Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive185
Jaakobou[edit]
| Jaakobou notified that the edits in question are violations of their ban and requests for an exemption to the ban have been declined. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 26 November 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 Jaakobou[edit]
Didn't feel like adding every diff, but pretty much every edit made by the user since October 30th has been a violation of the topic ban. And add the stealth canvassing to a discussion opened in violation of the ban.
Discussion concerning Jaakobou[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 Jaakobou[edit]This complaint is with no merit and should be quickly dismissed. I requested a review of a flaw in how policy is implemented.[1] Following that suggestion to go to WP:UP, I prepared text and pinged multiple admins.[2] I Listened to feedback as well.[3][4] Discussion on UP was very slow and with little participation, thus I contacted French, who have some recent knowledge on militancy. I have no special reason to think they support Israel or my preferred addition to the polemics policy -- which you can see does not mention Israel:
I did mention that there are a lot of stabbing attacks in Israel and Side note: Nableezy (talk · contribs) has a bit of a history of grinding[5] axes with those "he is disallowed from naming".[6] I actually believe he's in violation of WP:POLEMIC as well, keeping a list of wiki-enemies on his user-page. I hope that others who comment on this request will disclose any COI which they might have. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
re: @Serialjoepsycho:
re: @Nishidani:
Al Rosh HaGanav:
re [19] by @EdJohnston::
re @Callanecc::
re @EdJohnston::
re [24] @EdJohnston::
re @Nishidani::
Is it already prohibited?[edit]
I immediately disclosed that my motivation for raising the policy issue a second time was related to real world stabbings. To assume this is meant to circumvent the ban on Israel-Arab related matters and/or poke at certain editors; to prevent the conversation, is a horrible case of bureaucratic failure and lack of common sense. Just look at recent "jihadist"[29] discussions in France. Serialjoepsycho disagrees with the policy completely but he, at least initially, felt (rightly so) that "This falls outside of ARBPIA.". He struck through this statement of support only following our discussion about whether it is OK or not to post a notice on Wikipedia project France. Btw, I did contribute here and there to Wikipedia in the time passed. Only without logging in and outside the scope of the ban. I wanted to address the policy issue up front. There's nothing wrong with that. The opposite is true. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Serialjoepsycho 2[edit]
Jaakobou, Clear bias? That's asinine. Palestine territories are a subjugated population. They have been under military occupation since 1967. They have been under the control of Israel since that time and have not been allowed to practice their right to self determination. Further I don't have a conflict of interest. You suggesting that I do brings up a real question of competency. Competence is required here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I have to retract any statement of support here. Having a conversation with this editor has raised multiple red flags. Reviewing their editing history they stopped editing 2012. They came back at the end of October of this year. They contacted multiple admins in quick succession. First trying to discuss their and overturn their topic ban. This moves quickly into discussing polemics. Before making a decision or taking action it may be apt to review their editing history since returning.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by nableezy[edit]
Statement by Nishidani[edit]
Jaakobou. You might rephrase that to read 'there are a lot of stabbing attacks in Jerusalem and the West Bank', which are not in Israel.Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Sir Joseph. I maintain, because no one else will, a comprehensive, day by day List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015 in which every stabbing, extrajudicial killing, etc. by either side is duly registered, for the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Jerusalem and Israel, the place on each occasion precisely noted. When I noted to Jaakobou he was incorrect in associating this phenomenon (exclusively) with what happens in Israel, since most of the violence is in areas internationally recognized as occupied, and outside of Israel's internationally legitimate boundaries, he came back and insisted, contra-factually, that Jerusalem was in Israel. That is his POV, fine, but it is not true technically. Stabbings of course take place in Israel, but not the majority. And of course, Israel is a duly constituted nation, with international legitimacy, questioning the right of which to exist is a sign of anti-Semitism. I don't know how many times I have said this, even to some pro- Palestinian editors, and one tires of stating the obvious. Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]I just wanted to add a statement not necessarily to prove anything one way or another, but the statement by Nishidni about the stabbings rubs me the wrong way. The fact that he had to make an edit just to say that stabbings are not done in Israel but are done in WB or what not does not make one confident that editing in the arena you will be dealing with someone who will be AGF and NPOV. There have been daily stabbings in Israel, and by Israel, I mean Israel proper. Just today, there have been two people killed in Tel Aviv, and I would like to ask Nishidani if Tel Aviv is considered Israel or occupied territories. And this is why perhaps polemics should not be included at all on userpages. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Foxj[edit]@Jaakobou: I'm at a loss as to why I'm mentioned in this request. I would appreicate if I could be dropped from the list of people you ping every time you post on Wikipedia about this topic. Thanks. — foxj 22:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Crazycomputers[edit]My total involvement in anything even potentially tangentially related to this entire situation was starting this ANI thread some three years ago. I don't know how that makes me an "involved admin" in this particular arbitration case. I have no statement to make and I don't know why my name was brought up here. --Chris (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Jaakobou[edit]
|
S Marshall[edit]
