Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive289
Leechjoel9
[edit]This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Leechjoel9
[edit]- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Boud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Leechjoel9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 14:33, 13 May 2021 reverting a tidying up of the result of the Demographics of Eritrea RfC (and reverting unrelated edits by other people than me)
- 14:36, 13 May 2021 violation of the spirit of the result of the Demographics of Eritrea RfC on the Eritrea page (e.g. removing "three and a half ... million")
- 15:00, 13 May 2021 repeat violation of the result of the spirit of the RfC, on Eritrea
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Leechjoel9 seems to be trying to interpret the RfC on the population of Eritrea in a pedantic way and to prevent edits improving the referencing quality. I see no sign that the closing summary of the RfC described an intention to disallow the use of precise referencing with full, complete references. Pedantically speaking, the RfC did not specifically mention edits of the main Eritrea article, and it's true that in principle, an editorial consensus on one article does not imply a consensus for another related article. However, common sense in this case says that if the Eritrean population needs NPOVing on the main article on the topic of the Eritrean population, then there should also be an NPOV on the discussion of population on the article Eritrea itself. The RfC result does not oppose adding UN DESA 2019's explanation of its change. All three of Leechjoel9's above three edits remove the reference ref name="UNDESA2019_release_notes" that explains the surprising change in population estimates. The RfC favours NPOV. Leechjoel9's three edits oppose NPOV. (Explanatory notes by other sources would be valid to add for NPOV, but the sources are not demographic sources, so they don't publish explanations, they just provide raw "believe me, it's true" numbers.) Boud (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Response to Leechjoel9 18:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Due weight does not mean that "believe-me-it's-true" sources prevent explanations by demographic research "we-calculated-things-this-way-from-these-sources" sources from being mentioned. Ordinary reasoning about sourcing should not need wikilawyering and another month or so of effort for making an edit in the spirit of the result of an RfC. The risk of this editor's behaviour is to discourage editors who lack the stamina needed to argue at length for making changes that are normally uncontroversial in Wikipedia. (Side note: the {{UN Population}} template does not appear to be controversial; for Eritrea, it gives 3,620,312.) Boud (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- False statement by Leechjoel9:
"Bouds edit [136], the user removed the line which explains that various sources disagrees ... editing by BubbaJoe123456 [137]."
I added detail to BubbaJoe123456's edit, making the statement more precise and carefully referenced; I did not remove the population disagreement; I did not remove the statement on no official census (source: name="PHS2010_full"). Moreover, Leechjoel misleadingly pointed to my revert, instead of my real edits.@Rosguill: "Not engaging in discussion"? I made a huge effort in the RfC engaging in rational, structured discussion fully supported by specific sources rather than undated, unarchived sources. I responded patiently to Leechjoel9's repeatedly false and misleading statements and reluctance to use non-ambiguous language. Engaging in discussion with a user who discusses this way and rejects Wikipedia policy (NPOV) would imply that this user gets to veto editing by editors with less patience than me. My recommendation is that the community should refuse Leechjoel9's use of these techniques to own Eritrea-related articles. Boud (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC) - @Johnuniq: See my 22:38, 12 May 2021 edits for more disputed content; however, the main problem is the irrationality of discussion by the user. Boud (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: I assume that you have authorised extending beyond the 500-word limit, since otherwise I cannot answer. The dispute is not only about the infobox. My 22:38, 12 May 2021 edits include:
- fixing the infobox;
- fixing the old statement Eritrea is a multi-ethnic country ... in its population of around six and a half million which I changed to ... three and a half<ref name="UNDESA_WPP_2019_total_population" /> to six and a half<ref name="COMESA_ERpop_2019" /> million;
- fixing the old statement Eritrea's population increased from 3.2 million to approximately 5,755,124 ... between 1990 and 2020 for which none of the old references provide any estimate for 1990;
- adding the clarification to the reader "and revised down<ref name="UNDESA2019_release_notes" />" from the only one of the sources that gives sources, methods and explanations, and explicitly states why it revised down its population estimate by 1.8 million.
- My guess is that your statement
"I will repeat my concern regarding Leechjoel9: insisting on 6 million as the only figure in the infobox given the result of that RfC would be disruptive (sanctionable)"
is likely to be a strong enough result of this ARE to resolve the first three issues (I'm assuming good faith). I cannot predict Leechjoel9's reaction on the fourth point. So far, it seems that s/he rejects the normally uncontroversial idea that a sourced explanation for the disagreement in numbers is better than no explanation at all; pedantically, it is not a formal result from the RfC. Boud (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC) - @Rosguill: Re:
"having read Leechjoel9's explanations here"
: scroll up to see the false statement by Leechjoel9 of 06:11+06:15, 18 May 2021 here at A/R/E; a false statement about my editing is not an "explanation" and it is not evidence of a post-RfC change of behaviour. Boud (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC) - [Word count estimates of comments excluding this line: Leechjoel9: 717; Boud: 816] Boud (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Leechjoel9
[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Leechjoel9
[edit]Boud is ignoring and violating the reached consensus and proceeds doing changes without discussion. I have addressed the matter in the talk page of Demographics of Eritrea, and I have urged the user to participate in that discussion. Repeatedly filing for AE and ANI as soon someone disagrees is not a way forward, this is time consuming for everyone involved and a behaviour possibly breaching with Wikipedia policy. This can easily be resolved by discussion which Boud don’t want too, see [1].
The reason for restoring the Eritrea article was that this newly added content goes beyond the reached consensus and has yet been agreed upon. Consensus had been reached for estimates in the Demographics of Eritrea and BubbaJoe123456 did update this article with info that the population of Eritrea is estimated between 3,5- 6,7 Million. This was presented fairly, mentioning the range of estimates but also that majority views supports ~6M est, see [2]. Now a month later Boud decided to update the Eritrea article with new estimates in the info box and in the lead in the Eritrea article, see [3]. The user has done own interpretations of the consensus and did not propose any suggestions on how this should be implemented in the Eritrea article. The consensus did not reach beyond the Demographics of Eritrea article, however a change in the demographics article would affect the Eritrea article. So, there is several issue that needs to be taken in consideration when adding this content to the Eritrea article.
