Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Promethean (talk | contribs) at 16:17, 27 May 2009 (→‎Statement by Promethean). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for amendment

Request to Amend Prior Case: DreamGuy 2

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Promethean

Per [1] - It seems that the vast majority of DreamGuy's incivility stems from heated debates WP:AFD. Given this, Is it possible to use secondary sanctions such as page/namespace bans when there is a clear link (as determined by an enforcing admin) between a certain page/namespace or forum and his violations of his behavioral editing restriction. In this case we are requesting a 2-6 month ban from WP:AFD as determined by a mentor.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DreamGuy: I wish to note that DreamGuy's 1rr restriction is not as voluntary as much as he is trying to deceive it to be. It was mandatory in return for an early unblock from one of his numerous previous incidents. I also note that he seems to think that discrediting an IP user who initially brought the extent his misconduct to light will in someway weaken the case against him, which it does not. He also makes ad homenium arguments against other users and does not address the issue of his conduct   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DreamGuy: The 1rr is mandatory because you agreed to it in return for an early unblock, Its mandatory because you cant just start ignoring it. You said you would abide by it and now you have to wether you want to or not, that is what mandatory is, look it up in Wiktionary if you wish. Oh and I note that your the one who has a editing restriction they have violated around 30 times recently, not I, so please stop trying to discredit me as it wreaks of baiting. And I with to note that this is not a personal dispute, Until a few days ago I didnt even know you existed on this earth (never loan Wikipedia), But today I find you making ad homenium attacks against an IP user who reported your gross misconduct and blatant violations, So now I'm following up  «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arcayne

DreamGuy has not followed either the letter or spirit of the ArbCom behavioral restrictions. To date, he has accumulated almost a dozen temp blocks for violations of civility, which would seem to indicate that the short-term blocks are not sufficient to the task at hand, as DG has chosen to ignore these restrictions, arguing each and every time that the fault lies with others. His behavior has not improved substantially since the AE restrictions were set in place. While it would be easy to call for an indef block and finally be done with the matter, DG's often quality edits barely equal the overwhelming BITEy and uncivil nature of his edits and edit summaries (which stifle discussion and chase away editors both new and old). The AE sanction calls for a year block; I think that something approximating half that with a mandatory period afterwards with a mentor. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DreamGuy: I think he is distorting the numerous complaints against his actions and behavior. Note that the one diff supplied presents the single case where it was found that his behavior was not in fact at fault; DG's cherry-picking conveniently overlooks the many, many other times he has been reported, found at fault and been subsequently blocked. This is not about me, as I have never encountered him in AfD; frankly, I try to avoid interacting with him.
How many voices need to join the chorus before DreamGuy realizes that almost all of us are singing the same song? It might be that the anon is a blocked account - until the checkuser is done, we AGF that it is not. Either way, even a broken clock is right twice a day: DG has had dozens of interactions with folk that take issue with his behavior. The problem is not with us. The 1RR step is to be complimented, but if it cannot be coupled with civility and a willingness to play well with others, the improvement strikes me as somewhat shallow. We all have users we have had bad interactions with, but we are talking about dozens of experienced users and admins here. Pointing the finger at everyone else only works to a point; they may be imperfect, but what does it say when they all say the same thing about the same user? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DreamGuy

It disheartens me that some people are willing to jump to a conclusion over there before I even had a chance to respond and are willing to take the accusations made by an anon IP (extremely likely to be a indefinitely banned editor User:Azviz) at face value. Actually looking into the edit diffs provided there shows a good percentage of no bad behavior whatsoever -- use of word "Pshaw" in a response, patiently explaining that claims in a BLP need reliable sources, good faith disagreements about reliable sources. Any of those edits that could be accurately described as uncivil were as part of wikihounding by that banned editor, a likely reappearance of that editor under a new name, and some extremely aggressive and uncivil actions taken against me by others. ArbCom is about solving problems, right? Not about letting edit warriors bait and use ivil POV pushing to ultimately prevail. Banning me from AFDs just mean that the editors in question -- all of them major warriors in AFD related maters -- get to continue their bad behavior not only with one less person to take a different side but knowing that they can target other people for similar wikihounding and actions in hopes of getting them blocked too.

