Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188
Arbitration enforcement appeal by User:HughD[edit]
| Appeal denied. NW (Talk) 18:43, 11 January 2016 (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 HughD[edit]No violation of topic ban. No disruptive behavior. Good faith edits. Harassment by complainant. Misrepresentations by involved editors in statements in request for enforcement. No consensus for closure of harassing request for enforcement. No consensus for block. Lack of proportionality. Block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to our project. Repeated offer to apologize and strike through ignored. Respectfully request unblock. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by EdJohnston[edit]Statement by Arthur Rubin[edit]As should be obvious, there is little accurate in Hugh's statement. To note one of the more obvious errors, he says he "offered to strike" a violation. He had plenty of opportunity to do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy[edit]Hugh's appeal ironically casts aspersions on those who participated in the original enforcement request, specifically that we engaged in "misrepresentations". Of course, he provides no details or diffs. Does the casting of naked aspersions in the appeal of a block merit extension of the block? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC) I was not involved in the locus of this dispute, but added comment in the enforcement request regarding troubling behavior discussing elsewhere re climate change denial, which is closely associated with conservative US politics. Statement by SageRad[edit]What i saw of HughD's recent editing is at ExxonMobil where his dialog on the talk page seems fine to me. Rather my recent treatment by the above commenter, NewsAndEventsGuy, seemed contentious and troubling to me, so i would take his assessment with a grain of salt as it seems probably skewed. Anyway, there is obviously political bias going on in judgments here. I haven't looked to the specifics of why the block happened, but this has the flavor of a persecution based on politics. SageRad (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Ricky81682[edit]There's no basis for appeal here. These line-drawing games have gone on long enough. HughD was specifically told that editing on Watchdog.org was a violation of the topic ban and I expressly told him repeatedly to bring it here if he actually wants to dispute that expansion. Regardless of the extensive circular discussion held at my talk page (including a series of typical passive aggressive insults at my editing), HughD never actually requested an appeal of the topic ban here. Instead he directly made a request about it and when called out argued that it was a procedural not substantive issue as is his norm. HughD's argument above that Citizens United itself was in the scope of the ban but the Citizens United Supreme Court was not if kept, is going to make it virtually impossible for anyone to figure out what is or isn't covered by this topic ban as he always has another excuse for why he's done nothing wrong. The fact that he's arguing about style not content is irrelevant: the only to make his topic ban stick is to give him zero ability to play around with it. Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HughD[edit]It appears to me that the ban is an attempt by certain editors, who disagree with HughD, to silence him. I have looked for evidence of wrongdoing by HughD but I can't find any. Biscuittin (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by HughD[edit]
|
NewsAndEventsGuy (reported by NewsAndEventsGuy)[edit]
| No action taken. NW (Talk) 18:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Ooops. Last summer, at AE I stated "I am retiring for 12 months". It was closed accordingly, and I gradually started commenting at talk pages again, but not article editing. I never really studied the closing instructions in that case. Oversight! I now realize the closing instructions covered the entire scope of wiki.... ANYWHERE on climate issues. After some time had passed, I somehow thought we closed that with a restriction on article space only. Sorry about my oversight. I'll go away from climate now, even on talk pages, per the closing instructions I previously didn't carefully notice. I'll also notify the various editors I've been engaged with lately. One hedge... to extent anyone complains at ANI/AE about other aspects of my behavior I'd like the flexibility to respond. Sorry about that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Ban Reset Request Recently, AE blocked/banned HughD (talk · contribs) for a month for a Tban vio. Key in that complaint was that he was given a chance to strike out some talk comments and did not do so. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess. Hugh is now setting me up for the same thumping, by asking that I revert or strike everything in many different threads. Since my goof predates interactions with Hugh, we should really treat ALL my violating comments the same way, whether they involved Hugh or not. The question should be "What solution is best for the project, overall? What solution is BEST at preventing problems?" Reverting my violating comments will turn threads to hash. That's bad. Striking them out makes it hard to read, and there's been no formal complaint about the content of the remarks. So making them hard to read is only slightly better than just wasting them. Instead, I'd like to suggest that the original 12 month clock on my voluntary Tban be reset, but my comments be left as they are. With that simple action, all the threads I inadvertently participated in will still be intelligible, and Hugh need not feel like there is a double standard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Kachelus[edit]
| Editor has stopped editing. Since there is no active problem, closing. Please come back if problems recur. Hopefully they won't. Jehochman Talk 13:52, 14 January 2016 (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 Kachelus[edit]
This editor is a long-term WP:SPA who's involvement at Wikipedia since September 2009 is (almost all) editing longevity articles. Discretionary sanctions are warranted against accounts that have a "clear shared agenda" such as those who consistently edit articles, and vote in AfDs to favor the position of the Gerontology Research Group, as opposed to the goals of Wikipedia. This is that type of editor.
