Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive266
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by GizzyCatBella
[edit]| Appeal declined. Please try to edit in an exemplary manner for an additional two years. We can reassess then. El_C 18:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Topic ban from the World War II history of Poland.[1] I was invited to appeal this sanction in six months (quote) - showing evidence of substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing.
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Statement by GizzyCatBella[edit]Dear colleagues. In light of the recent AE case,[3] I wish to appeal my very old outstanding topic ban; based on evidence of good faith and a substantial period of positive behavior in other topic areas. I was banned from editing Polish World War Two history articles on June 25th, 2018, almost two years ago.[4] I was originally falsely accused of disruptive editing [5] by now indef banned user Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Icewhiz misrepresented my edits, which involved a dispute about sourcing. If anyone wants more info specifically about that please let me know. (The source I was using was this [6] ) While Icewhiz grossly misrepresented my edits in order to get me sanctioned, I realize now that I made myself open to such an attack by not engaging in discussion more. If I had explained my edits on the talk page and engaged the user in discussion about the text quoted directly from the source (very reliable, as everyone would agree), then perhaps I could have avoided the topic ban all together. From now on, I promise to justify all my edits in the topic area on talk pages, before going forward. I accepted the ban and proceeded to edit in other topic areas to my best abilities. Since that time, I edited hundreds of different articles including new page creations that received a DYK status. In the two years since the topic ban was imposed, I have learned a lot regarding the proper usage of sources and editing etiquette in general. I didn't run into any problems in other topic areas and I believe my editing there has been quite exemplary. I would like to have my Topic Ban rescinded since I truly believe it does not serve a purpose anymore. I would like to emphasize that I did not strive to appeal my ban earlier because I was quite satisfied with editing in other topic areas, but I wish to have it lifted now to avoid potential stressful situations such as the one I experienced recently [7] when reverting disruptive editing (to be 100% honest, I also had one block in two years for accidentally violating the ban). According to admins who evaluated this case I unintentionally came very close to violating my topic and some judged that I crossed the line. Since then, I have taken every precaution. I trimmed my watch list to a minimum following suggestion of Awilley, I read twice every article I want to edit, I have also received guidance from RexxS during the case that I learned from and I'm very grateful for that. I’m even asking more experienced editors such as Piotrus[8] or El_C[9] for advice but I'm still worried about making unintentional errors, to the point that I almost stopped editing Wikipedia altogether at one point. I believe the best way to proceed for me as well as the community in general would be to simply have this very old ban lifted. I can promise to be extremely careful and to avoid controversy in any edits I might make in this topic area. If it would help granting of this appeal I can commit to always discussing any potentially controversial edits on talk first, taking special care with sources, quoting the relevant text and generally making a conscientious effort to avoid controversy. Thank you for your consideration.GizzyCatBella🍁 09:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Addendum: Below are the difs that led to my original Topic Ban listed by the editor filing the complaint, discussed by admins and non-admins. Please note that I was sanctioned as a result of a revert war with the above editor, following a content dispute regarding a single settlement article. I take full responsibility for my actions, but I wish to note that there were mitigating circumstances as well. Source of data: [10] Firstly, I have the impression that settlement articles in Wikipedia (WP:CITSTRUCT[11]) usually don’t go into ongoing bitter controversies between historians, but if they do, then both sides of the narrative are presented. The settlement in question was a small town of Stawiski in Eastern Poland. There were many sources in that article already before the edit-war started, but sourcing is a challenge sometimes, and in the end, l definitely learned my lesson. The official web-page of Stawiski that is archived at: [12] as well as Stawiski Travel Guide [13] inform about the 1941 massacre. The first one, in just one sentence: “W 1941 roku Żydów wymordowali w Stawiskach Niemcy.” (In 1941 the Jews were murdered in Stawiski by the Germans). The second source informed who the German murderers might have been. The source is a paper by Holocaust historian Alexander B. Rossino archived by Wayback Machine. [14] That source was described by senior editors, who commented at WP:AE, as a “blog copy of a copyright violation” misused and misrepresented. I did not write the text discussed by the senior editors though – someone else wrote that information years earlier. What I did however, was to object against the removal of it, in a subsequent edit war. The paper by Alexander B. Rossino is reprinted by Jewish Virtual Library and can no longer be seen as some dodgy source, so the information about the presence of the Nazi Germans in Stawiski on 23 June 1941 is confirmed reliably. [15] Rossino did not mention "Jewish militia" in that paragraph. But he did say, some paragraphs below, that “in many cases Jewish militia members directly participated in mass arrests and deportation actions” in those settlements according to research by Holocaust historian Bogdan Musiał, and that other leading scholars of the Final Solution have corroborated Musiał's conclusions,[16], including (reportedly) an Israeli historian Yitzhak Arad. This is not WP:SYNTH but the reading of the entire article as opposed to quoting just one sentence from it. However, I take full responsibility for not engaging the other editor in discussion about it. The 5 difs of our edit war were listed by the other editor with the summary that they “violate this sanction or remedy:” Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions. Here they are:
In my original appeal (above) I did not include the details of the discussion that led to my topic ban because I wanted to be brief and because it happened two years ago so I thought my constructive edits and lack of further sanctions in those two years would speak for themselves. The other editor deleted a lot of material from Stawiski that seemed reliably sourced to me and replaced it with something completely different without a word of explanation. It is hard to separate the good from the bad when there is no discussion, so I restored an older version of the article first and then proceeded to make revisions which included his edits which did not seem controversial. At the time I thought this was common practice. The other editor requested that I self-revert [24] because the information about the Jewish militia in his opinion was “highly defamatory” but I did not see it that way. In the WP:AE case against me, the other editor did not reveal the fact that I had made over a dozen more edits to the article. Here was my final version at the time.[25] Almost all the purported POV texts that Icewhiz pretended were mine in his report were actually from the older version. I actually removed these statements myself. But because he didn’t show the later edits he misled admins into thinking I was responsible for the POV text (except User:Vanamonde93 who was the only one to notice). I have been asked what lesson I learned from that situation. Since I was not the one who added all the problematic text (I removed it) I can’t say anything about that part. But I did learn that I should be really careful in restoring older versions of the article without first scrutinizing them for problems, even if my intention is to remove the problems in later edits. The only issue that remained was my use of the Jewish Virtual Library as a source. I still think that is a reliable source and I did not misrepresent it. I do realize now, however, that I should have been much more explicit about the parts of the source I was using, and how it matched the text I added.