Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive145
Kaj Taj Mahal
[edit]| Kaj Taj Mahal is banned from the entire topic area of climate change, per WP:TBAN, for six months. Sandstein 07:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Kaj Taj Mahal[edit]
And no doubt calling me a dipshit is all fine and dandy? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC) The filing of an entirely frivolous SPI is OK though? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC) @Sandstein: Is calling a BLP a mental-midget OK? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Kaj Taj Mahal[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Kaj Taj Mahal[edit]
Also, I think it should be noted that Arbitration Enforcement isn't some toy you can use to complain about someone you don't like, it is the last resort for dispute resolution. This seems to be a clear abuse of AE process. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC) It wasn't frivolous, there was legitimate suspicion that two separate users would post nearly the same request in rapid succession. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC) In addition, I'm noticing a general theme here where you're taking each and everything I do personally. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Statement by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]If Kaj Taj Mahal continues their tendentious editing now that they've been officially warned, they should be topic-banned. The last thing we need is more agenda-driven editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Kaj Taj Mahal[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Cwmacdougall
[edit]| Cwmacdougall Blocked for 31 hours. Tiptoety talk 06:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Cwmacdougall[edit]
Tagged Article POV
Tag is to "warn readers"
Uncollapses or Restores RS-free WP:SOAP.... these are evidence of WP:ARBCC#Disruptive_editing
The pattern here is unknown "editor X" posts a SOAP thread; someone (often me) collapses the RS-free SOAP thread per talk, and then Cwmacdougall (talk · contribs) "adopts" the thread by uncollapsing or restoring it. Repeated requests for sources by multiple editors eventually produced one, which CW misrepresented as saying the opposite of what it actually says (see the Met Office Paper thread). When the rest of collapse or delete the RS free SOAP, CW lashes back with accusations of "outrageous!" and "The edit warriors are those like NewsAndEventsGuy refusing to engage on the talk page...", and "up to your old biased tricks?" Attempts to Resolve without AE
Boomerang query I'd appreciate feedback on my collapsing of what I perceive to be SOAP threads on pages where I am an involved editor. All I really want to know is if it's OK for clear cut cases, as I believe these to be. Notice I broke out the only RS that came up in a separate section and debated that part on the merits. Thanks for advice.
Rebuttal to Cwmacdougal NoSheepDip (talk · contribs), the "new editor" to which CW referred, appears to be a WP:SPA whose user space proudly declares, "I have little time for 'consensus'...." ; Today, this editor appeared at Talk:Global Warming to declare there is a "criminal conspiracy" by various scientists that is being "managed". I deleted (instead of collapsed) that thread under WP:TALK which says libel may be removed. Similar language is working its way through Wash DC district court in Michael Mann's defamation suit.Between the two threads, at least 5 eds have requested CW to provide RSs or make specific suggestions beyond tagging the article or reviewing it for alleged bias. I'm sorry he feels "outraged", but I and others have begged for sources to no avail. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Discussion concerning Cwmacdougall[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Cwmacdougall[edit]This "enforcement" action by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is yet again an example of his biased editing, in spite of several warnings on his talk page. He has repeatedly hidden or deleted live discussions on the Global Warming Talk page in an attempt to suppress views he doesn't like, and this of course leads to bias on the article page itself. The most recent case involved deleting a new editor's comments on the GW Talk page on the day he entered them, in obvious contradiction with our policy of being patient with new editors. All I have done is object to his blatantly biased editing. We need neutral editing, not POV. It is frankly outrageous that NAEG should complain about me, when it is he who is editing in the most biased obstructive manner I have seen in several years as a Wikipedia Editor. cwmacdougall 23:33, 14 January 2014
Statement by Sailsbystars[edit]After being warned about already being on their 4th revert, Cwmacdougall reverts a 5th time in 24 hours. I do not believe this user understands what a bright line rule is..... but that could just be because they are relatively new to contentious areas of wikipedia. As regards to collapseboxing on the climate change talk pages... Certainly most of the discussions that get hatted are unlikely to result in article improvement.... but I've never felt comfortable doing it myself.. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by DHeyward[edit]Cwmacdougall is making bolder edits than is perhaps comfortable. Yet as we wait for AR5 to be officially released (at least part 1 after the political statement known as the "Summary of Policymakers") there is much maneuvering to keep unsupported pieces of the article. For example, keeping claims that land use changes contribute significantly enough to AGW to be listed [11] when studies in albedo have left it as unknown. There is a sense of WP:OWN that is not supported by the latest report. The "hiatus" as it's called by AR5, satellite data and unexpected solar activity during SC24 has changed a lot of ranges and confidences as the IPCC churns through the process of publication. Some conclusions have become more robust, others more ambiguous. It is natural that these changes will spill over into the article and NPOV, RS, and V should be the guidance as the scientific understanding evolves. I find Cwmacdougall is being bold while others attempt to WP:OWN the article by updating outdated assertions. --DHeyward (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Cwmacdougall[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
GHcool
[edit]| GHcool (talk · contribs) is banned from the topic of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for one year on all pages of Wikipedia including talk. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning GHcool[edit]
GHCool broke the 1RR and though that he has been blocked several times in this topic, he keeps doing the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GHcool&diff=407079517&oldid=407076933
