Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Cptnono
[edit]| Appeal declined--Cailil talk 12:53, 20 June 2013 (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 editors" 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 Cptnono[edit]The original request for enforcement was unnecessary for the most part. I could have weaseled out of it by not waiving one admin's reasoning for declining that was based on not being formerly notified. The requester could be seen as using AE to encourage a battlefield mentality. I took some time off from the topic area anyways. The above reasoning is not the basis of my appeal. I admitted to misusing the system when I waited a few hours to make a single edit. I assumed, incorrectly, that could state my intention and game the system single time without getting nailed. That was obviously incorrect and I am pretty adamant about protocol. I actually enjoy decorum even though I swear towards Nableezy and others too much. So the point has been made and I understand the repercussions. The reason I am making this appeal is that I wanted to double check that I was not banned from making an edit to an article related to the topic (grossly outdated Zion Square beating article) even though my IP had cycled. I don't want to game the system. One admin assumed I was some sort of snake and said that I was playing word games. No, Black Kite, tiny little changes in how things are written mean a great deal in the topic area. Even the UN realizes that. Trying to find neutral wording is a good thing which is why I opened an RfC (that I could not participate in). What might appear to be trivial can have grander implications. Note article titles throughout the Napoleonic Wars topic area. Also note that the speculation by Black Kite was not related to the reasons given in the request for enforcement. I also don't think it is appropriate for me to be severely punished partially based on admins seeing Nableezy and I on AE too much. I don't like him dragging me or others here either. I took a substantial break from anything close to AE well before this sanction. I believe that admins should be more vigilant of users overusing this venue or coming to it too hastily. Good on you for not taking on all the mean work, Sandstein. I would not have thought more or less of you either way. Please note that lack of activity under this user name is based on me not logging in to make edits in less than contentious articles.Cptnono (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Statement by EdJohnston[edit]See the original AE discussion here which led to Cptnono getting a six-month ban from the I/P topic area. The reason for the action was tendentious editing at Rujm el-Hiri, which I saw as a proxy for a dispute over Israeli ownership of the Golan Heights. Cptnono and Biosketch wanted the Rujm el-Hiri archaeological site to be tagged with Category:Archaeology of Israel. Since the Rujm el-Hiri site is in the Golan (and predates the I/P conflict by thousands of years: think Stonehenge), usage of this category would tend to affirm Israeli ownership of the Golan. If Cptnono thinks that the AE admins came to the wrong result, it would help for him to supply details. One of his edits on 10 April 2013, was to remove 'Israeli-occupied' from the reference to the Golan Heights in this article. If he was sincerely trying to improve our coverage of Middle Eastern archaeological sites he was going about it in a funny way. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Cptnono[edit]Result of the appeal by Cptnono[edit]
|
Senkaku Islands
[edit]| User:Oda Mari and User:Lvhis are topic-banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for a period of 3 months. User:Shrigley is formally warned regarding discretionary sanctions in this topic area--Cailil talk 12:48, 27 June 2013 (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 Lvhis and Shrigley[edit]
A newbie User:SummerRat has been topic banned. See User talk:SummerRat#Topic ban because of [5], [6]. Two regular editors have done the similar edits. They should be topic banned too. Especially user Lvhis, as he was an involved party of the Arbitration case. Looking at his contributions after the Arbitration, he's been a SPA. Shrigley was not an involved party, but he is familiar with Senkaku-related matter. [7] Oda Mari (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Notified. This issue began when SummerRat came to en:WP. When I first noticed SummerRat's tendentious edits was on May 15 by his these edits. [10]and [11] and I undid them. I checked his contributions and found his 8 tendentious edits on Vassal state. See the revision history and Talk:Vassal state. I was not the only one who thought his edits were POV. I saw this edit and that brought me to the China Marine Surveillance after I checked the image file. My first edit was this and I noticed Lvhis's edit. I checked the history of the page. This is SummerRat's first edit on China Marine Surveillance. Any islands names was not in the article. This is the first time he added the name Diaoyu Islands. User Widefox undid SummerRat's edits twice. [12] and [13]. Then came Lvhis's edit I noticed. Discussion concerning Lvhis[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 Lvhis[edit]
Statement by Shrigley[edit]This SummerRat business is a red herring. User:Oda Mari first disrupted longstanding text in China Marine Surveillance to engage in an aggressive, weeklong campaign to change a Chinese-origin name to a Japanese-origin name,[37][38] on grounds of "POV". This pattern has been repeated all over Wikipedia, where Oda Mari has been systematically removing one of the two widely used English-language names for the islands.[39][40][41][42][43][44] These links are all to China-related articles, where the removed name is especially relevant to direct quotes and the names of organizations. Oda Mari's intolerance about including the alternate name is matched by his intolerance for discussion and compromise. AE is not a substitute for normal dispute resolution.