| QuackGuru is banned from articles in the Electronic Cigarettes topic area broadly contrued for six month. Spartaz Humbug! 07:53, 29 November 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 S Marshall[edit]
See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 23#Removal. On 31 March 2015 SM deleted info on tobacco harm reduction is unclear.[33] On 20 April 2015 SM deleted info on tobacco harm reduction is unclear.[34] On 19 November 2015 SM deleted info on tobacco harm reduction is unclear.[35] The text about tobacco harm reduction was restored. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_25#New_Images. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#New_.22full_range.22_image_uploaded. SM deleted two images and replaced it with one image. The discussion was still ongoing.[36] SM also deleted another image, but another editor disagreed. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Safety_claim_in_Harm_reduction.. I did state it would be better to shorten the text. There was a discussion to relocate the text.[37] The text was misplaced and it was eventually removed from the harm reduction section. I added some information to the safety section. SM stated my edit to the safety section was a "Rv pre-emptive Quackeditry". SM stated in the recent AFD that "it was used as a holder for all the semi-relevant junk that disruptive people kept adding to Electronic cigarette to make it conform to their notion of "balance".". SM was making assertions about me without supporting evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
SM is making comments about my current editing without specific diffs. SM previously made comments about me without diffs. I will not know what is your current concern without the specifics. If I disagree with a change on the talk page that does not mean I am being problematic. I am going to start a RfC to try an resolve this dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC) This comment did not state the text about the different volts was previously in the lede. Before I started a RfC the information about different volts was in the lede of the safety page. I explained on the talk page the lede did not mention dry puffing. I clarified the wording in the lede. The RfC on the e-cig talk page is about summarising text in the e-cig. QuackGuru (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC) There are two separate pages. AlbinoFerret is not explaining the text was in the lede of the Safety page before there was a RfC and is not giving me credit that I clarified the wording in the lede.[41] No editor at the Safety of electronic cigarettes page stated it should be removed from the page or the lede. In fact, AlbinoFerret has recently added a lot of content about the different volts to Safety of electronic cigarettes page. QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC) User:Spartaz, The RfC has been productive. Things are moving faster than I expected. There are different proposals and suggestions on the talk page. I supported the 3rd and 4th proposal. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#RfC:_reduced_volts_and_aldehydes. This is a very controversial topic and sources often disagree. The disagreement among sources is often the cause of the disputes in this topic area. I am not a former smoker or e-cig user. But I did add most of the new material to the e-cig page this year. Until the known unknowns are knowns there will remain a dispute among sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC) User:EdJohnston, you wrote "Edits by Quackguru are causing concern." Can you provide diffs? QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning S Marshall[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 S Marshall[edit]
Statement by AlbinoFerret[edit]QG is misapplying the findings of the arbcom case. S Marshall is as far from an SPA per his edit history.[42] Even if we were to double the 446 edits he has made in the area of all e-cig pages and the arbocom case, his total edits of 21,071 make the SPA possibilities a rather bad joke. Of note though is this finding from the case. "QuackGuru (talk · contribs) is warned that continuing to engage in a pattern of disruption to Wikipedia will result in further sanctions." One of the issues from the case is forcing his desired outcome on the page, and making edits to pre-empt changes while discussion is ongoing. AlbinoFerret 12:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC) As a NAC with over 200 closes, I can honestly say the RFC QG started [43] is malformed. It consists of his preferred version with no questions. AlbinoFerret 08:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC) After now changing the RFC for I think the 4th time QG has a non neutral RFC question/statement that predisposes his preferred version in the header. This is the kind of behaviour that got him the arbcom warning and should be addressed here. AlbinoFerret 20:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC) @Rhoark, I dont think S Marsall suggested collecting diff's, I think he was referring to the massive amount of diff's I had already collected for ARCA. Most of which pre-date the Arbocom case closing so I dont believe can be used for AE.[44] Due to the constant disruption QG causes, I wonder how many chances this editor will get. He has been banned numerous times [45] and warned by arbcom. The comments of the arbs in this section are worth reading QuackGuru Warned. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC) QG started an RFC for the summery of Safety of Electronic cigarettes in the main article, and it appears that consensus is against him at this point. But he has already started to edit the changes to his preferred version on the Safety page.[46] The Summery on the main article and the lede Safety page should be in sync as all other daughter pages. Editing the text now while the RFC is ongoing is pre empting the RFC. These are the type of problematic edits that arbcom has warned QG about. AlbinoFerret 03:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Here is some evidence of QG's editing from during the arbcom case, but after evidence closed, it should be applicable here. NPOV[edit]The first one is damning, it shows that QG has known for months that the claim he is pushing to have in the current RFC is the product of failed methodology. He is also pushing in the current RFC to keep out wording that shows it is the product of failed methodology. This is a NPOV problem that points to negative slant advocacy which most of the other diffs continue to prove. It also shows another problem, re-arguing things over and over till you get the results you want.
