Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive213
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Huldra[edit]
| Sufficient consensus to unblock per AGF. Note that is not a reflection on the validity of the block. More within. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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 Huldra[edit]
Statement by WJBscribe[edit]The relevant edits to Jordanian occupation of the West Bank were as follows:
Huldra (talk · contribs) was aware that the topic area was subject to the following AE sanction: "Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." She restored a reverted edit, and then expressly acknowledged having done so on the talkpage. I note that in her appeal, Huldra suggests that her edit not violate the AE sanction because she did not restore her own edit. That is not required by the AE sanction as I read it. The onus is on those who wish to restore an edit that has proved controversial - because it has been reverted - to establish consensus. Huldra did not engage in talkpage discussions to establish a consensus either for the replacement of the map or, in the meantime, that there should be no image in the infobox pending resolution of the dispute. Such a discussion had in fact been commenced, see Talk:Jordanian occupation of the West Bank#Lead map - consensus to remove?. Instead she dived straight in and continued to edit war by substituting her preferred map to the infobox. I believe this is exactly the sort of behaviour the AE sanction is aimed at preventing - edit warring without prior attempts at seeking consensus - and that the block is proportionate to the severity of the breach. WJBscribe (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Shrike (involved editor 1)[edit]For me interpretation was clear no one can restore a reverted edit till consensus is reached.Also it clearly says editors so it doesn't mean one editor.But if its not clear to Huldra she can ask after her block expires at WP:ARCA--Shrike (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Actually it was me who reported you [7]--Shrike (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Huldra Are you willing to self-revert if you get unblocked?--Shrike (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Huldra The is map is not OR at all but that beyond the point.There is seems to be agreement that you did broke provision.The only question is that you was not aware if this is the case I support you unblock if you willing to self revert Shrike (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC) I object misrepresentation of my position I think the old map is good and until something better is found it should stay.Another thing I don't understand why @Zero0000, El C, Nishidani, and Sir Joseph: commenting as uninvolved editors the convention as far as I know was if the editor is active in topic area there are involved.--Shrike (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC) @El C: It seems that she is not willing to self-revert I think this should be condition to any unblock.--Shrike (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Statement by Oncenawhle (involved editor 2)[edit]We really need to apply this consistently if we are going to apply it. For example, a few weeks ago at UN Watch, this happened:
Is this a breach? There was no attempt to discuss, unlike at the article which is subject to this AE. It's all very confusing to me. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Yesterday, Sir Joseph wrote "it is very clear that the ruling is that consensus is required by any editor before reinstating a reverted edit". Yet just one week ago, this happened at Ahlam Tamimi:
Oncenawhile (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]BU Rob13 says that a successful appeal requires Speaking more broadly, the block by WJBscribe is not correct for several reasons. Firstly, to insist that a map without a source be kept in the article based on some interpretation of rules about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin is ridiculous. I remind people that WP:NOR and WP:BURDEN are core policies of Wikipedia. Next, what was the need to act hurriedly, without even giving the party a chance to respond? And why was Huldra not given a chance to self-revert? What was the need for admins to act here, anyway? This kind of enforcement will make working in this area nigh impossible. WJBscribe seems to not appreciate this point at all. The provision was not meant to shut down all editing of the article till everyone agrees. In that case, we might as well wait for hell to freeze over. Lastly, see Oncenawhile's comment about Shrike's editing on another article (the IP in question is a sock of AndresHerutJaim). This is not to demand that one of Shrike or Drmies be blocked; I would like nobody to be blocked. It's to say that these remedies need to be applied with common sense and people be extended the basic courtesies (like allowing them to self-revert, or discuss with them first) before hauling them here, and admins not be trigger-happy. In the past, I have seen admins use full-protection to force discussion on the talk page. That would have been much preferable to this kind of enforcement. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit](I apologise for incorrectly putting this first into the "uninvolved" section. Although I have not edited the article in question for 5 months, I have written to the talk page recently.) I find this all quite confusing. It is very clear that Huldra requested a particular rule modification to favor the status quo in a revert contest, but got something different without realising it. That by itself should be enough for the block to be replaced by a discussion. I also took the word "editors" as applying to the person whose edit was reverted and not everyone. The way this is turning out, editing in the area will become impossible. Anyone can revert without giving a reason then reply "I disagree" to every counterargument. Also, I don't see a good argument from the blocking admin that consensus hadn't been achieved. Shrike was the only dissenter, versus Oncenawhile and Huldra and (to some extent, though I didn't make strong statements) myself. Moreover, Shrike has agreed that the map can be improved and we are working towards that. Better consensus than that is rare in the IP area. Zerotalk 23:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC) To be precise, there are two fatal deficiencies in the new rule that must be addressed to arbcom.
Zerotalk 00:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC) There is something else I want to say. I've been working in the IP area of Wikipedia for more than 15 years, which I'm sure is longer than anyone else. I have never seen any editor produce such a huge amount of well-written and well-sourced copy as Huldra has. It is quite distressing to see one of the project's best editors sanctioned because she misunderstood the arbcom ruling that she herself requested. What are we coming to? Zerotalk 00:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Huldra[edit]It is very clear that the ruling is that consensus is required by any editor before reinstating a reverted edit. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Read that way this gives an enormous preponderance of power to any one editor (contrarian or not) to remove anything at all he or she might object to, on whatever grounds, whether the policy given is cogent or erratic. At Archaeology of Israel which is not under the ARBPIA ruling, one editor is constantly reverting 2 others because, I assume, he believes that 'his initial revert means no one else can restore it unless a discussion is opened up on the talk page, where his consensus is required. The original intent was not to license trigger-happy reverters, surely?Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Huldra[edit]
I've closed the thread, and wanted to give additional reasons as to why.
|
TracyMcClark[edit]
| No action taken. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning TracyMcClark[edit]
ARBPIA DS, consensus must be reached before reinserting a reverted edit.
Firstly, the reason why this is a day late is because as an observant Jew I was offline the past day. In addition to the diffs above, before filing this complaint, I posted on his talk page that his post violates DS. He refused and said it was a content dispute. I then posted again, that regardless if he feels it's a content dispute, his post still violated DS. He refused and then told me to stay off his page. I didn't want to file this complaint, after all, I do believe we should warn first and then let the editor revert and use the talk page. In this case, that didn't happen. (Should we use rubber coated or just rubber bullets, can indeed be discussed on the talk page. The article I read said that it was a rubber bullet, to claim it in Wiki's voice as rubber coated steel bullet may not be correct. But regardless, we have an egregious violation of the DS, I warned him twice and even gave 25 hours to revert.)
Discussion concerning TracyMcClark[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 TracyMcClark[edit]Statement by Kingsindian[edit]This is one of the more silly things to fight over. As this B'Tselem page makes clear, what Israel calls "rubber bullets" are actually "rubber-coated steel bullets". There's no contradiction here between the two positions. To be clear, we should use the actual term rather than the euphemism. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning TracyMcClark[edit]
|
TheBD2000[edit]
| Withdrawn by filing party. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning TheBD2000[edit]
1RR and no reinstatement of challenged material without consensus on Protests against Donald Trump
I challenged the edit by reversion and opened a talk page discussion, and TheBD2000 has simply ignored it; the user here has violated both 1RR and the requirement not to reinstate challenged edits without talk page consensus. They have refused to engage in discussion and refused a request to self-revert. I acknowledge that I (inadvertently) violated 1RR as well, and accept any sanctions resulting from that, but I was attempting to work in good faith with the editor and got nothing but blind reverts for my trouble. Refusing to engage in good-faith discussion and consensus-building is not conducive to editing sensitive topics such as this one.