Kachelus As was suggested with respect to 930310 above, if you have any concerns about Legacypac, please propose a section here that explicitly explains the issues. It did no good in the section above and it will do no good here either. As to Ollie231213, I don't need to rehash the fact that a number of outside admins with no involvement in this area that agreed and supported the topic ban. If the same happens here, so be it. As to your editing, first, the issue is that the GRG has those categories and yet Wikipedia discussion after discussion among people who work on the entire encyclopedia and not the supercentenarian hobbyists have found the GRG unverified claims as not reliable sources. There have been numerous RFCs and debates on this policy with clear-cut support against the vast minority viewpoint that the GRG needs to be separately distinguished in any way. If you don't agree with that, fine but those views are considered disruptive and counter-productive here. It is not your opinions per se but the fact that your opinions reflect a complete disregard for the fundamentals behind Wikipedia's sourcing policy here with such things as demands to create a directory of supercentenarians before even considering deleting anything here that are problematic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Kachelus[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 Kachelus[edit]Ok firstly sorry I have to say you are wrong, Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In English wikipedia my main itenerary is longevity, yes, in other Wikipedias it is amateur soccer, politics, history and geography, but these are things you didn't know. So long-term WP:SPA is only partly true, because this topic is only dealt in English wikipedia. Over the years I tried to get the several lists in this topic to a similar content and show the correct historic names of regions about 110 years ago if they were not already written in these lists. In Wikipedia is not only GRG a source, several other media also reported supercentenarians I showed. Unfortunately GRG did not prove them, but that is not my fault when wikipedia lists made differences between verified, pending and unverified cases — it was not me who introduced that. I just want to keep information on wikipedia before people wish to remove them for reasons we cannot really understand. Over the years no one concerned about that, just now, I don't know why. But now I understand your wish to ban everyone who is not on your opinion (e.g. Ollie231213) and I think that is not what Wikipedia stands for. Legacypac nominates for AfD, and you wish to ban editors who have the opposite opinion (keeping), sorry that is not the way I want to waste my free-time for arguing against, I am not paid for that. Do, what you wish to do and be lucky with that. I wish you a very Happy New Year!--Kachelus (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Legacypac[edit]The editor concerned named me in this discussion but did not tag or notify me. I only stumbled on it now. The tenacious editing, throwing all appeals to policy out the window is annoying. I suspect this editor is part of the off wiki coordinated efforts to clumsily vote keep on everything ever copied from a GRG list, then duplicated several times on Wikipedia in an effort to boast the credibility of that organization. Like the editors they defend who were banned, this editor needs some time to edit in an area they are less personally invested in. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Kachelus[edit]
|
Wiking[edit]
| No sanction. The editor was not given a proper notice of the discretionary sanctions before this complaint was filed. Jehochman Talk 19:42, 12 January 2016 (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 Wiking[edit]
Discussion concerning Wiking[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 Wiking[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Wiking[edit]
|
Lugnuts[edit]
| Filing party warned not to abuse process. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 12 January 2016 (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 Lugnuts[edit]
This is just this editor's activity today that shows they are not interested in editing the Longevity area in a civil manner. Their past conduct has been unhelpful as well as editors try to clean up this area and bring it within WP policy. The assertion that most of my AfDs have not been successful is obviously false [8]. Some editors resent their pet articles developed with a gross disregard for policy being deleted. There are notifications of DS on the various Longevity pages. Anyway, DS are not required to deal with the uncivil behaviour. Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Lugnuts[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 Lugnuts[edit]This is the most WP:POINTY thing I've ever seen. Legacypac made three reverts to blank the page List of Japanese supercentenarians. I reverted the most recent with the edit summary of "this needs to go to AfD, per a previous edit summary. And one more revert and you'll break WP:3RR". User:Oscarlake made a similar revert stating AfD would be the best venue. Straight after doing the revert I posted a polite notice on LP's talkpage reminding him of WP:3RR. I have no idea about the alleged copyvio inserts or whatever the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity is. Looking at LegacyPac's recent contributions, he's gone out of his way to take longetivity lists to AfD, which most, if not all have been kept. He's also been told twice (once, twice) that his talkpage edits are not welcome. I'm not going to waste any more time on this pointless event. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Collect[edit]Tempest in teapot? Users have the specific right to remove posts on their own user talk page. Others who repeatedly repost material once deleted are, indeed, the ones who are misbehaving as a rule. Lug should not have used the F-word, but the context makes its use understandable, even if it ought not have been used. Otherwise, I do not see any reason to keep this "case" extant. Collect (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by AlbinoFerret[edit]Even if such a case is applicable here, I see no warning of Lugnuts of the DS. It appears that Legacypac is in need of sanctions. Started a merge discussion on the 6th.[10] Mentioning an AFD that was withdrawn.[11] and then waited 2 days and blanked the page with no other editors commenting on the merge.