Ownership[edit]
Compentcy[edit]
The 10/28/2015 NPOV instance eerily mimics the events that led QG to be topic banned from Acupuncture. AlbinoFerret 21:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Spartaz would you also consider a clause against editing on topics under discussion to any e-cig page until the discussion has ended? The pages are very intertwined and making an edit on one effects the others. AlbinoFerret 14:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC) I would also like to point out that since being banned from Acupuncture in October , QuackGuru has become a SPA on e-cigarette topics with at least 90% of QG's edits in the topic or closely related topics like nicotine,contribs. As such he is also in violation of the SPA clause of the arbcom decision. AlbinoFerret 20:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Rhoark[edit]
Admins should have zero patience for such antics. QuackGuru's block log suggests they will continue to be incorrigible. A one year topic ban would be a restrained response. Rhoark (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC) @AlbinoFerret: SM seemed to be specifically addressing incidents after the e-cig case closed, so I assume he meant something other than the diffs already collected. Not a key point. @Cla68: I have no involvement in this beyond the present filing. I'm not seeing prima facie disruption in the positions QuackGuru is taking on content issues, nor do I see it as a problem that QG started the RfC in parallel with this AE filing. The RfC is about content, while this should be about behavior. This filing itself, along with QC's block history is all I need to see to recognize disruption, but in any further evidence what would be important is patterns of disregarding or pre-empting consensus more than the fact they said this or that about e-cigs. Rhoark (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Cla68[edit]I respectfully suggest to S Marshall, AlbinoFerret, and Rhoark that you take the topic in question off your watchlists and let QuackGuru have it to himself. Putting up with the nonsense that you're having to put up with is not worth the time it drains from your lives that you could be doing more fruitful and productive work elsewhere. Notice that the admins responding below aren't going to do anything to try to rein-in QuackGuru's behavior. So, just let him have the article(s). Just pop in to the article talk page and leave a comment or try to improve the text every few days or so and then don't pay attention to the inevitable revert or snarky response that immediately follows. This will have the effect of chaining QuackGuru to the article as he checks his watchlist every few minutes or so to make sure the article stays the way he wants it while the rest of you get on with your lives. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Mystery Wolff[edit]I would like to ask for help on this as it is ongoing. QuackGuru is going about reverting items for his point of view. I have spent a great deal of time researching some of these topics, and begun edits to make the pages much more accurate. Only to see those edits removed in mass by QuackGuru. When he edits he does it with very very little information in the Edit Summary. On another matter QuackGuru, took a study which indicated that Electronic Cigarettes in a standardized trial were shown to be AS effective as Nicotine Patches and other Nicotine replacement products. The cite actually shows they are more effective but the author was not comfortable with the as a full out statement, but that was his data. The that was in the Page said "Electronic Cigarettes have not been shown to be MORE effective than NRT patches. That is skewing and conflation. Repeated data within peer reviewed journals reflects the E-Cigs are AS effective. To assert they fail a bar, when that bar is not the part of the cite, is a problem. Some of the approved therapies are using powerful psychotropic medications that effect brain chemistry, that are black box warnings for suicide. So when something without risks of effecting dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine and their balance together in the brain, has efficacy on par with black box medications....its something to reflect. I have no issue with using the most current research, I have no issue with feedback on undue weight.....but I am very concerned by an aggressive OWNER of multiple pages like QuackGuru. HELP! Mystery Wolff (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning S Marshall[edit]
|
Realskeptic[edit]
| Realskeptic indefinitely banned on Wikipedia from the topics of autism and vaccination. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 6 December 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 Realskeptic[edit]
Looking through Realskeptic's contribution history, one quickly realizes that they're here to promote the idea that the 'autism-vaccine link is not "fringe" or "anti-vaccine"; the consensus against it is not a scientific consensus' [86]
Discussion concerning Realskeptic[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 Realskeptic[edit]1. I cited Statesman Journal, which meets WP:RS. I am not sure what the complaining admin's issue is with this. I do not believe "anti-vaccination" is justified as it is a WP:NPOV violation. 2. I wanted an admin to address the substance of my original unblock appeal, but the first reviewing admin refused to do so and instead failed to assume good faith on my part because of a misunderstanding I had about sourcing with another editor, for which I apologized. I stopped appealing after the last reviewing admin suggested I would be blocked longer if I continued appealing. So I did not. The admin who blocked me for a week later admitted to making reverts to my page in breach of WP:BLANKING, and accused me of edit-warring after I called out another admin for wikihounding my edits 3. That referred to my concerns about Washington Post and LA Times' independence from the CDC, for which an admin admitted I was right despite disagreeing with me that it was a problem: "Journalists being taught how to properly report on medical news? Must be a conspiracy...You're going to need a very, very good source suggesting malfeasance on the CDC's part, not simply that they work with journalists." My point was that these mainstream newspapers simply lacked the independence that should be expected of the press. Nonetheless, the complaining admin used this to comment on the contributor instead of the content. 