Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
Veritycheck (talk | contribs) →Statement by Veritycheck: response to Tryptofish |
→Discussion concerning Petrarchan47: not aspersion |
||
Line 188: | Line 188: | ||
====Statement by Seraphim System==== |
====Statement by Seraphim System==== |
||
Some brief comments - my understanding of [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] is that it means to make repeated accusations of misconduct without presenting evidence. I don't think all of these diffs would be considered aspersions. Without getting into too much detail. there is evidence and diffs supporting at least some of what Petrachan47 has said here. The complaining editor does not exactly have clean hands here. [[User:Seraphim System|<span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:#503753; text-shadow:#b3b3cc 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Seraphim System'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Seraphim System|<span style="color:#009900">talk</span>]])</sup> 08:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC) |
Some brief comments - my understanding of [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] is that it means to make repeated accusations of misconduct without presenting evidence. I don't think all of these diffs would be considered aspersions. Without getting into too much detail. there is evidence and diffs supporting at least some of what Petrachan47 has said here. The complaining editor does not exactly have clean hands here. [[User:Seraphim System|<span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:#503753; text-shadow:#b3b3cc 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Seraphim System'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Seraphim System|<span style="color:#009900">talk</span>]])</sup> 08:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
====Statement by Minor4th==== |
|||
I have not looked at these Monsanto articles in a long time, until today when I was trying to find info on the recent jury verdict and damages award against Monsanto. What struck me right off the bat was KingofAces' ownership-like behavior in these articles and his engaging in what looks like edit warring to me. I do not think the diffs provided amount to casting aspersions in the least. The diffs reflect more poorly on KoA in my opinion. Not to cast aspersions, but I wonder if KoA might be, consciously or unconsciously, using the Arb sanctions to bully away from the Monsanto and pesticide articles those editors who do not share KoA's pro-Monsanto editing behavior. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">[[User:Minor4th|<b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b>]][[User talk:Minor4th|<b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b>]]</span></b> 21:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
===Result concerning Petrarchan47=== |
===Result concerning Petrarchan47=== |
Revision as of 21:27, 15 September 2018
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}}.
|
Crawford88
Blocked for one week for a clear violation. Crawford88 should note that unless they edit in other areas, they are not really complying with the topic ban and they are in danger of heading toward an indef block.--regentspark (comment) 17:28, 12 September 2018 (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 Crawford88
[1] One previous block for violating the same topic ban.
Discussion concerning Crawford88Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Crawford88Statement by (username)Result concerning Crawford88
|
Petrarchan47
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 Petrarchan47
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Petrarchan47 (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/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions,
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting aspersions :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- May 2016
KingofAces has made changes to this encyclopedia that should make you shudder
- Jan 2017
Otherwise the same tiny handful of editors who have controlled the GMO articles here will continue to reign.
- September 2017
I thought we had a crew who was completely committed to all things Monsanto?
,If Wikipedia truly has been taken over, in some areas anyway, by a gang of bullies such that the reader isn't getting a full picture of topics guarded by this group, then the reader should be alerted somehow. Only those readers who already know the latest will recognize that the articles are biased.
among others at that talk page. - Oct 2017
there is no shortage of folks bending over backwards to defend Monsanto, whilst those still trying to make WP into an encyclopedia are few and far between.
- Aug 2018
May I ask how you happened to turn up and create a brand new page? What led to that decision? It appears to me that there is off-WP communication.
- Sept 2018
You appear to be wanting to sanitize the coverage here.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- June 2016 Warned by admin for violating aspersions principle.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. [2]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Petrarchan47 has been around since the original GMO ArbCom with battleground behavior and casting aspersions, etc. with arbs stating Constant aspersions, including veiled accusations of other editors being shills, is not a minor issue and is unacceptable conduct.
, but has usually been ignored because they tend to be more of sporadic presence until recently. That's still going on and getting to be a chronic issue now though even though we passed a principle at ArbCom because of exactly this kind of behavior: This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. Previous AE are linked within this case for exactly this kind of stuff.
