Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive150
76.107.171.90 and Barney the barney barney
[edit]| Barney the barney barney is banned from interacting with Askahrc for two months. Sandstein 07:57, 11 May 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 76.107.171.90 and Barney the barney barney[edit]
(Please forgive the slightly unusual format; these two editors both have a history of the same style of NPA toward me, often support one another, have been warned in the same AE previously and recently began attacking me at the same time, so it made sense to include them both)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions
76.107.171.90 (talk) and Barney the barney barney have been sanctioned and repeatedly warned respectively for violating WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA toward me in the past. I have not pursued any interaction with either of them since then, but recently they have both begun making personal attacks and casting aspersions about my integrity, sexuality and mental health.
76 and Barney each have a history of personal attacks, vulgarity and casting aspersions. They've been directly warned/sanctioned about this numerous times and yet continue to attack myself and others. The Cap'n (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
@Liz & Sandstein, I am of the same opinion as Liz that these back and forths are wasting the community's time and not improving behavior. I have no desire to find excuses to get editors blocked, whether they dislike me or not, but I've tried ignoring these personal attacks and they only escalate and turn into canvassing efforts to get me banned. If I don't respond then my name, reputation and record get misrepresented, I get AN's pushed against me on the basis of easily falsifiable claims and risk getting banned from WP from PA's run amok. I am all for Liz & Sandstein's suggestion of interaction bans for those involved (76, Barney, plus possibly JzG and Vzaak). I honestly have no interest in harassing these editors, and if I knew they weren't actively trying to get me banned I'd never again have to spend an admin's time on these things. As I recommended in my AR, I think IBANs would dramatically decrease hostility, frivolous accusations and timewasting. The Cap'n (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC) @Hipocrite, the "screed" that is clearly in my name from several months back was a statement I provided to the owner of that site, of which I promptly posted notice on my Talk page for transparency (that's how most people know about it). In it I neither named or attacked any editors, but said that WP should not be about finding excuses to ban editors we disagree with. I reiterated throughout that I believed WP was better than POV hostility and would rise above this kind of squabbling. Not exactly the 95 Theses. Every one of the few other interactions I've had with that person was logged on my Talk page to demonstrate that I was not collaborating or endorsing him. After going through all that trouble to be overly transparent every step of the way, why would I then post materials on his site, not mention it, then deny involvement after the fact despite the fact it's obviously my content? Use a little logic, here. The Cap'n (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 76.107.171.90[edit]
Discussion concerning Barney the barney barney[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 Barney the barney barney[edit]This is entirely frivolous complaint by Askahrc (talk · contribs) who has a history of filing such frivolous cases to the authorities. I stand by every comment I have made about Askahrc (talk · contribs) - but not those he has now repeatedly lied about, even after being corrected. To clarify for a second time: I do not believe that Askahrc (talk · contribs) is basically WP:COMPETENT to edit articles related to WP:FRINGE material, and in this assessment most users probably agree with me. Askahrc apparently believes he is competent, despite generally being in a minority of one. I suggest that this self-assessment is due to the Dunning–Kruger effect. This is not a mental illness. What is says is that those who are not competent to do something also tend to overestimate their competence to do that thing. I'd also like to clarify my opinion that Askahrc (talk · contribs) is only not capable of editing WP:FRINGE-related articles. It is important to note that these articles require more competence to edit than non-controversial articles. My statement about his lack of competence is specifically with this area in which a great deal of competence is indeed required. I'm not quite sure how Wikipedia can proceed if an assessment of a user's competence is now to be construed as a personal attack. Ironically, given this attempt at enforcement, my opinion was intended to prevent askahrc (talk · contribs) from trying to implement what he'd regard as "mediation" between those who are sceptical of WP:FRINGE theories (in line with the WP:MAINSTREAM point of view) and those who are very much in favour of them. From my experience with Rupert Sheldrake, he'd be extremely arrogant and patronising, selectively ignore Wikipedia policy, try to impose his own views, and generally create entirely unnecessary WP:DRAMA. In my opinion, Askahrc (talk · contribs) is basically a troll, who like others is anti-WP:FRINGE and anti-Wikipedia. WP:NOTHERE is appropriate. Vzaak (talk · contribs) has shown his attempts to use sockpuppets to troll.