4. My response here following my responses to the initial threatening admin on a talk page in which he asked for reliable sources that significantly disputed what he claimed was the scientific consensus on thimerosal and autism. I delivered on this request. He has yet to respond. Realskeptic (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Editing activity: 1. I admitted to lack of complete knowledge about 3RR rule. Nonetheless, following the editor's next revert, I updated the source to a more reliable one that was not self-published on the reverting editor's request. Yet it was reverted again not for being an unreliable source per wikipedia policies, but for being "anti-vaccine propaganda" - proving the editor is POV pushing as opposed to following Wikipedia guidelines. 2. My edits here referred to edits that collectively took issue with gross WP:BLP violations, particularly WP:BLPCRIME as the article currently makes accusations against the subject that he has either never been fully charged with or that have been overturned on appeal. I discuss on the talk page. There is a faction of editors who clearly despise the subject and wanted the subject's bio to reflect their hatred for him - including the admin calling for my sanctioning. The complaining admin engaged in edit-warring. When I started a thread on the talk page to discuss edits, the complaining admin instead used it as an opportunity to get me blocked as a punitive measure. Realskeptic (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Additional comments: I will appeal any sanction taken. Realskeptic (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by BullRangifer[edit]RealSkeptic keeps on demonstrating his extreme POV pushing. The latest example is a clear example of IDHT. In response to a nice request by Kolbasz to get him to stop the battlefield discussion behavior and make a constructive edit suggestion, he replied with this IDHT reply. I then commented as follows:
This editor has been blocked a couple times (by EdJohnston & Acroterion), learned nothing from the experiences, and immediately returned to the same types of behavior. Numerous editors have engaged, explained, and warned him, but to no avail. A few of them are, in no particular order: NeilN, Guy, TenOfAllTrades, Jpgordon, Anthony Bradbury, Dave Dial, Huon, PhilKnight, MaxSem, RJaguar3, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, AgnosticPreachersKid, MastCell, Anthonyhcole, and myself. A more experienced group of editors and administrators would be hard to find, but even they have had no luck with him. A very long block will likely be the only way to protect the encyclopedia from disruption, especially since most of his disruption is time-consuming misuse of talk pages. Since he is likely incapable of reforming, an indefinite block might be even better. Previous experience indicates that repeated unblock requests should not be allowed, and removal of access to his own talk page will be necessary, the sooner the better. There is zero evidence of a positive learning curve, and no evidence of an ability to learn. On the contrary. He just gets further entrenched in his delusional beliefs. He demonstrates the classic signs seen in true-believer syndrome (not a true psychiatric diagnosis, but useful here) and the Dunning–Kruger effect. He is here solely to push a fringe agenda. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by TenOfAllTrades[edit]Realskeptic's edits have concentrated essentially exclusively on softening Wikipedia's coverage of vaccination related topics, particularly with respect to the once-hypothetical and now-discredited suggestions that there are links between exposure to vaccines or vaccine ingredients (especially the preservative thiomersal) and autism in children. Realskeptic would like us to present a fringe viewpoint – the idea that a link exists – on a substantial or equal footing to the established scientific consensus: a link is not supported by any good-quality, recent, reliable sources, and that the earlier works suggesting such a link was preliminary, low-quality, or outright fraudulent. After a couple of recent blocks for edit warring, he's moved to perpetual WP:IDHT bickering on article talk pages. It's frequent and unpleasant enough – including repeated, unsupported accusations of BLP violations and libel – and spread across enough pages that a topic ban on all vaccine- and vaccination-related articles, broadly construed is warranted. (Since this constitutes essentially all of Realskeptic's editing, such a topic ban would be functionally equivalent to the out-and-out ban proposed by BullRangifer—and I admit that the risk of moving Realskeptic's editing approach to another topic area is concerning.) Here are a few examples.
Realskeptic has clearly exhausted the community's patience. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Realskeptic[edit]
|
TruthIsDivine[edit]
| Topic banned by Gamaliel and blocked by Rschen7754. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:42, 7 December 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 TruthIsDivine[edit]
Personal attacks : (lying, stupid, idiot, fraud, etc )
Asking for sources, being pointed repeatedly directly to the relevant sources, and then insisting the source does not say what it plainly says, while continuing to make personal attacks (whole section) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Defensive_gun_use#Pro-gun_fraud_in_this_article
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TruthIsDivine&diff=694065203&oldid=694064479
new WP:SPA editor, WP:NOTHERE, WP:TIGERS. Pinging Clpo13 who is also target of subject's personal attacks and edit warring. UPDATE : as I was making this report, the user was already blocked for 3 days for harrassment, but given the other diffs, I think more may be in order. However, if this closes without additional action, I see that as valid too. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TruthIsDivine&diff=694069147&oldid=694069070
