Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 6: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Substing templates: {{Unsigned}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info. |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 95:
::::''I'm not an Arbitrator (and I reported the KyndFellow issue above).'' Disruptive acts aren't the issue here. If a page-banned user edits their banned page, even in a non-disruptive fashion, they are subject to being blocked. However, a third party may be believe it is okay (helpful even) to edit on behalf of the banned user. There needs to be a routine warning for the third party in this situation, per Carcharoth's suggestion. Only then could the third-party editor reasonably be subject to the banned user's penalties, per Fred Bauder. / [[User:Edgarde|edgarde]] 07:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Fred's statement is either misleading and trivial (of course if someone reproduces the behaviour that lead to the banning of a user, he or she will be in trouble) or, in my opinion, neither fair nor useful. If someone is banned from a store for shoplifting, we don't forbid others to shop for him. Likewise, if someone has been banned from an article, we ban the offending behaviour, not necessarily (all of) the content. Otherwise we would open up a huge can of worms. What is "collaboration"? Is some piece of information tainted forever because a banned user told me about it? Or even just broadcasted it to the world? How do we detect off-wiki collaboration? I would certainly like to hear some other arbitors opinion, and/or a more detailed answer from Fred. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::*Not at all. In many jurisdictions, an accomplice to a crime is just as culpable as the primary party. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
:There are instances where an individuals judgement is suspect, to the extent that their contributions are a net negative, even though some of the contributions would be good. Filtering the contributions through a third party can mean that overall contribution is positive. So I wouldn't like to see the option of using third parties eliminated outright. Regards, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 21:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
:*Certainly some discretion should be applied when judging the edit. Someone should not be condemned simply by association if they have done nothing questionable, but making edits requested by a banned user in that user's stead is something that will be more looked at with more discrimination, at the very least. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
The arbcom has dealt with proxy editing (editing an article in the place of someone who has been banned from it) previously in one of the Lir cases. We prohibited the practice. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Line 147:
:::::It was your repeated "thought crimes" (if you want to call them that) of repeatedly attacking other admins that brought the action on you in the first place. You are now making attacks on the ArbCom. How has your behavior modified since you were originally placed on probation? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::No complaints have been made about me and no penalties have been applied. (Your comment belies a misunderstanding of the situation in any case, because the probation was a secondary element and does not apply to commenting about admins.) This is because I have avoided controversy and done nothing to rouse anyone's ire. As you can see, the ArbCom itself acknowledges that much, so it is strange to me that you are disputing it. I do not claim that criticizing admins was being treated as a thought crime; I claim that holding a particular opinion about past events is being treated as one. Are you confusing these on purpose to try to discredit my arguments? [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:* Everyking, if your edits have truly been constructive, then the remedies of the ArbCom decision should not affect you in any way, except for the article ban, which was placed for good reason. Your contributions are respected, and please understand that these remedies are preventative in nature and not punitive - they are designed to prevent further disruption. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
:**There is no article ban, so it must not have been "placed for good reason". I've already responded to the "this shouldn't affect you" argument early in this discussion. Please familiarize yourself with the situation before commenting. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:***I did. I don't know how you believe that reasoning personally, but I do not find it compelling. With all due respect, your self-esteem is a secondary concern. The integrity of Wikipedia comes first. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
:***Didn't I respond to the ''exact same thing'' earlier in this discussion? I specifically addressed the issue about the ruling supposedly being in Wikipedia's interest, and agreed that Wikipedia's interests are more important than my own. You do not seem to have even read the discussion on this page, let alone researched the long history behind it all. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 01:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
:*As I said, I read it. I just fail to find the arguments compelling. Really - shouldn't you go edit some articles or something? This discussion seems to be doing nothing but wasting time. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
:**I haven't taken a break from editing to argue with the arbitrators; I can find the time to respond to them, and to you, without cutting back on editing. I also don't agree that this whole discussion was a waste of time, because I gained significant understanding about the ArbCom's views—most importantly that they want me to renounce my opinions in order to have my restrictions lifted. Previously I had believed that simply doing what they said and not getting into any controversies would satisfy them, or at least I had thought there was a pretty good chance that would satisfy them. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 11:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:***Noting that my opinion does matter, I think that what little Ive come across of your behaviour has been good and well. however, I also fail to see instances where these remedies have adversely affected you (maybe I just haven't run across it.) Historically good conduct has shortened or softened remedies, but not have them dropped entirely. The problem lies in the fact that this is an entirely subjective matter, and depends on the opinions of the Arbitrators and their willingness to revisit the case. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
OK, let's make this easy.
Line 163:
* Accept to permit occasional well-considered comments by Everyking on policy questions and administrative actions. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 18:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* Reject. [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 17:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC) I do not believe that we should revisit prior decisions without clear and compelling reasons.
