Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 64: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) m Fix font tag lint errors |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 80:
*Awaiting statements. Likely to lift ban considering conduct since [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 21:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
*Awaiting more statements, but inclined to grant the appeal; AE can always put the topic ban back if needed under the discretionary sanctions. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 02:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
*I too am minded to grant this appeal. If there are no objections from the community in the next 48 hours or so, I will propose a motion to vacate remedy 17), "GregJackP topic-banned", of the ''Climate Change'' decision. [[User:AGK|<
===Motion: Climate change (GregJackP)===
Line 90:
:;Support:
:# This doesn't seem controversial and in any case discretionary sanctions remain in force, [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 08:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
:#[[User:AGK|<
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 09:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
:# I can support this based upon GregJackP's statement that he is making this request so he doesn't worry about having to police the outer limits of the areas from which he was topic-banned, as opposed to wading back into the maelstrom(s), coupled with his good work in other areas since the ''Climate change'' decision. GregJackP, like all editors, must also continue to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Line 116:
{{atop}}
'''Initiated by ''' <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:AnkhMorpork|<b><
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
Line 142:
:Moreover, these restrictions were '''unilaterally''' imposed by T Canens '''without any previous admin discussion''' or consensus regarding them.
* '''Conclusion''' - I request that these restrictions are tightened to remedy imbalances and allow for article expansion, and that T Canen's authority to make such restrictions is examined. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:AnkhMorpork|<b><
Line 148:
:More importantly, would you consider either extending these restrictions to cover existing content or minimizing them to allow the addition of previously undisputed content?
* '''Case study for problem 2''' - Since the restrictions were imposed on the [[Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict)]] article, Dlv999 has proceeded to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoological_conspiracy_theories_%28Arab-Israeli_conflict%29&diff=514496455&oldid=514490096 remove an entire section] that had been in the article for a long time. He did do without any discussion the talk page. The section removed had previously been discussed by various editors in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zoological_conspiracy_theories_%28Arab-Israeli_conflict%29#Conspiracy_Theories this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zoological_conspiracy_theories_%28Arab-Israeli_conflict%29#Partisan_Pigs this] thread. Dlv999 had previously [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoological_conspiracy_theories_%28Arab-Israeli_conflict%29&diff=prev&oldid=477848023 contributed] to the very section that he has now unilaterally removed. This exemplifies how the current restrictions are being gamed and the need for discussion has been obviated for anyone seeking to remove content. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:AnkhMorpork|<b><
=== Statement by AndyTheGrump ===
Line 163:
===Statement by Activism1234===
IP 24.177.121.137 commented below that he/she disagrees, which is fine. But the IP is also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoological_conspiracy_theories_(Arab-Israeli_conflict)&diff=514247485&oldid=514245791 encouraging] people to ignore all rules and simply ignore the restrictions T. Canens has imposed, because they feel it fits ignore all rules. I don't think this is acceptable behavior, and find this problematic. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><
*'''@ Andy the Grump''' The article was previously nominated for deletion, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Animal_conspiracy_theories_involving_Israel passed] with flying colors, along with many admins agreeing it should be kept. It is false to assume that the point is to "make Arabs look stupid." I don't think either of us are mind-readers, and it wouldn't be right to characterize some of the neutral admins and editors on that AfD as voting for an article to "make Arabs look stupid." The article already survived an AfD - consensus has been established that it should be kept, and the article shouldn't simply be deleted. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><
*'''@ The Devil's Advocate''' One of the sources described it as a myth. Is the exact wording "conspiracy theory" needed in the reference? --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><
**Thank you for that reply. I'm not sure whether I agree, but I'd say that's more of a content-dispute and not relevant here. I appreciate the response. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Activism1234|<b><
=== Statement by TC ===
Line 325:
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*'''Decline''' appeal. In my view, the case for overturning the sanctions is not compelling enough to justify the risk. [[User:AGK|<
: Will somebody move to vacate [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2#Andries banned|R1.1 of ''Sathya Sai Baba 2'']]? [[User:AGK|<
*Would be willing to consider this. No blocks since 2006, user talk page looks fine, reduced but continued editing history, no apparent issues with his few comments to the relevant talk pages (a restriction that was lifted back in 2008). This case is 5 years old; I think we can probably find a way to give it a try. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 15:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
*I could go for lifting this topic ban, and giving consideration to either invoking remedy 5 to impose standard discretionary sanctions on the topic (Which would almost surely be the case already if this were a 2009, and not a 2006, case.) or granting AE authority to reimpose the topic ban on this single editor if problems arise. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Line 348:
; Oppose
:#I support the idea, but I can't support ''anything'' this nebulous, as there is no solid indication what this "probation" is. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 02:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
:#Like Courcelles, it's not clear to me precisely what 'probation' means. [[User:AGK|<
; Comments
Line 368:
; Oppose
:#How far are we going to stretch the standard discretionary sanctions system to take this gamble on a topic-banned editor? Either leave the appellant banned, or unban him entirely, but don't pass a motion that insures our decision by extending a ''system of last resort'' to an article that has been off our radar for years. [[User:AGK|<
:# Per AGK. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 10:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
:# Also per AGK. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Line 495:
{{user|Masanori Asami}} was simply disrupting the article [[Ryukyu Islands]] from some as of yet unclear (but as far as I can tell Taiwanese nationalist) point of view and I requested intervention, particularly because of content forking and now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ryukyu_Arc&diff=516240491&oldid=516232246 repeated claims that I am not qualified to edit Wikipedia] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ryukyu_Arc&diff=next&oldid=516247396 that I have some sort of alterior motive]. Asami is not here to edit constructively, and I saw ANI as the venue to have him removed posthaste. I honestly don't think that the Senkaku ARB case really carries here but seeing as Asami claims that the Senkakus are the Diaoyus and belong to Taiwan there might be some merit here.
