Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive168
Marcos12[edit]
| Blocked 1 week for 1RR vio. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:16, 14 March 2015 (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 Marcos12[edit]
Marcos12 has repeatedly violated the 1RR discretionary sanction placed on Gamergate controversy. The most recent one, involving repeatedly reverting the lead to remove the word 'some', which he objects to:
A related one slightly earlier, over how to describe or qualify the same section of the lead; in this case he did attempt rewordings, but I feel he was substantially reverting the thrust of the other person's edits (and intended to do so), especially with the first two:
And an earlier one, for which he was warned (link to warning below):
Discussion concerning Marcos12[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Marcos12[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Marcos12[edit]
|
A Gounaris[edit]
| Banned from all topics relating to Greece or the Balkans, with possibility of review after six months. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning A Gounaris[edit]
Discussion concerning A Gounaris[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by A Gounaris[edit]Statement by Dolescum[edit]I'm not much one for the drama boards, but I'm supporting Fut Per here. I have repeatedly asked A Gounaris to provide evidence for their assertions as can be seen in the edit summaries here and here. My exhortations seem to be falling on deaf ears. Furthermore, this revert of yet another removal of their edits, in spite of the report here having already been made, seems to indicate a battleground mentality and no desire to work with the rest of the community. This needs to stop. Dolescum (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning A Gounaris[edit]
|
Cwobeel[edit]
| No further action taken. T. Canens (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2015 (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 Cwobeel[edit]
This needs a bit of background. The source being used here is from organizations which Emerson has had legal battles with and has actually sued for defamation arising from said disputes. Cwobeel asserts that the sources are high-quality and reliable despite this. Biased sources exist, but accusations of bigotry are very serious and should not be sourced to less than a single sentence. Secondly, the only source which gives a "reason" is actually committing a very biased and judgmental attack on Emerson. Emerson has also highlighted that it is a partial quote being used.[34] Within hours of the Oklahoma City Bombing, media, law enforcement and even the FBI raised concerns of Islamic terrorism.[35] Emerson was not the origin, but merely one of numerous persons used by the media to further the Islamic Terrorism angle, he simply acknowledged the speculative and rampant rumor about six hours after the blast. Publications from the Wall Street Journal to the The New York Post ran stories with other experts (not Emerson) making clear the "middle east" terrorism links. After the removal on March 4, the BLPN petered around a bit. Essentially the "gaff" is important and everyone agrees it needs to be in the article - but the "Islamophobe source" accusation is shown to be flawed and have no consensus to be included and Cwobeel re-added it anyways. Unfortunately this is not an isolated example because Cwobeel has also repeatedly edit warred to re-insert completely false material shown here removing an ACLU reference (containing the document) and replacing it with the erroneous and false claim saying it does not exist. I do not understand why Cwobeel does these things or has this attitude, but can the article also be placed on 1RR restriction since the 1 month protection failed to stop this?
Discussion concerning Cwobeel[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Nomoskedasticity[edit]This AE filing is a gambit in a content dispute. It's fine for the OP to disagree with the proposed edit, but when several other editors dissent from the notion that it's a BLP violation [37] it's very poor form to state that notion here as if it were an indisputable fact. The basis for the claim includes the idea that because Emerson sued a couple of scholars over the way he was characterised by them the scholars are therefore unusable as sources about him. That's a very strange idea, and again it does not enjoy consensus in discussions about this article. What that means is that "the 'Islamophobe source' accusation is shown to be flawed" is a matter of the OP's opinion. I really don't see how all of this adds up to a need for an immediate block, nor a block at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by MrX[edit]Isn't it standard practice to allow the accused to make a statement on their own behalf in Arbcom enforcement cases, especially when the case is opened in the middle of the night? I'm deeply concerned about the strained interpretation of WP:BLP being advanced here, on the basis of original research and without the consensus of the community. In my opinion, these types of blocks based on novel interpretation of policy have a potentially chilling effect on open editing of any BLPs and the potential for seriously affecting neutral POV by keeping any and all negative information out of articles if anyone objects. - MrX 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Serialjoepsycho[edit]I could only struggle to say that this is a bad call, because simply it's not. It is a good call. Very straight forward. With that said however I'm not sure this case calls for a straight forward call. [38] This diff really seems in good faith. While I did suggest Cwobeel seek a formal closure,it does seem his view of the consensus is correct. Perhaps he should have waited longer before instituting the change. In this case a direct warning and pointing out the problematic behavior may very well suffice. The thing is the article was just locked down for a month. I'm not sure this does anything to target the disruption to the article, just perhaps Cwobeel's. I'd hate to see DS to be used as a replacement for consensus making and reviewing related conversations of the subject of Steven Emerson I question if that may be what is happening. I'd like to ask you to consider over turning this block and I would like to also ask that you consider Chris' request above to institute 1RR in the article if you haven't already.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by Cwobeel[edit]Given that this was unarchived to address HJ Mitchell's concern in which he states that
I hope to continue editing BLPs in my area of interest, and will strive to be extra careful when BLPREQUESTRESTORE is raised, using BLP/N and DR as necessary. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by Rhoark (uninvolved)[edit]While it would have been preferable for Cwobeel to edit more patiently, the same is true of ChrisGualtieri. It takes two to edit war. This enforcement request looks above all like forum shopping and an attempt to sudo a content dispute when BLP/N looked to be leaning Cwobeel's way. BLP matters should be treated carefully of course, but when there's consensus that the burden of proof has been met for BLP restoration only little concession is due to an editor refusing to acknowledge that proof. The actual dispute seems to have more to do with due weight than BLP, concerning use of the word "Islamophobic". Having no prior knowledge of the article subject, I turned to Google. In the first three pages there was not one source that discussed Emerson in any context other than making false statements with the effect of inciting fear and anger against Muslims. Some used the word "Islamophobic" and some did not, but if that's not an accurate paraphrase I don't know what is. There are many more incidents than just Oklahoma City. I'm sure there's probably much more to the man, but Islamophobia seems to be his principal area of notability. Other paraphrasings are possible, but as a general matter it belongs in the lede. Given there was definitely disruption on the page, it was appropriate to provisionally block, but I'm glad it has been reversed and the matter is getting closer attention. It shouldn't have even taken an appeal to get a more skeptical view. I don't think any further remedy is necessary. Rhoark (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by Gaijin42[edit]CWobeel and I have interacted on a quite a few articles. Usually from completely opposite political perspectives. In some cases, I have had great frustration with his edits (the feeling is likely mutual). One case I can remember is him insisting on repeatedly removing Ted Cruz's well known Cuban identification. However, on the whole cwobeel is an editor that can be reasoned with and collaborated with. We were largely on opposite sides of most debates in the Michael Brown article, and while debates there often got heated, the interactions were largely collaborative, and Cwobeel's participation was not a disruption, and helped to bring balance to the article (if by nothing else ensuring that those he disagreed with were using proper sources and accurately representing them). He