* Accept to at least re-consider some of the remedies, per Fred. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
* Reject. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 20:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}
Line 173:
**Any user may be an informal advocate, but an AMA advocate speaks for the user they represent. They are not a party but may speak for the party they represent. In the past no advocate has effectively represented a user, but the role is open. Great care should be taken to make only motions which make sense to the arbitrators. Focus on adequately presenting relevant evidence in a useable form and on framing proposals in terms of core Wikipedia policies. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': A rule that a party's advocate in a mediation automatically becomes a party to an ensuing arbitration case might inadvertently discourage editors from taking on the role of advocate. Hopefully, it is a rare situation in which an advocate's own conduct becomes the focus of inquiry by ArbCom, so I don't think formal "party" status is necessary. A sensible rule would be that advocates have the same standing as any other editor to present evidence, make workshop proposals, etc., but that of course when an advocate is commenting in the capacity of advocate, it's good practice to note that fact. When an ArbCom case is filed, providing courtesy notification to anyone who was acting as an advocate is also an appropriate thing to do. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 19:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' • As an advocate myself, I would say that we are just another editor, and should be treated as such. There should be no preferential or special treatment given, and their status as a party should be judged on the merits, or lack thereof, of their actions, and the length of their involvement. If they are not directly involved in the dispute, other than by acting as an advocate, than I would be compelled to think that they would not be a party. After all, we do not bring the previous mediator on a case into a case simply because they were the mediator in the prior attempt at dispute resolution. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
*I'd suggest doing something like putting the comment in the party section and then signing it, say, "NvT as advocate for RealParty". Unless acting directly as advocate -- i.e., speaking for them -- then you're just another editor with a hopefully useful comment. I think ArbCom can figure out the difference between the real parties and the advocates and is unlikely to include the advocates in any remedies... --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]</small></sup> 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Line 188:
*Well, I really know we're an impediment, but we try to do the best we can, including myself. And have an idea: please send me a feedback on my work on the ongoing Starwood case after its closure and tell me how I did it and what shall I improve or if I was really useless? Honestly, it can be a good start! --[[User:Imaglang|Neigel von Teighen]] 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
**I can't speak to the Starwood case (which I haven't yet looked at), but in all past cases, the AMA advocates' arguments have amounted to nothing but pettifoggery. If you wish for things to go different, then - and I say this admittedly without looking at what you have been doing there - I strongly suggest you advocate for the person are representing, and avoid resorting to the AMA's standard toolbox of dilatory tactics. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*Personally, I feel that Advocates ''could'' be of use, but currently and in the past they have '''not''' been. The problem is that when someone makes an argument on one person's behalf and it is struck down, they tend to take it as a slight against them. I feel that it is important that AMA advocates hold themselves to a certain decorum when working in a case. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
**This is why we thought in our [[Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Meeting/December 2006|last AMA meeting]] to do gather arbitrators with our Coordinator and Deputies to talk about these things... Well, in summary, the answer to my request is: "Advocates are the same as anyother editor in the case". Have I undertood it well? If so, then, we can say this request is closed, wouldn't be? --[[User:Imaglang|Neigel von Teighen]] 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*I honestly must say that I find myself taken aback by comments such as ''"In short, the AMA is useless,"'' but I cannot deny that ''historically'' such observations have been true. In the past, members of the AMA were causing havoc by bringing cases that were far too young in the [[WP:DR]] process to MedCom and ArbCom. This, in turn, was mostly due to two things: 1) Advocates who did not have enough direction or practical experience and 2) the fact that the AMA was practically inactive and running "on its own" without any sort of supervision or direction. People were "signing up" with no communication between members and no idea of what to do, the request system was horrific, and the previous Coordinator had resigned months earlier with no acknowledgment from the Association. (This is the state I found it in when I joined). <br/><br/>Recently, with many Advocate efforts, there has been a resurgence in membership, a reorganization of our structure and and influx of zeal to help and because of that the AMA is back on its feet. We've kept the same goal that we initially held (helping disputes on Wikipedia) yet have a very different way of going about things. As a result we have ''already'' relieved ArbCom of dozens of cases and saved many hours of precious time by reducing the escalation of conflicts as they arise and are referred to us.<Br/><br/>Things are working well, but they are far from perfect yet, and I feel that the next logical step is for the AMA to foster a closer, functional, and working relationship with ArbCom in order for our processes to be more efficient, and in the end, put less strain on [[WP:DR]]. If we end up doing "our job" properly, even fewer cases will rise to the level of Arbitration, and those that do should be properly researched, formed and submitted. What my wishes are in discussing this would be to see that there is some cooperation between us to further these goals and make Wikipedia a better place. <Br/><br/>-- (AMA Coordinator) <small>[[User_talk:The_Thadman|אמר]]</small> <tt><b>[[User:The_Thadman|<
I had suggested that we open a formal hearing on this but there wasn't much interest from the other members of the committee. I'll throw out a few comments informally here since I've seen the AMA in action before and have a few specific concerns and believe I can see both sides:
Line 225:
::::::I guess that's one way to look at it, but the solution offered still isn't helpful. Nothing personal. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