Statement by JzG[edit]Prior discussions involving the filing party:
That's not bad for a user with fewer than 300 mainspace edits in over five years as a registered user. The filing party also neglected to mention the fact that he was found using sockpuppets to attack Barney the barney barney, one of the two accounts against whom he requests sanctions. (Note: Taken on trust from prior discussions, I'm digging for diffs; false claims have also been made against Askahrc in the past). I find this user's behaviour vexing. As Barney suggests, he is engaging himself in complex and difficult disputes around an area where he shows a clear lack of understanding (or perhaps outright rejection) of Wikipedia policy. Having been involved at the Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, Askahrc then presents himself as a neutral mediator at Deepak Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chopra is a prominent supporter of Sheldrake, and vice-versa. Tim Farley analysed his editing pattern and found him to be one of a small group of people engaged in this area, whose involvement is heavily skewed towards meta-debate not content editing: [1]. The other partisans included Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Barleybannocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Tumbleman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This seems to me to be a group of editors who have decided to Right Great Wrongs by redressing the "balance" against fringe and pseudoscientific claims, primarily related to Sheldrake, IMO. What we do not need is editors with virtually no article editing experience, asserting themselves to be mediators in contentious biographies. The Chopra article at the moment is subject to long walls of text from a user representing the Chopra media office, now is not a good time for the well intentioned but seriously inexperienced (the most charitable interpretation, the Dunning-Kruger effect), and it's a terrible time for a troll, which is what I am afraid I think Askahrc is. Lack of competence, lack of experience, deliberate mischief, failure to accept Wikipedia policy - whatever the problem, I think this is a user who needs ot keep away form biographies related to fringe topics, and possibly from all fringe and pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC) @Sandstein: feel free to point out what is insulting about this, I am merely pointing out the facts as I see them. This is a user who presents himself as a potential mediator, with fewer than 300 mainspace edits and a history of dispute on contentious articles. He does not understand Wikipedia well enough to understand why this is a problem, does not understand why involvement on the Sheldrake article is equivalent to involvement in the Chopra article (i.e. WP:COMPETENCE) and the sockpuppetry speaks for itself. I find his behaviour, as I say, vexing. In what way is that not a civil way of stating the issue? As I say, I am open to the possibility that this is well-intentioned, but it must be said that there is an appearance of trolling, in the classic sense of the term. This user has stated an agenda against WP:FRINGE and in favour of a more sympathetic treatment of an advocate of fringe science (and in the process a rather banned user) [2], now removed from the original. If that's OK by everyone then I will forget about it, no problem. What I see is someone who was marginally active for a long time then became very active in talk space just when Sheldrake started pressing for more sympathetic (and less NPOV) coverage. It sets the spidey-senses tingling. And yes, it's easy to misjudge in these cases, but it's also easy to AGF to excess. Is there a difference between a lengthy description of behaviour that may justly be represented as, at the very least, a red flag, accompanied by a very brief and clearly identified expression of personal opinion, and a blatant attack? I think there might be. Remember: we are talking about articles here that have, for a long time, seen a steady stream of newly interested and/or new users all advancing the same POV. Those of us who bother to watch them would appreciate more eyes, it would materially improve the burnout rate. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by Nomoskedasticity[edit]Sandstein is grossly mistaken in believing that it is a "personal attack" (and therefore prohibited) to observe that another editor is incompetent or even grossly incompetent. Some editors are indeed incompetent and cause no end of trouble at Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by Roxy the dog[edit]Although the sanctions imposed by Sandstein on 76.107.171.90 may well be covered by a liberal interpretation of the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, they are way outside the spirit of them, and should be reconsidered. It is the worst, most unjustified, admin action I have seen, in my admittedly limited experience here. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC) I have also been attacked by Barney, right in an arbitration request and elsewhere, but I'm not filing a complaint or adding it to this one. It is Barney's habit to treat those he doesn't respect with caustic disdain. I'm not sure if a block will change this kind of attitude. What is more troubling is to see all of the claims and counterclaims between @76, Vzaak, The Cap'n, Barney and sometimes Guy on AN/I, AN and A/R/E. It's ridiculous for editors to look for reasons to get other editors blocked and then the second editor to file a similar complaint against the first editor another week later for harassment. I know it must be tiresome for admins to see these same parties mentioned in a complaint, in a tit-for-tat series. This needs to stop and it shouldn't be stopped by trying to get other users indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. It would be preferable for all editors working on topics that fall under the pseudoscience area to not "track" each other's edits and give each other a wide berth. If that is not possible because of similar interests, it is important to remember civility even when an editor questions another's competence. To repeat the fourth pillar of Wikipedia:
I know that every editor is aware of these words but they speak directly to the issue of respecting other editors, whether or not you agree with their position. The fourth pillar doesn't allow for exceptions for pseudoscience or Eastern Europe or Israel/Palestine, in fact, one can make a good argument that in these contentious topics, civility is even more important than in areas where there is less conflict. Liz Read! Talk! 13:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Statement by User:Hipocrite[edit]Barney, don't you get it? Wikipedia doesn't care if you are collaborating off wiki with a banned user to insult and harass editors here [3]. It doesn't care if you are creating strawman sockpuppeets to try to further your side in a dispute by making your opposition look weird [4]. It cares ONLY, and I repeat this ONLY that you do not, under any circumstances, make anyone feel even a little bad - unless, of course, you are a complete fringe lunatic - then you can make people who have spent countless hours trying to make an encyclopedia useful and accurate waste countless hours because we wouldn't dare get rid of someone who was new! Now, apologize for saying that Askahrc was generally incompetent, and proceed on with ignoring everything he says while waiting for him to make a mistake large enough (like sockpuppeting again) that you can civilly report his completely disruptive actions. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Cardamon[edit]The term Dunning–Kruger effect does not refer to either a "mental impairment" or a "mental illness". Our article on this is good enough that this should be apparent to people who read the article. Cardamon (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by vzaak[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Barney the barney barney[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The request has merit. While the comments by Barney the barney barney at issue and on this page do not allege a mental illness on the part of Askahrc, they are noneless insulting, in that they call Askahrc "a troll", "anti-Wikipedia" and grossly incompetent. Such conduct is prohibited, see WP:NPA. Editors are expected to avoid personalizing disputes and to focus discussions on article content and sources, rather than on the persons of others. Barney the barney barney did the opposite here. I recall that Barney the barney barney has twice been warned against similar misconduct, in December 2013 by me and in April 2014 by Callanecc. The edits are within the scope of the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions because they were made in a WP:ANI discussion about conduct regarding the article Deepak Chopra, which is concerned with issues related to pseudo- or fringe science. I am of the view that Barney the barney barney should be banned from interacting with Askahrc. Because the statement by JzG above is similar in (insulting) substance to that of Barney the barney barney, if somewhat more moderate in tone, I am also considering whether a similar sanction would be appropriate with regard to JzG. What do others think?As to the allegations by Barney the barney barney and JzG regarding misconduct by Askahrc, they are merely assertions without evidence, and are therefore, in my view, disruptive rather than useful. Sandstein 12:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
|
Darkness Shines
[edit]| Darkness Shines is blocked for two months and topic banned from WP:ARBIPA related pages. Future Perfect at Sunrise is warned for edit warring and reminded of expectations of administrators. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:36, 15 May 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 Darkness Shines[edit]
Apparently, Darkness Shines has somehow got the idea into his mind that he can make "his" articles immune from criticism and scrutiny from me, by simply defining any edit I make to them as "stalking". He has even gone so far as to shop admins to demand an "interaction ban" for me [22].
