Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
Kingsindian (talk | contribs) →Statement by Kingsindian: cmt on sources etc. |
→Statement by (username): new section; reply to uninvolved admin |
||
Line 589: | Line 589: | ||
:{{re|Arthur Rubin}}, Hugh did already make a complaint against you here (it's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive177#Arthur_Rubin here]), but that was about an entirely different issue (namely, NPOV tagging/tag removal). You're incorrect to suggest that nobody ever suggested the posts weren't spam, see the several people defending them [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#RfC_spamming.2C_canvasing.2C_cross_posting._User:_HughD when his edits were raised at ANI]. As for Hugh's topic ban, it is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHughD&type=revision&diff=675064058&oldid=674852839 here]. It applied only to "anything related" to [[Americans for Prosperity]], and included "any noticeboard discussions about the RFC, any further debates about the closing, whatever." It was a 2 week ban, imposed August 8, so basically 14 days ago. ({{re|Georgewilliamherbert}}, there's your answer, it looks as though Hugh thought he was topic banned from raising this until today.) [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] ([[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]]) 04:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC) |
:{{re|Arthur Rubin}}, Hugh did already make a complaint against you here (it's [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive177#Arthur_Rubin here]), but that was about an entirely different issue (namely, NPOV tagging/tag removal). You're incorrect to suggest that nobody ever suggested the posts weren't spam, see the several people defending them [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#RfC_spamming.2C_canvasing.2C_cross_posting._User:_HughD when his edits were raised at ANI]. As for Hugh's topic ban, it is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHughD&type=revision&diff=675064058&oldid=674852839 here]. It applied only to "anything related" to [[Americans for Prosperity]], and included "any noticeboard discussions about the RFC, any further debates about the closing, whatever." It was a 2 week ban, imposed August 8, so basically 14 days ago. ({{re|Georgewilliamherbert}}, there's your answer, it looks as though Hugh thought he was topic banned from raising this until today.) [[User:Fyddlestix|Fyddlestix]] ([[User talk:Fyddlestix|talk]]) 04:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
====Statement by |
====Statement by HughD==== |
||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
||
{{Replyto|Georgewilliamherbert}} An administrator recently recommended stepping back from [[Americans for Prosperity]] for two weeks, and I took the advice. After reflection, there was still something that needed to be done. The behavior of an administrator of our project is a very real impediment with fostering civility the area of the Tea Party movement final decision, please help. I was not sure if an AE filing would be a violation, but I was ''very'' sure some would think it was, as demonstrated by the reported user's initial response to this filing, now deleted, please see {{diff2|677568693|23:11, 23 August 2015}}. Thank you for your consideration of this request. [[User:HughD|Hugh]] ([[User talk:HughD|talk]]) 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===Result concerning Arthur Rubin=== |
===Result concerning Arthur Rubin=== |
Revision as of 14:44, 24 August 2015
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}}.