There's also been a trend of going to Jimbo's talk page saying Wikipedia has a Monsanto problem, etc. that's very similar to Monsanto must be pleased
comments we dealt with before David Tornheim was topic banned. I already linked one of the aspersions that came post-notification about me wanting to "sanitize" the content, but this comment still gets into the battleground behavior. They tried to claim I was using 14-year old sources in that particular edit (in reality were 2015+), but the accusatory tone continued towards me. It's getting both petty and incoherent at this point that even I've run out of patience to ignore.
The links above show just some of the sporadic but steady stream of aspersions editors have been mostly ignoring over the last few years. The topic has settled down finally, but editors coming in doing this sporadically are the few still stirring things up. Trying to caution Petrarchan about all this seems to result in more Monsanto is controlling Wikipedia or bending over backwards for Monsanto type statements. They seem pretty committed to still being pointy on article talk pages given this history and warning, so while I was hoping the old GMO stuff could die down, it looks like this editor still needs attention from admins. This is what the aspersions principle was meant to prevent. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'll also reiterate that what Tryptofish says below rings very true about why we needed the aspersions principle. Before that, it got so bad that editors felt like they needed to save diffs as proof of when they made "anti" Monsanto edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Admins, with editors starting to come out of the woodwork, this is starting to mirror this AE case where multiple editors had to be sanctioned for supporting veiled aspersions as part of battleground behavior. I won’t try to debunk all the stuff about me below due to space unless asked (nor is this case about me). It really looks like we need a topic ban at a minimum now, especially after Petrarchan's warning. What you're seeing here for direct or veiled aspersions is the kind of stuff ArbCom really wanted tamped down, so this should be a straightforward enforcement of the aspersions principle as has been done previously. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [3]
Discussion concerning Petrarchan47
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 Petrarchan47
KingofAces43 seems a conflicted editor who accuses others of what he is doing. He has admitted a COI (his specialty is pest management) on his userpage, and his edits seem to always favor the industry, although he claims he can be a neutral editor. He is engaging in bad faith editing by misusing WP:MEDRS.
In his above complaint, he refers to the wrong edit.
- "They tried to claim I was using 14-year old sources in that particular edit (in reality were 2015 or newer), but the accusatory tone continued towards me."
- This is the edit where he uses an old source.
- This is where I confront him about using old sources
- Seraphim System also warned him about the importance of using recent sources.
I've asked if he looked for newer sources, he has never responded, but instead he brings me here. In this edit Kings adds reference to the source SERA 2003. However, this source has been updated to SERA 2011.
If he'd done his due diligence, he'd have found it. By relying on the older source, he minimizes concerns scientists are raising about the “inert” adjuvants and surfactants. But the science has been changing ([4],[5],[6],[7]), and he's not including that in his edits, because he relies on the older sources. MEDRS requires him to refer to updated sources.
- Here is where I first questioned him about this
- Here on September 5, I asked him if he'd checked for updates or newer sources
Sera 2011 *:
- Many glyphosate formulations include surfactants, and the toxicity of these surfactants is of equal or greater concern to the risk assessment than is the toxicity of technical grade glyphosate and surfactants appear to be agents of concern
Monsanto/Bayer and Wikipedia articles try to conflate Glyphosate with Roundup. KingofAces43 most recently did that here, misrepresenting the science (see Sera 2011). I confront him here. His misrepresentation follows talking points coming from Bayer, new owner of Roundup.
Wikipedia should not allow this to continue. Bayer is facing over 8K lawsuits worth billions, similar to the one in California. The jury heard ”Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer” Reuters; ”Glyphosate” and ”Roundup” aren't synonymous. Wikipedia must stay fact-based especially regarding contentious issues. petrarchan47คุก 02:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Drmies, please take a look at my interactions on the talk pages I've recently edited: Glyphosate, Roundup and Glyphosate-based herbicides. I have not caused disturbance. Things were 'calm' before I arrived... because important updates weren't being made*.
Additionally:
- KingofAces43 is a SPA: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Kingofaces43
- Tryptophish casts aspersions when accusing me of SPA. Only one of my top pages involves Monsanto: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Petrarchan47
- KingofAces43 misuses "Fringe" to delete information about Roundup cancer case whilst guidelines and consensus support me.