*As Fred Bauder said, the gauging of consensus is not something that lends itself well to hard line rules. That is why we have a special permission for users that guage consensus in promotions - bureaucrats (they do other things, too, but that's why the permission was created IIRC). It's a tricky business, but not unsurmountable. When in doubt, further discussion can never hurt. Requests for third (or hundredth) opinions can be useful. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
::Ned, in this situation the result ''was'' "reasonably clear" (80% supermajority over a relatively minor issue) but a vocal minority engaged in move warring and disruption. We all agree to operate on consensus, and in most cases policy discussions sort of peter out when the parties get bored, or realize they are losing, and find other things to do, leaving the active particpants to implement the consensus result. Here there was a small but very vocal minority that did not accept the result, possibly because the people who were telling them that they lost were the people they had been arguing with all along, and possibly because there is no "official" way to close a policy discussion. (Unlike XfD, where there is a clear procedure for ending the discussion, announcing the result, and implementing it.) The arbitration remedy authorizes the participants in a debate to close it when consensus is demonstrably achieved, and announce and implement the result. (Although, with all due respect to Fred and the other arbitrators, I think it should have said "uninvolved" editors or admins, and I would hope that in future situations, a majority faced with a vocal and upset minority would seek outside help.) [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Line 265:
::Of course, I disagree with many assertions made by Will Beback and Thatcher131, plus assertions that I may anticipate will be made by Fred Bauder, based on my earlier [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche#From_clarification_request|clarification request]]. Rather than responding point-by-point to those assertions here, I am asking the ArbCom to open a formal appeal on this matter so that it may be discussed in depth. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 15:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Arbitration cases should not be reopened or revisited without clear and compelling issues. Is there a case where these sources are not being allowed? If so, they shouldn't be re-removed without discussion on the talk page - consensus is what powers Wikipedia. If one of the banned users is adding them, then an appeal to [[WP:AE|Arbitration Enforcement]] should be made. [[WP:AN/I|The Administrator' Noticeboard]] may be a good way to get a range of opinions on the issue. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
::::The list of [[User_talk:Tsunami_Butler/sandbox#Examples_of_problems_created_by_the_present_interpretation|examples]] that I provided are all recent cases where Will Beback removed material in a manner that was, by my reckoning, arbitrary and senseless. In each case, editors from the affected pages protested on Will's talk page, making clear that they held no pro-LaRouche POV. The one older edit on the list was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deregulation&diff=10568210&oldid=9873857 this one] that was referenced in the second ArbCom case. I was not a party to these disputes.
Line 281:
:The reason I think that this appeal deserves to be heard is that the ArbCom precedent, as it is presently being interpreted, makes a special, and I believe unique policy with respect to ''EIR''. It essentially makes ''EIR'' an ''exception'' to [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:OR]], by saying that citations from ''EIR'' may ''not'' be evaluated under these policies, but must simply be excluded out of hand. There are plenty of highly partisan media publications which are used as sources when appropriate, or excluded as sources when appropriate. If the ArbCom is to make a policy that ''EIR'' is a special and unique case, I think that it warrants a formal hearing. Incidentally, I do ''not'' think that this policy, as it is presently being interpreted, is clearly enunciated in the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche|"LaRouche 1"]] case; the ruling says that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." The interpretation that anything from a LaRouche publication is axiomatically OR comes after the fact. My personal interest is that this is also now being used to exclude ''EIR'' as a source specifically in "the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles," which also seems to go beyond what the ArbCom ruled in this case. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 07:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::Tsunami, LaRouche publications don't count as reliable sources, and may therefore be used only in articles about LaRouche and his movement, and even then with certain limitations — for example, when used in LaRouche-related articles, they can't be used as sources of information about third parties. That the publications are not reliable sources can be demonstrated by reading their contents, and by examining the extent to which those contents are entirely at odds with material found in publications known to be reliable. One example that serves to illustrate is that LaRouche believed employees of the British royal family were plotting to kill him just a few years ago, and he apparently warned the White House that they might be plotting against the president too. I forget the motive, but I think it had something to do with Diana. Any publication that routinely published this kind of material would find itself regarded as an unreliable source for Wikipedia; it isn't anything against LaRouche as such, but against material of that nature. The ArbCom rulings are one source that prohibits the use of LaRouche publications, except in limited circumstances, but other sources prohibiting that type of material are [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:BLP]], and [[WP:RS]], the first three of which are policies, the fourth a guideline. To have LaRouche sources declared reliable, you'd have to change several key passages in these policies, as well as overturn ArbCom rulings. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
:::SlimVirgin, I have seen from various talk pages that you are an outspoken critic of LaRouche, as is Calton. The article you mention, which you linked from one of the LaRouche articles [http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1999/2632_brit_death_threat.html], is not as simplistic as your description suggests. I could also say in response that ''EIR'' warned of the demise of the U.S. auto industry, and of the Bush administration's intention to go go to war against Iran, well in advance of other media, but the other media are now echoing ''EIR'' warnings. Therefore, for a time, ''EIR'' was "entirely at odds" with other publications, but in the long run, this was not the case.