Discussion concerning Shrigley[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 Qwyrxian[edit]EdJohnston asked for my input on this matter. This is a tricky point, and one that I think is probably better solves as a content matter, rather than an AE matter. Edit warring, by anyone, is bad, and is grounds for sanctions. The problem is that here I think that both sides honestly believe that they are the ones making the articles neutral, and there is currently no guidance or established community consensus about how to name these islands. There were, as we know, multiple RfCs held, each of which upheld the current title of the article Senkaku Islands and it's closely related articles. However, per general policy, just because an certain article title has been chosen by community consensus does not mean that said name has to be used throughout Wikipedia in running text (if that were true, we could never use piped links). I think that, in general, it's best to match the article title, but there may be sound reasons for exceptions, including in a case like this. I can honestly see the arguments in favor of standardizing the name "Senkaku Islands" across Wikipedia, but I can also see the arguments in favor of keeping "Diaoyu Islands" on articles specifically related to the Chinese POV. Personally, I think that what we need is the equivalent of WP:NC-SoJ for the Senkaku Islands. I have an idea for what I think those rules should be (in short, similar to but more lenient to the CPOV than NC-SoJ), but deciding on said rules is a content discussion, probably best held at WT:NCGN (with notifications to related articles and Wikiprojects). I think the reason for the recent kerfuffle is because of some attempts to push around the edges of the ArbCom decision without coming directly at the meat of the matter; in the absence of a ruleset, it's easy for well-meaning but ultimately biased participants to end up edit warring to support their own POV, each believing the other side is "obviously" violating the sanctions and NPOV. Rules (discussed, then agree upon via RfC) should essentially remove the need for established editors to "fight" for the naming they feel is appropriate. In the meantime, however, I think that established editors should stop making any changes to the use of the terms anywhere in Wikipedia, except to revert changes by IPs (i.e., the above-mentioned SummerRat, who has vowed to keep socking to support his POV) or other new users. That is, lets have a moratorium on changes, and then work out the rules together. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by EdJohnston[edit]Procedural note: I asked Qwyrxian if he would give his opinion here since he is an admin who seems to have some background knowledge of the dispute. He had previously commented in the amendment request at WP:ARCA, which User:Oda Mari withdrew in favor of this AE discussion. I will come back later to leave my own comment on this AE complaint. It would assist us in closing this if anyone who knows where the past discussions are about the naming of the Senkaku Islands if they can provide links. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Widefox[edit]
A naming convention would help. I can see the argument for standardising on "Senkaku Islands", and the argument for proper nouns using other alternatives in context, with the proviso that articles should be NPOV even if the topic is about one party, to prevent POV forks. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Lvhis and Shrigley[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
@Oda Mari, I am not going to debate content with you Oda. That's not the purpose of this board. The WP:NC-SoJ has nothing to do with this issue. WP:NC-SoJ is not mandated by the Senaku Islands RfAr or anything else to allow change the names of these islands from one form to another. WP:NC-SoJ is not a precedent. You made mass changes based on your opinion. Not on sources. Not on policy. You then engaged in reverting to maintain your preferred wording. You then asked ArbCom to rule in your favour. You then came here to remove your opponents who although are guilty of disruption, are no more guilty than yourself. There is a warning in the big red box above about the consequences of coming here with "unclean hands"--Cailil talk 22:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mrt3366
[edit]| Appeal deferred (at minimum) until Mrt3366's indefinite block is lifted. NW (Talk) 00:24, 30 June 2013 (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 editors" 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 Mrt3366[edit]Caveat Lector: AFAIK, I have never taken part in any ban discussion before. I was told to leave this appeal here by an ArbCom member. Please read the whole story, About the main issue, I think admin Fut.Perf (aka
Anything close to a timely warning I received was this. I was in the process of expanding Minorities of Pakistan. But I left that article after a big threat of block/ban and content dispute (bordering on bullish treatment) I had with the banning admin[56],[57] and he did not care to explain what was the issue (even when I approached him on his talk specifically seeking an explanation, see this). Where was the advise? Where was the keenness to explain the issue? I am 1,000% amenable to any logical advise or suggestion or open discussion, but when you're met with absolute silence you cannot but here nothing. As it seems that administrator is confusing allegations with explanations. There were allegations, yes, but nowhere was an effort made to substantiate those allegations or to guide me. Simply being of the opinion that I am not neutral is not a sufficient reason to justify the imposition of an arbitrary ban on a broad range of topics. Then after a few weeks I was banned without a methodical discussion or a WP:RFC/U or WP:AE case, I was told on my talk that I was banned for SIX months after citing one edit on another article. The justification for my ban was what I can only describe as a hollow, allegorical opacity. So far only that edit has been cited as a justification of my ban. (see this to know my views about the edit) Did I indisputably or irrefutably violate anything there? I didn't think so, I felt victimized because the ban was placed unilaterally sans a fair chance to address the issues. I became very, very, very upset and agitated. Please note the following:
The amazing thing is the banning admin didn't even care to remove that edit which was enough to get one banned for SIX months and, that too, from a wide-range of subjects. It was two days after I was banned and when in the ANI thread somebody pointed this inconsistency out, that it was taken down with a vague rationale, WP:UNDUE. Kindly bear in mind that in that article, for which I am banned, every edit was being heavily scrutinized. Nobody took any issue with that very edit. Kindly take a note of the fact that when it was finally removed the reason cited was WP:UNDUE which I think is at best a subject to editorial discretion and opinion. There was a conversation to be had on how the so-called "tendentious edit" is causing disruption. But was there any discussion after that? Nope. Did the banning admin give me a chance to explain? Nope. I am not saying I have not been wrong about anything, I am a human I have been wrong on many things both on and off wiki, but I don't push any POV per se, I really don't do that. Using Scott Adams's words, "people are so conditioned to take sides that a balanced analysis looks to them like hatred". Since when is an attempt to balance a POV claim regarded as disruption itself? I try to balance articles that have certain types of biases. Why is that a bad thing? You may answer them now but the point is these queries should have been answered before banning. Had these queries been answered and explained properly and thoroughly, like an Admin is supposed to do, I am fairly sure that it won't have come to this. Who knows? I, perhaps like most of us, might have biased views deep down but it ought not to be a reason to seek revenge or retaliation against me especially when I am more than willing to try to rectify any undesirable thing one may point out in my editing. But this ban without a constructive discussion is more than unhelpful and straining my confidence on Wikipedia's banning process. Now WP:TBAN says, "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive." Like I said, I never knowingly misrepresented any source and I always try to find sources for anything I add. Yes, I admit, sometimes well-meaning editors like me "are misled by fringe publications or make honest mistakes when representing a citation. Such people may reasonably defend their positions for a short time, then concede the issue when they encounter better evidence or impartial feedback."(cf. WP:DISRUPTIVE) But I don't wish to cause disruption anywhere. With that said, you cannot fix something that you can't even locate. Explain the issues, give me a chance and I will change. That's all I ask for, a chance and explanation of my misconduct. I will change it if something needs drastic changes. I don't know how much germane this is to my current situation but user:The Devil's Advocate wrote about the banning admin:
One must understand while talking about DUE and UNDUE weight we are essentially treading on the domain of personal opinions and the subjects I volunteer to edit are already very emotive and controversial hence garnering "support" or "oppose" !votes may have very little to do with the validity of any request, its compatibility with Wiki-Policies. Now if I may be so bold, only a handful of editors dare to edit those articles and talks containing vitriol and POV galore. Amidst all this, singling one scapegoat (in this case: me) out and banning him is IMHO not constructive. Hence, I think consistency in treating a bunch of so called "POV-editors" is indispensable to the neutrality of the articles they edit. Because the "sides" cancel out the POVs of each-other. That is how the articles on Wikipedia progress towards neutrality. Common sense would say, when a fellow editor himself is sensitive to an emotive subject he/she can perceive any editor's editing as tendentious (same might be applicable for and against me too). Although my comments are at risk of being cited out of context and/or misconstrued as are my edits, once you actually put them in proper context you may see a completely different image. Mr T(Talk?) 07:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise[edit]Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mrt3366[edit]
Statement by Yogesh Khandke[edit]Action on Wikipedia is preventive and not punitive, in what way is the ban necessary regarding Mrt3366, what is the evidence of the damage he has done to the project, and what is the evidence that he would continue to damage it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Mrt3366[edit]
|
Bobby fletcher
[edit]| Bobby fletcher is topic-banned from all edits and discussions relating to Falun Gong for one year. |
|---|
| 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 Bobby fletcher[edit]
Articles under the falungong topic area are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which state that the space is not to be used as a "soapbox for propaganda or activist editing" or for ideological struggle. But that is precisely what this user does. Few is any of his edits are genuinely constructive, and he has a checkered history of violating content and behavioral policies.
Conflict of interest and activist editing Bobby fletcher is a prolific online activist whose two main preoccupations include propagandising against falungong (which is suppressed by the Chinese government) and defending the Chinese government's actions in the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. He also seeks to discredit human rights activists, including those who have attached themselves to the falungong cause on the issue of the Chinese government's alleged organ harvesting from political prisoners.
BLP violation
NPA / Outing violations
User was previously blocked for edit warring[79] and received numerous warnings for making personal attacks[80], for reposting private or oversighted personal information about other editors[81][82][83], copyright violations[84], and ongoing edit warring[85][86][87]. He was also warned about COI guidelines and advised not to edit in article space[88], but he didn’t seem to improve. I first took this case to the COI noticeboard, but it didn't get admin attention there. Bobby’s mocking and indecipherable response to that filing[89] indicates he doesn’t understand the problem.
If a lengthy debate ensures here, I suggest admins be on the lookout for red herrings.