[12] WP:SILENCE is the worst form of consensus and after waiting two days on a merge discussion? Lugnuts did the correct thing and reverted the actions. Looking at the history,[13] Legacypac has been in a slow edit ware to remove the material and has been reverted by multiple editors. AlbinoFerret 16:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz[edit]Albino Ferret, above, has it right. Legacypac, whose actions make clear they are aware of the applicable DS, is behaving highly disruptively. A six-month topic ban would give more responsible editors the opportunity to sort out whatever might require expeditious action without require repeated, unproductive, tinewasting community intervention. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Canadian Paul[edit]I've interacted with Lugnuts for many years and worked on cleaning up longevity articles for even longer, and I can say that I've almost never seen those two intersect, let alone in any way that would justify a topic ban. Such an action would do nothing but create a little trap that Lugnuts might one day accidentally step into and have it used against them. Lugnuts is one of the most productive editors on Wikipedia and contributes an incredible amount to the development of the project and building of an encyclopedia; that alone makes them a valuable editor. Most of the concerns here are with civility, about which I couldn't care less given the breadth of his contributions, but even if it were a problem, it would have nothing to do with a topic ban on longevity. Canadian Paul 16:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by DerbyCountyinNZ[edit]I concur with the pointts expressed by CanadianPaul above, and note that this seems like yet another WP:POINTy response by Legacypac to an editor taking issue with their abrasive and often disruptive edits. Legacypac has repeatedly used inappropriate forums such as this on such occasions, only relatively recently within the bounds of this AE, but given statements here and elsewhere by other editors, apparently in other areas of Wikipedia as well. It is time WP:BOOMERANG was applied (shades of John J Bulten!). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Lugnuts[edit]
|
RolandR[edit]
| No sanction. Jehochman Talk 14:16, 12 January 2016 (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 RolandR[edit]
User has reverted IP editors and has posted DS notices on talk pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.54.58.110&oldid=699317206
The issue here is one of posting false information on pages. While the initial revert of the IP edits may have been correct, I have reverted RolandR's edits once, and then in the edit summary, as well as on his talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RolandR#B.27Tselem_Fire (where he didn't address my concern that the information was false, he just repeated the mantra "IP IP"). He was actually reverting information that does not belong in the article let alone in the lead section. At this point in time, the news has come out that the fire in B'Tselem's office was a short circuit fire. I do not know why that needs to be included in the article. I do not know why it needs to be in the lead. At the point RolandR was reverting, he was doing it to push an undue bias into the article, but regardless, he has reverted more than 1 time and it was not to revert an IP edit. As you can see from the timeline, quite a few hours passed. The IP editor reverted the article, I posted on RolandR's talk page with link to news articles showing him that the fire was not arson. Then Nableezy edits the article in an unrelated way, and then a few hours later RolandR comes back and reverts. That should not be allowed. Firstly, the article was already "settled" if you will, or accepted. Secondly, the information currently in the article is false, yet if I revert, I will be violating 1RR because RolandR is not an IP editor.
This is one major issue with the whole IP issue and how false information can end up staying in an article. There ought to be a better way to deal with this.
@serialjoepsycho, I'm not sure why asking to remove this is wikilawyering. Do you think an electrical fire belongs here? It's one thing to revert an ip, but he just ignored me, and my point that it was not agood edit
@Number57, this is not a content dispute. After RolandR reverted the IP, in my edit summary, I put in the link to the news article showing that it wasn't arson. He reverted anyway, I then on his talk page pasted links showing it wasn't arson. But he still didn't care. He wanted an article on B'Tselem's lead to show that the right of Israel committed arson on B'Tselem's headquarters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARolandR&type=revision&diff=699411721
Discussion concerning RolandR[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 RolandR[edit]This is purely a content dispute, relating to the weight to give to a statement and the relative reliability of different sources. There is absolutely no breach of any sanctions. As the ruling states, "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters". Sir Joseph does not contend that I have violated this, and has not suggested any other sanction that I have breached, so I fail to see why he has initiated this frivolous case. This is not an AE matter, and I have no case to answer.RolandR (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Serialjoepsycho[edit]I'm counting one revert that would be counted per policy. RolandR's revert of Sir Joseph. The reverts to the IP's serve an administrative function and do not count. More specifically are exempt by WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 which RolandR highlights as his reversion rational. Reviewing the comments here by Sir Joseph and the conversation on on RoladR's talk page [14], I see what looks like some wikilawyering. AE is not the appropriate location to try to settle a content dispute. Perhaps the talk page of the article might be used.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning RolandR[edit]
|
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]
| Closing as it is probably better to do nothing here, than to do something. Jehochman Talk 13:50, 14 January 2016 (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 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]