Before GHCool's second edit, he brought up the topic at the talk page (Talk:History of the Arab–Israeli conflict#"Palestinian Arabs" vs. simply "Arabs"). In spite of that, he goes and makes his second revert, which also was in violation of the 1RR, before we had an discussion. Now we have a discussion and he keeps on imposing his views (589668403 and 589669072). While I am writing this, I see that he has written that he will make another change that he thinks is right (589681953) and now he has done it (589682109). Obviously the talk pages are meant for discussion but unfortunately, for me it seems that he is more interested in imposing his views. I also want to add while that GHCool didn't press "undo", it's still a revert. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GHcool[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GHcool[edit]I apologize for the 1RR violation. I admit my error and I apologize for it. I gotta stop doing that. I got in trouble before for it, but I get excited and do it again anyway. I really do need to make a better effort at it and will check myself in the future. I'll accept any sentence I receive, but I really think a very light sentence is in order for this one. The infraction is so minor and this isn't exactly the edit war of the century. On IRISZOOM's other point, I thought I was just being bold by imposing the changes. The issue we're discussing isn't very controversial at all. I thought it was one of those things that we can just do and it would eventually be acceptable to both of us. Its a very minor difference of opinion. I would have kept to the talk page if I had thought that IRISZOOM felt this strongly about this matter. --GHcool (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Like Socrates, I will not evade my sentence, no matter what it is. However, unlike Socrates, I will ask my judges to disregard the suggestion of an indefinite 0RR restriction. Heimstern Läufer correctly recognizes that this goes above and beyond law enforcement on Wikipedia amounts to censoring an editor. Reverting is one of the most basic tools of Wikipedia. To disqualify someone from reverting is akin to disqualifying someone from using the talk pages or disqualifying someone from citing a source. It will effectively turn a temporary ban into an indefinite ban. --GHcool (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by IRISZOOM[edit]June 2013 is not two years ago. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Result concerning GHcool[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Urgent01/Flau98bert
[edit]| My very best wishes is banned from everything related to the writer and scientist Lev Lomize, per WP:TBAN. Sandstein 09:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Urgent01/Flau98bert[edit]
In essence, this user continue doing the same and worse in the area of pseudoscience, despite the previous warning by admins [19]. Note that diffs 3,4 and 8 on January 5 are edits made after my warning. This user is an SPA, with few edits made from at least two accounts (the 2nd one is User:Flau98bert). He is an activist with agenda to fight pseudoscience or something he perceives as "pseudoscience". He is not a newbie, he knows what he is doing [20],[21], [22]. I wanted to avoid this AE request, in a hope that the Urgent01 would understand policies and improve [23], however he responded by making further insults (diffs # 5, 6 and 7). The book and other sources, which are currently discussed, may be used somewhere or not; this is all merely a content dispute.
---
Conclusion. After looking at the comments by admins here, I would like to withdraw this request, if possible. There is no theory by Lev about Ives, and there are no any theories by Lev at all. This Russian book (and all my links/references were made to the Russian book) is merely a secondary source that quotes other sources, as was admitted even by Urgent01. I believe there is no reasonable justification for sanctions against me right now, as I explained on the talk page of Sandstein. This is an unnecessary and extremely offensive sanction for me on personal level.
@And let me tell you as a PhD in Physics: the "scientific" arguments to discredit this book on talk page of article "Ives" are simply ridiculous. Simple algebra? Yes, sure, author made it as simple as possible - this is book for advanced Russian high school students. "Ether" frequently appears in the book? Yes, of course, - as a historical concept, and it tells that ether "fades away" (unnecessary). Yes, this is a very complicated matter, not equations, but understanding of Physics. That is why Physics is the most difficult branch of science. Albert Einstein changed (or may be clarified) his position about this in the end of his life (as described in the book). And so on. But I am sure that people who objected me there can come up with a lot of other arguments, which may appear perfectly reasonable to wikipedia administrators, even though this book was supported by physicists much better than me. My very best wishes (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Urgent01[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Urgent01[edit]Statement by NE Ent[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Urgent01[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Per Sandstein's comment it's unclear whether WP:ARBPS can be used to regulate editor behavior on Herbert E. Ives. However I do have concerns about the behavior of User:My very best wishes. He is trying to add references to and material from a work of Lev Lomize to the Ives article.
It's my impression that a WP:BOOMERANG awaits for User:My very best wishes if he continues to pursue this issue at noticeboards. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Appeal by Alfonzo Green
[edit]| Appeal rejected, topic ban upheld.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by Alfonzo Green[edit]I was edit banned from the topic of Rupert Sheldrake for inserting the word "biologist" in the lead sentence. I took this action because the majority of secondary sources refer to Sheldrake as a biologist, though some use the term "scientist" and others use the term "biochemist." In keeping with WP:V, I cited four sources, all from the New York Times, describing Sheldrake as a biologist. My edit was reverted by Roxy the dog here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=587139696 Note that Roxy claimed to be reverting a "POV edit," implying that edits in accord with secondary sources are POV. Another editor, Tom Butler, undid Roxy's blatantly POV edit and requested that Roxy explain his actions on the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=587139696 Yet another editor, Barney the barney barney undid Butler's edit with the claim that "Roxy explained per talk." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=587249006 Barney was referencing the following comment from Roxy on the talk page (under "biologist title"): "Sheldrake no longer does science, hasn't done science for more than twenty years, probably thirty, and shows no signs of putting his ideas up for scientific scrutiny. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)" Roxy's statement is contradicted by the Sheldrake article itself, which includes discussions of a collaboration with neuroscientist Steven Rose to test the hypothesis of morphic resonance as well as the effort of psychologist Richard Wiseman to replicate another experiment conducted by Sheldrake. But that's not the point. We're not here to argue the facts. We're here to report the claims of reliable secondary sources. Roxy has an agenda, and his agenda is at odds with the vast majority of those sources. In his reversion of Butler's edit, Barney also stated that Roxy's action was consistent with "facts and WP:Fringe." Again, the facts we must report are those found in the source material, not the ones we privately promote as factual. As to the fringe charge, only one source describes Sheldrake as a "pseudoscientist" as opposed to dozens of others that describe him as a scientist of one form of another. Clearly Barney and Roxy are promoting the fringe view. For this reason I reverted Barney's edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=587269669 Roxy then "corrected" my edit by inserting the "former" in front of "biologist." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=587399860 Once again Roxy was guilty of WP:OR. That Sheldrake is a "former biologist" is not supported by the source material. Not a single source describes him this way. This is Roxy's opinion. I made no further edits to the article. Prior to reverting Barney's edit, I introduced a new topic to the talk page, "Reality and Wikipediality," in which I argued that our job is not to promote our opinion of reality but to stick with Wikipedia policies, in particular that all material be sourced and that well sourced material not be removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_18 At this point an administrator, JzG or Guy, stepped in and warned me that the discussion was over and my "POV" lost. He closed my topic from viewing and launched the above-referenced complaint against me. In his complaint he states, "This is not about the content that Alfonzo Green advocates ,though this is clearly not compliant with policy and consensus regarding fringe and pseudoscientific topics. It is about his insistence on, and refusal to be dissuaded from, rehashing closed debates." JzG's claim about content is false. The point of my edit was to bring the opening sentence into compliance with Wikipedia policy. As long as the Sheldrake biography is out of compliance, editors must restore it and, if necessary, explain on the talk page why a new edit does so. It's significant that JzG brought his complaint not because of edit warring but because I discussed my edit on the talk page. His objective was to silence me, to prevent me from expressing the inconvenient fact that Sheldrake is nearly always identified as a biologist. Like Roxy and Barney, JzG is pushing a POV and doesn't want to be reminded of this fact. Five administrators commented on the complaint. Georgewilliamherbert claimed I could be dismissed under the same criteria that a previous editor, Barleybannocks, was banned. NW agreed. Needless to say, Barleybannocks was banned for pursuing discussion of why the Sheldrake article failed to reflect source material. First a coterie of anti-Sheldrake editors systematically revert any edits that restore NPOV to the article. Then when we try to discuss the issue we are banned for "rehashing closed debates." Tznkai took a different approach. He claimed I was guilty of edit warring, which he defined (elsewhere) as "any short circuiting or depreciation of discussion by using article edits to override the contributions of others." My own edit was reverted twice and illegitimately modified a third time. So how am I guilty of edit warring but not Roxy and Barney? And of course my edit was supported by source material. Roxy and Barney were removing sourced material. I initiated a discussion on the talk page, and JzG tried to short circuit discussion by closing the topic. That he advocates banning me instead of them makes no sense. Georgewilliamherbert chimed in again to state, "We have an arbcom case that clearly bears on the article. We have editors flouting the arbcom base decision." The arbcom case in question concerns pseudoscience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience). However, nowhere in this decision is there any explanation of why morphic resonance is pseudoscience. Is it obvious pseudoscience, generally considered pseudoscience, questionable science or simply an alternative theoretical formulation? Arbcom doesn't say. We have a list of topics considered pseudoscience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience), but there's no talk page discussion concerning why morphic resonance is included on that list. "Arb" seems to stand for arbitrary rather than arbitration. According to MastCell, "We're talking about a single-purpose account who has racked up multiple blocks for edit-warring in service of his agenda." In fact I've contributed to several articles, so I cannot be considered a single-purpose account. (See WP: SPATG). Any blocks I've received resulted from conflicts with editors pursuing an agenda in violation of Wikipedia policy. But that's neither here nor there. MastCell fails to address the issue at hand. Have I committed an action, here and now, that warrants topic ban? MastCell makes no comment. Same goes for Sandstein. He invokes no actual infractions before deciding I should be banned. This is especially odd because in a previous complaint, filed against me by Mangoe, Sandstein made it clear that I could not be banned without specific violation of policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#Alfonzo_Green What happened between that decision and this one? Mangoe's complaint was obviously frivolous, and Sandstein ruled correctly. Why the flip flop in the face of an equally frivolous complaint now? In short, not a single legitimate reason was given for my topic ban. Please lift it immediately. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Mangoe, according to WP:SPATG, "the timeline of a user’s edits should not be considered when using single-purpose account tags. One must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits." This applies to users "with a diversified edit history that become inactive for an extended period and later re-establish themselves with single subject edits." The SPA tag is clearly inapplicable and cannot form the basis of legitimate sanctions. The comment that yielded a two-day block was not a complaint but simply a request for information regarding the arbcom decision that allegedly classified morphic resonance as pseudoscience. Rather than admit that no such decision ever took place, Sandstein silenced me. Sandstein, aside from the fact that I don't qualify as an SPA, if you think I'm in violation of WP:NPOV, please provide an example of where I've attempted to express an opinion at odds with reliable secondary sources. Specifically, how does citing Sheldrake as a biologist, in accord with the overwhelming majority of sources, constitute POV-pushing? Barney the barney barney, my edit history with the Sheldrake article demonstrates a commitment to neutral presentation of source material, emphasizing the preponderance of sources over a few fringe voices, so as to impart the mainstream view of his work. Per WP:NOTNOTHERE, focusing on a niche area, in my case the natural sciences, doesn't mean I'm not here to help build the encyclopedia. Right now the Sheldrake article is slanted against Sheldrake, which reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Even if my ban is upheld, other editors will eventually seek to rectify the imbalance. The Sheldrake dispute cannot be resolved as long as administration favors biased editors over responsible editors. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Since I've neglected it up to now, let's have a look at the ruling issued by Zad68. "I see unanimous agreement between Georgewilliamherbert, NuclearWarfare, Tznkai, MastCell and Sandstein that, after due warnings and previous attempts by administrators to get Alfonzo to stop disruptive editing behavior (see block log), Alfonzo has persisted in engaging in disruptive edit-warring behavior. In Alfonzo's statement here, I don't see any indication that the tendentious edit-warring behavior will stop; in fact all I see is a justification for it. I also see in this edit by Alfonzo that he is invoking WP:Ignore all rules as justification for breaking the rules against edit-warring at this article." Unanimous agreement sounds impressive until you consider the fact that it was based entirely on misinformation provided by JzG. Discussion "trailed off," as Zad notes, after I issued my statement overturning JzG's claims. As to the block log, this is relevant only in establishing precedent for current misbehavior. Since no misbehavior was identified in this case, the log is irrelevant. However, because Zad zeroes in on a comment I made in regard to the 11 December report, I'll briefly discuss that one, which concerns an edit in violation of 1RR. The main source of contention was a reference to limited academic support for Sheldrake's work, along with three citations from reliable sources. By blocking this material (in yet another blatant POV act), anti-Sheldrake editors succeeded in keeping the article slanted at the expense of Wikipedia credibility. Zad claims I invoked WP:Ignore all rules to justify edit warring. Quite the contrary. I invoked it for exactly the reason stated in the policy: to restore integrity to the encyclopedia. According to MastCell, the "indefinite topic ban is appropriate under the existing discretionary sanctions." Yet no authorization seems to exist for discretionary sanctions in this case, as I realized after Sandstein hit me with a two-day block for daring to inquire where morphic resonance appears in the arbcom pseudoscience decision. Not only the ruling itself but the justification for the ruling has no basis in fact. Alfonzo Green (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC) MastCell is at it again, telling us the Sheldrake biography is under "Arbitration Committee case [[WP:DS|discretionary sanctions] enforcement." Really? And who decided that? Where does the Committee specify that Sheldrake's work constitutes pseudoscience? Would it be "obvious" or only "generally considered" pseudoscience? Not a word! There's a pseudoscience ruling but no Sheldrake ruling, just a vague sense that, "oh, well, it must apply here." Unless it's included in the committee report, no, it doesn't. And no wonder the report doesn't include that finding, since the whole basis of conflict on the Sheldrake page is the effort of certain editors to censor widely available reliable sources that treat morphic resonance as science and Sheldrake as a scientist. At last Zad68 has laid out his cards. He already knew I couldn't win because this isn't really an appeal in the first place. By definition an appeal is heard by parties uninvolved in the action that triggered it. Already Sandstein has contributed three statements under the heading "uninvolved administrators," and MastCell has gone ahead and announced his opinion there. Apparently this is okay because he only "weighed in" during the original case. The implication is that Zad alone, since he issued the actual ruling, is ineligible to rule in this case. Even though they based their opinion on nonexistent evidence of wrongdoing and justified sanction according to a nonexistent committee ruling, any of the four administrators who "weighed in" during the initial case are free to rule on this one. Moreover, a true appeal implies the possibility that no actual wrongdoing took place. If the "appeal" can't even be heard until penitence has been amply demonstrated by the disgraced sinner, clearly there's no assumption of innocence. Nor is there any guarantee the "appeal" will be heard by editors who aren't already knee deep in this swamp and looking for a quick exit. To launch an earnest appeal in these conditions is therefore "a particularly bad waste of time." Zad doesn't seem to understand the point of all this. Like I said in the original case, this isn't about me or even Sheldrake. This is about the integrity of Wikipedia. Can the general public trust Wikipedia to correct obvious corruption when it surfaces? Is there a way to ensure that policies are enforced on any given article, or is the administrative process a means by which biased editors can remove responsible editors from targeted subjects? Right now it looks real bad for Wikipedia. To say that Sheldrake is a biologist is akin to saying the earth is round. I might as well have been banned from the arithmetic page for claiming that 2 + 2 = 4. And Wikipedia can't correct this? Really? Oh, but of course not, because Wikipedia has no appeal process, only a pretend process where you're assumed guilty from the outset and the same people who misruled before are free to do so again. It's a funhouse. The most commonly utilized source of information in the world is a funhouse. Is anyone else bothered by this? The moral of this story is that the general quality of Wikipedia can be expected to decline just like the Sheldrake biography, a stable and unbiased article until it was hijacked. If you're not going to stop the intimidation and the purging and the whitewashing in this case, why would you intervene on behalf of integrity anywhere else in the encyclopedia? Wikipedia needs to prove it's on the side of reason and not hysteria. This is a test. Can you withstand the pressure of a gang of braying ideologues and see what's right in front of you? Can you take a breath, look at the facts and reason through this? What kind of an encyclopedia operates on the basis of peer pressure instead of reason? Diderot awaits your decision. Alfonzo Green (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Zad68 writes: "Whether or not it's arguable that the article should be under WP:ARBPSEUDO, the article unquestionably was and was clearly marked as being so."
Zad also writes: "As Alfonzo makes perfectly clear this is pure WP:POINT, in which Alfonzo is using this as a venue to air his general grievances about Wikipedia."
Gamaliel, you missed the point. I was banned for stating that Sheldrake is a biologist, a well sourced claim if ever there was one. The problem with the ban is that nothing was presented -- not a single diff -- to demonstrate that I wasn't adhering to "Wikipedia policies and standards of behavior" in the first place. The precedent set by this case is that anyone introducing even a single edit to an article allegedly under the authority of WP:ARBPSEUDO can be banned from that article. By siding with administrators who weighed in on the original case, you're advocating an oppressive atmosphere incompatible with the collaborative work environment essential to Wikipedia. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Ymblanter, you say you'll rule according to the opinions expressed by other administrators. However, none of those administrators have engaged my argument above. I believe I've demonstrated beyond any possible doubt that my sanction was baseless, that I did not violate Wikipedia policy by adding the word "biologist," along with four reliable sources, to the opening sentence of the Sheldrake biography. Nor did I violate any policies by justifying my edit on the talk page. Moreover I stayed within the bounds of the 1RR policy applied to the article. If no other administrator comments on the substance of my claim, can you explain how my action was in violation of Wikipedia policy? Specifically what policy did I violate? Alfonzo Green (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Okay, Zad68, if you have a better understanding than me as to why I was banned from the Sheldrake page, perhaps you could explain what policy or policies I violated in the actions that precipitated the ban. Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by Zad68[edit]
Zad68 20:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
In this latest edit Alfonzo has made to this appeal, he quite correctly states, "At last Zad68 has laid out his cards. He already knew I couldn't win because this isn't really an appeal in the first place." He's absolutely correct, this isn't really an appeal. As Alfonzo makes perfectly clear this is pure WP:POINT, in which Alfonzo is using this as a venue to air his general grievances about Wikipedia. It should be closed accordingly.