Unlike BubbaJoe123456, user Boud did not mention that all sources besides UN DESA supports estimates in the 6M. In the changes made to Eritrea article the user do not even bother to mention that the broad majority view and sources supports estimate in the 6M. Sources that consist of CIA (2021), Eritrea Ministry of Information (2020), African development bank(2017) and more. By doing this the user presents the UN DESA estimate (single- minority view) source as it has the equal weight of the all of the other sources (majority view), this is giving undue weight to the minority view per WP:RSUW. This is not acting neutral and what the consensus says. The consensus however says both estimates should be presented, which nobody including myself are not objecting to. The objecting comes on how it is should be presented and formulated. This has been discussed before and I have urged that we find a solution on how to implement the consensus also in the Eritrea article.
The Eritrea article is not constructed as the Demographics article. For instance it has an info box unlike the Demographics article. In the early days of the dispute there was an discussion regarding which section that should be affected by these changes (I.e lead, info box, body). That discussion is also not closed, and should also be discussed before implementing. There is currently no dispute about the Demographics of Eritrea article. I would again suggested that the user keep the discussion in the talk page. Leechjoel9 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- [Reply to Rosgquill, moved from admin-only section] Clearly Boud lacked support implementing the changes without discussing with involved parties on how the consensus was going to be implemented. I restored it because of that and since there are minor issue to the article, I still feel there are issue on the Demographics article that should be resolved. I could of restored it again, I however refrained from restoring current version since the Demographics edits also were less minor compared to the changes to the Eritrea article, I proceeded with discussing the matter in the talk page instead. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
If you look at Bouds edit [4], the user removed the line which explains that various sources disagrees to current estimates of Eritrea and that there haven’t been an official census in the country, removing the constructive editing by BubbaJoe123456 [5].That was the reason, and I also noticed Boud only proceeded with adding and citing the UN DESA source which is this users favoured source. Boud edits also lacked sources, citing and explanation of the sources supporting estimates in the 6M which is the majority view, the consensus reached in the RFC said that these should be presented. Leechjoel9 (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have given proper explanation on the matter, in my replies above. Could you please clarify what it is you want me to further explain? In this case I don’t don’t see a need for a ban for anybody, the overall behaviour of the other parties should also be reviewed, since content has been added without reaching final agreements on how the consensus was going to be implemented (not in the talk pages or the RFC concluded this). But also since we are in the final stages of resolving the matter by discussion. I proposed in the discussion thread in the Eritrea article that there is a need of rephrasing the sentence, yet still including UN DESA and all the other sources. Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by BubbaJoe123456
[edit]I was involved in the discussion on Talk:Demographics of Eritrea about how to best represent what sources say about the population of Eritrea, and contributed to the RFC as well. Overall, the concerns that Boud has expressed here are justified. Leechjoel9 contributions on this topic have all been very focused on having the article have as high a population figure as possible. I don't know what motivates this, but it does appear to be POV-driven. Just to be clear, the available data sources have population estimates ranging from under 4M to nearly 7M, as is reflected (now) in the lede of the Demographics of Eritrea article. Grudgingly, after the RFC, Leechjoel9 acceded to the current wording. We've just had a lengthy RFC that came to the conclusion that the most NPOV way to describe Eritrea's population is to (a) show the range of estimates, and (b) note that no official census has ever been conducted. I see no reason why, after all of that, the main Eritrea article's infobox should continue to only show a single estimate from a single source, an approach that was clearly rejected in the Demographics article RFC. Bottom line, I'm concerned that Leechjoel9 doesn't come to topics around Eritrea with a NPOV approach. As another example, they argued for the removal of a clearly notable person from the list of notable people from Asmara, on the grounds that the person no longer held Eritrean citizenship. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Result concerning Leechjoel9
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- This is particularly difficult for admin resolution. I might say more later but my primary concern is always what is in the article and I have to say that it is not satisfactory to put population = 6,081,196 in the infobox at Eritrea given reliable sources with estimates from 3.6 to 6.7 million. I see a comment that the issue is extremely contentious—apparently a small number implies a certain political outcome while a large number implies some other real-world consequence. Unless there is a knock-out argument that I can't see, editors have no basis to decide which RS should be chosen for the infobox number. The problem cannot be solved by the walls of text in Talk:Eritrea/Archive and throughout Talk:Demographics of Eritrea. The approach at Demographics of Eritrea is better where there is no simple factoid—it starts with "Sources disagree as to the current population of Eritrea, with some proposing numbers as low as 3.6 million and others as high as 6.7 million." Question to participants: is there a dispute relevant to this report about text in the article apart from the number in the infobox? If yes, please succinctly identify it. If not, I'm afraid this issue might have to go back to article talk with a focus (that I couldn't see) on exactly what to put in the infobox (one suggestion would be to put nothing there). Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Boud: Is there an answer to my "Question to participants"? It appears from recent posts above that the main issue is the number in the infobox, summed up by this 15:00, 13 May 2021 revert by Leechjoel9 which asserted that the RfC did not apply to the infobox and that the UN DESA report was a "minority" view. I'm inclined to close this as no action with an informal recommendation that participants digest my above comment. The demographics RfC is not sufficient to say what should be in the Eritrea infobox but I will repeat my concern regarding Leechjoel9: insisting on 6 million as the only figure in the infobox given the result of that RfC would be disruptive (sanctionable). Editors should stop talking about the past and who is to blame. Focus on what should be in the infobox. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Leechjoel9, could you explain why you performed the edit at Demographics of Eritrea linked to in the first diff provided by Boud in this report? signed, Rosguill talk 23:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- sorry Leechjoel9, but I was hoping for a bit more detail. Could you please clarify what your specific objection was that motivated you to perform the first revert on May 13. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- thank you Leechjoel9 for the clarification. My perspective at this time is that Leechjoel9's objections were reasonable, and I don't see anything that immediately warrants a sanction. I find some fault with Boud for not attempting to engage in a discussion about what Leechjoel9's objection was before coming here, which may warrant a warning. signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Boud, my comment was meant with respect to the post-RfC dispute alone. Generally speaking you have been engaging in constructive discussion, but having read Leechjoel9's explanations here, I believe that you could have settled this new issue (or at least sufficiently defined the point of dispute to allow for 3rd parties to weigh in and build a consensus) without coming to AE. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Boud, on review I think I may have misread the edit you made which was identified by Leechjoel9 when I commented earlier ([6]). Reviewing it now, while formatting of the citations was changed, all of the citations appear to have been preserved; content about the range of estimates was reworded, but