- Misusing WP:FRINGE to disallow World Health Organization's IARC response to criticism after calling Glyphosate "probably carcinogenic"
Statement by Tryptofish
I'm not sure that the filing statement makes the problem sufficiently clear, but I want admins to know that the problem here is a very serious one.
As I see it, the central issue is this conclusion from ArbCom: Casting aspersions. For admins unfamiliar with the history, the GMO topic area was plagued with aspersions of editors supposedly editing on behalf of Monsanto. (It's fine to say something like For NPOV the page should have more criticism of Monsanto, but it's unacceptable to say You are suppressing information on this page because you are editing on Monsanto's behalf, unless there is solid evidence presented at the proper venues.) And, just since the time of the most recent DS notice on her talk page, here are edits where Petrarchan does exactly that: [8], [9], [10], [11] (see also: [12] and [13], never answered). That's just recent stuff; she has long advocated that editors are editing on behalf of the company: "Monsanto mafia". She also considers the community consensus at WP:GMORFC to be invalid: [14]. (At that RfC, she submitted a WP:POINTy un-serious proposal: [15], [16].)
The other thing I want admins to know is that Petrarchan is essentially a single-purpose account, whose purpose is to crusade against what she sees as editors conspiring to suppress The Truth. If you look at her talk page, she considers herself retired from editing content, and if you look at her contributions, you will see that all she does is show up from time to time to cast these kinds of aspersions. Except for her, the GMO topic area has been blessedly quiet for over a year, but she is disrupting it. You need to understand that she is not going to change her mind about any of this. Give progressively increasing blocks, and she'll just come back after each one with the same agenda. At a minimum, you need to topic ban her from GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- And in case anyone is wondering about me: [17]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Now that Petrarchan has responded here, it seems to me that her response substantiates what I said above about how she is not going to change her mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- After some additional editors have commented here (some of whom should have known better), I will clarify some of my previous comments.
- I did not say that Petrarchan is a single-purpose account with respect to GMOs. I said that she is one with respect to crusading "against what she sees as editors conspiring to suppress The Truth."
- If anyone thinks that I was baiting her (good grief!), they should look at the indenting in the thread from which I provided diffs. Her comments ("Your suggestion...") were directed at me.
- We are not here to relitigate the ArbCom GMO case, and there is nothing unclear about the decision about aspersions. To say that users one is disagreeing with in a particular discussion are editing on behalf of Monsanto, but without saying which editors by username, and then wikilawyering that it cannot be an aspersion because it supposedly wasn't directed at anyone in particular, is utterly dishonest. If there is a case for including negative content about Monsanto, make the case on grounds of content, not on grounds of editor motivations or the supposed inadequacy of the community. Describing me, or anyone else, (added: or whomever he was referring to) as being members of "self-interests groups" (Veritycheck) or as "[e]diting with the goal of protecting Monsanto" (said by Petrarchan and questioned by MPS1992) should either be backed up with Checkuser evidence or should be grounds for sanctions. And wikilawyering over maybe it was OK because Petrarchan was right on POV grounds (essentially what Atsme and Seraphim System are arguing) is wrong, because being "right" (WP:RGW) is never an excuse for misconduct (and also the community settled the major POV-related content issue at WP:GMORFC).
- --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Added. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- After some additional editors have commented here (some of whom should have known better), I will clarify some of my previous comments.
Just now: [18], calling other editors "WP:NOTHERE". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
It seems clear to me that the project would be better off if Petrarchan were separated from this area, where xhe has very strong opinions that constantly run up against NPOV and RS. Guy (Help!)
Statement by Veritycheck
From an uninvolved editor who just follows this page and does not know any of the editors, this looks like a witch-hunt. Not one DIFF presented here singles out any editor on the receiving end of aspersions. Can you present a quote that includes any editor’s name to verify the allegation? Not in these DIFFS at any rate. Tryptofish does offer two DIFFS [19] and [20] which try to bait Petrarchan47 to make aspersions by attempting to put words into his/her mouth. This failed attempt on Tryptofish's part certainly doesn't make a case for him/her. On the contrary, what is far more telling is that they both go 'unanswered' showing that Petrarchan47 does not engage in aspersions.