made a particularly strong contribution with his addition of the shooting scene diagram, and was open to including lengthy rework and feedback at significant cost of his own time and effort, including multiple elements that largely disagreed with his POV (and which ultimately proved to be pivotal in the DOJ/City reports). There are a great many editors of all stripes involved in editing controversial and heated topics. These topics by their nature are often more likely to have flareups of warring or issues. They are also areas where editors are likely to try and WP:GAME the system with ANI/E3 reports to gain an upper hand, which goes a long way to explain the number of blocks. If these incidents are relatively infrequent, the short term consequences of the relevant blocks seem to be sufficient punishment and deterrent. I have no comment on this particular edit/incident as I am not involved, and do not know enough to comment. I weigh in against any broad BLP ban, and if some intermediary sanction is required (1RR etc) I would suggest it should be of a limited timespan (a few months at the most)Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by Atsme[edit]There is not much more I can add to what has already been stated. It appears Cwobeel is a little perplexed by the strict adherence portion of BLP policy which may explain his WP:DONTGETIT position after he was repeatedly advised of the problem. He does not appear to be either willing or able to understand BLP issues [39] [40] [41] Perhaps even more concerning is the TE evidenced here: [42] wherein he added minority opinions in such a way it created UNDUE. He also expanded the section about Emerson's organization, Investigative Project on Terrorism, in the biography knowing IPT has its own article. Callanecc finally PP the article until mid-May. [43] Atsme☯Consult 20:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Cwobeel[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Thargor Orlando[edit]
| Appeal declined. There is no "clear and substantial consensus" of uninvolved administrators to overturn the restriction. T. Canens (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2015 (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 Thargor Orlando[edit]Two quick housekeeping notes
This topic ban was put in place for reasons that are not entirely clear, and certainly not supported by any available evidence. Gamaliel's only real citation comes from this diff, where he claims my assertions are "worse" than what was said, and that Bernstein does not have the opportunity to respond. This was the wrong call on a number of points. First, Gamaliel takes issues with two quotes, both from this comment. The first quote is "It's further evidence that his contributions are a negative to the article space," which is based on Bernstein's block history, multiple topic bans in the area, and own comments, and seemed self-evident. The context is where Gamaliel's second quote comes from, ""Mark's own intentions in this clarification is to drag the drama he continually creates within the Gamergate space into the campus rape disputes," which was directly related to this clarification request, which discussed Bernstein being approached by an "activist" for a "Wikipedia initiative." Given Bernstein's history in the topic space, it seemed incredibly clear to me that this was a blatant attempt to push the boundaries of his existing topic ban (a topic ban initiated by User:Dreadstar that I had no involvement in requesting, I should add) in an area he has clearly shown disruption in. Gamaliel, in his initial comment, believes we cannot "play nice with each other." This may be granted, although I don't see why we need to "play nice" with what I believe is clear disruption. Gamaliel's claim is that I made "much worse statements about those you are complaining about," but none of those worse statements were provided. Meanwhile, the person I am "complaining about" has, in the past months, implied that I was being "deploy[ed by 8chan"], repeatedly went after me personally with untrue claims ([45][46]), and so on. This disruption is long-standing, and my statements in support of my point of view regarding his status are based clearly in the history of the situation. Statements cannot occur in a vacuum, the history simply must be taken into account. As an added problem, the language of the topic ban is overly broad, as Bernstein has injected himself into the conflict in the real world, being quoted multiple times on blogs and having his own words reposted in legitimate media. The spirit of the topic ban suggests that Gamaliel is simply tired of having to hear appeals toward Bernstein's behavior, the wording puts my editing in the article space in jeopardy if an administrator or tendentious editor opts to try to make hay of the situation. The Gamergate sanctions are in place to reduce the disruption in the article space, not to keep editors from making good-faith and evidence-supported appeals for their use against disruptive editors. Perhaps if my complaints were about an editor without a block and topic ban history in the sanctioned space, there might be some merit to this to discuss. Instead, the route chosen implies that I have done something wrong, tarnishes my otherwise clean record, and does the opposite of the intention of the sanctions by keeping editors in good standing from being able to combat said disruption. The topic ban on me clearly needs to be overturned on its merits.
Statement by Gamaliel[edit]What benefit is it to the encyclopedia if these users are allowed to continue to make negative and potentially disparaging statements about Mark Bernstein? If Mark Bernstein violates rules or sanctions, then they can report that to an administrator. This does not prevent them from seeking redress or reporting a violation, it merely prevents them from complaining about this particular user on the encyclopedia, as they have been doing for at least five months. There are many editors and administrators on Wikipedia. They could simply leave this matter to one of them. This is something we regularly advise people to do on Wikipedia. Take the example of NorthBySouthBaranof elsewhere on this page. He is correct that something is wrong at the Lena Dunham article, but he should leave the matter for someone else to handle because his past behavior has proven disruptive in certain areas, just as the past interactions of these editors with Mark Bernstein have increased tensions and disrupted the atmosphere of collaborative editing. Gamaliel (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC) @Ched: That is correct, the ban does not prevent interactions between DHeyward and Orlando. I believe I clarified that in the messages on their respective talk pages and the sanctions log, but if either are ambiguous I will correct them. I chose a topic ban over an interaction ban because I did not want to inhibit article discussion, just personal remarks. I have no particular objection to changing it if others think it necessary. Gamaliel (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC) @Thargor Orlando: You have quoted me in a manner that changes the meaning of what I said. I did not say that the two of you have been insulting Mark Bernstein for five months. You have, however, been enthusiastic users of noticeboards and admin talk pages in an effort to get him sanctioned, and in the process said many things about him that were negative. Some of them were true, others were opinions that are valid, but may be interpreted negatively. During most of this, Mark Bernstein has been under a topic ban or other restriction which has prevented him from replying in kind, and any comment of his that is remotely like some of the things you have said about him gets another round of noticeboard reports about him, along with another opportunity for you to recapitulate your negative opinions about him. Rightly or wrongly, he perceives this as a series of attacks upon him, and has now resorted to filing retaliatory noticeboard complaints against the two of you. And then we do it all over again. This is the cycle that this sanction is attempting to stop. Gamaliel (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC) @DHeyward: So prohibiting you from participating in endless noticeboard complaints "prolongs the drama" by forcing you to file a noticeboard complaint? Gamaliel (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by DHeyward[edit]I, too, am maligned by the same topic ban by Gamaliel with not a single diff which I consider casting aspersions. Further, my contribution to this was that I brought MarkBernsteins comments to two uninvolved administrators. I did not characterize which statements were problematic but both admins sanctioned MarkBernstein for them including one topic ban. This is the remedy Gamaliel has proposed as the solution but when it led to the TBan of an editor he is sympathetic to, he seems to want to take it out on editors not involved in that. As can be seen, Gamaliel's remedy led to MarkBernstein filing an ARCA reuest, an ANI request, and two AE requests. Neither I nor Orlando have filed. In addition, another editor has filed an AE request against MarkBernstein. In