Sources disagree as to the current population of Eritrea, with UN DESA proposing a low estimate of 3.6 million for 2021 and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa proposing a high estimate of 6.7 million for 2019. Eritrea has never conducted an official government census
seems to still adequately present the information. Leechjoel9, do you stand by your prior assessment regarding this edit? signed, Rosguill talk 13:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)- I was hoping to get a further reply from Leechjoel9 before pushing for a close, as I still have unanswered questions about editors' explanations for their behavior. If we don't see a satisfactory reply soon, however, I think that a short tban for Leechjoel9 may be appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Leechjoel9, the issue is that your original explanation given here of the edit at Demographics of Eritrea was that Boud had removed sources in that edit, and you reverted, but they did not actually remove any sources in said edit. If this was simply a misunderstanding then I don't think we have any problems at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 00:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I was hoping to get a further reply from Leechjoel9 before pushing for a close, as I still have unanswered questions about editors' explanations for their behavior. If we don't see a satisfactory reply soon, however, I think that a short tban for Leechjoel9 may be appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Boud, on review I think I may have misread the edit you made which was identified by Leechjoel9 when I commented earlier ([6]). Reviewing it now, while formatting of the citations was changed, all of the citations appear to have been preserved; content about the range of estimates was reworded, but
- Boud, my comment was meant with respect to the post-RfC dispute alone. Generally speaking you have been engaging in constructive discussion, but having read Leechjoel9's explanations here, I believe that you could have settled this new issue (or at least sufficiently defined the point of dispute to allow for 3rd parties to weigh in and build a consensus) without coming to AE. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- thank you Leechjoel9 for the clarification. My perspective at this time is that Leechjoel9's objections were reasonable, and I don't see anything that immediately warrants a sanction. I find some fault with Boud for not attempting to engage in a discussion about what Leechjoel9's objection was before coming here, which may warrant a warning. signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- sorry Leechjoel9, but I was hoping for a bit more detail. Could you please clarify what your specific objection was that motivated you to perform the first revert on May 13. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- To prevent archivation--Ymblanter (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
أمين
[edit]| مين is restricted to using sources in English in the areas of ARBPIA so that other editors can verify —valereee (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2021 (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 أمين[edit]
Report updated slightly in [10]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning أمين[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 أمين[edit]You have included text supported by two sources but you claim to be biased. How is it biased? Is it because I said the occupation army? I put two sources, but you retrieved my amendment, because I settled with one. By blocking a lot of amendments, you are biased toward the Israeli side You could also create a discussion to guide me about the sources and how to choose them, not start blocking me just because I am an Arab. أمين (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Al-Jazeera appears to have modified the text it published, because it removed some words such as settlers and homes. this is not my fault. أمين (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC) I will be more careful in using sources next time. أمين (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC) I had been banned before, but it was for not knowing the encyclopedia's policies and being new. Now you are trying to block me. I wrote a text and placed two sources, one in Arabic, the another in English. It seems that Al-Jazeera has modified its text so that it becomes inconsistent with its text, and this created a problem. The goodwill I have in the amendment relieves me of these accusations and I am ready to improve my performance as I will hear advice from users below. Thanks. أمين (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC) I will do my best only to use English language sources in articles. thanks. أمين (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC) I will follow the advice you have put. أمين (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by selfstudier[edit]For the sake of clarity, the first line of AJ entry says "Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization." That there are "some editors" who think it is biased for the IP area is not relevant. The discrepancy in the figures above is because this is a fast moving current event and the casualty count has apparently been rising all day, it was reported as 4, then 6, 9 and now 10 and reports are frequently changed.Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC) I have updated the article with the latest report (11 fatalities now) and removed material not in the current source.Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy[edit]What WP:RSP says is Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Not that there is any consensus that al-Jazeera is anything other than a RS. In fact, the actual consensus position is summed up in the green check mark showing generally reliable. Disliking an editors edits is not an arbitration violation and misusing this board to remove an opponent because they used a generally reliable, per consensus, source merits a boomerang in my opinion. Including what numerous reliable sources discuss about the fatalities (that they included nine children) is likewise not a violation of an arbitration decision, and reporting it here merits a boomerang in my opinion. nableezy - 19:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I dont see where the source support that the deaths were of people peacefully protesting or in their homes, and that is indeed concerning. I mostly object to the way that this was presented as though using al-Jazeera is an offense when it is a perfectly reliable source. Or the addition of the number of children killed which is well sourced to a number of places being some sort of POV violation. nableezy - 22:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning أمين[edit]
|
Arminden
[edit]| withdrawn —valereee (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2021 (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 Arminden[edit]
Calling the villages depopulated by Israel in 1948 for "Arab" or "Palestinian" has been a hotly contested area, which was resolved with this RfC: Talk:Kfar Ahim#RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian?: we shall call them "Palestinian". I was therefor disappointed with the above edit by Arminden, and when I asked him to revert link, he replies "I don't care about those tonnes of blabla. I won't revert whatever you do. Enjoy your crusade." link My 2 cents: editors in the IP area needs to follow the rules, also the rules that they do not agree with, Huldra (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Arminden[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 Arminden[edit]Bad English (mine). Wrote that before going to sleep. Followed up on it now: "(ping) Huldra, I've written quite clearly: you can do as you like, I'm out of there, it's all yours. I've removed the star from that article, not getting any more notice when it's being changed." Do whatever you want = exactly that. I won't revert = I'm out, not interested in warring. I've stated what I think of it, don't care for more. Not the first time I'm doing this. Seriously sick of I/P crusaders of both camps and their dodged pitched battles. Not for me, life too short. Now I'm out of here, too. Do as you like. Statement by Shrike[edit]@Valereee: And why he should revert? he didn't broke any policy. There was a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on one page. That doesn't apply to all pages on Wikipedia --Shrike (talk) Statement by Nableezy[edit]The RFC question said This issue concerns all the Palestinian villages depopulated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and all the Israeli settlements which were built on their lands after 1948. ... Should these villages be called "Arab" or "Palestinian"? Or perhaps "Arab Palestinian"? I have argued that they should be called "Palestinian", as that is what their source say, and that is what is most unambiguous. Another editor (Number 57) has argued that ""Palestinian" is not a helpful term here because it does not clarify to the reader whether it was a Jewish or Arab village." Saying this was related to one specific article is specious. Arminden, I think most of us here respect your editing, but if youd like to challenge a settled consensus the method you should choose is a new RFC, not the take my ball and go home if your edit against the consensus of the current RFC is opposed. Just self-revert and engage on the talk page, I dont think most of us root for your uninvolving yourself in any article. nableezy - 21:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Arminden[edit]