Line 295:
:I am also requesting some sort of relief on the specific issues I raised. The practice of hunting down and purging LaRouche citations as in these [[User_talk:Tsunami_Butler/sandbox#Examples_of_problems_created_by_the_present_interpretation|examples]] seems silly and disruptive. I don't think the arbcom should condone it. I am also asking for some sort of intervention with respect to [[Lyndon LaRouche]] and related articles, where there are perennial edit conflicts because of a few highly aggressive critics, who have opened accounts as editors at Wikipedia and wish to load those articles with self-citations. If it is forbidden to supply material, such as the aforementioned quotes from interviews, from LaRouche publications in response, it becomes very difficult to balance the articles, creating problems from the standpoint of both [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:BLP]]. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::I strongly agree that this issue needs further discussion, although I'm unsure if ArbCom is the right venue. As these kinds of otherwise considered crank sources become more popular and, to a degree, accepted, it is important for us to acknowledge them, so that the integrity of our NPOV policy is maintained. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:Wizardry Dragon|<
:::''The practice of hunting down and purging LaRouche citations as in these examples seems silly and disruptive''. Nope. Given Mr. LaRouche's range of -- shall we say odd -- opinions on a wide variety of subjects (ask him about 20th-century music sometime) and he and his followers's willingness to push them aggressively, I'd call it the opposite of "silly and disruptive". --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 08:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Have you actually looked at the [[User_talk:Tsunami_Butler/sandbox#Examples_of_problems_created_by_the_present_interpretation|examples]] in question? Nary a one of them involves LaRouche's opinion on anything. Nor were the relevant editors "followers of LaRouche." --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 07:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Line 341:
::FWIW, in the absence of any allegations of improper behavious by [[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] (and, as far as I am aware, his behavious has been exemplary), I think we should accept that lots of water has flowed under this bridge and we should move on. -- [[User:ALoan|ALoan]] [[User talk:ALoan|(Talk)]] 12:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:I think this is something that some of the members on the Committee back then may be able to answer better than I can, but if the Committee back then did indeed promise a review and it has not done so yet, then it should be done so now. (However, I haven't reviewed the situation and am relying on my memory - perhaps the intent of the Committee then was to only review if there were complaints received? Can someone clarify this?) Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
::Looking at that link, it does not specify that there has to be complaints, just says that it would be reviewed in two months. <blockquote>We therefore reinstate Carnildo's adminship, on a probationary basis, for a period of two months, after which his activities will be reviewed by the arbcom.</blockquote> – [[User talk:Chacor|Chacor]] 10:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Line 469:
* I disagree with the framing in the question, which starts from the assumption that this controversy is primarily an incident in RM's life. Our regular editors of Canadian topics seem to be of a clear consensus that the notability of the controversy is independent of what later happend in RM's life, and it would be notable even if she had vanished from the public eye thereafter. Some have, though I don't opine on whether the group would agree, even gone so far as to describe RM as a figure of dubious independent notability in a controverst on unquestionable notability, and thus would frame the question more in the form "Is it worth having a stub on a figure of no great notability if it prevents coverage of an indicident that of unquestionable notability." My personal opinion is that both framings are important ways to look at the question, and neither framing is correct in the absence of the other. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
** GRBerry's comment is a good one, and it explains much of the feeling I had that I am not only in a different country from the other camp, but in another universe as well. I had no idea that Rachel Marsden was involved in politics or journalism before the Arbcom case began and I started following it. I only recognized the name from the SFU fiasco. [[User:Clayoquot|Kla'quot]] 04:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
*I agree with Sam and Guy, and I'm concerned that GRBerry overrode the deletion review, in which most of those commenting wanted to keep the article deleted. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
*I missed the vote, so let me support Sam's sentiment here. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] <sup>[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну]][[Special:Contributions/Humus_sapiens|?]]</sup> 10:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
*:The DRV close included relisting at AFD. If deleting is clearly correct, why is nobody bothering to contribute to the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy|AFD]]? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] ([[User talk:GRBerry#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/GRBerry|contribs]]) </span>
Line 532:
I see that Dmcdevit is arguing not to revoke the decisions. My comments on his reasons for not doing so are:
#dmcdevit doesn't answer '''why I should be 'punished' a second time''' for a 'crime' which I had already been punished for. If so, could I be 'punished' for the original edit war yet another time?