I alerted Richard Arthur Norton of the potential problems with these edits yesterday on his talk page.[18] He replied, and some further discusion followed.[19] Meanwhile, he continued making the same kind of edits (see diff in evidence above). The original sanction was in part due to problematic links to Findagrave. For the current links, the question is whether Wikidata is an external site or not (if so, it would be an obvious violation of the restriction), and whether avoiding linking directly to Findagrave by linking to self-created Wikidata pages where the (usually) only source is a self-created Findagrave page is enough of a loophole to avoid being a breach of the sanction. To me, these are violations of arguably the letter and certainly the spirit of the sanction, and the discussion shows that he doesn't really care one way or the other and continues anyway, even during the discussion we had. Fram (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC) @Carrite: the problematic edits (copyvio images, copyvio texts, and links to copyvios like copies of complete articles from Time Magazine, not "fair use" bits) continued until the ArbCom case, the "nearly a decade ago" was the worst period but the problems didn't end then. Otherwise the ArbCom case wouldn't have been started or would have been swiftly rejected. In January 2013, he added links to pages he created on things like Familypedia and Findagrave with e.g. a full 2012 article (not an obituary) from the Wall Street Journal in it. That's why the sanction was created, not because of edits from 2006 (these only showed that the problem was persistent, not a one-off mistake). That he now seeks a way to include his links indirectly anyway is very problematic, and your misguided or misinformed defense is not really realistic. Fram (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC) @Richard Arthur Norton: please don't try to give motives for my actions. I don't have a clue which AfD you are talking about, but I don't doubt you can find one where you opposed my position. I have participated in many AfDs, and many people have expressed a contrary opinion one time or another. That's hardly a reason for me to go after them in any way. Please accept the more logical explanation that I check your edits because you have been creating copyright violations and/or linking to them for years. I am highly dubious that the Wall Street Journal has in any way given you permission to reprint whole articles on websites (which is a rather extreme interpretation of "fair use" in any case, a reprint of a full article without any comment or reason), and I think this defense of yours only highlights again that your interpretation of what is fair use or copyrighted can not be trusted and is why the restrictions were created in the first place. I presume your subscription has something like this WSJ subscriber agreement[20]? No, that doesn't allow the copying of articles on freely accesible websites ("While you may occasionally download and store articles from the Service for your personal use, you may not otherwise provide others with access to such articles."). That you are still trying to defend the evidence of your links to copyright violations([21]) is cause enough to maintain all restrictions on your editing and to check your edits for further problems. Oh, and please don't change your post a day after you posted it, it makes the discussion hard to follow. Fram (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC) @Richard Arthur Norton: so you are claiming that I am still vengeful since the time of some undisclosed AfD, but not necessarily because of that AfD but because something else whih you don't name? And because I was feeling vengeful for some unknown thing from 5 years ago, I waited two years for the ArbCom case and a further three years for this clarification request, and supported the loosening of your sanctions (in some other aspect) in late 2014 probably as well? Are you going anywhere with that argument, or do you think that extremely vague accusations like that will somehow convince whoever closes this that the case should be rejected? Fram (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC) @Richard Arthur Norton: Murdoch bought the WSJ in 2007, your copyvio was from an article published in 2012 and made by you in early 2013. So your defense is clearly invalid by a quite wide margin. Fram (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC) @JzG: could you explain why? Why do you consider this frivolous and why don't you mention the editing restriction in your reply? It's not about the problem of people linking to Findagrave (or the problem of linking to Wikidata as if it is a Wikipedia article), but the problem of one specific editor with a specific editing restriction against linking to external pages he created doing exactly that but in a novel way. Fram (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC) @Hobit: it is thanks (in parts) to my checking of his edits that the problems were acted upon in the first place. Checking back to see whether the problems persist should not be a reason to cease doing that. Too many established editors with a known track record of problems are left alone anyway because not enough people can be bothered. I have seen the same pattern way too often in the past. Fram (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[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 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]Another fishing expedition by User:Fram to get me banned. He has been looking at my every edit for the past five years looking for another gotcha! moment that he can bring here. He is still vengeful from when I opposed him in an AFD debate 5 years ago. This is terrible convoluted logic, and a poor understanding of how the transitive property works. I am not to link to Findagrave entries, that I create, from Wikipedia. I link to Wikidata from Wikipedia. Wikidata links to Findagrave. Having me not link to my Findagrave entries was wrongheaded from the start, you are forcing the Wikipedia standard of fair-use onto an external website with a different standard of fair use. The terms of use for obituaries from the New York Times and Newspapers.com and Genealogy Bank and Familysearch, and yes even my Wall Street Journal subscription, Another lesson on logic and semantics. You wrote: "please don't try to give motives for my actions" because I wrote "He is still vengeful from when I opposed him in an AFD debate 5 years ago". Motives are about "why", I wrote about "when", which is the time frame. If I wrote "He is still vengeful because I opposed him in an AFD debate 5 years ago", you would have been correct, I would have been ascribing a motive for your actions, and not describing the time frame. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Carrite[edit]I have no idea why people are so out to get Richard Norton. He's a net positive to the encyclopedia; a group of shitty edits a decade ago and it's a never ending vendetta. Quite ridiculous... There is no logic to the original sanction, let alone with Vogonesque adherence to it. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Only in death[edit]While the linking through wikidata is one step removed, after this enforcement request has been opened, RAN has engaged in edit warring to overlink (I am being kind here, other editors have described this behaviour as linkspamming) findagrave *within* references. Cutting even closer to the restriction there, while technically he is not adding a reference, he is re-adding links to a website he is forbidden from adding references to, within the reference. Its pretty much the same story for RAN, get restricted, refuse to accept restriction, try every way to get around it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Hobit[edit]Three points