Discussion concerning TruthIsDivine[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 TruthIsDivine[edit]Statement by Rschen7754[edit]I did block the user for WP:NPA for 3 days. I suspect that further sanctions may be needed, but being out of touch with how discretionary sanctions work, I will leave that to you folks to decide. --Rschen7754 22:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by clpo13[edit]One last personal attack before being blocked: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defensive_gun_use&diff=prev&oldid=694068806 Prior to this account being created, the IP user 2600:1017:b416:1586:bc10:35ea:70fe:b008 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited the same pages with the same concerns. I can't speak to most of their changes to Defensive gun use, but I did note their refusal to discuss the changes on the talk page. They chose instead to focus on the 33 million figure at the high end of defensive gun use estimates. Despite numerous explanations about where that figure came from (such as [88]) and its nature as an estimate, they obstinately stuck to declaring it was a logical impossibility and anyone who thought otherwise had "zero intellectual honesty or integrity" and that Gaijin42 and I were "the single dumbest two individuals I have ever met". clpo13(talk) 22:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning TruthIsDivine[edit]
|
HughD[edit]
| Consensus here that the edits aren't covered by the TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:43, 7 December 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 HughD[edit]
HughD has repeatedly shown that he is not capable of editing within the confines of his discretionary editing ban related to the Kochs/Tea Party. His repeated failure to comply with the sanctions against him suggests that he should be banned from editing all of post-1942 U.S. politics. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning HughD[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 HughD[edit]No violation of topic ban. Sad, pointed, harassing retread of previous failed request for enforcement. Hugh (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC) A content dispute improperly escalated to AE; respectfully request involved editors to return to the article talk page in good faith. No disruptive edits reported. No boundary testing; our project's articles Watchdog.org and Clarion Project are clearly out of scope. Respectfully request decline again. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC) In evaluating this complaint readers are respectfully requested to note that the April 22, 2013 Columbia Journalism Review article cited by commenting involved editor Safehaven86 below is not currently included in our project's article on Watchdog.org, nor is it involved in any of the edits cited above by complainant. Please also note that on 10 July 2013 a fellow editor added a connection to the Kochs to our project's article Watchdog.org, supported by that very source, and the commenting involved editor Safehaven86 deleted it within minutes with an edit summary of WP:SYNTH, then today comes before our project's arbiters claiming a connection sufficient for enforcement. Hugh (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Safehaven86[edit]Hugh has been given more than enough chances to show that he can meaningfully comply with his topic ban. See User talk:HughD#Editing ban, User talk:HughD#One week block for violation of topic ban, User talk:HughD#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by HughD, User talk:HughD#Draft WP:TBAN addition, and numerous discussions at User talk:Ricky81682. The ins and outs of the ban have been discussed at length, and it has been made clear to Hugh that he should not touch articles broadly defined in the Tea Party/Koch Bros realm. Whether the topic ban is too confusing because it is a unique and individualized ban or whether Hugh is willfully disregarding it doesn't really matter at this point--he's been given enough warnings and explanations. I agree that a broader ban is in order. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Arthur Rubin[edit]In his previous violations, he has made it clear by his edits that he believes that the article is related to the Kochs, whether or not that is actually the case. Objective analysis as to the degree of the relationship was unnecessary. Here, it seems more complicated. I'm not saying I think Hugh is a constructive editor of a benefit to Wikipedia; just that an objective analysis of politics, basically a subjective field, may be required to determine whether he's violated his TBAN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]Looking at some of the diffs, it looks like a "simple" content dispute not a edit war. And the claim of tea party or Koch brothers topic ban seems too far, after all anything can then be claimed to be relevant to the topic by guilty by association. It seems to be that this is just a content dispute and other means should be used to resole before ARBCOM decides to banhammer someone. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Result concerning HughD[edit]
|
Request for Full Protection --->via the ARB to exercising its defined Discretionary Powers regarding Electronic Cigarettes.[edit]
| Closed by request of the author. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am asking for a Full Protection premised upon the outcome of the last ARB, and that uninterested editors would be reviewing, and discretionary actions would be available as a product of those ARBs Full details are found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Request_for_Full_Protection_---.3Evia_the_ARB_to_exercising_its_defined_Discretionary_Powers_reflected.2Fasserted_in_the_posted_ALERT If there is an alternative approach please tell me. My method seemed correct, efficient and expedient. Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel:, the premise of this request is that by delivering the generic Alert to all editors of Electronic Cigarettes, that it created an on going obligation to have people revisit to determine if further action is needed. I this body won't pick up my plea for action, I just need to be told that. Here in a nutshell is the most compelling reason for my request for the Admins to take up a Full Protection of the page.