. The editor's explanation was "I made a mistake on Barghouti". Fine, they made a mistake. The last 3 edits listed all relate to Palestinian mufti Amin al-Husseini and the Israeli Prime Minister's stated view that a Palestinian was responsible for persuading Hitler to exterminate European Jews. AmirSurfLera's view is that "I didn't violate my topic ban with the rest of the edits, since they are related to Nazism, antisemitism and the Holocaust, not the Arab-Israeli conflict. I wasn't banned from all Jewish-related articles". I find this response unacceptable. Please ensure that this person cannot use this account to violate their topic ban. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning AmirSurfLera
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 AmirSurfLera
I'm not sure what Wikipedia means by ARBPIA. I interpret articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, an article about the economy of Israel, as far as I understand, is not part of this area, even though it's connected somehow. An article about Kiruv in Orthodox Judaism, is not related to ARBPIA, nor an article about a British politician. I wasn't expecting to be accused of violating my topic ban for editing about antisemitism, Nazism and the Holocaust. For example, this edit and this one are related to the Holocaust and antisemitism. In the first case I restored the picture of a neo-Nazi protesting in Berlin. In the second case, even though the mufti was an important actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict, I simply restored a caption about his meeting with Hitler (removed by Pluto2012 without previous discussion). The Mufti was other things besides an enemy of Israel (like a recruiter for the SS). If I made a mistake and I violated the ban with those edits, I offer my sincere apologies, I won't edit in those articles anymore. But I came back to edit in good faith (starting with Holocaust controversies), not to cause troubles in ARBPIA. I'm sorry that I edit on Jewish-related topics only, but I don't know anything about cars, bugs, trees and elephants.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand, although my knowledge of religion is limited. I'll be more careful. But what about antisemitism? (excluding Hamas, Hezbollah and things like that)--AmirSurfLera (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Reply to my comment moved from admin section to editors' section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000
The violation is obvious and I can't imagine how anyone could dispute it. Zerotalk 14:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Pluto2012
AmirSurfLera refused to selfrevert his edits on the article 'Antisemitism' despite he modified the caption on the Palestinian nationalist leader Haj Amin al-Husseini and that he re-inserted a picture in the "Palestinian section" with the portrait of Yasser Arafat. These are obvious violation of the topic ban. and he/she is perfectly aware of this.Pluto2012 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning AmirSurfLera
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- These are unambiguous violations of the topic ban, and this editor already has several sanctions for violating the restrictions in this topic area. AmirSurfLera, if you would care to comment here and explain why this is happening, I suggest you do so sooner rather than later. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- AmirSurfLera I am, to be quite honest, not too impressed with that explanation. There's quite a bit about Judaism that you could edit without even getting close to the border of the topic ban—notable synagogues and rabbis, historical Jewish scholars, Jewish holidays and practices, kosher diet regulations and kosher foods, any number of things. At this point, I really don't see any reason to disagree with what Dennis Brown has said below. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Unquestionably, these are violations of the topic ban. On his talk page he excuses the edits by the fact that some had already reverted them, but this is nonsensical as a defense as they weren't his actions, but a defense to his actions. They only have 525 edits, they are already topic banned, they asked to have ban lifted without editing outside that area at all, then left without making any edits and then came back again and instantly violated the topic ban. This is a textbook POV/SPA case. Anything short of an indef block seems a waste of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
MarkBernstein
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 MarkBernstein
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- NE Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Discretionary sanction (interaction ban)
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [135]
Amended 23:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Discretionary sanction; topic ban, gamergate
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Violation [136] -- both the edit summary and text explictly refer to Gamergate.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning MarkBernstein
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 MarkBernstein
The (modified) three-way topic ban between myself, Thargor Orlando, and DHeyward specifically allows participation in noticeboard and ArbCom cases in which one or all are a party. Moreover, asking an editor to confirm an interpretation of a statement, or to clarify a statement that might be ambiguous, does not infringe the topic ban. To make assurance doubly sure, I checked in advance with the administrator who composed and modified that topic ban whether it was intended to prevent my participation in a case to which DHeyward is a party.
- MB: Is it the intent of your (modified) topic ban vis-a-vis DHeyward to preclude my participation in Arbcom cases in which DHeyward is a party?
- admin: Absolutely not. I designed the topic ban specifically to allow both of you to participate in editing the same articles and specifically to avoid the situation where one of you was forbidden on commenting on an issue or an edit or a person who was not one of the two of you.
- You may quote me on this on-wiki or anywhere else.