Discussion concerning Bobby fletcher[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 Bobby fletcher[edit]Admins, here are three most recent artices I tried to add, please tell me if they belong on Wikipedia, and/or how best to edit to avoid objection: - An article from London Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8555142/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html - An article from San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Falun-Gong-Derided-as-Authoritarian-Sect-by-2783949.php - An annoncement form the Chinese embassy: http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/t36563.htm If you have time please, please look at the other articles I've tried to add as well, and let me know the level of objection I've received/currently receiving is warranted. Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Statement by Collect[edit]I would note that the embassy document (press release) is a "primary source" under Wikipedia policy (WP:PRIMARY) and is not usable as a result. The article saying there was no massacre in the square is interesting as the defense is that most of the killings were in Beijing but outside the square - which is a matter of "precise location" rather than of whether bloodshed occurred that day. I suggest many would find it a trivial cavil. The third source proffered is one about am anti-cult convention where one expects all the groups named to be defined as "cults" by the convention organizers. With regard to any comments about a person being a "felon", Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP) is very strong and appears not to be on Bf's side here. Collect (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Statement by Shrigley[edit]Zujine's request is a case study in diff bombing. Consider which diffs are both recent and relevant, and properly presented by Zujine? Few.
Why is Zujine incensed by Bobby's mainstream newspaper links? He has accused[107] Reuters of having a "cooperative relationship with [China's] propaganda department". He also seems to have a COI in that he "used the PRC's anti-Falungong discourse as an example in [his] Master's Thesis on symbolic violence"[108]. Zujine tried to introduce his concept onto Wikipedia [109], citing a source[110] which only mentions "symbolic violence" in the context of Falungong's own use against China! How about that for source misrepresentation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrigley (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 June 2013
Response by Zujine[edit]Admins may like to know that Shrigley is not a neutral party here. He has an extensive history of involvement in this area, including in previous arbitration cases related to falungong. On several occasions he has also come to the defense of highly disruptive editors when their views align his own. There may be grounds for a separate AE case against Shrigley (who was just warned for his conduct on another China-related ArbCom case), but I won’t initiate that at the moment since I do feel it is distinct from the issue at hand here. With that said, I will respond to a few points he brought up:
Statement by STSC[edit]As an outsider on this, I don't think there's any conflict of interest unless Zujine can prove that Bobby fletcher is working for the Chinese government. So what if he's an activist of any kind, he can still be a valued contributor by injecting new information into some of the unbalanced articles. STSC (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Result concerning Bobby fletcher[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. There is clear evidence of a sustained programme of tendentious editing on the part of Bobby fletcher. I would propose a one-year topic ban from everything Falun-gong-related. To the extent that the Tiananmen issue is considered not directly covered by the discretionary sanctions rule, I'd be willing to additionally impose a "normal admin action" block for disruptive editing for some shorter period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
|
Brews ohare
[edit]| Brews ohare is blocked for one month. Sandstein 18:16, 1 July 2013 (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 Brews ohare[edit]
Discussion concerning Brews ohare[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 Brews ohare[edit]Blackburne has been policing my activities diligently for years, as evidenced by the history of this ban. His present cause is based upon the idea that mentioning some things like 'length' on the page Philosophy of science is a violation of a physics ban. The mere mention of the words 'length', 'surveying' 'intergalactic distances' and 'quantum measurement' were part of an observation on science in general, namely, that there is a connection between empirical observation and measurement in science, an everyday observation, not a physics statement. This mention is not by any stretch of imagining a discussion of physics as such. As pointed out by Collect, to interpret these words, by themselves and without adornment, in an everyday observation within a philosophy discussion, as an engagement in 'physics broadly construed' is a stretch. Besides echoing Blackburne's issue, Snowded claims that because Hawking is a physicist, my attempts to gain mention of his philosophy in philosophy articles like meta-ontology and internal-external distinction is physics. Snowded has diligently removed these references, possibly because he genuinely believes no scientist can really do philosophy. Whatever Snowded thinks, the subject of Philosophical realism, Antirealism and so forth have been topics in philosophy for millennia, and Hawking's views on realism (discussed extensively in Model-dependent realism) are philosophical ruminations, not physics. @EdJohnston: What is the purpose of making such a very wide interpretation of "physics, broadly construed"? Is it to curtail my activities as originally intended by the ban, or is it to curtail all my activities on WP to the greatest extent possible under the ban by interpreting its language as widely as it can be stretched even if that goes well beyond ordinary usage? Brews ohare (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC) More to EdJohnston: An improvement on the present wording would be a variation upon the restriction you suggest: namely, to state I should avoid all articles listed in specific categories like [[Category:Physics]] and maybe some others, and be permitted anything else anywhere else. That would at least be specific, and would exclude Philosophy of science, History of science. It would avoid silly complaints and let me know what exactly is expected of me. Brews ohare (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC) @Heimstern Läufer: A real clarification would involve some analysis of what the goal is here - if it is to limit my participation in particular subject areas, nothing would be clearer than specification of specific pages. The present 'guideline' is vague enough that it can be interpreted in ways hard to anticipate that serve no purpose for WP. Brews ohare (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC) @Cailil: You say edits about Hawking are obviously physics-related, but it is hard for me to see that as obvious. What is obvious to me is that Hawking spoke about model-dependent realism which falls under the philosophical subjects of Philosophical realism and Antirealism. It would appear that in your view the subject of 'reality' is a physics topic, which covers a large swath of WP. I think that is an extreme position. The purpose of this ban is not to make it impossible for me to contribute to WP, but to limit any disruption of WP. I fail to see that this action of mine caused any harm, and so your proposal is purely punitive. Of course, I try to avoid such encounters, but I'm not always sufficiently alert. It is hard to know what will trigger such an alarm when nothing tendentious is intended. That is why I suggest a follow-up along the lines suggested by EdJohnston. Brews ohare (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Snowded[edit]There are several other cases. In particular material from Hawkins has been introduced into several philosophy articles, and Brews has been happy to edit war to restore the material. There are several of these but here are three, maybe four, I was able to find quickly.