In an ideal world RAN would just stop getting as close to braking the rules as he can (stopping for yield signs isn't illegal to use his analogy and might show good faith) and in that same ideal world Fram would stop feeling the need to watch over RAN--letting someone else do it. Frankly, the close watching is counter productive. As much as I like RAN (and generally agree on his take of how fair use should work here), I suspect if no one was watching his edits for a year, he'd get himself banned as he seems to need to keep crossing over that line and when no one calls him on it for a while he'd push too far. Getting RAN to stop pushing boundaries just isn't going to happen. But the committee can suggest Fram stay away from RAN. I don't think an interaction ban would be reasonable, but a polite suggestion might be. Hobit (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]
|
GreatGreen[edit]
| GreatGreen is topic banned from Longevity broadly construed. Spartaz Humbug! 10:07, 17 January 2016 (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 GreatGreen[edit]
This is another longevity-based ARE request. This editor here is focused solely on List of German supercentenarians going back to November 2013. English may not be the editor's first language but that's not the issue here. As an aside, I've also notified the editor about the non-compliant signature (lacking an link to the user or talk page)
So you wrote many times about the fact I would work on my personal pet project but thinking about the way you treat members and the list/articles show you do not accept anything pro. You just accept all the things against SC topic. Maybe you should overcome the fact that you are not the top of all editors opinion. You are looking for help by any small argument without getting into a discussion that is based on objectives. You are ignoring the thing, worrying about the way I argue. It might be mixed because you are leaping from on to another point because you don't want to give any response to my questions and arguments.GreatGreen (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GreatGreen[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 GreatGreen[edit]This is discusting. Your behaviour shows you want to kick out everyone writing on this articles. You did it with so many others and they gave up on the topic because you are as self-called "guardian" the only and best one to know what to involve and what not. I will write later what my opinion of this all is and why it is a scandal somebody like you opens such themes. That is everything I have to write here for now.GreatGreen 17:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC) I just want to give keywords for the next paragraphs: 1. Firstly what harresment to underline I am not an English native. Sorry for that! Really but I want to underline too so many arguments Ricky gave by German articles are caused because it seems to be he/she is not able to read them - a translator doesn't work that good. 2. Where are discussions? I only see my arguments get ignored over and over. And because of ignorance this guy started the topic ban. The same way was treated Waenceslaus and Ollie, two people working really good on the topic and these writes are correspondents of the GRG so I am really confused how somebody having no real idea of the topic can crash down those who are working on this topic for many years in a really good way. 3. If you want to wish than check my arguments. These are all arguments that are objective based on sources. Reading the rules on sources by wiki I didn't find reasons to claim they would not be reliable. 4. Ricky complained many times about I would try to change only the German list. And I mentioned it many times: I want to give an example how arguments could become an article for all. It is the easiest for me to look for information in this topic because I am German native. 5. Why is somebody involved like Legacypac anymore who's arguments were really stupid like German emigrants would not be German, people to be born in German Empire would not be German. That shows these people are looking for any fly in the ointmen to say this and this would be wrong - but what isn't. 6. Wiki rules itself get ignored by those one's who claim I would ignore (this also involves all the other cases) 7. The point of "verification" have the be named everywhere. Ricky gives the opinion that only verified SCs could have been 110. This is wrong. It is right that GRG-verified cases are true, BUT it doesn't mean unverified cases are wrong and should be ignored. At minium this has to be involved in any article and list, but Ricky does not want to. 8. A longer time ago it was mentioned the GRG and the articles in wikipedia would be commercial. This is not true, it is an institution working scientifical and to a company selling products or anything. The trappy thing is that the "haters" claimed this a few times. GreatGreen (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by 107.72.99.57 (talk · contribs)[edit]
Statement by 183.182.115.81 (talk · contribs)[edit]
Statement from The Blade of the Northern Lights[edit]I want to echo what Ricky says above. The IPs above are a great demonstration of how toxic this whole area has become and why disruption in this topic needs swift topic bans. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Result concerning GreatGreen[edit]
|
Dicklyon and Darkfrog24[edit]
| Darkfrog24 indefinitely topic banned from quotation marks and quotation styles, this may be appealed in 6 months. Dicklyon is encouraged (without prejudice to a new AE action) to voluntarily hold themselves to the same restriction. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2016 (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 Dicklyon and Darkfrog24[edit]
Too many diffs to count. Simply look at the edit history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support. Edit-warring has been going on between these two users for more than a week, filling that edit history with nothing but reverts. Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register, where a similar situation has arisen.
