Dispute resolution (Requests) |
---|
Tips |
Content disputes |
Conduct disputes |
|
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page trancludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
|
Contents
- 1 Requests for arbitration
- 1.1 Conflict over number of jews in Spain on Jewish population by country
- 1.1.1 Involved parties
- 1.1.2 Statement by Asilah1981
- 1.1.3 Statement by Benjil
- 1.1.4 Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft
- 1.1.5 Statement by Sir Joseph
- 1.1.6 Statement by {other party}
- 1.1.7 Clerk notes
- 1.1.8 Conflict over number of jews in Spain on Jewish population by country: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/0/0>
- 1.1 Conflict over number of jews in Spain on Jewish population by country
- 2 Requests for clarification and amendment
- 2.1 Amendment request: Carl Hewitt
- 2.1.1 Statement by Prof. Carl Hewitt
- 2.1.2 Statement by CBM
- 2.1.3 Statement by Only in Death
- 2.1.4 Statement by MuZemike
- 2.1.5 Statement by Ruud Koot
- 2.1.6 Statement by 173.228.123.101 (somewhat involved)
- 2.1.7 Statement by (involved?) Arthur Rubin
- 2.1.8 Statement by User:Charles Matthews
- 2.1.9 Statement by {other-editor}
- 2.1.10 Carl Hewitt: Clerk notes
- 2.1.11 Carl Hewitt: Arbitrator views and discussion
- 2.2 Amendment request: Infoboxes
- 2.2.1 Statement by Gerda Arendt
- 2.2.2 Statement by Pigsonthewing
- 2.2.3 Statement by JzG
- 2.2.4 Statement by Olive
- 2.2.5 Statement by Montanabw
- 2.2.6 Statement by Rschen7754
- 2.2.7 Statement by Ritchie333
- 2.2.8 Statement by Jbhunley
- 2.2.9 Statement by Collect
- 2.2.10 Statement by Thryduulf (re infoboxes)
- 2.2.11 Statement by Francis Schonken
- 2.2.12 Statement by {other-editor}
- 2.2.13 Infoboxes: Clerk notes
- 2.2.14 Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion
- 2.3 Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms
- 2.3.1 Statement by Tryptofish
- 2.3.2 Statement by David Tornheim
- 2.3.3 Statement by Aircorn
- 2.3.4 Statement by Kingofaces43
- 2.3.5 Statement by Petrarchan47
- 2.3.6 Statement by Spartaz
- 2.3.7 Statement by Alanscottwalker
- 2.3.8 Statement by Laser brain
- 2.3.9 Statement by JzG
- 2.3.10 Statement by The Wordsmith
- 2.3.11 Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes
- 2.3.12 Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion
- 2.4 Clarification request: Oversight blocks
- 2.4.1 Statement by NE Ent
- 2.4.2 Statement by Snowolf
- 2.4.3 Statement by Thryduulf (re oversight block appeals)
- 2.4.4 Statement by NativeForeigner
- 2.4.5 Statement by Harry Mitchell
- 2.4.6 Statement by Avraham
- 2.4.7 Statement by Kingsindian
- 2.4.8 Statement by Risker
- 2.4.9 Statement by JzG
- 2.4.10 Statement by Lankiveil
- 2.4.11 Statement by {other-editor}
- 2.4.12 Oversight blocks: Clerk notes
- 2.4.13 Oversight blocks: Arbitrator views and discussion
- 2.1 Amendment request: Carl Hewitt
- 3 Motions
- 4 Requests for enforcement
- 4.1 Askahrc
- 4.2 GHcool
- 4.3 STSC
- 4.4 No More Mr Nice Guy
- 4.5 FreeatlastChitchat
Requests for arbitration
Conflict over number of jews in Spain on Jewish population by country
Initiated by Asilah1981 (talk) at 14:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Asilah1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Benjil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Link 1
- Link 2
Statement by Asilah1981
The size of the Jewish population in Spain is not a matter of controversy, the Spanish Federation of Jewish Communities, officially recognized as the interlocutor of the community with the Spanish state has between 40,000 and 50,000 members. There are dozens of sources which cite figures in this range. User Benjil does not recognize this institution (considering it an obscure website) does not accept any media outlet as reliable (including the BBC, the Telegraph or any Spanish media such as El Mundo, El Pais, La Razón etc... The only source he deems acceptable is from an Israeli Academic who he is adamant be the only acceptable source of the entire article. The figure given is apparently 14,000 or something which is evidently wrong. I do not feel this is an edit conflict which can be resolved rationally since I don't feel rational discussion works in this case.
- I don't normally engage in these things, my mistake, in any case I should have made an RfD. I would like to request withdrawal of request!
Asilah1981 (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Benjil
Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft
Both of you engaged in an edit war which began yesterday, in which both of you violated WP:3RR. Neither of you attempted conversation either on the article's talk page or each other's talk page until today. There's still ongoing conversation at the article's talk page, and the two of you seem to have (at least temporarily) stopped your edit war. Yet, you've decided to escalate this to a request for arbitration? In one day? Have either of you read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? You need to follow that and retract your request here. This is far, far from having any need of intervention by ArbCom at this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Sir Joseph
This seems like a non case to me. No DR, no RFC, no ANI, no anything other than jumping to ARBCOM. As for the dispute:
- There is no requirement for sources to be in English.
- A newspaper is RS as per WikiPolicy
That being said I think this could be promptly closed with instructions to seek DR if disputes continue.
Statement by {other party}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Fixed case request. Notified party. Amortias (T)(C) 14:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Moved statement to correct section.Amortias (T)(C) 16:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Conflict over number of jews in Spain on Jewish population by country: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- Procedural decline as withdrawn. Courcelles (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Decline per Courcelles. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Requests for clarification and amendment
Amendment request: Carl Hewitt
Initiated by Prof. Carl Hewitt at 03:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- [2]
- Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Prof. Carl Hewitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- CarlHewitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- CBM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
-
- State the desired modification
Statement by Prof. Carl Hewitt
Edit talk pages of articles to make suggestions for improvement and participate in discussions or dispute resolution pages specifically concerning articles for which I have contributed to talk pages.Carl (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
PS. Opabinia regalis brought to my attention that there is a severe privacy and security hole in Wikipedia. If an editor forgets to log in (or Wikipedia logs them out) then Wikipedia publishes the IP address used for their edit (wherever they happen to be) subjecting the address to potential targeted cyber attacks. When this happens, it is necessary to shut out access to the Internet until a new IP address can be acquired on another IP address block.Carl (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by CBM
I would like to encourage Arbcom to discuss amendments to the original arbitration remedy that make article improvement and maintenance more straightforward. The persistent editing of particular articles and talk pages by numerous logged-out IP addresses, together with an inability of Dr. Hewitt to edit under a logged-in account because of an indefinite block [3], make article maintenance challenging. In particular, editors cannot assume that the IP edits are by Dr. Hewitt, nor can they assume that the edits are not by Dr. Hewitt, which makes communication challenging. If Dr. Hewitt were permitted to edit from a logged-in account verified by Arbcom to be controlled by him, it might facilitate article improvement by making it clear who is proposing particular edits. Unfortunately, the continued presence of tendentious IP edits even on the recent Village Pump thread suggests that longer-term semiprotection may still be necessary on the affected articles [4] [5] [6]. I think Arbcom may be able to strike a balance that, at least, allows us to clearly separate edits by Dr. Hewitt from edits by IP addresses. (I will be traveling from March 21 to March 25, and my responses my be delayed.) — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Only in Death
@Callanecc, CarlHewitt was blocked for abusively using socks - primarily to get around his Arbcom-mandated topic ban on autobigraphical editing. That would generally be seen as an arbcom-enforcement action even if it is not directly listed as such, rather than a normal admin action. Are you saying that because it was a block for socking, its not an Arb-enforcement? The cause was his socking to get round his arbcom-restrictions. If those restrictions didnt exist, he wouldnt have socked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by MuZemike
I believe I have not made any error back in 2009 with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CarlHewitt/Archive#Report date October 21 2009, 01:29 (UTC) (when I was an SPI clerk, issuing the blocks based on the CheckUser's findings); the blocks were found to be in violation of the ArbCom remedy back in 2006 (and modified a year later in 2007 to specifically address the situations brought up in the various sock puppet cases).
That being said, if the current ArbCom wishes to amend the request given more modern circumstances, I have no opinion (nor any opposition) on it, provided WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:COI continue to be strictly followed. However, historically that has been more easily said than done, including the talk page usage. --MuZemike 15:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Ruud Koot
(Disclaimer: I was one of the filing parties in the original ArbCom case.)
I think it would be preferable to have Hewitt edit under a single account instead of a multitude of accounts and IP addresses. However:
- Hewitt would have to do so voluntarily, as enforcing this is not really possible.
- Formally he is still under an ArbCom restriction against autobiographical editing and has been blocked multiple times violating this restriction and for sockpuppeteering.
- Over the past decade I've seen little change in his behaviour. I.e., he is still exclusively interested in autobiographical editing, not in making constructive contributions to Wikipedia.
- Over the years Hewitt has been continuing to disrupt the talk pages of several articles, which has been mostly handled by semi-protection. This would no longer be effective once his account would become autoconfirmed. I'm not really sure how long this single account would last, for this reason.
Given the amount of time that has passed since the original case, I think it would be useful if the ArbCom at least said something on this matter. —Ruud 16:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, students have reported that Ruud has not been a neutral party in these matters in how he has behaved over the past decade.
- Consequently, consideration should be given to the question as to whether he should recuse himself.
- PS. I hate to bring this up since it is rehashing old stuff that should be put behind us. So I suggest that everyone just stop.
- It looks like there are at least 4 challenges:
- The article Carl Hewitt is very obsolete.
- The article Actor model is lacking some critical references.
- There is an active ongoing academic controversy concerning Gödel's results on incompleteness, which is fundamental to understanding incompleteness. Because of the ongoing academic controversy, improving the article Incompleteness theorem could be particularly challenging.
- The article Logic programming is missing a critical reference.
- Since I am an active participant in the above academic discussions, it is not clear how I can most constructively contribute to Wikipedia. However, the above articles are currently inadequate.
- It would be greatly beneficial if editors who have not been previously involved could help organize discussions to prevent falling back into previous dysfunctional patterns. For example, User:Charles Matthews was strongly involved in the Wikipedia-related newspaper attack on me.
- It would be highly desirable to attract more academic experts to contribute to Wikipedia in the highly technical subjects of these articles. However, because of some unfortunate experiences on Wikipedia, it is very difficult to persuade academics to contribute. Perhaps the best fallback is to report ongoing controversies as fairly as possible relying on academic publications.
- I am not looking to have my views or contributions unduly or unfairly represented. Carl (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by 173.228.123.101 (somewhat involved)
I'm opposed to Gamaliel's suggestion of 500/30 restrictions on those articles. All or almost all of the IP disruption they've seen has come from Prof. Hewitt and/or his associates. If the sanctions on Prof. Hewitt are relaxed and that disruption continues/resumes, then relaxing the sanctions has failed in its purpose, so in that situation the sanctions should be put back in place. Many high quality contributions to those articles (and math articles in general) have come from other IP's. And while the drastic 500/30 remedy might have been justified in extraordinarily inflamed disputes like Gamergate, it shouldn't be resorted to for comparatively minor stuff like this.
I'm dubious towards Prof. Hewitt's appeal for various reasons including some of the content issues he mentions in his statement, but as everyone says, it's been a long time, so I'll stay neutral. Trovatore, Arthur Rubin, or Wvbailey might have something to say or know of some others to invite. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (involved?) Arthur Rubin
I don't know if this requires ArbCom action, but there are both ArbCom and community bans on Carl's (and his students') edits. I'm not sure the community ban could be removed without modifying the ArbCom ban. As for the ban, I would be in favor of Carl (or his students) being allowed to make suggestions on relevant article talk pages, but not be allowed to edit articles, make personal attacks (even if they think them justified), or repeatedly argue any points. I think this could be formalized, but I'm not sure, as Carl and his students have repeatedly violated the existing ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Needless to say, I could be considered "involved", although almost all of my dispute with Carl was acting as an Admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by User:Charles Matthews
I was involved in the original case, and was approached to comment here.
I think it should be recognised that in all related matter there is a basic issue with Wikipedia:Third-party sources: it should be applied rigorously to all material in Wikipedia associated with Professor Hewitt's work. I quite realise that page is an essay, not a guideline. The formulation that sources should be "entirely independent of the subject being covered" is key, however.
What we have seen in the past has been an undermining of the encyclopedic principle that we cover academic matters by compiling reference material. ArbCom should support the efforts of those who wish to see this general area of computer science covered neutrally, with no undue emphasis on one school of thought.