response, MarkBernstein repeated the statements that led to his sanction. Gamaliel seems to be confused as to who is filing requests for enforcement. There is simply no basis for his sanction. In addition MarkBernstein was prohibited from filing AE requests per WP:BANEX. Gamaliel, being the first commenter and admin should have closed the AE request rather than stoking its flames. --DHeyward (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Ched Echoing Orlando. Gamaliel has implies it's a three way IBAN issue when really it's a single topic-banned editor (who is again at AE). Gamaliel put a lot of things in quotes without saying who and where they were said. In short, I did everything Gamaliel requested. There are no noticeboard complaints started by me over these issues. I took my concerns about a comment to two independent admins and both acted on it. Those administrative actions drove one editor to open multiple forum requests including ANI, ARCA, and two AE requests. In addition, another editor has brought an AE request against him and you can read his reply [47]. None of this has anything to do with Orlando and me. I had already done everything Gamaliel thinks I should have done and if I didn't, he hasn't provided any diffs. I have no problem with an an on-your-honor agreement but logging it as if I have an interaction issue with anyone misconstrues everything that has occurred here. Certainly there is no conflict between Orlando and I which is implied in the sanction. It has no basis. If Gamaliel's intention was to avoid drama and conflict, he should withdraw his sanction that is not based in either process or fact and let it close. EdJohnston nailed the deficiencies in the request. MarkBernstein is already topic banned so creating a sanction that both Orlando and I will appeal is only dragging out the problem needlessly. --DHeyward (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Here [48] is the first request filed by MB. Note Gamaliel was the first admin to comment on how one-sided MB's TBan is and how his TBan should be dropped (or everyone is TBanned). Luckily cooler heads dismissed it. Moments later, MB files another AE based on comments I made in his first AE. The cooler heads did not join until later and advocated that Gamaliel at least provide a diff and also pointed out the complaint was a BANEX violation by MB. No such luck on the diff. --DHeyward (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC) HJ_Mitchell, Ched The issue is this accusation of wrongdoing. In a few weeks, what exactly do you think would happen? "It won't happen again?" Exactly what will I not do to avoid this? I've been civil to MarkBernstein. There is no evidence of wrongdoing. There is no "Well both sides...." If there is, find a diff and post it. There is nothing. The fact is Gamaliel lifted his topic ban and he returned to edits that attacked other editors and I've patiently brought them to uninvolved admins. Harry, how many times have you warned MB? How many times did Dreadstar warn him? Show a diff where I should be sanctioned for doing something wrong, or even incivil. Nobody wants the toxic GamerGate atmosphere but it was re-inflicted on us when MB us unbanned and unblocked. It is now much better. Clear the sanction log because this is really just one editor violating every condition of his early release as well as the GG general sanctions. --DHeyward (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Why is a simple request like a diff so hard to comply with? Show me a diff where this sanction would have changed anything or show me a diff of wrongdoing? --DHeyward (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC) HJ_Mitchell the only thing not normal is the kid glove treatment afforded MarkBernstein. There is no animosity between parties but there is a lot of animosity between MB and anyone that disagrees with him. He's made accusations of collusion offsite, constantly refers to other editors after multiple warnings, etc, etc. This is why he is now also topic banned. I wish I had as many warnings as MarkBernstein and we could close this as I think I am due about 5 more talk page warnings before a sanction is even contemplated (and the next one would be a "stern warning"). MB endorsed this sanction and mentioned he provided admins with information and that the admins have agreed to his conditions. None of that has been disclosed or offered to anyone else. Please disclose it so we can see how "not normal" this whole ordeal has been. I see the this sanction is working based on the lack of AE requests regarding MB. The only unchanging factor is his champion. --DHeyward (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by Rhoark[edit]MarkBernstein brought two frivolous motions, that he didn't have standing to file, on the basis of two editors making factual statements about MB's ban history. I really don't see how anyone could derive "equal responsibility" from that. I get that admins are sick of the whole thing and want to make it go away, but just sanctioning any names that show up at enforcement will only encourage more people with an axe to grind to try their luck at enforcement roulette. Rhoark (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 3)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Thargor Orlando[edit]Statement by PeterTheFourth[edit]DHeyward requested (begged for) diffs where this remedy would have 'changed anything', so I've helpfully compiled a small list.[55][56], this entire request, [57][58][59][60], somewhat thinly veiled, [61] PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Starke Hathaway[edit]Applying sanctions to two veteran editors without producing any evidence of wrongdoing on their part not only offends traditional notions of fair play and procedural and substantive justice, it also fails to demonstrate that (1) there is a problem with these editors' behavior and (2) that the imposed sanctions will do anything to cure this problem. Particularly where, as here, the imposing admin has toed the line of involvement in the topic area and has a non-negligible history of sympathetic involvement with the editor who requested action against these two editors, I do not think this was a proper exercise of admin authority. Besides, I count no fewer than four warnings issued to MarkBernstein about not commenting on other editors by four different admins before he was placed under any sanction this time around, despite having been unblocked under the explicit condition that he was to avoid personally-directed comments. Why should DHeyward and Thargor Orlando not be extended the same courtesy? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by YellowSandals[edit]
Statement by Liz[edit]I think there has been too much focus on restrictions on "opening and noticeboard discussions or enforcement requests related to MarkBernstein" and not "all edits and discussion regarding User:MarkBernstein". As much as Bernstein seems to at times push the envelope, it is even more irritating to me to see the endless complaining about Bernstein on article talk pages, noticeboards and user talk pages which is completely out of proportion to his editing behavior. And considering that Bernstein has a blog where subjects like Wikipedia and GamerGate are discussed, I believe that even if for some reason Bernstein received an indefinite block from editing, these complaints about him would continue. I realize that topic bans should be honored but equally, if not more, important is to "comment on contributions, not contributors" and that is all that this editing restriction is meant to enforce. I also don't see that refraining from commenting upon one other editor or not seeking sanctions against him is an onerous burden to bare when the primary activity here is building an encyclopedia. Likewise, it doesn't appear to me to be stigmatizing and if Thargor Orlando, Mark Bernstein or DHeyward believe it to be and they just can't continue editing Wikipedia without discussing each other, they can appeal this editing restriction in six months. However, I don't see that such comments and actions are essential or constructive. Liz Read! Talk! 14:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Thargor Orlando[edit]
With all that said, I'll think on things over the weekend, and hopefully find helpful input from other uninvolved folks here when I get back. — Ched : ? 14:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Appeal to lift topic ban by Ashtul[edit]
| Appeal declined. T. Canens (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2015 (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 Ashtul[edit]
HJ Mitchell, have expressed concern about my ability to keep on editing in the I/P conflict area and thus topic banned me. This came as a result of a message I wrote on his talk page about a revert by Nomoskedasticity who without participating in a talk page conversation reverted my edit. Quick background of the current content dispute - Raviv drucker, a reporter have wrote a tweet that lead to articles such as this this this and many more, which accused him of causing multihomicede and war-crime. About a week later, he published this article and a video interview.