Back on 18 December, a user requested clarification on the MoS talk page about the quotation style used by Wikipedia. This discussion started out collegial, but has blown up into a protracted dispute between two users across many pages. Darkfrog24 and Dicklyon have been edit-warring constantly on the two MoS subpages linked above for more than a week, after discussion at the main page resulted in a stalemate. I haven't even bothered to provide diffs, because the edit history of those two pages consist only of reverts made by either user. WP:3RR has long since passed. Both users are aware of the MoS DS, and this type of behaviour should not be allowed to continue. I would suggest that some action is taken against both parties to the dispute, as other editors who participated in the civil discussion at WT:MOS had no trouble avoiding this type of edit-warring, which is exactly what the MoS case remedies (see remedy 1.2) were meant to stop. Both parties are veterans of MoS disputes. How long does this type of thing have to go on in little watched pages before someone does something about it? RGloucester — ☎ 18:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Addendum – I strongly reject any accusations of being a "provocateur". I was involved in the discussion at the MoS talk page before Mr Lyon was even capable of commenting there, and had been following it as such. Whilst I ceased my participation as I saw that the discussion was becoming fertile ground for conflict, I also saw this continued edit-warring and pointless bickering occurring across multiple pages, with no one to stop it. The two editors in question here are both aware of remedy 1.2, which I mentioned above, which establishes a process whereby changes should occur after consensus is gained on the talk page, not by a process of edits and reversion. I don't understand how I can be at fault for bringing to light behaviour that is directly contrary to the remedies established in the arbitration case. If no one cares about this disruption in little known pages in the project space, fine. That doesn't mean that editors should be able to get away with disruptive behaviour of this sort, which is likely to spill back into more well-known pages eventually. As far as my personal reading on the matter, I tend to agree with SmC and Mr Lyon on the topic matter of this dispute. That doesn't excuse the nature of what is going on, here, again. If no administrative action is taken here, this dispute will continue repeat itself. This is not the first time it has blown up. There are cycles, and until someone stops that cycle, this disruption will continue. This has been the problem with AE for as long as I've been familiar with it. Parties in a dispute, on whatever side, are well aware of the nature of the "boomerang", and will band together against any sort of sanction for any party, because they know both sides are at fault. However, once the dispute is gone from AE and some time has passed, edit-warring begins again. Stop the cycle. RGloucester — ☎ 19:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Despite what Darkfrog24 suggests below, it seems that the dispute has merely moved to a page in the article space. I would suggest a three month topic ban from quotation styles, as suggested by JzG below. The evidence provided by SmC makes the need for this even more compelling. I tend to agree with him that Mr Lyon's behaviour has been less problematic here, and that Darkfrog24 has an apparently long history of involvement in this issue that I had not been aware of. RGloucester — ☎ 18:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC) @Thryduulf, Liz, and EdJohnston: You administrators might want to take note of the massive bit of canvassing Darkfrog24 has just done, asking for "a hand" and a "character witness". He received a warning from Liz, but denies that he "canvassed". This is getting beyond the pale, pure WP:GAMING and WP:WIKILAWYERing. RGloucester — ☎ 02:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Dicklyon and Darkfrog24[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 Dicklyon[edit]Neither of us has editted Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register for nearly a week. We have confined our edit war to a stupid subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support) that nobody cares about; not clear why RGloucester thought that to be worth stalking and complaining about. Anyway, as long as the Dark Frog keeps saying that the MOS requires British style, I keep reverting, to the version that acknowledges that the style our MOS recommends, "logical style", is called "British style" by some sources. And I keep adding more sources of "support" for the MOS, as that's what the page says it's about. If people would prefer to see us stop this, I would be happy to see a ban of any term, hopefully indef, on either of us editing this page. I'd go further and propose it for deletion at MfD, as it's just the DF's place to collect anti-MOS info, trying to set up WP:LQ to be an ENGVAR issue, which it is not. The sources are all clear on this style correlating more with region (American/Canada vs the rest of the world), as opposed to any tie to dialect. The sources I've been adding make it clear that many, or most as one source admits, Americans prefer the logical style; I acknowledge that the dark frog does not. Note that the page is essentially empty except for the one section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Manual_of_Style/External_support#Punctuation_inside_or_outside which was filled in by the DF as part of her campaign against LQ. It is inappropriate for her to be doing this (and yes, I admit it's inappropriate for me to be edit warring, too, but I honestly didn't think anyone would notice or care about this venue). The closest thing to an accusation of lying was in my edit summary phrase "that's your lie" in this edit. I regret that I expressed it thus. I could have said "that's your interpretation"; anyway, no reason she should be including a controversial interpret of a source that way. As for the so-called 3RR accusation, I don't think we've seen 3 or more edit cycles in any day. Methinks this is just RGloucester resurrecting his grudge. I have done my best to not interact with him, but he makes it hard now. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Note that below DF claims to have shown "sources that explicitly state that the practice required by Wikipedia's MoS is British". This is twisted. These sources do not mention "the practice required by Wikipedia's MoS"; this is her over-interpretation and misrepresentation; reading more closely often shows that what they call British is actually not quite the same as the logical style that our MOS advocates. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC) (Following comment is a response to Newyorkbrad. It was moved by RGloucester.)