Discussion concerning TheBD2000[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 TheBD2000[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning TheBD2000[edit]
|
238-Gdn[edit]
| User is warned that further violations of 1RR in the topic area or the general prohibition will result in a block. The article in question has been 500/30 protected, addressing the concerns of admins who believed the editor may not abide by the restriction on that article in the future. ~ Rob13Talk 05:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 238-Gdn[edit]
In addition to the 1RR violation: the editor is not eligible to edit in connection with the Arab/Israeli conflict, per the 30/500 rule (also notified about this one: [12]. As the "Controversy" section of the article makes clear, Ginsburgh is notable in large part for his profile as the rabbi of a radical settlement in the West Bank and for his statements about the violent actions of settlers against Palestinians there. We don't have to "broadly construe" the relevance -- it's quite direct.
Notified: [13] Discussion concerning 238-Gdn[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 238-Gdn[edit]The initial deleted statement (from a week or two ago) was indeed unsourced, however I have now posted a published claim that the incident had been dismissed by Israeli courts when the villagers failed to produce a corpse. The editor who is challenging me deleted my addition with the claim that this was not a reliable source. After discussion on the talk page, I reverted his deletion (as abovementioned editor was obviously hoping that I would do in order to post here). There was no good reason why the statement should be deleted, other than the editor's obviously biased view. I will add that the page under discussion has been poorly sourced and lain stagnant for some years. In the past few weeks I have been making changes and adding substantial new material that challenges the previous view adopted by the page. The challenging editor has obviously taken aversion to these new facts and is having trouble digesting them. I am doing my best to improve the page with new information and also improving the style, however this editor has been constantly thwarting my efforts, hanging on to the previous version as if his life was dependent upon it and showing little tolerance in his remarks. Another editor has chastized him for his forceful actions against my edits, but he continues using the same tactics. The page under discussion has little relevance to the Arab-Israeli conflict in general, except for this one incident, which has been been misrepresented until now with half-truths and deliberate distortion of the facts (as clear to anyone who has seen the court hearings, which I understand are not considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source). I am searching for more reliable sources that uphold the statement under discussion. The one I cited is the first. I am a relatively new editor to Wikipedia, so I'm sure there are many rules that I have yet to learn, but I am doing my best to conform to the rules as I learn them. 238-Gdn (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC) I would like to add that I have now familiarized myself more fully with the rules of ARBPIA. I understand the sound reasoning behind the rules and have no wish to violate them. My intentions for editing on Wikipedia are to present the facts with reliable sources, as I have been attempting to do on the page under discussion. It takes time to learn which sources are acceptable and which may be challenged. I have obviously jumped in at the deep end of Wikipedia, and I'm trying my best to learn to swim. 238-Gdn (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Shrike[edit]I am not sure that article belong to WP:ARBPIA.The arbitrators specifically didn't want to extend the sanctions on "any edit" on any article even it doesn't belong--Shrike (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]Since 238-Gdn appears to be a new editor, they should be given a bit of slack. For their part, 238-Gdn need to read WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. The responsibility for gaining consensus is on the person making the edit, not the person reverting it. Thus the edit summary here makes no sense. In general, 238-Gdn has made a lot of changes to the article, which has changed the tone of the article a lot. Some of the edits have been challenged; so they need to go slow, and not edit-war. Not everyone needs to agree on every change, but there should be a "rough consensus" on the edits. If you cannot get a local consensus because some of the people watching the article don't agree with you, it's better to get outside input to settle the matter one way or another. See WP:DR for details. RfCs and posting on noticeboards like WP:NPOVN, WP:ORN and WP:RSN are decent ways to get outside input, as is WP:3O.As a content matter, I think it is reasonable for Ginzburg to be given some space to respond to the criticism made just before the sentence in question. The source given is just a letter by Ginzburg to The Jewish Press. One needs to attribute the statement to Ginzburg, and phrase the claim carefully so that it doesn't assert things which cannot be checked. And the fact of what happened to the court case should be determined one way or another. Court documents are primary sources, so they should be avoided in the article. But they can be discussed on the talkpage to argue for Ginzburg's position. If some secondary coverage exists, it should be given preference. But this discussion should be on the talkpage, not here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]A large part of the article topic is devoted to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I find arguments to the contrary quite bizarre. To see the weight of the argument against, compare the article before 238-Gdn started major surgery with the article now. Here's a diff: [14] though the changes are so vast that they are hard to follow. A lot of 238-Gdn's effort has been to remove focus from the Israel-Palestine conflict and replace it by hagiographic text that frankly reads like some sort of adoration of this extremely controversial person. A lot of it is truly cringe-worthy and I strongly suspect that 238-Gdn has a personal connection to the subject. Regardless of that, 238-Gdn is certainly on a mission to turn this into a Ginsburg fan page and has never edited any other page except some minor edits. It is very hard to counteract this concerted pov-push by the usual means because a lot of 238-Gdn's sources are obscure Hebrew texts. This shouldn't be allowed and I propose that 238-Gdn be topic-banned from any articles related to Yitzhak Ginsburgh and his yeshivas and students. In any case, Nomo is quite correct that the 30/500 rule forbids him from editing here anyway; edits which remove IP-related information are just as forbidden as edits which add it. Zerotalk 14:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved Dweller[edit]I think this user can be forgiven some lack of knowledge. ARBPIA rules are not easy for a newbie to follow, this article is not classic ARBPIA material and the talk page was only [very!] relatively recently tagged for ARBPIA. On top of all of that, it's arguable whether or not the restrictions should apply to this particular article. It's about a rabbi who is notable for educating people about religion who happens to have 'interesting' political views. If we applied ARBPIA to everyone like that, we'd have a mushrooming pile of articles for Arbcom to police. That said, edit-warring and OWN issues are bad - but they are better dealt with at venues less nuclear than this one. I'd be encouraging the newbie to get deeper into Wikipedia and our norms. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning 238-Gdn[edit]
|
Shrike[edit]
| Withdrawn by filer. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC). |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Shrike[edit]
I think the users previous blocks speak for themselves. Incompetence, using Wikipedia as a battleground, etc. I had previously attempted to engage with the editor, but it seems clear from today's ARBCOM complaint for a minor and unintentional infraction on my part that I have no alternative but to seek formal enforcement of ARBPIA rules. I have never filed a request like this, so if I have made any errors please let me know and I will correct them. He has previously been sanctioned for violating a 3 month topic ban by editing an article where I am working with another editor to develop consensus and cleanup citation. Most likely, today's ARBCOM complaint is an ill-conceived reaction to legitimate consensus building between editors. I don't know how to withdraw a complaint, but it seems the admins are uninterested in the fact that User:Shrike filed AE to undermine consensus building and citation improvement of Israeli apartheid analogy. I do not want to be accused of filing frivolous, retaliatory complaints, and it seems this has overshadowed the main issues per WP:Wikilawyering by our admins, so please consider my complaint withdrawn The admins are entitled to disagree with me on interpretation of the consensus clause, but it is improper to accuse me of filing frivolous complaints
Discussion concerning Shrike[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 Shrike[edit]I don't think this should be closed as withdrawn as it was pointed the SS did edit war and broke the ARBCOM prohibition this clear case of WP:BOOMERANG. User:Nishidani I didn't report the SS for Ariel Sharon edits so I don't know what are you talking about but thanks for showing that he did indeed broke the policy--Shrike (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani[edit]This does look like a tit-for-tat complaint. But look at the edit history. 1R was broken.