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Response to Sandstein: @Sandstein I attempted to keep my appeal brief and within a certain word limit since I knew you sometimes object and decline reports and appeals which are long and detailed, so I didn't go too much into the circumstances of the original topic ban[26] but I will expand if permitted to use more space.GizzyCatBella🍁 14:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Response to Levivich and Buffs: @Levivich and Buffs I brought up Icewhiz because he was the one who filed the original report that led to this ban. He even sought sanctions against me for such things as placing a discretionary sanctions alert on his talk page. [27] for what he was ridiculed by administrator Bishonen who wrote: Response to K.e.coffman: @K.e.coffman 1 - So what happened at Lazar Berenzon article was - I translated the entire piece from the Russian Wikipedia including moving the sources that were already there. I originally didn't introduce any sources of my own. (link for verifying [29] I concluded that copying sources from another Wiki are not prohibited, and verification is not required. Just like introducing articles or adding content with no sources at all is not forbidden or blockable. I observed that happening all the time. Now, when I think about it, it's not the best practice thou. Nevertheless, I aimed to translate the article and then improve it according to our standards myself. I started to look for verifications and adding my sources [30] but within two hours I received unexpected help from the Russian speaking editors [31],[32], who used those sources from the Russian Wikipedia [33]. That was all to it. 2- I simply desired to expand category Category:Jewish atheists based on sources but I didn't know how to add a source to the category. I noticed that other articles that already have such a category are neither sourced or have mention of atheism in the person's bio. (links for verification: [34],[35], [36], [37], [38] ...) these are just first few starting with a letter A, but you can check the rest for yourself. There is no mention of their atheism in the bios and the category is solely based on the person's political affiliation which is atheist Communism[39] I was probably one of the first editors who added text about "atheism" to the person's bio and sourced it properly[40] And.. I'm sorry, but your insinuation of me being " preoccupied with Jewish atheism" I find hurtful and offensive and will not address it. 3 - This one [41] I removed because I didn't see it in the source and I still don't see it.[[42]] Where can you see that claim??? Did you mistranslate something or I made a mistake? Can you copy-paste that form the source in Polish --> Response to El_C and Guerillero: @El_C and User:Guerillero I understand your concerns and I would like to present here some diffs of my substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas: I created a number of articles such as Alfonse Pogrom which I was appreciated for [43],[44], Easter Pogrom about a series of assaults against a Jewish population of Warsaw, Jakub Lejkin, Puławianie, Mary Wagner (Canada), Polish sociologist of Jewish descent Witold Jedlicki, Polish military hero of Jewish origin Józef Berkowicz, Soviet military commander Lazar Berenzon and other. I translated articles from Polish Wikipedia wishing to introduce is in our space [45] but due to the topic ban limitations, I can’t. I reached out [46] and opposed sanctioned against what many would consider being "my opponent" for what I got prase from User:Starship.paint [47]. If I notice that (again, some might imply to be my opponent) an editor might have broken their topic ban, I caution them politely instead of reporting them right away. [48] I politely discuss problems if they arise [49]. I cooperate with others on controversial subjects[50] I refused any involvement in subjects that were covered by my topic ban [51]. I didn't create any socks, I didn't cheat in any way, I was working hard to be a helpful and trustworthy contributor to our project. I really wish just to be able to edit Wikipedia without the constant fear of being reported, as the last time, for accidentally breaking the topic ban. Why not giving me a chance after two years of restraint? I've learned a lot since my ban, I didn't run into any similar problems that led to my ban for the last two years, why would I now? The ban was a good lesson for me regardless of the circumstances. If I for some God's known reason repeat my mistake or do something sanctionable, please reinstate my Topic Ban or ban me altogether, have no mercy. I'll not, I trust myself and please give me an opportunity to prove it.GizzyCatBella🍁 01:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
K.e.coffman provided this diff[52] in his statement section (#3) with a summary:
Now imagine me going through such difficulties every day, for the last 2 years, doing my best to respect my ban just to find myself reported for editing a completely unrelated to the WW2 in Poland article about the Latvian Legion [53] as I just was reported here [54]. And now what? I'm being told - "keep editing Gizzy in other topic areas" for how long I'm asking? Another 2 years? And what? 2 years from now when I appeal again, somebody will run here with a diff of the similar mistake I made but neither I or K.e.coffman noticed? Of course, someone will find something somewhere if they really want. If not that mistake so some other mistake. We are all humans, we make mistakes. And what? We will reset the clock for another 2 years and start again? How many assurances I have to give that my problematic behaviour from the past will not occur again? .. and how fair it is to have somebody restricted for so long without giving them a chance to prove themselves in the topic area? I don't know what else can I do to better myself I haven't done so far, really...GizzyCatBella🍁 01:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC) @User:Galobtter I didn't lie, (please!) when I look at it now, yes I did translate it from the Polish Wiki, not Russian as I thought initially. I wrote my testimony from my head, from what I remembered that's why... and the sources were taken from the Russian Wiki from what I remembered, and I read them with my limited Russian capabilities too I’m sure, before the Russian colleagues took over the article...maybe I can ask them to translate? Gosh, let me look at what happened... did I copy paste something incorrectly??? I remember having quite a few tabs opened... Why would I "make up" those sources?! What for??? GizzyCatBella🍁 03:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
But there was no bad intention on my part. What would be the point of me faking refs?? The text itself is not controversial, there’s no POV there. I'll correct that and I will ask the Russian colleagues for help too.GizzyCatBella🍁 04:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Response to SlimVirgin: (the below applies to my original topic ban case from 2018) SarahSV, here is my honest reply to why I reverted Icewhiz and then proceeded with my edits instead of working from the un-reverted version. First, I was still new here and I didn't realize at that time that I was doing an improper action. Second, I was driven a little by emotions because Icewhiz was very hostile towards me, he was seeking to get me sanctioned on every opportunity, even on bogus pretexts (see my reply to Levivich). Third, I thought he misrepresented the source, I didn't trust him. So the combination of these 3 factors led to my revert and then work from there. An obvious newbie mistake on my part, I already have learned from (acknowledgments to my topic ban). I shouldn't have done it, I should have assumed good faith, don't revert etc. etc. I know all of that now, but back then, I made these mistakes unfortunately and I can't turn back time. All I can do is learn from my mistakes, and I did. GizzyCatBella🍁 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Response to Ealdgyth: Ealdgyth, I understand your concerns about the use of sloppy sources, but I'm trying my best now and I check sources for its quality to my best abilities. As far as editing in other topic areas - my interests are the history of Poland and because of my family ties, also Polish Jewish history. I don't have that many interests and knowledge in other topic areas that I could share. I was editing Polish topics outside the WW2 range for the last 2 years, but eventually, I accidentally violated my ban [56]. Now (I just noticed) EI_C saw another violation [57] but I swear, I don't see anything about WW2 in Poland in that article. I'm probably too old or too stupid but I don't.. I didn't intend to break