Discussion concerning Darkness Shines[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 Darkness Shines[edit]On 28 July 2012 I asked FPAS to stop hounding me, he refused to. Calling a self admitted stalker a stalker is not a PA, it is a cold hard fact. FPAS also seems to forget it takes two to edit war, he was removing reliably cited content from the Davis article which I restored. The accusation of forum shopping is a joke, when an editor says a source is unreliable then it goes to the RSN board, that is normal practice. Saying fuck off is not against any policy I know of, wikipedia is not censored. I requested an IBAN before at AN, and I request an IBAN now, all FPAS ever does is leave snarky edit summaries directed at me. This has been going on for years and this filing is just another aspect of harassment and the battlefield approach to editing that FPAS has towards any editor he falls out with. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Calypsomusic[edit]I have seen many examples of the same and worse behaviour.
DS later apologized after being criticized, however, an editor who is reporting other editors (who have also apologized) for alleged personal attacks for sanctions should know better. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Statement on FUCKING OFF by Hipocrite[edit]"FUCK OFF" is not incivil, per precedent. Anyone who blocks users for telling others to FUCK OFF need to review the following: [24], and take appropriate action. Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC) How many times do I need to note users telling other users to fuck off such that it's jurisprudence? That was just the first example I found. I've never mentioned it before, to my knowledge. Hipocrite (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by Drmies[edit]What can I say. DS has a habit of making stupid statements, and their comment to me was followed by a totally half-assed sort of semi-apology, so the next time they wanted my help I didn't help. I would not make an Arb case out of it, and I'm not going to call for a block over something they said to me. DS will get blocked for it again, and then unblocked, and we'll keep on doing the civility dance. Now, the misrepresentation of sources, that's a serious matter, but again, I fail to see how ArbCom should rule over that: are we incapable of handling it? Drmies (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Cla68[edit]I think this is a case of it taking two to tango, so please examine the behavior of both primary parties in this dispute with an objective mind. Full disclosure, I have interacted with Future Perfect at Sunrise in the past, and it was one of the most unpleasant experiences I've had in my eight years of editing Wikipedia, and I've had a lot of unpleasant experiences, FWIW. Cla68 (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Late statement by RegentsPark[edit]DS does need to curb his tendency to cuss when angry and there is no question about that. Needle him long enough and he will break. FPAS, who I very much doubt is tossing and turning in bed muttering "why doesn't he like me" and "he told me to f-off", knows that very well and he has done an excellent job of exploiting that weakness. In an objective world, someone would tell FPAS to lay off DS and we could all get on with the business of editing. Blocking productive content editors doesn't seem like a good way to build an encyclopedia. --regentspark (comment) 16:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Darkness Shines[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The request is justified. The evidence submitted shows that Darkness Shines has engaged in edit-warring and personal attacks, and has abused the rollback facility. The complaint also highlights Darkness Shines's stupendously long list of blocks and their relatively recent warning by an administrator on this noticeboard. It is also significant that the statement by Darkness Shines shows no understanding of how problematic their editing is. By replying "Saying fuck off is not against any policy I know of, wikipedia is not censored", they confuse the policy WP:CENSORED, which governs article content, with the policy WP:NPA, which governs conduct among editors, and does in fact prohibit personal attacks such as the ones at issue here. Such errors are of high concern in an editor with 25925 edits and that long a list of blocks for misconduct, and indicate to me that little short of an indefinite block may prevent further misconduct of this sort by Darkness Shines. What's more, Darkness Shines has not only edit-warred, but has done so to add text that misrepresents the cited source. In the edit [25] and subsequent reverts, Darkness Shines introduces the text "the commonly cited figure of 200,000 [rapes]" to replace the text "commonly cited figures", which is attributed to Dr. Geoffrey Davis quoted in the source "D'Costa 2010a" The earlier text correctly represents Dr. Davis's statement in the source, but the number of 200,000, which Darkness Shines has edit-warred to add, is not found in the cited source. In my view, this makes clear that Darkness Shines cannot be relied upon to edit contentious and sensitive topics responsibly, and that a topic ban (at the least) is indicated, as well as removal of the rollback permission. I invite comments by others as to what the scope of that topic ban should be, and why. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to determine whether, as the complainant alleges, that a source used by Darkness Shines is obviously unreliable, or whether Darkness Shines has engaged in other misconduct. We must however also consider that the complainant, Future Perfect at Sunrise, has been the other party in these edit wars, and that as an administrator they should know even better that edit-warring is not permitted. I would appreciate comments by others as to which, if any, sanction is indicated with regard to Future Perfect at Sunrise. Sandstein 18:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
So far we have a TBAN from WP:ARBIPA related pages as well as the already imposed block for Darkness Shines. I'm still not convinced that we should remove rollback or direct the removal of Twinkle as I don't believe there is enough evidence to establish a pattern of misuse (compared with appropriate use of which there is a pattern) outside this one edit war. We also have a logged warning for edit warring for Future Perfect at Sunrise. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
|
Scalhotrod
[edit]| Not actionable. A block or other administrative action is explicitly not requested. This is framed as a content dispute, but AE can address only conduct issues. Please see WP:DR for how to proceed. Sandstein 11:52, 19 May 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 Scalhotrod[edit]
Actually, I do not want to block Scal. I just want to reverse that final (fourth) edit he made that moved "Assault weapons ban" to "Assault weapons legislation." I will admit right up front that I botched my responses to his edits. I have never participated in an ArbCom before. If I had, and knew how discretionary sanctions worked, I would have alerted him about them (DS). Instead, I started an RfC.[27] However, after starting the RfC, I discovered the requested move process, which seemed like a much more appropriate process under the circumstances. So I started an RM [28] and asked to have the RfC closed [29] - and it was.[30] Then I waited for the RM to be processed. After 7 days, it rolled into the backlog, and I asked uninvolved admin Drmies to close it. His detailed response is here, [31] and I truly appreciate the time he put into it, although I am disappointed in his decision. After discussing it on his page,[32] from his advice and that of another editor who commented there, Dralwik, I decided that a move review was probably not the way to go. But one thing kept jumping out at me from that discussion. Drmies wrote, "what you're really trying to get done is the reversal of that original move." And that's true. Again, I don't want Scal blocked. He and I have kinda made peace. But I do want the article title restored to its original, WP:TITLE. There was no clear consensus to move/rename it (one vote, if you simply count votes), and its current title is WP:POVNAMING. The last message I got on my talk page was from Robert McClenon, saying I should use this forum for complaints about gun-related articles (rather than AN or ANI).[33] Scal has received his DS warning, as have I.[34] (Callanec warned us both at the same time... over this very dust-up.) Is there a way we can agree here to restore the original article title, shake hands, and both of us move forward humbled, as we should be?