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Shrike[edit]
|
The Rambling Man[edit]
| Complete waste of time. Closed without action. Harrias talk 20:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning The Rambling Man[edit]
Discussion concerning The Rambling Man[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 The Rambling Man[edit]I agree, the edit summary was unnecessary, but ironically directed at no-one bar myself as the reports I removed had simply been ignored. As for "camping" at ERRORS, given this project has so many problems being allowed onto the main page, it's a good job someone is doing that thankless task. It's a pity some reports are going nearly 24 hours without even a courtesy response from someone saying they're not interested in helping. This should be directed more at admins who are accountable for maintaining the integrity of the main page, than me continually requesting assistance. And if removing posts continually added after a discussion has been closed is "edit warring", I'm a monkey's uncle. The two editors in question, both admins, should know better, one of them did. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC) It appears that few are reading these statements. Let me make it plain: the "FU" edit summary was sub-optimal, accepted, but was directed AT ME. Those were my reports I was removing with that edit, those were my reports which had been ignored/overlooked throughout the previous day. It's very simple to try to make something out of this, as the complainant seems determined to do until such a time I am banned. The monitoring of all my edits by this user is becoming unsettling. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Floquenbeam[edit]While my edit summary last month may have inspired TRM's edit summary, I don't see how it could have been aimed at me, considering that I took ERRORS off my watchlist weeks ago, haven't interacted with TRM since, and had nothing to do with the error report (and lack of action) in question. And even if it was some kind off poorly thought out "dig at" me, I don't feel insulted or belittled; I would have to care. What I do care about is this: I'm getting tired of people whom I have little respect for using comments aimed at me (or assumed to have been aimed at me) to try to get TRM in trouble. If something ever bothers me sufficiently, I'll report it somewhere myself. Don't pretend to be protecting my fragile feelings, when what you're really doing is trying to get someone you hate banned, using any ammunition you find. Leave me the fuck out of all your future vendettas. Please someone uninvolved ban AD from making AE reports about TRM unless they are for comments actually aimed at AD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde93[edit]Not sure I'm particularly involved here, as I've had no direct confrontation with TRM, but I've argued with him on issues related to other people often enough on WT:DYK. I have frequently criticized his attitude there, which is often abrasive. That said, a) he has been a lot better of late, and b) I don't see anything egregious in the diffs presented here. All I'm seeing is (reasonable) frustration at the absence of admins patrolling ERRORS. Honestly, I think we could do a lot worse than close this now, and spend what time we would have spent here, on WP:ERRORS. Vanamonde (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Sitush[edit]As Floq says, this looks like a disingenuous attempt to get TRM into trouble by someone who doesn't care for him. I can't see any substance to it. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Tarage[edit]Is there such a thing as AE boomerang? --Tarage (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning The Rambling Man[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Vergiotisa[edit]
| Appeal denied. Neutralitytalk 05:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Vergiotisa[edit]I am asking for the block to be lifted because I did not begin an edit war and I did not continue a naming dispute. I simply made a valid edit. However, I was obstructed and I was stalked and intimidated to prevent me from making a legitimate edit that ultimately prevailed and from making a further edit request as encouraged. My initial edit was to remove a Wikipedia recognized copyrighted national Greek symbol Vergina Sun WIPO from being inappropriately used on a template. Not only is the symbol in question a recognized copyright in Wikipedia it is also recognized in the interim accord signed by both parties, that its use by the Republic of Macedonia to identify itself is a provocation towards Greece.
This is ecchoed by Wikipedia itself that restricts the symbol's global use as a national emblem of Greece. Any use by the Republic of Macedonia is only a reference to its use during the period 1992-1995 before the signing of the accord. In my attempt to make this simple correction:,
The map I edited created borders that did not exist at the time and does not show clearly the administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire for the region.
Macedonia by itself, will be used to refer to the country in all other articles in contexts where this is practically unambiguous. Examples of contexts that are typically unambiguous: Tetovo, Macedonia. On the page reverted by User:NeilN, Macedonia does not mean officially the Republic of Macedonia. That is misleading to the reader. Macedonia also means the province of modern Greece and the ancient Greek kingdom both unrelated to the Republic of Macedonia. This was an unnecessary addition to the sentence and a standard edit of clarification on a topic I am familiar with, that completely conformed to the naming convention. The targeting that resulted in my feelings of intimidation are clear. In regards to fair Notice: The initial notification that the arbitration committee had imposed discretionary sanctions on articles pertaining to the Balkans was understood by me to imply that the template I had edited was being monitored for a disregard of standards of behavior. As I understood it, a clear copyright violation is of no need for arbitration (as proven by the final change of symbol on the subject template) so for me, there were no conduct issues on my part and the notification was routine. When I was reminded on my talk page of the 3 edit rule by user:Gryffindor I immediately stopped editing activity and only responded to yet another suggestion for the Vergina Sun in the talk page. When the template became fully protected, I thanked the administrator, and as per the suggestion on my talk page by user:Gryffindor I made a request to further clarify the recent move of the template on the templates talk page. My request on the template talk page: I requested that the ambiguity be taken out of the title of the template which recently had “republic of’ omitted from its title. I did not ask for anything contrary to Wikipedia’s naming convention on Macedonia only that it be clarified to avoid confusion as per the convention. To highlight how and why the ambiguity was indeed an issue I referenced Article 2 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity which works towards the harmonious interaction between diverse groups and which applies to the use of the name by both countries. However, understanding that I had been stalked and targeted by three users in what looks like an attempt to intimidate me and to stop legitimate edits being made that clarified the vagueness between disambiguation’s, I added the last paragraph in my request, albeit strongly worded, on the talk page, the place I was encouraged by the notice on my talk by user:Gryffindor and the admin's edit request noticeto address any issues with edits. In Conclusion: The request’s denial by admin would have sufficed to end the topic and for me it had ended there, but instead the opportunity was given for both user:pepperbeast and user:Gryffindor to respond with their inaccurate POV while I was demonized on my talk page by User:NeilN and blocked from responding. I ask that the block be lifted because I was not the instigator of any edit war or false copyright claims nor did I intentionally disregard Wikipedia rules or continue a naming dispute. I clearly used the appropriate wikipeida convention name. My claim of vandalism was an address to being stalked on my unrelated edits by the three users without cause. I do not have a history of causing problems in Wikipedia, disrespecting other users, or of consciously disregarding Wikipedia rules and conventions. What was a simple and accurate edit was escalated by the inappropriate actions of three users, one of which I was aware, was an admin who instead of moderating, escalated the issue resulting in my block and with no accountability on anyone else's part. I apologize that my frustration at what felt like an attack by stalkers and propagandists, let me to lecture in the final paragraph of my request. For my part as a relative novice of wikipedia still, I will make it my task to learn the appropriate discussion, resolution and reporting avenues to avoid anything similar in the future. I thank you for your consideration. Vergiotisa (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by NeilN[edit]I believe the appeal well-illustrates why the block was levied. Vergiotisa's editing, starting from September 2013, has almost exclusively focused on the ARBMAC area [19] and they've made false accusations of vandalism and disruptively edited logo content before. Examples: [20], [21] --NeilN talk to me 12:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]I have to admit to not understanding Vergiotisa's statement above. The interim accord between Greece and Macedonia is not binding on Wikipedia, which was not a party to it. It is also -- I don't believe -- binding onany third parties under U.S. law. The link provided by Vergiotisa as showing that Wikipedia restricts the use of the symbol does not, as far as I can tell, say any such thing. In the first place, it's a Commons image and not a Wikipedia image, but in the second place, the file information clearly says that it's in the public domain in Greece, the country of its origin, so presumably is PD here as well. A public domain image can be used in any way desired, there are no restrictions on its use placed by Wikipedia, Commons, the WMF, U.S. law or any other authority. If I'm wrong in these statements, I'd appreciate being corrected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by pepperbeast[edit]Editor obviously has a bee in their bonnet about Macedonia, and believes s/he's being stalked and and harassed when someone disagrees with them or checks out their other edits. Their response to the present block is to blame others (me, Gryffindor, NeilN) for their behaviour, and this block appeal is mostly a litany of what other editors did wrong. I think s/he needs some time to cool off. PepperBeast (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Vergiotisa[edit]Result of the appeal by Vergiotisa[edit]
|
Seraphim System[edit]
| Closed without action. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Seraphim System[edit]
Per notice on talk page: "Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit."