Alfonzo Green, re "Okay, Zad68, if you have a better understanding than me as to why I was banned from the Sheldrake page, perhaps you could explain what policy or policies I violated in the actions that precipitated the ban." -- I am unwilling to engage in the general re-hashing of the original AE discussion that you and others have been doing, so I am going to leave it to the closing admins to evaluate that. Comments by others about the appeal by Alfonzo Green[edit]Comment by Mangoe[edit]AG has edited no article since his topic ban, and his only other two edits were to object to two admins involved as to his topic ban, one of which got him blocked for two days. I repeat my analysis from the AE case that his only edits not related to Sheldrake are a very few four-year-old edits. I interpret his case here as being a promise to pick up where he left off, and I note that editing on the article has proceeded at a less frenetic pace and with no edit-warring. I would not see his return to the topic as a gain for Wikipedia. Mangoe (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment by iantresman[edit]I am still dismayed at the absence of accountability concerning the topic banning of Alfonzo Green for the reasons I gave in his WP:AE, and further concerned that Admins generally ignored my request for relevant diffs. To summarise:
I would ask Admins to read WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."--Iantresman (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC) @Sandstein You appear to have left a comment in the section headed "to be edited only by uninvolved administrators". --Iantresman (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC) @Barney WP:SPATG says that Alfonzo Green is not a single purpose account (I have already provided evidence that contracts your claim), and WP:ASPERSIONS requires that you provide evidence (eg. diffs) to support your accusations of misbehavior by him. --Iantresman (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC) @A Quest For Knowledge. There is no doubt that Alfonzo Green has recently focused on one article, but his overall history shows that he has edited at least 8 different article, therefore he is not a single purpose account (SPA) per WP:SPATG. Even if he was an SPA, this in itself is not an issue, and is not grounds for banning. If an SPA is the main allegation against Alfonzo Green, then the rest of the case must be exceedingly weak, as evidenced by the extreme lack of diffs as evidence of misbehavior. --Iantresman (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) @Sandstein Thank you for your comments regarding WP:UNINVOLVED, but I have to disagree with some of the content on common sense grounds. While it may be proper for an uninvolved Admin to take part in several WP:AE cases against the same editor, an appeal is a wholly different matter, where the Admins themselves are also being scrutinised for accountability in the original case. It is like asking the police to investigate themselves, where there is an apparent conflict of interest. --Iantresman (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC) @TRPoD Well done on providing diffs supporting your statements, it is far more than most editors and admins. While I agree that they are related to Sheldrake, I disagree that this makes Alfonzo Green a single purpose account. By extension, this would make any editor that stuck to "science" or "history" an SPA. I respect that editors will draw the line in different places. More importantly, as I have mentioned before, even if Alfonzo Green was an SPA, there is not Wikipedia policy preventing it. The one thing missing are diffs which demonstrate that Alfonzo Green is behaving inappropriately compared to his fellow editors. --Iantresman (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC) @Georgewilliamherbert There is no doubt about the seriousness of WP:ARB/PS, but much doubt over its interpretation and what admins mean. (1) In this particular case, it is implied that Alfonzo Green is misbehaving because he is a single purpose account. Even if this were true, choosing to edit one subject does not imply that you do so inappropriately. I am yet to see ANY diffs that support the allegation that Alfonzo Green has editing inappropriately compared to other editors. (2) Likewise, the notification of Tom Butler regarding WP:ARB/PS and WP:AC/DS[35] apparently in response to his good faith contributions here, look like a warning, especially as Tom was already notified in 2011.[36] Again it is claimed the notification was due to "single purpose advocacy", but not one example of inappropriate editing is provided compared to other editors. --Iantresman (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC) @TRPoD I find your comments to Littleolive oil, that certain editors are "poor role models", to be an offensive personal attack that lacks good faith, and shows a lack of respect for fellow editors. I would like to request that you strike these comments. --Iantresman (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Comment by The Devil's Advocate[edit]Sandstein, you should not be commenting in the section for uninvolved administrators as you were explicitly advocating for the topic ban during the previous case.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment by Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[edit]I think admins should go back and review the original reasons why - it's in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive143. The idea that Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) is not an SPA is just plainly false. This sounds remarkably like a defence lawyer who is arguing an appeal on an entirely spurious basis. To ask for diffs as Iantresman (talk · contribs) does is entirely disingenuous - firstly there is special:contributions/Alfonzo Green and the original request (see my first sentence) explained why he is an SPA. To pretend that no evidence was submitted is classic WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. There is little point in resubmitting the evidence when it can be re-examined at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive143. Finally, to quote Mastcell (talk · contribs) on Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) (but equally applicable to Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs)) "he's also being encouraged to some extent by people who are particularly poor role models for how to edit responsibly on fringe topics, which isn't doing him any favors". These poor role models are still trying to defend him. It's clear that Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA who is anti-WP:NPOV, anti-WP:FRINGE anti-WP:MAINSTREAM and therefore anti-Wikipedia per WP:NOTHERE. The only commendable thing here is that unlike Tumbleman (talk · contribs) he hasn't started socking. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC) One point by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge[edit]I find that that claim that Alfonzo Green isn't an SPA is not merely wrong, but bordering on absurdity given the overwhelming evidence that this editor focuses on a single topic.[37] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Comment by Tom Butler[edit]Let me understand this issue of single purpose account. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but they cannot edit just one article. Further, if the editor does not agree with the interpretation of rules posed by the majority and most aggressive editors, then her will be banned from that article. is that about right? Consensus building in the Sheldrake article has been a matter of one side trying to find balance while the other stonewalls with one view ... no negation. The rules are important and certainly applicable here, but there are reasonable ways to apply them and hard-nosed ways preferred by some of the editors. What I am reading here is that the admins agree with the hard-nosed approach. Alfonzo Green has done everything imaginable to find middle ground in the article. He is a diligent editor whom I think adds value. Since you all have banned him and the other moderate editors from the article, it has drifted more and more into the skeptical bias trying to make Sheldrake and his work appear to be stupid. I will say again, if that is official Wikipedia policy, then the article needs to be deleted! You are poisoning the water by banning editors on one side of the discussion rather than trying to arbitrate a better article. Every banned editor becomes another pushing back from outside of Wikipedia. Please stop a moment and consider the alternative ways to balance the article within Wikipedia rules rather than the hard-nosed approach you seem to be taking now. Tom Butler (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Side note by Georgewilliamherbert[edit]