Scalhotrod notified 16 May 2014 here: [35] NOTE: For the discussion about edits re the move/rename in Scal's "NOTE" below, see [36] Discussion concerning Scalhotrod[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 Scalhotrod[edit]NOTE: Quite literally while I was in the middle of drafting this the OP, Lightbreather, moved the article to Assault weapons bans in the United States from Assault weapons legislation. I discovered this when I trying to reference the Talk page. I followed on by moving it to Assault weapons legislation in the United States which was reverted and I moved again. Statement I'd like to start by mentioning that there was considerable confusion over the use of the phrase "Assault Weapon(s) Ban" (both singular and plural). I spent a fair amount of time locating many of the instances of this phrase and found that it was being to used to refer to a variety of things, but was Wikilinked incorrectly. The most common error being the intention of a link to the 1994 U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban and it linked back to the article title Assault Weapons Ban which is a collection (defacto List article) of legislation (multiple laws, not just one). In several related articles where I have seen the term "ban" used, sometimes more than once in sentence and in consecutive sentences, I have changed it to "prohibit" (or some other synonym) or explained it better detail such as "prohibited from owning or purchasing assault weapons" versus "bans assault weapons". The latter being a phrase that left me more confused than informed. In my opinion, the article title "Assault Weapon Legislation" is correct:
I would also like to offer the following observations made by other editors in the RfC and the Move Request:
The closing Admin, Drmies mentions this in their summary citing User Celestra as the key element, "The current article is about multiple bans and the proposed title is singular, misleading..." and then declares the attempts to rename the article as Reductio ad absurdum. Policy states:
Thank you, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by Drmies[edit]My close of that RM is here--for the record, my reference to reductio ad absurdum applies not to the request as a whole or even the nominator's rationale, but to one specific argument brought up by one single editor. More importantly, Sandstein is correct, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Arthur Rubin[edit](By the way, is gun control under 1RR, or just discretionary sanctions. If the former, both the subject of this request and I are in violation.) I do see an (indirect) request for ArbCom action; a specific finding that Scalhotrod's actions are in violation of the Gun control decision, even if no block is requested. He/she restored the following clear WP:SYNTHESIS violation, with no indication that many agree that it is relevant or that any agree that it is not synthesis, at Gun politics in the United States; namely [37]. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Scalhotrod[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The complaint is framed explicitly not as a request for administrative action, but as a proposal for the resolution of the underlying content dispute. You're in the wrong forum for that, sorry. Arbitration enforcement is not part of the dispute resolution process (WP:DR). You should follow that process in order to arrive at a resolution of the content dispute, but you can't do that here. Without objection, I'll close this as not actionable. Sandstein 14:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Arthur Rubin: To answer your question, gun control as a whole is not under 1RR automatically. An uninvolved administrator could apply a 1RR restriction to an article or editor if needed as a discretionary sanction, but it's not that way by default. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC) |
SPECIFICO
[edit]| No action taken. SPECIFICO's recent edits don't violate his topic ban from the Mises Institute. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning SPECIFICO[edit]
Based on a quick look at other aspects of his editing activity and talk page conversations, I feel like this editor might be becoming hostile with regards to articles right on the fringe of his topic ban, almost as if he is testing to see where the electric fence is rather than making an effort to broaden his editing activities to other areas. -- Netoholic @ 05:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I guess I need to add some additional clarification onto the initial request, since it sounds like we have very different understandings of what "associated with" means. Molyneux has interacted quite frequently with members of the Mises Institute staff, and so I would qualify that as "associated with" the Mises Institute. SPECIFIC was topic-banned in order to prevent him from editing about the LvMI and its staff because he's shown a significant bias *against* them, and so now what he's doing is editing articles of people who are connected with the staff, in order to try and show them a negative light. Some prominent interactions between Molyneux and Mises staff: interviewed by Redmond Weisenberger of Mises Canada, interview with Senior Fellow Walter block, several interviews with Jeffrey Tucker, recently left as editor of mises.org[41][42], interviews with Senior Fellow Tom Woods[43], interaction with Senior Fellow David Gordon, and much more which I can provide if needed. So what does " topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it" mean if it doesn't apply to a person that associates with senior leadership of the Institute? -- Netoholic @ 06:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
User was notified. --Netoholic @ 05:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Discussion concerning SPECIFICO[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 SPECIFICO[edit]I really have nothing to add concerning the Molyneux allegation. I'm puzzled however. Here we are at an Arbcom page and in her section below, @Carolmooredc: issues yet another of the unsupported and false personal attacks that got her banned -- "So he can continue the biased editing of bios..." Is that OK? At the very least it seems wildly disrespectful of Arbcom and wasteful of its time and attention. If this were a court of law, Carolmooredc would be cited for contempt. Why is this behavior tolerated on WP. How many editors just get sick and tired of it and leave the Project? SPECIFICO talk 13:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by S.Rich[edit]I will let Specifico post the diffs regarding an earlier notification and its' resolution. IMO the article on Molyneux is not a Mises.org-related topic. What others may have posted about Molyneux on the