My opinions here are strongly held. I'd be happy to comment privately to ArbCom on my grounds for believing this area of editing is worth their close attention. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Carl Hewitt: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Fixed notification diff for CBM. Amortias (T)(C) 15:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Cleaned/formatted request. @Prof. Carl Hewitt: Please edit Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Information about amendment request and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Statement by Prof. Carl Hewitt with information about your request or it may be summarily rejected by the Committee. Kharkiv07 (T) 16:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Carl Hewitt: Arbitrator views and discussion
- It looks to me that User:CarlHewitt is blocked from editing for sockpuppetry not as an arbitration enforcement action or by the Committee but normal administrative enforcement. If that's the case then the block needs to appealed on User talk:CarlHewitt, or if access to that account has been lost, on User talk:Prof. Carl Hewitt - see WP:Guide to appealing blocks. I am not willing to consider amending the case until Professor Hewitt has returned to active editing using an account. Given that the block is not under the control of ArbCom (it wasn't arbitration enforcement or a Committee decision) I'd rather let the community handle this first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- In a sense yes Only in death does duty end. They weren't actually blocked as an arb enforcement action. But I see your point regarding the reason for the block. My concern here is that this block can be overturned by any admin so it's not exactly within our jurisdiction. Likewise (historically) ArbCom will generally only overturn arb enforcement actions when there are serious process issues involved (rather than standard appeals). I'd be more willing to see this go to another venue (AE/AN/user talk page) to appeal the block and continue with the current sanctions, plus any other sanctions admins dealing with the unblock see fit. However given the historical changes both to practice and terminology I'm willing (if my colleagues would like to) handle this here with amendments to the case and a possible unblock (but I'd like MuZemike's opinion as the blocking admin too). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm willing to treat this as effectively an AE appeal, assuming my colleagues agree. To me the key question, regardless of paperwork matters, is whether others in the topic area agree that this is the best path forward to minimize disruption, so I would like to see further feedback about that. If so, I'd suggest restrictions along the lines of: 1) restricted to a single account only (I don't much care which one); 2) absolutely no editing logged out; 3) restricted to editing only article talk pages, user talk pages, his own userspace, and project discussions or dispute resolution pages specifically concerning him. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Prof. Carl Hewitt, I noticed this IP edit - whether this is you or an associate or simply a passerby, it's important to point out that the approach being proposed here specifies no editing logged out. It would be helpful if you could clarify if you would accept and abide by that restriction. (Also, please make your comments in your own section here, even if they are responses to others.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- This has gone on long enough, time to try something different. There is a lot of bad behavior in the history of the article, but talk pages should be a space for the subjects of articles to address article content, just like we allow any corporation in the world to request changes to their articles on talk pages. I endorse Opabinia regalis' suggestions, with two additional restrictions:
- A prohibition on professor Hewitt from making unsubstantiated personal allegations regarding other editors. He's already made one on this page, and while we want him to be able to address his concerns, we don't want the talk page to become a space for fights regarding old grudges. He can bring his complaints to WP:AE or to the Committee.
- A 500/30 restriction on Carl Hewitt, Actor model, and Gödel's incompleteness theorems to keep away the hordes of disruptive anonymous editors. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
- I oppose extending 500/30 ever farther than we already have --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Amendment request: Infoboxes
Initiated by Gerda Arendt at 14:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
-
- Suspend all remedies concerning Andy (Pigsonthewing), original and after review, as no longer needed to prevent "disruption".
Statement by Gerda Arendt
Today is Bach's birthday. Three years ago I suggested an infobox for Johann Sebastian Bach, as some may still remember. I believe that the personal restrictions and remedies for Andy (Pigsonthewing) don't serve a purpose. He has not commented in any recent infobox discussion (and there have not been many). The suspension could happen immediately or on parole.
We remember with thanks Viva-Verdi, who added infoboxes to all operas by Giuseppe Verdi - one of the areas of conflict in the 2013 infoboxes case -, before he died a year ago. Long live his memory. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion style: I met Andy in the discussion about Samuel Barber. I was on the other side back in 2012, but liked his style, with a grain of humour ("Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that Barber was not a person...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- When I voted, I chose candidates who I thought would make arbitration simpler. I thank the committee for not accepting any full case in 2016, but finding other solutions. It wasn't Andy who wants the sanctions lifted, - he may have forgotten about them. I think they serve no purpose, and will try to explain in a simple example. Andy created an article on a classical composer which is now a featured article. I conclude that there is no infobox conflict. If there is no conflict, we - the members of the community - don't need to keep one person restricted. Can we keep this simple, for a change? I like the approach of DGG. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- In response to Francis: As not every arbitrator checks background and history of a discussion, a few diffs. When Pierre Boulez died, I added a short infobox holding what was so far hidden as Persondata but is deprecated, after the model of Beethoven where it was added per community consensus. I call such a short thing PDbox because the term infobox is so hated, - Brianboulton called it identibox when he added one to a FA in 2013. It was expanded by Giantsnowman. It was reverted by Jerome Kohl. I went to the talk page, header: Persondata accessible. - Back to our context: none of it is relevant to this clarification, because Andy appeared in none of these discussions, as I said in the opening. - Imagine for a moment that the little box had stayed in place, without any following discussion: too good to be true? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Pigsonthewing
- @GorillaWarfare: Since you ask: it would beggar belief for anyone to suggest I would want, or would ever have wanted, otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis: Re: "the answer may be "I want them removed entirely"; my comment, above, applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
Andy can be maddeningly persistent on the tiniest of things, but this restriction has outlived its usefulness. His work as Wikipedia-In-Residence makes tiptoeing round the infobox issue an obvious problem. I'd support replacement with some kind of restriction that allows him to add and edit infoboxes, but not to argue about them. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Collect's point I think addresses the core problem here, pace Rschen. Jbhunley also nails it. Andy has boundless energy, a remarkable commitment to the project, and exhibits good humour and good faith. He is, in short, a thoroughly decent bloke as well as being a prolific editor and ambassador for the project. However, he gets bees in his bonnet, as I think he would probably acknowledge. That's the source of all the problems. Most of what he does is uncontroversial and good, the problems occur only when something he sees as obvious - almost always in metadata curation, not content - is disputed or questioned by others. A restriction on argument will solve the problem, a restriction on any addition or discussion of infoboxen is more than is required given that in most cases proposals for or addition of infoboxes are simply not controversial. Most people actually don't care overmuch one way or the other. Obviously a targeted rampage of infobox additions would be a problem, but if Andy is editing an article - an eventuality that is always, IMO, a good thing for the project, given his attention to sources - I really don't see why adding an infobox would be an intolerable act. And if it's reverted then fine, he needs to walk away, and we can watch and help make sure he does that. Obviously if any of his long-term adversaries were to stalk him reverting additions then we'd pick that up as well. He has friends who will give him counsel, I really do think we should reduce the restrictions For Great Justice. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Olive
Sanctions should have an expiry date. I haven't seen anything that indicates Andy cannot operate without sanctions. Lifting the sanctions then, is a next logical step. As well, we cannot conflate an editing/discussion style with sanctionable behavior. One is a emotional response to something we don't like; while a sanction is specifically a perceived transgression of our policies and guidelines. They are very different and should be dealt with as such. If we started sanctioning editors because we don't like their discussion style, we could become very short of editors in a hurry. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC))
- If possible could arbs outline why they decline the case. We should be aiding editors to become fully operational again. Unless they are given feed back on their behavior they can't know how they are perceived or how to improve.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC))
- I just don't understand restrictions of any kind based on behavior. We don't have a single diff here indicating behavior that transgresses our policy and guidelines. I do see that Andy deals on an ongoing basis with comments from others that are not particularly pleasant and he may response in a terse way. Terseness or being blunt is not sanctionable behavior. If he is limited because of perceived behavior we open the door further for what we have now-derailing of discussion and focus on behavior. Because we have an editor here does not mean he has to be sanctioned. What we seem to miss is that when an editor edits every day, and is prolific, we are bound to see a range of behaviors. As long as those behaviors are not transgressions we should not be considering sanctions. I find terse, straight-to-the point cmts non-offensive. There are editors roaming the halls of Wikipedia whose behavior is so toxic, dishonest, lacking integrity, abusive, it has driven editors away and limited the input of others, and yet we tolerate that behavior. We all, per Gamalie, in the recent Sign Post need to be kind and sometimes a kind reminder is the best way forward for editors, and for those dealing with complaints. Andy's terse cmts are small potatoes and should be treated as such in my opinion. Is there anyone commenting here whose behavior is always perceived as ideal? I doubt it. We're all human and all that means.( Littleolive oil (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC))
Statement by Montanabw
Time for these restrictions to go; they should expire, and the reality is that we have an editor who has extensive experience and knowledge being subjected to a set of rules suitable for 5 year olds. I favor the proposal. Montanabw(talk) 19:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Rschen7754
Given this discussion on Wikidata, where Pigsonthewing had his property creation rights revoked a few days ago, I do not see a good reason why the sanctions should be lifted, specifically the one about disrupting discussions. --Rschen7754 00:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Ritchie333
If I had to pick a specific problem with Andy Mabbett, it would be that he doesn't do a great job of explaining himself, particularly when he thinks he's right. But that's hardly crime of the century, is it? Drop his restriction back to parole, infoboxes are not the product of Satan's rear end and do serve a legitimate purpose in the right context. Then again, I find WikiData as exciting as watching grass grow, so don't take my view as gospel or anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Jbhunley
Based on their need to respond to nearly every comment which is counter to their view in this [7] VPP discussion about the religion=
infobox parameter I can see how they could rapidly become disruptive in an infobox discussion. Because of that remedy 4.3.2 should stay in place. Remedy 4.3.1, the wholesale inability to add infoboxes, should be relaxed or removed but 4.3.2 is needed to rapidly curtail disruption which may occur as a result. JbhTalk 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Collect
The terse statement from Andy seems more than sufficient to accept that he would like restrictions in this area lifted. I have no idea what could be more "substantive" than his clear statement, alas. I suggest he is cognizant of the desirability of avoiding confrontations regarding actual existence of infoboxen (Wagnerian declension of the word), but all ArbCom needs do is by motion state "the restrictions are lifted, but all involved shall be cognizant and edit regarding infoboxes in accord with such cognizance." Collect (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf (re infoboxes)
The arbitration committee's handling of the infoboxes saga has to date been a case study in how not to resolve a dispute. The problem is not and has never been infoboxes themselves, it has been the behaviour of those with a grudge against them and the behaviour of a few supporters in reaction to that. The way forward at this point is to remove all restrictions on Andy's creating and editing infoboxes - they have long passed any usefulness they ever had. If you feel the need for a staged withdrawal of restrictions, then a 0 or 1 revert limit for infoboxes would be fine by me.
Others have mentioned his more general behaviour here and on Wikidata (note: I am a participant in the ongoing dispute there). I would suggest that the best way forward with this would be to craft a parole-type restriction that applies only to Andy's contribution to discussions and apply that across the project, replacing all the other existing restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Francis Schonken
Please bear with me on a few points:
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Infobox (8 February 2016 – 13 March 2016, thus far):
- I found this discussion quite disheartening, at least exhausting, especially near the end. A problem seems to be that for some editors it appears difficult to accept or understand that if particular single-editor-oriented remedies of the infoboxes ArbCom case are lifted that the general ones, like "avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general" remain in effect, whatever side you're on. The WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in that respect is particularly persistent, so I'm a bit concerned the ArbCom may give a wrong signal here. The OP's formulation here: "Suspend all remedies concerning Andy..." (emphasis added) kind of confirms that fear... Literally, what the OP is asking is that Andy would be the only Wikipedia editor not subject to the general remedies of the infobox ArbCom case, unless the OP is already implying that those general remedies are not applicable to Andy. Clearly the OP thinks that if there are particular single-editor-oriented remedies in an ArbCom case, that the editors thus named need not concern themselves with the general remedies, applicable to all editors. That's what the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Infobox discussion was about for a large part.
- One contributor to the discussion implied infoboxes are "being voted down" more often lately (diff 1). I wouldn't know, I don't follow these issues that close. Seems like this amendment request might serve in getting more weight in discussions on individual infoboxes. I don't want to say that is a good thing or a bad thing: maybe some balance needs to be restored. The point is: we'll have plenty more editor time going to discussions about infoboxes, instead of using that time to write an encyclopedia.
- Frivolously bringing up infoboxes in other discussions:
- Diff 2, getting a clear reply infoboxes are unrelated to the issue being discussed: diff 3
- Still not letting infoboxes go in another discussion on the same aspect of the same article.