(broadly defined). S Marshall states quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&type=revision&diff=694133819&oldid=694129808 (Partial sequential quote, please see original source)I have described my intentions on this talk page on a number of occasions previously, but this may have been before you started editing. I intend to rewrite this article so that it's accessible to a schoolchild -- a vulnerable person who's heard of e-cigarettes and is considering taking a puff. This is the kind of person who is likely to be turning to Wikipedia for information. Everyone else here has heard me say this. At the moment the article is written for and accessible to people with college degrees who make decisions for a living. No, I am not going to submit each of my changes to the Article Edit Approval Committee on the talk page before I make them. I fought a four month Arbcom case so that I wouldn't have to do that. It's needless and bureaucratic. I do intend to discuss each controversial change on the talk page. The above is a clear POV, a clear agenda, and clearly wanting to take over the entire page. IT IS VERY CLEAR. I am asking this body to enforce the sanctions required of it. When an ALERT is given, it must not be abandoned. The words of S Marshall are exceptional and remarkable. He is going to craft his very own advocacy handout, and use Wikipedia as his publisher. He is asserting that content needs to be removed to appeal to his target audience. This is simply outrageous. If you won't act PLEASE tell me. I think this is a consequence of ARB interplay....and the ARB can take it under their own impetus. You are however notified. Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
|
JzG[edit]
| No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning JzG[edit]
Admin JzG/Guy, today violated the 1RR remedy (see Difs above). He made highly opinionated comments at the Glyphosate talk page yesterday, states in response to my proposal for content addition, "Ah yes, legislative alchemy, the process by which nonsense becomes science". Glyphosate talk page / 15 December 2015 As mentioned above, other editors have requested his inclusion in the case about Genetically modified organisms for several reason, which can be read on the case page. Misrepresents source content at talk page RfC Séralini affair 16 December 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG#Arb_enforcement @JzG Ofc we can begin discussing each single edit, but you are one of the most active editors on GMO articles lately and you primarily focus on removing key infos. Yes the other regular editors support you, but all these RfC are fresh and the one you cite above is very marginal (4v3), and the other you mentioned is like (2v2), depending how you judge the comments. prokaryotes (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC) @Only in death There has been no discussion prior to removal of those two reverts for 1RR, and there is certainly no consensus. JzG just reverts, after that i started today in one instance a RfC. prokaryotes (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC) @Tryptofish What you call canvassing is in response to JzG posting here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C3%A9ralini_affair#Prokaryotes.27_request_at_AE @Alexbrn The article about Federation of German Scientists is not about GMO's. Everybody who is interested should take a closer look at the talk page of that article, where another editor called Alexbrn's edits incomprehensible, additional Alexbrn tried to intimidate me on my talk page here. He is also not mentioning that i removed this RfC point he quotes. prokaryotes (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC) @Rhoark This Arbcom request is about a 1RR violation, if you think my comments Kingofaces43 linked need attention, then this should be dealt with in a separate venue, not when we discuss the KEY contents of one of the most controversial pages on Wikipedia, where admins and editors (who post also below), remove large quantities of long standing content, and prevent improvements when teaming up. Same goes for Alexbrn's claims. prokaryotes (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC) @Parabolist So it is perfectly fine for you when an admin is breaking Arbcom sanctions?
On which grounds do you want me topic banned, care to post some difs? Tryptofish mentioned my conduct, what does this mean, why so vague? Others refer to my talk page post by MastCell, which was a warning. After that I edited the last 2 days at Gilles-Éric Séralini, and Séralini affair. I got often reverted, actually almost all of my edits got challenged, and then i took it to talk page. Also i stopped editing there now, because it is not possible, when i post well sourced content it is removed. Not sure how these articles will look in the future but my impression is that readers will seek other places to find some neutral ground. prokaryotes (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC) @Tryptofish, JzG alerted involved editors, i asked for uninvolved editors, JzG reverted his 2nd edit, i retracted my request, yet you only ask for punishment for me. When i edited i basically had do deal with about 4 editors who disagreed with my edits, hence why i created these RFCs. Asking to punish me now based on unrelated past edits, from an entirely different perspective, a different situation, with different editors involved appears more like an effort to remove one of the last editors with a more critical input from GMO articles. prokaryotes (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Discussion concerning JzG[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 JzG[edit]The diffs show single reverts. The reverts have not been repeated, and have been discussed on Talk. In each case there have been solid policy-based reasons for removal. There has been no violation of WP:1RR as far as I can tell, just edits made once and followed up on talk. Unless you define a revert as any edit that removes text, however long it's been there? I don't think that's the spirit of the thing, especially since the edits remove different items of text and Talk page discussion unambiguously supports the view that removal is a valid interpretation of WP:PAG. Re the diffs:
This is not, as Prokaryotes portrays it, a bilateral dispute. In fact Prokaryotes is being reverted by other editors, e.g. Prokaryotes reverts me and Kingofaces43 reverts Prokaryotes.
