Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
Eluchil404 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
:*There's also discretionary sanctions per [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Discretionary sanctions]], but I agree with you that it might be more correct to start with a one-week block. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 04:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC) |
:*There's also discretionary sanctions per [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Discretionary sanctions]], but I agree with you that it might be more correct to start with a one-week block. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 04:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
::*My thinking was based less on a lack of authority than on proportionality for someone who hasn't had other problematic edits in the months since the case. However, a closer look at his contributions shows [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_and_mental_health&diff=prev&oldid=471811950] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_and_mental_health&diff=prev&oldid=471813224]: edit warring on the article in January 2012, well after the ban was in effect. While such old edits aren't really actionable in themselves, I believe that they demonstrate a continuing pattern of ignoring the editing restriction and make the need for a longer block clear. I no longer oppose a 1 month block. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 05:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC) |
::*My thinking was based less on a lack of authority than on proportionality for someone who hasn't had other problematic edits in the months since the case. However, a closer look at his contributions shows [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_and_mental_health&diff=prev&oldid=471811950] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_and_mental_health&diff=prev&oldid=471813224]: edit warring on the article in January 2012, well after the ban was in effect. While such old edits aren't really actionable in themselves, I believe that they demonstrate a continuing pattern of ignoring the editing restriction and make the need for a longer block clear. I no longer oppose a 1 month block. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 05:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
*I've reviewed the evidence, and I agree with a 1 month block for the reasons elucidated above by Eluchil404, so I'll implement it. Will close in a moment. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 13:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:41, 19 April 2012
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
![]() | Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Maunus
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Maunus
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Maunus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBR&I#Decorum
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 12:50, 12 April 2012 "lie"
- 13:26, 12 April 2012 "trolling"
- 13:40, 12 April 2012 "You wouldn't recognize a minority view if it was a yard up your butt" Edit summary: "troll"
- 19:24, 12 April 2012 Maunus added this during the discussion on this page. Latin "praeterea censeo Miradrem esse delendam" = "furthermore, Miradre should be destroyed/annihilated/wiped out" or something similar.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
WP:ARBR&I#Decorum: "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited."
This has clearly been ignored here. This is not the first time Maunus is incivil. See earlier blocks for incivility as well as [1].
I ask that the Maunus should be warned.
Reply to Hipocrite
I have not promised anything. I have stated that do not to intend to edit any of the core topics in this area due to this obviously being pointless with a very strong local group of editors here in Wikipedia vehemently opposing the biological view and everyone disagreeing with this view has been successfully banned by this group. Not very surprising when a Nobel Prize winner like James D. Watson can be fired for saying the not politically correct thing in this area. I have also stated that I intend to make occasional talk page comments. As can be seen and expected, the group now trying to get me banned also. I do hope that being civil still applies also towards those expressing unpopular views.
Hipocrite also brings up an edit regarding IQ research in China which has absolutely no mention of race. So obviously there is no advocacy of genetic racial differences as claimed.
Hipocrite has already called me a racist elsewhere so to clarify: I do not argue that there are proven racial genetic differences in IQ. Only that the issue is unresolved and that the biological arguments are not properly presented in Wikipedia. Furthermore, racism includes advocating discrimination which I certainly do not not. My view is the opposite: If there are biological advantages and disadvantages, then only by acknowledging this can those disadvantaged get proper help. See also the moralistic fallacy. Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Reply to Maunus
Regarding who is correct regarding non-US anthropologists and other scientists views regarding race, I have presented sources supporting my view at talk:Human, Maunus has not.
Maunus is making a claim regarding what racism is without any sources. I refer to the racism article which states, with sources (in the article body), that racism includes advocating discrimination. Also Maunus's definition is rather strange. It is racism to say that some groups may have higher genetic resistance to malaria than other groups? Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
New reply to further arguments: Maunus has added a straw man argument regarding racial slurs. I have not made any racial slurs. Neither have I edited the definition of racism with sources in the racism article.