Despite the commendable optimism by others in this section, I'd still rather try to find ways the OP would be less enabled to discuss infobox matters ad infinitum. Andy's discussion style is clear from their comments above: Andy doesn't discuss, they just posit "The Truth". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Infoboxes: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Infoboxes: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I would generally encourage these kinds of requests be filed by the person affected by the remedy, but in lieu of that, I'll at least wait to opine until Pigsonthewing leaves a statement here indicating he would actually like these remedies lifted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Decline --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Decline absent a substantive statement from the editor in question. Personally, I won't take any step involving the bizarrely apoplectic infobox wars without being extremely thorough. While I am impressed by the statements of support by numerous other editors, I think a statement from the editor himself is required before we can consider any modification, however minor or appropriate it may or may not be. Strike my vote if a statement is posted. Gamaliel (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'm puzzled that in only a few hours I've already received two objections to the idea that someone seeking having their sanctions removed should make a substantive statement about why they should be lifted and what they would do following their removal. This is standard procedure. Requests and appeals accompanied without such statements are routinely rejected by the community and the Committee. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I expect I'll be in the minority on this one, but I'd be willing to revise these. We do, however, need some further input from Pigsonthewing; what would be useful is a clear statement of how, specifically, he would like to see the restrictions modified - the answer may be "I want them removed entirely", but let's try to find something that might actually get consensus in favor. From the comments above it sounds like we could consider modifying remedy 1.1 to allow adding an infobox but restrict reverting if it is removed, or to allow adding an infobox when it arises specifically in the course of WiR/outreach activities. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I may have underestimated you guys ;) Isn't there something about forgiving past sins going on today? I agree with Kelapstick on 1 and 3; I think we should hear from Andy before deciding on 2. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Tentatively support The simplest thing would just be a trial, making it clear that the sanction will be reimposed if problems resume. I would have been willing to consider this whether or not the individual sanctioned had asked for it; there are imaginable situations where a person might not want their sanctions changed or even brought up again for discussion, but the actual request here does not seem to fall in that category. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'd be willing to consider revising the restriction (whether Opabinia's suggestion or suspending it for a while), however before doing that I'd like some further input from Pigsonthewing about what where he sees this going (removing it entirely doesn't look like it'll get consensus) and that he is cognisant of the past issues and how he intends to avoid them (which may be where a compromise restriction comes from). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'd likely support something along the lines of removing review remedy 1.1 (plus 3 as it'll be moot) and keeping 2.1, but adding a restriction (possibly suspended) which prohibits Andy from re-adding an infobox to an article if one has been removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would be fine with removing 1.1 and 3. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think 1.1 can go (which renders 3 meaningless, of course), but that remedy 2.1 should stay. Courcelles (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Amendment request: Genetically modified organisms
Initiated by Tryptofish at 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Genetically modified organisms arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by Tryptofish
An unresolved locus of dispute remaining after the case concerns how Wikipedia should describe the views of scientists about the safety or lack of safety of eating foods derived from GMOs. Many pages within the case scope include a sentence or two, usually in the lead but sometimes in other sections, that are similar in wording. For example, the lead of Genetically modified crops says: There is general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis. Editors are generally dissatisfied with this wording, but disagree about how to revise it. This is probably the most intractable question that remains.
Previously, ArbCom successfully dealt with an entrenched dispute at Jerusalem by establishing by motion (motion 1, motion 2) a community RfC (link) with a binding consensus. Here, I request that ArbCom enact by motion a similar binding community RfC to resolve this dispute about GMOs.
As with the previous case, ArbCom should appoint a panel of three uninvolved, experienced editors to determine the consensus at the end of the RfC, and ArbCom should order that this consensus will be binding on all pages in the case scope for three years.
In the previous case, ArbCom also named a "moderator". Here, there should be at least one uninvolved, experienced administrator appointed as a "moderator" or "supervisor". There will be some differences from the last case here. The editors who are most involved in the dispute have already created four proposals that seem to represent the main options that the community should evaluate in the RfC; these four proposals can be seen at Talk:Genetically modified crops. Of course, anyone can present additional proposals during the course of the RfC. Thus, there is no need for a moderated discussion prior to the RfC this time. Instead, the moderator/supervisor will need to oversee the construction of the RfC page and determine when the RfC is ready to be opened. Also, it is vitally important that this RfC not succumb to the disorganization and tl;dr of previous RfCs about GMOs (link). Therefore, the moderator/supervisor must be assertive and effective throughout the RfC in preventing badgering and in refactoring excessive threaded discussion that amounts to filibustering, in addition to enforcing the existing DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, I want to sincerely thank David Tornheim for the way he has worked with me on developing proposals for the RfC. That said, his objections just below indicate exactly why ArbCom cannot pretend that the GMO case solved our problems and the community can now deal with it ourselves. I was very clear from the start that the RfC would be based on the one about Jerusalem: [8] (preceded by [9]). That's about as clear as can be about ArbCom supervision, and it was a direct reply to David. And David's citing of sources here is a textbook example of what will go off the rails in a traditional unsupervised RfC (which no doubt would suit some POV-pushers just fine). I agree that the science can change in fewer than three years. That's why the consensus could still be changed – but only with prior approval by ArbCom, just like Jerusalem. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: It isn't novel, and I would not have suggested it if it were. ArbCom did it before, with a 3-year binding consensus, as my links above about the Jerusalem dispute show. This would not create new policy in any way, and ArbCom would not decide anything about page content. You would be leaving that to the community. Please look at my link to the last time the community tried a conventional RfC: link. It spun out into badgering and filibustering, and resulted in no consensus. It would be a mistake to do the same thing again and expect a different result. Please look at the administrator's closing statement at the most recent AE to arise from the GMO case: [10]. He is telling you that, despite a spate of AE cases ([11], [12], [13], [14]), "[t]his seems something for arbcom to sort out. There is a sense that GMO is still not settling...". Your colleagues left a lot on the table after GMO-1. Turn this down, and you will get a full-case request for GMO-2. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: I see what you are getting at, and you are right to insist that we resort to this approach only under extraordinary circumstances. Let me, first, invite you to follow the link I just gave to the most recent AE, and open up the collapsed discussion, particularly to read what editors said about a possible blanket topic ban aka "nuclear option". And look at what the various administrators said in the "result" subsection there. It will give you a good feeling for how the community regards this situation, post-GMO decision, as one of the most intractable problems in years. Second, look at my link just above to the previous community RfC. To the extent that you can stomach reading through it, you will find that there was no consensus – but that was because the discussion was overtaken by badgering and filibustering. Third, please skim through the post-decision discussions at NORN and Talk:Genetically modified crops/Archive 3. Even after subtracting the two editors who were shortly later topic banned at AE, you will still see others claim that the previous "no consensus" was a "consensus against" content they don't like – whether or not there is a "clear consensus" depends upon which editor you ask. You should believe what the administrators at the last AE are telling you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think Spartaz hits the nail on the head in suggesting the RfC "as an intermediate step to see if GMO2 can be avoided." (But ArbCom doing nothing now would be the worst possible outcome.) And since Gamaliel asked me for suggested (unpleasant) reading, it occurs to me to point out how some AE administrators have also commented on "enablers" as part of the problem, and one can see how the dispute was "enabled" shortly after the case at this ANI thread, opened by someone who was shortly later topic banned at AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Having read the most recent comments, I have no objection to MedCom providing structure for the proposed RfC. However, I can guarantee you that there are editors who unfortunately will absolutely refuse to abide by community consensus following an RfC unless the outcome is made binding, and the community including AE will be unable to adjudicate the disputes that will then ensue. Also, it is false to say that I am asking ArbCom to determine content. ArbCom would merely be ordering that a community consensus about content be protected against extraordinary disruption. I've pretty much decided that I will file for GMO-2 if ArbCom declines to make the RfC binding, and I see no good in attempting a non-binding RfC without first having GMO-2. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith: (For some reason, the ping didn't reach me, but I'm watchlisting.) Thanks for your very helpful ideas. First, please let me clarify that ArbCom has already done this with the Jerusalem RfC I linked to above, so this would not be a precedent. I would be very happy with you doing what I described as "supervisor" (within MedCom or not) and subject to DS (up to the Arbs). You can see at Talk:Genetically modified crops that editors have already created four proposals for an RfC, so any mediation should take up from there, rather than restart at the beginning. Traditionally, MedCom has treated mediation as a sort of safe space for conduct and has explicitly prohibited citing conduct during mediation as evidence before ArbCom. I think that won't work here. If AE is willing to be firm about enforcing the need for a genuine new consensus before change, even in the face of editors trying to game that, then that could be a workable alternative to a three-year binding period. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Having read the most recent comments, I have no objection to MedCom providing structure for the proposed RfC. However, I can guarantee you that there are editors who unfortunately will absolutely refuse to abide by community consensus following an RfC unless the outcome is made binding, and the community including AE will be unable to adjudicate the disputes that will then ensue. Also, it is false to say that I am asking ArbCom to determine content. ArbCom would merely be ordering that a community consensus about content be protected against extraordinary disruption. I've pretty much decided that I will file for GMO-2 if ArbCom declines to make the RfC binding, and I see no good in attempting a non-binding RfC without first having GMO-2. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think Spartaz hits the nail on the head in suggesting the RfC "as an intermediate step to see if GMO2 can be avoided." (But ArbCom doing nothing now would be the worst possible outcome.) And since Gamaliel asked me for suggested (unpleasant) reading, it occurs to me to point out how some AE administrators have also commented on "enablers" as part of the problem, and one can see how the dispute was "enabled" shortly after the case at this ANI thread, opened by someone who was shortly later topic banned at AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: I see what you are getting at, and you are right to insist that we resort to this approach only under extraordinary circumstances. Let me, first, invite you to follow the link I just gave to the most recent AE, and open up the collapsed discussion, particularly to read what editors said about a possible blanket topic ban aka "nuclear option". And look at what the various administrators said in the "result" subsection there. It will give you a good feeling for how the community regards this situation, post-GMO decision, as one of the most intractable problems in years. Second, look at my link just above to the previous community RfC. To the extent that you can stomach reading through it, you will find that there was no consensus – but that was because the discussion was overtaken by badgering and filibustering. Third, please skim through the post-decision discussions at NORN and Talk:Genetically modified crops/Archive 3. Even after subtracting the two editors who were shortly later topic banned at AE, you will still see others claim that the previous "no consensus" was a "consensus against" content they don't like – whether or not there is a "clear consensus" depends upon which editor you ask. You should believe what the administrators at the last AE are telling you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by David Tornheim
I did participate in the discussion about Tryptofish's plans for RfC. I was under the impression this would be an RfC similar to the other two that preceded it. I do not remember any indication that there was a plan to take it to ArbCom. I wish Tryptofish had first suggested this plan at the talk page rather than going straight here without telling us first this was his/her plan, or giving us the opportunity to discuss the proposed instructions above.
I am strongly opposed to making the content of the RfC fixed for three years. GMO's are fairly recent and regulation of them is still developing and constantly changing, varying widely by country.[1] Only recently 16 countries informed the E.U. of their desire to opt-out of accepting the E.U.'s GMO approvals [15]. Despite the large number of studies very little is known about long term effects on health. [2][16], [17]. [18]. A major review article cited 150 times according to Google Scholar by toxicologist Jose Domingo (2011) stated "more scientific efforts are clearly necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods/plant by both the scientific community and the general public." [3] Our duty is to report the state of the art, and it could easily change. If this were about something as stable and accepted as Netwon's laws of motion or Maxwell's Equations, or the alphabet, fixing the content for greater than 1 year would unlikely present any foreseeable problems. The fact that GMO's are so new and evolving is why there are disagreements. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- ^ "Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms". The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center. March 2014.
- ^ United Nations Environment Programme, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Report: Report. "Agriculture Crossroads",English version, 2009.
- ^ Domingo, José L.; Giné Bordonaba, Jordi (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (5 February 2011)." (PDF). Environment International 37 (4): 734–42. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423.
Statement by Aircorn
This has been the major sticking point with editors from all sides of the debate for a few years now and in my opinion having some form of binding resolution about the scientific opinion on GMOs would calm this contentious area down considerably. AIRcorn (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
List of articles where the "scientific consensus" or "scientific agreement" statement is made:
- Genetically modified food controversies (lead and health section)
- Genetically modified crops (lead and controversy section)
- Genetically modified food (lead and health and safety section)
- Genetically modified organism (controversy section)
- Genetically modified maize (controversy section)
- March Against Monsanto (background section)
- The Non-GMO Project (mission section)
- Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms (lead)
There may be more, but at least it gives an idea of the current scope. I guess if this goes ahead it would be binding on appropriate new articles (for example Scientific opinion on the safety of genetically modified organisms). AIRcorn (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- @David. We need some time limit otherwise things will just degenerate straight after the RFC finishes. Maybe there should be some caveat for reassessment if major new information presents itself, but as any new study would have to go through the normal scientific processes (which can take a long time) before it leads to a change in consensus three years seems reasonable. A version of the current statement has been in the article for longer than three years anyway. Also the use of ARBcom was discussed previously (see Talk:Genetically_modified_crops/Archive_2#Potential RFC) AIRcorn (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- While in theory we should be able to hold a normal rfc and resolve this issue the problem is that we have two strongly entrenched "sides" that are both sure they are right. Any discussion on this issue tends to devolve into editors from each side debating the same points with the same conviction at each other. The recent NOR noticeboard discussion is a prime example of this, but it tends to move from noticeboard to noticeboard and article to article. Even here discussion is turning to rehashing old points that have been hashed to death. This tends to drive the neutrals away and I fear the same thing will happen if we run our own RFC. This will put all the hard work done by Tryptofish and others getting this proposal polished to waste. If an Arbcom run rfc keeps a lid on proceedings and encourages outside input then it is a very good thing. I do believe that resolving the scientific consensus issue will make editing GMOs a lot easier and surely it is better than the blanket ban that was getting decent support at AE. It still remains an option (along with a second case) if this fails. Tryptofish has already done most of the legwork in getting the proposals up and running, we can even probably all agree on the advertising, wording and design of the rfc, but we do need some oversight to stop it being derailed with long threaded discussions and most importantly the closing and enforcement of it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Kingofaces43
Tryptofish has done a great job trying to organize this RfC and has been upfront from the start that we'd ask for ArbCom's help in implementing it from the start.[19]. No one involved can act surprised about this.