my ban. You see, this is exactly why I wish to have it lifted. Not because I strive to edit the WW2 area so much but because I can't manage the constant stress associated with an accidental breach of my ban. Poland's history is so connected with WW2 that some articles that in my opinion aren't related to that area actually are related and vice versa. If I edit a bio of a person who owns a bicycle produced during WW2 in Poland, am I going to violate my ban or not? I'm exaggerating a little but these were the kind of questions are was asking myself every day for the last two years. But coming back to your concerns, here is what I propose: If my topic ban is lifted, I would confirm, verify and get approval for every source I want to introduce into or remove from WW2 history of Poland topic area with you or Sarah. How does this sound? GizzyCatBella🍁 17:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Alexander B. Rossino: "Polish ‘Neighbours’ and German Invaders: Anti-Jewish Violence in the Białystok District during the Opening Weeks of Operation Barbarossa", Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry, edited by MICHAEL C. STEINLAUF and ANTONY POLONSKY, Volume 16, 2003. PART III: NEW VIEWS. Liverpool University Press, Oxford; Portland, Oregon; pp. 431–452. (DOI: 10.2307/j.ctv1rmk6w.30). https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1rmk6w Thank you for your time guys.GizzyCatBella🍁 17:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by Sandstein[edit]I leave this decision to admin colleagues as I'm not currently active in AE. However, at first glance, I would decline this appeal. The statement does not accurately characterize or even recognize the misconduct that led to the ban. This suggests that it may well reoccur. Additionally, the statement does not contain the evidence (links or diffs) of the "substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas" that I asked for in the ban. With respect to competence, GizzyCatBella did not correctly use the appeals template when submitting their appeal here, which calls into question their technical competence as an editor, which is important in controversial topic areas. Sandstein 10:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by involved editor K.e.coffman[edit]I've interacted with GizzyCatBella (GCB for short) on the topic of Jewish-Polish relations, so I'm posting in this section. I've not seen sufficiently positive editing from GCB in adjacent topics. A few examples:
--K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Ealdgyth[edit]I'm not seeing that the statements addresses that there were more problems brought forth not just with reverting to an old version, but with sloppy use of sources elsewhere. I'd like to see some actual editing in other areas (not things connected with Poland or Jews) that show that the editor has learned and taken on board all the issues. And that they are trying to distance themselves from the contentious topic area so that there is some sense of balance in their editing. Frankly, the edits K. E. Coffman brought up are concerning that problems may actually be spreading outside the area of the topic ban. And they also need to understand that if the topic ban is removed, that there are now sourcing restrictions in the topic area that would preclude the use of the Jewish Virtual Library anyway (and I'd like to point out that while the RfC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Jewish Virtual Library hasn't actually been closed, it's heavily leaning towards the JVL not being reliable. While Rossino may be a subject matter expert, the JVL piece referred to isn't on his own blog and thus he had no control over it so we can't be sure it's a good transcription of the original source (and this is an endemic problem in the topic area, using mirrors of sources rather than being content to use offline sources.) --Ealdgyth (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 3)[edit]Statement by Buffs[edit]Concur with El_C's assessment below. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by SarahSV[edit]GizzyCatBella, I'm trying to understand what happened at Stawiski. The disputed text was added in 2011 by Lewinowicz, apparently one of Poeticbent's accounts. It was sourced to a 2003 paper by Alexander B. Rossino (it's online but as an apparent copyvio, so I won't link: "Polish 'Neighbors' and German Invaders: Contextualizing Anti-Jewish Violence in the Białystok District during the Opening Weeks of Operation Barbarossa"). Lewinowicz's text was too sweeping in its description of what had happened and in that sense seemed to repeat conspiracy theories about Jews:
Some Jews, particularly younger ones, did join the Soviets, as did others, but the numbers were relatively small, and 20 percent of those deported were Jews. Rossino describes some of this. It is true that he paints a bleak picture of Jewish involvement, I would say bleaker than other sources. But he also writes: "... the outburst of Polish anti-Semitism in reaction to the arrival of German forces was largely based on a stereotype of the 'Jewish-Communist' that was shared by anti-Semites across Europe. ... The evidence clearly demonstrates that like Poles and other native Eastern European peoples with communist sympathies, a certain small number of Jews collaborated with Soviet occupation forces. But when speaking of an unholy union between all Jews and Communists ... one can only conclude that scholars are dealing with a fantasy imagined by resentful Poles ...". The text remained in the article until an IP address removed it in 2013. Poeticbent restored it. In 2014 an IP tagged it as possibly unreliable. Poeticbent removed the tags. In March 2018, Icewhiz removed the text, stating that it had "misrepresented Rossino". This time Poeticbent did not revert and in May 2018 Poeticbent was topic-banned (not in relation to this article). In June 2018, in your first edit to Stawiski, you restored Poeticbent's text. Icewhiz removed it again, and you restored it and were reported to AE. It's true that you did continue to modify the text to bring it closer to Rossino. But why would you twice restore an older text from Poeticbent? Even if you weren't familiar with the topic, Icewhiz's edit summaries stated that it misrepresented the source. If you wanted to make an edit, as you continued to do before the topic ban, why not just do that, rather than first restore an older contentious version? SarahSV (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by GizzyCatBella[edit]
Result of the appeal by GizzyCatBella[edit]
|
PackMecEng
[edit]| Closing with no action. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2020 (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 PackMecEng[edit]
PackMecEng made a talkpage post on Talk:Peter Strzok which made several unsourced or poorly-sourced defamatory claims about the article subject. Their claims included misconduct, lying, or deception - sourced to opinion columns and NewsMax articles, or in some cases entirely unsourced whatsoever. In this edit, I redacted those claims and warned PackMecEng that BLP applies to all spaces in the encyclopedia. In response, PackMecEng abused rollback to undo my redaction and warning. They then repeated the unsourced statement again after I redacted it again. I request that Specifically, PackMecEng wrote Given this user's continuing inability to understand how BLP requires us to use quality sources and not make unsupported defamatory claims about people, I request that PackMecEng be topic-banned. They clearly are not able to edit in this topic space with the due consideration for facts and sensitivity required when dealing with living people. The issue here is one common to political articles - we have an editor who races to the biography of a living person related to a controversy in order to stuff it full of dubious, unsupported, and outright false claims based upon poor partisan sources and misrepresentation of sources. A two-minute reading of The Hill article would have demonstrated to PackMecEng that the source did not, indeed, say what they claimed it said. However, instead of taking that time to investigate and make sure that what they said about a living person was correct - they simply hit the rollback button, because how dare anyone dispute their personal perception and pre-planned condemnation of Strzok which so preoccupied him as to claim that a source which never mentioned the words Peter Strzok supported a claim that Peter Strzok said something. They apparently aren't capable of taking their blinders off and editing with a fair mind and a sensitive eye in this topicspace, so they shouldn't be allowed to edit it anymore. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning PackMecEng[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 PackMecEng.[edit]The rollback was actually a miss click, meant to hit undo but you reverted before I could. Also what threat? PackMecEng (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC) The altering interview notes is from here, specifically