I see that Maunus has now have added some sources to the article. However, Maunus has still not presented any systematic study supporting his claims regarding the views on race by by non-US anthropologists. I have on talk:Human showing much greater acceptance of race by non-US anthropologists. There are also sources there stating that most US forensic anthropologists support the biological reality of race as well as the issue not being resolved in genetics and medicine. I agree that certain subfields in American anthropology completely reject the existence of races and that the American Anthropology Association has issued a statement, lacking scientific sourcing, to that effect. However, Wikipedia should mention all significant views, not just those vehemently argued by certain groups. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
New reply to further arguments: Again going back to the definition of racism, is it racism to say that some groups are better adapted to living at high altitudes than other groups (which applies to the Tibetan people in recent studies)? No, I would argue, there has to be some form of discrimination argued for also. I would argue that racial slurs more or less openly include an argument for discrimination which is what makes them racistic. Anyway, this is not just my definition, I again refer to the definition and sources (in the body) in the racism article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
New reply to further arguments: The last edit [2] with the Latin phrase "praeterea censeo Miradrem esse delendam" ("furthermore, Miradre should be destroyed" or something similar) can only be considered new incivility. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Reply to Mathsci
Regarding the content dispute I refer to my earlier statements above. Race (classification of humans) is under WP:ARBR&I as stated on the talk page of that article. The dispute regarding the Human article concern a section discussing the same subject. Mathsci, as could be expected since he belongs to the same group of editors (including also AndyTheGrump) who constantly show up and support one another on this topic and demands bans for those stating opposing views, is demanding that I should be punished for asking for some basic civility to be respected in this topic! Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning User:Maunus
Statement by User:Maunus
I cannot assume good faith regarding user Academica Orientalis/Miradre. I have several years of experience with his editing style which is prototypical case of a civil POV Pusher. He repeats the same invalid arguments an mischaracterizations where ever he goes and no amount of contrary evidence makes him change his story. Among his favorite delusions is the idea that outside of the US most anthropologists thinks race is a valid biological concept, and that the fact that forensic anthropologists stubbornly stick to it means it has any scientific validity. It doesn't and this is demonstrated by mountains of sources literally. Miradre doesn't care - and keeps repeating his references to a few very low profile studies that have been generally criticized or ignored. Over and over and over. That is extremely tedious and tiresome to deal with and it causes frustration - for which reason I sometimes do tell him my opinion. In discussions apart from being repetitive Miradre is also routinely covertly incivil by twisting his opponents words or misrepresenting their arguments. I do not doubt for a second that it was a calculated strategy that made him arrive out of the blue at Talk:Human when he eyed a chance to goad me into insulting him so he could post this request.
Miradre as usual plays the victims card suggestion that he is a member of a stigmatized minority group persecuted for his viewpoint. Note however that I have been perfectly able to collaborate amiably with many other editors who share his viewpoint such as the now banned Captain Occam/Ferahgo and David Kane who have mentioned me as a particularly collaborative editor, able to compromise and engage in civil arguments in spite of differing viewpoints. My problem with Miradre is not and has never been his viewpoint but his editing behavior.
I stand by my opinion that he is a troll and a POV pusher who should not be editing and will not retract or apologize. The best solution for wikipedias integrity would be to permanently topic ban Miradre from editing articles related to Race and human psychology. I will gladly accept a mutual interaction ban.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have never been blocked for incivilty. I have only ever been blocked by my own request. User Lhb1239 was a trolling sockpuppet who like you worked hard to deserve the verbal treatment he received. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Racism by the most common definition of course does not require explicit argumentation in favor of discrimination it is simply any view that elevates one supposed racial group at the expense of another. The definition provided by Miradre is almost exclusively used by racialists arguing that since they just believe that racial groups should be kept separate politically and genetically they are not actually racists. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Miradre is as usual being disingenious to the point of disruption. Is it not racism to say "you are a stupid [Insert racial slur here]"? Or would it require to have the added statement "and I feel justified in discriminating against you for that reason". The racism article is of course simply wrong - I have not looked at the history but I don't doubt that you have a hand in that.
- He also states an untruth when he says I have not provided sources - I have inserted ca. twenty sources into the article following our dispute. I have not presented them on the talkpage because I don't want to interact with him anymore. Also not a single one of the sources state that belief in race is the mainstream viewpoint outside of the US. (it is also a false dichotomy to suggest that US anthropology is isolated from other anthropological traditions - indeed the AAA have members from all over the globe and anthropologists from the entire word participate in its meetings, publications and public statements). untruthes, distortion and disruption as usual.