This really is the backbone of the GMO dispute where numerous editors have tried to fight tooth and nail to claim there isn't a scientific consensus on GMO safety. Often we get cherry-picked fringe sources trying to dispute the consensus just like in climate change denial. These WP:ADVOCACY actions trying to further a fringe point of view to this degree technically should be sanctioned as ArbCom has repeatedly ruled that advocacy related to fringe theories needs to be dealt with to calm subject areas (which also contradicts the claim that is only a content dispute and admins/ArbCom can't do anything in that realm).
In reality though, it's extremely tough for uninvolved admins to gauge advocacy, so we get "proxy" topic bans when those editors really stick their heads out there and edit war, engage in personal attacks, etc. as we can see at WP:AE since the GMO case closed. A lot of advocacy editors keep under the radar though as long-term advocacy doesn't get handled well at AE. Further solidifying the scientific consensus language should be a longer-term solution than trying to tackle editor advocacy directly, but we do need both to settle the topic area like other parallel cases such as climate change.
Tryptofish pointed out the problem with the last RfC where some would WP:BLUDGEON the RfC process with walls of text trying to cast doubt on the consensus while expert editors trying to respond to that only further compounds the lengthiness. Word limits might cause more problems though, so the only thing I can suggest for an appointed admin watching the RfC besides obvious uncivil behavior is to keep an eye out for general bludgeon and advocacy behavior. Whoever administers the RfC and admins/ArbCom in future actions should be reminded that advocacy against a scientific consensus has specifically been spelled as a sanctionable offense through ArbCom and discretionary sanctions in well known cases ranging from alt-med to climate change. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Petrarchan47
The science on whether GMO's are safe or not remains fluid and unsettled. What is causing contention here is that you have some very committed editors unwilling to represent the science fairly, and who engage in spindoctoring. The suggestion that Wikipedia, with the help of ArbCom, create a claim about GMO safety that isn't found in RS, and then lock in it for any period of time, regardless of emerging science, is ludicrous. This is a PR statement, not an encyclopedic writing, that is the sole focus of more than a few editors.
The last RfC found that Jytdog's "scientific consensus" claim was unfounded. We were asked to look through upwards of 18 sources, a number which kept increasing as the RfC went along, but none of them alone, nor in combination (ignoring WP:SYNTH), was sufficient support. There has not been any great advance in GMO safety information that would justify a new RfC.
The truth is we don't know about the long term safety, and short term studies have indeed found problems. Wikipedia editors who are loudest suggest that every study that has found any harm was flawed, and aren't very neutral regarding the scientists. But Domingo 2011, the most definitive review of GMO food safety studies to date, says that roughly half of the literature shows "serious cause for concern". This review meets WP:MEDRS and has not in any way been discredited, though that claim has falsely been made by Jps.
King has tried to write off Domingo with a display of scientific illiteracy or outright ill intent that should have him banned from the topic altogether.details / ensuing thread
If you assigned neutral editors to write this "statement", that could work. It would reflect RS, and would sound something like "There is debate about GMO food safety" and then views from various organizations, governmental bodies, and scientists would be listed. The reader will be allowed access to information. Whereas now, Trypto's suggestion for including Domingo was to mention the paper with only two words: "and see". Neutral editors wouldn't have a problem elucidating both sides, and with the cover of ArbCom, wouldn't be abused, bullied, attacked or banned for trying to do so.
These are my initial comments, I'll probably have a few more. petrarchan47คุก 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- New rule If you mention "climate change deniers" when the topic is GMO science, you are admitting you don't really have an argument.
Statement by Spartaz
The last couple of GMO AE discussions have been really hard to resolve. The level of bickering, claim and counter-claim mean that its almost impossible to understand the issues well enough to form a proper opinion. It does feel that the current batch of GMO editors are at the point where they can no longer work productively together and there isn't clear enough evidence of poor behaviour to ban enough people to allow progress to happen. This proposal seems like a reasonable way to try and form a consensus on something that might resolve the bickering. I feel that there is pressure building up and that this needs to be let out somehow. This RFC could do that - otherwise you will be at GMO2 and effectively banning everyone. I'd therefore cautiously support the RFC as an intermediate step to see if GMO2 can be avoided. Spartaz Humbug! 12:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Alanscottwalker
I am uninvolved in GMO, but it is indeed sometimes useful for this committee (the only body with binding authority) to include as a remedy, Wikipedians holding an RfC: eg.,The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad. From my experience, the way to do it is to have a Mediation Commission proceeding to construct the RfC. The alternative here appears to be endless dispute (with all the bad things that spins off), and one of the purposes of this committee, it is often said, is to 'break the back' of such endless dispute.
Statement by Laser brain
I've participated in AE cases regarding GMOs and have done quite a bit of research on the behavior surrounding these disputes. I simply don't thinking a binding RFC is necessary, and I find the concept of a timer on any wiki content to be troubling and against the spirit of the project. The principle issue seems to be finding consensus without excessive journeys into the rhetorical weeds. As such, I'd support a moderated RFC where participants are required to respect a word count cap and to contain themselves to their own sections, much as we do at AE today. The community should be able to enforce consensus after the RFC is closed. Laser brain (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
ArbCom involvement is not necessary in order to have a centralised RfC. ArbCom is also not required in order to sanction anybody who disruptively refuses to abide by the consensus in such an RfC. Any RfC on content would normally stand until there is some substantive change in the evidence base on which it was formed, so any result would probably stand until a new high-impact publication shows a substantive change in the scientific evidence of safety of GMOs. Given that recent publications showing risk all turn out to be low quality and low impact, often in predatory journals, this is almost certainly not something we need to worry about in the short to medium term. I don't see why ArbCom needs to be involved, and I don't see this as anything other thana content dispute. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by The Wordsmith
@Gamaliel: has requested my presence here, so I will weigh in. I've seen this same sort of intractable dispute many times before, and each time the established processes were insufficient. However, I am not under any circumstances comfortable with giving Arbcom the power to establish consensus on content issues. That is not what Jimbo created them for, and I've been here long enough to know that this sort of precedent isn't one we want to set. Instead, I do have an alternative. As a member of MedCom and former Coordinator of the Mediation Cabal, I have a long history of resolving content disputes. If all major parties find me acceptable, I would be willing to help facilitate an RFC run under the MedCom umbrella, which was specifically created by Jimbo to resolve content disputes. I believe that I could keep reasonable standards of conduct and come to a consensus, which if necessary could be considered precedent at future AE incidents. As far as I know this is a novel approach, but it makes more sense than having arbitrators decide content issues. If any major parties believe I could not act fairly, I'm sure another mediator would be willing to step up.The WordsmithTalk to me 15:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish::If you believe editors would not accept MedCom oversight, I can offer to step in personally under my own authority as uninvolved Administrator to supervise an RFC. As per your concerns about enforcement, I would direct you to the Discretionary Sanctions procedure, "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)"(emphasis mine). It would seem that any uninvolved Administrator can impose a restriction on the topic area along the lines of "Consensus has shown that X is the best way to phrase Y. Don't reword Y without a new consensus.". Discretionary sanctions are not limited to blocks and topic bans; they can be restrictions on edits including imposing restrictions on a piece of an article (or multiple articles) when that one piece is what's being warred over. There are ways to work with existing policy to resolve this without giving Arbcom the power to decide what is and is not consensus and override WP:CCC. That power is reserved to the community alone, and giving it up this once would be setting a dangerous precedent. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Why do you need us to hold an RFC? Can't the community enforce a consensus like it normally does? I don't think ArbCom should be in the business of deciding which RFCs are binding and which are not. It's a novel solution, but not one that I think should be elevated to binding policy by us. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Tryptofish: It's certainly not unprecedented, but I don't think it's something we should return to without extraordinary circumstances. These may be those circumstances, and may be preferable for all concerned to another full case or indefinite conflict. We all know GMOs are a contentious topic area, and there's plenty of evidence for that here. But I'm not sure I see evidence that this is the particular step that is required. We need to get into the weeds a bit more. Why have previous RFCs failed? Was it a failure to find consensus or a failure to respect consensus afterwards? Are editors ignoring a clear consensus? If so why are normal dispute resolution procedures and discretionary sanctions inadequate to address this? This is what we need to sort out here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Tryptofish: I have quite a bit of reading to do. Rest assured, having been an admin active on AE, I'm going to definitely listen to what they have to say as they have firsthand experience with these sorts of intractable conflicts. Gamaliel (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- @MastCell, EdJohnston, SlimVirgin, Spartaz, The Wordsmith, Bishonen, and Laser brain: Pinging some uninvolved admins who have participated in AE cases related to GMOs. Could we get some of you to provide opinions above? Your firsthand experience would be valuable. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Recuse from requests arising from the GMO case, as usual. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Clarification request: Oversight blocks
Initiated by NE Ent at 15:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=542990142#Oversight-related_blocks
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- NE Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request [20]
Statement by NE Ent
The motion clarifies an admin should not reverse a block designated oversight without consulting with an oversighter, but the Wikipedia policy says to contact the committee mailing list, not the oversighter mailing list. team Please clarify the proper contact.
- Gorilla Warfare, your point is well taken, but perhaps reflects a poor assumption / phrasing on my part rather than the essence of the question; by design "Oversight" is easy to contact, as indicated by the prominent on the Oversight page; the question is does the committee want be involved with Oversight block discussions from the get go, or should the first step be contacting the oversight functionaries team? NE Ent 20:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- There's actually an issue with the wording of that 2010 [21] Gorilla Warfare linked, the phrasing the "block has been made in error" falsely implies unblocking means the intial block was an error -- to the contrary, unblocking simply means a block is no longer necessary to protect the encyclopedia, not that the initial block was incorrect. My $0.0002 is that Courcelle's position is preferable, but either solution is workable, as long it is clear what the policy is. NE Ent 21:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Opabinia regalis, the problem is that, per the 2010 arbcom motion , arbcom consent is not required to unblock (only input from an oversighter); so when an oversighter posts "appeals must be directed to arbcom" it looks like a power-grab. NE Ent 01:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Committee: this is getting surreal; it's perfectly fine to either require another oversighter input or require arbcom consent; the problem is this absurb status quo, where a blocking oversighter admin posts a notice like:
where "this announcement" actually says Specifically, an oversighter may note that a block should not be lifted without consulting a member of the oversight team; NE Ent 02:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Observation: It is written nowhere arbcom shall only use existing resources to resolve issues; if the best answer is a oversighters only, non-archived or time limited archive, why not simply decide what ya want and have a such a list created? NE Ent 09:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Snowolf
Please take my $0.02 for what they're worth as I have not been that active as an Oversighter lately. I think that Oversight block are fairly rare and as such the even rarer occurrence of an appeal can safely be handled by the Arbitration Committee, whose members can easily reach out to the Oversight team for input if appropriate. Snowolf How can I help? 21:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf (re oversight block appeals)
As a non-arbitrator oversighter and former arbitrator, I think the best way forward is as Courcelles suggests. The Committee doesn't need the workload of every appeal, and the functionaries-l list is well set-up and generally sufficiently responsive to be able to handle these requests in the first instance.
As an aside, the wording quoted by Gorilla Warfare below still refers to the Ban Appeals Sub-Committee, which was dissolved last year. Changing it is not urgent, as it just refers to referring something to BASC if that is the most appropriate action (it simply will never be such), but it is something to bear in mind for when it does get revised. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@Callanecc: it is entirely possible to discuss non-public information without repeating or quoting any non-public information. Indeed in my experience of functionaries-l this is exactly what happens, oversighters will say that e.g. user:example was sexually harassing user:example2 at $page, or ask for opinions regarding a specific OTRS ticket. In the same way checkusers give links to the CU wiki. If you have access to the non-public information, you can go and look at it for yourself if you need to. If you don't have the necessary access then you can't see it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by NativeForeigner
There are relatively few OS blocks, and most are related to arbcom cases. My intuition is that OS blocks related to arbcom cases or explicitly designated as arbcom only should be reviewed by Arbcom. All other OS blocks should be reviewable by functionaries or OS-l, although which of those (func vs OS vs both) is chosen doesn't seem to be of huge importance to me. NativeForeigner Talk 08:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Harry Mitchell
Oversight blocks are rare, especially compared to checkuser blocks (though like buses, their appeals all seem to be coming at once lately), so it's unsurprising and not necessarily a bad thing that we don't have a formal procedure for their appeals. My own opinion is that there's nothing wrong with the current system, and that the functionaries' list is a good venue for appeals. All oversighters and all arbitrators are subscribed to it and it accepts incoming mail from the blocked editor, unlike oversight-l, and input from our checkuser colleagues and the various ex-arbs on functionaries-en can be useful. Of the handful of oversight blocks I've made, most if not all would have bee made by any oversighter—I just happened to be the first oversighter to come across the issue—so it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to be appealing to me individually.