|
Aquatic Ambiance
[edit]| Aquatic Ambiance is topic banned from all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, broadly construed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:07, 8 June 2021 (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 Aquatic Ambiance[edit]
In January/February 2021, Aquatic Ambiance joined a discussion on Talk:Men Going Their Own Way to discuss the inclusion of the term "misogynist" in the lead sentence of the article. Their last post to the discussion was on February 5, where they wrote "Anyway I won't bother with things like this anymore because I've promised myself not to waste time on discussions anymore, be it political or otherwise." The discussion ultimately failed to reach any consensus to change the wording, but Aquatic Ambiance has apparently decided to just try to slow-motion edit war the change in anyway. I'm only familiar with their edits through the MGTOW page. A quick perusal of their edits shows what appears to be generally productive editing* on articles about bands interspersed with vandalism on gender-related topics: for example, changing the infobox "ideology" field from "feminism" to "misandry" at Women's Equality Party, and adding "popularly known as OnlySimps" to the lead of OnlyFans. It seems pretty clear that this user has a strong antifeminist POV and is not able to edit in this topic area. *I haven't looked too closely at their COVID- and epidemic-related edits—from looking at their talk page there may be an issue there too, but that's outside the scope of this request. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Aquatic Ambiance[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 Aquatic Ambiance[edit]Statement by Jorm[edit]This user is simply not here to be productive. There's nothing more to say than that.--Jorm (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Sangdeboeuf[edit]Apparently one can "define a group" when it suits one's purposes to call a feminist political party "misandrist", while ignoring reliable sources. A.A. seems to be WP:NOTHERE to be productive in this topic area. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Aquatic Ambiance[edit]
|
Davidirvine894
[edit]| Indefinitely blocked as a regular admin action signed, Rosguill talk 15:59, 15 June 2021 (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 Davidirvine894[edit]
n/a
Discussion concerning Davidirvine894[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 Davidirvine894[edit]Statement by Cabayi[edit]David does not appear to want to contest this enforcement request - m:Special:GlobalRenameQueue/request/78428/ (declined). Cabayi (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Davidirvine894[edit]
|
Mercrediaankijker
[edit]| Indefinitely blocked as a regular admin action. Black Kite (talk) |
|---|
| 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 Mercrediaankijker[edit]
Should be a fairly open and shut case. Cheers, Number 57 09:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mercrediaankijker[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 Mercrediaankijker[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Mercrediaankijker[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Astral Leap
[edit]| No action. Requestor hasn't shown any reason this change would be productive. —valereee (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Astral Leap[edit]To get this out of the way, I was suspected of being a sockpuppet but this was checked and rejected by checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteer Marek (deleted). My relations with the editor I am sanctioned from got off to a rocky start after this question following Zezen's block (AN discussion) that I was involved with. The sanction was imposed on me after two actions on my part: 1. I made a AE report, [21], that documented a topic ban violation. However, because the editor was reported by other new users previously, and there was a pattern of these reports the topic ban was lifted so that there would be no more reports. 2. I made a ANI report, which I admit was on a minor issue (minor flags). After this was opened, El C placed in short succession on my page: a. warning not to do "ad-hoc prosecutions". b. discretionary sanction alert c. sanction I think El C was quick here because he suspected me of something else. This sanction would not be so bad, but it is bad because I am being tormented by the editor who I am sanctioned from. They are addressing me, accusing me, all this while knowing I can't respond: 1. [22]: "Astral Leap I recognize that you are under a one-way interaction ban with me, so I apologize to you AL. I know you can't defend yourself concerning my criticism...." 2. [23] this notification of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteer Marek was criticized by the clerking admin Blablubbs in the deleted discussion. 3. In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteer Marek (deleted, can not link) making accusations at me. Even responding to my request to be left alone, with a condescending comment on me responding to a the notification on my talk page. The last sockpuppet accusation was not the first one. I also faced accusations by this edit in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CommanderWaterford/Archive. I admit my ANI report made a mountain out of a molehill of minor edit summaries. I shouldn't have done it. I will avoid making these kinds of reports against the editor or any editor. Admins, please either lift this sanction or make it so this editor can not make comments on my either. It isn't fair that I get criticized and tormented like this and I can not respond to it.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by El C[edit]Except for today, since Feb, the appellant has made a total of 2 edits, so it's difficult to gauge the utility of the (Jan 30) ban, the context of which I admittedly no longer have a firm recollection of. El_C 10:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by GizzyCatBella[edit]I’m an editor with whom the appellant has an interaction ban. Just a note of what really happened because the appellant offers a bit twisted version of it. I suffered harassment from numerous brand new accounts, which followed my every edit and kept reverting me or filing bogus reports against me. One of them was, at the time, a junior account of the appellant. Details can be found here [24] (see my closing note at that report). The appellant has been granted an interaction ban with me (and very rightly so) on 30 January 2021.[25] Soon after, on 1 February 2021, they were blocked for one week[26] and eventually, their talk page access was revoked for poking at Volunteer Marek [27] After their block expired, the appellant made a total of 5 more edits on February 15th[28] and went still. On June 9, 2021, I left a note on the appellant talk page[29] regarding the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteer Marek (now deleted) notifying them that they are being mentioned there. To my surprise, the appellant responded within 4 hours making a post at the investigation and their talk page[30] despite being inactive for 4 months. Admins may want to look at the mentioned (now deleted) investigation for details on how the appellant's name has been brought up there and by whom, since I don't remember anymore. As far as tormenting accusation - this is a total boloney. I referred to the appellant only once after them receiving an IB[31], and despite me not having an interaction ban with them, I was very thoughtful. That's a quick recap; This appeal should be rejected since there are no reasons for the lift, and .... well, you draw your conclusions. If you need any more information, please ask. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC) @Seraphimblade - Got it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Astral Leap[edit]Result of the appeal by Astral Leap[edit]
