Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Statement by Dan Murphy: two facts must be shown first |
→Statement by (username): created new subsection to post additional comment. I can't edit whole page due to edit box limit |
||
Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
It would take very long and very long post if I try to analyse every edit of all users. I may left out something but let me use [[Occam's razor]] and try to be short. I will talk about things happened before yesterday's edit by User:Utcursch. <br> <br> The whole argument is about whether [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence&diff=563644184&oldid=563643628#Godhra_train_burning this] 'Godhra train burning' section is presenting NPOV. And I don't see it. The section begins with "was reported to have been attacked and set alight by a crowd of Muslims". Then section goes on citing Banerjee report, Hazard center report, Citizen's tribunal report, independent observers and Ainslie Embree to tell reader that the fire was an accident and muslims got nothing to do with it. Shah-Nanavati report use 'conspiracy by locals' wording, not Muslims. But as it indicate Muslim involvement, DS has done [[WP:SYNTHESIS]] in next sentence to tell reader that Shah-Nanavati commission was partial and corrupt, attempt to destroy credibility of Shah-Nanavati report. So if a school child or new reader read this section, he/she would believe that the fire on train was an accident. <br> <br> To present other side of the story, i.e 'direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob', I proposed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence#Proposed_edit this] edit. I am dealing with 4 users single handendly. DS says out of 6 sources, 3 are primary and 1 blog but refuses to tell which. Then he goes on to say that the "locals" word cover 'muslim mob' theory. So my edit is unnecessary. I pointed out to Maunus that 2002 HRW report is already used by DS in the article and 2012 HRW article still quote 2002 report. Now Maunus [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#.27Human_Rights_Watch.27_source is giving] strange argument that as HRW report is critical of post-Godhra violence, hence I can't use that report for Godhra incident and he accuse me of "misrepresentation". Qwyrxian was silent. I forced him to comment in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence#Qwyrxian this] section. I am attrbuting to sources with direct quotes, but he also accused me of "misrepresentation". The Rahul Jain just occasionaly drops in to 'vote' in favor of DS and goes away without any comment on my proposed edit. <br> <br> The team shows extreme disliking for news or any web sources and insist on 'academic' sources. But in 'Godhra train burning' section, out of 10 sources DS has used 4 news sources to support Banerjee report, Shah-Nanavati report, Citizen's tribunal report. When it comes to supporting their POV, they do use news and web sources, but oppose by others. They discard pre-2010 sources as old and outdated, but goes on using 2002 HRW report and 2003 USCIRF report to support their POV in the article. <br> <br> Initially I assumed good faith in DS and believed that the 'attack by a muslim mob' theory don't exist in his 'academic book' sources. Hence I called those books as 'crap' because I believed that those books are not telling whole story about Godhra. But now I strongly suspect that DS, Maunus and Qwyrxian are cherry picking POV contents from academic sources and as most users don't have access to his academic sources, he is getting away with it. Yesterday User:Utcursch got hold of two books and said [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence#Train_burning here] that DS has clearly misrepresented Ainslie Embree. I strongly suspect that 'attack by a muslim mob' theory is also discussed in his academic sources but he is making readers believe that it doesn't exist in his book sources or all books talk about only 'accident' theory as real cause. <br> <br> Such tendentious behaviour, gaming the system frustrate users and severely harm quality of wikipedia. I request ArbCom to take appropriate decision to stop their disruptive behaviour. Thank you. [[User:Neo.|neo]] ([[User talk:Neo.|talk]]) 17:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC) |
It would take very long and very long post if I try to analyse every edit of all users. I may left out something but let me use [[Occam's razor]] and try to be short. I will talk about things happened before yesterday's edit by User:Utcursch. <br> <br> The whole argument is about whether [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_Gujarat_violence&diff=563644184&oldid=563643628#Godhra_train_burning this] 'Godhra train burning' section is presenting NPOV. And I don't see it. The section begins with "was reported to have been attacked and set alight by a crowd of Muslims". Then section goes on citing Banerjee report, Hazard center report, Citizen's tribunal report, independent observers and Ainslie Embree to tell reader that the fire was an accident and muslims got nothing to do with it. Shah-Nanavati report use 'conspiracy by locals' wording, not Muslims. But as it indicate Muslim involvement, DS has done [[WP:SYNTHESIS]] in next sentence to tell reader that Shah-Nanavati commission was partial and corrupt, attempt to destroy credibility of Shah-Nanavati report. So if a school child or new reader read this section, he/she would believe that the fire on train was an accident. <br> <br> To present other side of the story, i.e 'direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob', I proposed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence#Proposed_edit this] edit. I am dealing with 4 users single handendly. DS says out of 6 sources, 3 are primary and 1 blog but refuses to tell which. Then he goes on to say that the "locals" word cover 'muslim mob' theory. So my edit is unnecessary. I pointed out to Maunus that 2002 HRW report is already used by DS in the article and 2012 HRW article still quote 2002 report. Now Maunus [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#.27Human_Rights_Watch.27_source is giving] strange argument that as HRW report is critical of post-Godhra violence, hence I can't use that report for Godhra incident and he accuse me of "misrepresentation". Qwyrxian was silent. I forced him to comment in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence#Qwyrxian this] section. I am attrbuting to sources with direct quotes, but he also accused me of "misrepresentation". The Rahul Jain just occasionaly drops in to 'vote' in favor of DS and goes away without any comment on my proposed edit. <br> <br> The team shows extreme disliking for news or any web sources and insist on 'academic' sources. But in 'Godhra train burning' section, out of 10 sources DS has used 4 news sources to support Banerjee report, Shah-Nanavati report, Citizen's tribunal report. When it comes to supporting their POV, they do use news and web sources, but oppose by others. They discard pre-2010 sources as old and outdated, but goes on using 2002 HRW report and 2003 USCIRF report to support their POV in the article. <br> <br> Initially I assumed good faith in DS and believed that the 'attack by a muslim mob' theory don't exist in his 'academic book' sources. Hence I called those books as 'crap' because I believed that those books are not telling whole story about Godhra. But now I strongly suspect that DS, Maunus and Qwyrxian are cherry picking POV contents from academic sources and as most users don't have access to his academic sources, he is getting away with it. Yesterday User:Utcursch got hold of two books and said [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence#Train_burning here] that DS has clearly misrepresented Ainslie Embree. I strongly suspect that 'attack by a muslim mob' theory is also discussed in his academic sources but he is making readers believe that it doesn't exist in his book sources or all books talk about only 'accident' theory as real cause. <br> <br> Such tendentious behaviour, gaming the system frustrate users and severely harm quality of wikipedia. I request ArbCom to take appropriate decision to stop their disruptive behaviour. Thank you. [[User:Neo.|neo]] ([[User talk:Neo.|talk]]) 17:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
===Additional comment by Neo.=== |
|||
I am giving [[Human Rights Watch]][http://www.hrw.org/node/12314/section/1][http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/02/24/india-decade-gujarat-justice-incomplete], [[United States Department of State]] [http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2002/14023.htm], [[European Parliament]][http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P5-TA-2002-0255+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN], [[Amnesty International]] [http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=category&category=&publisher=&type=&coi=&docid=3edb47d714&skip=0], [[Social Science Research Council]][http://conconflicts.ssrc.org/archives/gujarat/varshney/], [[United Nations Human Rights Council]] [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/docs/info-ngos/IDMC2India40.pdf], [[Time (magazine)|TIME magazine]] [http://world.time.com/2012/08/31/gujarat-riots-new-court-verdict-raises-the-heat-on-narendra-modi/], [[Wall Street Journal]] [http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/02/29/the-2002-gujarat-riots-key-cases/] as sources. I am attributing quotes to sources. I am ready to bring more hundreds of sources. But the arguments like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=564497645&oldid=564494545 this] by Maunus that "Sources talk about attacks against muslims after Godhra, hence I can not use those sources for Godhra incident to show attack by muslims on train" and on this argument attempt to reject all thousands of sources is outragious. Making a team, inserting non-neutral contents and then forbidding any user to include other side of the story, pulling down Rfc to gag my mouth, such things are very serious matter for the wikipedia. If Admins disagree, then better to block me. I can't stand this nonsense. [[User:Neo.|neo]] ([[User talk:Neo.|talk]]) 11:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
====Statement by (username)==== |
||
<!-- 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. --> |
Revision as of 11:20, 17 July 2013
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}}.