@Callanecc and Doug Weller: Everyone on the functionaries' list has been through the same vetting and satisfied the same criteria for access to non-public information (with the exception of a handful of WMF staff, who have been through the WMF's processes). The differences in user rights are largely due to different interests and different levels of technical skill, not checkusers or oversighters being untrustworthy to handle certain things. My understanding is that sensitive information (like checkuser data or suppressed revisions) is not supposed to be posted to functionaries-en because that list is archived, meaning that the data would be retained for longer than it should be (neither oversight-l nor checkuser-l are archived, whereas any subscriber to functionaries-en can read every email sent to the list, back to the day of its creation). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Avraham
For what it is worth, I agree that there are few OS-specific blocks, and that func-en is an appropriate place to discuss it. Everyone on that list is OS/CU eligible and has been vetted for private information. Oft times the institutional memory contained by members of that list is very helpful when dealing with these issues, as human behavior tends to repeat itself and the more seasoned members may have valuable insight. -- Avi (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Kingsindian
Thanks to NE Ent for opening this ARCA request. Hopefully the matter will get clarified somewhat. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC) A further comment. I don't really see why it should be an ArbCom block versus an oversight block. If it is an urgent case, there can be a temporary block put by oversight, but a proper ArbCom case should be opened if it is to be an ArbCom block. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Risker
I was a member of the Arbitration Committee that first approved the concept of an oversighter block. At the time, I believed that it should be a rarely-used but potentially useful tool for addressing very specific problems, i.e., applied only to editors who had repeatedly posted information that easily qualified for oversight, after they had been explicitly warned by an oversighter not to repost. Unfortunately, we on Arbcom didn't go as far as we should have at the time and did not establish the framework for applying such blocks, leaving it to "best judgment". Most of the time, oversighters are probably correct in their assessments, but without even a structure to review these blocks (starting with an email to the oversight or functionaries list announcing that one has been made), it is very difficult to honestly say that all of the oversight blocks are indeed appropriate. I have been quite concerned about the nature and quality of some of the oversight blocks applied; in some cases, a block was probably appropriate but an oversighter block not required (that's the original reason for developing the ability to turn off talk page access of blocked users), and in other cases I'm not even sure a block was called for. I'm definitely concerned that they're over-utilized.
I would like to see *all* oversighter blocks announced to the oversight list (or alternately the functionary list) at the time they are applied, and for *all* oversighter blocks to be reviewed by the appropriate group. The principle on which suppression is utilized is that it is better to suppress and then step things down on review than it is to not suppress and leave potentially problematic posts in full public view; however, all suppression decisions are subject to oversight team review. I don't see why an oversighter block should be treated any differently. I would very much prefer that the oversight mailing list continue to be utilized as a non-archiving list for oversighter discussions, and that we not reinstate community access to the list; the decision to do this was to protect the privacy of the information that is being suppressed. Expanding the function of the list would require that we turn archiving back on, since it would be important to have a "record" of the request; since the functionary list remains an archived list (and in turn doesn't permit revelation of suppressed material or CU results), that would be the best place to send any requests for oversighter block review (or suppression review, for that matter).
Statement by JzG
I am having a bit of difficulty understanding the problem here. ArbCom looks to be the most appropriate body to provide independent review and appeal for an oversight block, what problem are we trying to fix? Guy (Help!) 08:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Lankiveil
I think it is important that this is clarified so as to eliminate any confusion and establish a clear escalation hierarchy for appeals. As a non-Arb oversighter, my preference would be for it to go to functionaries-l first (if it is possible for this to occur), not for an official "review by the functionaries", but simply so that admins who happen to be oversighters can have a look, as per the usual procedure for all unblocks. If that's unsuccessful, then and only then should it be referred to ArbCom. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC).
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Oversight blocks: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Oversight blocks: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I wonder if this was codified this way because there is not a way for non-oversighters to email the entire oversight team. People can submit oversight tickets, which are handled by individual oversighters on OTRS, but the oversight-l mailing list does not accept external mails. Although oversight blocks can be overturned with the consent of a single oversighter, they tend to be issues where feedback from multiple oversighters is valuable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- That contact link would more accurately be labeled as "contact a member of the oversight team"—once an individual oversighter sees a ticket, they generally handle it and no other oversighter winds up seeing it. The OTRS interface really isn't conducive to group discussion. I realize this probably sounds nitpicky, but as I said above, I feel these types of unblock requests are best handled by a group of people and not a single person. Though I think the oversight team would be a fine group to handle these discussions, it is difficult for an outside party to contact the entire group. I think the potential ways of handling oversight-block appeals are as follows (in no order of preference):
- Direct appeals to ArbCom
- Direct appeals to the oversight team by instructing blocked users to send an email to the standard oversight request email address (oversight-en-wp), with the expectation that any oversighter seeing such a request will begin a discussion on the internal oversight-l mailing list to reach a group decision
- Direct appeals to the oversight team, opening up the oversight-l email list to outside senders
- Direct appeals to the oversight request email address (oversight-en-wp), where any appeal will be handled by an individual oversighter
- Direct appeals to the oversight team via the functionaries-en email list (whose members include all current arbitrators, some former arbitrators, users with CheckUser permission, and users with Oversight permission on the English Wikipedia)
- Before making any decisions, I'd like to get input on this from any non-ArbCom oversighters who have an opinion one way or another. I'll send an email to the oversight list so they're aware of the discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- As a point of clarification, there are two oversight email addresses. oversight-en-wp
wikipedia.org (or Special:EmailUser/Oversight) is an OTRS queue, where emails (usually suppression requests) open tickets that are handled by individual oversighters. oversight-l
lists.wikimedia.org is a standard mailman mailing list for internal discussion among oversighters; emails from non-oversighters are automatically rejected. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I notice that the initial decision regarding checkuser blocks directs all checkuserblock appeals to ArbCom: Therefore, in most cases, appeals from blocks designated as "Checkuser block" should be referred to the Arbitration Committee, which will address such appeals as promptly as possible. If an administrator believes that a Checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the committee. As appropriate, the matter will be handled by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, by the Arbitration Committee as a whole, or by an individual arbitrator designated by the committee. When an unblock is appropriate -- either because the reviews disagree with the initial checkuser findings, or for other reasons -- it will be granted. Our motion on oversight blocks was not as clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- As a point of clarification, there are two oversight email addresses. oversight-en-wp
- @NE Ent: Agreed with your point about the "block made in error" wording, though I'm not sure it's something we need to formally reword. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- @NE Ent: Blocks with the instructions "appeal only to ArbCom" are already within policy as written, though, in that same 2010 statement: The Arbitration Committee has also noted that some administrators (other than Checkusers) have occasionally noted when making certain blocks that the block "should be reviewed only by the Arbitration Committee" or "should only be lifted by ArbCom." This notation is appropriate only when the block is based upon a concern that should not be discussed on-wiki but only in a confidential environment. Bases for such a concern could include information whose disclosure would identify anonymous users, could jeopardize a user's physical or mental well-being, or where the underlying block reason would be defamatory if the block proved to be unjustified. In every such case, the Arbitration Committee should be notified immediately by e-mail of the block and of the reasons for it. The designation "block should be reviewed only by ArbCom" should not be used simply to indicate that administrator feels strongly about the block. Where an administrator is unsure, he or she should feel free to email the arbitration committee mailing list before blocking. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Would it satisfy you to add "and this statement" to the OversightBlock template, to clarify that we recognize sometimes issues should go only to the ArbCom? Regardless of whether we decide to clarify the language such that the appeals can go to oversighters (be it the team or individuals), I don't see taking away the ability for blocking admins/functionaries to limit appeals to ArbCom when there are circumstances such as those described in the 2010 statement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you to all the oversighters/functionaries who've weighed in. It seems like directing appeals first to the functionaries-en list is the preferred way forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- That contact link would more accurately be labeled as "contact a member of the oversight team"—once an individual oversighter sees a ticket, they generally handle it and no other oversighter winds up seeing it. The OTRS interface really isn't conducive to group discussion. I realize this probably sounds nitpicky, but as I said above, I feel these types of unblock requests are best handled by a group of people and not a single person. Though I think the oversight team would be a fine group to handle these discussions, it is difficult for an outside party to contact the entire group. I think the potential ways of handling oversight-block appeals are as follows (in no order of preference):
- I've said this before, but I think the first line of appeal for CU/OS blocks should be via email to the functionaries-en list, so there is a second line of appeal to the committee itself. Courcelles (talk)
- Open to hearing more comments, but on first look I don't see a problem with the effective status quo that appeals can either be directed to oversighters or to arbcom. (I did recently correct an error in the {{OversightBlock}} template that made the wording inconsistent, but directing appeals to arbcom has always been an available option.) I do agree with GW that the "appeal to oversighters" option should be refined so that the appeal is handled by the group rather than a single individual. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- To recap: In 2010, the committee passed a motion formally establishing the concept of "checkuser blocks", including some guidance on when to direct appeals to arbcom. In 2013, this was extended to include "oversight blocks". Immediately thereafter, the {{OversightBlock}} template was created for this purpose, which has from the first edit provided an option to direct appeals to arbcom. In 2015, BASC was disbanded with the provision that arbcom would continue to hear appeals of checkuser and oversight blocks. At least 12 currently active blocks, some going back to 2014, have the "appeal directly to arbcom" version of the {{OversightBlock}} template in the most recent version of the user's talk page. The idea that it is a new "power grab" to direct OS blocks to arbcom is not supported by the evidence. No objections to adding a link to the 2010 motion to the template, and as long as we're here we might as well sort out how to appeal to "oversighters" collectively as opposed to individually. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- My preference is that appeals of OS blocks should go to the OS who placed the block, the Oversight team (probably by opening up OS-l to external mail) or to ArbCom. The issue with having appeals directed to functionaries-en is that CU data can't be directly discussed as there are non-CUs on the list, likewise suppressed information can't be discussed there as there are non-OSers on the list. It's also worth noting that CUs or OSers (as can all admins) can direct that individual blocks only be appealed to ArbCom. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell, Guerillero, and Courcelles: The access to nonpublic information policy states that information (ie suppressed information and CU data) can only be disclosed to "other community members with the same access rights, or who otherwise are permitted to access the same information, ...". I'd want positive confirmation from the WMF that they consider users who formerly had access to be tools to be "permitted to access the same information" before encouraging it to be discussed on functionaries-l (I definitely don't feel it would meet that requirement). This is especially the case given that the policy also requires that, "When a community member's access to a certain tool is revoked, for any reason, that member must destroy all nonpublic information that they have as a result of that tool", as that seems to indicate that if you can't access the information yourself you shouldn't have access to it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Callanecc is correct in saying that appeals to the Functionaries mailing list would not be appropriate. I'd prefer the first appeal to be to the blocking Admin. I also would like to hear from more Oversighters before supporting opening up that list. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with courcelles and disagree with Callan. Functionaries-l is the perfect place for appeals --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- If indeed such information can be handled there, it may be. I've posted to the list about this discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- The simplest procedure is for requests to go first to the functionaries list, either directly or via a n individual functionary. As suggested, with the provision that it can be specified in a block that appeals go directly to arb com. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Motions
Requests for enforcement
Askahrc
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 Askahrc
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Manul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Askahrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience :
- 2 March 2014 "Askahrc (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for using an IP address to harass other users and waste the community's time (see the SPI). Askahrc is warned that any attempt to harass other users, waste the community's time or edit logged out or with another account in contravention of WP:SOCK will result in an extended block. Askahrc is also restricted to using the Askahrc account only when editing pseudoscience or fringe science related topics and is banned from notifying any user of pseudoscience or fringe science discretionary sanctions. See the warning for further information."
- 5 March 2014 (Previous AE request) "Tabled for now, with the understanding that there is a low bar for reporting newer disruption."
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
[Arbcom has extended the word count limit to 1000 for this case.]
Askahrc has orchestrated a number of deceptions on Wikipedia. I once asked at WP:AN about the loophole in the "disruption must be current" rule: Can one conduct an unlimited number of abuses on Wikipedia without repercussions, provided there is a sufficient time lag between the disruption and its discovery? The consensus was clearly "no", so I present the following evidence. Askahrc was sanctioned for the first item below; the second has not been addressed before, and only the third is recent.
- Askahrc harassed editors with a sockpuppet, for which he was given the sanction listed above. By issuing threats under the disguise of the sock, Askahrc was trumping up the "bullying" evidence for his Arbcom case, "Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors". (Three admins affirmed the sockpuppetry: two in the SPI and one in the tabled AE listed above.)
- Askahrc knowingly permitted Tumbleman's sockpuppet SAS81 to disrupt Wikipedia, standing by while Tumbleman (as SAS81) attacked editors with whom he and Askahrc had prior grievances (evidence to follow). Admins at Tumbleman's AE called him "pure WP:SOUP", "likely just a troll", and "a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues".[22]
- Askahrc and Tumbleman had already been affiliated via their off-site harassment (addressed later in this request) prior to the appearance of the SAS81 sock.