Comment by TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]As is always the case, one should always look closely at the content presented by iantresman. If we look at those EIGHT "not Rupert Sheldrake articles" that AG has edited as presented by iantresman that purport to show AG is NOT an SPA,
That leaves the non-direct Sheldrake edits at:
And the final piece of evidence from iantresman, [45] - the article is Ilya Prigogine where AG enters commentary about a book about claims that scientific determinism is outdated. Alone, that would be a stretch to connect directly to Sheldrake, but given the rest of the evidence, it so close to the same vein that one would be hard pressed to say it is any way substantial evidence that AG is NOT an SPA. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment by Littleolive oil[edit]A note about appeals. An appeal should not be controlled by the same admins who supported the original sanction. I assume the editor appealing questions the judgement of those original sanctioning admins, so what use is it for the same admins to reiterate the same arguments they used to sanction in the first place. For an appeal to be of any use, it should be carried out by a new set of admins/editors who will take the time scrutinize the evidence again, and come to a judgement based on their unbiased view of that evidence. In my experience, spurious arguments and false information can be positioned by admins and editors in an AE, and such a situation should be open to appeal. Admins with out agendas and who wish to be fair and unbiased should have no trouble in removing themselves and allowing others to scrutinize the evidence itself. An appeal as often happens now on Wikipedis, entails looking at the closing admins arguments, is a waste of time, and allows for one mistake on top of another to be perpetuated. Being an SPA is not sanctionable so that argument has no place in an AE or AE appeal seems to me. I am concerned that the Sheldrake article dispute has led to sanctions to editors who are perceived to be on one side of the discussion while oddly all editors on the other side appear to be blameless.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)) Result of the appeal by Alfonzo Green[edit]
In the discussion that led up to the sanction being appealed, I expressed support for the sanction because Alfonzo Green is a single-purpose account dedicated only to promoting a particular point of view about his chosen topic. Such conduct violates WP:NPOV, see Wikipedia:ARBAB#Single purpose accounts. The appeal contains nothing that would change this assessment. In addition, there is no indication that the sanctioning administrator exceeded the broad discretion granted to administrators in WP:AC/DS, and we should not second-guess the exercise of this discretion on appeal without good cause. I would decline the appeal. Sandstein 09:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
|
IHaveAMastersDegree
[edit]| IHaveAMastersDegree is topic-banned (per WP:TBAN) from everything that is both related to climate change and to a living person, for the duration of six months. Sandstein 21:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning IHaveAMastersDegree[edit]
@Sandstein:, why would an admin gave to check the source? I already did, but it is here in full. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell: Edit warring over the source misrepresentation. That is the third revert in a day BTW.
Discussion concerning IHaveAMastersDegree[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by IHaveAMastersDegree[edit]Responses: 1) Delingpole is widely credited with having created the AGW "climategate" conspiracy theory. See for example, [47] I would be happy to add a citation to this source. 2) The source said that he *says* he questions. If he said he was a unicorn, that would not make him a unicorn. "Assert" is a synonym for "says." Please feel free to change the word "assert" to the word "says." 3) He says he questions, but I have not seen a citation to a source in which he is actually questioning. Presumably he believes what he says, so to be on the safe side I changed it to an actual quote from an actual source in which he says that anthropogenic global warming is "the invention of a cabal of activists." 4) See answer to point #1. If someone who is skeptical can be called a skeptic, and someone who denies can be called a denier, then presumably someone who creates conspiracy theories can be called a conspiracy theorist. All of these labels have been used without citation on the talk page, so I was simply adhering to an established convention. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Tillman[edit]Despite advice and cautions from other editors, for example at Talk:James_Delingpole#Source_misrepresentation, new editor IHaveAMastersDegree continues to post dubious to unacceptable material to BLP articles in the Climate Change area. To date, from my observations of his contributions, which are almost exclusively edits to BLP articles, he appears to be doing more harm than good to the project. He doesn't seem to be learning the stringent requirements for BLP material.--Pete Tillman (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by dave souza[edit]Synthesis is unacceptable, particularly in BLPs, but is also a requirement that has a learning curve. In press reporting of climate science, fringe views are commonly referred to as "climate skeptic" views: essentially this is jargon, but it is also a misuse of the word skepticism and in particular misrepresents fringe views as though they have "equal validity" with proper scientific skepticism and mainstream science. The issue has been discussed by the National Center for Science Education in a page Why Is It Called Denial? | NCSE, and by the historian Spencer Weart: Global warming: How skepticism became denial. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, but care is appropriate in language to achieve NPOV: if we follow the majority of sources, particularly in press reports, we risk giving undue weight to fringe ideas. I've not had time yet to examine this editor's edits closely, but feel that User:IHaveAMastersDegree has been making a genuine attempt to address a real failing in Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. The user undoubtedly has to learn exactly how to fully comply with BLP requirements, particularly on synthesis, before editing biographical articles, but has the potential to make good contributions to Wikipedia, including the general topic area of science and climate science. . . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Result concerning IHaveAMastersDegree[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Rainer P.