Discussion concerning Seraphim System[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 Seraphim System[edit]Considering I left polite note on User:Shrike's talk page after they violated the consensus clause instead of proceeding to arbitration, and that I have not violated any of the ARBPIA rules, I must say I am disappointed by this tactic. I am new so some rules like learning when an article has already been reviewed for deletion I am still learning as I go along, but I am committed to maintaining ARBPIA rules. I do not believe in edit warring. I think this action by User:Shrike is motivated by trying to manipulate the consensus process on another page Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy and part of a pattern of disruptive editing and non-engagement on a very narrow range of topics. Seraphim System (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC) ADDITION: I did not know that restoring another editors content was a violation. I have only ever restored edits when mine has been reverted. This may seem obvious, but since I don't edit war, I am not familiar with the intricacies of the rules in their applications. If it had been brought to my attention, I would not have repeated it. As a matter of principle, I don't think ARBCOM should sanction new editors for good faith mistakes. I also think User:Shrike should be sanctioned for his violation of the consensus clause, I assumed it was a good faith error notified him on talk and he still has still not corrected it. As for genocide denial, I still consider the content of the page Racism in Palestine to be a form of genocide denial. It was not intended as a personal attack, but I understand it came across that way. I should have been clear that I was speaking of the content, and not the editor. Seraphim System (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC) @WJBscribe: Is this going to be like the electoral college, where the admins ignore the popular vote? @Kingsindian: I graduated from one of the top-ten social sciences departments in the United States. I am interested in looking into this more - what is the definition of "uninvolved"? Seraphim System (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC) ADDITIONAL I have found out that a very similar issue was discussed and resolved several months ago. It was over the Jordanian Occupation/Annexation issue. There also User:WJBscribe sanctioned Huldra for an unintentional violation of the same Byzantine application of the consensus clause. There was significant objection from other admins. User:WJBscribe continued to push for his interpretation. User:Shrike started a new section to discuss the block on User:WJBScribes talk page with a strange remark about Hulda's gender. The block imposed by User:WJBScribe was overturned by consensus, and that outcome was accepted by User:WJBScribe.
Statement by Ryk72[edit]The edit in question brings a wikilink into alignment with its target article, which was moved on April 6, following a requested move discussion here Consensus for the move, and, presumably, for the change to any wikilinks targeting it, would appear, rightly or wrongly, to be contained within that discussion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC) @Shrike: I am confused by your comments. The edit presented in this filing is a simple change of a wikilink from "Jordanian occupation of the West Bank" to "Jordanian annexation of the West Bank", reflecting a successful requested move of that article. This does not relate to "East Jerusalem". Is it possible that a different edit was meant? There may well be issues with this editor's edits, but the diff presented, for mine, does not add up to bubkes. It would be better for diffs like this disruptive PROD to be presented. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]The edit can be read as a technical violation, as WJBscribe does, or as an edit for which consensus had already been obtained, as Number 57 does. Most likely Bolter 21 was unaware of the article move, as he was away from Wikipedia during that discussion and played no part in it. In case of doubt, one should find in favor of the accused, not against. Zerotalk 13:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Actually finding this is a violation would set a dangerous precedent. If a consensus has been obtained in a RM or RfC, then an edit to implement that consensus is made and reverted, is it then necessary to start a new RfC to get consensus again? That would be quite ridiculous. Zerotalk 13:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC) @WJBscribe: You wrote "I don't agree that a RM discussion is consensus for changing the name of an article and all wikilinks that point to it." You are wrong; it has always been taken as sufficient cause to change links. People who want to argue that the old article name should be retained by changing a direct link into a redirect or pipe can always make that argument, but they have an onus to make a case and just not liking the consensus name change doesn't cut it. The default practice is that when we change the name of an article we also change the links to it. It is a terrible idea to provide editors who disagree with RM outcomes with a mechanism for keeping the old name regardless. This area is becoming a true Theatre of the Absurd. Zerotalk 00:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]What I don't understand is why these things are not discussed like adults before bringing them to AE, or why the admins are going straight to sanctions, or worse, acting unilaterally for no reason. Why did El C block both Seraphim System and Avaya1 for the edits on Ariel Sharon, the former while they were even discussing on the talkpage? This is absurd. For instance, a few days ago on the page: Jewish Voice for Peace, I reverted an edit of E. M. Gregory, who re-reverted me immediately. I did not report them to AE, and they did not revert their own edit. There was a brief discussion on the talkpage. MShabazz reverted the edit while discussion was inconclusive. As of now, the status quo ante remains. Now, if El C were watching the page, EMG would have been blocked because they violated the rule, and perhaps MShabazz would have been blocked for "tag-teaming" or "edit-warring" or whatever thing someone complains about. But I didn't complain about anything, and I don't want anyone blocked. The discussion is already talking place on the talkpage. So why is the admin intervening? Wikipedia has a thousand rules and a million ways to run afoul of them. Thank god we don't file an AE report for every time someone breaks some rule. We don't sue people for every offence in real life either. Admins are not required to act on all reports. This kind of overzealous enforcement is very bad, and will make the area much worse to work in. Please, we are not children, where one has to go running off to mommy every time one's little finger is hurt. This kind of stuff will only breed more resentment and more reports. Already I'm seeing tons of frivolous reports. In real life, there are legal costs involved; but here there is only the cost of filing a report. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Huldra[edit]I am a bit horrified as to what this area has become; from anyone can edit, to everything is chiselled in stone, (unless you discuss on talk.) And all this, when editors haven’t really asked for it. As for this latest spat, I am at least partly responsible for it. When Bolter rv my edit, I made a mistake: instead of pinging him on the articles talk-page (which has 600+ watchers), I went to Bolters talk-page (which has less than 30 watchers), informing him about the RfC, and asked him to revert, knowing he had not taken any part in the RfC. And I would have thought that with the RfC there was consensus for change, here. This was nothing like the [[Danzig]] or [[Gdańsk|Danzig]] example, here we had a straight link to the article. Do we really need to discuss that? How many times do we have to rerun this RfC? Huldra (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC) User:Black Kite, lol, that is exactly it. It is complete madness, IMO, but that is just my 2 cents, Huldra (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Seraphim System[edit]
|
Razzieman[edit]
| Block endorsed and 3-month topic ban imposed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Razzieman[edit]
None
User was inactive for over a year but returned in February 2017 to engage in a series of reverts. Was dormant until yesterday when they continued the behavior. Last 7 edits (and the only edits since January 2016) have been reverts or removals of material on American politics pages.