Concerning DarkFrog24's statement "I do plan to continue the support-but-don't-initiate pattern.", this pattern is the problem; so is calling it "support". A recent incarnation of this anti-LQ pattern is seen here: This was even after another editor had already explained that it's not an ENGVAR issue, and the discussion had no obvious call for being stirred up. It was the start of her pumping up that section to over 100 edits, mostly from her. If every time an editor asks a question about WP:LQ, DF24 jumps in with the pattern of pumping up discontent, partly by complaining that the MOS "requires British", then these disruptions around the MOS will continue. This should stop; after 7 years it has only served to pump up the noise level. LQ has been OK with WP since before DF24 came to fix it. Time to drop all that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC) @Thryduulf: If the arbs feel that is important to topic-ban me, too, then I would abide by that. But my offer of voluntary mutual restriction was turned down. I'm pretty sure that was no evidence that I was the problem here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC) And DF's latest offer to abide by a "voluntary" restriction, if someone will just explain what she's doing wrong and what she must not do any more, is bullshit, just designed to get me to take half the heat for her stubbornness. I tried to make this easy. She insists on making it hard. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Darkfrog24[edit]This complaint is an overreaction. As the edits themselves show, this isn't a straight revert-and-revert situation. Dicklyon and I are triangulating our way toward a version that we can both live with.[23] [24] [25] We've both been compromising and giving way to the other here and there. He stopped removing the Chicago Manual of Style from the page after I took it to the talk page and gave a good reason why he should do so (see first paragraph at this link [26]). I didn't remove the ABA reference even though I don't think it's necessary. There are a few points on which I think he's flat-out wrong and I'm confident he feels the same way, but this is a work in progress, not a stalemate. A few factual corrections to RG's report: There haven't been accusations of lying "back and forth." Dicklyon accused me of lying. To my knowledge, I've never said anything indicating that he doesn't believe what he says. However, this measure is still an overreaction. I went to his user talk page and asked him to stop. He agreed that "lie" was taking it too far, and he hasn't done it again. It's already been dealt with. I concur with Dicklyon regarding 3RR. I don't usually count, but I don't think either of us violated 3RR. I thought I might have been close once, so I self-reverted just in case. I also deliberately slowed it down starting a few days ago, and it feels like he might've done so too. Dicklyon did mark two substantive edits as "minor," but that might have been an accident. Again, I just went to his user page (same thread as above) and asked him to be more careful. It's already been dealt with. If RG or anyone feels that the text of MOS:SUPPORTS does not reflect consensus, then the answer is to bring in more people either with an RfC, at a noticeboard, or less formally. I took the issue to the NPOV noticeboard for that reason. Correction to Dicklyon: I am not collecting anti-MOS info at MOS:SUPPORTS. I hate the British-only rule and would love to see it changed to allow American punctuation in American English articles, but I was the first one to add sources to MOS:SUPPORTS proving that it is indeed correct British English[27] and I didn't add any quotes that specifically said that it isn't correct American English, even though most of the sources cited there do contain that information.[28] Another correction: No Americans do not prefer logical style (better known as British style). Mainstream style guides almost universally require American style. For sources indicating this, see MOS:SUPPORTS and its talk page. Response to SmC: I would love to apply neutrality rules to WP:SUPPORTS.[29] In summary, Dicklyon and I are dealing with this just fine on our own. Neither of us should be banned in any way. The appropriate thing for other editors to do is to come to the talk page and give their two cents.
(Following comment is a response to Newyorkbrad. It was moved by RGloucester.)
(Following comment is a response to Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s second contribution.)
(Response to RG)
(Response to EdJohnston)
Let's start with an example: What SmC says about me: try to turn MOS's own FAQ into a rallying point for "challenging MOS" to get "satisfaction": Kind of makes me sound like some crazy Don Quixote who thinks he's a knight, huh? But here's what I actually said: Please exercise judgement if you are considering challenging this part of the MoS. Consider reviewing previous discussions first to see if your concerns have already been addressed to your satisfaction. That should give you a good idea.