There have now been 3/4 RfCs called by Brews each time other editors have rejected his material but he just keeps telling them they are wrong. Its late at night, but I can find the diffs if needed.
A PS: It is worth noting that the behaviour on Philosophy articles is almost identical to the 'previous' on Physics articles. Highly combative, refusing to work with other editors. This can be illustrated by a quick look at his responses to the RfC on Philosophy, especially his refusal to let Andrew Lancaster (one of the most experienced Philosophy editors) simply disagree with him. Even when another editor did his best to mediate he was not allowed to escape even on his talk page. ----Snowded TALK 05:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Statement by Collect[edit]Brews definitely edited about Physics "broadly construed" if one uses "broadly" broadly enough. Using such links as "length" is Physics-related, as would be "height", "elevation" "size", "mass" and "weight" In short, the ban seems to indicate a huge area, and I suggest it now be given a more reasonable and sharply defined ambit. Collect (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge[edit]I don't see how any of these diffs presented by JohnBlackburne can be construed as anything other than violations of Brews ohare's topic ban. I don't know the full history of the case but clearly warning this user didn't work last time so I doubt it will work if tried again. I recommend a block of a week to a month, whatever others feel is most appropriate to prevent further violations of this topic ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Statement by FyzixFighter[edit]Full disclosure, I was a minor participant of the original case - however, I rarely have commented on Brews with regards to the case. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any admin who thinks that the topic ban of "physics, broadly construed" would include general discussion of "height" and "length". Contrary to what a few others seem to be saying, I don't think that's what John Blackburne is suggesting. However, when the editing in question includes "...atomic and sub-atomic distances..." and "For example, see quantum measurement", then I think it's passed from a general science discussion into something that pretty clearly falls within the physics-related topic ban. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment by My very best wishes[edit]This boils down to an interesting question: What is Physics? As far as I know, only something that can be actually measured and expressed by mathematical equations belong to Physics. In this regard, edits by Brews above look to me like Philosophy, not Physics. This is talk about "measurement" as a philosophical idea, not about certain physical objects whose parameters were actually measured. My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by JohnBlackburne[edit](I wasn't sure whether to add this above with my first contribution or below. If it is out of place please move it). Further to Snowded's comments and looking at Model-dependent realism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); it is in Category:Philosophy of physics and so Category:Physics and clearly comes under the scope of the ban. Brews ohare has made numerous edits to this, so much that he is the leading contributor to it, with his first contribution adding a link to the physics book The Grand Design.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Statement by Count Iblis[edit]There is no such thing that is not physics related in this universe, so the restrictions imposed on Brews are nonsensical. I suggest we lift the physics topic ban; the problems with Brews are due to escalation after escalation starting from the speed of light case. We should look at Brews general behavior and impose restrictions to deal with his general editing pattern. There are some issues here that should be looked at, it isn't physics or math that is the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I would suggest to Brews to completely ignore all his ArbCom restrictions, because they are mostly nonsensical from the point of view of actually editing articles here. It would be justified for him to do so according to WP:IAR, any objection to applying IAR cannot be based on the imposed restrictions or any other rules, it must address the actual editing of articles. Of course, he would likely be banned if he does this, but then he could always edit as an IP perhaps using a proxy server to avoid detection. I think this is better than this ridiculous circus that has been going on all these years now. The ban would be wrong, and eventually this would be recognized. But because Brews is sticking to these ridiculous restrictions that discussion cannot even begin. Count Iblis (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Brews ohare[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
MarshalN20
[edit]| No action taken. Sandstein 18:27, 1 July 2013 (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 MarshalN20[edit]
MarshalN20 was "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces". The ArbCom case locus of dispute was that it "primarily involves allegations of POV-pushing and other poor user conduct by certain editors [MarshalN20 and another one] editing Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles". The final decision was given on 23 June 2013. On 24 June (the day after) MarshalN20 complained on Arbitrator NuclearWarfare talk page that I had added a picture to Juan Manuel de Rosas article which he didn't like.[117] He said that the picture portrayed Rosas "with unnatural eyes and a strange facial formation" and that he preferred another one in black and white.[118] Three days after (27 June), Langus-TxT (a friend of MarshalN20) replaced the picture MarshalN20 disliked with the one MarshalN20 liked the most. Langus-TxT even gave the very same reason that MarshalN20 had given: "that image looks weird, his eyes appear to glow..."[119] Important: Langus-TxT had never edited Juan Manuel de Rosas article before.[120] I complained to NuclearWarfare about it and MarshalN20 suddenly appeared there.[121] On 23 June he had been warned by NuclearWarfare that, although not official, there was a de facto interaction ban between him and I ("While a formal interaction ban may not have been considered by the Arbitrators, try to treat your approach to Wikipedia as if it does exist").[122] MarshalN20 did not bother with any of that and kept discussing Juan Manuel de Rosas article on NuclearWarfare with the clear intention of turning it in a replacement for that article talk page.[123][124] Thus:
I can provide further evidences of meatpuppetry and violation of interaction ban if needed. P.S.: MarshalN20 said below that "Lecen continues to cast aspersions despite being clearly told by the arbitrators to stop". The Arbitrators never said that to me. That's part of the "Proposed principles" in the ArbCom case. In fact, according to them, MarshalN20 had "engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct". One of the arbitrators considered MarshalN20 a "civil POV-pusher",[125][126] which means someone who is "superficially polite" but who "may use sockpuppets, or recruit meat puppets", "repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing" and "hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors".