What is expressed in these DIFFS is that there may be self-interests groups at work, as is true throughout Wikipedia. Let’s not be naïve. WP:GOODFAITH faith is a philosophy not a guarantee. But bringing this back to the accusation and attempted ban, how about providing something more concrete if you have it. Otherwise, not only is it smoke and mirrors, but also a rather sad attempt to squelch what appears to be an important contributor who brings NPOV to the article. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- NOTE @Tryptofish Here again is the response (that you deleted) to your comment made in your statement above concerning me. You said, "Describing me or anyone else as being members of "self-interests groups" (Veritycheck)"...
- Excuse me, you are putting words in my mouth now. What part of my statement above names you, or any other editor for that matter, a member of a "self-interest group"? I suggest you strike the comment as it's a false allegation and there seem to be already too many of those floating about. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by MPS1992
As another uninvolved editor, I would like to know if the statement "Editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto is antithetical to building a NPOV encyclopedia and in a sane world, should be grounds for a topic ban" -- part of a diff provided above which is being used as evidence for a topic ban now -- is something I would not be allowed to say on Wikipedia. And if so, why. MPS1992 (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Atsme
I don't edit in this topic area but I am familiar with some of the history. The diffs presented against Petrarchan47 are innocuous, and certainly nothing deserving of a t-ban. Petrar is not a SPA and has made significant contributions to controversial articles in the past without incident, including BP, Corexit, and Deepwater Horizon oil spill to name a few. I do hope that the points she brought up in her statement are carefully reviewed because her editing contributions over the years are evidence that she adheres strictly to NPOV and closely follows RS guidelines. The accusations against her are meritless, and if anything, a boomerang may be in order. Atsme📞📧 02:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- In the clarification of aspersions, it would prove helpful if the committee would expand and clarify aspersions in general by adding “An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence that clearly supports the allegation ....and in cases where the diffs do not support the allegations, a boomerang will be implemented or something more formal along those lines. Clarification will help reduce the complaints that are filed against editors simply because their POV doesn’t align with that of the filer, which tends to happen when the filer lacks a valid argument to support their position during consensus discussions, especially in highly controversial articles that have DS 1RR/consensus required restrictions. It would not surprise me if the thought process in such cases is something along the line of Why argue and lose consensus when it’s easier to file a case at AE, create the illusion of disruption with aspersions and innocuous diffs, and just get rid of the opposition? Clarification will also help put an end to editors presenting multiple innocuous diffs prepended by aspersions when there is no smoking gun that unambiguously proves disruption or misbehavior. Such complaints are gaming the system, plain and simple, and such actions justify a boomerang. Atsme📞📧 15:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Dialectric
I left the GMO sanctions alert notice for Petrarchan47 on August 17, 2018. All but the most recent 2 diffs submitted by Kingofaces43 predate this warning.
In answering this request, a Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment may be in order. I suggest arbcom clarify what falls into the category of actionable aspersions. The specific language in the GMO case principles is singular, and targeted - “An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence” etc. Some difs presented by Kingofaces43 are general and do not call out any specific editors - statements like “there is no shortage of folks bending over backwards to defend Monsanto”. Dialectric (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphim System
Some brief comments - my understanding of WP:ASPERSIONS is that it means to make repeated accusations of misconduct without presenting evidence. I don't think all of these diffs would be considered aspersions. Without getting into too much detail. there is evidence and diffs supporting at least some of what Petrachan47 has said here. The complaining editor does not exactly have clean hands here. Seraphim System (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Minor4th
I have not looked at these Monsanto articles in a long time, until today when I was trying to find info on the recent jury verdict and damages award against Monsanto. What struck me right off the bat was KingofAces' ownership-like behavior in these articles and his engaging in what looks like edit warring to me. I do not think the diffs provided amount to casting aspersions in the least. The diffs reflect more poorly on KoA in my opinion. Not to cast aspersions, but I wonder if KoA might be, consciously or unconsciously, using the Arb sanctions to bully away from the Monsanto and pesticide articles those editors who do not share KoA's pro-Monsanto editing behavior. Minor4th 21:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Result concerning Petrarchan47
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I find Tryptofish's comment and diffs, and their argument for a GMO topic ban, convincing. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)