|
Peter Gulutzan
No consensus for action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Peter Gulutzan
Reposting. I believe this behavior warrants further review, and since Peter Gulutzan posted an AE request against NEG instead of pursuing requests for dispute resolution shows the problem is escalating, not resolving itself. Below is my comment on that thread, but other editors (User:ArtifexMayhem and User:Manul) posted additional info I won't reproduce on their behalf. Split comments per request. --- Peter Gulutzan and Tillman are both editing tendentiously. It appears they dislike our coverage of climate change and "climate change skepticism", since we represent the mainstream scientific view, and so have been campaigning to hide or limit our coverage of those topics. For example, they are attempting to ensure as few redirects as possible go to climate change denial, where our coverage is extensive, and instead point our viewers to Global warming controversy, which they see as more sympathetic to the fringe view. In this campaign, several behavioral problems have made collaboration impossible. Both have dismissed high quality sources which disagree with their edits, while providing no sources of their own. They have both refused to answer questions or collaborate with others. They have edit warred extensively, and promoted a battleground atmosphere, labeling others "activists" and too biased to find the right sources. Diffs:
— Jess· Δ♥ 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Peter GulutzanStatement by Manul
Manul ~ talk 04:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Peter GulutzanRe "Peter Gulutzan posted an AE request against NEG instead of pursuing requests for dispute resolution": I indeed made a request for dispute resolution re redirection to Global warming controversy or Climate change denial, saying "... if anyone from either side agrees at least in principle that consensus or arbitration should be sought, please state preferred venue and wording.". No reply. Re pointing to something "more sympathetic to the fringe view": no, I said "slightly less vicious redirect", that is, I care about people who are accused of having the view. Re: "dismissed high quality sources": they're poor quality, I tried to discuss sources despite Mann jess calling my complaints "nonsense" and "insane" and "nonsense"). I questioned repeatedly what these sources supposedly support. No reply. Re me labelling editors as "activists" or calling them "too biased to find the right sources": no diffs. I've no idea what Mann jess is talking about. Re me refusing questions from NewsAndEventsGuy: question was prefaced with accusations that I said I found offensive, I explained at WP:AE#NewsAndEventsGuy. Re I "didn't answer me [Mann jess] when I asked what questions I'd missed": look at the diff Mann jess supplied. Mann jess misquoted me twice using quote marks, I objected, Mann jess misquoted again and asked "What sources are being overlooked or misinterpreted?" (not "what questions I'd missed"), I answered "As for the question about sources, I have no idea what it refers to". Re "battleground behavior": no, I said on my talk page "I'm acknowledging the existence of a battle" meaning I thought others did it, and "hit me with your best shot, eh? [etc.]" meaning I thought others intended it. Re "claiming [Mann jess] equate[s] all 'skeptics' to 'deniers'": I didn't say that, I said it's necessary to show all skeptics are deniers if you're going to change so all redirects for skeptics point to denial. Re "EW": Look at the 11 diffs: the first doesn't revert anything, the tenth was self-reverted on July 9, the others were all restorations to the state before the dispute began, which is normal when no consensus. Re Manul's accusations ... Re "Peter's comment on that date is indicative ...", my note about deleting that comment from my talk page is here. Re WP:BLPPRIVACY: when Manul refers to my reply he shows the wrong link, my actual reply on March 18 is here, please read it rather than Manul's link. Re "you don't clean up by pouring dirt": Manul made a section heading which uses a hurrah! phrase "cleaning up", I balanced with a boo! phrase "pouring dirt". I mentioned "without attribution" because the text did not attribute the words "climate change denial" in the lead to the sources (I distinguish attribution from citation and I believe WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does). Re "editors are simply trying to use the best sources": I don't think editors agree what sources are best, I agree with Jimbo Wales. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Update: I had to trim my post above so that it would be 490 words, without changing content. I cannot reply to anything else unless administrators permit me to go well over the limit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Administrators: I request permission to reply to statements made after the post by Mann jess and the first comment from Manul. So far I've used 490 words, versus around 1200 words. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC) UPDATE ... Okay, I have permission to reply.
Statement by ArtifexMayhemOver the past few months civil (mostly) POV pushing by Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs) (along with Tillman (talk · contribs)) has been a primary source of disruption in the topic area.
— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by JzGPeter Gulutzan issued a DS notice to me regarding climate change. This does not bother me at all. It is a little weird for an effective WP:SPA to issue an administrator with a DS notice, but there you go. My assessment of Gulutzan's edits is that he simply does not care what the scientific consensus is, he wants Wikipedia to reflect the world as he believes it to be, not the world as science says it actually is. The fundamental issue is that climate change "skepticism" is pseudoskepticism, which is synonymous with denialism. Not a form of denialism, synonymous with it. Like the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network, who are vaccine denialists. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Tillman
Further, I believe the real problem here lies with the originating editor, Mann Jess. She succeeded with her complaint here against AQFK last month: link. The present complaint started out as a side-complaint against both PG & myself. By a curious coincidence, these are the three editors who were having the most problems working with editor Jess at the Anthony Watts (blogger) and his WUWT blog pages at our encyclopedia. On this topic, a fourth editor has remarked:
For some time, I’ve been considering filing an ArbComm complaint re Mann Jess’s editing behavior in the CC area, especially in the case of Anthony Watts (blogger) and his WUWT blog. I regard her actions there as unencyclopedic, uncollegial, egregious POV pushing, tendentious editing and, in general, I found her impossible to deal with as a fellow-editor. She's certainly single-minded (imo). Other editors who couldn't deal with her vexatious editing included both Gulutzan and AQFK. A pattern emerges. I certainly don’t have time for that now — I don’t really have time to mount a refutation of her charges here, except to note that many appear to be "ruffled feathers". And I hate this sort of unproductive posturing and name-calling. It's also troubling that MJ (and others) could be putting the project into legal jeopardy. I believe Anthony Watts was receiving legal advice, and perhaps offers of pro bono legal representation, for filing a defamation and slander lawsuit against Wikipedia's parent for the attempted labelling of Watts as a "climate change denier" by MJ and collaborating editors. Watts emphatically rejects this charge. I don't think he expressed any interest in actually filing a suit. I'll research this further for my formal complaint against Editor Jess. This may take some time to prepare, as I am under severe time constraints for prior committments, to at least the end of the following week. I would welcome help in preparing a complaint againt Mann Jess, who I believe is doing substantial damage to the integrity of the Project. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by JBLI think the behavior with respect to NewsAndEventsGuy, a consummate good-faith, consensus-building editor, was an enormous shame. Obviously in practice the articles related to Anthony Watts and climate change denialism are a massive battleground, and NAEG was one of the few editors who really seemed to be interested in doing a decent job with them, respecting sourcing etc. The attacks by Gulutzan on NAEG were really shameful, and have (at least temporarily) driven off a great editor. --JBL (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy@JBL, while I appreciate the kind words, I disavow the notion that Peter's remarks "drove (me) off". I still log in to see if anyone refers to me, and since you did so I would just like to say that I've been feeling pressed from a lot of real life quarters of late, and quite frankly find little reward in organizing the diffs to demonstrate anyone's violation of WP:ARBCC#Battleground editing. Peter was just a minor thing that put my decision to make a long retirement seem timely. Nothing should be read into my decision viz-a-viz the extent of Peter's disruption or non-disruption. His record of diffs should be read without regard to other factors, and we should trust diligent admins to act accordingly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Result concerning Peter Gulutzan
|
Collect
Consensus for "no action" (although almost everyone seems to have a different rationale for "no action"). --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Collect
Collect has been forum shopping this topic at BLPN and at Jimbo's talk page. This is behavior consonant with this finding of fact in his arbitration case.
Discussion concerning CollectStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CollectI suggest that folks using Gawker to state that a living person was rumoured to be a user of "Ashley whatever" where the reliable sources state the allegation is from Gawker, has naught to do with any rational delineation of "US politics." Nor does "Ashley whatever" appear to have any rational connection to "US politics either". Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel - you insinuate openly that I arrived at the article because of political considerations. That insinuation is completely and utterly false. In fact, it is an extreme example of "assuming bad faith" in my honest opinion. Out of many hundreds of BLPs I have edited, only a trivial fraction are "political" at all, and to imply I mainly work on political BLPs is ludicrous. I list a few on my User page, and if anyone wants them listed here, I would be glad to do so. What I fear is the idea the "Collect is banned from US politics, and now we can get him before AE every three weeks just by stretching the facts a hair" (On UT Jimbo, one editor even accuses me of being biased on CRU email articles - despite the fact I stay pretty far away from them). Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel Again read this - I did not arrive at this article for any political reasons whatsoever. Nor have I ever made deliberate "political edits" to the best of my ability in the past six years at all (after my attempts not to have Joe the Plumber be officially described as a "plumber's ass." which I found at the time to be despicable, but which seems now the norm in political silly seasons around the world). I am flabbergasted that you would make such a back-handed apology at all as " since it is an article related to politics and thus your topic ban, you should abandon the matter for other editors to deal with" This BLP is a biography of a person known as a TV performer. Did you read some of the biographies I have dealt with? Really? I find this "assume bad faith because the person has damn well been harassed enough, so more harassment is fine and dandy" to be a most interesting example of civility. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Request: Will someone identify the blatant sock who made the OP here? And block the hell out of them? When a person appears out of "nowhere" and has the sole and singular purpose of posting at AE,I suggest that calling such a person a sock is clearly accurate, and that the purpose of harassment is also clear. Any real person should post under their actual account instead of making anonymous complaints in that manner. Collect (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by Writegeist
Statement by EvergreenFirFloq - IPs are WP:HUMAN... probably should consider their cases on a case-by-case basis (literally). I think this is a stretch of Collect's t-ban. If he were edit warring on the page and discussing politics directly, I could see the case being made. But that's not the case here. Moreover, WP:BANEX applies to BLP violations (right?) and though I'm not sure this was a huge violation (some of those sources were okay and it's been covered by a lot of news outlets), it was done in good faith and was reasonable. Recommend dismissing this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by John CarterThe edit in question, here, is to remove rather overtly sensationalist material which might be reasonably seen as being at best dubiously founded, at least at this point, possibly contrary to BLP, and I have to agree with the above that saying this relates to American politics is rather likely a stretch. Alternately, every article even marginally related to American society in general, and by extension American politics, might fall within the scope of the ban, and I have no reason to believe that the sanctions were intended to be that broad. I believe it probably best to let this close without action against Collect, or, if action is to be taken, he should be given a rather clearer definition of what is and is not within the scope of the sanctions. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by TheRedPenOfDoomWhen the most reliable source supporting a contentious statement is the Daily Fail quoting Gawker, that is something that MUST be removed ASAP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by DHeywardA revert of BLP violating material on a non-political figure is not a violation. Collect should be encouraged to continue his vigilance. --DHeyward (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by FyddlestixRe: the speculation that Collect arrived at the article for political reasons, it seems much more likely to me that he was responding to this post at BLPN. In my experience Collect watches BLPN pretty carefully, so for him to see that post, note that no-one had replied to it yet, and rush to remove the info (possibly without even realizing that Duggar has a "political" side to his life) would be pretty consistent with his usual behavior. I actually don't think it was necessarily a BLP violation, but I don't see this as a violation of Collect's topic-ban either. I'm sure he meant well here. I think a gentle reminder to be aware of the topic ban is the most that could be called for here. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Collect
|
Dukisuzuki
Blocked indefinitely (non-AE) by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Dukisuzuki
Edit warring, personal attacks and battleground attitude on the article on Meša Selimović
The "notice" refers to the big notice on top of the talk page which states: "By a long-standing consensus, and a Wikipedia guideline, Selimović is defined as a "Yugoslav writer" in the lead section, as his (disputed) ethnic affiliation is not directly relevant for his notability as a writer. Please review the talk page archives for endless debates on the subject before starting a new one." I pointed this out to Dukisuzuki and this is his response. But ok, these edits were made before Dukisuzuki received a discretionary sanctions warning yet. I gave it here [60], on August 18. Dukisuzuki kept on edit warring on the article, kept removing my comment from the talk page, and kept reposting his "I don't give a shit..." comment: Talk page: Continued edit warring against multiple users AFTER Dukisuzuki was made aware of the notice on top of the talk page and AFTER they were given a discretionary sanction notification:
I should note that Dukisuzuki has continued to engage in tendentious editing even after this report was filed, and even after they have commented here:
Added on 8/21 Below Dukisuzuki says "I now understand the error of my ways". This pretty much evidences that they haven't. Oh yeah, also, I may as well state explicitly that I am not the same person as User:No such user and have no idea who they are. These accusations of sockpuppetry by Dukisuzuki are completely unwarrented and just more evidence of their battleground attitude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a pretty straight forward case of WP:NOTHERE.