#I don't it mentioned anywhere in the Kosovo arbcom case that edits on the Srebrenica massacre article should be considered. It might be worthy of interest that [[User:Asterion|<
#It seems somewhat odd that a, in my opinion, '''wrongfully made decision should be upheld by events which took place after that decision was made'''. In my opinion, the original arbcom decision should be upheld or revoked based on what took place prior to the original decision. Any subsequent behaviour should be judged on its own merits. I see this process as revoking an incorrect judgment, not as an appeal for 'early release'.
Regards [[User:Osli73|Osli73]] 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Line 565:
:: The anon is back, but has an account now. I filed a checkuser, and it indicated that it was likely that the new user was also the anon. The edits are not taking place on the same article, but a related one. [[User:TDC|Torturous Devastating Cudgel]] 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, there is always the usual [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process, at the end of which, if the editor is still disruptive, is arbitration. You could try filing an arbitration case now; acceptance would depend on whether the arbitrators agree that the editor's previous pass through arbitration and current behavior are enough to demonstrate the futility of running through the whole DR process from the beginning. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Thatcher and The Epopt. However, one can approach the Arbcom, or even AN/I, if disruptive behaviors that were once under Arbcom sanction recur, and the process for getting those sanctions re-applied or even extended are often much less formal and quicker. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<small
{{abot}}
Line 642:
:[[WP:SPA]] says that editing a small number of articles qualifies; and that this may be ''perfectly innocent''. The general remedy speaks this way: ''Editors are encouraged to use judgment and discretion in enforcement of this remedy, rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion.'' You may feel the finding of fact is harsh, but it is not now going to change. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
::I don't think that answers the question. Is Mael-Num a SPA? Personally I don't think he is, and I understand that it's editorial discretion as to who is considered one, but as Mael-Num was a party to the arbitration, and given the potential negative action he could suffer from editing the article if he is considered an SPA, I think it should at least be clarified as to whether he is or not. [[User:Swatjester|<
:::My reading of WP:SPA is that [[User:Mael-Num]] is an SPA. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Line 659:
[[WP:RFAR/HWY]] was an arbitration case that placed me on probation in relation to highways articles because of a naming dispute that got ugly. However, not only have I refrained from disrupting the highways articles (except for one controversial block many months ago), but I have made over 13000 edits since that time. The naming dispute has also been satisfactorily resolved at [[WP:SRNC]]. Page moves have taken place, and there is peace at the highways section of Wikipedia. I have been influential in building the project infastructure ([[WP:USRD/NEWS]], massive assessment of articles, infobox changes at [[WP:CASH]], and much more). Thus, not as a license to disrupt articles, which I would not do under any circumstances, but as the removal of a blotch on my Wikipedia reputation, I am requesting the removal of my probation on Wikipedia. (Please make this motion separate from the other highways request below). --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]]''' ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]]) 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
:I wasn't involved with the Arbitration Committee back then, so looking at the past case quickly, it appears that there's no expiration for the probation, and that you were blocked in August 2006 for violation of this probation, as you mentioned above. Is this correct? Other arbitrators who were with the Committee then may also wish to comment here, since I'm not familiar with the case. Thanks. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] <small>([[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <
::This is correct. It was for changing the bolded words to match the article titles and for removing links to redirects (which is why I view it as controversial as these are normal Wikipedia activities). However, even if it was justified, it has been several months, the issue is resolved, I have made about 10000 edits since then, etc. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]]''' ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]]) 22:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Line 696:
:'''''[[Special:Permalink/119872600#Appeal of probation in WP:RFAR/HWY|Original discussion]]'''''
{{atop}}
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways]] was an arbitration case that placed me on probation in relation to highways articles because of a naming dispute that got ugly and out of hand. However since that time (9 months ago) I've made over 1000 contributions and edits to the project without any blocks or bans levied against me in that time. Nor have I disrupted or attempted to disrupt any articles, hwy related or otherwise. Page moves have taken place per a consensus that was developed out of this arbitration case, and there is peace at the highways section of Wikipedia. I would like to get this block lifted so as to clean my record and allow me to contribute with a clean slate as I would like to continue my contributions to hwy articles. Also I'd point out that the other two active users who were put on probation have also had theirs lifted as well and they had incurred blocks during they probation period [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways&diff=117982689&oldid=83367503)#Probation_repealed/], something which I did not have against me. [[User:JohnnyBGood|<
