Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
Bon courage (talk | contribs) |
→Result concerning JCJC777: Reply ref popular culture refs |
||
Line 456: | Line 456: | ||
*:I took a 30-second look and my inclination was to indef. But it was only a 30-second look. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 21:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC) |
*:I took a 30-second look and my inclination was to indef. But it was only a 30-second look. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 21:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::The use of sources like the Hollywood Reporter, Vice magazine and the German Wikipedia as references for medical content is a very serious problem that cannot continue. This behavior indicates a deep misunderstanding of how articles on medical topics must be written. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 04:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC) |
*::The use of sources like the Hollywood Reporter, Vice magazine and the German Wikipedia as references for medical content is a very serious problem that cannot continue. This behavior indicates a deep misunderstanding of how articles on medical topics must be written. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 04:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:::These only used in the 'popular culture' section, which was very thin. [[User:JCJC777|JCJC777]] ([[User talk:JCJC777|talk]]) 04:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:16, 14 April 2023
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}}.
|
Marcelus
Pofka subject to a one-way interaction ban with Marcelus and given a final warning that any further misconduct will almost certainly result in a topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:59, 9 April 2023 (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 Marcelus
There also was a report two months ago regarding Marcelus's editing of content in Lithuania, Poland topics (see: archived discussion). Multiple users agreed that Marcelus violated WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POVPUSH, WP:GRUDGE, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:NOTHERE by trying to insert claims to the article that Zigmas Zinkevičius (personally described by Marcelus as " Since limited scope, time sanctions don't stop Marcelus, I think indefinite WP:TOPICBAN should be applied in Poland, Lithuania, Eastern Europe topics.
Discussion concerning MarcelusStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MarcelusPofka created WP:RMT ([2]) regarding the Paweł Holszański page, undoubtedly knowing that this is a controversial move that needs to be discussed, as it is not the first discussion about what name should be used in article about historical figure of similar background. I protested againt RMT by checking the results from Google Search and Scholar in English (per WP:COMMONNAME, in short: we use English sources) which were radically different ([3], [4]). When this was moved to WP:RM#C I reiterated this argument ([5]), I also gave a brief historical context as to why I think the Polish-sounding version of PH's name is so popular, then a bit later I also added results from Google Books ([6]). In the meantime, I expanded the article on the basis of the sources available to me ([7]) and told Pofka that he would find the answer to his question about the sources there ([8]). On March 11, 2022, Pofka received a total ban for Lithuania and Poland for attacks on me ([9]), but also for previous offenses (similar situation as now, I explain why the "Polish" name is popular Pofka attacks me for Polish nationalism, etc.) Pofka since October 12, 2022 is also blocked completely on lt.wiki for personal attacks ([10]). The ban on en.wiki was lifted on January 5, 2023, which I supported ([11]), Pofka declared: Contrary to what Pofka says the Zinkevičius case did not end "without a clear decision." - Pofka also used my 0RR to get the upper hand in content discussions (1, 2,3. When I asked him to stop doing this, he simply deleted my question from his talk page). There were also some occassional WP:HOAX accusations ([12]), but these are thigns I used to when interacting with Pofka. I reported this to HJ_Mitchell without asking for any sanctions on Pofka, because I think there is no problem for both of us to edit on Wikipedia, even more so in a topic where there are not many active users. I still hope so.