Discussion concerning DukisuzukiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DukisuzukiThere is nothing tendentious about my editing as evidenced by the following quote by Mesa Selimovic: "Potičem iz muslimanske porodice iz Bosne, a po nacionalnoj pripadnosti sam Srbin. Pripadam srpskoj literaturi" -> TRANSLATION: I COME FROM A MUSLIM FAMILY FROM BOSNIA, BUT BY ETHNICITY I AM A SERB. I BELONG TO SERBIAN LITERATURE
Also, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CONTENT OF MY EDITS OF THE ARTICLE APART FROM THE PASSIONATE REMARKS DIRECTED TO VOLUNTEER MAREK/NONESUCHUSER I LEFT IN THE EDIT SUMMARY. MY EDITS ARE AND WERE CONSTRUCTIVE AND BENEFICIAL TO THE READERS OF THE ARTICLE. HERE IS THE SPECIFIC QUOTE FROM MESA SELIMOVIC HIMSELF WHICH PROVES ME RIGHT: "Potičem iz muslimanske porodice iz Bosne, a po nacionalnoj pripadnosti sam Srbin. Pripadam srpskoj literaturi" -> TRANSLATION: I COME FROM A MUSLIM FAMILY FROM BOSNIA, BUT BY ETHNICITY I AM A SERB. I BELONG TO SERBIAN LITERATURE Statement by EvergreenFirGiven the updated language at WP:HARASS, an indef is more than warranted here.
Statement by No such userAhem. While I used to criticize AE for bringing rush decisions, I believe we have a clearcut case of WP:NOTHERE and an apparent consensus of administrators. Can somebody please close this? No such user (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Dukisuzuki
|
Settleman
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Settleman
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Settleman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBPIA, "general 1RR restriction"
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 20 August 2015 14:00. This edit is a revert by virtue of substantially repeating this edit, which adds the paragraph that begins "According to Regavim...". Both edits are intended to convey the notion that the village did not really exist before 1986. No talk-page consensus supports doing this.
- 21 August 2015 7:56, straightforward deletion of text added by another editor
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I ask that the 1RR violation be dealt with on its own "merits"; the editor has participated on the talk page Talk:Susya and has therefore undoubtedly seen the prominent notice about "active arbitration remedies". There are other issues of POV-PUSHING we might consider; I think this editor is mainly interested in placing the work of Regavim (NGO) on relevant articles here, and if we don't deal with that issue now we'll likely have to do so soon. I'm also convinced that this editor lacks the constructive attitude necessary for editing in this area; one indication of this is this talk-page contribution, where the final sentence ("But they are fighting zionists so lying is not only acceptable but apparently encyclopedic") is a direct attack on the contributions of other editors -- it indicates Settleman's view that other editors believe that it is acceptable for organisations opposed to Regavim to "lie". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- A recent talk page comment reinforces the impression that the editor is here with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude: "Repeating the same speech again and again doesn't make you right, just obnoxious." It also shows the extent of disagreement about this issue that persists on the talk page even now; the notion that Settleman acted per a consensus is simply false. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [63]
Discussion concerning Settleman
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Settleman
Technically I guess I'm at fault but the first edit was a result of a long discussion with Kingsindian and Nishidani which I took for an agreement.
The POV-PUSHING issue it very good description of what I'm doing as I try to change this article from saying "settlers expeled Palestinians many times" to sometimes that is less simplistic and more accurate.