Per The Hill And another Yahoo I have to say I am not a fan of the extreme bad faith assumptions above by NBSB. Things like this & this are pretty unacceptable and demonstrate an aggressive battleground attitude. PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC) In my mind the Hill opinion piece I mention here and was the first source I linked on the talk page covered what I was saying, though not in the right place for where I said it. I had the two Hill sources, numbers 1 & 6, which I had backwards in my first post. The source [1] I list at the article and above here I thought covered the disputed text. You mention that because it is an opinion piece it is not a valid source is for a BLP, if I wanted to use it for info in the article it would have to be attributed to Penn and then would probably fail weight. But the post was not about purposed text or something to add to the article, but a cautionary note. Now if I am mistaken about what the source says I do apologize but that is where I was coming from. With the Hill opinion piece would you consider it a BLP violation what I wrote? At the same time I do not think that excuses NBSB's behavior here or at the article, their aggressive behavior and misrepresenting the situation are a problem. One that has been noted by others but largely ignored for a long time. PackMecEng (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Valjean I did float it on talk first. PackMecEng (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Statement by MONGO[edit]This is a developing story still CNN, WaPo. I think that as this is not being forced into an article itself but being discussed on the talkpage a reminder to be cautious will suffice. Remember to approach BLPs with a "do no harm" thought process.--MONGO (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by Atsme[edit]Well, I was hoping to make this an early night - it is Friday after all - but I've been spending it on research instead. I typically try to steer clear of RECENTISM but when a credible author like Jonathan Turley publishes an article on his website regarding this same topic, it begs to be read, if for no other reason than to learn about what's going on with Strzok according to a legal analyst for NBC & CBS News as well as being a highly credible professor and Chair of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School. He discussed the release of the new FBI documents and he also mentions Strzok's role but I won't quote his analysis here. I'll just leave this link for the admins reviewing this case to read for themselves, if they haven't already seen it. I also recommend that prior to making any decisions in this case - including a potential boomerang - that those involved in this case become a bit more familiar with the information at the link I just provided, as well as the articles PackMecEng attempted to discuss before being drug over here. We don't have to like the contents, and as far as I know, we are still allowed to discuss it on an article TP with links to the articles we're discussing. If we intend to add controversial material to a BLP, we use in-text attribution, verify the information is published by a RS and cite it accordingly. Atsme Talk 📧 02:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Valjean - Fox News is a RS. Please stop misrepresenting it, especially at venues like AE that could have negative effects on an editor who may be innocent. Atsme Talk 📧 11:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by Buffs[edit]Point of order here. I see no warning that this would be taken to Arbitration Enforcement nor of discretionary sanctions. As such, this complaint belongs at WP:AN or WP:ANI for BLP violations. Likewise, this user has never once been blocked via normal means. Escalating to this venue seems preposterous. Many other avenues are available. This is the second such recent request of a conservative voice going straight from no blocks to a ban with no prior notice. It seems more than in bad faith to take this route. WP:IAR, maybe, but twice in a week? Without following our standards of warnings, blocks, bans progression?...unseemly, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]Buffs: As noted above, PME received an AP DS notification in February. There is no requirement that another notification be given before filing an AE report, simply that the editor in question has been informed of the sanctions. Nor is a history of blocks required to file a report here. Please get your facts straight before you comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Statement by XavierItzm[edit]I was coming here to ARE to raise a formal complaint about an unrelated editor/incident, having already done my due diligence, collected diffs, etc. Then I see the big bold warning at the top about vexatious litigation, and look at this here complaint that is based on a TP suggestion for material to be considered, unrelated DS warnings from other users from months ago, and a single incident where one user asserts WP:BIO, and I wonder how far this case is distanced from the vexatious warning above; after all, consider the contributions above by MONGO, Atsme and Buffs regarding do no harm, fair progression, other media sources, etc. Consider this: even Swarm got confused by reading the one of six sources for consideration PackMecEng added to which an objection was raised and at first Swarm thought PackMecEng was justified. Note that NorthBySouthBaranof's objection was to the lack of the word "Strzok", not to the fact that Strzok was Chief of Counterespionage and a Deputy Director of Counterintelligence and not the FBI's head of counterintelligence (like Swarm misread at first). Is Pack not going to be afforded the same margin as Swarm? I for one think that if warnings are going to be issued, perhaps both parties might be warned. Or perhaps this here ARE will be clarificatory enough for both. XavierItzm (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by Levivich[edit]I agree this was handled poorly by the filer. The Hill piece (the first cite in PME's first edit) is written in a confusing way. On my first read, I too thought the statement was being attributed to Strzok. This could have been handled better with a calm explanation on the article talk page rather than over the top accusations about defaming a BLP, redacting, edit warring, and an AE report seeking a TBAN. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 01:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by Valjean[edit]PackMecEng, I suspect that part of the problem is your use of several dubious/unreliable sources to support your proposition, thus laying a treacherous foundation for any discussion/argument that follows. The sources are notorious for extreme spin, with the last four often getting into counterfactual territory as standard practice when it comes to Trump. This diff contains sources that are credibility killers for AmPol2, and that it involved BLP matters made it even more sensitive: Just be more careful in the future to use much better sources. Otherwise, the idea of first floating the subject at Talk is proper. Better luck next time. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Yes, that's exactly what I commended you for. You did "first float the subject at Talk". Good for you. -- Valjean (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by ConstantPlancks[edit]This piece in National Review should clear up any issues here. [71]. Nothing sanctionable nor BLP violations. Most of public responses is that FBI processes were normal investigative techniques rather than defamation of anyone. No one has claimed such behavior was wrong or malicious. Indeed, for WP to conclude that it is would be a BLP violation in itself by insinuating what Strzok did was improper. ConstantPlancks (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Mr Ernie[edit]The recently linked editing about Jeff Sessions is an absurd double standard by NBSB - saying Strzok could have had a hand in something based on a RS that could have been written better is MUCH less serious than calling Jeff Sessions homophobic in Wiki voice based on a blog. If I wasn't so full of good faith I'd think some bias was at play here. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning PackMecEng[edit]
|
JungerMan Chips Ahoy!