Other editors have claimed it is ostensible apology, irony, antiphrasis (Nishidani) or sarcasm (HJ Mitchell). They are confusing his current criticism over Bennett's behavior as a minister (in the midst of a heated election season) and accusing him of partiably being reposible for the death of over 100 people "radio call for support was "hysterical" and contributed to the outcome that ensued" as stated by the article. Maybe 'recanted' isn't the best word but doesn't WP:BLP require extra care? How many times a person (Drucker) need to say he made a mistake before his word is taken for it? Among other conducts I have done lately to prevent WP:WARs, I have initiated an RfD (which concluded with consensus in a few days and effected tens of articles) and an RfC in which, so far, my opinion was supported by 3 editors (and 1 sock), describing the edit I contested as "rampant POV-pushing", "tangential POV laden picture does not belong in this article" and "does not belong in an encyclopedia". An AE case was filed against me over a revert which was NOT contested and was edited back by mistake. Then, when admins weren't convinced (the case was open for over a week) it was turned over charging me with POVPUSHING over text that is supported by the source with the word 'coexist' not appearing in the original but rather 'a bridge between peoples' or 'this is a chance for Israelis and Palestinians to work together, to talk to one another, to trust one another'. If editors don't agree with one word, why remove the whole statemene? TWICE![1][2] (Same editors from Carmel article). So to sum this up, I am engaging in conversation and actively trying to resolve things. I believe my edits are within the borders of NPOV as I try to use NPOV language. If I have failed before, it happens. It is defiantly not a system or even intentional. In the case of Bennett, it should be mention Drucker recanted/apologized/reexplained this original tweet. I believe HJ Mitchell have made an honest mistake with my topic ban and ask for it to be lifted. References (sorry for going beyond 500 words. There are many quotation included to save you some time). Respond to admins[edit]@T. Canens: HJ's topic ban was solely based on the Drucker dispute after he decided to sit out the case which I personally asked him to advise on. Would you please respond directly to that? Is Drucker in his voice saying he was wrong about the original accusations not REQUIRED to be mentioned in such WP:BLP info? Ashtul (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Discussion concerning Ashtul[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Ashtul[edit]MLK and Malik, you didn't read the links at the top which refers specifically to HJ Mitchell reasoning of the topic ban and where he suggest I may appeal it. About the AE case itself, HJ Mitchell wrote "I'm going to sit this one out" and then moved to close the case based on what I described above. Everything is in the links. Thanks for allowing me to highlight this point. Ashtul (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]If I understand the history correctly, this was not a ban placed by HJ Mitchell as the action of an individual admin, it was placed by him as the result of an AE discussion among multiple admins. The ban had a provision for reconsideration after 6 months -- so why is this even being considered now, mere days after the ban was placed? It's clearly not timely. BMK (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by Malik Shabazz[edit]I agree with Beyond My Ken. This appeal should be declined on procedural grounds. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by Callanecc[edit]While I'm not technically involved (as I didn't impose the sanction) I'm going to take the careful route and comment here rather than in the result section. While discretionary sanctions are imposed by an individual not by consensus (which is why I could technically comment as uninvolved) I see no reason to overturn the sanction except to say that my reading of the discussion was for a TBAN which expires after six months not an indefinite one, but the sanction is up to the enforcing admin. I would decline the appeal and recommend that they consider appealing again after six months of active editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by Cptnono[edit]This comment is primarily based on the procedure. The banning administrator initially opted to sit this one out but saw drama on his talk page and pulled the trigger. I understand that Ashtul has not done great at showing an ounce of humility but the problem with his editing is almost all based on drama filled interactions with one other editor. Nish has had his fair share of issues in the past. Ashtul's topic bans were of much longer lengths than previously dealt out in the topic area. Unless there is a case for sockpuppetry (someone else mentioned it previously), the length was primarily out of admins being sick of the drama. I understand that but I also appreciate that Ashtul has brought up decent points before getting railroaded. I also don't think Nish needs a reprimand or anything, but it would have been cool if he would have stepped back and taen a deep breath before disregarding Ashtul's points. Just to be open, I'm actively considering opening up a case for community intervention against another editor who has skirted the policies and guidelines for years now. Although a 6 month topic ban would make me feel a little happy inside I know the project would be better if more novel and level-headed solutions were considered. This whole topic area is broken and it is primarily because a handful of editors who have been around for awhile know how to successfully push their POV, buck the system, and screw with people.Cptnono (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]Repeating Beyond My Ken's comments. Decline this speedily. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by EdJohnston[edit]I'm one of the admins who participated in the original admin discussion that led to the topic ban of Ashtul, the one closed on March 7 by User:HJ Mitchell. That discussion led to a result which was essentially a consensus of the participating admins. There might be a reason for immediate appeal of a sanction which was imposed by only a single admin, but I don't see the logic here when there was a group decision. Also, since no time has run since the original complaint, there is no additional record of contributions that could conceivably motivate lifting the ban. I recommend that the reviewing admins decline this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Ashtul[edit]
|
Galestar[edit]
| Blocked for 48 hours for 1RR violation. T. Canens (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2015 (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 Galestar[edit]
User was reminded of 1RR here by Bosstopher, and acknowledged them here @Galestar: My mistake, I've updated the diffs accordingly. Also, note that there is a duplicate request on the edit warring board. Not sure how to proceed. — Strongjam (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Galestar[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Galestar[edit]2nd quoted reversion was where I self-reverted the 1st revert but added a disputed marker. (correcting my revert after I was warned about it) 3rd quoted reversion was in an unrelated section, as a response to an unsourced new edit. This request is simply an attempt to silence dissent and achieve so-called-consensus through chilling effects. Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]See also disruptive edits on Feminism ([63], [64]) and Antifeminism ([65], [66]). This in addition to blanking all warnings on their talk page and issuing warnings to others. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Bosstopher[edit]Galestar please read WP:3RR more carefully before jumping into such a contentious topic area. RR violations dont have to be reverting the same thing, reverting multiple different things on the same article still counts as edit warring. Have withdrawn my report on the edit warring noticeboard due to it apparently being the wrong place for these kinds of reports. Bosstopher (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by ForbiddenRocky[edit]This edit includes a revert as well as an addition. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Can we get a higher level of protection for a while? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by NE Ent[edit]Warn and close. I see on the history of User talk:Galestar lots of templates but no indication anyone approached them like, you know a person. Now they know that "page," not "particular" content is the unit of revert restrictions. NE Ent 01:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Galestar[edit]
|
Bumblebritches57[edit]
| Topic banned. T. Canens (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2015 (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 Bumblebritches57[edit]
NA
Probably WP:O by now. Defamatory.