I would stress that in each case there has been discussion on the Talk page. In most cases Prokaryotes is in a minority of one. You can see this at Gilles-Éric Séralini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Séralini affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The core issues here are WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRINGE. Where I have removed content, it is generally because it is sourced to a primary source, often one whose neutrality is disputed. Prokaryotes has already raised these concerns on the Talk pages, e.g. [98] and [99] (Prokaryotes now appears to have struck the aggressive third item in this RfC, for which he should receive credit). When the content is addressed specifically, e.g. [100], it is clear that the case is not, as Prokaryotes characterises it above, tendentious removal of sourced content, but instead a supportable exercise of editorial judgment on which reaosnable peopel may differ. In summary, then, this is a case where Prokaryotes disputes my content edits, where these edits are discussed on Talk, and where consensus, as much as it can be judged from such small numbers of involved editors, favours my edits and not his. As per [101], this looks like an attempt to use Wikipedia processes to gain an advantage in a content dispute, by an editor who is currently not prevailing in talk page discussion. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Minor4th[edit]Noting that I warned and notified JzG about the GMO editing restrictions during this same time period, here: [103] and warned him also about his divisive/polarizing comments in the topic area, here: [104] As mentioned in the OP, many requests were made that JZG be included as a party in the recently-closed case and his poor behavior was commented on by several arbs. Now that the case is closed he appears to be back at the same behavior while other editors are at least attempting to work more collaboratively. I think a time limited topic ban would be appropriate. Minor4th 15:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Capeo[edit]Policy based edits, brought to the TP,
Statement by Only in Death[edit]There is probably a bit of a gap here - the revert rules are fairly rigid in that reverts of different material on the same topic, counts as multiple reverts. However implementing consensus as per talkpage discussion would seem to fall outside of that. Given JzG's edits were in line with the talkpage consensus, I dont think this qualifies under 1rr. (Arguably they are not 'reverting' edits, they are editing in line with consensus to improve the article) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Tryptofish[edit]It saddens me to say this, but there is one clear violation of 1RR. These two edits by JzG, [106] and [107], are successive reverts today, with intervening edits by other editors, a little more than an hour apart. They are good edits on the merits, but they violate 1RR, and an experienced admin who was very active in the ArbCom case should be fully aware of the restrictions. The earlier edits cited in the filing statement do not qualify as 1RR violations, as far as I can tell. That said, there is way too much battleground on both sides going on at that page, and I would urge some scrutiny of Prokaryotes as well, starting with the threaded comments here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Kingsindian[edit]I have absolutely no knowledge and no opinion about the content. But I know that it is very easy to break WP:1RR, even by mistake. In WP:ARBPIA, the common practice is to warn others that they have broken WP:1RR, and only if they refuse to self-revert, bring them to WP:AE. My own practice is to self-revert if asked, no matter what the merits of the complaint. I simply perform the edit 24 hours later (assuming there is talk page consensus etc.) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by (SPACKlick)[edit]Was called to this topic by RFC and was surprised at the level of battleground displayed by Prokaryote on the talk page when I spotted this Arb. Technically JZG has violated 1RR today, although the edits themselves should not be seen as problematic. I think a WP:Boomerang should be heading back at Prokaryote, however. In light of his POV issues, threaded comments on this page and battleground. SPACKlick (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Alexbrn[edit]Since Prokaryotes narrowly avoided sanction by Arbcom their behaviour, which should have been cautious, has been the opposite. For example, in my interactions with this editor within the last 2 days I have seen them:
And in the light of the complaint here, ironically:
I think the community's patience must surely by now exhausted, and propose an indefinite site ban for Prokaryotes is the only solution that seems likely to bring relief. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Prokaryotes says above of the 1RR violation "The article about Federation of German Scientists is not about GMO". In fact, both edits concern Gilles-Éric Séralini, a central figure of the GMO controversy. Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Kingofaces43[edit]Accusations against Guy are largely stale at this point. The minor 1RR violation has been self-reverted 3 hours after the edit.[113] Nothing more than a warning was needed in the first place given the context of edits as Kingsindian and Tryptofish describe above. If it were a blatant revert war over the same content, that would be more of a serious problem. Prokaryotes is starting to look like the backbone of this current issue. What has happened here is the exact kind of gaming of 1RR Guy responded to that was cautioned against during the case where editor 1 adds controversial content, editor 2 reverts, and editor 1 adds more controversial content unopposed in something of a WP:BLUDGEON fashion. A drafting arb specifically mentioned they intended the discretionary sanctions to deal with edit warring situations like this.[114]. That being said, Prokaryotes behavior really does need a look in the context of this issue. Earlier, MastCell specifically warned Prokaryotes they would personally topic ban them under discretionary sanctions for a litany of behavior issues described here. It doesn't appear MastCell has been online during these new events, so I would encourage admins to read MastCell's "final warning" remembering that Prokaryotes was one vote short of being topic banned themselves.[115] Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Rhoark[edit]I'm only seeing only a content dispute here, but content positions can be part of a disruptive pattern. Regarding the content,
The violation of 1RR should be noted, but not dwelled upon. It doesn't seem to be a locus of actual disruption or necessary preventive intervention. If anything in this might be construed as disruptive, its overreach in using WP:PRIMARY as a reason to removed cited claims. There's just not enough here to construe it as a pattern of disruption when backed only by vague insinuation about prior behavior. I'm not familiar with JzG's or Prokaryotes' history in the topic, which others seem to believe is pertinent. If that history is going to be part of the discussion at all, it needs to be backed with diffs. Rhoark (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]Allow me to be a grouch here, but as was pointed out a few times, there was a 1RR violation. Whether or not the other user is an evil editor is yet to be determined and ARBCOM can take up that case as well. What we have here, again, is an administrator about to get away with violating Wikipedia policies. While it may seem trivial, especially in this case, an admin has to be editing above and beyond. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by DrChrissy[edit]