- Askahrc is the founder of ISHAR[23] where Tumbleman worked.[24]
- Out of the millions of topics on Wikipedia, Askahrc "just happened" to become involved with the topic of Deepak Chopra soon after Tumbleman (as SAS81) appeared. Askahrc's first Chopra-related comment on Wikipedia is at BLPN where he replies to Tumbleman.[25] Hours later he jumps into a COIN discussion to defend Tumbleman and "help mediate".[26] And after joining forces with Tumbleman, Askahrc was effectively an SPA for Chopra.
- An example of the disruption this produced: in a thread in which Askahrc participated, Tumbleman strongly attacked me with wild and false accusations, calling me "unscrupulous".[27]
- Presently Askahrc has relaunched his campaign to falsely paint me as someone who files fraudulent SPIs.
- This began with his campaigning in favor of Tumbleman after Tumbleman's block,[28] e.g. "a large number of innocent editors have been blocked as collateral damage".
- Other examples from the long campaign:
- Suggesting I have an "an inappropriate tendency to accuse people who disagree with them of sockpuppetry"[29]
- Suggesting a "high number of editors who have been accused and blocked" by me for sockpuppetry.[30] (In fact it was just one person with multiple socks.)
- Suggesting the SPI was somehow equivocal, and falsely claiming that an admin told me to "stop".[31]
- Suggesting that I engaged in misconduct by filing SPIs.[32] (No admin has ever suggested this.)
- Finally the recent campaigning (my account was renamed from Vzaak to Manul):
- Falsely claiming that it was "eventually proven" that I had been "citing inaccurate information".[33]
- Falsely claiming that the SPI evidence was "solidly debunked" and making the misleading statement that "the SPI conviction was not supported by a Checkuser"[34]. There was no checkuser request, of course, because checkusers won't link usernames to IPs due to the privacy policy.
Much of the motivation behind Askahrc's deceptions may be found in his off-wiki harassment activities. Askahrc identified himself when he brought attention to his contributions to an off-wiki harassment site containing his name,[35] and an Arbcom member had recorded the page.[36] Arbcom is aware of this request. Out of courtesy I will not mention the name in clear text here.
- In the link to the harassment site just mentioned, Askahrc calls editors "unethical" and "pisspoor bastards".[37] By citing the evidence he fabricated from his socking (first item above), he attempts to provoke outrage and rile up support: "Nearly a dozen editors who have disagreed with the skeptical majority's opinion on the Sheldrake page have been threatened with banning." To be clear, Askahrc himself issued the threats and then complained about them in order to generate "buzz", and indeed the story was picked up by blogs.
- More recently Askahrc has taken to writing polemics at the Huffington Post,[38] e.g. "The fact that an innocent man's character is being assassinated is apparently irrelevant to these skeptic editors. He is famous, after all, and therefore not truly human."
- And in another HuffPo article[39] he says, e.g., "Wikipedia's dishonest biography on Deepak Chopra", "the orthodox-skeptics have grown even more aggressive", "Go here to learn how to edit Wikipedia and, if the above behavior seems unethical, remedy it." Note the last one is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy: recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited.
From these writings we learn that Askahrc holds the view that Wikipedia is overrun by "skeptics" and that it's dreadfully important to right this great wrong. I suspect this is the impetus behind his deceptions. Now that Askahrc has a financial conflict of interest, I find it doubly reprehensible that he would continue the pattern of falsely defaming me. I do consider it harassment, and I am citing Askahrc's current sanction, "Askahrc is warned that any attempt to harass other users..."
A final note: when confronted with his behavior, Askahrc tends to respond by making a slew of false claims. This puts me in a Catch-22: if I debunk each point, the result is a wall of text that repels anyone who might evaluate the matter. If I leave the points unanswered, it gives a sense of false balance. It is a phenomenally successful method of trolling Wikipedia editors, and I discussed this with Callanecc.[40] I would just implore admins to follow the evidence while not taking what Askahrc says at face value. Manul ~ talk 05:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- The original case submitted to Arbcom (who sent it here) contained private evidence showing an even greater extent of bad faith behavior. For instance Askahrc had been colluding with Tumbleman even way back during the Philosophyfellow socking, and had proxied edits for the SAS81 sock. I have asked Doug Weller or another arbitrator to comment. Manul ~ talk 17:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2 March 2014 by Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Askahrc&diff=708535683&oldid=696033693
Discussion concerning Askahrc
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 Askahrc
There's quite a bit to respond to, though it appears all but two diffs (1, 2) are years old, and those two were me asking an admin for clarification. For the sake of brevity I'm going to ignore issues from years ago that have already been discussed in front of admins several times.
- 1) The "harassment" Manul/Vzaak references was a request for review I sent to the enforcing admin of the SPI from 2 years ago. I was not trying to attack Manul/Vzaak, I didn't even know they were still on WP; Vzaak being inactive. In it I mentioned the original slew of SPI's and AE's from Vzaak seemed to show a level of WP:GRUDGE. This is the fourth SPI/AE Manul/Vzaak has charged me with: I think WP:GRUDGE is not an unreasonable conclusion.
- 2) On that page I explained my problems with the SPI's Manul/Vzaak brought against me. In addition to this being a far-cry from "harassment", I simply used factual statements. The first SPI accused me of having an IP in Long Beach, CA that I was socking from, and I was warned on the basis of Vzaak's massive list of clues, but with no Checkuser evidence. In the 2nd SPI Manul/Vzaak claimed I was again using a Long Beach IP to "suppress edits" and threaten to murder people. This time there was a Checkuser, and admins confirmed that I was Unrelated to the IP and far from Long Beach at the time of the edits (3, 4), and there was absolutely no evidence I had suppressed edits (5, 6). No need to trust my word, please review the diffs and linked archive. I presented this information and the admin said it was too long ago to revisit, a decision I accepted. That's the whole story.
- 3) As far as off-wiki harassment goes, I don't know what to say that hasn't been said already (7). I spoke in Tumbleman's defense years ago, before the full scope of his behavior was known, and have since publicly severed all ties with him and his actions. I apologize if you feel I'm somehow engaged in a "campaign to discredit you," I'm not. The recent "harassment" Manul/Vzaak is upset about boils down to two edits explaining to an admin why the old SPI's against me ought to be reviewed (with no charges v. Manul/Vzaak). It is not WP:HARRASS or WP:ASPERSION to civilly disagree with Manul/Vzaak's opinions (8, 9, 10). I have no interest in tracking down and bothering Manul, but the opposite does not seem to be true. I'd rather not have to spend my days worrying about their walls of accusations, so I'd request an WP:IBAN. If they are honestly concerned about me "harassing" them, this would also resolve that concern. the Cap'n Hail me! 11:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I apologize if I misinterpreted the issue of suppression, but you did directly argue I was issuing death threats (11). Worse, you continue to insist (even here) that, despite the fact I was unequivocally absolved, the evidence is still very strong that I committed this criminal act.
- My issue is not about "blaming" or "faulting" anyone. It's when admins tell you I have no connection to a sock, by either geographical region or user agent, and yet you won't drop the WP:STICK. I've asked you in the past to agree to a voluntary WP:IBAN, but you did not (12), and I've repeated the option here, with the only response another list of accusations. This is exhausting... the Cap'n Hail me! 17:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Jytdog, I find your statements here and on my Talk Page confusing and not particularly civil. You've asked me questions (13, 14), then when I replied told me that you wouldn't believe whatever garbage I said regardless (15, 16). You told me that unless I dropped the WP:APPEAL you would attempt to get me TBANNED (13), then when I told you I had already dropped the APPEAL you declared you'd pursue the TBAN anyway (16). I'm trying hard to AGF, but you seem to be taking your frustration with another editor out on me. the Cap'n Hail me! 21:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
EdJohnston, it's perfectly reasonable to question whether I can and will conform with NPOV matters relating to Chopra, though I feel my current conduct answers that. While I do feel there are some WP:BLP concerns that could be addressed on that page, I have always emphasized upholding policy and have not used the kind of battleground language found in the Huffpo article. I try to focus on building consensus, participating in RFC discussions, offering sources, and explaining how I see policy/guidelines applying to the page. While some of my conclusions differ from editors on that page, I have backed off of topics when it seemed to skirt my COI, as well as supported positions that would make it harder to upload positive content about Chopra if it helps NPOV. I value NPOV, and strongly feel that editors with an opinion (as many on that page do) can still meaningfully contribute if they focus on policies and sound sourcing rather than their own POV's. the Cap'n Hail me! 00:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Manul and Jytdog have posted another two large lists of new accusations, apparently due to my "refusal to drop the matter". I've dropped it; I dropped it before this AE ever began, I dropped it here, I dropped it on my Talk Page. I asked an admin a question in accordance with WP:APPEAL, I got an answer, and that's all. I've worked well with the editors I regularly engage with (Manul and Jytdog are not editors I generally interact with), but since Manul's AE post every time I log in I see another wall of new accusations I have to spend ages looking into, all from a two edit conversation with an admin! the Cap'n Hail me! 06:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by olive
This is very strange. Almost all of these diffs are years old; the filer seems to be attempting to use stale information and diffs to implicate an editor. When I first looked at this case I thought I had somehow stumbled onto an old case. Might be expedient to withdraw this complaint before more time is well.... wasted?(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
Statement by JzG
Askahrc is indeed waging a one man battle against reality-based criticisms of Chopra, but he is open about his COI, polite and in general a decent person. There is a worrying tendency to stonewall and endlessly make the same or very similar requests, but I don't see this as actionable at this point - perhaps an admonition to accept consensus and not spin things out forever might be justified, but no more that that IMO. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Askahrc is not, and cannot be, neutral. He has not, as far as I can tell, edited the article directly, certainly in recent times, because of an admitted COI. That's fine up to a point, the point being where it becomes disruptive. Are we at that point? I'd say not, but we are at the point where Askahrc should be reminded to accept consensus and move on,rather than repeat rejected claims or stonewall discussions. He seems to be a decent enough person and his input is not, as far as I can tell, preventing us from accurately representing the consensus view on Chopra, namely that pretty much everything he says is faux-profound bullshit. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Looie496
The enforcement request comes to well over 2500 words. Looie496 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Jytdog
No Askahrc you did not "drop" your appeal. Per your contribs to Callanecc's Talk page, the last thing you wrote there was continuing your argument to have the "conviction" overturned. That is not "dropped". If you had written there, "Hey Callenecc I am dropping this, but thanks for your time" -- that would be dropping it.
I was hoping Askahrc would just walk away from the past or come clean, but instead they are dug in and have doubled down above and at their Talk page. I do not believe that this editor is WP:HERE to benefit the project, and has not been for a while. This is a first batch of stuff and there is more. This is enough for now. A timeline.
- Tumbleman was blocked October 2013.
- Dec 2013 Askahrc worked with Rome Viharo aka Tumbleman aka soon-to-be-SAS81 to post this to Viharo's blog. Askahrc acknowledged this on his WP talk page here at the time.
- Feb 2014. As documented in Manul's SPI posting (that resulted in sanctions against Askahrc, and the contesting of which by Askahrc led to Manul filing this AE) Askahrc disclosed that he was in contact with Viharo, discussing Viharo's banning.
- April 2014 in this piece on Viharo's blog, Viharo approvingly quotes Askahrc's comments at Arbcom made in this dif in particular. Which has the great bit where Askahrc tells another editor that it is "unrealistic to claim ignorance." That's from the part that Viharo quoted, too.
- April 2014 is also when SAS81 created their user page. SAS81 and Askahrc start working in tandem at the Chopra page to "improve it". (I will not provide difs, there are too many)
- July 2014 Askahrc offers to help Viharo/SAS81 write an article about the Chopra Foundation article at COIN (!), prepares it in his sandbox, apparently posts it, and then reported to Viharo/SAS81 SAS81's talk page that the article was posted. I can't see the article b/c it was deleted and redirected per the AfD, where Askahrc was the only one arguing to keep it. btw, SAS81's last contrib to WP was thanking Askahrc for creating that article, on July 15. (If admins don't know, ISHAR is "a Chopra Foundation Initiative" per its webpage.)
- Per his contribs from that time, Askahrc too vanished after July 30 (after having made some more arguments at the Chopra talk page in late July), and then appeared briefly on August 20 and 21 to fiddle with his sandbox and with his talk page.
- November 2014 is, according to Viharo, when Viharo separated from ISHAR, see this blog posting.