|
MarshalN20
No action, but MarshalN20 is warned that future actions that skirt the boundaries of their topic ban may result in sanctions. Sandstein 21:42, 16 July 2013 (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 MarshalN20
These two barnstars came after a discussion on Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas, where the editors opposed User:Lecen's viewpoint. The article is clearly in the realm of Latin American history, and was the principal point of contention in the Argentine history arbitration case (where Lecen was Marshal's principal opponent).
User:MarshalN20 is attempting to creatively skirt the topic ban imposed in the Argentine history case and trying to get under Lecen's skin (again). As the ban is supposed to be "broadly construed", I think he's gone over the line—the barnstars are clearly related to the Rosas discussion. Additional context just prior to these incidents can be seen at User_talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive_38#MarshalN20, where Marshal intriguingly says that he "will focus on cleaning my honor as an editor".
Discussion concerning MarshalN20Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MarshalN20WikiLove messages are not part of any subject. Moreover, my messages at no point mention any specific topic or discussion, in accordance to WP:TBAN. Both editors have a long history of editing in Wikipedia, and I've had the pleasure to view their actions in various occasions.
Statement by BarrelProofIt seems silly to file a formal complaint about a user giving a couple of people barnstars on their userpages. If that's the best the petitioner can do to find something to complain about, it's rather sad. What would be the state of Wikipedia if you weren't even allowed to tell someone you like their editing? Moreover, I'm sad to see the prior decision of a topic ban against MarshalN20. Marshal's prior conduct in that incident doesn't look all that bad to me. In the heat of the moment, we all sometimes slip a little. Marshal is a valuable editor who has subject-matter expertise that can benefit Wikipedia. A warning to follow WP:FOC and try to keep cool and maintain more formal courtesy might have sufficed. I've had the privilege of encountering Marshal in some other editing (leading to a "today's featured article" upcoming on July 15, 2013, in fact), and would like to see that contribution continue. I've tried to study that prior dispute a little, and basically haven't been able to figure it out so far, but my rough impression is that the existing topic ban was excessive in this case. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Statement by (Lecen)On July 9 Gaba p mentioned the possibility of making a RfC on Juan Manuel de Rosas.[5] On the same day (and a couple of hour later), MarshalN20 told Galba p how easy it is to make a RfC and how it "helps avoid any uncomfortable situations".[6] There was no present conversation between them at that point. The last time they had talked to each other had been more than a week before. This message to Galba p along with the two wikilove messages (sent on July 8) seem to suggest, at minimum, that MarshalN20 has been motivating other users who are taking part on discussions on Juan Manuel de Rosas' talk page. MarshalN20 was banned from all articles related to the history of Latin America, especially Juan Manuel de Rosas' article. --Lecen (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning MarshalN20This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I don't think this is actionable. While Ed is quite possibly correct about MarshalN20's motivation for these barnstars, we shouldn't sanction topic-banned editors for making edits whose relationship to the prohibited topic area is only a matter of inference or supposition, or else the scope of a topic ban becomes unenforceably blurry. In my view, any relationship to the prohibited topic area must be apparent from the edit itself, or the page it is on. But, MarshalN20, a word of advice. If ArbCom bans you from a topic area, take it seriously and drop the subject. Skirting around the ban's edges will not help you get it lifted any time soon. Sandstein 04:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
|
Neo.
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 Neo.