Oh, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FSenkaku_Islands&diff=516264850&oldid=516263987 all of this] was nice, too.—[[User:Ryulong|<
A [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lothar_von_Richthofen&diff=516265495&oldid=516265446 third] posting of his claims that I am not qualified to edit Wikipedia, because I have some alterior motive.—[[User:Ryulong|<
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=516273421&oldid=516270437 This is getting out of hand]. And Lothar, I guess you are right that it is worth looking into, particularly because Asami believes that the Senkaku Islands are not part of the Ryukyu Islands and should be called the Diaoyu Islands. However, I'm not sure of the reasoning behind his disruption to remove any and all mentions of the northern island chains from the page as well as constantly insisting that the Japanese definition of the islands be used rather than the ones both the US, UK, PRC, and ROC use that are pretty much independent but all identical.—[[User:Ryulong|<
Masanori Asami's comments below further illustrate that he is not [[WP:CIR|competent]] enough to edit the English Wikipedia. He persists in [[WP:NPA|attacking myself and Lothar]], believes that the "Senkaku" moniker should be changed just for this dispute, and continues to bring up the content dispute despite this not being the proper venue.—[[User:Ryulong|<
:@Shrigley: I realize that my original nationalistic labeling was incorrect. I've mentioned this in the ANI thread that this germinated from (also I'm far from being Japanese).—[[User:Ryulong|<
=== Statement by Masanori Asami ===
Line 603:
**Allow me to repeat Newyorkbrad's observation: Despite continuing to edit Wikipedia, Ohconfucius has not responded substantively to the breaches of guidelines and return to previously sanctioned behavior alleged in this complaint. I will place a talk page entry noting the expectation that his next edit to Wikipedia will address this complaint here. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
***I'm not finding the answer particularly plausible, OhConfucius. You don't explain why you undertook to continue editing date-related material, and frankly, your return to editing under an alternate account, to conduct date-related edits when I'd clearly told you ''twice'' that you needed to answer this charge of misconduct before doing so, is more concerning than any script error. Throughout this entire return, you claimed to be retired, only amending that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOhconfucius&diff=513109557&oldid=513097314 in the last day or two]. You spun a compelling tale in email when this issue was first raised, explaining why you would be less active, and you then reiterated your desire to leave the community entirely after the Falun Gong 2 finding against you. Yet, a few weeks later you're back, editing dates surreptitiously. Why should the community believe you when you say you won't cause any more problems, given your rather poor track record of congruence between your recent actions and recent statements? [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 05:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
*Concur with Hersfold's reading (and my colleagues' comments) that no sanctions are active. [[User:AGK|<
*While I agree that no sanctions are active, a return to the same behaviour that led to sanctions in the past is a serious and concerning pattern. I would also like to hear from Ohconfucius on this; however, I would not rule out the reinstatement of sanctions if there has been recidivism. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 00:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
* I'd also like to hear a response to the issues here from Ohconfusius. Could one of the clerks please remind him? [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 09:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Line 658:
=== Statement by AnkhMorpork ===
This echoes my previous concerns regarding these novel restrictions and their susceptibilty to abuse - which took all of two days to manifest itself. I support the need to reevaluate the efficacy of these restricitons and to consider extending them to equally cover existing content in this article. Currently, they simultaneously preclude good-faith additions and improvements, yet allow unilateral content removal by individual editors that totally eschew any attempt at collaborative discussion seeing as the need for it has now been obviated. While the restrictions were well-intentioned, they are proving wholly inadequate. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:AnkhMorpork|<b><
=== Statement by Brewcrewer ===
Line 674:
There have been cases where sections have been removed that even uninvolved editors disagree with removing. There wasn't any discussion to remove it. But once removed, no matter what the reason, it's very tough to get it back in - because a lengthy discussion with consensus is needed, and that consensus will just be broken by one editor who opposes putting it in. So what we're getting here are bogus excuses to remove content that even uninvolved editors disagree with, all in "compliance" with the restrictions.