|
Mbsyl
[edit]| Mbsyl is indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2021 (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 Mbsyl[edit]
At this point they are a SPA, making no other edits to any other articles, yet just turning up intermittently to try and force their disputed edit through. FDW777 (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mbsyl[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 Mbsyl[edit]this is silly. you are doing what you accuse me of, except you are "edit warring" by removing important info that is not mentioned in the article anywhere and saying that it is when it clearly isn't. whereas my "edit warring" is simply returning the information back to the article since it is NOWHERE ELSE IN THE ARTICLE. if you don't like where it is, that's a different debate, but you are just outright obsessively deleting it. you are the one who should be sanctioned. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Mbsyl[edit]
|
Normchou
[edit]| Normchou is indefinitely topic banned from COVID-19, broadly construed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2021 (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 Normchou[edit]
Normchou has been disruptively editing Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 and COVID-19_misinformation since shortly after TBAN expired at the end of April. TBAN was related to uncivil behavior specifically WP:BATTLEGROUND. Worth noting that the original TBAN was after this user made an inappropriate ANI report re: "subtle vandalism" and accusing a "tribe" or "coalition" of editors of "going after" him. AKA a consensus of editors on the talk page. Editor has also received several admonishments for edit-warring in the past related to these exact same behaviors ([42] [43]). I would say that now, the editor has tried to go the other direction and avoid conflict by just ignoring discussion altogether, but still reverting and contravening/avoiding ongoing discussions and consensus-building. This is why I would say Normchou is NOTHERE. It feels to me like a case of failing to pound the facts, and so defaulting to pounding the table instead. Suggest indefinite topic-ban, but I'll take whatever I can get to make this article slightly less of a headache.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC) (edited)--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, Normchou is not only uninterested in reaching consensus on these content questions, he is uninterested in any discussion whatsoever. His main interaction with these articles since the end of his TBAN has been to repeatedly push his POV. Furthermore, he doesn't see anything wrong with this. I'm not sure it would be any better in 90 days. His edits in other areas seem okay (prior edit wars notwithstanding). So maybe it's just COVID that's a big issue.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Normchou[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 Normchou[edit]My comment is that I have been making edits in accordance with WP:5P, using WP:COMMONSENSE, but have found it extremely difficult to edit this article—which shouldn't be the case if everyone followed the community policies and guidelines on content and conduct—despite the fact that my contribs are still a substantial part of its current form [44]. I have made a similar comment/complaint on the ArbCom case request [45], which apparently has become the basis of this enforcement request, but in my opinion it has little effectiveness on resolving the underlying COI issue (more background: [46]). Re WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." Consensus can be achieved "through editing", "through discussion", and/or through other means. I have tried using the talk page before, but now feel there is so much WP:GAMING by some "experienced editors" such as RandomCanadian to push their POVs that the talk page is barely serving the purpose of "addressing legitimate concerns" or reaching consensus. Their failure to be consistent in applying their own standards ("Science is made by publishing in peer-reviewed journals, not counting opinions.") when facing different POVs says a lot about their purpose of editing this article, [47] [48], with the latter edit merely citing a "count of opinion" that happened to appear in a single peer-reviewed article. I have no more diffs to list or talk page records to show here I support discretionary sanctions against "unacceptable" behavior if the sanctions are applied equally to every editor who fits the pattern. I can only suggest the enforcer to scrutinize the revision history of the article and make a well-informed decision. Normchou 💬 17:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC); edited 20:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC); edited 00:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Berchanhimez[edit]The motion to replace the GS with DS has passed from what I saw, but I'm not sure if all the "formalities" have been done - if not, I would like to see this kept open so that the obviously merited sanction can be applied as a discretionary sanction, logged in the arbitration enforcement for the COVID sanctions, and "more formal" than simply under a GS. I also would like to point out that the problem here isn't so much any one individual edit - it's the covert POV pushing that is flagrantly ignoring due weight policies and attempting to use individual opinions sourced primarily to news articles, not scholarly sources. While merely holding an opinion is not grounds for sanctions, explicitly ignoring discussion and consensus building, as well as this "covert" POV-pushing by using what appears to be reliable sources to override more reliable sources, as well as their flagrant disregard for what is due and undue (by simply including anything they agree with) means that at a minimum, a topic ban from COVID-19 indefinitely should be applied. The user was notified within the past year of COVID-19 general sanctions which will transfer to the DS authority. I'll end by adding this final diff of their response to my pointing out their use of weasel words and "scare quotes" - which gives no faith that they intend to edit appropriately in this area. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Ched[edit]
Statement by Adoring Nanny[edit]The conflict in this area is driven by the fact that some users are trying to maintain in article space the idea that there is a scientific consensus on the origin of covid. As of today, that is not the case.[49][50][51][52][53][54] All but the last of the above sources all dated within the last month. The scientific publishing process has not kept up with the discussion in the real world. Furthermore, there is press discussion that scholarly papers which take the lab leak hypothesis seriously are being rejected for political reasons[55]. In short, Wikipedia policies (such as "academic sources > news reports") are flying in the face of reality. In other words, as a matter of Wikipedia policy, there is a scientific consensus that there was no lab leak. As a matter of reality, there is no such consensus. I don't know if we want to reflect our policies or reality. That's above my pay grade.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by RandomCanadian[edit]The disregard for Wikipedia's policy and general preference for lower quality sources, including interpretation of primary sources, is not unique. Particularly troubling elements are the refusal to participate in talk page discussions (the only edits by Normchou on that talk page date from back in January - and they're not much more charming), and the ignoring of sources even when they're literally quoted in the edit summary. The long term, "slow" edit-warring is also disruptive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by HalfdanRagnarsson[edit]I second Adoring nanny. Circumstances have changed more than a bit in the past few months, with new questions arising among both the general public and the scientific community. News reports from reliable sources cannot be dismissed only on the grounds of WP:MEDRS; they too are a key source of to-date information, especially on a topic like covid that is quite significant in the public eye. It is true that the volte-face of the past few months is a bit difficult to take at face value, in that what seemed like a conspiracy theory last year now appears quite credible. However, we must avoid getting into a bunker mentality. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by WhatamIdoing[edit]I remember the sudden, striking change in the article tenor when User:Rosguill topic-banned Normchou for 90 days. It became less difficult and effortful for everyone/anyone to make small contributions, because editors didn't have to push every single word through a self-appointed gatekeeper. It appears that the long break did not produce any lasting change in the editor's (in)ability to contribute in line with consensus, and EdJohnston's warnings against edit warring in general do not seem to have had much effect. ("As an admin, I would like to avoid a block but you seem like someone who is very sure you are correct and is not easy to persuade", about this incident). Normchou's edits, taken as a whole, tend to cast doubt on scientific consensus (which is not absolute or unanimous, but which does have a broad direction at this moment) and sometimes seem to have a specific political slant as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by Bakkster Man[edit]There are two issues at play. One is the contentious content dispute. This isn't really the venue for resolving that dispute, but it is definitely the backdrop of the case. Uncertainty, a quick moving nature, and allegations of 'cover-ups' in the press all make it more difficult than the standard content dispute. I suggest this means more need for conscientious consensus building and courteous editing than the average content dispute. The direct issue is whether Normchou's edits amongst that backdrop have been constructive or disruptive. Echoing RandomCanadian, my primary concern is an apparent refusal to discuss and reach consensus through Talk pages, seemingly preferring to edit war[56][57][58][59] and attempting to make his case solely through edit summaries (sometimes arguably WP:POINTY summaries[60][61][62]). This makes consensus building more difficult than it needs to be, if not nearly impossible. Particularly contrasting the above edit war behavior with the commendable behavior of Korny O'Near regarding the same dispute[63] where he went to Talk page, participated, and we seem to have resolved the dispute with better wording[64]. Echoing WhatamIdoing, if this was a first offense I'd hope that a warning and coaching could improve user's consensus building and result in constructive editing. Having been topic banned once before makes me, unfortunately, less hopeful that the user is interested in and willing to improve behavior. Outside of DS and the previous topic ban, this behavior might be tolerable (if annoying). In the context of disruption to a delicate process of consensus building, on pages under GS/DS, and the prior ban, I regrettably agree that further sanctions are necessary. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Forich[edit]I am sympathetic to Normchou, because I see his edits going in a direction than can improve the articles on Covid's origin. This makes my opinion biased, please note that. The DS rule is a remedy to behaviour described as disruptive, and that "members of a twitter group" engage in "using Wikipedia as a soapbox", among other issues listed in the original arbitration request. If Normchou has been disruptive, or if he is a member of the twitter group that misuses Wikipedia, he should receive the sanctions per DS. The first allegation , being disruptive is clearly defined. In my opinion, Normchou crossed the line on being tendentious, and ignoring community inputs. I can see why others would think he is not engaging in consensus building, but I disagree with them. On behaviour grounds, Normchou's edit summaries seem complete and reasonable to me, although he falls short on the guideline to "Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page". From his statement, he felt that the Talk Page of "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19" was WP:Gaming (deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia). Is Normchou using Wikipedia as a Soapbox (a medium to express stirred passions on a subject)? I don't believe so, if that was the case he would be writing long opinions and walls of text in talk pages, which is the opposite of what he has done. So, in summary, I think Normchou is guilty of showing tendentious editing, and ignorig community input, and doing it enough number of times to be perceived as disruptive. I suggest we warn Normchou on the specific behaviour of stop being tendentious and ignoring community input. His previous topic ban was made because of WP:Battleground, so I am unsure if it counts as precedent that we should take into account for the current case (it was a different case, IMO). Finally, Normchou's statement was, at times, showing disregard for the inputs of the community, which is a sign that he is not interested in fixing that part of his disruptive behaviour, and should be taken into account in the final decision. Normchou if you are reading this, retract and ammend the attitude inmediately or be prepared to face the consequences. I want to put in the record that I condemm his attitude in that regard. Also, I oppose a definitive ban even if allowed by DS. --Forich (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by Geogene[edit]I'm concerned that Shibbolethink considers these diffs [65], [66] as disruptive, claiming that Statement by Empiricus[edit]I basically agree with Adoring nanny observation. NormChou is an important corrective to one-sided, purely scientific article editing, including by incorporating new aspects of 2021 into the article. For this, as far as the laboratory is concerned, sources other than MEDRS can be used according to our guidelines. NormChou does not do anything else - it is difficult to deduce misconduct from this. Ultimately, it's just a matter of different interpretations and source preferences. That he not much discussed is certainly a problem, but "the consensus logic" of the discussion side is completely unproductive. I can understand this. On the discussion side, the zoonosis theory is treated as truth - the consensus of science, but without proof - and everything that speaks against this, especially the laboratory thesis is a conspiracy theory and is endlessly discussed. Everything what does not fit is selected, for e.g. the important statements of the G7 for a new investigation - is not included. A serious misconduct of NormChou I can`t see, if these would be a warning would be sufficient. A ban would worsen the article quality and remove the article even further from reality. He is a main author of the article and he should continue writing here, maybe seek a little bit more consensus.--Empiricus (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by Aeonx[edit]I find Normchou explanation justifiable, and would be disappointed to see Arbitration/DS against Normchou result from a failure in the community to apply to good editing as a community responsibility. I am particularly concerned about the zealous editing, and presumptions of superiority in editing relating to claims about what is a lower quality source or what is/isn't undue weight or the current scientific consensus. Building on Bakkster's comment, I find that generally on the whole Normchou's edits to be NET constructive, whilst certainly not free from disruptive editing, there are positive edits which need to be valued by the community. I also oppose the view disruptive edits are always a bad thing, debate and conflicts in editing are good, they just need to be managed and conducted in a way that is conducive to achieving editorial consensus. Aeonx (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by CutePeach[edit]I appreciate Shibbolethink inviting me here but I believe he filed this case too hastily, and it seems to me he did so on the beckoning of RandomCanadian [67], who is the one who effected the regime change of sanctions to this venue [68] Just the other day, I removed politicians from Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#International_politicians'_calls_for_investigations [69] and it was subsequently restored by RandomCanadian as part of a peculiar revert that didn't affect any of the later edits made by Shibbolethink [70]. RandomCanadian’s then revert appears to be part of a well crafted scheme to provoke clashes with other editors, leading to the escalation of our content dispute to this forum where the hope is that administrators will treat it as a conduct issue. Note that this is the second time RandomCanadian restored the politicians title [71], after Normchou first took it out [72], so it was only reasonable