[edit]| JungerMan Chips Ahoy! has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Bishonen | tålk 13:25, 14 May 2020 (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 JungerMan Chips Ahoy![edit]
At First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House
At Wadi Qana
Slow running edit war, against consensus at First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House. There has been a long discussion on the talk page, with Shrike in support of JungerMan's arguments. Since Zero0000's comment on 11:51, 17 April 2020 and Selfstudier's comment 12:38, 18 April 2020, there was a 3:2 consensus supporting the inclusion of the material. This moved to 4:2 in support of the quote following Nableezy's comment at 21:25, 12 May 2020. Yet JungerMan has now deleted the content or tagged the content 6 times, of which two occasions have been just after the 24 hour 1RR deadline. Separately, as has been discussed on the talk page, the nature of the edit appears to be tendentious. This is illustrated by the fact that although JungerMan is arguing that the quote is primary, when he deleted it (first three diffs above) he only removed half of the quote. The rest of the quote is from the same source, and the content is not covered by any other source. I have not followed the discussion at Wadi Qana in detail, but per the diffs I have put above there seems to be a similar dynamic. Final note, worth reading Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#JungerMan_Chips_Ahoy! from 5 days ago in a different subject area, where two administrators predicted that JungerMan will "eventually end up at AE". Here we are. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JungerMan Chips Ahoy![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 JungerMan Chips Ahoy![edit]We should flip this around and ask for DS sanctions against Onceinawhile, who is repeatedly introducing contested material into the article w/o consensus, violating WP:ONUS.
I have repeatedly explained to this editors (as have others - [74]) that WP:CONSENSUS is not a numerical vote, and that per WP:ONUS, if he wants to introduce material that has been challenged into the article, he must demonstrate consensus for it, but he refuses to do so. Instead, he merely repeats, time and again, that 3 editors (himself included) support the material, while only 2 oppose it, so 60% majority is a consensus. ([75],[76]). (that ratio is currently 4:3) Note also, that for all his protestations, the contested material is still in the article now, despite having no consensus. Apparently he is not even content with the disputed material being tagged as the primary source that it is. As far as the Wadi Qana article goes, this article is currently undergoing a major expansion/revision. In the process, many problems are being introduced, such as unbalanced sections (which I tagged - #1), statements that failed verification (which I tagged - #2,3), and dubious statements (which I tagged, #5). How are articles going to get any better if issues are not called out via tagging? (Note also the dishonesty in the filer's list, where #4 an #5 are one edit, made, then immediately reverted by myself, then added, yet he lists them as if they were two edits). This is a tendentious request by a tendentious editor, sanctions are to be applied to them. If there is any doubt about this , just check out his final comment, referring to an unrelated AE report involving me - a report which was closed with no sanctions, described as a content dispute that should be resolved on the talkpage, and a call forWP:DR or an RfC (something I've been repeatedly asking the filer to do here, which he refuses). And while one of the admins arguing against me in that AE did write what Onceinawhile chose to quote, he was immediately replied to by another admin who said "at least at the linked article, they're making something resembling a good point.". Somehow that didn't make it into the tendentious filing here. Finally, this editor has previously been sanctioned - blocked for edit warring and topic banned from this subject area for 3 months, for this exact type of conduct - it seems tht after cooling his heels for a while, he's right back at it.
Statement by shrike[edit]There were never any consensus.The WP:ONUS was never satisfied for the inclusion of contested material.Those who restored the material without consensus should be sanctioned as violation of WP:ONUS like the filer[77] --Shrike (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]I agree with Shrike. In this area, you can't include a Primary Source without satisfying the requirement laid out in policy and that wasn't met. Those editors who included it, violated DS and ONUS by reinserting it. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy[edit]There's a pattern of edits with this user, seen here and at, for example, The Federalist (website). Slow-motion edit-warring just outside the bright line rules. I also remain convinced that this is NoCa1l00 and should be blocked on that basis. nableezy - 22:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by Mr Ernie[edit]I see a number of users at that page re-inserting material without a clear consensus, violating ONUS. The next proper step should be an RFC, with inserting the material on hold until it concludes. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Result concerning JungerMan Chips Ahoy![edit]
|
==Eternal Father==
| Final warning issued.Doug Weller talk 10:46, 17 May 2020 (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 Eternal Father[edit]
Eternal Father was topic-banned from AP2 here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive265 § Eternal Father Consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036 § American Politics and COVID-19 is that the COVID-19 conspiracy video Plandemic falls within the AP2 arena, due to the political nature of COVID-19 generally and COVID-19 conspiracy theories in particular. Eternal Father was made aware of this on 2020-50-08. Judy Mikovits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is inextricably linked to Plandemic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mikovits is the "star" of the video and her conspiracy theories around COVID-19 are its subject. The edits serve to promte the legitimacy of Mikovits against a background of the Plandemic video, e.g. adding {{Infobox scientist}} when the point is very much that she is no longer a scientist, having been dismissed during a course of events that included retraction of her most cited paper. I would say that it is difficult if not impossible to argue in good faith that if Plandemic is in scope, Mikovits is not. This is Eternal Father's first mainspace edit since being alerted that Plandemic is in scope. Plandemic (and Mikki Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the director) were his first mainspace edits since the topic ban. I'd like to ask an uninvolved admin to issue a firm and final warning to stick to the spirit of the topic ban and not be tempted to test its limits. Guy (help!) 08:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Eternal Father[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 Eternal Father[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Eternal Father[edit]
I've given them a final warning making it very clear that this applies to every page on Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC) |
Rk adh
[edit]| Now moot as the editor has been blocked indefinitely as a normal administrative sanction by Bishonen. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:25, 19 May 2020 (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 Rk adh[edit]
None
This is a newish user, dealing with a page on a Nepali village on the Indian border, which has a certain amount of India-related content. It is close to a disputed territory. It seems fairly clear that the user came around to bulldoze his way through the edits, and to make personal attacks against me and my editing, with no effort at good faith engagement of any sort. After this spree of edits, a new account called Govinda Paudel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) got created, which did the same kind of edits the user would have liked to make.[81][82] Whether it is WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT is hard to say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Rk adh[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 Rk adh[edit]Please see my 'article talk page' how I responded his/her/it questions for real understanding of context. Please also see my 'user talk page' how many times he/she/it intimidated me. I also wrote on his/her/it 'user talk page' about my reasons why he/she/it was not working in wikipedia with good faith.Ram Adhikari (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)rk adh
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Rk adh[edit]
|
Saxestrunk
[edit]| Saxestrunk was CU Blocked by Ponyo --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:38, 19 May 2020 (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 Saxestrunk[edit]
Discussion concerning Saxestrunk[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 Saxestrunk[edit]Statement by Lurking Shadow[edit]The mention of Snooganssnoogan`s POV is not really concerning because it is indeed obvious that Snooganssnoogans is guided by their POV if you look at their user page. Something I will take somewhere else. What`s clearly supporting a topic ban is, however, this admission of working towards a POV.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Saxestrunk[edit]
|
Bloodofox
[edit]| Falun Gong placed under ECP for 1 year and logged. Guy (help!) 11:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Bloodofox[edit]
Edits/revert warring
Aspersions, insults, soapboxing
User:Bloodofox recently began editing the article Falun Gong, as well as several other related articles that are also subject to discretionary sanctions. This complaint mostly focuses on his edits to Falun Gong, with a few other examples shown to demonstrate the pattern. I watch the page and take some interest in it and related topics. The user's edits appear to be tendentious. He has violated the 3RR in an attempt to enforce his revisions to the page, even while a (what I found fruitful and interesting) discussion about the merits of those changes was ongoing. The discussion is a bit lengthy, but I felt he often mischaracterized his interlocutors' positions, and by implication seemed to repeatedly claim they were trying to censor him or the encyclopedia. In terms of content, I think the main problem is neutrality and weight. His edits to the lede of the article seem to be a case of a) WP:coatracking; b) not consistent with requirements for neutrality and WP:WEIGHT, and c) not even supported by the sources given (as another user pointed out[87]. Indeed the excursion to the fringe noticeboard could be seen as an attempt at rather targeted forum shopping. The user has accused other editors of acting in bad faith, including by interrogating them about their religious beliefs. This is just such an obvious form of ad hominem argument, and it doesn't contribute to a productive editing climate. The central point of contention appears to be Bloodofox's attempt to give a master definition of Falun Gong as a New Religious Movement. (The previous version of the page, which seems to have been a stable consensus, called it a religious practice). It appears that other editors do not object to noting it has been categorized as a new religious movement, as one of several contested labels and categories that have been used to describe Falun Gong. They appear to disagree that it should be used as the authoritative, master definition, given the disputes among experts on it. This is a controversial and difficult topic area. It doesn't appear that other editors disagree that the Falun Gong page include info on the media properties and performing troupes operated by adherents, or of discussion of how FLG is categorized by scholars. They seem concerned with weight, neutrality, tone. Bloodofox does not seem capable of or willing to contribute productively to these pages via reasonable discussion with other editors. In just one day or so he has adopted an aggressive approach, made accusations against other editors, repeatedly misrepresented sources, engaged in forum shopping, and edit warred. And anyone who disagrees with him is doing propaganda for the Falun Gong.