Mises.org website is their business, but having done so does not make Molyneuz a Mises.org related person. (Please note that I have absolutely no affection or alliance with Specifico. I posted evidence against him during the Arbcom. And I posted the notice to him about Caplan as a Mises.org related person) -– S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)05:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: It is not a big deal, but Caplan is associated with Mises.org. See: [44]. He published in the Mises.org journal Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. (This is the opposite of them posting some of his stuff, he submitted it for publication.) I don't disagree with the edit that Specifico did (following my lead in removing "influenced" names from the infobox), but TBANs include the good edits, the bad edits, and the ugly edits. So, bottom line, the Molyneux edits do not violate the TBAN and Specifico has been properly notified re Caplan. – S. Rich (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: Given the two admin comments below, it's water under the dam or over the bridge by now. But I do see where Caplan did an original posting at Writing on the Wall. This is more than a passive involvement with Mises.org. Again, no big deal. I posted the notice re Caplan and I certainly did not want it to become part of a very weak case for arbcom enforcement. I seriously doubt that Specifico's name will show up here again. – S. Rich (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC) @EdJohnston: Regarding the comment a few days ago, I can agree that many people who have had their works published by Mises.org would not come within the TBAN. After all, they number in the hundreds, if not thousands. But part of the overall and broader Austrian Economics/Mises.org problem arose because editors sought to conflate "associations" with Mises.org to criticisms of Mises.org via other sources that were critical of the persons. (Paraphrasing no one in particular (and w/o cites/diffs) we saw "scholars who have published with or are associated with Mises.org did these bad things....") For this reason, I think the TBAN should be broadly construed. I'm all for closing this action (and I defended Specifico from the get-go), but I worry that the distinction you raise allows "the camel to put the nose under the tent". – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC) PS: In followup to my last comment, Mises.org List has 6,314 articles. Here is a list of their authors: [45]. Picking one at random, I see [46] one author who is quite enthusiastic about Mises.org. I don't think this forum is appropriate to re-litigate the problems associated with Mises.org (many of which dealt with a now-indef'd editor), nor do I want it to become the basis for narrowing the scope of the TBAN. – S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]I'm pretty sure that at least Bryan Caplan is NOT associated with the von Mises Institute (in a way this sort of clinches it). They just put up some of his writings on their website. The only link of the Bryan Caplan article to vMI is a single External Link. The edit by SPECIFICO in question [47] also falls under WP:BLP and was a good edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I'm not as familiar with this Stephan Molyneux fellah but the link there to vMI also appears pretty weak. So they wrote about him in their Wiki. So what? More generally, it should be kept in mind that the topic ban is in regard to the von Mises Institute and not from Economics in general, or even Liberterianism or even Austrian economics in general. Of course by a sort of six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon any economist can be "linked" to vMI through a few steps. But I note that the topic ban remedy explicitly *excludes* Austrian economics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Ummm... isn't Carolmooredc's statement below a violation of their topic ban [48] (the and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased part)? Does it need a separate AE report? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I think Ed's suggestion below, which makes the topic ban more precise is a very good one. If SPECIFICO violates the precise version of the topic ban, there'll be little wiggle room for Wikilawyering or controversy and sanctions can be imposed with little drama. At the same time, additional information as to what the topic ban actually covers can help the editor avoid violating the topic ban on accident or in some trivial manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by Carolmooredc[edit]I've already been counseled privately that I should not play games with my topic ban by quoting Murray Rothbard or other Austrian economists on purely political topics in overwhelming political articles. Therefore I have to wonder about SPECIFICO's topic ban being narrowly construed to what he continues to assert it is: "official members" of the Mises.org/faculty as listed there. So he can continue the biased editing of bios of those who aren't on that list? Biased editing got him the topic ban, remember. Statement by Gaijin42)[edit]Carols block seems awfully harsh and inappropriate. She was discussing the topic ban and how it was applied, not the topic directly. This seems to clearly fall under the "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum" bit of the banning policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning SPECIFICO[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The persons at issue have, according to the complaint, all been mentioned or covered by this institute repeatedly, and one of them has published in a journal published by the institute. I don't quite see, yet, how this adds up to them being associated with the institute, even broadly construed. As such, I don't yet see how these edits are wirhin the scope of the topic ban. Sandstein 05:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
|
Appeal by User:Carolmooredc
[edit]| Carolmooredc has been unblocked but the warning that she should not complain about the conduct of others in the topic area has been left in place. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by Carolmooredc[edit]