MarkBernstein (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I asked the responsible administrator whether the intent of the topic ban precluded participation in an Arbcom case to which DHeyward is a party They replied, "Absolutely not." I had stated this clearly here hours before @Kingsindian: added his predictable contribution. If the admin was correct, this complaint is groundless and disruptive. If he was incorrect. I cannot see that I can be blamed for relying on his explicit and emphatic instruction. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the discussion above was by email, lest the query itself violate a topic ban. (Holy Kafka, Batman!) MarkBernstein (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Seraphimblade: DHeyward asserted a fact in passing, in a large block of text. I merely asked to confirm that what he wrote is what he intended to write. This seemed uncontentious and innocuous; people do sometimes omit words or overlook ambiguities. It’s hardly disruptive. As to whether I might have asked on-wiki, I am glad to see you confirm my understanding of policy, but -- as you see here -- to ask on-wiki would have required a prudent editor to first ask another uninvolved administrator or arbitrator whether they were permitted to ask the banning administrator. Hello, Mr. Kafka! Meet Mr. Xeno! Email can be simpler, and other factors (these will occur to you) also commended it. If you wish, you are free to ask the administrator to confirm the quotations. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The scope of the ArbCom case in question explicitly excludes Gamergate, and both arbitrators and clerks have repeatedly asserted that the case is not related to Gamergate. Nor does it involve gender-related controversies. I have commented in a general way about threats against Wikipedians, but not all threats derive from Gamergate. (Arbitrators interested in off-wiki harassment may want to take a look at the customary sites, which have not been completely inactive overnight.) MarkBernstein (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith: On DHeyward, I have supplied the instruction I received from the responsible administrator. I had every reason to rely on them. On the discussion at AN/C regarding the employment of threats to coerce a Wikipedia administrator -- a matter which has now been confirmed -- I did not identify the source of any threats and, with the exception of the death threat that appeared on Wikipedia, have not characterized them. I believe I am permitted to pursue my research and to fulfill my professional obligations when publishing elsewhere. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- The email exchange above dates from 3 May 2016, 11:05 AM EDT. My research interests include hypertext, knowledge representation, new media, and web science, and I publish results and commentary on these topics (which occasionally touch on Wikipedia) in a variety of places in the course of that work. Thanks for asking. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Kingsindian
In the last AE request, MarkBernstein stated that I was momentarily under the mistaken impression that the tridirectional DHeyward topic ban had been waived for noticeboard complaints. It had in fact only been waived for initiating noticeboard complaints. I would like to hear from Mark Bernstein if this interpretation is wrong. Because the comment in question here is clearly not initiating a noticeboard complaint. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Can MarkBernstein also tell us when this email interaction with Gamaliel took place? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by GoldenRing
I'm also rather perplexed that MarkBernstein doesn't think that 1 and 2 are violations of his more recent topic ban. Either he doesn't think they're violations or he just doesn't care. I'm struggling to see how discussing Gamaliel's restriction from enforcing GamerGate arbitration provisions doesn't fall within "prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed." The tban contains no exceptions for anything, and there's no way those edits fall within WP:BANEX. GoldenRing (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Further topic-ban vios: 1 2 3. The contention that discussing Gamaliel's arb restriction from GamerGate isn't a violation of a tban from GamerGate is... interesting... GoldenRing (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Starke Hathaway
Given that the relevant sanction between MarkBernstein and DHeyward is a topic ban and not an interaction ban, it's hard to see a direct reply from MB to DH as a violation per se. Nevertheless, MB has in recent days developed a habit of testing the edges of the topic bans to which he is subject, demonstrated by the following:
- [137] Musing about a topic he is banned from. Mark reverted this himself after a few hours and no responses.
- [138] Discussing Gamergate in a comment about Gamaliel's ongoing ArbCom case. Mark struck the portion mentioning Gamergate within minutes.
- [139] Discussing on Coffee's talk page a revdel on the Gamergate talk page. Mark reverted this comment in a few hours during which no one responded to it directly.
- [140] This actually was a per se violation of Mark's DHeyward topic ban, in which he directly quotes a statement from DHeyward (among other statements) and then casts aspersions about "red herrings" and "crocodile tears." He struck the portion quoting DHeyward when I reminded him that he was still subject to that topic ban.
- [141] Musing about possible threats made to Gamaliel off-wiki, presumably by Gamergate. MB may deny that he intended to implicate Gamergate in this comment but I don't believe that denial would pass the smell test.