Discussion concerning Razzieman[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 Razzieman[edit]Statement by IP[edit]So the comedian Bill Maher makes a comment that Anthony Wiener should run for President in 2020 because "He had balls, and he was an asshole" and, since we're OK with a "pussy grabber" we should have no issues with "a guy who sexts teens with a baby by his dick." This is covered by The Huffington Post and added to the article that Anthony Wiener is a speculative candidate for the 2020 Presidential Electon. Razzieman edit wars to remove that entry (which was probably a BLP violation!), is blocked for a month, and admins are now discussing a topic ban? Question to the admins - did any of you actually READ the facts behind this case or just jump in because technically the revert rule was violated? I'm having a hard time understanding why that material should remain in the article. I see no attempts at discussion with the user, the editor who added the information says on the talk page that Maher was probably joking, and Razzieman is blocked a mere 3 hours after being reminded of the DS? NeilN I think you have made a serious mistake. 2600:1004:B05D:87F8:C827:93B3:7C3B:3BF8 (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Razzieman[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Theadjuster[edit]
| Appeal declined. Additionally, Theadjuster (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from BLP edits for 3 months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Theadjuster[edit]This entire warring scenario began when unidentifiable editors began deleting entire passages of my copy from politician Christy Clark's page under the heading of "controversies" and it so happens that the timing of these deletions aligned with the beginning of said politician's election campaign, toward reelection as Premier of British Columbia. I believe that a careful study of the copy and references will show that the copy is legitimate, and that the copy is situated correctly on the page, under "Controversies", and that the copy does reference a host of legitimate and verifiable issues pertaining to the history and performance of said politician. Wikipedia guidelines are clear that contested copy (around tone, neutrality, etc.) should be taken up piecemeal and altered or improved if necessary but is not to be deleted en masse. Upon seeking higher Wikipedia Admin support to point out these infractions I was met instead with stalwart edit values and "good faith" suppositions, all of which were seemingly irrelevant as I could not "talk" with the original editors who deleted passages, when I visited their talk page I found no sign of activity. Also I am relatively new and did not even know how to find the talk page for CC until further along, despite best efforts to respond....Most recently my wife did chime in on my behalf, but this was out of her own insistence and not my bidding. Seems unfair to be further penalized for this, just trying to clarify a position that seems to be going unrecognized, or overlooked, or ignored... As for my Mediararus account I was up front with this from the beginning, it is connected to my first and forgotten account with Wikipedia, never used, but I logged in unknowingly with this account as I was logged in via gmail and then did not recognize the different User account until after a few edits. Not sock-puppeting! Never used this account before or since, you will see. And the account is linked to me and not to a made up profile. No intention of sabotage or hiding my profile at all. I don't appreciate the suggestions from editors which suggest otherwise--like a pack of wolves jumping on me, to conclusions... For what its worth, I've brought this matter to the attention of other media, taking an interest in this story, as it appears to others and not just me that this is was a case of political interference, ie. there is an agenda to clear the "controversies" section from Christy Clark's Wikipedia page, timely as it is, during her election campaign... I am still hoping that some reasonable Administrator might intervene here and take a good look at the history on the page--see who deleted what and how, when...verify for yourself if the copy is legitimate, well-cited, etc and if there is problem with tone/neutrality then raise in talk and let's discuss but PLEASE can we not see that outright deletion of verifiable content is not okay and suspicious--ie. not in good faith ?? Statement by NeilN[edit]See ANI thread. User blocked after reverting an "admin action" edit I made. [31] Given this appeal and further talk page posts I recommend a topic ban from all BLPs of British Columbia politicians, broadly construed. Ideally, I'd recommend a topic ban from British Columbia politics, broadly construed. --NeilN talk to me 18:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Adding that before the revert that led to the block, I did counsel them on how to proceed and to drop the "vandalism" accusations. [32] --NeilN talk to me 19:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Boing! said Zebedee[edit]I can't really say any more than I agree 100% with NeilN, and that I too would favour a topic ban from British Columbia politics, broadly construed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Theadjuster[edit]Result of the appeal by Theadjuster[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by JFG[edit]
| 0RR restriction reduced to 72 hours on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections by sanctioning admin and general agreement below. --NeilN talk to me 16:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by JFG[edit]First of all, I admit that a technical 1RR violation occurred as reported, with a 17-hour interval between two unrelated reverts; I simply didn't pay attention. However, I strongly deny the purported pattern of 1RR violations which has been cited to justify the sanction. This is a wikihounding campaign by SPECIFICO who has repeatedly accused me of violating DS or 1RR simply when she happens to disagree with my editing. She has been making unsupported DS violation claims and vague litigation threats against several other editors, e.g. most recently K.e.coffman here and Darouet there. I have warned this user repeatedly of the chilling effect she is creating, but she keeps trying to corner me on a technicality (and apparently succeeded today). Here are six instances of her direct accusations which turned out to be unfounded:
SPECIFICO never managed to find any genuine misconduct on my part. I consider this attitude to be disruptive and borderline harassment, however I refrained from reporting her behaviour and I treated it with as much humour as I could muster.[33] An editor once brought me to AE, and another to ANEW, and in both cases no violation was found; these were misunderstandings about what constitutes a revert. One of the reporting users graciously apologized but SPECIFICO piled on with a kind of "you'll get nailed next time" taunt, yet she never pushed the matter to WP:AE. Please note also that I voluntarily self-revert when notified of an actual DS violation (for example self-revert + pursuing discussion), whereas SPECIFICO simply ignores warnings when she breaches revert restrictions (for example this thread or that one, ignoring self-revert requests and issuing threats). SPECIFICO's hounding behaviour towards me has been so blatant that another editor, Factchecker_atyourservice, whom I didn't know, came to my talk page to joke about it by making a parody of her attacks. This thread is also worth reading, whereby another editor, Objective3000, admittedly sometimes in disagreement with me, considered that SPECIFICO owed me an apology for her aspersions. Imposing a permanent 0RR restriction on me would be validating the chilling effect intended by one adversarial editor, in practice denying me legitimate editing actions towards article improvements in AP2 topics. Given the fuzzy interpretations of what is and is not a revert, I run the risk of being blocked for simply making a bold edit that somebody will construe as a revert of some content. Sanctions are meant to be preventive, not punitive, and this 0RR restriction looks like punitive treatment for a series of mostly-unfounded DS violation claims. For my inadvertent violation today, I agree to voluntarily abide by 0RR for three days, and I request the formal lifting of this restriction after 72 hours. Furthermore, I request a strong admonition to SPECIFICO for a pattern of hurling baseless accusations at her fellow editors, thereby wasting everybody's time and energy towards unconstructive discussions. Finally, I'm sorry for burdening admins with a rather lengthy statement; I felt I had to provide enough context to defend myself properly. Statement by Ian.thomson[edit]I admit that I had looked though and saw the multiple warnings, with diffs. The proclivity for manual reverts (along with SPECIFICO sometimes not linking to prior versions) makes it harder to sort through. There was a flame this time, and lots of smoke in previous instances. That said, my phrasing was "after multiple warnings," not "multiple violations." JFG said
Statement by (slatersteven)[edit]Well a look at 19th of feb show this revert [34], followed by this [35] which JFG's own edit summery says is a "self revert". Yes it is a technicality, but it is two reverts. I assume the warning on 23 refers to two reverts on the 22nd [36] and [37], opne was (it claims) a reversion of a banned user's material, but still (technically) two reverts. I stopped here. yes there do seem to also be multiple reverts on the 26th as well. The two instances of double revert I checked are not really egregious, in that one was a self revert and thus only technical violations.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by DHeyward[edit]Overturn. This was a rather hasty response to a nebulous charge. Are we really counting a self-revert as a violation of 1RR as the second revert? I noticed SPECIFICO leveling accusations of edit warring against JFG on the BLP notice board and no action was taken. There is a degree of forum shopping going on and it was unclear what action caused the imposing administrator to invoke a 0RR restriction. --DHeyward (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Clean block log for an editor accused of a pattern of edit warring? Not much of a pattern. Considering the sanction request was made on the article talk page with no discussion and no diffs for a pattern of behavior (which is really a pattern of complaints), this is a rather egregious overreaction to a 1RR violation from an out of process sanction request. JFG has never been blocked for edit warring so the argument for a pattern of edit warring is rather ridiculous. This was an ill-considered sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC) I'll also note that the talk page for the article where this request was made has hatted the discussion as being out of process with a notice that bringing sanction requests to talk pages can result in sanctions. This sanction should have never been issued. --DHeyward (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The 72 hour agreement for lifting seems reasonable. --DHeyward (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishes[edit]I think JFG indeed violated 1RR restrictions on these pages previously. For example, one (revert of this edit) and two (clearly marked by JFG himself as a revert in the edit summary). Here is whole discussion if anyone would be interested in. I also admit reporting JFG previously on 3RRNB here. Here is why. My reading of WP:3RR was that undoing work by previous contributors (plural) like here would be counted as revert. However, JFG insisted that one must provide exact edit (diff) by specific contributor (singular) that he reverted. I am not sure that JFG was right, but the closing admin (El C) decided he was right. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JFG[edit]In considering this matter, please note that the sanction would apply to "articles" plural, not just "the article" as User:El C mentioned below. JFG has been active (without incident) at multiple articles where the sanction would apply. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by JFG[edit]
|
E.M.Gregory[edit]
| E.M. Gregory is cautioned to take more care in the future when editing articles subject to sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning E.M.Gregory[edit]