:I have made a motion on your behalf as you should be able to see below. A clarification: User:PHenry did not violate probation either, to my knowledge. [[User:Morven|Matthew Brown (Morven)]] ([[User talk:Morven|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Morven|C]]) 07:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Line 714:
I gave Tsunami a final warning on March 13. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATsunami_Butler&diff=114744280&oldid=114193297] On March 30, s/he added an arguably defamatory claim (not LaRouche-related that I'm aware of) to [[John Siegenthaler]], writing that Siegenthaler had been involved in a "racially motivated" sting operation masquerading as a journalistic investigation when he was the publisher of a newspaper. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.&diff=118982931&oldid=118631004]
:The Seigenthaler thing is indeed a LaRouche claim; I just wasn't aware of it until now. [http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3414racist_gore.html] Seigenthaler has been attacked by LaRouche because of his early association with Al Gore, and Al Gore has become a LaRouche enemy because of his views on global warming. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
The source she used, the [[WorldNetDaily]] website, is perhaps okay for non-contentious material, but not for BLP criticism, and it anyway said nothing about the alleged sting operation being "racially motivated." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17703] [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] removed the edit as "defamation." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.&diff=119047953&oldid=118982931] I feel that anyone who adds an unsourced accusation of racism to a BLP as prominent as Siegenthaler's, together with a poorly sourced allegation of journalistic dishonesty, doesn't have the interests of the project at heart and is unlikely to change after nearly six months of editing.
Line 720:
To be fair, I should add that Tsunami is not as bad as some of the previous LaRouche editors, and was helpful on one occasion in keeping inappropriate material out of [[Jeremiah Duggan]]. I added a quote to the article from a press release issued by Duggan's mother's lawyers alleging that LaRouche's wife had made a negative comment about Duggan soon after his death. Tsunami pointed out that, even though the sources were lawyers, their press release was self-published, and self-published third-party sources aren't allowed for biographical material about living persons. This is correct, so I reverted my edit. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremiah_Duggan&diff=113700099&oldid=113621338] However, the few occasions of positive editing are very much outweighed by the disruptive defense of LaRouche.
In case it's helpful, here's a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=104792903#Request_for_appeal_of_precedent_from_LaRouche_case previous request for clarification brought by Tsunami] in January 2007, when she asked that the ArbCom rulings about LaRouche publications be repealed. Here are [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision|LaRouche 1]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Proposed decision|LaRouche 2]]; [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Proposed decision|Nobs01]] also had some LaRouche-related decisions in it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
====Response====
Line 742:
*"It was removed from a section of [[Political views of Lyndon LaRouche]] with the header "Conspiracy theories." It strikes me as appropriate that views of LaRouche that are described as "conspiracy theories" be sourced to LaRouche. If it is a "major LaRouche conspiracy theory," it would be inappropriate to omit it from that section."
:*It involved BLP violations, which is why it was removed, as several of us explained to you at the time. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
*"The John Train Salon story is the LaRouche organization's response to the attacks by Berlet and King, which dominate the Wikipedia articles. Under NPOV it should be included. There has been a Wikipedia article for the past two years called [[John Train Salon]], which was recently deleted out-of-process by SlimVirgin."
:*No, there was an article with that title created in December 2005 by Herschelkrustofsky. There were no reliable sources to support it, so the page was redirected to [[Political views of Lyndon LaRouche]]. Then it was speedied by me because the story consists of a set of completely unsupported BLP violations; even the title may be a BLP violation. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
"Regarding her accusation that my edits violated the ArbCom rulings, I have read the rulings carefully, and I have asked SlimVirgin to specify how I violated them. She answered by saying only, "You're acting to promote LaRouche." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=114322367&oldid=114321182] However, it is clear from the ArbCom decision in question that "promotion of LaRouche" means inserting references to LaRouche in articles where his views are not notable. The heading of the section in question is [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision#References_to_Lyndon_LaRouche|References to Lyndon LaRouche]]. SlimVirgin is trying to obtain a "revisionist" interpretation of this decision, which would mean that any objection I raise to the many policy violations of Cberlet and Dking may be considered "promotion of LaRouche." This is the crux of the matter."