Discussion concerning Bumblebritches57[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Bumblebritches57[edit]Statement by Strongjam[edit]Looks like it's been oversighted already. Thank you to whomever did that for the rapid suppression. I didn't even have time to send an email. — Strongjam (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Bumblebritches57[edit]
|
HistoryofIran[edit]
| Indef TBAN from all AA2 related pages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:51, 20 March 2015 (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 HistoryofIran[edit]
User:HistoryofIran for a long time has been displaying an aggressive belligerent approach to editing Wikipedia articles dealing with the history of Iran and the Caucasus which has also prompted him on several occasions to edit-war, as well as resort to incivility in relation to other users. Despite being placed on 1RR and civility supervision back in October 2013, this user continues to edit in the exact same manner that has earned him this restriction. 1RR restriction violated at Paykar Khan Igirmi Durt: [68], [69] (he claimed reverting vandalism, but later admitted on the talkpage that it was not vandalism), Atropatene: [70], [71]. Typical examples of violating WP:CIVILITY include him defining good-faith edits that he disagrees with as 'vandalism' and the contributors as 'vandals' who are out to 'annoy hard-working contributors such as [himself]': [72], [73], [74], addressing users in a disrespectfully informal manner ('dude') [75], getting extremely personal instead of addressing issues raised due to his edit-warring [76], and making other kinds of patronising, condescending and offensive remarks in edit summaries: [77], [78], [79], [80]. Interestingly, even the information supported by reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Iranica is not only removed, but referred to as 'vandalism' [81], accompanied with an inappropriate comment in the edit summary. After being warned for incivility once [82], he persisted in making sarcastic references to the user's 'poor feelings' in every message he addressed to them for the duration of the discussion (even if the incilivity issue was not further addressed), to the point of turning it into the focal point of the entire discussion: [83], [84]. I would like admins to pay attention to the aggressive confrontational language that the user permits himself in a discussion: [85], [86], [87]. One can see that the other user did a very good job remaining civil until the end, hence HistoryofIran's reaction along the lines of phrases such as 'facepalm', 'your broken English' and 'understood?' was completely unprovoked. In violation of WP:OWN, he refers to articles as 'his own' and uses his experience editing Wikipedia as an argument in favour of his version: [88]. I also suggest that admins take note of the manner in which this user refers to fellow contributors and to his own role in bringing about Wikipedia at the very top of his talk page: [89]. While I appreciate the efforts of those who genuinely try to contribute to improving the content of articles on Wikipedia, I do not believe that they should be blinded by glory at the site of many barnstars that other users award them and use their active participation in the project as an excuse to bring others down.
The user was previously placed on 1RR restriction, supervised editing and civility supervision [90] and is aware of that [91]. Keeping in mind that this user has been blocked eight times in the past two years (including three times in the past year after being placed on the aforementioned restrictions, most recently a few weeks ago) for a period between 24 and 72 hours, mainly for edit-warring, and vows to continue to 'revert a lot of stuff' [92] in the future, I suggest an indefinite ban, as I consider this user's attitude unacceptable and unconstructive in improving the quality of Wikipedia articles, especially if he fails at the very first thing which makes a discussion productive: simple polite communication.
I would like to ask admins to formally close the report. Parishan (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning HistoryofIran[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by HistoryofIran[edit]I find it funny, you researched so much about me, yet you didn't research the results of what i said in articles such as the Malik-Shah page. That is called lying and which shows that you're really trying hard to have me blocked for no reason - me, a user who has contributed so much to this site (374 articles created, 35 templates created, 168 categories created, 35 portals created and manyyyyyyyy articles expanded. Not trying to use this as an excuse, but just letting you guys know), just because of.. well who knows? personal revenge/hatred? I don't know, I just find this kind of random that you're suddenly reporting me and not even doing it the right way. Anyway, about the whole Malik-Shah issue (and constantly accusing me of being heavily rude when it comes to discussing), here is what it resulted to: [94] [95]. With that "problem" hopefully fixed, let's move to the next one. "One can see that the other user did a very good job remaining civil until the end, hence HistoryofIran's reaction along the lines of phrases such as 'facepalm', 'your broken English' and 'understood?' was completely unprovoked." Seriously? if a admin is reading this, please take a look on the links and a look on the Malik-Shah article, because what I am reading is not true and I'm sure you will understand. He is making me look like the villain, which he is doing this whole report, which I will get to. By the way, If you are going to report about such things, then show all of it instead of half of it. About the Paykar Khan Igirmi Durt article: I find it funny, he mentioned that I claimed vandalism (which I apologized for - because I am (well, I was) constantly reverting vandalism I wrongly accused him of being one, which was completely stupid by me) yet he accused me of "bad-faith editing" and still haven't apologized for it. Isn't that double standards? Anyway, I don't get why he mentioned that, since that issue ended when he showed me sources which proved that he was right (which he didn't first time but just randomly slammed some information on it, or else I would never have reverted it in the first place). Furthermore, how is "dude" a negative word? It is a normal word used every day? (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dude) I find it funny that he is trying to make a deal out every word I use. It seems like "dude" is bad a word, but accusing one of "bad-faith editing" and abusing old issues without showing what really happened is normal. Furthermore, while we were discussing in the talk page of the article, I kept telling you to stop turning this into, well, a "personal discussion" (if that makes sense), yet you continued, which I don't know why, what have I done? I apologized (while you didn't) and agreed with what you said when you finally showed me sources in the end (which you should have done in the start). "Interestingly, even the information supported by reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Iranica is not only removed, but referred to as 'vandalism' [96], accompanied with an inappropriate comment in the edit summary." Great, once again you're not showing everything. Yes, the source states that the Safavids were Azeris, but does not mention their ancestors were Azeris, which the user wrote on the article (which means that he was falsifying information), which was the reason I reverted it. As I said, you're not using this kind of information right and are trying to use it against my favor by doing so. I don't get what you're trying to gain: you're trying to block a user who is barely active (and may be quitting because he is busy) and has done so much on this site by falsifying (not really falsifying (or maybe it is?), but I can't really think of a better word that fits better, I should go to bed) information about him? "Keeping in mind that this user has been blocked eight times in the past two years (including three times in the past year after being placed on the aforementioned restrictions, most recently a few weeks ago) for a period between 24 and 72 hours, mainly for edit-warring, and vows to continue to 'revert a lot of stuff' [97] in the future, I suggest an indefinite ban, as I consider this user's attitude unacceptable and unconstructive in improving the quality of Wikipedia articles, especially if he fails at the very first thing which makes a discussion productive: simple polite communication." Yes, and you have been blocked 4 times? so what? so you should get