- I am not accusing you of being a racist and I know you have made no slurs. I am showing the flaw in your proposed definition because slurs are obviously racist but do not "advocate discrimination".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Miradre misrepresents what the article on racism says, and has apparently not read any any mainstream literature on that concept. The Tibetan argument is also an obvious strawman since nobody has suggested that pointing out differences between populations is racism. I am going on an enforced wikibreak now and the next month. That does not mean that I am rescincding my case against Miradre or conceding as much as a millimeter - it just means that I need a break from the frustration of having to deal with him and other similar editors - they are distracting dfrom other more important work. I do hope and wish that he will be topic banned for a long time, as that in my view is imperative to maintaining wikipedias integrity. .·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning User:Maunus
It would be nice if admins reading this also reviewed Academica Orientalis/Miradre's continued disruptive presence in article related (and not related but still related by him) to Race. Please recall that he was topic banned for 3 months as a result of [4], that he promised to leave the topic space alone recently (diff by request), and that he's apparently on a quest to make it appear that human races, are very, very different than each other and that some of those races are inferior in some ways to others - I wouldn't want to comment on his motive - see attempts to do this on articles as totally unrelated as Science and technology in the People's Republic of China. But, hey, he's supportive of a widely discredited theory mainly promoted by virulent racists (which he is CLEARLY not, lest I be accused of calling someone a racist), so how dare someone lose their cool at him! Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Given that Academica Orientalis/Miradre repeatedly makes the same false claims regarding the supposed acceptance of 'race' as a valid scientific concept in non-US anthropology, I'd say that any statement to that effect is of minor significance, when compared to the " disruptive point-making" routinely engaged in by the complainant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning User:Maunus
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- I suggested to Maunus that he fix his three comments at Talk:Human that were cited as civility violations, and he has done so. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not really seeing anything actionable, especially as Maunus fixed his comments. I would also caution Academica Orientalis/Miradre about skating on thin ice in the topic area. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Unless someone else feels differently, I'd suggest that this request be closed as no action taken. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Winterbliss
Winterbliss (talk · contribs) and Dehr (talk · contribs) both indefinitely blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Winterbliss
I included diffs in my comments
No warning is required, because both editors mentioned in my report were active in the discussion about the report on Nagorno-Karabakh article, and are well aware of AA remedies. Plus, soon after registering his account here Winterbliss already filed a report requesting AA2 remedy enforcement, which also demonstrates his familiarity with the remedy in question: [5]
This is a follow up to the recently closed AE request on the article about Nagorno-Karabakh: [6], which resulted in the article being placed under the 500 article edit restriction for the recent accounts. In particular, the remedy holds that "Editors with less than 500 article edits, less than three months old or are anonymous editors are under a 1RR per day restriction with no exceptions". Now my request is related to the activity of the 2 of the accounts that were covered by that remedy, i.e. Winterbliss (talk · contribs) and Dehr (talk · contribs). At the time they both had around 100-150 article edits. Now they have more than 500 edits, which they gained by making minor edits to just one article each, Melikdoms of Karabakh by Winterbliss: [7], and Ghaibalishen Massacre by Dehr: [8] Both articles are written by adding 1 word at a time! See for instance: The same is with the article created by Winterbliss. What could be written in a dozen of edits maximum they wrote in 500 edits, by adding a 500 word text word by word. My question here is, isn't this kind of editing just gaming the system to gain the required number of edits? Maybe the remedy needs some adjustment so that it could not be so obviously gamed? Also, Dehr and Winterbliss edit in exactly the same manner, which leaves an impression that those accounts are related. Note that they never are active at the same time, usually when one is gone, the other one takes his place. This similarity of editing is also something to consider. Grandmaster 20:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning WinterblissStatement by WinterblissComments by others about the request concerning WinterblissResult concerning Winterbliss
|
Geremia
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Geremia
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- MastCell Talk 22:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Geremia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Geremia topic-banned
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
Not required.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Topic banned editor. Topic ban violated.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Geremia
Statement by Geremia
Comments by others about the request concerning Geremia
Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge
This seems to be a clear cut violation of the topic ban. However, I am sympathetic to the sentiment expressed here. Topic bans are not enforced by the Wiki software. Instead, they're based on the user's own self-enforcement. As a software developer, I find this situation ludicrous. As an analogy, if I'm developing an e-commerce web site and expect a user to enter a valid credit card number to make a purchase, the credit card number must pass a Luhn algorithm validation. If I fail to perform this validation, it's my fault, not the user's. If Geremia honestly thought it was OK to make this comment because the Wiki software allowed them to do so, this is an indictment against the Wiki software, not the user. Sorry if I went off on a rant, but bad software annoys me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Geremia
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Geremia's talk page has many block notices and warnings regarding abortion, starting in September 2011. When someone has shown that they are unwilling or unable to adhere to a ban, it may be time for escalating blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, a block is in order. How about a month? T. Canens (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support a one-month block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- A block is clearly called for given the history here and the clear nature of the violation. But this is the first under the topic ban. I would suggested no longer than a week, per the enforcement provision included in the case. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- There's also discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Discretionary sanctions, but I agree with you that it might be more correct to start with a one-week block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- My thinking was based less on a lack of authority than on proportionality for someone who hasn't had other problematic edits in the months since the case. However, a closer look at his contributions shows [18] and [19]: edit warring on the article in January 2012, well after the ban was in effect. While such old edits aren't really actionable in themselves, I believe that they demonstrate a continuing pattern of ignoring the editing restriction and make the need for a longer block clear. I no longer oppose a 1 month block. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the evidence, and I agree with a 1 month block for the reasons elucidated above by Eluchil404, so I'll implement it. Will close in a moment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)