[edit]| The appeal is successful and Rainer P.'s ban from the topic of Prem Rawat is lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Appealing user[edit]
User imposing the sanction[edit]
Notification of User imposing sanction[edit]Sanction being appealed[edit]
I have informed The Blade of the Northern Light of this appeal.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by Rainer P.[edit]
Statement by Blade of the Northern Lights[edit]It's taken me a while to refresh my memory of this. As I recall, Rainer P. was more marginally involved in the problematic editing there, and I'd be all right with a lifting of his topic ban at this point. I'm generally in support of second chances, and Rainer P.'s editing outside the topic gives me no cause for concern. Given the troubled history of the article it would be good for someone to keep an eye on things, but I don't see an inordinate risk in lifting this topic ban; if it does become a problem, that can be dealt with. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Rainer P.[edit]Rainer P.: Editors who are topic-banned from the topic of Prem Rawat are not allowed to comment here. A few questions:
Result of the appeal by Rainer P.[edit]
The motion of 20 December 2012 was the result of an earlier appeal of this sanction by Rainer P. to the Arbitration Committee. The Committee did not accept or decline this appeal, but enacted the motion with the apparent intent to provide for a venue of appeal in this noticeboard (see, e.g., the comments by SilkTork, Roger Davies, Newyorkbrad and Courcelles). The appeal is therefore permissible and the sanction can be reviewed here. On the merits, I'm waiting for a statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights, which should provide examples of the "persistent battleground behavior" given as the reason for the sanction. The case for imposing a ban is, at least, not immediately obvious from a cursory look at the appellant's edits. In response to the earlier appeal to the Arbitration Committee, The Blade of the Northern Lights said that Rainer P. had been "supporting" two other editors in "a pattern of editing that was slowly but surely slanting the article away from criticisms of Rawat". But The Blade of the Northern Lights did not say how, in their view, this constituted a violation of any applicable conduct rule, and they did not provide diffs of the edits they considered disruptive. I'd appreciate it if they would supply this information now. Sandstein 19:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Slovenski Volk
[edit]| Slovenski Volk (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all articles relating to the Balkans; in addition to his right to appeal, he may ask that the restriction be reviewed after six months, provided he is not sanctioned for any violations of the topic ban in the meantime. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Slovenski Volk[edit]
Slovenski Volk is currently under a number of restrictions, as a product of past disruptive activity in topics related to ancient Balkans:
Taking into account the above record, a new and precise definition of the ban is needed in this case. Additionally, the fact that the recent violations are also accompanied with a pov agenda in Macedonia related issues [[104]] and a tendency to add charming comments in talkpages [[105]] (as noted by Jingiby and EdJohnston respectively), may warrant an indefinite ban in wp:ARBMAC.Alexikoua (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Slovenski Volk[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Slovenski Volk[edit]Dear All, I have the following reply, in regard to what I see as a "bending of the facts" by Alexikoua • "0rr in Ancient Macedonians, since January of 2011, 35 a restriction he violated in the past multiple times 36, but taking into account the last 6-month period, this is the only restriction he respected." -> “Multiple” is an unusual adjective for what in reality was twice. Henceforth, I was duly reprimanded and placed on an Arbmac article ban for my twice breaching the 0RR rule. In my mind, I have thus stayed clear of anything I thought directly related to this, including no editing on Ancient Macedonians or anything article related to it, whether Alexander the Great, or ‘naming dispute issues, etc , broadly construed
-> A clear misrepresentation of my actions. I added a couple of lines about Roman Christians, and settling of later minorities from Armenia and ‘Saxon Miners’. Entirely uncontroversial aspects, not related to what might be deemed an ARBMAC issue.
-> This is not my definition, by one shared by specialists who all recognize that the Roman Empire continued in the eastern spheres of the Roman world beyond that in the west. -> Without manipulation on my behalf, given that we all know that the Byzantine Empire ( actually “Roman”) continued until 1453, I took the cut off for “Roman” in the east to 900s AD, as stipulated here by a recent specialist publication, who cites the end of Roman, and beginning of Medieval Greece from c. mid 10th century AD. [108] -> Nevertheless, I am willing to work within what is deemed acceptable by the AE.
-> That’s not my edit ! That was made by a wholly different user (Jingiy).