Discussion concerning E.M.Gregory[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 E.M.Gregory[edit]I lost my cool and reverted too hastily, forgetting to discuss the deletion first on the talk page. I backed off from brangling over I/P articles ages ago, after finding the discussions in re: Susya endlessly aversive. I now limit editing in I/P to articles that come up for AfD (like this one,) non-controversial topics like art and literature, occassional sourcing, and terrorist attacks - which I create and edit worldwide. This keeps me out of the swamp of deletion wars and personal attacks in which I/P editing is mired. But it also means that I simply forgot that reverting this deletion violated a rule. An error on my part. I do want to point out that the information deleted was sourced to an essay was by Itamar Marcus and published in the Times of Israel.[40] It was written in NPOV voice and was deleted without discussion during a tense AfD process with editors arguing delete on the grounds that the Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing attack was a single-news cycle event with no ongoing coverage. Removing this material during an intensely controversial AfD process framed by several editors as an argument that all terrorist attacks in Israel/Jerusalem/Palestinian Territories should be added to lists rather than kept as stand-alone articles. (Because I edit terror attacks, crime, and attacks that may or may not be terrorism worldwide, I was aware that this argument is contrary to our treatment of similar attacks in other parts of the world.) I do not know what Fram's motives ere in deleting this material, although certainly he has been adamant in opposition ot the existence of this article, describing it as lacking ongoing impact [41], Statement by Fram[edit]E.M. Gregory, first read things attentively before making up statements here. I was not "attacking even what the calls "mainstream" media coverage as "unreliable""[43], that was a quote from now indef blocked user Cyrus the Penner (who was on your side of the debate from the start): they were claiming that mainstream media coverage is unreliable, a statement with which I clearly disagreed, but which showed his POV in editing the article and AfD. Don't attribute statements or opinions I have not made to me please, and certainly don't build a whole flimsy defense on these incorrect starting points. Considering the ArbPIA reminder of early april, and the 1RR reminder of 21 April, it seems unlikely that "I simply forgot that reverting this deletion violated a rule." Your description of [44] as an NPOV source can be judged by uninvolved readers on its merits, but in the end has no bearing on this AE request. Fram (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Shrike: because E.M. Gregory reverted the same thing twice? I didn't really pay attention to what others did separately, and the two edits by MrX are edits he could have done in one go as well (they are two separate sections, if I looked correctly). But if you feel that these as well broke the restrictions and deserve the same treatment, be my guest (I also don't know whether MrX has had ArbPia warnings and recent warnings about this behaviour, which Gregory certainly had, but again, I have not looked in this in detail). Fram (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC) @Shrike: E.M. Gregory self-reverted after you advised them to "Just self revert to be on the safe side"... Why this would put them on the safe side is not really clear, his false statements and allegations in this AE request or his inability to see that an opinion piece is not a reliable source for statements of fact about something that perhaps one day might happen don't give me much confidence that there is any understanding of the problems with his edits in this contentious topic area. Fram (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC) @Wordsmith. No opinion on whether this is the time when a first block is needed, or a final warning is sufficient. But the "clean record" of E.M. Gregory is dubious (the lack of archiving makes it hard to research this though). It seems that here they received a one-month topic ban from the Israel-Palestine subject in May 2016. So, while his block log is as of now empty, he doesn't have a clean record, not even in this very topic area. " he has admitted getting heated, and he did self-revert." Yes, after the discussion on his talk page, the ANI request, and this AE request were started, when another editor advised him to do so "to be on the safe side". Self-reverting to avoid a block is hardly a mitigating factor in my book. "the fact that this case was filed within half an hour of Fram opening an ANI thread[28] (and after E.M.Gregory had already admitted that he was hasty and made a mistake) smacks of admin shopping." I was advised at the ANI thread to start an AE request, but apparently following that advise is now "forum shopping"? Not really, no. Forum shopping is getting a negative response at one venue, and then trying again at another: it is not being sent by one venue to another, and then being accused there of forum shopping because you followed that advice. "Fram has, in fact, given out ARBPIA DS notices before, so he knows perfectly well that AE is the appropriate place for this." AE is the perfect place for people who have already had ARBPIA warnings (which I didn't know for Gregory at the time I filed the ANI request, just like I didn't know about the earlier topic ban until just now), and I felt that the issues were farther reaching than just the 1RR of ARBPIA. Anyway, your fourth point reads "Fram shouldn't have come here, this is forum shopping. Fram should have come here, this is the right place". Please make up you mind. Fram (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC) @Huldra: my first post on his talk page asked him to self-revert, but instead he reinserted the opinion piece after another user had again removed it. The situation here is not comparable to yours (which I haven't looked in to). ANI and ARE only came after a request to self-revert was not heeded and a further revert to include the contested material was made. Fram (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Shrike[edit]@Fram: Why did you report only Gregory there other users that broke 1RR?For example User:MrX [45] [46]--Shrike (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC) MrX self reverted and I think Gregory too.--Shrike (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@El C: The user have self reverted [48] even before first admin comment. @Wordsmith:There are additional user that violated 1rr and self-reverted do you suggest to warn them too?--Shrike (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC) @El C:Do you suggest same sanction for other user that violated 1RR and self-reverted on the same article?--Shrike (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by MrX[edit]I did inadvertently violate 1RR and I have self-reverted. I was making a series of small contiguous edits and did not realize that Icewhiz had made an intervening edit. E.M. Gregory seems to have strong views in this subject, as evidenced by his willful violation of two of the article editing restrictions, his 37 AfD comments, and suggestion that Fram and I have a political position with regard to the subject (I don't). This discussion and the article edit summaries hint that E.M. Gregory will probably stop at nothing to win disputes in this subject area. A block would be an unfortunate mar on his clean block record, but I do think a short topic ban would help.- MrX 13:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Dovid[edit]I'm not involved here, as I have not done editing in this article. The request happened to catch my eye. After reading through the editing history of the article and a bit of the editors as well, I decided to comment. Forgive me for barging in. This seems to be overblown. A minor infraction of 1RR, which the editor has already admitted to and apologized for? The complainant is being more belligerent than the subject. No sanctions should be applied. A warning might be appropriate, but given that the editor has already owned up, and by his/her own statements appears to be self-policing against this behavior, it would probably be more of a sop to User:Fram than anything else. Perhaps give both of them a warning - User:E.M.Gregory for hasty editing that lead to rules violations, and Fram for i,,ature administrative action (escalating instead of de-escalating, admin shopping). Dovid (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Huldra[edit]Ok, my 2 cents: I was given my first block after over 10 years in the IP area, 3 minutes after being reported by an obvious sock, without any previous warning, and without any chance to self revert. My second block was also given without any warning, and without any chance to self revert. Do I think E.M.Gregory deserves a block? Absolutely not. The fact that I have been treated like shit by admins, does not mean that I want other editors treated the same way. And, for those of you unfamiliar with the IP area; I’m very much on the "other side of the divide" from E.M.Gregory, in fact, I just AfD one of his latest masterpieces, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis. Actually, I would love to see him topic banned from the IP area...or at least, banned from making any new articles in the IP area. But blocked, when he self reverted? No, that is simply not right, IMO. Huldra (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Debresser[edit]E.M.Gregory took full responsibility for his mistake, both here and at WP:ANI,[49] so I recommend minimal action, perhaps even a warning. An editor who has been active in this area and has been able to avoid problems, should receive some credit here. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Result concerning E.M.Gregory[edit]
|
EJustice[edit]
| I'm closing this with no action taken, with a recommendation to take this to AN where a more tailored TBAN may be considered. This is without prejudice to another admin imposing a post-1932 politics TBAN under their normal discretionary authority. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning EJustice[edit]
References
EJustice's trajectory within WP is very typical of advocates who arrive here, mistaking Wikipedia for something that it is not. EJustice arrived with a clearly stated agenda, has mostly ignored feedback, and has accused those who raised issues with their content of being blinded by their own biases. No self-awareness, no acknowledgement that a bunch (not all) of the student editing has violated policies on many levels (POV, SYN, failing verification, COPYVIO), nor glimmer of openness to seeing Wikipedia for what it is. (It is hard to write about race and class everywhere in the world, including WP - maybe especially in WP with our policies and guidelines and mission, and our community full of messy humans) EJustice set this POV-editing agenda for a class of 180 people; EJustice is driving (their grade depends on it) and encouraging students to add essay content to Wikipedia arguing an environmental justice agenda, against Trump's agenda; this is the WP:Beware of tigers problem. EJustice has demonstrated this in their AfD !votes, their talk page comments, and their responses at various boards. I feel awful for the students. See this conversation with a student on my Talk page. That student is trapped between what their professor is demanding and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. EJustice being here under the Education Program has kind of exacerbated the overall problems - pulling out this diff from a volunteer at ANI, already cited above: This is.. awkward and unfortunate and is surely something that will be discussed when the semester is over when the Wiki Ed staff are not working like crazy trying to help students complete their assignments. But EJustice's activities have caused widespread disruption and absorbed a ton of volunteer time, as you can see from the discussion boards cited above. They continue to personalize objections to content created by students, instead of dealing the policy-and-guideline based issues themselves, as shown by the last two diffs above in particular. In the case of EJustice as a Wikipedian, in my view they should be topic banned from contemporary politics, and be informed that this goes for future classes via TAs per MEAT. This is a very bad outcome but I don't see another way. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning EJustice[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 EJustice[edit]Appreciate all the discussion. I will restrict my response to the charge that I violated Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions .281932 cutoff.29. Please correct me if there is more at stake in this discussion on this page. As this diff indicates, I have not edited within the sanctions area. There was one sentence in our course syllabus that has been the major source of POV claims against me, while the syllabus itself clearly states that the Wikipedia assignments are an exercise in writing neutrally. It is not clear to me that the syllabus, hosted on Wikiedu.org, is subject to POV rules. If so, would wikipedia editors have the right to alter the readings or other assignments? It is simply a syllabus and its content (POV or not) has no bearing on an assignment in which students were required to write neutral, well supported wikipedia articles to the best of their abilities.