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Neo. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:ARBIP
- Diffs and explanations of problem
User:Darkness Shines completely transformed the article 2002 Gujarat violence from one violating multiple policies (particularly, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP) into one that, while not perfect, was at least minimally compliant (see this sequence of edits). User:Neo. reverted, failing to even recognize DS's concerns, making an unfounded analogy. From that point forward (July 6), Neo and a few others began a series of "defenses" on the talk page, most of which failed to address policies, and in Neo.'s case, crossed over into tendentiousness.
The problem begins in Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#POV pushing by User:Darkness Shines, where Neo attempted to argue that WP:PRIMARY (including WP:BLPPRIMARY) don't apply here, despite the fact that they apply everywhere in Wikipedia (see [7]. He goes further and says that academic sources are "academic crap" and "conspiracy theories" "written to make money". He continues to hold this position in Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#Edit request on 6 July 2013, in which he asserts that such violations are "minor problems" that Darkness Shines is using to divert admins. Later, Neo erroneously states that verified information may not be removed from an article.
On July 8, Neo added what he claimed was an RfC...but the phrasing was so extremely biased that I removed the tag and indicated that such a leading question was unacceptable.
On July 9, Neo stated that my and User:The Rahul Jain's only reason for being involved in the article was because of "prior disputes on Jainism articles"; actually, TRJ had a dispute with Neo., which I stepped into because, as with this article, Neo was attempting to keep an older version of articles that violated policies in spite of TRJ's improvements. My reason for involvement in this article was originally as an uninvolved admin responding to an edit request that I became aware of because it was discussed on a user talk page I watch. I've since explicitly stated that I consider myself WP:INVOLVED and am not taking admin actions on the article. Neo. repeated this claim on July 15.
On July 10, Neo. insinuated that RegentsPark, the previous protected admin who had protected a version resembling DS's preferred version to stop an edit war, and chose the current version as the WP:WRONGVERSION, would come back to the article again to intentionally choose DS's version to favor him.
On July 11, Neo. proposed a new change to the article, which quite obviously violated WP:NPOV, later, User:Maunus noticed (and I confirmed) that Neo was misrepresenting the sources, either through lack of comprehension or deliberate POV pushing (see Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#comments and Talk:2002 Gujarat violence#31 convicted, we know already).
During this whole shebang, Neo. filed two WP:ANI complaints. Both were dismissed as being at best a misrepresented content dispute and at worst "baseless" and WP:IDHT/WP:STICK. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#Admin Qwyrxian and WP:ANI#GANG on 2002 Gujarat violence. He also made similar accusations at the Noticeboard for India-related topics (see WT:INB#Wikiproject India and GANG), which included an accusation of tag-teaming, and was closed as not appropriate for the noticeboard.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Warned on July 9 by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)
- User Talk:Neo.#Warning contains a series of edits by several admins about edit warring
- Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) left the formal, templated warning on July 15
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
@Sandstein: The warning on July 9, left on the article's talk page, is sufficient to meet the warning requirements of sanctions; all that is requires is that editors be aware that sanctions are in place on an article, not that a personal, templated warning be left for that person specifically. There are certainly actionable diffs after the July 9 date; most notably the tendentiousness displayed in proposing and making editors waste time in arguing about a blatantly POV recommended change to the article. While article space problems are more "obvious" than talk page one's, WP:IDHT and WP:TE problems on talk pages can drive away good faith editors and be equally destructive to the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Diff of notification
Discussion concerning Neo.
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 Neo.
This whole ArbCom concept is new to me. I use mobile. Please give at least 24 hours to study this concept and write my side. Until decision is made, I will not edit any article related to Gujarat, politics or religion. Thanks. neo (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It would take very long and very long post if I try to analyse every edit of all users. I may left out something but let me use Occam's razor and try to be short. I will talk about things happened before yesterday's edit by User:Utcursch.