Statement by Volunteer MarekIs there a revert here? The restriction on Marcelus is 0RR. But all the diffs provided by Pofka are ... talk page comments. This is just a complaint that Marcelus dares to disagree with Pofka (on talk pages, civilly). Pofka also, when referencing the restriction, quotes only irrelevant portions (that it's indefinite etc) but manages to omit what the restriction actually is. Maybe a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Volunteer Marek 01:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC) The exact comment from the admin on their talk page [13], made on March 14, was: " Your two posts between them are over a thousand words. If you want me to take any action, please make your point concisely. Preferably a tenth of that length. Otherwise you can file at WP:AE but note that walls of text are not accepted there either.". Volunteer Marek 01:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by TBThere is nothing to see here. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Shadow of the Starlit SkyHello, I am an editor who in uninvolved with these interactions between Marcelus and Pofka. However, I have collaborated with Pofka once before while WP:NPOV-ing Gediminas. I would like to say that I have looked through Pofka's edit history, block log and global account log. It seems as if Pofka has been indef banned in other wikis in the past for incivility and ad hominem attacks ([14]). And, Marcelus isn't immune to blame, either. This interaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marcelus#Your_evidence) seems like an indication of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to me. Not to mention his past conflicts regarding Polonization of Lithuanian names somewhat suggests a WP:NATIONALIST mentality regarding this user too. I think that an interaction ban between Pofka and Marcelus may be necessary at this point. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (Talk) 03:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Ppt91This case has little if any merit. In addition to what others have already said about Pofka misinterpreting the extent of/nature of the original sanction, I am also troubled by Pofka's overall framing of these spelling disputes which to me exhibits a degree of WP:RGW mentality. From the diffs presented, the most inappropriate and inflamed comment by Marcelus I see is the one including the term Statement by GizzyCatBella
I'm noticing consensus tipping slightly towards the restoration of the topic ban among you admin folks. I understand that, and I understand that Pofka did precisely what they promised not to do in their Topic Ban appeal but can I ask you, admin folks, to offer Pofka another chance? A powerful logged warning + a one-way interaction ban with Marcelus for example? (with possibility of appeal in 6 months) Pursuing that particular editor (Marcelus) appears to be the cause of Pofka's problems. We have only a few editors interested in Lithuania's topic area (it's a small country), and I believe Pofka's contributions are important. In my humble opinion, if they stay away from Marcelus, that will be enough. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by Cukrakalnis@Shadow of the Starlit Sky This is relevant: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104#User:Marcelus repeatedly breaking WP:NPA and doubling-down on it. I myself asked for
Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Result concerning Marcelus
|
InedibleHulk
InedibleHulk site banned for one year. No prejudice against any other admin adding an indef and/or topic ban(s) on top if desired. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 13 April 2023 (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 InedibleHulk
Many of InedibleHulk's talk page contributions are very likely WP:BLPTALK violations. While Hale died during the shooting, BLP continues to apply for some time after death. This type of disruption has a serious impact upon other editors, and can lead to them disengaging from the article and talk page due to stress and aggrivation. These diffs show a pattern of bludgeoning discussions, making unsubstantiated controversial claims about a recently deceased person, and making incivil comments from InedibleHulk, that have resulted in a massive disruption to the editing of 2023 Covenant School shooting and its talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning InedibleHulkStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by InedibleHulkPolice, old friends and Audrey Hale's mother seem to believe she was a woman, and though she seems to have perhaps denied this implicitly by preferring male pronouns online, she also has a reliably sourced history of lying offline. It doesn't seem like misgendering to agree with the majority of those who knew and cared for her. It seems like gendering. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Considering BDP only applies to material with implications (presumably meaning negative) for living friends and relatives, I think telling a woman who told ABC News "I think I lost my daughter today" her daughter was a man (if she reads that page) is probably erring on the side of least caution (and contradicting her teammates, who one said were "like a family", second least). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, I haven't been disrupting editing by any of my comments, the page is locked (I've probably edit-conflicted a few people by making minor followups, and I'm sorry for that, as always). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Keep in mind, too, trusting a dead mass murderer (not even always the kind who kill children at random) when he, she or they seem to be the only one who ever shared an opinion on a matter is a slippery slope toward all kinds of fringe bullshit being treated as the opposite of fringe. Even if it's only applied to "Aiden", for some reason, there's still a lot of manifesto to leak or be released. Will we be so sympathetic if the coward blames Christianity? Bullies? The American educational system? A living Tennessee politician or two? TV? Straight people who just don't understand? The victims? God? Living relatives police say she may have also planned to kill? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC) I don't know if I'm supposed to ping Maddy or what, but: "This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." The "person" in question is not in a phase of life nor legally recognized as a person. The accusations of transphobia against these particular parents (who are people) were made by an anonymous source to The Daily Mail and propped up by OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC) While I'm here, I may as well challenge anyone to find an edit which even hints at an anti-trans sentiment from me since 2006. I'm only in this mess because this article started off as one about the next big shooting, which is my bag here, historically. If it weren't the mountain of evidence that nobody alive today with firsthand experience seems to believe Audrey Hale was a man, even after learning she disagreed, I'd appreciate how this is misgendering. I've accidentally used the wrong pronoun on a colleague once or twice, and made sure enough to not do it again, out of common human decency. I don't edit articles about trans people or topics very often at all, not through any active avoidance, but just through their scarcity. I think the idea of switching gender identities is cool. But the dead have no identities, including gender-related. I've always known this, it just hasn't needed explaining to so many people yet, by chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC) No, Feathers, I'm not confused. "This" refers to the preceding guideline and "holds for any phase of the person's life" pretty clearly implies it does not hold beyond that point. And yes, Hale did have a life, and this would have applied to it then, while she was a person. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Since my opinion on this particular former person is broadly (though wrongly) construed as something against every single trans person, current or former, I can see how keeping my voices away from that subject might seem warranted. But banning me from all gun, living people and American politic articles would be too much, given the reported problem here. And rebanning someone for previously having served a ban would be a double jeopardy in the real world. It would be more (but still not) reasonable to keep me away from churches, schools and Nashville. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Finally, that "pop culture banality" diff should be taken to mean don't let your children grow up to be mass murderers, not don't let them question or answer their genders (that goes for other living relatives, too). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Only one of Sideswipe's latest diffs refers to them, the next two to the content. I also find it disturbing how closely they still watch my page, after I asked them to unwatch already. For what, laying in wait? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC) I quit. Those who don't trust me can do whatever on top of it. Those who do, thanks again. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by Maddy from CelesteIt isn't a BLP violation to point out that parents often misgender their children, and that only the subject's own identification counts for MOS:GID. InedibleHulk, on the other hand, has been consistently incivil in his edit summaries and comments on that page. Also, the more he comments, the more I feel he is opposed to the MOS:GID guideline and will make that everyone's problem. his current arguments about the shooter's credibility, for example, seem like a useless distraction from our established practice of not misgendering people. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by FirefangledfeathersIH, are you genuinely confused about GID? Hale did have a life, and GID applies to every part of it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by FuncrunchBased on our initial interactions on the 2023 Covenant School shooting talk page, as well as on my own talk page, I believed that InedibleHulk was acting in good faith. But his continued, insistent, deliberate misgendering of Hale with she/her pronouns has made it very stressful for me as a transmasculine editor to continue participating in the discussion, the outcome of which I believe has important implications for this encyclopedia. As I said in a comment on one of the page's RFCs, I am saddened when contributors do not take into account the emotional well-being of Wikipedia's trans and non-binary editors. (ETA: I now see that Sideswipe9th linked to this comment of mine in the original arbitration request as well.) Funcrunch (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by FormalDudeThe biggest problem I see here is that IH continues to use she/her pronouns for Hale numerous times well after a consensus was developed that Hale takes he/him pronouns. Having been informed of this multiple times, I don't know how it can be construed as anything other than intentional misgendering. Obviously that is not compatible with editing in GENSEX. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by LilianaUwUI'll have to echo FormalDude's statement here: the constant misgendering of Aiden Hale despite being asked multiple times not to do so is unacceptable, and incompatible with Wikipedia editing. So is being very aggressive in edit summaries. This reminds me of the Athaenara situation, but I'd say this is worse: InedibleHulk has repeatedly posted that type of comments, and they're much more blatant than Athaenara's comment (the use of she to refer to a trans man is constant across IH's messages). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by SilverserenI think this diff given by Sideswipe9th originally above is really exemplary of the issue here. To quote the two comments therein:
It seems pretty clear that InedibleHulk has no intention of editing neutrally in this contentious topic area and is quite open about that. SilverserenC 21:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by KcmastrpcI believe a TBAN is inappropriate in this instance. This is an unusually charged issue that I suspect anyone involved with editing has some emotional feelings towards, additionally, we have a large number of reliable sources who continue to use Hales birth name further aggravating the situation and creating what some might argue is a conflict with wikipedia principles. Perhaps we should ask IH to step away from editing this article in general and show grace for everyone involved (assuming he agrees to step away)? Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by ZaathrasObservations. One, in Sideswipe9th's 3rd listed point, InedibleHulk's commentary-via-edit-summary is their modus operandi. Ranging from antagonistic to pop culture banality, it is honestly becoming un-collegial. Two, this is reminiscent of GooDday's AE. If one cannot be respectful of the gender of Wikipedia editors and/or subjects of Wikipedia articles, they really do not belong in the topic area. A topic ban is most appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaathras (talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by starship.paintTo me it seems like at most a transgender topic ban. Anything else is stale and/or not that serious. starship.paint (exalt) 15:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by NableezyA site ban???? Ok, so we have a topic that for whatever noble reasons has this established carve out from our normal rules on sources and due weight, but to edit in opposition to that carve out is now cause for a site ban? Yall wildin. nableezy - 17:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, wait a minute, AE cant do an indefinite block, or a site ban, it can do an indefinite block that is downgraded to a normal admin action block after a year. It takes a lot more than an admin or three to site ban an editor from the English Wikipedia. nableezy - 21:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by EvergreenFirI have blocked EH in the past so I thought I should chime in. I think a topic ban (or bans) is appropriate given the conduct. I am honestly a bit fond of EH, though I understand he can be disruptive. InedibleHulk's does not seem to be maliciously or tendentiously disruptive, just annoyingly so in most cases. I'd rather not indef block this user as I don't think he is a harm to the project as a whole. But it is clear he needs to be restricted from certain areas. IMO, he's a WikiPossum; makes a mess of your trash and bothers folks at times, but is not generally harmful. Just my 2 cents. Statement by (username)Result concerning InedibleHulk
|
JCJC777
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 JCJC777
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Shibbolethink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- JCJC777 (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:ARBPS
Specifically (emphasis mine): Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia
...comply with all applicable policies and guidelines
...
follow editorial and behavioural best practice
...refrain from gaming the system
....You should err on the side of caution
...
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 10:47, 12 April 2023 Editing against consensus, whitewashing POV, repeated content blanking, see also: [36][37][38][39][40][41]
- 13:11, 13 April 2023 Repeated mis-representation of sources, or only deriving the most favorable POV from sources: [42] [43]
- 10:09, 13 April 2023 Repeated use of low quality news-org and WP:PRIMARY sourcing to make claims of medical efficacy. See also: [44] [45] [46] [47][48] This is also not the first time this user has been warned about this: DocJames and Jytdog and Donlago and many multiple users across their talk page
- 10:47, 12 April 2023 [49][50][51][52] Repeatedly uses bare URLs despite being warned about this 16 times, even saying others should clean up their mess "
Hi Doniago, I know with your brilliance and your love for making Wiki maximally rich, that you'll find the ref. Go well
":[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] - 12:00, 8 April 2023 Repeated tagging of content already sourced in the body, or in the same sentence as "citation needed" despite multiple talk page discussions about this. e.g. WP:IDHT. See also: [69]
- 04:35, 13 April 2023 Repeated use of wikipedia links as sources. See also: [70] Been warned about this before ([71] as far back as 2012)
- Violation of our policies on edit warring (repeatedly reinserted material over several days without engaging meaningfully on talk, and broke 3RR)
- 07:00, 8 April 2023 Removes passages which disagree with user's POV
- 21:02, 8 April 2023 Removes passages which disagree with user's POV
- 19:57, 11 April 2023 Removes passages which disagree with user's POV
- 03:37, 12 April 2023 Re-adding, whitewashing, and re-interpreting and cherry-picking a source (Cuijpers 2020) in the lead and elsewhere (as was also done on 4 April: [72])
- 10:47, 12 April 2023 Removes passages which disagree with user's POV (same passages as #1)
- 11:13, 12 April 2023 Again removing content from section/ converting "is" to "was". Similar to #1 and #4.