:This is exactly the kind of discussion we used to be forced to have with Herschelkrustofsky, Weed Harper, C Colden, Cognition, etc. There's no understanding of the need for reliable sources, and no appreciation of the need not to defame living individuals, unless those individuals happen to be Lyndon LaRouche or his wife, at which point [[WP:BLP]] is suddenly understood with astonishing clarity. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
::The various LaRouche rulings have not really been kept up-to-date with the evolution of policy—even the most recent considerably predates a number of significant policy developments in 2006 and 2007—so I do not think they should be interpreted as providing for broad restrictions on behavior; the main remedy imposed in them that was not applied to specific parties covered only the introduction of LaRouche-originated material into unrelated articles, in any case. I think anything other than a community sanction here will require a new case to consider the various related issues more thoroughly. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Kirill, the usual thing with LaRouche editor blocks is to ask the ArbCom for clarification. Having yet another case that relates to LaRouche would surely be overkill. (We've had LaRouche 1, 2, and Nobs01 that contained LaRouche decisions, and numerous clarifications and mediations). [[WP:NOT]] is policy and the LaRouche editors use Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas, with scant regard for our editing policies, including BLP. During a previous clarification, the Arbcom replied that: "The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles. LaRouche publications are useful sources about LaRouche's views about LaRouche himself and his organisations / affiliated parties, but are not acceptable sources about anyone or anything else." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=87319887#Lyndon_LaRouche] This is what Tsunami Butler was trying to do by adding the John Train Salon section to [[Political views of Lyndon LaRouche]]: use it as an excuse to talk about other people. Here are a list of LaRouche-related arbitrations, clarifications, and mediations in case it's helpful: {{tl|LaRouche Talk}}. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
::::I think that Kirill has hit the nail on the head, and SlimVirgin is attempting to change the subject. I know that SlimVirgin has orchestrated the banning of a number of editors that she prefers to call "LaRouche editors" for the purposes of [[Poisoning the well]] -- but in none of these cases have I seen ''any'' evidence that the editors she banned were "using Wikipedia to promote LaRouche's ideas." What in fact these editors did (the most recent example that I know of was [[User:ManEatingDonut]]) was to object to the violations of policy, which I enumerated above, by editors Cberlet and Dking. It is in fact Cberlet and Dking that are using Wikipedia to promote themselves and ''their'' ideas, many of which fail the test of notability. Cberlet and SlimVirgin have on a number of occasions insisted that the ArbCom decisions have certified the website that Berlet controls, that of [[Political Research Associates]], as an all around Reliable Source. I find nothing in those decisions to support that argument. It is also the case that the LaRouche ArbCom cases predate the [[WP:BLP]] policy, and I think that many of the more venomous attacks that appear in the LaRouche articles, sourced to Berlet at the PRA site, ought to be re-examined in light of BLP.
Line 781:
:If I may respond here, I would like to point out that SlimVirgin is proposing to ban me under the ArbCom remedy against "promotion of LaRouche," and as Kirill has noted, the edits of mine that SlimVirgin is objecting to do not constitute "promotion of LaRouche" as specified in the decision. I am also puzzled by your comment that "[e]xpansion of the original research of Lyndon LaRouche and his associates beyond articles with cover him and his associates is not acceptable," since the only articles that have been discussed here are articles which cover him and his associates. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
::LaRouche may be used as a source on himself and his group, but may ''not'' be used as a source on anyone else. You were trying to use him as a source on the activities of people associated with the so-called John Train Salon, but LaRouche articles may not be used as an excuse to write about other people. The ArbCom has said: "The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects '''includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles'''" (emphasis added). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=87319887#Lyndon_LaRouche] Are you willing to edit in accordance with this? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
:::Yes. But if, as a corollary to your request, LaRouche and his movement are not permitted to respond to the vituperation from Dennis King and Chip Berlet that presently fills the articles about him, then it seems reasonable to me that the self-citing and other quotes from these two minor critics be reduced to a level that is commensurate with their notability. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
::::The problem for you is that they are widely regarded as experts. Dennis King has written the only English-language biography of LaRouche, and it's frequently used by journalists. Chip Berlet is a known and respected researcher, and a specialist on LaRouche. The BBC's flagship news program, ''Newsnight'', used him last year when they were doing a segment on the LaRouche movement. Are you saying Wikipedia shouldn't rely for its coverage on the same experts that the rest of the Western media relies on? That's a serious question, by the way, not a rhetorical one. Given that they're widely acknowledged as experts, how do you suggest we handle their input? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
:::Like I said, they should be featured at a level commensurate with their notability. Their commentaries seldom appear in the legitimate press. It has been suggested before that a good yardstick would be to cite them when their comments appear in major press, like the BBC show you mention, but not give them carte blanche to self-cite from the websites they either control or dominate. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 793:
::::This springs from the LaRouche view that the British establishment is out to get him, the Queen's advisers want to kill him, MI6 left a death threat in a woman's magazine for him a few years ago, etc.