On the forum shopping, sorry that I neglected the diffs. Here the editor takes the issue to the RS noticeboard [88], and to the Fringe Theories noticeboard[89]. Maybe that is not a problem? The posts there however appear quite prejudicial and they seem to misrepresent the nature of the dispute. Per WP:forum shopping, "Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." Accusing people who raised legitimate objections to his edits of being Falun Gong adherents, or suggesting that they're engaged in a conspiracy to censor him, does not seem like a neutral solicitation of input. On my own revert to the page: I saw that Bloodofox made substantial changes to the lede section, edit warred to enforce his changes, and did so over the (seemingly reasonable) objections of editors on the talk page. I didn't understand my action as edit warring: it was a single revert back to a version of the page prior to the dispute, done because the proposed changes proved highly contentious, and it seemed improper that mere force be substituted for discussion and persuasion. But if I'm wrong please let me know, and happy to change back as this debate proceeds. My read was that it was not the content as such that was being objected to, but cramming it in the lead in such a peculiar way. Why doesn't the article open with "Falun Gong is a group which some scholars believe is a cult." or alternatively "Falun Gong is a peaceful practice that suffers persecution in its native China." One could presumably find plenty of references for either of those statements, but they would be very poor opening sentences for an encyclopedic article. My ideal experience when reading pages here is to encounter an authoritative tone, where you cannot tell what the editors actually think of the subject - neutral, considered, all relevant views. I do anti-prejudice stuff in my professional practice and I guess that drives my approach. I mostly lurk on wikipedia and haven't edited these pages much yet. I saw what struck me as aggressive conduct driven by obvious disdain for the subject, and after looking up the arbitration proceedings thought it warranted reporting. Tighter restrictions to the pages sounds like a fine idea. In this case it was an apparently seasoned editor who immediately did multiple reverts (seems I had not grokked the three revert rule) to enforce his preferred version of the page, and who has repeatedly disparaged editors who voiced objections to his changes without addressing the substance of their objections. All in a day. A solution may be to suggest that the editor limit himself to the talk page and/or chill out on the name-calling and aggression? I see the anti-LBGTQ issue now - the New Yorker article refers to Falun Gong teachings that homosexuality is unnatural, and later refers in passing to homophobia in Shen Yun. It's not clear whether there was an act in Shen Yun that was meant to be anti-gay, or if this is a transposition error. In any case, I read the piece earlier but when preparing the diffs did ctrl+f for the term that was cited and did not find it, so I called that out. It seems more borderline now, but still - is that something noteworthy enough for the second paragraph of an article? Now we write the encyclopedia by just picking out any detail that is negative (positive) for the subject and putting it in the second paragraph? The entire predication of tertiary sources is a familiarity with the body of secondary sources and discussion about how to integrate them all. With this precedent, what is to stop those who are pro-Falun Gong now filling the lede with their preferred tidbits, "10,000 Falun Gong practitioners were tortured in 2020," or whatever it may be. It simply seems like this editor really doesn't like Falun Gong and wants the pages to conform to that view. It's a bit confusing, and yes, not a particularly welcoming area to stick one's nose in. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bloodofox&diff=957815891&oldid=957610127
Discussion concerning Bloodofox[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 Bloodofox[edit]This is such a gross misepresentation of the situation and specific targeting of yours truly that it's hard to know where to begin. But let's start here: First and foremost, @Cleopatran Apocalypse:, the user who has brought this complaint, neglects to mention that she is by no means a neutral party on this subject: She has herself engaging in edit-warring to scrub the article of mention of the phrase new religious movement. For example, before bringing this complaint, she performed this edit, reverting @Helloimahumanbeing: and therefore removing a dozen of the highest possible quality academic sources available on this topic spanning over a decade, all flatly referring to Falung Gong as a new religious movement. And that is really what this is about. Like most new religious movements, Falun Gong doesn't like to be referred to as a new religious movement, instead preferring to be thought of as an 'ancient spiritual practice', academics be damned. This complaint is a waste of time. What we really need is more eyes on the Falun Gong article so that it doesn't simply read as a propaganda piece, as it currently does, alongside our Epoch Times and Shen Yun articles (both extensions of the new religious group). For readers unfamiliar with these propaganda extensions of the Falun Gong, read this, this, or this. Finally, while this really goes without saying, at the fringe theories noticeboard, we talk about fringe theories. I'm a regular. The editor who has brought this complaint has attempted to frame this as lobbying while, I remind you, attempting to scrub the article. She neglects to mention that the Falun Gong extensions consistently and aggressively push fringe theories, such as anti-vaccination propaganda, anti-evolution propaganda anti-LGBTQ propaganda—you name it—all the while spending over a million dollars in promoting the Donald Trump campaign and, for example, extreme right wing groups in Germany. It ain't a pretty situation, and the aggressive pushback myself and other editors are experiencing here is undoubtedly in no small part due to the presence of certain editors revert-warring to make sure that English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article parrots the new religious movement's talking points, while hiding what its media extensions are up. And therefore scrubbing anything 'controversial' about the group. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Statement by PackMecEng[edit]It does not appear they violated 3RR on Falun Gong, but they did go right up against it.