The above diffs 3-6 demonstrate 4 reverts in a 24 hour period which restore this user's preferred version.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 11:15, 19 November 2021 Indef'd from Multiple Sclerosis for many of the same behaviors as above (using poor quality sources, disruptive edits, edit warring, repeatedly not listening to others about bare URLs)
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
In summary, this user is doing basically the same thing here at Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing as they were previously doing at Multiple Sclerosis, behaviors which got them indefinitely blocked from editing that page. (using poor quality non-MEDRS sources to make medical claims e.g. PRIMARY, news-org, using bare URLs, disregarding advice from editors on the talk page, disruptively blanking, edit warring, etc.) When they were confronted about these issues on their talk page, they simply replied "many thanks" before disrupting some more ([73][74]) and then adding the Retired template to their talk. This is a common behavioral pattern for this user (having similarly gone "dormant" right before they were blocked in 2021). Perusing their talk page, they always just respond "many thanks
" or similar before repeating the same disruptive pro-FRINGE behaviors dozens more times.
I see no reason why this behavior should be tolerated at a contentious topic page when it was so clearly not tolerated at a featured article. This user very clearly has a WP:IDHT/WP:CIR problem. They apparently cannot simply format their own citations, follow MEDRS, or understand the consequences of a contentious topic. The time-sink they provide on these articles is reason enough to sanction.
I recommend a page-block from Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing at a minimum, TBAN from pseudoscienceat a maximum as a reasonable next step.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC) (added diffs 23:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC))
Clarification 19:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC): I am not opposed to a site-wide indef, it just isn't my first choice in this particular situation. I wish this user could get the message that these behaviors are not okay, and resume their past editing in less-contentious areas, with more knowledge of the PAGs. But I also acknowledge that has not been their response at every previous juncture.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Also pinging other involved users: User:MrOllie, User:LokiTheLiar, User:Bon courage, User:Cedar777, User:Roxy the dog, User:Firefangledfeathers, User:Feoffer, User:XOR'easter, User:Darknipples, User:Bakkster Man, User:fiveby— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JCJC777
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 JCJC777
I've retired, so outcome of this immaterial and I'd suggest you good people don't waste your energy ahd time on it.
As I've said before elsewhere on wiki, I think the wiki editor role should be split. If you look at a music band, a sports team or an investment bank team, there will be some people with some skills, interests and passions and some with others. The current wiki system demands all editors have all skills.
Imagine what a massive increase in wiki editing resources could occur if we enabled - those who want to to play offence (spotting wiki articles that are hurting people out there by being wrong, proposing good new content, proposing elimination of bad content) and - those who want to to play central midfield (gatekeeping on wiki rules, maintaining disciplines ahd standards, mopping up errors). Arguably that might work by the offence people proposing content on the article Talk page, but that seems a slow way of moving. The offence people (Loki they're probably often Chaotic Good alignment) will lose interest and go. Wiki needs to encourage them and help them operate.
Statement by LokiTheLiar
I oppose this action on two grounds. First of all, all of the linked edits have been on the page for EMDR. While there are a few sources that call parts of EMDR pseudoscientific, the overwhelming consensus of the field as shown by the WP:MEDORG sources is that EMDR is an evidence-based treatment for PTSD, and that's especially true in more recent sources. As such, I don't believe that the PS contentious topic area fits here.
Second and probably more important is that if JCJC777 has been edit warring, so has every other editor on the page, including the filer. The following diffs are all reverts made by Shibbolethink on EMDR since the beginning of April:
- Reverting several tags from the lead questioning phrasing issues
- Reverting a large edit to the lead which contained significant noncontroversial material
- Reverting a previous edit of mine that questioned whether a claim was properly sourced
- Reverting a big edit originally by JCJC that added quite a lot of sources to the article.
- Again reverting a large edit to the lead, this time by an IP.