Frankly, if any sort of action is going to be taken against me, it also needs to be taken against the others involved, who were far more uncivil, and seem to be violating a whole string of more important policies, like sources on BLPs, getting around bans, and so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Arcayne seriously overstates his case. He has a long history of filing false accusations against me out of some revenge motive over something that happened from years back. His claims about the block lengths are simply false. The escalating blocks system set up would get nowhere near a year. It's supposed to escalate, and I don't think it's ever gotten beyond a week, and the length of time is supposed to reset. I should also point out that I voluntarily limited myself to 1RR, so I am on more restrictions than what the sanctions originally called for. Arcayne seems to want to try to fool people into thinking some longterm block is called for, when in actuality this is just another case of the people complaining just hoping to game the system so they can continue their own bad behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I finally figured out who Promethean is and why he is so set on trying to get me banned. Apparently he is upset that I objected to him non-admin closing an AFD as allegedly having consensus for "Keep" when there wasn't even a majority of votes there that called for "Keep"ing the article. He got all upset and said he wants to see me banned from AFDs, and this is part of his strategy toward that end. When a brand new IP editor first started making these accusations on ANI, he ran with them and strongly resisted anyone looking into that IP for being a banned user. And he also doesn't have a lot of room to be complaining about other people for incivility. DreamGuy (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Promethean: "Mandatory in return for"...? No, not mandatory at all. I suggested it myself, volunteered to do it, and the block in question was almost over so I had nothing to gain by doing so other than to try to improve things. I did not have to accept it, as I could have waited out the block. Nothing about it was mandatory. But, again, are you here to try to resolve conflicts or just to try to give a spin on things so you can get someone blocked you do not like? I addressed my behavior over on the ArbCom page. You haven't addressed your own behavior or that of anyone but me. Conflict doesn't happen in a vacuum, and it can't be solved by people trying to use blocks as a tool to prevailing in a personal dispute. DreamGuy (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • See this discussion for background. There's an ambiguity in the decision resulting from the wrong term accidentally being used. The definition of the scope was intented to extend to all articles related to the conflict, or edits related to the conflict made to any other article (cf. the definition of what the biographies of living persons policy applies to). --bainer (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

There are currently fourteen active arbitrators (excluding one recused), so eight votes are a majority.

1) In remedy 1.1 ("Area of conflict") of the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, "... the Palestine/Israel dispute ..." is replaced with "... the Arab-Israeli conflict ...".

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Vassyana (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carcharoth (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [pf] 05:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. That was my reading, and clearly the intent. — Coren (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: WP:RANDARB

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by TallNapoleon

I would like to request that my topic ban on editing Ayn Rand related articles be lifted. There is a great deal of work that needs to be done on Rand related articles, including major ongoing consolidation and cleanup being led by Skomorokh and J Readings (please see Template:Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk, which has become a central hub for these efforts). Currently, my limit to talk pages is severely limiting my ability to improve the project, as even in the most uncontroversial of cases I have to ask for other users to make the change, which is frustrating to me and, I am sure, them. Were the committee to lift this restriction, I would voluntarily place myself on 0RR (excepting, of course, vandalism removal), would avoid making any controversial edits without first gaining clear consensus via the Talk page, and would make sure to avoid involving myself in any edit wars. Thank you for your consideration. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I only listed myself because I don't believe this directly affects other users. I did post a link to this on Template:Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk, and if the Committee likes I would be glad to notify all other members of the original ArbComm proceeding. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally posted this request at the suggestion of Skomorokh, who is I'm sure tired of having to make noncontroversial edits for me that I could largely make myself (I was originally planning to just ask for permission to tag articles).
The best place to see my involvement would be at the cross talk page, where I've started actively hunting through the "darker corners" of the Objectivism-related articles. There are a number of these articles, and they tend to be are extremely poorly written, of dubious notability, and POV. Many are in need of being merged or prodded.
In terms of the kinds of edits I would like to be able to do:
First, I would like to be able to add tags to articles. This would help tremendously with sorting.
Second, I would like to be able to PROD and AFD articles. As this has the potential to be controversial, I would discuss any such move on the cross-talk page before doing so.
Third, culling inappropriate material. There's lots of this stuff in the Objectivism section. We just recently finished a cull of a couple of different sources that turned out to be nonnotable and/or self-published (books by Ronald Merrill and James S. Valliant). There is also, for example, the quotes section on Romantic Realism, which despite being an article about a topic that extends far beyond Rand consists only of Rand's quotes (also IIRC quotes sections are discouraged).
Fourth, fixing blatantly obvious POV, for instance, as shown here. I had to ask other users to make that fix despite the fact that it was totally non-controversial--it's never Wiki's place to say that someone's arguments are "oversimplified". I also repeatedly notified the talk page about edits from our problem IP (see EdJohnston's update to WP:RANDARB), e.g. [Talk:Ayn_Rand/Archive_36#Changes here], which frankly I would have fixed on my own.
Fifth, I intend to make grammatical and format fixes, and be the grammar Nazi I was raised to be.
Sixth, in those cases where I do decide to be bold (which will likely be rare) it will be done on a section or subsection level, one piece at a time, without trying to rewrite whole gigantic articles, making it easier for other users to comment and edit changes and for consensus to develop.
Seventh, I intend to implement changes where consensus has been reached.
In terms of if other editors believe I overstep myself, I do not presume to tell ArbComm what decision they should make, or what sanctions they should place on me. I would suggest that the thing to do would be to either bring it back here or to go to an admin. Admins and ArbComm are really better suited to answer that kind of question than I am. If lots of my edits are being reverted, I think the thing to do would be to look at context. Are my edits based on consensus and it's just one person reverting, are my edits a case of being WP:BOLD in the face of no consensus (which to be honest is not the best idea on many of these articles) or are they directly against consensus? One is not my fault, one is potentially problematic, and one is definitely problematic. But I'm not planning on breaking my word on this. I intend to work for consensus, to make universally acceptable changes, and above all not to edit war, which is what my original sanction was for. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth, I think Karbinski was pointing out the kind of edits I might make (or oppose) if I were not banned. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Karbinski. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question to Vassyana--could the motion make clear whether or not I would be permitted to revert vandalism? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KD Tries Again