Just for what it's worth. The forum shopping seems to come from posting it at RSN and FTN. If that qualifies as forum shopping? Eh I dunno. I have not looked into the misrepresenting sources comment yet. PackMecEng (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by Bstephens393[edit]Oh boy, I had no idea that it would get to this point once again. I recently came back from a long PhD hiatus, but after going through the article's talk page I should probably make a few comments here. I don't wanted to get involved with any mudslinging. First, I think Bloodofox is right in the sense that the New Religious Movement label is backed up by several reliable sources, and it absolutely needs to be mentioned in the article and given due weight. I have little tolerance for those who're trying to scrub it. The core of the debate is whether the different characterizations and definitions found in the mainstream academic sources ought to be described per WP:NPOV and WP:V, or if we should stick to one "master definition" (whether it's NRM, spiritual practice, or whatever suits your fancy.) Personally I think the former approach is better. Why would it be a bad thing to explain that there are various characterizations in reputable third-party sources? I really haven't seen a lot of opposition to that, with the exception of some random editors who just don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works, or who simply don't care. One thing to keep in mind is that the FLG articles are under discretionary sanctions because there have been several attempts by both sides of this discursive struggle to take control. Several editors were dragged to arbitration and banned over the years for propagandizing either with a pro-FLG/anti-CCP or an anti-FLG/pro-CCP agenda. The status quo of the articles was extensively scrutinized in previous arbitration and mediation cases, and there must be a few books worth of back-and-forth discussions about the complexities involved. From what I was able to tell, everyone (including admins) decided a few years ago that major edits to these articles should be done by obtaining support and having good faith discussions on the talk page, as well as avoiding all ad hominem attacks. The discretionary sanctions were put in place to enforce that. To me it seems that Bloodofox has been quite eager to make a large number of significant changes in a short period of time and wield major definitional power without addressing the substance of some eminent concerns. It is unfortunate that this should escalate into edit warring and such; is it because of impatience or frustration with the discussion process that's inherently involved in these kinds of cases? Furthermore, there does seem to be some bad faith involved, as a number of people who disagreed with the wordings, placements and structure (but who were basically in agreement about the reliability/notability of the sources) were accused of tendentiousness, and worse. I don't see that as being essentially very different from those crazies who think that everybody who's critical of FLG must be a CCP agent. I've experienced that myself in some situations. Real world doesn't operate like that. Reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements. There are legitimate questions to be resolved here, and patience is undoubtedly a virtue when the articles in question have a frustratingly complicated history. Bstephens393 (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by fiveby[edit]I took issue with the anti-evolution/anti-LGBT edit, thought the sourcing was weak but it wasn't a "misrepresentation" and Bloodofox was perfectly reasonable[93][94] about taking another look. fiveby(zero) 21:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by Ian.thomson[edit]Calling any and all users bringing in Falun Gong's favored version "adherents" is technically aspersions, but let's face it, at least some of them undoubtedly are. It would take a special kind of dedicated ignorance to insist that Falun Gong is not an NRM unless one is a follower who believes as a matter of faith that Li Hongzhi was merely preserving/reviving ancient traditions. On that note, WP:RSPSCRIPTURE but Li's Zhuan Falun promises mystical powers but says that any identical results in any similar movement (e.g. Vajrayana) will be a demonic illusion -- extremely sectarian for a Buddhist-inspired movement. The loose organization parallels Transcendental Meditation movement (which lets casual members pretend they're doing enough while seeking out diehard adherents for more demanding activities) more than the Church of Scientology's hierarchy but The Epoch Times is a clear sign of an organization with a contagiously self-gaslighting membership akin to the CoS. Yes, yes, the Chinese gov't's persectution of them is absolutely unacceptable and should be condemned, but that doesn't give them carte blanche to push even harder in the opposite direction when it comes to propaganda. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Bloodofox[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ceha
[edit]| Appeal declined. Please apply for an appeal in 6 months showing how you have worked collaboratively in other areas of the encyclopedia. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:28, 21 May 2020 (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 administrators" 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 Ceha[edit]< moderator sanctioned me for trying to stop deletion of sourced and quoted text> Statement by Bradv[edit]Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ceha[edit]Result of the appeal by Ceha[edit]
|
cjwilky
[edit]| No action at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2020 (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 cjwilky[edit]
Cjwilky's edits fall into two classes: Doncaster Rovers, and problematic edits advocating fringe views. Cjwilky has acknowledged on-wiki his work as a homeopath, and his real-world identity is known but not I think linked to Wikipedia explicitly, so I won't give his full name. He is a homeopath in the UK. The content removed from Vernon Coleman concerns the UK's Advertising Standards Authority, which is a well known bête noir of UK homeopaths, having found large numbers of them and their own professional society (of which he is or has been a member) to have advertised misleadingly. In his off-wiki life as a homeopath, cjwilky is subject to rules imposed after the ASA rulings and directly relevant to the content he removed from the Coleman article, adding WP:COI tot he WP:FRINGE. Coleman is also squarely within the scope of the pseudoscience case. I'm not asking for a block, but I would ask for (a) a warning and (b) an explicit extension of the TBAN to cover the entire area of fringe/pseudoscience. Guy (help!) 17:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning cjwilky[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 cjwilky[edit]I've just seen the note about 500 words max, and so tried to edit down, however, having seen the responses below, it appears explanation is just. An accusation is always easy to be succinct with, but to deal with the issue thoroughly and fairly, it surely has to be fair to fully respond. Yes, many egs of the pages I'd need to be banned from - however it makes the point of how ludicrous such ban as is suggested is. Edit on Vernon Coleman came from seeing a youtube vid I felt was a bit flakey and subsequently trying to get an overview on him having never come across him before. The wiki page didn't say a lot and the ASA section was confused at best. I would have spent more time if I had time, though deleting the chunk I did, it being repetition, was a no brainer. So regarding this, I didn't actually remove anything bar the repetition. The claim of: "Removes findings of misleading advertising against Vernon Coleman" is patently mistaken. That he has written books on homeopathy, I have no idea. As said, I was trying to find out who he is, and in any case the homeopathy angle has no relevance unless it has been deemed an edit of mine was deliberately changing the weight of the article in some way. It's attempting to use hypothetical circumstantial evidence - I'm aghast at the logic there? The edit on Artemisia annua came from researching the ingredients of the Madagascan medicine for covid - a significant topic at the moment, as can be seen from the page stats - sharply up from approx 500 views per day to 2000 over the last month. It had been very difficult to track down the ingredients of this medicine and I managed it, so added it to the section already in wiki, though a section that was missing some useful, crucial, info. Isn't this what wiki is about? Again, the relevance to homeopathy isn't there, certainly not from my part in it. The Covid Organics medicine is herbal, not homeopathy - maybe evidence of Guy's lack of understanding and comprehension on the issue and on what he refers to as pseudoscience in general. Given his accusations, I would be interested in what Guy has found regarding homeopathy, covid and artemisia? Many remedies treat the symptoms of covid, artemisia isn't one I've seen discussed in the professional forums. Further, herbalism is not fringe. Two edits done without problem, but there is a complaint and a statement of "problematic edits advocating fringe views." - yet I see no evidence of anything problematic for Wiki. If anyone is interested, check my edits. They are constructive and helpful. Even the breach of the topic ban on homeopathy was simply me observing how editors had no understanding of what they were talking about on a specific issue and so I tried to give them context and perspective - there was no trouble on my side, though there were some vile comments from other editors there - par for the course on the homeopathy page towards anyone not toeing a pseudoskeptic line, and ultimately why I was banned from there. Cjwilky (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
"The content removed from Vernon Coleman concerns the UK's Advertising Standards Authority, which is a well known bête noir of UK homeopaths, having found large numbers of them and their own professional society (of which he is or has been a member) to have advertised misleadingly. In his off-wiki life as a homeopath, cjwilky is subject to rules imposed after the ASA rulings and directly relevant to the content he removed from the Coleman article,..."