Fut.Perf., I haven't been edit warring in that article over an image. If I had, I would have been blocked. The only moment in which I did revert anything was this: [127] I simply removed all content which I had written to that article because of the dispute with Cambalachero and MarshalN20 (both who were eventually banned from the article). My attempts to add anything, not just that or any other picture, were all reverted by MarshalN20 and Cambalachero. Thus, they are hardy "pretty much everybody else editing the article". --Lecen (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Here.
Discussion concerning MarshalN20[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 MarshalN20[edit]To summarize...
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought about replying to Lecen's emotional outburst above ([157]), but a friend has recommended me to ignore and ignore again. All I'll add is that Lecen continues to accuse me of meatpuppeting (among other ugly things), which at this point is a blatant personal attack. Enough is enough, and this editor has gone way over the limit. I request administrators to please find a way to stop this.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Statement by Langus-TxT[edit]I'm copy-pasting my comment on NuclearWarfare's talk page:
Statement by Cambalachero[edit]Please close this thread. Unless Lecen provides evidence to accuse Langus of being a puppet of Marshal (something stronger than editing or talking in an article that dozens of other users edit and talk about anyway), everything else is severely going off-topic. Topic ban or not, this page is not the venue to discuss which image should be used in the article: as already said, that should be done in the article talk page. And of course, it is not the task of the arbitration comitee to settle the discussion itself and decide which image is to be used. If Lecen wants to include a certain image, and Langus does not agree with him, he must do what he has already been told to do: discuss the issue in the article talk page. Cambalachero (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Result concerning MarshalN20[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Drg55
[edit]| indefinitely topic-banned. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Drg55[edit]
Although several editors have tried to engage with Drg55 on various talk pages, he has persisted in very aggressive pro-Scientology advocacy over the past few months. He has edited disruptively, particularly on Bare-faced Messiah, which attained Good Article status earlier this year, and has attacked other editors as "unreconstructed neo fascist[s]". This is quite obviously contrary to the admonition at the top of every page in this topic area to "edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding." Prioryman (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Drg55[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 Drg55[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Drg55[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Nishidani
[edit]| The petitioner, No More Mr Nice Guy, is banned from WP:ARBPIA-related AE discussions. Sandstein 22:22, 6 July 2013 (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 Nishidani[edit]
The following diffs show behavior that can only be described as Jew-baiting, trolling and soapboxing.
Keeping it short, I chose a just few examples from the last few months to show that this is ongoing behavior. If more examples are needed, let me know. Here's a short quote from the source I supplied above: Anti-Semitic writings of the twentieth century have drawn continuously upon this notorious source and repeated endlessly "the chosen people" canard. The "notorious source" being the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Here's some more information on the subject. That someone could even try to argue that he was just using it as a neutral substitute for "Jews" is amazing to me. Sounds a lot like White people justifying their use of the N-word by saying they heard Black people using it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Saying Purim is a celebration of genocide is like saying that a couple of days ago Egyptians were celebrating sexual assault. It's a malicious attempt to paint a whole group of people as depraved. Gratuitously posting some ugly thing a Jew said in a completely unrelated discussion is at best trolling. Gratuitously comparing Israelis to Nazis in a completely unrelated discussion is at best trolling. That's what Nishidani did with the "Jewish eyes" quote in a discussion about what the Judean Hills should be called. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand and the only reason he posted it is because he thought his interlocutor is Jewish and he wanted to offend. I'd be quite shocked to see the admins say this kind of behavior is OK, but if they do I'll certainly take it to heart. @Sandstein: I supplied more than one source (and can supply more) that shows how using Chosen People this way is a slur. As for the rest, imagine someone was repeatedly making such statements against Muslims and their holidays and comparing the Palestinians to Nazis every time he thought he's talking to a Palestinian. I seriously doubt people would be so dismissive. This report is not vexatious, it comes from exasperation. I truly and honestly can't believe you're going to tell him it's ok to say Jews celebrate genocide on what is supposedly a collaborative project. Seriously? Seriously? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Nishidani[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 Nishidani[edit]I don't know whether to take this report seriously, esp. after reading the first complaint:
I suppose mispelling 'canard' is not part of NMMGG's chronic gaming of language and personal hostility to me (per this recent, and silly comment).