for Normchou to counter RandomCanadian’s revert, selflessly throwing himself on a grenade aimed at me, leaving the politicians change for me or another editor to defuse. Read further for context. Before Darouet’s changes [73] [74], this subsection was originally a section titled "International calls for investigations", which made a lot more sense as an introduction to the subject. Neither Darouet nor RandomCanadian explained their changes on the talk page, and instead reverted Normchou and myself on restorations made to this important introductory section, also without explanation on the talk page. The introduction section of the article now is a ambiguous transclusion from SARS-COV-2 which pushes the actual subject of the article below the fold, which Terjen raised in a discussion here [75]. In a possibly final act of courage as a Wikipedian, I have again removed politicians from the title [76], added the official WHO source about the World Health Assembly motion [77], and restored it as the introductory section to the article [78] (notwithstanding a revert attempt by RandomCanadian seconds after I made it). I fully expected RandomCanadian to make this revert, but didn’t know he would get to it within seconds, and now Arbcom should be able to see why editing in the COVID-19 origins topic area has become so precarious and risky for the rest of us. If Darouet, RandomCanadian, or any other editor wishes to further revert my abovementioned edits and has valid reasons for doing so, they should start a discussion on the talk page, as per WP:BURDEN. To my knowledge, there are no RSs claiming Australia and Germany’s calls for investigations were politically motivated and the source I added shows this is standard procedure before a WHA. I also created a new Renewed Calls for Investigations section as per the G7 statements reported by CNN [79], which RandomCandian also reverted a mere minute afterwards. I would also encourage other editors here to participate in the above mentioned discussion started by Terjen, so that we can form proper consensus on how to order and structure the Origins section. Placing the background of the Origins section before a background of the Investigations does not make much sense for an article titled the way it is. CutePeach (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Drmies[edit]This just to note that I am very impressed with the lengthy diatribe of the new SPA CutePeach, and that I came this close to blocking them for their behavior on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Striking how verbose they are here and how they refused to communicate there during an edit war they instigated. Maybe I should have blocked--it might have prevented them from posting here and muddying the waters even further. If we're arbitrating, it'd be nice if someone looked at their contributions to see if a topic ban is in order. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishes[edit]There is no scientific evidence that the virus did not escape from this lab or another lab by an accident. And even the artificial selection or genetic manipulations can not be disproven solely by the sequence analysis unless someone finds exact populations of bats and intermediate hosts (if any) where the virus came from. The origin of the virus (i.e. the specific population of bats, the intermediate host and patient zero) are very much unknown. I believe all non-medical aspects of this controversy should be covered per WP:RS rather than WP:MEDRS, and most aspects of it are not medical. But the actual issue here is different: can all these users work collaboratively with each other? And if they can not, what should be done about it? I can not read all these comments, but the initial diffs brought by the filer do not seem so convincing to me because the changes by Normchou can be arguably viewed as slight improvements, although the bias and the amateurish approach by Normchou are also evident.
Statement by Terjen[edit]This is a bizarre complaint, with many of the diffs showing Normchou removing WP:UNSOURCED claims inserted by other editors, primarily the submitter of the enforcement request. WP:VERIFY explicitly allows removing material unsupported by cited sources, placing the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate verifiability with the editor who adds or restores material. In the first three diffs [102][103][104] Normchou removes the WP:UNSOURCED claim that when WHO reported that the virus likely had a zoonotic origin they were "Echoing the consensus among virologist". This WP:OR claim of scientific consensus was repeatedly reinserted by RandomCanadian [105][106] and Shibbolethink [107][108]
[109]
[110], despite WP:V saying unsourced claims WP:RS/AC sets the bar high for claiming academic consensus, including explicitly requiring
Statement by DGG[edit]I do not think Normchou has been editing very effectively, and I;ve told him so. But I see this as part of a campaign to drive away editors who want to cover the real-world discussion of the possibility of COVID19 being of laboratory origin. Those trying to remove or slant our coverage are pretending that the hypothesis has never been covered by any RS, ignoring that both Science and Nature have covered it, and the NYT has run a long series of articles about it. nominator here is pretending that there is consensus that it can not be covered except by MEDRS quality sources, it has no place on Wikipedia. That's a biased and false interpretation of MEDRS.-- the true meaning of MEDRS is that we cannot say definitely it is right without MEDRS quality sources saying so, but nobody is proposing to do that. I am not certain whether or not we have MEDRS quality sources to say it is wrong, but that's irrelevant to discussing it both as a scientific hypothesis and as a social fact. .Some of those above have taken the psition that the likelihood of the hypothesis is relevant. They're wrong. The question is whether it is discussed by RSs. The hypothesis may be wrong, but as it has been covered by RS it is hardly fringe. We shouldn;t be presenting the hyporthesis has proven right, or as proven wrong. And even when it is proven wrong, as I expect it will, it still needs to be discussed, because its a major chapter in the history of thinking about this disease. They ae now trying to remove one of the editors who oppose their narrow perspective. The motivation for their view escapes me. It can't be science, because science takes alternative hypotheses seriously until proven wrong, and even then continues to discuss them in full detail as examples. I can only suppose that they are saying that because the hypothesis was originally proposed by a group with a far-right wing bias, that it must necessarily be so wrong we should pretend it has never been proposed and that no responsible publication has ever discussed it. This is the very opposite of science, of NPOV, of WP:V-- an unprecedented perversion of the encyclopedia. I do not think all the neutral admins to be actually neutral,. Some of them have been expressing similar views about restricting unduely our coverage of fringe topics, and of expand our definition of fringe as broaqdly as possible. I see one of them is using this ANI request to suggest the removal of anothereditor who has been expressing similar views. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by Guy Macon[edit]On User talk:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin? Normchou called another editor a troll.[111] The post was clearly not trolling but was instead simply an opinion that Normchou didn't agree with. I asked Normchou not to do that.[112] They responded by doing it again.[113] I have warned them using stronger language.[114] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by ProcrastinatingReader[edit]I recall the user from this ANI discussion. Today I stumbled across their essay. The "A simple calculation" section is pure disinformation, and indicates that the user is either trolling or has such a strong POV that they cannot edit usefully in this area. Their other edits on articles have been equally problematic. While I'm here, respectfully, I believe DGG may need to reconsider his statement about an alleged "campaign". An editor misrepresenting sources should be a problem for everyone. As DGG admits, Result concerning Normchou[edit]
|
Belteshazzar
[edit]| Belteshazzar blocked indefinitely as a normal administrative action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:51, 26 June 2021 (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 Belteshazzar[edit]
This user was topic banned from "Complimentary or Alternative Medicine, broadly construed"[115] and his appeal failed[116].