In fairness to Mark, he has generally reverted/struck these offending comments on his own initiative. But while that might excuse a single violation, it begins to look like a deliberate effort to opine on a prohibited topic while avoiding sanctions after three or four occurrences. I think Mark ought to be dissuaded from this course of action. Whether that takes the form of a stern warning (although warnings have had less than stellar effectiveness with MB in the past) or something more serious is for wiser heads than mine. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- MB writes above: I have commented in a general way about threats against Wikipedians, but not all threats derive from Gamergate. True enough, but when he tweets a link to those comments with the caption Wikipedia: did Gamergate harassment successfully intimidate an Arbitrator? from the Twitter account listed prominently on his personal webpage, to which he links on his wiki user page, it's pretty clear that he intended those comments to pertain to Gamergate in violation of his topic ban. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Dennis Brown
While I'm uninvolved when it comes to Mark, I (tried to) participate in that Arb case and mentioned Mark as the beneficiary of too much goodwill by an admin, which is not his fault. The participation is still enough that I will stay on this side of the "results" line and just opine. I think if Mark had been named as a party to the case, it would be easy to overlook or even grant a temporary stay of the restriction while he participated in the case. Something to consider is the poorly chosen title of the case "Gamaliel and others", as Mark has been mentioned in interactions with Gamaliel several times, including by myself, although never in any way that indicates Mark did anything wrong. Judging from past cases (and this one) he could theoretically be added to the case with no explanation, or simply sanctioned without being formally listed as a party. This assumes he did something wrong prior to the case that would warrant sanction, something I have no evidence of. It is simply saying there is at least a possibility that he would be mentioned for sanctions, and would feel the need to defend himself or participate. I say this only because I think this AE case is just a tiny bit in the grey area. Honestly, Mark should have asked for a temporary lifting first, he should have known this would be seen as violating the topic ban, and I don't there there is any question these are textbook violations, but if I'm fair, I have to admit the circumstances here are very different than arguing on an article talk page. How much that should play into sanctions, I leave to those that are totally uninvolved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by James J. Lambden
This is getting ridiculous.
@MarkBernstein: If “professional obligations” necessitate your posting to wikipedia, you must disclose any potential overlap - see WP:PAID and WP:COI. If not, it’s irrelevant.
The spirit of the restrictions are straightforward: avoid Gamergate and DHeyward. If you can abide by that I’m sure you can be productive elsewhere. If not, the community has better things do than police this “I’m not touching youuuu” nonsense.
Regarding “the instruction[s] received from the responsible administrator” you’ve been asked to clarify whether this came before or after you made the following comment (diff in Kingsindian’s section):
I was momentarily under the mistaken impression that the tridirectional DHeyward topic ban had been waived for noticeboard complaints. It had in fact only been waived for initiating noticeboard complaints.
Despite several posts you have not clarified. Please clarify so we can wrap this up. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: Thank you for clarifying the dates. If that's the case the responsible administrator has given apparently conflicting instructions which you shouldn't be held responsible for. I suggest the complaints re: your interactions with DHeyward be dismissed and either the responsible administrator clarifies explicitly, on wiki, the scope of the interaction ban or another administrator applies a more straightforward restriction. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Msjjkim
MarkBernstein and Strongjam, I have created an account and am happy to assist in any way I can. My wiki skills are a little rusty, but let me know what I can get started on. Thank you. Msjjkim (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Result concerning MarkBernstein
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- MarkBernstein, can you provide a link to this discussion you had with the admin? I think it's important to see it in context. Liz Read! Talk! 15:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- MarkBernstein can confirm, but given the reference to "you may quote this on-wiki," I take it that this was communicated by e-mail or similar, not on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- MarkBernstein, just as a point of clarity, asking the sanctioning administrator for a good-faith clarification about the scope of a topic ban would not be a violation of that ban. "Asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban" is explicitly listed as a ban exception. However, I do see some difference between the sanctioning administrator giving permission to participate in a case in general, and specifically replying directly to and arguing with another individual subject to the IBAN during participation in that case. I don't see anything in Gamaliel's clarification that would allow direct interaction, just general participation in the same area. The exemption is for "...commenting on an issue or an edit or a person who was not one of the two of you...", which seems to explicitly rule out commenting on an issue or an edit or a person when it is one of the two. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- If the admin that MarkB is referring to above is Gamaliel, then this is the most recent on-wiki clarification (November, 2015) of MarkB's interaction ban from DHeyward in the words of Gamaliel. He is allowing MarkB and DHeyward to open enforcement requests against each other, but "The topic ban on discussing one another otherwise remains in place." The original ban as well as the above revision can still be found in WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015 by searching for the word 'Thargor.' EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- While Mark doesn't outright say the word "Gamergate" (except when he does), it is blatantly obvious that that's what he's talking about. There are also the diffs of him plainly referencing DHeyward, without necessarily using the name. The sanctions he is under are bans from discussing the topics, not just mentioning the words, and these diffs would appear to show Mark testing the boundaries. While I don't think a block to enforce the ban is necessary or warranted here, it would be a good idea to formally clarify whether or not this is allowed under the terms of his active sanctions. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Gala19000
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 Gala19000
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Oatitonimly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 01:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Gala19000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 under related conflicts, concerning Turkish conflicts with Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek, Albanian, and Kurdish. Specifically Turkish articles.