• Bulgarians: -> Additions of general aspects of Slavic migrations and late Roman times. How do these fall under ARBMAC ? In fact, I do not believe Bulgarians even in the most broadest sense fall under ARBMAC do they ? In any case, my edits have clearly nothing to do with any issue which anythign which might be deemed to be ARBMAC related (whether Macedonia naming dispute, or Kosovo, or any other political issue)
• Croats -> As above, I did not see making good-faith, quality edits on the specifics of Croat ethnogenesis and a discussion of archaeoligcal material as something impinging on anytghing which might be construed as ARBMAC. In fact, another editor commented “Actually I suggest the opposite - provide a comprehensive scholarly treatment so as to leave no space for nationalist propaganda. I must say that the summary of theories that you provided is actually quite good :) Two additional articles too keep an eye on are Names of the Serbs and Serbia"
• South Slavs: [111] -> This is very generic history about Slavs. Again, nothing ARBMAC related
To summarize, I have the propensity to make many beneficial and positive additions to Balkan articles. I believe a distinction is to be made between ARBVMAC articles and any Balkan article. I maintain that my edits are in good-faith, of high quality and help improve Wikipedia. This has been noted by other editors, including Admins (he does appear to have some knowledge and he seems well-intentioned [113]) and my maps for Balkan history are used widely through all langauge Wikis. After Jingiby's reminder to me, I did not make any further edit to macedonias, Roman/ Byzantine times, or not. Alexikou appears to have an issue with my editing Illyrians, despite the fact ot falls well withing my permissbale time period - a peole who existed in prehistoric and Roman times. Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Slovenski Volk[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Application to have topic ban lifted
[edit]| This request has been made in the wrong forum. Please use WP:ARCA. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This matter [115] has now been referred here, and I'm applying to have the topic ban lifted as it's impossible for me to know what it actually covers, and consequently I'm in a Catch-22 situation every day on which I edit on Wikipedia. I've made an enormous contribution to Wikipedia over the past year, and have never edited on the Shakespeare authorship issue during that time (which was what the arbitration was about). However the ban is being interpreted erroneously by administrators as covering every Wikipedia article which even touches in the most remote and tangential way on Shakespeare, which is unreasonable and eminently unfair. I look forward to having the topic ban lifted, as it is impossible for me to know which Wikipedia articles it applies to. My editing record speaks for itself. I think any unbiased observer would agree that I'm an asset to Wikipedia, and that an editor who contributes as I do should not be subjected to a topic ban which is impossible to observe because of its huge and indefinite scope. NinaGreen 173.197.107.10 (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
|
NinaGreen
[edit]| NinaGreen is blocked for 48 hours. Sandstein 09:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning NinaGreen[edit]
By the terms of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question, NinaGreen is specifically "topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed." NinaGreen has made several recent edits to Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit which the article states "The pamphlet is most famous for a passage which appears to allude to William Shakespeare, who was then starting out on his career as an actor and playwright."
NinaGreen admits the article Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit refers to Shakespeare, but claims that does not violate her topic ban since that text was already in the article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=592260786}
Discussion concerning NinaGreen[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NinaGreen[edit]Before noticing the material in this section, I added a section below requesting that the topic ban be lifted. It's been in place for three years now, and I've observed it as best I can, but it's impossible for me to know what it actually covers, and consequently I'm in a Catch-22 situation every day on which I edit on Wikipedia. I've made an enormous contribution to Wikipedia over the past year, and have never edited on the Shakespeare authorship issue during that time (which was what the arbitration was about). However the ban is being interpreted erroneously by administrators as covering every Wikipedia article which even touches in the most remote and tangential way on Shakespeare, which is unreasonable and eminently unfair. I look forward to having the topic ban lifted, as it is impossible for me to know which Wikipedia articles it applies to. My editing record speaks for itself. I think any unbiased observer would agree that I'm an asset to Wikipedia, and that an editor who contributes as I do should not be subjected to a indefinite topic ban (after three years have passed!) which is impossible for me to observe because of its huge and indefinite scope. I've not violated the intent of the topic ban in any way, as the arbitration concerned the Shakespeare authorship issue, and I've not edited on the authorship issue in any way. If further clarification is required, just ask. I'll be happy to provide it. NinaGreen Statement by Roscelese[edit]I was uninvolved in this until I happened to see the noticeboard thread, but it looks like an open and shut case. She is topic banned from Shakespeare. She has been warned in the past (August 2013) that editing articles related to Shakespeare was a violation of her topic ban, so a warning here isn't likely to be any more effective than the last one. The edits she made are clearly a violation of the topic ban both in the general (the Groats-Worth is a Shakespeare-related topic "broadly construed" per the wording of the ban) and in the specific (she specifically edited text related to Shakespeare and his works). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning NinaGreen[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Lecen
[edit]| No actionable evidence submitted. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Lecen[edit]
There is an interaction ban of Lecen with both MarshalN20 and me. He mentions both of us, by name, and requests some unclear action against us (he's not reporting any violation of the bans, nor anything that may affect him somehow). Besides, he is a reincident, he has already been blocked for violation the interaction bans. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#Lecen, for the enforcement discussion that led to his block, and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History#Request for amendment (December 2013) for the discussion where the first violation took place. I will point as well some info that may be relevant here.
As in the previous case, I'm talking about Lecen here because I consider that the interaction ban has been violated, which is a standard exception to the ban. Cambalachero (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Lecen[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Lecen[edit]Statement by MarshalN20[edit]What bothers me about this is not that Lecen indirectly mentions Cambalachero & myself (which breaches the WP:IBAN point: "make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly"), but rather that WP:ASPERSIONS continues to be broken. In fact, assuming good faith, Lecen's indirect mentions show no clear intention of breaking his IBAN. For this reason, perhaps only a warning is necessary that any further indirect breaches will result in blocks. Nonetheless, this being stated, Cambalachero's request is justifiable and formal sanctions would be justifiable as well (especially when considering the aspersion casting). Indeed, the true serious problem here is the aspersion casting (one of the principles of the Argentine history case [130]). Not only is this taking place against Cambalachero and myself, but also against Sandstein (who is accused of "arbitrary use of powers"). Moreover, Lecen mildly insults the Arbitration Committee as well ("Will there be a moment when anyone among the arbitrators will wake up and do something?"). The aspersion casting against Cambalachero and me is already under study (and sanction proposals) at AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive827#Continuous WP:NPA (Casting Aspersions) Violations) for another user. It surprises me that Lecen takes this time to also carry on the torch and continue with the insults. Then again, perhaps it should not be surprising. However, the unwarranted attacks against Sandstein are not under study at AN/I. To be fair, Lecen is not the only user who has commented negatively on Sandstein. Nevertheless, Lecen's insults have no real justification when considering that Sandstein simply followed protocol and even Lecen's own suggestion to block him (see [131], "I fully agree with Sandstein"). I know that Sandstein has a tough skin, but surely there is a limit to the amount of insults anyone can take from others. Should Lecen be taken to AN/I for all the aforementioned aspersion casting, or can the enforcement board do something about it? Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Lecen[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. It seems to me that Lecen's comments at Arbitration/Requests#Message_for_the_Arbitrators fall under exceptions to limited bans, reasonably interpreted, which include when "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
|