:: key comment -- comment on draft: Remember however that your grade depends also on the extent to which you cover EJ in the article. as if students' coverage of this issue in an article is somehow wrong. If I insisted in a chemistry class that articles cover chemistry, would I be subject to sanctions? Finally, here is just one example of Jytdog's assuming bad faith on my part. If one understands environmental justice as a field of research, his long complaint above becomes instead a POV itself, arguing against environmental justice as a field of research. I am sorry if my insistence that the intersection of race, class, gender and other social characteristics with the environment is an important field of research and data, and NOT POV, is interpreted as intransigence on my part. I assure you that it is not. Jytdog's list of complaints across so many articles illustrate the way in which on many topic areas it remains difficult for people to accept the strong research that is available on this subject and instead to treat this work as somehow biased. EJustice (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by The Wordsmith[edit]@Lord Roem: I intend to make a more substantive comment, but I will request that you grant Jytdog a waiver on his statement length. This issue encompasses a massive number of articles involving many editors, and extra space really is necessary to put this issue in context. The only reason I didn't bring it to AE myself is because of the sheer scope of this. And as always, I consider myself WP:INVOLVED on 2016 Election-related articles in general and this Berkeley issue in specific. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Bri[edit]I'll make this short and sweet.
- Bri (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by MelanieN[edit]I have been involved to a slight extent with EJustice and his students, primarily at one of the articles: Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. At that article several of us have been working with several of the students, collegially and with good results, and it is a proper encyclopedia article. I have interacted with EJustice himself on only one occasion, the ANI that Jytdog quoted from above. Speaking as a regular editor (not as an admin because of my involvement), I have two points to make.
I thank Jytdog for this careful research and exposition of this massive problem. Unfortunately AE may not be the proper venue for the problems raised here, and we might have to do it all again at AN in order to take the actions which are called for.--MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphimblade[edit]I'll comment here since I've been rather involved in this issue. I fully agree that this is becoming a major problem. Normally, when I've run into issues with class projects, I've found that instructors and students are quite willing to receive and act on feedback, and it doesn't have to go any farther than giving them some advice and being there if they have questions. Unfortunately, that has not been true here. EJustice has seemed fundamentally unwilling to change the approach they've taken, even after having been told repeatedly that it is unacceptable. At this point, I don't know what else we can do but apply sanctions. To the question by Sandstein, many of this class's edits are American Politics related, but there have also been issues with BLP. Discretionary sanctions always are applicable to BLP issues. But something needs to change here, because this is reaching a serious level of disruption, and with the instructor being unwilling to change what they're doing, I don't know what else to do. I warned some time ago that it might come to this if it continues, and, well, here we are. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Train2104[edit]I encountered this course after seeing the first ENI report linked in the "prior community discussion" section above. Their behavior has been problematic, magnified by the sheer volume of students and articles involved. I echo the comments by the various editors above, and thank Jytdog for bringing this here, for it is sorely needed. The edits are clearly motivated by American politics, and as such, should fall under discretionary sanctions. Students look up to instructors as role models, and we expect instructors to demonstrate good behavior to their students. However, here, we are considering sanctions against a particular editor, not against all 180 students. We do not know the behind the scenes processes that occurred leading to this, including the choice of article topics, etc. But we do know that the syllabus was deliberately written with a goal in mind, and thus by extension, the course and assignment have an advocacy goal, one clearly not compatible with the purpose of Wikipedia. Nor do we know whether or not this user has attempted this course in the past (pre-Trump of course). But clearly they have refused to listen to our advice, and instead accuse us of systemic bias and not supporting his cause - when we try to be as neutral as possible. The fact that there are 180 students, far less than 180 articles (thankfully!), and that numerous SPA/meatpuppet votes were cast at the AFD's tell me that role accounts were likely used. This also violates policy, and is a violation the instructor should clearly be aware of, in addition to the copyright matters above. I echo StAnselm's comment at ANI - we are here only because of the protections (real or imagined) afforded by the Education Program, and if this were a blind meatpuppet army they'd long be blocked. I support the application of sanctions against this instructor, and urge the community to participate in the postmortem analysis and discussion that Wiki Ed has promised will occur over the summer, in response to this and numerous other course-related problems this semester. The semester is almost over, so I'm not sure of their effectiveness, but Wikipedia does not operate according to the calendar of any particular university. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Wiki Ed[edit]I've just posted a statement about this AE request on behalf of the Wiki Education Foundation here: Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents#Statement by Wiki Ed regarding AE. It's not posted on this page for two reasons: first, it would exceed the word count; second, we wanted to comment on the situation and our role in it, but, of course, would rather not opine on the outcome of this process. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Seraphim System[edit]I agree in large part with the comments above - there have been problems and User:EJustice has not been responsive to feedback, and has blamed other editors for being motivated by bias (I can only speak for myself, but I am not promoting a POV about this and did not appreciate being accused of racial or gender bias). Is there systemic bias? Yes, absolutely - but as I have said before, that is not a free pass to disregard policies like WP:SYNTH WP:OR WP:CRYSTAL etc. Even if all these policy guidelines are followed, there will still editors who are disruptive and non-neutral - but there is not much room for debate here, the policy violations were clear and routine. That said, I'm not convinced AE is the right place for this - from the diffs provided I don't see any evidence that the editor has edited in the sanctions area himself, or that these articles were even in the sanctions area when this conduct took place - maybe they should have been, but for a significant duration of this course they were not. Environmental Impacts of Pig Farming for example - not in the sanctions area. These pages should have been correctly templated and protected from the start, they were not. This general behavioral complaint should be raised in the correct forum, if only so we don't slide further down the abyss of chaos and disorder. Seraphim System (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC) @EdJohnston: It could be brought under the scope of discretionary sanctions - American law pages are not part of American politics "broadly construed" - that statement veers into meta-theories of law territory. The widely established understanding is that the judiciary is considered to be independent of the political branches and they don't adjudicate on political questions - some specific pages may be both legal and political - Statutes passed by Congress could be considered political, because passing legislation is a political process - but the page on Torts or Marbury v. Madison are not pages about politics. Torts is not part of American politics, movements to change the law of torts are part of American politics, as are legislative actions to modify the laws of torts, executive orders, or even agency regulations may be "broadly" construed as being part of American politics in some contexts - I can't deny that Administrative law is part politics "broadly construed", (but litigation challenging enforcement of regulations on legal grounds is not). I want to make this clear going forward - when it comes to torts and cases, x=x and y=y, except when 1,2,3. The whole point of the exercise is that it is not political, it is not democratic, nor based on majority rule or other "political" processes. As for how that applies to the Environmental Justice page - DS could apply because the page is not only about a general area of law - it does include content that is about politics and political movements, and relies heavily on non-legal sources. No problem, if it is under DS it should have been protected and templated, and the usual editing restrictions should have been in place. Seraphim