- Askahrc's next edit is on Dec 9, where he first deletes a bunch of stuff from his Talk page, including [the posting in the dif I gave above, where Askahrc acknowledged posting on Viharo's blog... and his next edit was at Talk:Chopra - the second post at Talk:Chopra - after announcement of SAS81's block as a sock was posted there. Here is Askahrc's dif. No disclosure of COI there, which was a violation of the Terms of Use. A small thing but part of this whole bad faith enterprise. Askahrc's next dif is at Manul's page, asking if Manul is concerned about Askahrc's acknowledgement of his connection with Viharo via that blog posting. Only then does Askahrc post his COI notice, in this dif, where he wrote: Please note that I am not currently affiliated with SAS81, nor is that user currently affiliated with ISHAR. As of August, 2014 I work for ISHAR, the Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository, as an archivist. As soon as I was approached for a position with ISHAR I ceased editing any articles or Talk Pages on Wikipedia but my own to prevent any WP:COI issues. (note - I removed original bolding)
- I'll note here that in fall 2014, after Askahrc says he joined the organization ISHAR was busy with an indiegogo campaign That campaign targets Wikipedia's "bias", front and center. There are also public records of Viharo promoting ISHAR in August and September. It was not a big shop, and there is no plausible way that Askahrc could have not-known (in other words, Askahrc must have known) that Viharo was SAS81 - especially given Askahrc's own relationship with Viharo documented above. Even without that, "SAS81" was all over ISHAR's webpage, as their Wikipedia editor. ISHAR did not have gobs of staff and Viharo's history with WP is clear. Viharo even says on his blog that Chopra hired him because of his Wikipedia experience getting banned as Tumbleman. (see here: "A few months after this occurred and I published Wikipedia we have a problem – Deepak Chopra contacted me via twitter. He offered to give me a small grant to continue my work. I created a new Wikipedia editing account called SAS81 – and within 30 days, I completely resolved his ‘wiki war’ and returned his article to neutrality.")
- Anyway, Askahrc didn't stick around much after December and the revelation that SAS81 was Viharo, per his contribs. He was mostly gone til May 2015, edited a few days in July, August, and Sept, but starting in Oct 2015 and continuing til now, he has been back pretty full press trying to make the Chopra article more positive, exactly continuing the work of SAS81/Viharo, who bragged on his blog that he dramatically changed the article as SAS81.
- I find that timeline to be telling. Really telling. What was the phrase? It is "unrealistic (for Askahrc) to claim ignorance" about SAS81's SOCKing with all that on-Wiki evidence of interaction, especially since the two definitely overlapped at ISHAR for August, September, October, and at least part of November. Yet in his statement above, and at his Talk page, Askahrc denies knowing anything about this, says he is not associated with SAS, blah blah blah. Says his role at ISHAR has nothing to do with WP, blah blah blah. ISHAR ethics, blah blah blah.
There is some stuff I want to say that i am pretty confident is OK per OUTING, but to be safe I am checking first. Will be back afterwards.
My bottom line here is that Askahrc has dug up the past, in the present. That past appears to me, to be very sordid. It appears to me that Askahrc has lied to the community about his relationship with SAS81. I believe that Askahrc probably knew that SAS81 was a sock from the beginning in April 2014, but there is no way they could not have known this beginning in August 2014, when they joined ISHAR. Yet they did nothing. This to me belies any claim that Askarhc or ISHAR actually respects Wikipedia's policies. If they did, Askarhc or ISHAR would have identified SAS81 as a sock (with on-wiki evidence or emailing off-wiki evidence to an arb or clerk), and the editing community would not have had to dig that up itself and only in December 2014. And yes, with the Huffpo pieces and the indiegogo campaign, it is obvious that ISHAR is deeply opposed to WP's NPOV policy when it comes to altmed. I believe that Askahrc should be be topic-banned from the Chopra article and from altmed topics as well. If I am able to get the other things I want introduced, that will support that even more strongly, but I think the evidence is clear already. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I have been reflecting on this. And here we go. As I noted above, in this dif on 3 January 2014, Askahrc pointed the community to a posting he had made on Viharo's blog. Looking at Viharo's blog today, I provided a diff to this because the current index at that blog showed that this was the posting closest in date prior to Askahrc's acknowledgement. There actually was an earlier posting by Askahrc to Viharo's blog. It is here (captured by Internet Archive on 20 Dec, 2013. Askahrc revealed in that posting that he is Ryan Castle in the real world. For belt and suspenders with regard to OUTING, for three and a half years, from the day he put content on his user page in Sept 2010 til he removed it in April 2014 Askahrc disclosed on his user page that his name is Ryan. He has not had that oversighted. As noted above, Askahrc has disclosed that he is "an archivist' at ISHAR on his userpage. ISHAR's webpage clearly states that Ryan Castle is their chief archivist. There is absolutely no doubt, within the bounds of OUTING, that Askahrc = Ryan Castle.
The reason I am introducing this, is that Ryan Castle is the one who wrote those two articles at HuffPo that Ed cited below, here (which says "Wikipedia is free for all to edit and get involved in, so the power to fix it lies with everyone." - please note that the second link there is to instructions at ISHAR for how to use their refs in Wikipedia) and here (which ends with the clarion call: "Anyone reading this article is capable of contributing to Wikipedia, all that is necessary is patience and the will to act. If there is misinformation occurring, it is the responsibility of all who know better to do something about it. Go here to learn how to edit Wikipedia and, if the above behavior seems unethical, remedy it. There’s a common saying on Wikipedia: if someone notices a problem and asks why it has not been fixed, the traditional answer is “Because you haven’t fixed it yet.” Let’s fix it."), that made Ed wonder if someone affiliated with ISHAR could be neutral. I am taking that a step further, and saying that those two pieces are obvious violations of WP:MEAT, in that they are clear efforts to recruit people to change the Chopra article. Per MEAT: "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited."
Please TBAN Askahrc from all alt-med topics under the CAM DS. I would even more like to see Askahrc banned from Wikipedia since he obviously colluded with SAS81's socking, but that may be asking too much. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:EdJohnston About the stuff that was oversighted - I had asked Askahrc to lay out the timeline of his recruitment to ISHAR. He provided a timeline that was also filled with all kinds of argumentation about what he knew about SAS81 and when. I found none of it credible and said so. I did not say anything there about his real life identity and neither did he. I assume, but do not know, that Askahrc asked for the timeline to be oversighted since there was something he regretted writing there. Only things he wrote were oversighted; I have not relied on any of it because as I said I found none of it credible. Also, please be aware that while ISHAR is very focused on the Chopra article, their mission is altmed topics in Wikipedia generally as described in their indiegogo campaign and mentioned in this one of the two huffpo pieces; that is why I am seeking the broader topic ban. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Amanda would you please comment here on the nature of the material you oversighted at Askahrc's Talk page, just to provide comfort that there was no OUTING violation there? Just the general nature, no details. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Askahrc: Clerk notes
- Both parties statement lengths have been extended to 1000 words by agreement of the arbitrators. Amortias (T)(C) 22:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Result concerning Askahrc
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- The original complaints about User:Askahrc arose from editorial disputes at Rupert Sheldrake. This report doesn't mention Sheldrake and doesn't speak about any recent problems with editing articles. It appears that Manul's report is way over the 1000-word limit, and I suggest he condense it. If he does there is a chance it will become more persuasive. Askahrc has an admitted COI about Deepak Chopra due to his connection to the ISHAR organization, and since March 1 he has engaged in vigorous commentary at Talk:Deepak Chopra. My question is whether he is capable of working neutrally on Chopra-related topics. If not, then a topic ban from Chopra under WP:ARBPS might be considered. For a person with only 1200 edits in nine years, Askahrc gives the impression of being in a lot of disputes. The term 'battleground editing' was mentioned by one admin in the March 2014 AE. A writer who identifies as the founder of ISHAR wrote about the Chopra article in two Huffington Post blog posts, one in November 2015 and one in December. He harshly criticizes the Deepak Chopra Wikipedia article and concludes with "Let's fix it". The term used about our article by the ISHAR founder was "open-source character assassination." If Askahrc is affected by an ISHAR COI and has any of these views himself, you might be asking how neutral he can be. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I see the new post by User:Jytdog and am hoping to say something later about it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- It looks that some of Askahrc's user talk has been oversighted. What's been allowed to remain is shown in this diff, in a March 21 edit by User:DeltaQuad. Since the clock is running and there's been no decision yet, I now favor an indefinite ban from the topic of Deepak Chopra on all pages of Wikipedia. There is enough evidence of Askahrc's situation inhibiting him from editing neutrally in the topic area. I make this recommendation while aware that he's not edited the article directly for a while. It's hard to overlook the implications of off-wiki collusion to make an article go a certain way. The Huffington Post blog posts don't inspire confidence that people who are part of ISHAR can be trusted to follow Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
GHcool
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 GHcool
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- GHcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION : WP:ARBPIA3
Specifically "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited"
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- March 10 adds the line "in an area of Israel that is not within the West Bank" which falsely implies parts of the West Bank are in Israel (rather than occupied by Israel).
- Feb 20 Removes the word Nakba, I see this edit like others would see someone replacing the Holocaust with WWII when talking about Jewish immigration post-Holocaust.
- Feb 20 sentence was neutral until he unnecessarily unbalanced it by adding that one, and only one party, attacks civilians without stating that both sides do this.
- Feb 18 Deletes notable text of a pension divesting from Israel rather than fix the deadlink.
- March 13 joins an edit war despite ongoing discussion on talk page
- March 14 breaks 1RR to keep edit war going
- Jan 4 adds a paragraph on BDS being violent and adds a quote from As'ad AbuKhalil who himself has said that this added quote is misused by opponents of BDS to attack BDS (although GHCool doesn't add that part).
- March 13 Removes Palestine's President's home as being in Palestine to being in the West Bank, he makes this edit again multiple times after being reverted, this edit is akin to removing Netanyahu from Israel
- March 13 he makes this edit three times in the last month, he deletes Palestine from a list of nations and replaces it with the region of the West Bank.
- March 16 again removes the word Palestine, even though, as another editor commented, his replacement wording made no sense.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
He's been blocked a number of times
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
He's been blocked and topic banned a few times for this behaviour.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is not a content dispute but an editor with a clear agenda to remove reference to Palestine whenever possible as well as further edits to delegitimatize Palestine and demonize BDS while he reverts without listening to what others have to say at the talk page.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning GHcool
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 GHcool
I stand by almost all of the edits not as legitimate editing in the spirit of Wikipedia:Be bold. I encouraged and participated in debates in these sections before making edits that I felt might shake up the community unduly: Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Mandate_era_boycott, Talk:Jordan_Rift_Valley#Consistency.3F, Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#West_Bank. Sometimes Sepsis II participated in these debates, but often he/she did not and simply engaged in censorship of facts that were cited to such reliable sources as the Encyclopedia Britannica. I'd like to respond to the ten edits I am accused are improper:
- March 10 - I admit that I worded this edit improperly, though this was not by design, but by a simple accidental error. I was glad to see this edit not long after mine and have not reverted it as I believe the current edit is clearer and more accurate.
- Feb 20 - I don't understand why this edit was controversial. I'm happy to discuss if necessary.
- Feb 20 - This was an honest account of Israel's and Hamas's actual positions on the issue. See the sources cited.
- Feb 18 - As I wrote in the edit summary, I felt that the sentence wasn't notable. If others think it was notable and could cite it to an "live" link, I have no problem with restoring it.
- March 13 - I felt it was discussed and agreed upon.
- March 14 - This edit was regrettable. I do not stand by it and haven't repeated the error.
- Jan 4 - I don't understand why this edit was controversial. I'm happy to discuss if necessary.
- March 13 - Britannica says that Ramallah is in the West Bank (and I cited Britannica here). The Associated Press states that Ramallah is in the West Bank on every Ramallah byline.
- March 13 - I decided not to pursue this matter further since I could not find sources saying that the Jordan Rift Valley was in the "West Bank" but found plenty of sources saying it was in "Palestine."
- March 16 - I don't understand why this edit was controversial. I'm happy to discuss if necessary. --GHcool (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Malik Shabazz
Above, GHcool writes that she/he made this deletion because "As I wrote in the edit summary, I felt that the sentence wasn't notable." What a crock! The Luxembourg national pension fund divests from the biggest banks and businesses in Israel (and a major US firm), accusing them of human rights violations, and it's not notable?!? That says much more about the agenda of this perennial pro-Israel POV-pusher than it does about the notability of the pension fund's action. It took me all of five minutes to find a "live" link and news stories with which to undo GHcool's vandalistic deletion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Gaijin42
- #2 It is difficult to say for sure as the diff in question has been deleted, however use of the word "Nakba" in an article about Israel is a gross NPOV failure, unless being used in a direct quote, or as an attributed opinion. In the context used, the neutral meaning is "creation of Israel" or "1948 Arab–Israeli War". Using the word "disaster" or as the OP equates "holocaust" in wiki-voice in that context is not neutral. Beyond that, the entire sentence that the term is used in is unsourced. In the parent article Arab_citizens_of_Israel use of Nakba is attributed appropriately, and is generally balanced by the neutral wording Gaijin42 (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by AnotherNewAccount
We may actually be looking at some tendentious editing from Sepsis II here. Sepsis II has edited pretty non-neutrally ever since returning recently after a long absence following a topic ban for, I think, tendentious editing.
Sepsis II's edits to Israelis
The diffs from the Israelis article above starts with Sepsis II's edit here. That edit did two things:
- Replaced the word "Many" with "A fraction of" - minimizing, in the consciousness of the reader, the number of Palestinian Arabs who remained within the borders of the State of Israel against those that fled - a subtle POV-push.
- Replaced "state's establishment" with the term "Nakba" or "catastrophe" - the term favored by Palestinians and a much less subtle POV-push.