"Removes findings of misleading advertising against Vernon Coleman, whose books advocate homeopathy for a variety of diseases."
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning cjwilky[edit]
Moved comment to editor's section; please see it there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
|
Aroma Stylish
[edit]| Blocked for 48 hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2020 (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 Aroma Stylish[edit]
The user has been repeatedly asked to abide by the 500/30 requirement, eg [98], [99],[100]. Doesnt seem to have had an effect.
Discussion concerning Aroma Stylish[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 Aroma Stylish[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Aroma Stylish[edit]
|
Chiappoloni
[edit]| Chiappoloni is blocked from editing George Soros and Talk:George Soros for a period of one year. I am of the opinion that their contributions to the page in all aspects are not benefecial at best and disruptive at worst, including violation of restrictions they were made aware of. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:55, 3 June 2020 (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 Chiappoloni[edit]
Appears to be a straightforward violation of the "consensus required" provision. User has not engaged in any talk page discussion, and has simply removed all attempts at communication on their user talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Chiappoloni[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 Chiappoloni[edit]In reference to: Political donations for George Soros page As it appears NorthBySouthBaranof has mentioned in a previous talk page which also applies here, "The material is not questionably or poorly sourced, is not a violation of BLP... You're welcome to discuss the issue on the article talk page or bring more viewpoints to that page, but mere disagreement with cited sources does not justify removal of sourced material." Removing factual information, that better informs our readers or provides improved access to our readers, is not helpful, especially if it is presented in a data-oriented, fact-focused, manner. Removing facts is doing the opposite for our readers to understand all political donations. Editing or reverting any changes in wording seems understandable if taking a certain viewpoint or interpretation of a paragraph, but removing an entire paragraph, source, or new facts provided to an article, does not appear understandable, or justified. Why are Federal Elections more or less important than local US Elections as mentioned in the Los Angeles Times? These edits are adding factual information to a page and making a section easier-to-read by adding sub-headings and additional source information. Not sure how presenting published news articles and a full data-focused and fact-focused description is being removed or in violation. Legitimate news sources, e.g. Politico, the Los Angeles Times, and the Telegraph, are being referenced or added for readers’ ease-of-access. To remove these sources for referenced articles is decreasing the ease-of-access and factual information for articles. Contested Edits - Incorrect removal of LA Times and other sourcing articles regarding political donations I'm not sure how any of these edits are able to be 'contested' by NorthBySouthBaranof in the first place? Being that the edits consisted of adding sub-headings for readability, sources for readability and reference-checking, public information, and published articles from news sources such as the Los Angeles Times, Politico, and the relevant and referred to donation funds' websites (- when NorthBySouthBaranof said that the sources were not legitimate? -) surrounding local political investment, without offering opinions on said donations. Specifically, these edits were added to the sub-heading titled, 'Political Involvement,' which appears appropriate. It is surprising that this added information to the said section would not be lauded versus 'contested?' Especially considering that this section appears lacking in organization, readability, comprehensiveness (no US-specific section while there has been substantial amounts of donations in this arena (in the billions of $s), and no separation of or information on the large amounts of local US donations versus federal-election-only US donations), and sourcing material. Moreover, please can someone clarify, is only one person allowed to contest an article's changes to be considered 'consensus?' Whereas, reverting via an apparent incorrect contesting of an article's edits, out of disagreement with said factual information, is only needed by one person NorthBySouthBaranof? Lastly, this user, NorthBySouthBaranof, appears to need to perhaps be placed on some sort of restriction themselves? Not only have they removed added sources helpful to our readers, but have also removed history and factual information for our readers. In addition, this user has filed an enforcement request 6 minutes after asking for the reverted edits to be removed. This not only seems overtly 'hasty,' in not giving an appropriate amount of time to myself to make said edits, but the fact that these edits were incorrectly placed by NorthBySouthBaranof in the first place, makes it all the more moot.
User NorthBySouthBaranof has also provided incorrect or false information here on this filing, as I have in fact tried to discuss the issue on NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)'s talk page (as can be seen on their talk page), and they in fact 'snipped' or deleted my response. My now-'snipped' attempt at conversing with them can be seen on their talk page, and which I re-posted on mine after noticing NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) snipped my attempt. In my initial Wikipedia-user-interface naivete I removed what I thought were notices on my talk page (#notices), but not attempts at conversation, and these appear to be from a different user than NorthBySouthBaranof. I might be naive, as I am a beginner to the user-interface of Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how it is possible to believe that I have 'removed' any conversation attempts, when I believe these were intended as 'notices' versus conversation from a different user than NorthBySouthBaranof. I have recently tried to undo these edits due to me being a beginner, and they appear to be unable to be undone - but please redo them if possible, it will probably be more helpful to this case. NorthBySouthBaranof, however, is an experienced user that I would imagine should know better than deleting my attempts at conversation on his talk page. He had in fact removed or 'snipped' all attempts at conversation. Hence, it appears surprising that he would then accused me of what he, NorthBySouthBaranof, has in fact done? His (and my) actions can easily be seen on these public webpages, and histories of these pages so I'm not sure why he would provide this false claim? Here is a copy of NorthBySouthBaranof's misdirected claim where not only do they only mention a 'consensus required' provision which refers to their Arbitration Request, but they also do not acknowledge their deletion of the sources and information or relevant and needed rationale therein, and then provide the misdirected, or false, claim regarding the removal of all attempts at communication (which NorthBySouthBaranof did, but I did not, funny enough): "Appears to be a straightforward violation of the "consensus required" provision. User has not engaged in any talk page discussion, and has simply removed all attempts at communication on their user talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)." Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Chiappoloni[edit]
|