What NMMGG deplores is the fact I read books and allude to their contents, and indeed edit in the substance of critical Israeli (or Jewish) scholarship onto articles in the I/P area. I've often said that any comment, in response to some other editor's general remarks, which I may make on an I/P page, if queried, will be documented by the book or books I had in mind when making it. It's not me he dislikes (I can provide dozens of diffs of his antipathy): he dislikes books, or the scholarship, if he is aware of it, which is one of the great ornaments of Israeli academia. Do I really have to deal with the rest of this nonsense? I will, but it risks being WP:TLDR and I have a teaching engagement this afternoon.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course NMMGG will say I just made this up. He often repeats I am irreducibly dishonest, ('not for your personal thoughts which not only clearly influence your editing here to the point you put all intellectual honesty aside'.)Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC) User:Iselilja Please read the scholarship, and avoid the absurd spinning to 'poison the wells' of analytical discourse in the popular polemical and highly politicized modern press. The idea that referring to 'Chosen People' is anti-semitic will leave large constituencies non-semitic Christians bewildered, as you would have seen had you checked elsewhere in the book NMMGG cited for this. I.e. John Carey and Henry F Carey ‘Hostility in the United Nations Bodies to Judaism, ‘ in Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory (eds.) Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1987 pp.31ff. p.39, which argues that it is part of Christian doctrine, and that many Christians, the Pope himself (il popolo di Dio =Catholics) defend that notion as proper to themselves. It is a biblical idiom, with a huge hermeneutic literature on it, divagated on lovingly in centuries of pious literature, borrowed by many Christian nations and religious groups ('God's Own People'). This is an encyclopedia optimally based on the best scholarship not a clearing-house for the kind of shallow, loose thinking exemplified by partisan spin-meisters who can never see beyond the rhetorical advantages of engineering points of view. It is the curse of the I/P area esp. that we just don't hew closely to the calmer waters of scholarship, which has to persuade handfuls of experts, rather than win over a constituency by the mendacious manipulation of hackneyed memes. Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Sandstein Rather than bar NMMGG from AE, could he be asked to drop the almost obsessive habit of challenging me over many pages in personal terms, either as a danger to wikipedia, an antisemite, or intellectually dishonest in everything I do? If he thinks an edit I make, or an explanation of it on a talk page is wrong, there's a simple way of stating this in neutral terms, without bitching. I'm not distressed by this nonsense. It's just that it wastes time, and I don't have much of it. If I fuck up egregiously, I think he, or anyone else, should retain a right to bring me to book here. It's the snarkiness on talk pages that's the problem.Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC) No More Mr Nice Guy. Look, in the face of several sources I brought to bear, you keep this antisemite baiting up, apparently refusing to consider them. I'll withdraw my moderate request and asked you to be sanctioned for persistent innuendo, insistent WP:AGF infractions and harassment (with numerous diffs) if you persist. So drop it.Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Is the term "Chosen People" often used by anti-Semites as a slur against Jews? This is a simple yes/no question. Please answer honestly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Nomoskedasticity[edit]Huh. So when we say before a Torah reading, "...who chose us from among the peoples", we participate in an "anti-Semitic canard"? Who knew?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Now that NMMNG has fixed link #2, I'd like to suggest that instead of wasting everyone's time with gratuitous complaints he should thank Nishidani for posts like #2, which offers a real opportunity for gaining insight into a complex issue. It was an erudite and incisive contribution; it can offend only someone who needs not to encounter a perspective at variance with one's own. Needless to say, Wikipedia is not a good place for people who want not to encounter perspectives at variance with one's own. Perhaps the outcome of this AE request will help reinforce that message. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy[edit]
Regarding the latest "explanation", thats nonsense. Nishidani wasnt drawing on the Protocols, and he wasnt using it as a substitute for Jews. Reading the actual comment, and what it was in response to, makes that clear. As far as the laughable, truly, comparison between the n-word and chosen people, please, get off it. It wouldnt take me any effort to find sources that say as a matter of fact that any use of that term by non-African Americans is at least on its face racist. That you seriously think that is a comparison to be made only enforces my view that this is nothing but a pile of shit youve thrown against the wall in the hopes of removing somebody you clearly disdain. Come to think of it, besides attempting to annoy Nishidani, what exactly have you done on wiki the last several months? Oh, that and defend serial sockpuppeteers. nableezy - 14:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Chesdovi[edit]Nableezy, you are dead wrong about Purim. It does not celebrate successful genocide. In the same way as the killing of over 75,000 Syrians in the past two years is not called genocide, and the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (one of which killed 75,000 Japanese in Nagasaki in a single day) genocide, neither was the killing of a few hundred potential Einsatzgruppen in each of the various provinces of the vast Persian empire a genocide. For anyone to suggest that Jews today "celebrate" genocide