blocked for not telling everything about the stuff which you brought up? "Simple polite communication"?, as I said before, you were the one who wanted to create a big and unnecessary issue in the Paykar Khan article, while I kept telling that we should focus on the subject, which you kept getting away from. "After being warned for incivility once [123], he persisted in making sarcastic references to the user's 'poor feelings' in every message he addressed to them for the duration of the discussion (even if the incivility issue was not further addressed), to the point of turning it into the focal point of the entire discussion: [124], [125]." Not really, as I said, I was trying to the discuss with you about the subject, yet you kept targeting words such as "dude" and kept trying to change the subject by trying to turn it into a hostile discussion, which I kept telling you that you shouldn't do and that you should focus on the subject instead. You aren't using this information neutrally, but using it all against my favor by changing what happened to make me look like the villain. About the "poor feelings" thing, as I said, you kept targeting my words and acting oversensitive yet you yourself accused me of something too, but unlike me you didn't apologize. This is what annoys me the most: "and vows to continue to 'revert a lot of stuff"'. I didn't really say that - you're missing the details once again and are trying to change information to use it against my favor. What I said was "When I get back I will probably have to revert a lot of stuff since these annoying vandals appear on the articles i have created/expanded literally every day." What problem is there with that? It's not like i will go, in your own words, on a "bad faith editing" campaign, but remove edits such as this one removed by a well known user [98]. There are actually many respected users who agrees with me in these cases, take a look here for example [99]. Many people know that I help/expand (well, actually "helped" since I am not really active anymore) many Wikipedia articles, and not one who does "bad faith editing". Anyway, even if it said that i wanted to go on a "bad faith editing" campaign (which I would never do, of course), that wouldn't mean anything either since words means nothing compared to real action. "and making other kinds of patronising, condescending and offensive remarks in edit summaries: [100], [101], [102],". Once again, you're not posting all of it. The first in the first link is a person who usually copies information from various places and then copies it to a article, making much of the information having broken English. The second one was just one of the 100th random users who put unsourced information, which is constantly reverted by me and other users, which annoyed me, but I guess saying "omg" (oh my god) when a article is constantly the target of vandalism is wrong, just like using the word "dude" was in your opinion somehow wrong. About the third one: He is the same person mentioned in the first link, where I said that he usually copies information from various places and then copies it to a article, making much of the information having broken English. Which is against the rules, which means I didn't do anything wrong.--HistoryofIran (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Rhoark (uninvolved)[edit]My gestalt impression of HistoryOfIran is someone unable to deal with content disputes in a constructive manner. Two elements of their statement however have merit. Firstly, the word "dude" is innocuous. Secondly, @Ahendra: is indeed introducing large amounts of grammatical gobbledygook to article space. An administrator should probably evaluate whether there is a competence problem. It's possible HistoryOfIran could learn better dispute resolution in an area they are less passionate about, so I endorse a topic ban. Rhoark (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning HistoryofIran[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by MarkBernstein[edit]
| The appeal is declined, further sanctions may be considered in the section above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:56, 23 March 2015 (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 MarkBernstein[edit]On Friday, March 6, Think Progress published an article by Lauren C. Williams describing how The ‘Five Horsemen’ Of Wikipedia Paid The Price For Getting Between Trolls And Their Victims. For months, [Talk:Gamergate_controversy] has offered a boxed section of articles in the media that discuss the Gamergate page. As this was a long investigative report on that very page, I proposed adding the new article that list. As I anticipated, GamerGate supporters teamed up to revert the change. Discussion followed on the talk page, as discussions do. Two days later, I was topic-banned by @Dreadstar: under the standard AE sanctions. [106] The pertinent passage appears to be the following:
I had been asked not to criticize other editors on talk pages, but here I do not criticize or mention any editor: I allude to a pattern of collusive editing. Collusive editing is the subject of the article under discussion; it is natural and necesssary to discuss it in this context. The italicized question might be taken to allude to the insistent, relentless, perfervid POV pushing practiced by a coterie of editors on this page, abetted by a constantly-refreshed stream of socks and zombies working with expert admin assistance and supervision, in blatant and unchecked violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FLAT. Discussion of the application of policy to article and front-matter changes is not uncommon on talk pages. Moreover, my assertion above is inarguably true, it is reliably sourced, and it reflects the overwhelming consensus of opinion of outside observers of Wikipedia’s Gamergate article: [107]. I responded to the topic ban with wry astonishment, and with a query regarding its intended extent. Shortly afterward, Dreadstar responded by email: [redacted] I do not recall that I made any reply. A few minutes later, he wrote again: [redacted] A few minutes later: [redacted] The topic ban is neither expedient nor appropriate; it is the reverse. It does not improve the encyclopedia; it makes it worse. It does not advance the project; it invites additional derision and ridicule at a moment when -- let’s face it -- Wikipedia needs all the friends it can find, and among whom I might perhaps, once again, number myself. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
And the first of the troupe arrives. Does Starke Hathway comment on what I wrote? They do not. Do they comment on content? Nope. Instead, they disparage me personally, impugn my motives, and claim that I speculate about the motives of other editors when, in point of fact, I did not: I speculated that motives might exist. How much of this garbage do the admins intend to tolerate? (My guess: as much as can be mustered from every slop pail they can find, but we’ll see.) MarkBernstein (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
If the topic ban has a basis in sense (which I doubt), it is in the Kafka-esque Catch-22 that holds it completely against policy to use zombies, socks, and brigades in a flying circus seeking to employ Wikipedia to harass one’s enemies, but that it is even more against policy to allude to the phenomenon even elliptically on a talk page, on this page, or at Arbcom. But since we're here -- and in the context of this appeal I may presumably discuss the situation -- let me allude to the discussion above. What we’re discussing above is my heinous talk-page acknowledgment of having read a rather funny satire of this very page. I had written my own discourse about the evident foolishness, and it seemed gracious to acknowledge the craftsmanship of the satire’s unknown author by pointing to my own modest attempt. (He’s getting better: if you haven’t read “Of Mops and Sticks” yet, it’s a real hoot. No link for you, though, because it upsets the armies of Mordor when I use links.) Neither element of this short and trivial interaction could much disrupt the encyclopedia, and in point of fact they did not -- beyond the disruption this frivolous filing has caused. Starke Hathaway, who filed this complaint, is now deeply concerned that "MarkBernstein is making the problems in the topic area worse by inflaming drama both on- and off-wiki." DHeyward is eager to place my own talk page under Gamergate discretionary sanctions lest I spread more links of offsite derision. These reactions are revealing: the real reason we’re here, of course, has nothing to do with my talk page. Barring me will not reduce the drama of Gamergate: I'm not the fellow who used Wikipedia to libel Brianna Wu yesterday, nor the other fellow who did the same to Zoe Quinn two days before. I’m not the “new” editor who showed up March 17 to debate the use of the adjective “misogynistic” on the Gamergate and who has proceeded to do so with vigor and 6,200 words (so far), despite the fact that this specific topic has been discussed on the same page, at similar length, on Feb 24, Feb 11, Jan 27, Jan 25, Jan 22, Jan 9-11, Dec 22, Nov 24, Nov 13, Nov 2, Oct 27, Oct 12, Sep 19, Sep 16, Sep 11, and Sep 6 by my very hasty survey. Those are sources of drama; I’m just the messenger bringing the news to Thebes. The real world is watching now; you cannot reach an accommodation with the armies of Mordor even if you thought that would bring peace and quiet. I’m sorry to have embarrassed you all, but the best way to avoid further embarrassment is to stop doing embarrassing things. Placing my talk page under sanctions is silly. It wouldn’t be effective: if I want an aggregation page, I can have one in minutes on my own server. Topic-ban me from mentioning my own writing? Does that contribute to the encyclopedia? I don’t believe you can topic-ban the real world from laughing at such stuff. The fact that there seems to be so much ridicule to aggregate is simply not my fault. This topic area has been under attack by a flying circus for months. We must not mention the fact, apparently, or I must not, but the question could not be more clear, and what few steps Wikipedia has taken to address this have often made things worse, not better. One reliable way to appear less ridiculous in the eyes of the world might be: stop being ridiculous. Another good way to appear less ridiculous would be to end this preposterous hounding and put the kibbosh firmly on the pointless crusade to find a way to sanction me. Find a way instead to restore my faith in wikis. Address the core problem, which is the relentless POV-pushing travelling circus, and stop focusing so tightly on isolated purported gotchas. A really good idea, incidentally, would be to find a way for Wikipedia to apologize and to acknowledge the contributions that people like NorthBySouthBaranof, Tarc, TaraInDC, and TheRedPenOfDoom have made to finding you a way out of this mess. I remain eager to join a good-faith effort to actually fix the problem. This discussion is not a step in that direction. Statements by other editors[edit]Statement by Starke Hathaway[edit]I don't see any issue here that should invalidate the TBAN. When an editor has been warned at least four times not to make comments about other editors on article talk pages, that editor shouldn't anticipate good things coming from the decision to post a comment speculating about the motives of a "particular group of editors" on an article talk page. Frankly anyone other than MarkBernstein would have been TBANNed and blocked (likely indefinitely) long before reaching this point, if admin action in this topic area is any indication. For what it's worth, MarkBernstein, I'm sorry Dreadstar called you a motherfucker. He shouldn't have done that, and I hope he apologized (did he?) -Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Rhoark[edit]MarkBernstein seems to have gained some understanding of why his statements tend to stir controversy. I think Gamaliel's suggestion of a ban on MB linking to his blog is the best tool in the admin toolbox for this case, and should replace MB's topic ban. It's not so much the act of linking that's the problem, rather it's the conviction that someone needs to be held responsible for something that distracts from accurate identification of whom and for what. That's the story behind every excess in the name of Gamergate or against it. Seems to be going on at ARfC as well. There's no tool in the toolbox for that particular problem, though. Rhoark (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by squiggleslash[edit]The topic ban was an over-reaction to something that if it was a violation of any rule, was clearly an ultra minor one. What purpose is it supposed to serve beyond intimidating someone with views unpopular amongst those pushing the ban (and the two subsequent follow-on attempts to sanction him)? What editor read a reference to a self defining group, in the context of a discussion about the principles behind accepting or rejecting sources, and said "Why, that fellow is obviously attacking me! I shall immediately post an angry unwikipedian response even if this means the once polite, friendly, and constructive discussions of Gamergate here are forever tainted!" It's absurd. It's even more absurd this has gone on for a week and nobody with power has fixed it. --Squiggleslash (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC) It's certainly an interesting argument, that a ban with little or no justification behind it shouldn't be lifted because the victim is not abiding by the ban because, uh, they responded to a comment on their own talk page about Gamergate and briefly alluded to it in their response. (I think that's the objection, right? It was kinda vague in what way supposedly the ban was being ignored.) I'm even more interested by the idea that everyone's who's currently running around trying to get Bernstein blocked is suddenly going to behave themselves and become a model of decorum if only, only, Berstein abides by that topic ban that Arbcom assures is is completely comprehensible, has obvious and terribly small boundaries (too small indeed!), and not open to misunderstandings or different interpretations at all. That Bernstein won't find himself accidentally in a gray or misunderstood area again, and that those hounding him will, absent his availability as a target, not focus their sights on someone else. You know guys, I'm still not clear as to what you're trying to do here. Is Arbcom's job to try to solve disputes, and ensure the Wikipedia's standards are upheld, or do you really, honestly, think, as you appear to based upon your actions so far, that the job of Arbcom is to punish anyone in a dispute, whether they're the actual cause of it or not, and to promote drama so that Arbcom is given every possible opportunity to do it? --Squiggleslash (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by coldacid[edit]Just because nobody was mentioned by name doesn't mean it's not criticism of other editors. And the collusion accusations, insinuated or explicitly made, are certainly no sign of good faith. Wording the accusations the way they were on the GG talk page violates at the very least the spirit of the "no criticism" restriction. The insinuations made above in this very appeal regarding admins tolerating filings against Mark Bernstein I'm sorry, but honestly this behaviour really needs to come to a stop. All we get now is needless drama over admin actions, not even content, whenever Mark Bernstein is mentioned. If he truly wants to continue considering himself a friend and valued editor of Wikipedia, he needs to learn to contribute without the snark, attitude, and insinuations that keep leading him here. I'd suggest the tban stand, and that Mark Bernstein ask himself if he really wants to keep being dramatically WP:POINTy or if we wants to be a positive contributor. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 5:35 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
Statement by Bosstopher[edit]Statement by Starship.paint[edit]MarkBernstein in this very appeal: The italicized question might be taken to allude to the insistent, relentless, perfervid POV pushing practiced by a coterie of editors on this page, abetted by a constantly-refreshed stream of socks and zombies working with expert admin assistance and supervision,[citation needed] in blatant and unchecked violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FLAT. Coldacid above: And the collusion accusations, insinuated or explicitly made, are certainly no sign of good faith [...] If he truly wants to continue considering himself a friend and valued editor of Wikipedia, he needs to learn to contribute without the snark, attitude, and insinuations that keep leading him here. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Hipocrite[edit]Why is Rhoark, an obvious sockpuppet being used in administrative spaces unblocked? Rhoark created his account in late 2014. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Rhoark, you are required to use your primary account to edit project space. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by ForbiddenRocky[edit]As I read User:Dreadstar's comment on my talk page, User:MarkBernstein comes to Dreadstar's attention because people bring Mark to Dreadstar's attention.
ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourth[edit]The motivation for the topic ban comes from a very questionable place, given how emotionally Dreadstar has reacted in regards MarkBernstein and Dreadstar's statements during and after. It's preeminently clear that Dreadstar's response was not reasonable- he's acknowledged culpability and apologised for what's been said, but done nothing to fix the actions he's taken. If nothing else, uninvolved admins should look at the topic ban, the diffs that supposedly support it, and either instate it themselves in their position as uninvolved admins or repeal it wholesale as the farce it is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge[edit]Controversy and MarkBernstein seem to go hand and hand when it comes to this topic space. The goal of the ArbCom case was to reduce disruption, not make it worse. Judging by history, letting this editor back in will only increase the disruption. Therefore, I recommend declining this appeal and putting a 12 month limit on how often this editor can make such appeals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result of the appeal by MarkBernstein[edit]
I am disappointed that no other uninvolved admins have yet commented on this matter. Some fresh involvement and solutions are definitely needed here. So I've finally read the original discussion which prompted the topic ban. There is little discussion of it here. Parties appear to have assumed that it was or was not a violation based on whatever side of the battle they are on, or if they have come to their opinion independently, they do not justify those opinions with substantial direct references to the discussion. I fail to see how this is a such a relatively innocuous discussion has prompted such violent reactions amongst the involved parties. There is a bit of snark and some off-topic discussion about new editors and throwaway accounts, and I would discourage both of those from him. But there he also raises relevant and significant points and his comment contains more substance than most of the others in that discussion. He has posted relevant information from the website in question. Much has been made on this page of his posting links to his own blog, but I see no promotional or disruptive use of that link here. He has linked to a list of press stories on his website, directly relevant to the discussion at hand, namely which press stories to include on the talk page. I would not say he has conducted himself perfectly in this discussion, but I would also say that about other parties, and that is not a required standard on Wikipedia, otherwise most of us would be unable to edit here. But I don't see anything here to justify either the lengthy topic ban or the extreme reactions of involved parties in this matter. What I do see is a systemic problem with battleground mentalities amongst most involved parties. Those, both involved and uninvolved, who insist that the problems will go away with the departure of Mark Bernstein are fooling themselves. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
|
DHeyward[edit]
| Archived |
|---|
| 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 DHeyward[edit]
DHeyward has violated the 1RR discretionary sanction placed on Gamergate controversy, and has been uncompliant in a request for self-revert. He has argued content in defense of his violation of the 1RR restriction instead, and after being shown unequivocally that his reversions were in violation of policy has not self-reverted.
These reversions are themself small enough that I chose to simply inform DHeyward of the 1RR restrictions in place. However, given his unwillingness to self-revert or acknowledge any sort of misdoing in his violation of the 1RR restrictions, in addition to the fact that he's chosen to focus on arguing the content of the article rather than his actions, I have brought it to arbitration enforcement.
Discussion concerning DHeyward[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DHeyward[edit]This wasn't even 1RR. Both of his diff evidence is between edits I made. He apparently made an edit. I changed it, but didn't revert it. He then did an out right reversion of my edit with a comment about sourcing so I made yet a different edit and added a source with his wording. If he did think my first edit was a revert of his bold edit, he chose to revert instead of following WP:BRD. The edit of his that he lists as my first revert was only hours old. I disagree that it was a revert but then tried to appease him and have whatever content he thought was important. I commented about it on the article talk page as well. @PTF, I know what a reversion is and my edit wasn't close to the version before your edit, whence no revert. Whence why I asked for diffs. You didn't provide them. I'm done answering frivolous and vexatious complaints to obvious alternate account. HJ_Mitchell More importantly PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) began his Wikipedia career on 01-Dec-2014 with a number of edits to only ArbCom space. His contributions are almost exclusively related to GamerGate. I request that he cease editing AE/ANI/ARCA and any other administrative areas unless he discloses or uses his main account. It's obvious he is not a new user from his first edits. --DHeyward (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by Starship.paint[edit]I can't help but feel PeterTheFourth's filing is a bit disingenuous - in terms of how the diffs of DHeyward are portrayed, as well as not considering (or even mentioning) the latest edits by DHeyward which appear to have solved this issue already.
So 13 hours after you filed this enforcement request, PeterTheFourth writes DHeyward has now self-reverted these edits. In actuality, DHeyward self reverted 22 minutes before.
Statement by coldacid[edit]I have to agree with what Starship.paint said. On reviewing the changes from [113] by PeterTheFourth to [114] by DHeyward, what I see is the latter addressing the former's complaints regarding the edits on the GG page (see their discussion, which happened on DHeyward's talk instead of the article talk which would probably have been a more appropriate place). An argument could be made for 1RR violation, but to me it seems that DHeyward's edits were made with good intentions, and that he adjusted them in deference to Peter's complaints. And yet we're still here. If DHeyward did fall foul of the 1RR rule for the article, maybe give him 24-28 hours tban as a warning, but in any case I'd argue that Peter's hounding and lawyering deserve at least a strong trouting. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 13:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC) @PeterTheFourth: All this when DHeyward "self-reverted" an entire 22 minutes before you filed your enforcement request. But oh, Statement by Rhoark[edit]Edits towards compromise are not reversions, especially when accompanied by discussion. Rhoark (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourth[edit]DHeyward has now self-reverted these edits, so it's not a problem unless it becomes a pattern. I regret that it took me such a great deal of effort to get him to self-revert for such a trivial mistake, and that he only did so once I'd informed him my only avenue was Arbitration Enforcement (and was, I learn, in the process of submitting this request.) Such minor things really shouldn't be the cause of such consternation, and I believe DHeyward's heavy focus on the content of his edits rather than his violation of 1RR was indicative of a less than optimal mentality. Oh well! PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC) @Coldacid: Curse my slow typing! PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC) @DHeyward: This is the problem which requires me to file an AE request- you seem to not understand what is considered a reversion, and it's proven very difficult to help you in understanding what they are. I will again advise that WP:REVERT is an invaluable resource. "Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion."- when you change what I've written to more closely reflect the previous version, it is a reversion. For example, changing 'One YouTube commentator had a DMCA takedown request filed against a video' to 'One YouTube video was removed after a DMCA takedown request was filed' was more in line with what the previous (incorrectly sourced) version was, as that version stated 'One YouTube commentator had a video [...] removed following a DMCA takedown request'. That means you were reverting my initial edit. Is this understandable? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: (I assume by being pinged, I am being asked for a response. Do let me know if that's not the case.) I had multiple tabs open- one of which was DHeyward's talk page. I don't advocate doing all of your editing within the confines single tab, nor can I imagine how that would even be tolerable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning DHeyward[edit]
|
Jorm[edit]
| Closing as no action--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2015 (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 Jorm[edit]
Obvious violation of 1RR.
Editor was informed here. Discussion concerning Jorm[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Jorm[edit]Oh brother. My bad, obviously. I didn't think about it being 24 hours. Totally phased it. Punish me as you see fit.--Jorm (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Jorm[edit]
|