- Reverting a bunch of direct quotations in the medical guidelines that tend to support the idea that EMDR is evidence-based. This one in particular includes restoring a direct misreading of one source, the NHMRC source, which is quoted as conditionally recommending EMDR off the basis of a side comment when its main recommendation recommends EMDR for PTSD in adults with its highest grade of evidence.
And he's not even the worst offender; several other editors on the page have made a habit of mass reverting the page to their preferred version. Many of them characterize these mass reverts against "whitewashing", as the filer does above, when they are instead often reverting the addition of high quality sources (like, again, the NHMRC source above) that simply don't support their POV. (To clarify, like I say on the talk page, I don't really agree that anyone involved is edit warring at the current time. Most edits to the page have been building on top of edits of editors opposing them in the underlying topic dispute rather than reverting them. But also there have been a lot of unjustified reverts, and JCJC777 has not really been a major offender here, in my view.)
Just in general, the state of the article is not good and this is not JCJC777's fault. JCJC777 certainly is a clumsy editor, but he's also added a bunch of sources that really are valuable and WP:MEDRS quality in some of these edits, only to have the entire edit mass reverted. Loki (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- MrOllie: I'll give you that the GPT comment was very weird, but it was pretty harmless all things considered. I'll also agree that studies themselves are not the WP:BESTSOURCES in the topic area (while also lightly pushing back on the idea that they are so weak that they deserve to be mass reverted). I don't think JCJC is the strongest editor in this topic area but I do think that despite that he has a better idea of the overall consensus in the field than many of the other editors here.
- I disagree strongly, as you know, with the idea that the several highly reliable sources from big professional organizations saying that EMDR is an evidence-based therapy for PTSD in those words do not bear strongly on the issue of whether EMDR is pseudoscientific. WP:FRINGE/QS only requires a "reasonable amount of academic debate" for a theory to be unsuitable for description as pseudoscience, and the sourcing we have is way past that. Loki (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by MrOllie
Pseudoscience absolutely applies here. As has been extensively discussed on the talk page, the MEDORG sources Loki cites don't actually comment on whether the topic is pseudoscience or not. But even leaving that aside, the common thread of JCJC777's editing is to remove or downplay statements to the effect that EMDR is pseudoscientific, so the case obviously applies.
Also, contrary to Loki's statement above, the majority of JCJC777's citations do not meet WP:MEDRS - they are primary sources - single studies, as well as cites to other Wikipedia articles. Here they added an essay written by GPT to the talk page - the reasoning is unclear, but they seemed to think it supported their position before walking that back in the face of criticism.
JCJC777's editing really is disruptive, and IMO worse than anyone else editing the article on either side of the argument. I may be a shade biased on that, though, since JCJC777 did come by my user talk page to make personal attacks ([75] and [76]).
- MrOllie (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I do think that despite that he has a better idea of the overall consensus in the field than many of the other editors here.
Funny how we all think that the editors who agree with us have the best grasp on the field. MrOllie (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Bon Courage
This is a fairly obvious case of an editor blanking 'negative' content and attempting to POV-skew an article in a WP:PROFRINGE manner, almost to the extend where it seems deliberately provocative. With the earlier problems at Multiple sclerosis it looks to me like JCJC777 is not helping to build the encyclopedia. Bon courage (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I would also add, by-by-by, that JCJC777 is not the only problem editor here. By restoring[77] JCJC777's entire huge edit, and invoking "MEDRS quality sources" in the edit summary when in fact the sources are - yes - "the Hollywood Reporter, Vice magazine and the German Wikipedia" (and a predatory journal also), LokiTheLiar is acting as an enabler in a similarly problematic manner. Bon courage (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning JCJC777
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- That’s quite a lot of FRINGE pushing. Absolutely support a PS topic ban, but wondering if that’s enough. Courcelles (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I took a 30-second look and my inclination was to indef. But it was only a 30-second look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- The use of sources like the Hollywood Reporter, Vice magazine and the German Wikipedia as references for medical content is a very serious problem that cannot continue. This behavior indicates a deep misunderstanding of how articles on medical topics must be written. Cullen328 (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- I took a 30-second look and my inclination was to indef. But it was only a 30-second look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)