::::I'm afraid I can't see any practical alternative to an indefblock here, because Tsunami clearly has no intention of stopping this. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
:::::And I agree with TB that this is a content dispute that SlimVirgin wants to win the easy way, by banning an opponent. SlimVirgin is not a neutral admin, or she'd be arguing for the banning of Dking for massive incivility and excessive self-citing. Incidentally, the alleged OR in [[Jeremiah Duggan]] was not added originally by TB, but she did restore it after SlimVirgin deleted it. The sentence has now been changed by consensus to something different. --[[User:NathanDW|NathanDW]] 18:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 806:
::I can't see a single edit of yours which didn't relate directly to Luyndon LaRouche or his ideas, and I don't see any of edit which didn't improve the position of LaRouche or, in some cases, disparage a group or individual he oppposes. Rather than simply reacting to the edits of Dking and Cberlet, your editing appear to be a primary reason for their current involvement. It's a pattern of editing that we've seen often before and that has resulted in 3 previous ArbCom cases involving HK. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 18:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Tsunami continually responds to questions about her own editing by trying to shine the spotlight on Chip Berlet and Dennis King, even when they have nothing to do with the issue. I noted above that she added to [[John Siegenthaler]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.&diff=118982931&oldid=118631004] that he was involved in a "racially motivated" sting operation masquerading as a journalistic investigation when he was the publisher of a newspaper, an edit that is arguably defamatory, and which Kaldari removed as such. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.&diff=next&oldid=118982931] The source she used didn't say the investigation was "racially motivated," [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17703] and the issue originates from a LaRouche publication. [http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3414racist_gore.html] She did this ''after'' being given a final warning. I therefore see no realistic possibility of change from her. Perhaps Tsunami could explain that edit (without reference to Berlet or King, please). [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
::::I would explain it as a mistake. I left [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaldari&diff=119355924&oldid=117793827 this message] on Kaldari's talk page, to which Kaldari did not respond. I also discussed it on the talk page of the article, and have not pursued the matter further. BTW, check the date on the LaRouche publication that you are claiming is a factor. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 812:
I would like to respectfully submit to the Arbcom the following: if there were a serious problem of disruptive "LaRouche editors," you would think that a wide range of Wikipedia admins would have noticed it and called attention to it. Instead, it's always the same two admins, SlimVirgin and Will Beback, coming back here every couple of months to say "off with his head" regarding some allegedly "LaRouche-supporting" editor. It has been suggested that SlimVirgin and Will Beback have a strong POV with respect to LaRouche -- some might even say a bias (consider [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin this].) Has the ArbCom considered the possibility that SlimVirgin and Will Beback might themselves be a significant part of any problem that may exist? --[[User:NathanDW|NathanDW]] 23:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:If you're going to make an accusation you should back it up with evidence, not just a link to SlimVirgin's entire contribution list. If you'd like to make a case about editors then you are free to do so. The LaRouche-related actions of SV, myself, and other editors have been reviewed by the ArbCom repeatedly. Except for some warnings to remain cool they haven't found fault. The problem is with the steady stream of LaRouche accounts that keep appearing and pushing the same POV, month after month, year after year. Blaming the responsible admins who patrol these topics is like blaming vandalism on the counter- vandalism unit.-[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 00:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:Here is [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] after reverting Tsunami Butler's defamatory edit to Seigenthaler leaving a note about it on my talk page, and commenting that Tsunami is "begging to be banned." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=119053353&oldid=119007340] [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
::If it were simply a matter of you and SlimVirgin, as "responsible admins," enforcing policy, I would expect to see some action taken against Cberlet and Dking. When I don't, it makes me wonder. --[[User:Tsunami Butler|Tsunami Butler]] 14:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:::If there are issues with those editors then bring a complaint. This proposal concerns your behavior, and saying "But what about them?!" is not a defense. This account appears to be sock or meat puppets of HK, and should be banned indefinitely based on the previous ArbCom decisions, including [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Sockpuppet abuse]]: "Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely." -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 19:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 822:
:Fully agree with Ral315 here, and I've had no connection with the articles in question that I am aware of. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 22:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks, everyone. A check user has confirmed that Tsunami Butler appears to be sockpuppeting with [[User:HonourableSchoolboy]], another LaRouche account. Given that, combined with the above, I'm going to block both accounts indefinitely. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
:::Would you be so kind as to explain how a check user "has confirmed" that TB "appears to be sockpuppeting"? Does that mean anything at all? --[[User:NathanDW|NathanDW]] 01:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Tsunami Butler and HonourableSchoolboy are the same editor, and they are editing from the same general area as Herschelkrustofsky. That, plus behavior, satisfies the [[WP:DUCK|duck]] test. As this thread was started by a banned user, I'm going to close it and archive it at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2]], which is where Herschelkrustofsky's ban is recorded. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 01:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
| |||