User talk:Petrarchan47

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

AE

The case involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Petrarchan47 has been reopened. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it only open for Admins to comment? @Galobtter: petrarchan47คุก 21:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Well it is all a bit out-of-process, but I don't see any reason why you would be barred from commenting as normal Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Petrarchan47: I suggest you don't respond to the request. It's clear from policy that Drmies had no authority to reopen it. You should ask him to revert. If he won't, have his admin status removed. 173.239.230.41 (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Side note: IP is a proxy, now blocked for a year. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, @Galobtter: for your response. I pinged you again in case you could shed any light on the above IP comment. Is it accurate regarding procedure? petrarchan47คุก 21:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Drmies chose not to address his behavior which suggests he believes his friends will protect him. But his violation of ADMINACCT and DS are clear from this case in 2015 where the Committee unanimously agreed "once a request has been dismissed by an uninvolved administrator, it may not be reopened." Admins are rarely disciplined at AN or ANI so if he won't revert willingly your best path is to open an arbitration case. 173.239.230.50 (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I supposed that will only be possible if I'm not site banned. I guess anyone else can take up the case, though. This information is much appreciated. petrarchan47คุก 01:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You're not going to be site-banned, at least not based on the evidence that I looked at. As for the IP's comments, they're full of it: it's just a troll who throws around big phrases. There is nothing wrong with reopening a thread; if one admin can close it, surely another can reopen it, especially if a third admin thinks there's something to the request. You are free to believe the IP and their blather about adminaccount and whatnot, but it's just hot air from--most likely--someone who got banned a long time ago and is just here to create discord. Note what the closing admin said: "This does not prevent you from taking action if, unlike me, you believe it is warranted". My action is to look again, more closely, and to ask for advice. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies:It's likely the closing admin wasn't aware of the arbcom case. I left a link to it in my response at AE. petrarchan47คุก 01:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. But I think it's more likely that the case referred to editors, not admins. Either way, Sandstein has so much experience that I have trust in his knowledge even if I sometimes don't agree with his decisions. But let me point out something else to you: the purpose of DS is to improve the editing atmosphere. Sanctions are the last resort. It is in your power every single time you edit to improve that atmosphere. It is maintained, and I agree with it, that you have said things that are outside the normal bounds. Of course you will say you didn't--but you don't have to. You can say other things, and perhaps a different decision can obviate the need for sanctions. Because if this case is closed now on a technicality (which, I think, will make the closing admin think twice next time), and you keep on keeping on as you did in those four diffs from the past month, there will be a next request, and I'm going to guess it will end differently. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I hear everything you've said, and I do see that many of the quotations brought to the AE are things I would not say today. I don't think there is evidence that I have a disruptive presence on the pages. I also don't find this to be a mere technically, though. If this case finding does apply to the reopening of my AE, it's no less important than the finding about casting aspersions. @Sandstein: Sorry to bother you, Sandstein. I am wondering what your take is of the arbcom case I've linked to at AE, posted above in this thread? Perhaps I'm reading it wrong and like Drmies says, it doesn't apply here. I would appreciate your take. petrarchan47คุก 01:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Please take another look

Regarding your edit summary referring to me "information disappears from this encyclopedia in a heartbeat. Wow." My edits moved that information into a relevant section of the article. It's one small event in the companies history and there no way that it merits it's own section. Nothing disappeared. Please apologise for accusing me of acting in bad faith. SmartSE (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Did your edit summary include the fact that you were moving the material? I think I looked at the page just after you removed the Roundup section, but before you had reinserted the text. I have already struck my comment at the Monsanto talk page but I do apologize for the misunderstanding and assuming bad faith. If you can, next time you are moving rather than removing information make a note of that in the edit summary. petrarchan47คุก 21:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. It was one of a series of edits in quick succession so I assumed that it would be obvious to anyone looking at the history or their watchlist what I was doing. Looking at the timings it does look as if it was just a coincidence that you linked to the section here the very moment I was moving the content. SmartSE (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, SmartSE. petrarchan47คุก 23:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from editing anything relating to genetically modified organisms etc., interpreted broadly and under the original case scope

You have been sanctioned further to the Arbitration Enforcement (AE) request filed on 13 September 2018

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. AGK [•] 18:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)