The whole argument is about whether this 'Godhra train burning' section is presenting NPOV. And I don't see it. The section begins with "was reported to have been attacked and set alight by a crowd of Muslims". Then section goes on citing Banerjee report, Hazard center report, Citizen's tribunal report, independent observers and Ainslie Embree to tell reader that the fire was an accident and muslims got nothing to do with it. Shah-Nanavati report use 'conspiracy by locals' wording, not Muslims. But as it indicate Muslim involvement, DS has done WP:SYNTHESIS in next sentence to tell reader that Shah-Nanavati commission was partial and corrupt, attempt to destroy credibility of Shah-Nanavati report. So if a school child or new reader read this section, he/she would believe that the fire on train was an accident.
To present other side of the story, i.e 'direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob', I proposed this edit. I am dealing with 4 users single handendly. DS says out of 6 sources, 3 are primary and 1 blog but refuses to tell which. Then he goes on to say that the "locals" word cover 'muslim mob' theory. So my edit is unnecessary. I pointed out to Maunus that 2002 HRW report is already used by DS in the article and 2012 HRW article still quote 2002 report. Now Maunus is giving strange argument that as HRW report is critical of post-Godhra violence, hence I can't use that report for Godhra incident and he accuse me of "misrepresentation". Qwyrxian was silent. I forced him to comment in this section. I am attrbuting to sources with direct quotes, but he also accused me of "misrepresentation". The Rahul Jain just occasionaly drops in to 'vote' in favor of DS and goes away without any comment on my proposed edit.
The team shows extreme disliking for news or any web sources and insist on 'academic' sources. But in 'Godhra train burning' section, out of 10 sources DS has used 4 news sources to support Banerjee report, Shah-Nanavati report, Citizen's tribunal report. When it comes to supporting their POV, they do use news and web sources, but oppose by others. They discard pre-2010 sources as old and outdated, but goes on using 2002 HRW report and 2003 USCIRF report to support their POV in the article.
Initially I assumed good faith in DS and believed that the 'attack by a muslim mob' theory don't exist in his 'academic book' sources. Hence I called those books as 'crap' because I believed that those books are not telling whole story about Godhra. But now I strongly suspect that DS, Maunus and Qwyrxian are cherry picking POV contents from academic sources and as most users don't have access to his academic sources, he is getting away with it. Yesterday User:Utcursch got hold of two books and said here that DS has clearly misrepresented Ainslie Embree. I strongly suspect that 'attack by a muslim mob' theory is also discussed in his academic sources but he is making readers believe that it doesn't exist in his book sources or all books talk about only 'accident' theory as real cause.
Such tendentious behaviour, gaming the system frustrate users and severely harm quality of wikipedia. I request ArbCom to take appropriate decision to stop their disruptive behaviour. Thank you. neo (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Additional comment by Neo.
I am giving Human Rights Watch[8][9], United States Department of State [10], European Parliament[11], Amnesty International [12], Social Science Research Council[13], United Nations Human Rights Council [14], TIME magazine [15], Wall Street Journal [16] as sources. I am attributing quotes to sources. I am ready to bring more hundreds of sources. But the arguments like this by Maunus that "Sources talk about attacks against muslims after Godhra, hence I can not use those sources for Godhra incident to show attack by muslims on train" and on this argument attempt to reject all thousands of sources is outragious. Making a team, inserting non-neutral contents and then forbidding any user to include other side of the story, pulling down Rfc to gag my mouth, such things are very serious matter for the wikipedia. If Admins disagree, then better to block me. I can't stand this nonsense. neo (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Neo.
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Neo., to clarify, this is not a hearing by the Arbitration Committee, but a request to administrators like me to take action under the Committee's delegated authority, see WP:AC/DS.
I don't readily see anything actionable in this submission, or to convince me that this is not mainly a content dispute. The warning allowing us to impose discretionary sanctions was issued on 15 July. Anything earlier is not actionable in the context of this forum in my view. And there is no later dated diff in the evidence submission. Additionally, writing poor-quality content (not that I say that this has necessarily happened here) or making mistaken arguments in discussions is not a violation of Wikipedia's conduct policies, and therefore not in and of itself sanctionable.