System (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC) @Jytdog: I agree that most of the students work has been more political advocacy then law, and this is likely realated to the syllabus and other issues that have been discussed already. Seraphim System (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by DHeyward[edit]This type ofabuse threatens to undermine the very core principles of wikipedia. The fact that it seems to be supported by outreach efforts means it needs to be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy. Period. --DHeyward (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by TonyBallioni[edit]I'd been refraining from making a statement here because my experience has been mostly with the copyvio issues, which EJustice's talk page documents his response to and in my opinion is worthy of community sanctions in itself. I'll echo MelanieN in saying that I have thoroughly enjoyed working with the students on the Trump article, but Jytdog's diff concerning the grading standards of this course and EJustice's response to it make it clear that he does not understand why grading students based on introduction of a POV into Wikipedia is wrong, and it also places the urgency students on talk pages have felt to include certain content in context.The course page description mentioning Trump makes it clear that the intent was to edit in the DS area, which combined with the student actions in line with their grading standards makes me believe AE is the right place to deal with this. I think a topic ban from courses involving politics of the United States would be justified, on AE grounds alone, and combined with the blantant defense of plagiarism and copyright violations by a university professor I think makes it the only justifiable outcome if it is taken to another forum. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Statement by JFG[edit]EJustice has demonstrated a WP:NOTHERE attitude, which can gravely impact Wikipedia's reputation. He has received many warnings and offers for help, and apparently failed to get the point. I see only an indef ban as the correct preventive remedy. No student account should be sanctioned, but the rationale against EJustice should be explained to them. — JFG talk 07:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by OID[edit]As Ryan from wiki-ed points out, this is an unsual case where an instructor has agreed to abide by wikipedia rules then basically turned around and ignored them. Restrict the instructor *and any class/students they teach* from live article edits (restrict them to talkpages, draft & userspace etc) and we can all go stop talking about it. Draftspace etc already have the processes in place to evaluate, amend draft articles, and the instructor will just have to amend his class or learn to do things the wiki-way. (Yes this is hard on the students, but that is entirely the instructors fault. As a process issue, meatpuppets are also considered aware of any sanctions that apply to the hidden hand behind them.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kingofaces43[edit]Just a note that some of the students chosen topics within the umbrella of environmental justice on the course page fell within pesticide related topics, which are also under DS from the GMO ArbCom case. Ejustice themselves did not edit within those pages, but they were directing people to those topics through the course page. I don't think GMO-Pesticide DS are needed right now (it may be a stretch to apply those DS to Ejustice), but just a heads up that if a future class comes up with this professor even under a political topic ban, there's a decent chance they might end up in yet another DS topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Tryptofish[edit]I can't really add anything that has not already been said, but I share the opinion that the way the class project was set up was seriously disruptive, that the length of the presentation here is not worth worrying over, and that the instructor is unlikely to become helpful without sanctions. I've taken part in some of the past discussions with EJustice, and it seems to me that EJustice does not intend to change their approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Statement by EdChem[edit]I've been watching this miss unfold for a while, starting from the problematic new articles and including the discussions with EJustice and Ryan at Wiki Ed, and I've been debating whether to say anything. I have the strong impression that Ryan (Wiki Ed) has worked hard behind the scenes to avoid this becoming a train wreck and that EJustice has not listened to, or not understood, some very good advice. Unfortunately, there have been some unhelpful comments made to students and to EJustice – not just harsh/bitey-unhelpful, but also well intentioned but not useful-unhelpful. As an academic who has assessed student work at both undergraduate and graduate levels, I can see how an on-WP course project can get into a huge conflict between academic goals and encyclopaedic writing. As a Wikipedian, I can see how the goals can mesh and what to avoid, and I can see how EJustice can have made some of the mistakes that he has. Sadly, we are well past the point where much of this course's writings can be salvaged, and the paths from here diverge. EJustice needs to make sure he can do a valid assessment of the student work for credit, WP needs to clean up article space, and the future needs to be considered. So, I suggest the following:
Short Version: I oppose a topic ban as a poor fit for addressing the actual advocacy problem, and I strongly advise no AE action, not for lack of jurisdiction, but because AN is a more appropriate forum both for widespread community input and for tailoring a remedy to suit the actual problem. The clean up in article space via deletions must and will continue, but EJustice should be supported / assisted to complete the assessments for grading etc of the students. This is both fair for the students (who are caught between WP policy and incompatible task design which is not their fault) and will hopefully reduce reputational damage to WP from EJustice and the students sharing their difficult / unpleasant WP experience with others. Finally, the discussion in summer with Ryan and others from WikiEd is vitally important for looking at lessons for WP and future student editing, which continues to provide challenges. EdChem (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by EJustice[edit]EdChem I would welcome the chance to have the kind of discussion you suggest, particularly bounded as you suggest on a sub-page to keep us focused on my understanding and learning how to contribute more fruitfully. And I'd welcome the help to facilitate our grading. Hope we get to do it! EJustice (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Jusdafax[edit]I find myself in complete agreement with EdChem. I too oppose a topic ban and strongly advise no AE action - if need be, AN is the place to take this. I commend EdChem for his thoughtful reasoning. If Wikipedia is truly to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" then let's take Ed's statement to heart. Jusdafax 04:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Anonymous Student[edit]I've stumbled upon this page after hearing what my classmates have been experiencing with their respective projects. (My group's contributions hardly caused a ripple, so I didn't experience any of this myself) I can't speak on behalf of the professor or the other students, but I do fully understand the issues that the community has raised in response to our contributions and agree that the assignment did have some inherent conflicts of interest with the stated goals of Wikipedia. I understand this has taken a lot of time and caused headaches for editors who felt rightfully alarmed by the content they were seeing. I just want to say, for what it's worth, we are all incredibly new to this and it actually has been a valuable learning experience about how to present information in a neutral way. It's a learning curve, and we're just starting to exercise our critical thinking muscles. I would implore editors to not to be unduly harsh with the student accounts... I'm afraid it would do little except leave a bad taste in 180 impressionable young minds that were just trying to satisfy a rubric. It might be wiser to keep that door open so that those that are motivated to contribute more can come back and develop our awareness of WP ethics. My own group discussed our feelings about this very issue, and it has been eye-opening for me to read along with this whole thread. Thank you for all of your time and it is very heartening to see this kind of passion behind the scenes at WP. Keep up the good work! 128.32.87.206 (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by Anonymous Student2[edit]Because I think it is relevant, I wanted to let the community know that students from the class have been directed by the professor, in lecture and via email, to this page for comment. The email states "I've activated the link www.bit.do/ejwiki if you wish to weigh in on whether I should be banned from Wikipedia. Please feel no obligation to do so and if you do keep your input substantive (people will try to bait you). Statements like: "Isn't this the encyclopedia ANYONE can edit?” are great, and use diffs (see the bonus assignment for how). There's also a new, bonus assignment for documenting extraordinary edits to your articles or talk pages." 2607:F140:400:A024:440:DBDF:46D2:3213 (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning EJustice[edit]
|