I have been spending some time trying to help with the Rand-related articles recently, and I can confirm TallNapoleon's statement that there is an immense amount of editorial work to do. It would be very helpful to have him back on board.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Statement by Snowded

Edit warring has continued on the article, but with new editors. Articles of this nature have significant issues on questions of weight and verifiability and attempting to deal with them simply as behavioural issues of the editors involved is at best a short term solution. Current editors have carried out far more RRs that KD ever did. I have no objection to his request, he has always been careful to attempt a NPOV and to properly source material in a field where he is knowledgeable. --Snowded (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry only just spotted this. RR as in 3RR etc. Since the Arbcom ruling edit warring has continued. My point was that there has been a lot worse behaviour than exhibited by TN since the ruling which has gone unpunished. I was not referring to KD. I am supporting TN being reinstated, although I think he should not be under any special restrictions. --Snowded (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Karbinski

A couple examples of edits he may have made to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) here and here. --Karbinski (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As well an example of an edit to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - here - that he objected to being reverted. --Karbinski (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

  • I will be implementing the below motion and closing this thread shortly. AGK 13:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • There is a question of what effect this will have on the editing environment. If you could please inform the current active contributors of your request, it would be appreciated. Opinions of current participants would be helpful. (That said, I would give fair warning to any who might comment that while reasonable objections and opinions are welcome that this is not an open forum to slag on other editors or complain about the "evils" of one side or another.) If you could, please better illustrate the kind of contributions you intend to enact. Could you link to a couple of examples of changes you would have made? Can you provide a few links to show your participation in recent discussions and additionally highlight a few broadly accepted changes that were implemented where you took part in the preceding discussion? It will also help our determination if you better clarify what sort of restriction you are looking to volunteer. Can the restriction be enforced, as per normal, by any uninvolved administrator? If a lot of your edits are being reverted, should this be considered against your limited mainspace participation? If a portion of your edits are seen as controversial or pushing the line, should that be considered against your participation? How would you expect violations of the restriction to be treated? Should your restriction revert to the mainspace prohibition? Should you be blocked? Should you be placed under another restriction? Any information and context that you can provide will help us make a determination. --Vassyana (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • TallNapoleon seems to be have a good awareness of what boundaries he should respect. His request provides a suggestion for very strict editing conditions. No objections have been lodged, but some editors believe this would be of benefit and all indications appear to support that position. As such, I have proposed a motion below. --Vassyana (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reverting blatant vandalism does not count for the purposes of our conduct rules, such as WP:3RR. I see no reason why this restriction should work differantly from the normal handling of the matter. --Vassyana (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Snowed: what do you mean by "RR" and why are you referring to KD? This amendment request is about TallNapoleon. And a question for Karbinski - I'm not sure what you are saying here. What are your diffs showing? Are you objecting to TallNapoleon's restrictions being lifted or are you saying he has been editing the articles instead of the talk pages? The explanation by TallNapoleon makes sense - the question to Snowded still stands. 19:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer, Snowded. I think some restrictions are still needed, and have voted to support the motion below. Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

1) The topic ban imposed on TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) (see WP:RANDARB#TallNapoleon topic-banned and warned) is removed. In place of a mainspace topic ban, TallNapoleon is subject to a zero-revert restriction (0RR) on Ayn Rand and related articles for the remainder of the six-month duration. He is instructed to seek talk page consensus before undertaking any potentially controversial edits. TallNapoleon is encouraged to continue his efforts to develop a functional consensus and improve articles related to the subject.

Support
  1. As proposer, per my comments above. --Vassyana (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support; TallNapoleon seems to have improved and is working well with editors on talk pages. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [pf] 16:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wizardman 21:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=292691933"