This user was blocked twice for violating this topic ban. This week he just came off his second ban.
Individually all these edits are pretty minor, but making them with a topic ban, right after coming back from a block, is pretty clearly a way of testing the limits of his topic ban, and signaling that he continues to edit in this area despite his blocks.
(Many of Belteshazzar's edit-warring edits are to Bates Method, I don't think it's a coincidence that this user's recent edits are to the article about the Bates Method's most prominent proponent besides Bates himself.)
(I apologize if I've filled out this form incorrectly. I don't normally do this. ApLundell (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)) User:Masem makes the point that the article for Bernarr Macfadden is currently rather credulous and does not actually use the phrase "alternative medicine". However, I don't think we need to seriously consider the possibility that Belteshazzar was unaware of Macfadden in this context. Macfadden was a major proponent of a pseudo-scientific medical technique called the Bates Method and the Bates Method seems to be Belteshazzar's primary area of interest. He has been blocked more than once specifically for his edits about the Bates Method. It stretches credulity to imagine that Belteshazzar was not aware of Macfadden's connection with alt medicine in general or the Bates Method in particular. ApLundell (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Oh, and I see that he's made a spelling correction edit to the article since this discussion started. He's making it very clear that he believes that he's allowed to make edits in his ban area, so long as they're "good" edits. I'm certain it has been explained to him that topic bans don't work like that. ApLundell (talk)
I've notified the user here : [124]
Discussion concerning Belteshazzar[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 Belteshazzar[edit][125] Guy Macon's first two diffs were from well before I was topic banned. Belteshazzar (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC) I don't think anyone until now had actually pointed out WP:BMB to me. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Regarding Psychologist Guy's statement "If I can remember correctly Belteshazzar was trying to remove the term "faddist". This user has always had a POV in trying to remove criticisms about those who have historically supported the Bates method." Before my topic ban, I did remove "physical culture faddist", but that was mainly to eliminate repetition of "physical culture" in that sentence. In general, no, I did not try to remove criticisms of Bates method proponents. I advocated for removing "ineffective" for reasons which I explained previously. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Seraphimblade Yes, I understand. I suppose I should take them off my watchlist, as seeing the recent activity was mainly what prompted me to edit or comment. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by Guy Macon[edit]
Statement by Shibbolethink[edit]
Statement by Psychologist Guy[edit]I believe that Belteshazzar should be indef blocked from Wikipedia, none of their edits have been productive. I have never seen a user have so many chances, ignore policies and everyone's advice and continue doing what they do. I reported this user 3 times I believe in the past at the admin board. There has been huge discussions on their talk-page and on the Bates method in the past, I am talking thousands and thousands of words it is all a waste of other users time. This user does not listen and only edits the same kind of content. I believe this account is a case of WP:NOTHERE. I haven't fixed up the Bernarr Macfadden Wikipedia article yet it was on my to-do-list but Bernarr Macfadden was an alternative medicine activist and well known advocate of quackery. His books support fasting, hydrotherapy and orthopathy. The book "Naturopathic Physical Medicine", a textbook on naturopathy even lists Bernarr Macfadden as a naturopath. Macfadden was a proponent of the Bates method. Belteshazzar knows this because they edited material about it on the Bates method Wikipedia article, "In 1917, Bates teamed up with "'physical culture' faddist" Bernarr Macfadden on a "New Course of Eye Training" which was heavily advertised in the Physical Culture magazine". If I can remember correctly Belteshazzar was trying to remove the term "faddist". This user has always had a POV in trying to remove criticisms about those who have historically supported the Bates method. So in short, Belteshazzar is well aware that Bernarr Macfadden had authored material supportive of the Bates method an alternative medicine. Macfadden was an advocate of alternative medicine and this user's edits are in violation (yet again) of their topic ban. And lets not forget Belteshazzar also edited the William Bates talk-page. They have been asked many times not to do this but they do not listen. Good faith cannot be assumed over and over. This negative behaviour is also soaking up time of productive editors of this website. Belteshazzar's talk-page has had 10 (!) users telling this user not to edit anything on the Bates method. You can't keep giving this user chances. I have seen users on this website banned for making one off foolish mistakes. This user doesn't not deserve another chance in my opinion, they have had too many chances and they blow it every-time. They have ignored advice from ten experience users and in total have been blocked for 31 hours, then 2 weeks, then 1 month and then 3 months. If they are blocked for 6 months or 1 year they will just come back and do it again. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by Roxy[edit]When I saw the first entry in the uninvolved admins section, I automatically did that thing dogs do with their heads when they cant quite believe what they are hearing. Anyway, for those not playing along at home, Diff1 and Diff2 show beltshazzar editing the bates method talk page today!! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Belteshazzar[edit]
|