Statement by User:Sandstein[edit]I recommend that this appeal is declined for the reasons explained by EdJohnston below. Topic-banned editors are given individual notice about the specifics of their ban, any further warning is therefore not necessary. Sandstein 20:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Statement by involved editor S. Rich[edit]Carol's statement "I've already been counseled privately that I should not play games with my topic ban by quoting ...." is telling. In making the statement, she wikilinks Rothbard and externalinks Mises.org who/which come within her topic ban. She added these links to a discussion which was trending to an exoneration of Specifico. So, speaking up was dumb and linking the topics was even dumber. Still, a two week block is harsh. I would give her a one-week reprieve. If she violates the ban with other edits (dumb or not), then the next sanction gets to be all the harsher. (I was involved in the Specifico discussion above, arguing that his edits to Molyneux did not violate his TBAN.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]Unsubstantiated personal attacks such as Carolmooredc's cited in this block are corrosive and damaging to WP. Such behavior damages Wikipedia. Other editors end up abandoning individual articles, topics, or the entire Project. There is nothing legitimate about such behavior anywhere on WP and every editor deserves to participate with confidence in the knowledge that Arbcom will not tolerate it. Blocked editors routinely file appeals and this one, like many, appears to be based on denial of the behavior which led to the block. A two week block is hardly a death sentence. It's simply a firm demonstration that this behavior will not be tolerated -- a form of warning for the future. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Carolmooredc[edit]Strongly agree with Future's comment below. "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum" - her concern seems legitimate (alleged disparate enforcement of bans), and if that isn't the correct forum I don't know what would be. It certainly isn't a blatant or egregious violation. If it crossed the line she should have been told so, via a warning. An instant block is significant overkill. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Comment by Olive[edit]
Result of the appeal by Carolmooredc[edit]
|
Goethean
[edit]| Goethean has explained the reason for the mistake and has taken the page off their watchlist. Closing with no further action necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:51, 21 May 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 Goethean[edit]
Perhaps the user is sincerely unaware that the 2013 IRS Scandal could be consider to be related to the tea party movement, if this is the case, a warning would suffice maybe. there is a possibility of the old edit warring behavior reappearing as the user appears to be involved in a article naming dispute submited barely a month after the previous move attempt failed. the user might also be engaging in battleground short off topic comments like, amusing as usual. Discussion concerning Goethean[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 Goethean[edit]The article was on my watchlist, because I had commented on the talk page prior to my topic ban.[54][55][56] I looked at and responded to the talk page debate on moving/renaming the article. Because I didn't look at the article main page, I didn't notice that the Tea Party was a topic of the article (I had thought that it was just conservative groups who were alleged to have been targeted, although I didn't think about it clearly). I have removed the article from my watchlist and will not comment there again. — goethean 15:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC) User:Darkstar1st now appears to be using his talk page to taunt me?[57] — goethean 21:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Goethean[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. In view of the statement by Goethean, I think that this can be closed without action. Sandstein 16:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
|
Request for modification: Kosovo article-level limitations
[edit]By request from Newyorkbrad, I'm cross-posting this as a notification of an ongoing proposal at WP:AN#Request to relax article restriction on Kosovo. Please discuss there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Lugia2453
[edit]| Not actionable, at least not in this form. Complainant 67.164.188.243 blocked by Acroterion in part because of this report. Sandstein 16:18, 26 May 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 Lugia2453[edit]
In the Sandy Hook Conspirarcy theory article her and another user keep removing a request to review the article for deletion even though I have made my request conform to the guidelines on the deletion standards page. I believe the request is valid and she is preventing the request from generating a discussion as would be proper by removing the tagging. She is not an administrator and should not remove tags without permission of an admin or moderator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories
(cur | prev) 15:55, 26 May 2014 McSly (talk | contribs) . . (23,531 bytes) (-272) . . (Undid revision 610220748 by 67.164.188.243 (talk) the protocol is to take the article to AFD) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:49, 26 May 2014 67.164.188.243 (talk) . . (23,803 bytes) (+272) . . (Undid revision 610220588 by Lugia2453 (talk) you can't revoke this tagging simply becuase you don't like it, once the article has been tagged you must follow the protocol of discussion.) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:48, 26 May 2014 Lugia2453 (talk | contribs) . . (23,531 bytes) (-272) . . (Undid revision 610219607 by 67.164.188.243 (talk) No, you've been told why your tagging is inappropriate on your talk page) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:40, 26 May 2014 67.164.188.243 (talk) . . (23,803 bytes) (+272) . . (undo) (cur | prev) 15:33, 26 May 2014 Acroterion (talk | contribs) . . (23,531 bytes) (-149) . . (Reverted 1 edit by 67.164.188.243 (talk): Rv inappropriate tagging. (TW)) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:33, 26 May 2014 67.164.188.243 (talk) . . (23,680 bytes) (+149) . . (Undid revision 610218533 by Lugia2453 (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:31, 26 May 2014 Lugia2453 (talk | contribs) . . (23,531 bytes) (-149) . . (Reverted good faith edits by 67.164.188.243 (talk): Not a reason for speedy deletion. Even if does go through AFD, it'll likely end up being kept anyway. (TW)) (undo)
I am tagging this article again for AFD.
Discussion concerning Lugia2453[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 Lugia2453[edit]Result concerning Lugia2453[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Buttons
[edit]| Buttons is placed under a revert restriction for one year. No action taken on Bobrayner or IJA. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Buttons[edit]
Editor evidently has a long-term pattern of routinely using edit-warring as their primary response to content disagreement. Before 2011, he even had a note describing his role on Wikipedia as "protects and monitors any and all pages concerning Serbia and Serbs from vandalism".