is disgraceful and offensive. I am surprised Nishidani could even state the same, bearing in mind it was the Jews themselves who were victims of such a brutal genocide a mere few decades ago. It is like saying Jews believe it is permitted to wipe out any nation as long as it's not themselves! Shocking. Chesdovi (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Sepsis[edit]So, firstly 5 of 6 edits are over half a year old. Second there is no problem with the edits, we don't silence people just because they don't share your POV. Unless the Chosen People comment is actually antisemetic (I have no clue on this) there is nothing here but one editor trying to take out an editor for not sharing their POV. Sepsis II (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Statement by Iselilja[edit]While Jews as the “chosen people” has some foundation is Jewish religion and thinking, it is also a concept that has been terribly misused in anti-Semitic propaganda and is still a beloved sarcasm for Jews among modern anti-Semites. It is normally not considered good form to use it as a general nickname for Jews and I think it’s inappropriate to refer to Jews that way on Wikipedia. Even for religious and ethnic groups with a less traumatic history, it will normally be wise to avoid referring to them in the form of sarcastic nicknames in Wikipedia discussions. These kind of sarcasm do nothing to improve Wikipedia, and have the potential of hurting people and causing disruption. – Taking a quick glance of the diffs provided, several of them are pretty polemic and debate forum like, so I think a more encyclopedic is to be recommended also on talk pages , but as I understand several of the diffs are dated, this may already have happened. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Peter Cohen[edit]@Sandstein. With regards to your proposed restriction of NMMNG, I had a quick look at his contributions and in the last 500 hundred edits all but three (one to Vancouver and two to an article on an Israeli children's author) seemed to be the IP area. I get the impression that that individual is here to fight a propaganda war rather than to build an encyclopedia.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Statement by Zero[edit]I am only going to address the "Chosen People" item. Iselilja says that the concept has "some foundation [in] Jewish religion and thinking" but of course that is a serious understatement. Actually it originates in the Torah (Deut. 14.2, Ex. 19.5–6, etc) and is "a central theological axiom in Jewish tradition from the Bible through contemporary Jewish thought" (The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, 2nd edn., p. 168). Outside Judaism it has a checkered history, ranging from its approving use by generations of Christian philosemites through to its use as a weapon by the worst of antisemites. It is preposterous to damn someone merely on account of its use, as NMMNG does, without making an effort to properly understand what is meant, as NMMNG does not do. Far be from me to read Nishidani's mind, but my impression is that he was not using the phrase as a sarcastic nickname for Jews, but was referencing the use of the concept by those who invoke it as a religious basis for disinheriting Palestinians. This is a widespread phenomenon amongst non-Jews as well as Jews, like it or not. Nishidani could have been more careful in his choice of words, but there is nothing actionable here. Finally, Nishidani and Ykantor, to whom he was replying, should try harder to not discuss the topic but only the article. Zerotalk 16:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Statement by Dan Murphy[edit]Zero's comment above is a very good one (Deut. 14.2 KJV: "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.") Use of the phrase serves many purposes, and it has a long and noble and positive connotation among both Gentiles and Jews as Zero correctly points out. But NMMNG's sole purpose is to brand an editor he disagrees with as an antisemite to hopefully get him banninated! He has been continually allowed to insinuate antisemitism against others with false "evidence." He did so again in his most recent comment: "Is the term "Chosen People" often used by anti-Semites as a slur against Jews? This is a simple yes/no question. Please answer honestly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)" He's constructing a false binary with only one "correct" answer as a way to yet again call someone antisemitic without evidence. This is pretty vile stuff and you should bring a stop to it. Consider: George W. Bush, a noted American friend of Israel, delivered a speech in the Knesset on the country's 60th independence day in 2008. He said: "We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David -- a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael." His words were met with rapturous applause by his overwhelmingly Jewish audience (at about 2:50 in that video). Imagine a press conference afterwards. "Mr. President - the phrase "chosen people" is antisemitic, is it not? Answer the question!" This vile behavior has been allowed to continue for far, far too long.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Result concerning Nishidani[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The request is not actionable. Only the first edit is reasonably recent. I don't see how referring to the "Chosen People", in context a sardonic allusion to one of the ethno-religious-nationalist positions espoused by some participants to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, amounts to a slur. The article Jews as the chosen people makes no mention of such a meaning. The other, undated, diffs are from 2012 and clearly not actionable at this point, even if they were disruptive, which at first glance doesn't seem to be the case. But Nishidani (and others) should remember that Wikipedia is not the place for conducting discussions about one's personal views about real-life conflicts. Because these views must not affect the encyclopedia, discussing them here is simply a waste of time and bytes.
|