But writing non-neutral and unverifiable content is, as is engaging in personal attacks. Neo. should take care in the future to adhere to all important policies as outlined at WP:5P, and not make sweeping accusations of misconduct without adequate evidence. The countercomplaint by Neo. is too confused and insufficiently supported by evidence (in the form of explained diffs!) to be actionable at first glance. Sandstein 21:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian, the July 9 warning is not sufficient, because WP:AC/DS#Warnings requires that the warning include "a link to the decision authorizing sanctions", which that warning did not. Sandstein 23:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Delicious carbuncle
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 Delicious carbuncle
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wikipediocracy is a forum for WP editors and others to attack WP editors and out them, seemingly without sanction on WP. In the latest example, an editor Delicious carbuncle has posted a substantial attack on another WP editor. I'm not linking to this (see below for why), but it's obvious from the site's main page and I'm sure that all Arbs will be aware of it by now.
After ArbCom actions a year ago, Delicious carbuncle is under specific sanctions to not use Wikipediocracy to attack WP editors by outing:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6#Delicious_carbuncle_posted_identifying_information_on_F.C3.A6
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6#Delicious_carbuncle_severely_admonished_and_warned
I believe this recent action to be a breach of that.
Some background, just to save obvious questions later:
My awareness of Wikipediocracy stems from a recently contested AfD (a Wikipediocracy issue in itself), as a result of which I suffered attacks and outing at Wikipediocracy myself [17], from WP editors, an admin and non-editors. Complaints about that though were rejected through WP (and I'm sure they're outside scope here). WP:ANI#Alexander_Montagu.2C_13th_Duke_of_Manchester_and_canvassing_at_Wikipediocracy
Having been told that I can't raise personal complaints as that's self-interested and "just whining", I was repulsed last night to see that Wikipediocracy is now front-paging another of its "exposes" - two editors with whom I have no connection (I've seen both in passing, never memorably interacted with either). Accordingly I raised that at WP:AN#Wikipediocracy_and_outing, only to be threatened with blocking for having done so, and of course it being closed and hatted promptly.
However in this case, I have since been informed that there's an outstanding and specific sanction against Delicious carbuncle over doing this. Accordingly I raise it here.
Further clarifications:
- I've not posted the direct links to the material concerned. This is because I'm under specific threat of blocking for doing so, per WP:SHOOTTHEMESSENGER. This no doubt gives Arbcom a ready-made excuse to close and ignore this, just because I've not filled the complaint forms in properly. One would hope for slightly better though.
- A "public interest defence" has already been given that the user outed is so odious that our protective policies on outing don't apply to them. I know of no such loopholes. Perhaps ArbCom might clarify precisely when we regard editors as so odious that we no longer protect them in such a way. Also just what it is I've done that makes me also into such an outlaw scumbag
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Delicious carbuncle
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 Delicious carbuncle
Statement by Dan Murphy
Wikipediocracy currently has a blog post that makes a case that a highly active Wikipedia editor has rather strong interests in both young girls and white supremacy. Mr. Dingley appears to think that Wikipedia's absurd and childish fear of "outing" (what a terrible name for simply calling people by their proper names; outing used to refer to disclosing a closeted person's identity in environments that could lead to job loss, violent attacks and even murder) is of far more importance than questions over the fitness of Wikipedia editors to interact with this website's legions of child editors or to construct articles without bias. His hysteria and fear would be amusing, if Dingley's inability to see what really matters here - or to care about it - were not so sad. As a regular contributor to Wikipediocracy, I would like to thank Dingley for his diligent work in bringing the website's often excellent and thought-provoking pieces to the wider audience they richly deserve.Dan Murphy (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Collect=
Wikipediocracy is frequently sophomoric (heck - so are some things on Wikipedia, for that matter.) The question is not "attack" as that is such a broad claim that even saying "Editor Gnarph uses long words" falls into that category. So we must decide first if the incident alluded to here actually is "outing" else it clearly is outside the purview of ArbCom, and only then if the matter is of such import that it trquires action here. I did not think when I just read the post that it meets those criteria. Collect (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Result concerning Delicious carbuncle
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.