It is interesting a user who didn't participate in the conversation takes the time the analyze the tone I use and even gets deeply insulted. Settleman (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Georgewilliamherbert: Please note additional discussion on RSN. Settleman (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Kingsindian
While this is a technical WP:1RR violation, and I do think Settleman has a rather obvious POV (I do too, quite his opposite one, and so does everyone in this area), I think Settleman's edits are almost all in good faith. The first edit was made after extensive discussion on the talk page, and had a rough, though not total consensus. See Talk:Susya#RHR_and_b.27tselem_as_RS and many other sections on the talk page. Whatever his real world motive might be, his edits on WP are by and large quite legitimate. This should first have been discussed on the Settleman's user talk page, and if he refused to revert, only then brought here. It is very easy to break WP:1RR in this area, even by mistake. See, for example here, where I broke it by mistake (though the editor who warned me was a sock, that is irrelevant), and here, where I only warned the editor, though he refused to revert. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Georgewilliamherbert: To clarify the content issue here. The discussion on the talk page is about two kinds of sources. First, Regavim (NGO), and second Rabbis for Human Rights, B'Tselem, etc. The first edit only pertains to the Regavim source. The rough consensus was to use it with attribution, which is what Settleman did in the first diff. The point which Nomoskedasticity is talking about, pertains to the use of the other sources and is Settleman's second diff. Both are reverts, technically, the first one had a rough consensus, the second one does not. The second issue is still being discussed on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Collect
In cases where an edit is made as a result of talk page discussions, it is clearly not in the same class as a "gotcha" for making an undiscussed revert. WP:CONSENSUS supports the use of "compromise language" discussed on a talk page in search of a consensus, and to make that concept void for the sake of someone being able to say "you addition of 'the' in the lead is a clear 1RR violation - you gonna get banned" would make a mockery of what "compromise discussions" should result in. (Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately) Collect (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000
My view is similar to that of Kingsindian. Although Settleman edits with a strong POV, often at odds with mine, he doesn't fit the standard pattern of armchair activist that the Mideast area of the encyclopaedia is beset by. For a first 1RR violation I'd recommend an official warning as the appropriate response. Zerotalk 12:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Settleman
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I don't think acting on the basis of a talk page consensus, subsequent to a single independent revert, is a 2nd revert in a reasonable sense. if that 'screally all it was I'd say not actionable. But I want to inspect the details. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Collect
Consensus is that this request is not actionable. T. Canens (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Collect
Gary Hart is a former US senator, two-time presidential candidate, and at present is the United States Special Envoy for Northern Ireland appointed by President Obama. The photograph under discussion was a major contributor to Hart's withdrawal from the 1988 presidential race. Gary Hart is unquestionably a US political figure.
Discussion concerning CollectStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CollectAgain asking for an investigation of this "anonymous" IP. No way is this a "new user" AFAICT. Not only is the issue of copyright ownership of a photo unrelated to "US politics" rationally construed, Gary Hart is not a current political figure at all, nor are any of my comments remotely construable as being political. I was accused of "crying 'harassment'" in the prior case - but I suggest this is a blatant case which should be dealt with promptly before this becomes a weekly show of stalking. Collect (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Note: The issue of copyright ownership has absolutely nothing to do with any political issues whatsoever, nor did I make any comments on any pages other than those directly associated with the subject of deletion of an image for reasons of copyright. I suggest, moreover, that the IP who avers he is "not a registered editor" is absolutely engaged in stalking here, and failure to act concerning such stalking is unwise for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Fyddlestix - I made no edits to any article or article talk page here - I noted copyright at a deletion discussion and on a proper Wikipedia discussion board, but zero edits on any political article or article discussion page. Just to be clear again I made no comments about Hart on any page whatsoever. Collect (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC) @Fyddlestix Iterating - I did not make any comments whatsoever about the article. Period. Not once. The issue I dealt with is simple - does Rice have a clear copyright to a photo. That only. I did not mention anything whatsoever remotely connected to Hart or to his article other that the single quote from Cramer showing that Rice voluntarily gave the photo to another person. Is this sufficiently clear? (I never mentioned the article, never discussed the photo's use in any article, nor any rationale for fair use etc. - only the claim of copyright which was wrong.) Collect (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC) @Fyddlestix I never even dealt with what was in the photo - if it were a photo of Mount Vernon my position on copyright would have exactly been the same - and you should note with candour that I never mentioned the nature of the photo in any post - dealing strictly with it on the basis of the claims for deletion which hinged on it being copyright by Rice. I also did state that the Miami Herald is generally considered a "reliable source" (having 20 Pulitzer Prizes) despite political arguments raised by the person seeking deletion of the photo. Collect (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by EvergreenFirSecond AE from an IP against Collect in a week... seems suspiciously like WP:STALK/WP:HOUND... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by Jbhunley(edit conflict) It is pretty chicken shit to be reporting these little infractions anonymously but this one is without question a violation of his topic ban the terms of which read "Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption." (Emp. mine) There is no excuse for Collect to be making the reported edits. A topic ban means stay away from the topic not see how close one can get to the fringes and not get sanctioned. The topic ban is not relating to current US political figures but all US political figures - as it is worded this means all the way back to George Washington, kind of silly but it is what it is. JbhTalk 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not know how issues of IP harassment are typically handled but, in my opinion, Collect should provide a CheckUser with a list of potential editors via email and have them crosscheck with these addresses. While this not be typical procedure it probably should be and in any case it might be able to nip this in the bud before it becomes a bigger issue. JbhTalk 22:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by Glrx"Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace." The figure is of an ancient political figure, and Collect is clearly banned from Gary Hart's page or making an edit about Gary Hart. However, the file for deletion discussion is not a discussion about politics or political figures: it's about copyright, and Collect's edits were focussed on copyright issues. He mentions Rice but in the context of her owning the copyright; mention of Hart seems to be inside a quotation. Collect doesn't even come down as a keep or delete: Collect disputed arguments about Rice holding the copyright; Collect was silent on fair use. Collect may be testing boundaries, and he may want embarrassing photos of Hart published, but I would not ding him on this one. FWIW, I think the photo fails fair use, but Collect is adding valuable clarity to the debate. Glrx (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by John CarterI'm sorry to say that, at least in my eyes, this has to be counted as being at least marginally political. I can see arguments that "diplomacy" and "politics" are unrelated, but I think that has to be counted as a bit of a stretch. Diplomats engage in government related work, and government generally qualifies as politics, broadly construed. Also, with at least one individual from roughly the same era, Biden, apparently actively considering running for president again, I don't think the argument that he has been grandfathered out of "politics" is well-based. He could well endorse one or another candidate in the race, as a formal candidate, and that would certainly be in the area of "politics." Having said all that, the nature of the existing sanction, to "politics," is itself problematic, as the definition of the term is itself open to question. Maybe particularly in this case, considering that the edit in question is from a discussion in which there seems to be some question of copyright violation. Maybe, at best, a statement from the AE enforcers about whether this is or is not within the scope of "politics," and, maybe, if so determined, a very short block, might be called for. BLP violations, in general, are not considered within the bounds of sanctions, and although I haven't gone into all the details of this case I would have to assume copyright violations might be similar to BLP in being outside the scope of regular sanctions. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by FyddlestixThis reporting-as-an-ip nonsense is incredibly petty and lame, and I think Collect is quite right to call for an SPI here. If the IP can be tied to another editor then that editor should obviously face some serious sanction. That said; I'm sorry, but Hart is a former Senator and a political appointee of the Obama administration. If he's not a "political figure," then I'm a purple gorilla. And Collect's topic ban prohibits "making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace." For Collect to
Statement by TryptofishI also request that a Checkuser look into the filing IP, in relation to existing or past accounts. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by another editorResult concerning Collect
|
Arthur Rubin
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Arthur Rubin
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Discretionary_sanctions 5 September 2013
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Arthur_Rubin_topic-banned 5 September 2013
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#August_2014_.28Arthur_Rubin.29 Arthur Rubin amendment 23 August 2014
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Disruption of an Request for Comment process through deletion of RfC notices and RfC notice updates for Tea party movement-related RfCs notices prior to the expiration of the RfC discussion period.
- 24 July 2015 deletion of an RfC notice regarding a Tea party movement article (Americans for Prosperity) from noticeboard WP:RSN with edit summary "Spam"
- 27 July 2015 removal via OneClickArchiver of an RfC notice regarding a Tea party movement article from the talk page of a closely related Tea party movement article (Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers)
- 31 July 2015 deletion of an update to an RfC notice, providing a close date, regarding a Tea party movement article from noticeboard WP:NPOV
- 31 July 2015 deletion of an update to an RfC notice, providing a close date, regarding a Tea party movement article from noticeboard WP:ORN
- 31 July 2015 removal via OneClickArchiver of an RfC notice regarding a Tea party movement article from noticeboard WP:RSN
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 5 September 2013 Topic ban as party to Tea Party Movement case
- 14 December 2013 blocked for violation of Tea Party movement topic ban at Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers
- block log
- 23 August 2014 Amendment request; TBan lifted; indefinite 1RR imposed, with appeal available August 2015
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision.
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log.
- Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 14 December 2013 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 23 August 2014.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
WP:RFC specifically authorizes RfC notices to noticeboards and the talk pages of closely-related articles. WP:Discussion_notices#Best practices states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and identifies "setting a time for the discussion to end" as a best practice. An administrator of our project failing to model best practices, as expected of all editors in an area of discretionary sanctions, emboldens other editors and is seriously frustrating the goals of the Tea Party movement and American Politics final decisions in fostering an acceptable and collaborative editing environment. The reported user's amended remedy has proven ineffective. Respectfully request review of the reported behavior, re-evaluation of the amended remedy, and consideration of a re-instatement of the topic ban.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Arbitration enforcement request notice
Discussion concerning Arthur Rubin
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Arthur Rubin
Hugh already brought this matter up. I can't help it that it got archived without a response from an uninvolved admin. I haven't kept track of Hugh's topic ban, but if it hasn't expired, this is in violation.
As for the edits in question, as far as I can recall, nobody but Hugh ever commented the the edits of his that I reverted weren't spam; technically, making announcements on unrelated pages might not be a violation of WP:CANVASS, but it is still improper. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:RFC does state that announcements of an RfC may be made in various locations, and update announcements may be appropriate, but I'm almost sure that noone has ever posted an RfC notice on all such locations (except WikiProject Conservatism, but including the talk page of an unrelated article and a noticeboard unrelated to this RfC, although one in which the article had been mentioned). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hugh should have mentioned his topic ban, and it clearly would have applied to this complaint. I think, though, I need to request permission to redact parts of my statement which have been shown to be inaccurate. I need permission because Fyddlestix replied to them, and it would make those parts of his comment look misguided. (I was going to ping GeorgeWilliamHerbert about the topic ban when I got home; I have not figured out how to paste diffs on my smartphone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Fyddlestix
I'm not gonna comment on whether or not Arthur needs sanctioning here, but I will say that the drama between Hugh, Arthur, and a few other editors (Springee springs to mind) seems to be getting out of control - I really think that admin action is needed to fix this, or it's going to just drag on and on.
See Hugh's previous report of Arthur here [65], the multiple ANI complaints against Hugh (only 1 of which led to any action)[66][67][68], Hugh's own noticeboard complaints [69][70][71][72] and the current report of Hugh at 3RR by Springee [73] - note especially the allegation there that Hugh is being followed from article to article by a few other editors, including Arthur (as I've commented there, I think there's actually some evidence of this).
All that just over this summer, all involving more or less the same small circle of editors, and focusing on a small number of articles like Americans for Prosperity, which was paralyzed for a month by this complete disaster of an RFC. It's a mess; these editors are clearly not even trying to get along, and some of them are clearly "out to get" each other at this point. It needs addressing. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Arthur Rubin:, Hugh did already make a complaint against you here (it's here), but that was about an entirely different issue (namely, NPOV tagging/tag removal). You're incorrect to suggest that nobody ever suggested the posts weren't spam, see the several people defending them when his edits were raised at ANI. As for Hugh's topic ban, it is here. It applied only to "anything related" to Americans for Prosperity, and included "any noticeboard discussions about the RFC, any further debates about the closing, whatever." It was a 2 week ban, imposed August 8, so basically 14 days ago. (@Georgewilliamherbert:, there's your answer, it looks as though Hugh thought he was topic banned from raising this until today.) Fyddlestix (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by HughD
@Georgewilliamherbert: An administrator recently recommended stepping back from Americans for Prosperity for two weeks, and I took the advice. After reflection, there was still something that needed to be done. The behavior of an administrator of our project is a very real impediment with fostering civility the area of the Tea Party movement final decision, please help. I was not sure if an AE filing would be a violation, but I was very sure some would think it was, as demonstrated by the reported user's initial response to this filing, now deleted, please see 23:11, 23 August 2015. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Hugh (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Result concerning Arthur Rubin
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Why... Are these being made three weeks later?... ? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I doubt that I am the only one sick of the constant dramas around Hugh's editing. This request is a rather obvious abuse of process in an attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Is a sanction in order for this? For example a six month ban from use of Wikipedia process against other editors with whom Hugh is in dispute? Guy (Help!) 10:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)