I think they should definitely be changed. I really don't see how this article can be that much more special and contentious than some other I-P articles here. The normal rules in ARBPIA should suffice here, and they've been working up until two weeks ago, when the restrictions were made in response to a report filed because an editor violated 1RR. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Jethro B|<b><
@Dlv99 - <s>with respect to Tijfo, as far as I'm aware he wasn't involved in the previous Arbcom clarification/amendment thread here, and opened up this one recently as a result of the AE thread.</s> In addition, although not commenting on admin bias at ArbCom, the admin who blocked Bali was not an admin this AE thread or the ArbCom clarification thread here, so I don't think that'd count as rejecting proof of bias, if bias does exist here. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Jethro B|<b><
@Dlv99 - thanks, didn't notice that, although in both cases it's been opened by 2 different editors in response to two different stimuli, both of which I feel are legitimate. However, you should be aware that this thread isn't meant to sanction you, which is the AE thread, but rather as an offshoot of the AE thread to discuss the restrictions as a whole. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Jethro B|<b><
@AKG - Really? Let's forget the glaring issues with Bali's version... He tried to insert it into the article once. He got reverted. Rather than discuss it and try to get it inserted, what does he do? He waits a few days, maybe the editors will go away, and then inserts it again. He doesn't explain in his edit summary "Reinserting content that was reverted a few days ago," giving people like me the impression this is completely new. If your edits are reverted, how can you just come in a few days later and expect to put it back in without a discussion?
Then we have some glaring issues with it. Firstly, the attempt to minimize the conspiracy as very brief and quick, along with [[WP:OR]] (exactly what the restrictions are meant to eliminate), weasel wording, and a POV editorial bias.
In short, if Bali felt his edit was the best version, he should've participated in the [[WP:BRD]] process. Not "bold, revert, revert a few days later" process. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Jethro B|<b><
@Tijfo - I don't see the connection between some article called Persecution of Muslims and this article. I've never edited that article or its AfD, and others involved in this dispute haven't either. There aren't restrictions on that article like there are here. In short, it's not relevant here, unless it's a cunning attempt to get some editors here to vote on its AfD, but I know you to be a better editor than that so I'm really perplexed at the reason for mentioning it. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Jethro B|<b><
=== Statement by TC ===
Line 700:
That being said, you have twice explained that your restrictions were predicated on your personal views regarding the subject. The imposition of the restrictions should not determined by whether you ''"had, and still have, little confidence in the quality of the existing material."'' Yet, you unilaterally imposed unique restriction designed to promote your particular point of view in a content dispute without deigning to seek admin consensus for this measure. In the words of Silktork: ''"I also share AnkhMorpork's concern that general editing restrictions are being applied to all users without there being a discussion first."'' Why are you of the view that your view is of pre-eminent importance that you, by yourself, can seek to forcefully alter the shape of this article through use of administrative privilege? I remind you of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#For_administrators|discretionary sanction guidance]]: you are expected to balance the provision of ''"responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground"''. I submit that the you have restricted good-faith improvement entirely and compounded this by allowing for pernicious abuse of the restrictions, to the extent that exasperated editors that have never previously participated in these discussions or topics are imploring for an alteration or arbitration enforcement.
As to your comment that this was recently discussed, I would assume that you are cognisant with what PhilKnight said: ''"Obviously these restrictions are innovative, and it may well be prudent to evaluate their effectiveness in due course"''. Well the answer to that is obviously they're pathetically useless and when you have editors returning from 6 month sabbaticals, two days after your restrictions, to remove vast sections with nary a talk page comment, I am surprised that you see this in any other way. Or then again, based on your above predilections, perhaps not. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:AnkhMorpork|<b><
As an aside, do you feel that the previous discussion at Arbcom in which I questioned the efficacy of your novel restrictions and their susceptibility to gaming, coupled with your personal declaration that ''" I had, and still have, little confidence in the quality of the existing material"'', might affect your objectivity in assessing at AE whether content removal games your restrictions that you previously vouched for? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:AnkhMorpork|<b><
=== Statement by Dlv999 ===
| |||