Discussion concerning Buttons[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 Buttons[edit]Looks like I'm a little late to my own party. I think users: NE Ent and No Such User made compelling enough reasoning not to enforce D/S (my thanks to you both). Beyond that I'll add that I believe the nominating admin jumped the gun in targeting me exclusively when both users... IJA: and Bobrayner: were engaged in tag-team reverting even before I got to the main article in question. Neither of which have received any kind of warning this time but have been strongly warned for tag-team edit warring before. Although I will admit my involvement did not help the dispute. Buttons (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Statement by NE Ent[edit]Close without action. 1) United_Regions_of_Serbia: Editors are expected to discuss disputed changes. Buttons initiated discussion at Talk:United_Regions_of_Serbia on 15 April. Give no one replied, they should allowed to make their edit. 2) Geography of Kosovo: (You don't have the authority to make that decision on your own) is a substantially different statement than I own the article. Per consensus, none of us have the ability to make a content decision "on our own." The reverts cited were different content. 3) 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence: Special:Contributions/TrinaryEarth is not a revert only account, and Buttons is participating in discussion at Talk:2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#A_problem. Regretfully, a lame technicality: the DS notification provided is invalid per the current arbcom requirements at Wikipedia:AC/DS#Awareness_and_alert, which requires the notification template be posted unmodified. (I agree that's its a lame rule totally out of sync with our iar pillar, but ya'll will have to take that up with the committee). NE Ent 12:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by No such user[edit]As an active editor in this sensitive area, I think that the report is a bit hastily construed and does not offer substantial evidence. The United Regions of Serbia dispute is hardly under ARBMAC purview, and Buttons did discuss his changes, unlike his opponents. My general opinion about Buttons's editing is that he treads rather carefully and generally tries to obey policies, save for occasional intemperate revert (for which I plead guilty as well). Buttons does have an apparent pro-Serbian bias in the area, but likewise e.g. User:bobrayner and User:IJA, his opponents in this dispute, have a pro-Albanian bias. While I don't look positively at biased editing in general, we are all humans with opinions, and all of them are seasoned and productive editors. So far, nobody of them caused any significant disruption and they were able to contribute positively and respect consensus when it was formed. I don't think the dispute raises to the level where sanctions are required. This request should serve as reminder to all involved to do more discussion and less revert-warning. No such user (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Statement by IJA[edit]For the record, I'd like to point out that I don't know Buttons, I've had very minimal contact with him/her. The article "2008 Kosovo declaration of independence" is on my watchlist. As with other Kosovo related articles, there is lots of controversy and disputes ect. The article is prone to vandalism and POV pushing ect, it comes with the terrain. This is why it is important that we should reach a consensus on issues. If you look at Button's contributions, you can see that his/her sole purpose is out to edit war and cause trouble. I'd like to point out that I've only reverted Buttons twice. I've encouraged him/her to reach a WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page, he/she was reluctant to even use the talk page for a while. I suppose there is some guilt on my behalf for allowing myself to get caught up in Button's edit warring campaign on Kosovo related articles, I'm an experienced editor and I should know better; Buttons went fishing and I took the bait. Buttons is now trying to shift the blame on me. I don't think Buttons has ever made a constructive edit during his/her time on wikipedia. Judging by Button's contributions, it is all edit warring, arguing and causing trouble on Kosovo and Serbia related articles. I also believe he/she is in violation of WP:SOCK, I believe that Buttons and TrinaryEarth are the same person, Irrelevantdetails is likely to be another sock account too. I don't believe I'm in a position to comment on the other articles which Buttons has been edit warring on as I've not been involved with them articles. There is however, definitely a pattern with these articles when it comes to Buttons. Kind regards IJA (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
@Joy: Fair enough mate, thanks for raising this. We did indeed once disagree on Pristina-Priština-Prishtina. However I'd like to use this opportunity to point out that we discussed our disagreements on our talk pages. This is more evidence which proves that I use talk pages to settle (or at least try to settle) disagreements. Kind regards IJA (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Statement by bobrayner[edit]I surprised by Buttons' chutzpah: Accusing me and IJA of "tagteaming" when:
Sorry. I must borrow Pascal's apology; this response is so long because I do not have time to make it more concise. bobrayner (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Buttons[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. As discussed by NE Ent, we may not act on this request because the warning was not provided in the form required by the Arbitration Committee, and no evidence of how Button might otherwise have been aware of discretionary sanctions is provided. The complainant should alert Buttons with the required template, {{Ds/alert}}, and may resubmit this request if problems persist. I offer no opinion on the merits of the request, which I have not read in detail because of the abovementioned formal problem. Sandstein 16:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
|
SPECIFICO
[edit]| SPECIFICO is blocked for two weeks. Sandstein 16:13, 7 June 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 SPECIFICO[edit]
None
Discussion concerning SPECIFICO[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 SPECIFICO[edit]@EdJohnston: Hello Ed. In reply to your question below: What I did was to remove a redirect for Freedomain Radio and to copy undue detail verbatim from the biography of its proprietor, Stefan Molyneux to a new article on Freedomain Radio. I did this with a cut-and-paste and didn't even look at the list of guests in the section. There have been several recent threads here and elsewhere which have affirmed that my topic ban does not apply to the Molyneux article, notwithstanding the fact that there is some content on it which relates to people who are associated with the Mises Institute. I haven't touched that content on the Molyneux article, and I didn't touch it in the course of doing the move. There are various errors and omissions in OP's complaint, but I won't address them at this time. Does this respond to your question? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC) @EdJohnston:Thanks for your reply. I did not intend to be making an excuse in my previous statement. Arbcom had already affirmed that it is not a violation for me to edit the article on Molyneux, who has nothing to do with the Mises Institute. The text that I relocated from that article contains only the names of two of the Mises Institute's list of affiliated academics, with no reference to the Mises Institute or to what those individuals discussed on the podcasts. It's hard to differentiate how my cut and paste violates the intention, purpose, or spirit of the TBAN any more than did my previous editing the Molyneux article. If I had thought that cut and paste would have triggered the question, I would have done a precautionary check of the text, just as I have checked the content in sections of the article I edit. If independent views would be helpful here, there have been several Admins involved in one way or another with the recent editing on Molynuex, among them @Gamaliel:, @DangerousPanda:, and @Daniel Case:, and @Vianello:. There may have been others as well. SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC) @EdJohnston: Ed, your view was similar on the last time I was dragged here and the prevailing view disagreed with you. As I think I've made clear the violation if any was utterly de minimis and any principle by which it was a violation could easily be shown to imply that I would have been prohibited from editing Stefan Molyneux. I certainly want to sort this out and I have no interest in going against the mandate of Arbcom. I suggest that you and I both stand back and let others share their views. We can respond in a day or two after the issues are clarified. Please consider. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by Netoholic[edit]I would like to request broadening of SPECIFICO's topic ban per the clause "should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions". After being forced out of the Ludwig von Mises Institute
I endorse S.Rich's report of this being a technically true violation of his current TBAN, but I request expansion. My proposed solution is simple: broaden SPECIFICOs topic ban to all the article pages of biographies and economic topics (allowing him to post on Talk pages may encourage him to work on presenting his arguments by citing sources, rather than just making contentious edits and not backing them up). I believe other sanctions would also be appropriate (such as interaction restrictions and limitation on number of edits he can make to each article in a single day), but before seeking a formal modification, perhaps the problems can be solved simply by moving his editing focus out of the topic areas where his passions become problematic. --Netoholic @ 02:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC) @Srich32977: - The exception that allowed him to work on Austrian Economics was based on an assumption that he is an expert in the field, but I think I have evidence that shows some doubt as to his general competence, POV, or both. If he is failing to find new reliable sources AND is inserting false information even when sources are provided for him, then I think its unlikely that his "expert" status is valid or even relevant ... and so any exception that allows him to work in the Austrian Economics area is not warranted, and broadening the TBAN to biographical and economic areas will help protect the basic, factual integrity of those articles and stop contentious editing (Talk:Fractional reserve banking, Talk:Full-reserve banking are good examples of this battling pattern). --Netoholic @ 02:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC) @Alanyst: With due respect, his editing pattern is still focused around the LvMI, its just that now he's working on the fringes. In retrospect, I was very unlucky to pick the wrong moment to come back to WP to work on the Molyneux article, since I started basically right as the ArbCom limited SPECIFICO from the direct LvMI stuff. My work to source out and expand the article just attracted his time and attention at the moment he had a lot to give. If it wasn't this article, it'd have been something else really close to LvMI, some other article that makes reference to LvMI people or values which can be edited negatively and, by association, perhaps disparage the LvMI. If he had taken the lesson of the ArbCom seriously, he'd have moved on to some completely different topic area rather stay near the electric fence to get burned today. -- Netoholic @ 05:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by S. Rich (OP)[edit]Specifico is not topic banned from Austrian Economics articles, only from those aspects in which the Ludwig von Mises Institute or LvMI connected people are involved. I do not endorse expanding the TBAN beyond LvMI. But I do request enforcement as per the TBAN violation documented above. – S. Rich (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC) If there "are various errors and omissions" in my posting, I'd like Specifico to point them out rather than make WP:ASPERSIONS. I will be happy to clarify, correct, retract, or expand as necessary. – S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)Several points: 1. Specifico has failed in his last two postings to describe the "various errors and omissions" of my submission. I'd say this is because his allegation has no substance or the E&O are so trivial that he really shouldn't have mentioned the allegation to begin with. (Perhaps he was simply making a diversionary remark.) But if he wants to "sort this out", he should WP:PUTUPORSHUTUP. 2. Specifico has made 109 edits to the Molyneux article, about 10% of the total. I'd expect a high degree of familiarity with the contents in Molyneux to be the result. Besides, Specifico is a published PhD'd academic, so I'd expect a great deal of accuracy. 2.a. Specifico is correct that editing Molyneux as an article is not against his TBAN, but adding or subtracting or changing any material related to Mises Institute people in any article clearly is. 2.b. As Specifico had been brought up on this page previously for edits to the same topic (Molyneux(, I'd expect him to be more cautious from the get-go. 3. Specifico's edits (the cut and the paste) involved the names of not 1, not 2, but of 3 Mises related people. This attempt to minimize the error in terms of the number really does not mitigate the error, but makes it worse. 4. Specifico continued to comment on the Freedomain Radio talk page after he had been warned about the improper edit. He should have said "Woops! I fucked up." and then steer clear of the topic all together. 4.a. He has been "dragged here" because he could not stay away from the article and start commenting about the particular TBAN edit he made. – S. Rich (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by Alanyst[edit]The dispute at hand is primarily between SPECIFICO and Netoholic, and has not touched on the LvMI topic from which SPECIFICO is banned, except for the mention of certain LvMI associates in the content that SPECIFICO spun off into its own article. While that is technically a violation of the topic ban, I do not perceive an attempt to trespass it intentionally. An admonition to be more careful would be the appropriate remedy, and a block or widening of the topic ban would be disproportionate in my view. Aside from the small infraction regarding the LvMI related material, the complaints here seem to boil down largely to run-of-the-mill differences of opinion regarding sources and content, and a growing feud between Netoholic and SPECIFICO. The latter bears investigation and possibly intervention by a savvy admin, but seems outside the bounds of the original arbitration and might be best dealt with in an RfC/U or other DR venue. alanyst 05:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Result concerning SPECIFICO[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|