Statement by AlbinoFerret[edit]I agree with the assessment of Sir Joseph. Admins should be held to a higher standard of behaviour. JzG is aware of the case having participated in the case. They should be aware of the restrictions. They have violated the restrictions. In addition the large removal of material from articles under the restrictions without discussing said removal beforehand is a questionable move for an admin to make so soon after the closing of the case. This deserves a look at by those deciding this section and possible consequences. I will also point out to JzG that your statement is more than double the 500 word limit. AlbinoFerret 19:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC) In response to Tryptofish's plea. As someone who is uninvolved in editing in this area I see two editors behaving in questionable ways. One is an admin who should know better, and the other is an editor reacting to the questionable actions
I will also point out to any admin, anything that has happened before the close of the GMO case is stale. The arbs judged on it and found what they have found. To keep revisiting old evidence that has been gone over by the highest level of DS is wrong when done at a lower level. If those who present old evidence think there is a issue that was not examined they should be directed to WP:ARCA. AlbinoFerret 22:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Parabolist[edit]As an editor new to the area, having seen some of the conflict spill over into noticeboards over the last couple days, it is my opinion that this is a boomerang scenario, regardless of any "sides" to this. More so than anyone else that I've seen posting on these pages, prokaryotes seems to consider this a battleground, and their editing inflames tension rather than encouraging collaborative editing. Also, the insistence on turning every single minor edit request into an RFC before even seeking any comments on the talk page seems at the very least exhausting, at worst tendentious. Parabolist (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Ultraexactzz[edit]OK, so I see the 1RR violation, and I see that it was self-reverted here. I don't do much at AE, but don't we generally forgive and forget where the editor in question has self-reverted? I see other editors suggest as much, above, and that is my recollection as well. Of the accusations above, that was the only even slightly credible one - and it's already been addressed. I defer to the closing admin on this one, but I very nearly closed it with nothing more than a trout to JzG to be more careful. Also, No recommendation on sanctions against Prokaryotes - but taking a break from this topic area would be a wise decision on their part, I believe. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Edit: As this has been withdrawn by Prokaryotes (here), there seems to be no further complaint against JzG. I'd recommend that this be closed. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Looie496[edit]If this sort of behavior continues I am going to recommend topic bans for both JzG and Prokaryotes. The close of the ArbCom case was followed immediately by the resumption of battleground behavior by multiple parties. I'm afraid admins are going to have to show that they are prepared to intervene decisively in order to stop it. These two are the worst offenders, and their behavior is especially egregious because both received negative attention in the ArbCom case -- Prokaryotes barely escaped without a topic ban. But it isn't just them: we have seen edit-warring at glyphosate that required page protection. GregJackP (talk · contribs) placed a "retired" banner on his talk page, but then popped up immediately after the close of the case to participate in an edit war and template one of the involved editors. This sort of behavior will continue as long as editors think they can get away with it. Looie496 (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Serialjoepsycho[edit]I'm not sure this should be closed even with the withdrawal. I notice that JzG was requested as a party to a recent ARBCOM case is some how relevant to this discussion. This among other things puts me in the mind of this being an attempt to game the sanctions process to serve a vendetta.I think admins should take time to review if this is the case here, if at the very least to give a warning. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Result concerning JzG[edit]
|
DrChrissy[edit]
| DrChrissy is warned not to make further edits like their post to User talk:SlimVirgin. If you are unclear about the scope of WP:BANEX, ask for assistance. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning DrChrissy[edit]
Opening a discussion on a third parties talkpage canvassing them to edit on their behalf in violation of their topic ban. Clearly not covered under WP:BANEX.
DrChrissy is well aware of what is and is not allowed when topic banned. See discussions related to this here, here and here. Despite this being explained in various ways, DrChrissy still does not get it. While I do not consider the appeal to Jimbo a violation (as it would be an appeal under BANEX) it does illustrate the point that DrChrissy cannot drop the stick.
Discussion concerning DrChrissy[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 DrChrissy[edit]
Statement by Tryptofish[edit]The complaint here is that DrChrissy watched the talk page of a page where he is topic banned, and raised a discussion about it at the user talk page of a potentially sympathetic administrator, was reverted, and then reverted the revert. I hate to say this, but it does seem to be a battlegroundy continuation of editing about the subject where he is banned. He is discussing an RfC about the topic of his ban, what the outcome of the RfC should be, rather than discussing his own restrictions. That's a ban violation. As it happens, the edit that he complained about on the administrator's talk page is an edit that I made. The edit is being openly discussed at Talk:Glyphosate, so it can be resolved by editors who are not topic banned, and I have in fact requested at AN that an uninvolved administrator review my edit: [119], so there really is no need for DrChrissy to have gotten involved here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by jps[edit]It's pretty clear to me that this user has no intention of strictly abiding by his topic ban. Topic bans are, as a rule, construed to include any and all on-wiki discussions that relate to a subject. I find topic bans to be a little ridiculous because of this (see WP:ADMINBESTPRACTICE#Bans), but your duly-elected arbitrators for better or worse imposed this ridiculous constraint and the question now is how much administrators here at AE are willing to let the user poke at its boundaries. jps (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by JzG[edit]DrChrissy is now under two topic bans, and has a long history of griefing about the first. I do not think the edits complained of constitute an unambiguous violation, but there's little doubt that DrChrissy is pushing the boundaries, and almost certainly doing so either as a deliberate testing of the limits or out of a lack of acceptance of the findings against him (see [120]). I advocate a warning but nothing else at this stage, per WP:ROPE. Any action will be contentious and vigorously argued, and IMO it will not be long before a slam-dunk violation occurs. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning DrChrissy[edit]
|