Sepsis II seems very insistent on drawing attention to the "Nakba", restoring it twice so far in opposition to GHcool and Gaijin42: [42][43] - who tried to offer neutral alternatives: [44][45][46].
Sepsis II's edits to Israeli–Palestinian peace process
As for the diffs from the Israeli–Palestinian peace process article, I see Sepsis II doing the following:
- Remove apparently sourced material
- Remove "Israeli" from the concerns about security - I don't doubt for an instant that the Palestinian people want security as any man would - but for the purpose of negotations, these are primarily Israeli concerns. The resulting prose misleadingly suggests that both Israelis and Palestinians engage in "terrorism" and "incitement" in equal measure - and the list now omits Israel entirely, subtly implying that it's only the Palestinian side that has reasonable demands.
- Highlight Palestinian "rights" - I don't know if the source provided says anything about rights (I don't have access to the book), but I suspect not.
The GHcool edit complained about above, shows him restoring the removed material with a genuine attempt at more neutral and succinct wording.
Sepsis II's edits to Mahmoud Abbas
- No comment on whether the disputed content should be "State of Palestine" or "West Bank", but here Sepsis II reverted the addition of sourced material by GHcool as "vandalism".
Sepsis II's edits to Jordan Rift Valley
Another "State of Palestine"/"West Bank" dispute.
- Reverted an edit as "vandalism" - the material in question was changed by an IP some time earlier. It may or may not have been mistaken, but it was not vandalism.
- Reverted GHcool's edit as "vandalism"
AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning GHcool
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israelis&type=revision&diff=706020767&oldid=706012335 This is the diff for 20 Feb. Possibly incorrectly linked? Spartaz Humbug! 19:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Both User:GHcool and User:Sepsis II have previous been placed under topic bans from ARBPIA. Though not all the diffs given in this report are persuasive, I have found some from each side that look to be conventional nationalist POV-pushing. For example, suggesting that a location in the West Bank is deemed to be in Israel. Or adding the word 'Palestinian' to an article where it previously didn't occur without a clear consensus that the term was appropriate. These changes were all predictable given the POV of the respective participants, and they fall short of our expectation of neutral editing.
I would ban both GHcool and Sepsis II indefinitely from the domain of ARBPIA, with the right of appeal in six months.EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Here is an update since my above comment. In a post at my user talk, GHcool says that his error about Ahava moving to ‘an area of Israel that is not within the West Bank’ was just a mistake. (He had already responded about this in the AE. It was item #1 in his own reply to the request). That error in the Ahava article was corrected by another editor and GHcool left the correction in place. Since this was a diff that I had called out as especially egregious, I need to restudy the whole complaint, and have struck out my recommendation until then. I hope to post a further update when I have finished. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
STSC
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 STSC
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- TheBlueCanoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 14:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 :
User:STSC is essentially a nuisance editor with a consistent, pro-Chinese government point of view. He is involved in regular conflict with other contributors, edit wars frequently, and personalizes talk page discussions to needle and provoke his opponents. Although most of his actual edits are relatively minor, they are also consistently counter-productive, thereby creating problems that other editors have to resolve.
Evidence of the user’s POV editing and adversarial conduct spans a variety of topics related to China (including Sino-Japanese relations, Hong Kong[47][48], Tibet[49][50] etc.), but unfortunately this complaint is limited to the user’s conduct on Falun Gong articles per the relevant discretionary sanctions.
For more context, there was an ANI complaint about the editor recently here. The complaints there are pretty illuminating.
Evidence of POV editing
- [51] – claiming that something attributed to a third party is actually just from “Falun Gong sources”. (A Chinese human rights lawyer who has represented Falun Gong practitioners is not a "Falun Gong source"; civil rights lawyers were clearly interviewed by the media outlet for their familiarity with the subject, rather than as spokespersons for Falun Gong)
- [52] - Torture deaths as reported by the New York Times are merely “alleged” (Wikipedia's manual of style recommends against using expressions of doubt such as "alleged". There are exceptions where "alleged" is appropriate—e.g. in a pending criminal case against an accused individual—but this doesn't seem to fit the bill).
- [53] [54][55][56] - Changes the caption on an image of Gao Rongrong – a Falun Gong practitioner who, according to multiple reliable sources, was tortured to death in custody in 2005. STSC edits the caption to remove mention of the fact that she died, and adds the qualifier that she was only “allegedly” tortured. He used misleading edit summaries, calling these copyedits or “resizing”.
- [66][67] -Repeatedly adds Falun Gong to the page Governmental lists of cults and sects, even though Falun Gong is not on any government’s list of cults and sects (the Chinese state does often accuse FLG of being a “cult”, but this is a separate question from whether it is on the government’s official list of such groups, which it apparently is not). To get around this problem, he edited the article to say “cults and sects identified by governments are not necessarily put on a designated list.” [68] Also worth noting that he uses clearly biased sources, and introduces errors of fact (e.g. claiming falsely that the National People's Congress outlawed Falun Gong—it didn't).
- For insight into why STSC seems so compulsive about the “cult” thing, see his comments here[69][70][71]. These are precisely the arguments used by the Chinese government to defend its treatment of Falun Gong. In essence: the mass imprisonment, torture, and killing of Falun Gong devotees is ok because it is not a religion, but instead a "cult" that imperils social stability (charges that are easily refuted, if only one bothers to read reliable secondary sources on the topic). In a chilling admission, STSC suggests that the “elimination” of this religious creed should not be viewed as “undesirable,” and calls for greater deference to be given to the Chinese government.
- [72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79]- Removing perfectly fine photos, often for being “irrelevant,” and edit warring to keep them gone
- [80][81][82][83][84][85] - Tendentious tag-bombing, mostly to the lead section, even though information contained therein is fully referenced in body of the article
- [86] – an interesting replacement
Evidence of prior warnings about Falun Gong discretionary sanctions: [87][88][89]
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning STSC
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 STSC
Statement by (username)
Result concerning STSC
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
No More Mr Nice Guy
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 No More Mr Nice Guy
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Topic wide 1RR :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
BDS article
- 18:34, 26 March 2016 Initial revert
- 18:39, 26 March 2016 Self revert to perform a larger revert
- 20:54, 26 March 2016 Final revert
Exodus from Lydda and Ramle article:
- 16:57, 25 March 2016 revert
- 18:28, 26 March 2016 revert
- 04:12, 28 March 2016 revert
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 22:00, 5 June 2015.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
In the BDS set of edits, NMMNG self-reverts a revert he made earlier so that he can make a larger revert. That same thing happened here and it was found to be disruptive behavior that merited a 4 month topic ban. At the Exodus page, through the time of those last 3 reverts, NMMNG was arguing by himself against 5 different users on either the talk page or through reverts. I realize he never actually broke the 1RR, but like the 3RR nobody is entitled to 3 reverts every 24 hours, and when you're alone reverting against 3 different users with more arguing against you on the talk page I think that qualifies as edit-warring.
- As far as the rather curious line unlike what Nableezy and Nishidani did at L&R, I'd like to note I have exactly 0 reverts at that article. Also, as far as the supposed long-standing version, NMMNG actually completely removed the well supported text, not just in bold in the first sentence, but later on in the lead as well. nableezy - 21:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I removed it when it was repetitive. You said you restored the long standing version, I was pointing out that in fact you didnt, you reverted the inclusion at the beginning of the article but did not restore it to where it had been later. nableezy - 21:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- The diff is the difference between what you claimed was the long-standing version and what your edit resulted in. My point in this little side excursion that really doesnt serve a purpose here was to demonstrate that your claim that you were simply restoring the long-standing version "per BRD" is not true. I said you completely removed the term from the lead, which is emphatically true (heres the diff). Im pretty sure my browser's find function works but maybe Im wrong and you didnt actually remove it from the entire lead. Where in your edit is it? nableezy - 22:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I removed it when it was repetitive. You said you restored the long standing version, I was pointing out that in fact you didnt, you reverted the inclusion at the beginning of the article but did not restore it to where it had been later. nableezy - 21:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning No More Mr Nice Guy
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 No More Mr Nice Guy
- This seems like an attempt to preempt my reporting another editor for his behavior at one of the articles mentioned here, so if the admins could address everyone's behavior in the two articles mentioned, that would be awesome.
- Nableezy is incorrect regarding my second revert at BDS. I self-reverted because I was in violation of 1RR, not because I was planning to make a different revert like he did and was topic banned for. The third revert (actually the second) was slightly different than the previous one since there were a couple of intervening edits. I just reverted back to the version to prior to when I inadvertently violated 1RR.
- On the Lydda and Ramla article, my first revert was initiation dispute resolution per BRD. The second revert was of a driveby revert of someone who claimed he OWNs the article and didn't engage in discussion, and restoring the longstanding version again, per dispute resolution and arguments made by Nableezy's mates on the BDS article [91] [92] [93] he generously brought up here. Note that there a month went by with dozens of intervening edits and they still considered it the longstanding version. An RfC was started there with the article at what was claimed is the longstanding version state, and nobody tried to edit war the version that's being discussed back into the article, unlike what Nableezy and Nishidani did at L&R. The third revert 2 days later, was me trying to initiate what I thought would be a more respected dispute resolution procedure, since more driveby reverts were made. Then Nishidani edit warred the disputed version back in.
- Please note that at the L&R article, all this happened on a holiday weekend. Apparently is was super urgent to get this wording into the article despite my multiple attempts at dispute resolution. If they had taken a couple more days and gave a chance for other editors to participate, none of this would have happened.
- If any admin would like me to expand on any of the points above, please let me know (and if you could relax the word limit for that purpose, that would be awesome). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Further responses to Nableezy: Nableezy says I removed some text. Turns out he removed it. I never touched it. I did miss his edit when attempting to restore the longstanding version, but did not remove the term from the infobox and only argued it should not be in bold in the first line of the lead, not for it to be completely removed from the lead. |
---|
|
- @Nableezy - I never touched that text, so your claim I removed it is obviously false. I did not remove it from the infobox or argue it should not be in the lead at all, so I think it's obvious I just missed it when trying to revert to the longstanding version. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Point of order: I collapsed some responses to Nableezy after he responded. I hope that's ok. I am now at my limit (not counting sigs or collapsed content). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Sir Joseph
A 1RR violation usually requires one to violate 1RR. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning No More Mr Nice Guy
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
FreeatlastChitchat
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 FreeatlastChitchat
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 06:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 07:41, 25 March 2016 A user made a change.
- 10:49, 25 March 2016 First revert by nominated user.
- 16:40, 25 March 2016 Second revert by nominated user.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 7 March 2015 Blocked for edit warring.
- 18 April 2015 Blocked for edit warring.
- 9 May 2015 Blocked for edit warring.
- 19 December 2015 Blocked for edit warring. He was then unblocked manually provided that he "will attempt to self-adhere to WP:1RR," what he failed to do on several occasions.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 24 March 2016 by Slakr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The nominated user is ignorant enough to know that we should revert only when necessary. Just look at his contributions to see how many reverts he does per day. That's why he is nominated in noticeboards on a weekly basis.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
This is the notification diff.
Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchat
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 FreeatlastChitchat
I am quite aware of AE and its enforcement therefore I undid my reverts myself when I realized I had gone past 1PR. I did this about three days before this humongously bad faith AE was filed and before anyone else edited the said article, I did not even engage in a TP argument as the person who was reverting my edits said that he meant to continue reverting me on a daily basis, therefore I just left the article in the hands of others, there are no edits on TP or the article from my account after my self revert. The nom should look at the article history before wasting my time. nom has been told at least seven times that he should stop reporting me without proof but he continues his hounding. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- (should i reply here or above?) @Spartaz where have i reverted ? I have been staying clear of Indo-pak pages only reverting obvious vandals using rollback vandal. Can you plz point out where I have reverted thrice? No one asked me to self revert, I was making sure I was not in violation of 1PR, I saw that I was and self reverted myself, I wanted to take it to TP, but then thought to just leave the article alone. On List of Islamist terrorist attacks I am reverting a sockpuppet who has been since blocked. As I said earlier, my only reverts are vandalism which everyone will call vandalism and removable material. If something can be debated about I am leaving it be. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Self revert or not, this looks like a clear 1RR vio. Who asked you to self revert and where. I'd also like an explanation for the double reverting on List of Islamist terrorist attacks before I consider whether a block is appropriate. Since Slakr blocked the other editor you were reverting against, I'd be interested in their view. Spartaz Humbug! 10:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- FreeatlastChitchat you have reverted 3 different times since I left this message. Perhaps you didn't notice that your input was requested? Spartaz Humbug! 11:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your edit summaries do not suggest that the edits were made with a view to BANEX and there is no general exemption for suspected socks. It has to be a banned user. Vandalism has to be clear too and your summaries make no mention of vandalism. Your edit summary for the self revert was "as you wish. As per request restoring content)" but now you say you did it yourself. You are too free with the revert button and that is continuing to be disruptive. I'm blocking you for a week for the violation and would like input from other admins whether a permanent 0RR is now required to reign in excessive reverting. Spartaz Humbug! 12:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- FreeatlastChitchat you have reverted 3 different times since I left this message. Perhaps you didn't notice that your input was requested? Spartaz Humbug! 11:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)