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [142] calls a user an Armenian nationalist
- [143] calls a user a Bulgarian nationalist
- [144] calls a user a Bulgarian nationalist again
- [145] calls another user a nationalist
- [146] calls a user an Albanian nationalist
- [147] calls a user an Albanian nationalist again
- [148] calls a user an Albanian nationalist yet again
- [149] calls a Kurdish user a nationalist
- [150][151][152] removes sourced content and puts unsourced claim, edit warring, breaks WP:3RR on Operation Steel[153][154]
- [155] edit warring and removes sourced content on Zeitun Rebellion (1895–96)[156][157]
- [158] adds WP:ALLEGED and removes sourced content on Battle of Holy Apostles Monastery
- [159] replaces sourced content with unsourced claims on Siege of Berat (1455)
- [160] removes sourced content on Greco-Turkish War (1897)
- [161][162][163][164] edit warring on Siege of Plevna
- [165][166] edit warring on Greek War of Independence
- [167] removes sourced content
- [168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175] removing sourced content, edit warring, and breaking three revert rule on Gülbahar Hatun
- [176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192] many instances of edit warring, removing sourced content, and adding unsourced content on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present)
- [193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200] 3RR broken on Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War
- [201][202][203][204] 3RR broken on on Turkish War of Independence
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- [205] warned about edit warring
- [206] warned about topic bans
- [207] warned about edit warring again and three revert rule
- [208] reported for edit warring on noticeboard
- [209] warned about topic bans again, by admin
- [210] reported for edit warring on noticeboard again
- [211] warned about edit warring yet again
- [212] warned about harassment
- [213] warned for edit warring
- [214] warned for disruptive editing
- [215] edit warring notice
- [216] edit warring notice
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This user has a tremendous history of violating WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:PERSONAL, and WP:EDITWAR ever since joining wikipedia and has only gotten warnings, seems to think this is a game. An indefinite topic ban is strongly needed. Oatitonimly (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Gala19000
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 Gala19000
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Gala19000
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
HughD
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 HughD
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- "You are now banned from editing everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed until August 28, 2016" [218]
Expanded on 26 April, 2016 [219], "Your topic ban is expanded to include a ban on editing everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed, on any article. Your topic ban is extended to Jan 1, 2017." (Talk page notification [220])
As part of the ARE closed on 26th April, it was noted that the way HughD has been editing climate change articles is a violation of his topic ban, ".Again, the topics themselves are not related to conservative politics but the nature of HughD's edits are within them related to conservative politics (Mother Jones categorizations at the very are conservative politics even if you don't consider climate change issues per se related). Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2016 "
HughD was also warned, "The kind of playing round the edges of the previous ban (which was for the same area, but shorter) that led to this AE filing won't be tolerated. If you're in doubt whether the ban allows you a particular edit, please ask an admin before making it. There's a kind of logic in not blocking now, yes, but it also means the user has got away with a lot. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)."
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 26 April 2016 This is the exact Mother Jones article (Dirty dozen of climate change) mentioned by Ricky81682 on 18 April 2016
- 26 April 2016 The same MJ article added a second time after another editor removed the material as "reference stuffing" by William M. Connolley
- 25 April 2016 RfC added to the ExxonMobil climate change article in a way which may be considered political. (Questioned by Arthur Rubin and myself).
The below edits may be considered political as they tend to further what appears to be an objective to cast Exxon's actions in the most negative light possible with respect to climate change. By them selves I do not believe these would be violations but they may be when considered in context with other edits.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- Oct 11, 15 Violation of topic ban resulting in warning.
- Oct 29, 15 1 week block for violation of ban. Appeal of block was rejected [221]
- Jan 7, 2016 1 week block for violation. Appeal of block was rejected [222]
- 26 April 2016 Extended block by 6 months
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
A request for admins involved in the previous discussion to review the 26 April edits prior to filing any ARE was made. Bishonen, [223], "I'm not sure. Sorry, Springee, I'd rather not make the call either." Dennis Brown, [224], "I don't have time to really look closely, but at first glance, I can easily see why you might be concerned." Laser brain was contacted[225] and followed up with HughD [226] resulting in an unsatisfactory explanation and Hugh's claims of nothing but civil behavior, "I am proud of my article space focus, my good articles, all my edits, and in particular my superb edit summaries, and my exemplary participation and focus on content in article talk page discussions... All of my edits are good faith improvements to our encyclopedia and respectful of the topic ban; I respectfully request specific diffs of edits you feel are not, and an opportunity to discuss and self-revert." The last comment was questioned by both Safehaven86 (end of section) and Anmccaff[227], "Anmccaff: I'm tired of dealing with him, to be honest. If you believe he's violating his topic ban, please open a report at WP:AE for wider input." Editors involved with the article in question have also expressed concerns with HughD's edits and behavior. [228]
The ARE closed on 26 April originally suggested an edit block of 30 days but based on HughD's engagement in discussion an assumption of good faith was given and no block was included. The refusal to consider the concerns of others involved with the ExxonMobil articles and condescending replies do not support an assumption of good faith nor do they appear to support seeking consensus. (Comments directed at Beagel [229][230][231] )
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HughD#Notice_of_WP:ARE
Discussion concerning HughD
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 HughD
No topic ban violation. No disruptive editing.
Let us together examine each the reported diffs, in turn:
- No topic ban violation. No disruptive edit.
- No topic ban violation. No disruptive edit.
- No topic ban violation. No disruptive edit.
In summary, no topic ban violation, and no disruptive editing. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The rush to discuss how severe the sanction is deeply disturbing. I must insist on some demonstration of the ability to distinguish a vexatious filing from disruptive editing. I plan to appeal any sanctions from this filing. Please help. Respectfully I must insist that each responding uninvolved administrator very specifically identify an edit that is a topic ban violation, uncivil, or disruptive, and very specifically why, before joining the chorus. Go on record, please. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC) I must insist on some acknowledgement of the above "your own conduct may be examined as well"; respectfully I ask each responding uninvolved administrator demonstrate some due diligence, and include some comment on complainant's editorial behavior, even if it is only to say you see nothing actionable or to praise complainant's contributions to our project. Go on record. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC) If you think Mother Jones (magazine), or ExxonMobil, or climate change is in scope of American conservative politics, please clearly say so and sign your name. Hugh (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Climate change != American conservative politics. American politicians may make climate change an issue at times, however that does not defacto make climate change as a topic part of the american politics area any more than any other topic US politicians decide to talk about. If you are going to extend that reasoning to literally everything politicians talk about, you also need to *explictly* ban Hugh from abortion, gun control, immigration etc etc. Hugh is clearly topic banned from one, and not another. Since topic bans are specifically about the topic, not the article page so lets look at the two issues above listed by the filer:
- 1 (and 2). Edit adding a climate change ref to a corporation article. At *best* one or two of the people mentioned in the article referenced are linked directly to politics (either ex politicians or staffers) the vast majority are private corporation funded (or puppets). Neither the edit itself, nor the wikipedia article are linked to conservative american politics. That mother jones is seen as a conservative politically source, is not a reason to ban edits that reference it. You wouldnt attempt to restrict an editor from all reference use from the BBC if someone was banned from UK Liberal Politics.
- 3. RFC on adding climate change material to a corporation article. Issue was discussed 3 months previously (without a formal RFC) - Hugh opened an RFC for wider discussion. 3 months might be a bit short for 'consensus can change', and while some might find it disruptive, it is clearly within the scope of the article and a formal RFC is one method of (content) dispute resolution. Attempting to get someone banned from the area by claiming it violates an unrelated topic ban is not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning HughD
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I'm stymied. HughD had his topic ban (Conservative Politics) extended 6 months for skirting his topic ban last time, yet this looks similar. This is adding the exact same source to the same type of article that got you a sanction last time. I have no idea what is going on in your head here. Please enlighten us in 500 words or less, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- We may need to clarify the restriction here, but the only way is to make it more onerous in scope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- The simplest way may be to extend the political area, broadly taken, to include climate change (perhaps borrowing language from the arbcom case there), which (since before 2009) have been a hot political issue in the US so would easily quality in this area. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I was thinking something along those lines as well. Climate change has more politics than science, here and elsewhere. We can't sanction if we broaden, but the goal is a solution, not retribution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- The simplest way may be to extend the political area, broadly taken, to include climate change (perhaps borrowing language from the arbcom case there), which (since before 2009) have been a hot political issue in the US so would easily quality in this area. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- We may need to clarify the restriction here, but the only way is to make it more onerous in scope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Given the "statement" offered, I believe that HughD has no intention of complying with the restriction. The comment made looks suspiciously like trolling at this point, and a block may be the only way to enforce the ban. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)