I hope this is enough to give everyone an idea of how much salt to add to SmC's words before taking them. I can, if necessary, go through his page line by line if anyone thinks that would be necessary or helpful. I request a heads-up before further action is taken. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I'm currently in conversation with LaserB about this matter. From over here, you and EdJ asked me to do something but didn't say what it was you wanted me to do. I'm trying to find out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Newyorkbad, I happen to feel similarly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC) As for RG, I asked at AN what the etiquette was on this matter and didn't get an answer. BTW, please take his view of "canvassing" with some salt.[48] "Pure of heart as a lily" indeed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC) I do have something to add. If I can't change your minds about a topic ban, consider drawing a distinction between infospace and the article space. Pages that are subject to WP:NPOV and WP:V, in which editors have to cite sources to add or retain text and are discouraged from adding their opinions, have generally seen my involvement as an gain. I happen to see the MoS that way too, but I think there's enough of a difference that those who don't agree in one case might agree in the other. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: @JzG/help:(Guy) @KillerChihuahua: @Laser brain: @Liz: @Newyorkbrad: @Thryduulf: Per discussions on Laserbrain and KC's user talk pages, since the objection here is not what I am saying but that I am saying it too much, a 1RR situation seems like the appropriate response. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Tony1[edit]I agree with the comment below that this is lame; but not that sanctions are appropriate here. Both involved users are valuable participants on MOS and other WP pages. They should simply agree to cool off and undertake to avoid cross-editing. RGloucester is a well-known provocateur, and I believe started the thread here out of pure mischief. Regard his first post at the talkpage in question, then the starting of this thread at AE just 23 minutes later, before any futher activity on either the article page or talkpage there. Note also his statement that the page in question "has no standing within the MoS, no community consensus backs it, it is essentially a user essay, and should probably be put in the user space." It is, then, heavily ironic that he should seek to cause maximum disruption by using the apparent "DS" status of that page to start a thread here. It is disingenuous and not in the spirit of calming ruffled waters. Tony (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish[edit]TL;DR version: This sums up the problem perfectly: This is a "hate"-based personal WP:BATTLEGROUND matter for one editor, who will never, ever drop the stick of their belief that logical quotaion "is British" and "is wrong" for Americans, no matter how often this is disproved by citation to sources showing American publishers and style guides using logical quotation, and British style guides defining various conflicting styles, none of which are actually logical quotation, just superficially similar. All Darkfrog24 ever brings to the table is relentless equating of LQ with British to every audience available (based on nothing but the failure of some American sources to bother to distinguish them), making a bogus ENGVAR case so that Darkfrog24 can do whatever Darkfrog24 wants. This campaign against MOS consensus has been going on for 6.5 years and needs to be ended, with a topic ban. Dick Lyon reverting anti-consensus, polemic PoV and OR in the page in question (before it gets MfDed, which I plan to take care of as soon as possible – it's a WP:NOTHERE problem to have a page devoted to externally sourcing internal documentation instead of sourcing encyclopedia articles) is not comparable to Darkfrog24 editwarring to re-insert their PoV, OR and anti-consensus polemic. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Shortened (again). 02:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SlimVirgin[edit]Darkfrog asked me to comment. The issue at WT:MOS is that it feels as though no one can get a word in, and this seems to be because Dicklyon, Darkfrog and SMcCandlish are highly active there. It's arguably unfair to topic ban only one. I would suggest asking all three to limit the number (and, above all, length) of their posts about any topic there, and to ask Darkfrog not to initiate any discussion of LQ. It would be helpful to open a well-written RfC about LQ, but as things stand it's likely to be filibustered away. So we persist with a complex, minority punctuation style without knowing whether it has real consensus. LQ is a complicated style to get right. Almost no one does on Wikipedia, in part because it's fiddly, and in part because you often need access to the original source. Newspaper copy editors don't get it right either. It's particularly difficult with LQ, I would say impossible, for new editors to glean the rule by copying what others have done, whereas it's easy to copy typesetters' style – where punctuation is placed inside quotation marks – and that should be a major factor for us. In my view we should allow both styles, along the lines of STYLEVAR, ENGVAR, CITEVAR and DATEVAR (either strong national ties or first major contributor). These are the issues that are frustrating Darkfrog. But while I have every sympathy, it's sometimes important to accept that one is raising something ineffectually and that continuing in the same way risks becoming disruptive. SarahSV (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Garagepunk66[edit]Perhaps the best thing to do before instating any kind of ban on an editor perceived as tendentious would be for he or she to make a formal pledge to stay off of this particular topic for "x" amount of time (say for at least a year). From speaking to both Darkfrog24 and SMcCandlish, I can attest that they are both dedicated and conscientious editors, but that they have a very intense disagreement on this issue. I am trying to be neutral, and (surprisingly) I have a friendly rapport with both. Though I expressed the concern that the quotation policy could use some slight modifications (i.e. exceptions in certain prescribed circumstances), I have accepted that the issue has been hotly debated and is very contentious--and that it will get nowhere at this time. So, I have chosen not to further pursue the topic. But, I realize that Darkfrog24 feels that the issue still needs to be challenged. I am not against the idea that the debate could be revisited at a much later time (after all, any policy can be re-evaluated at a later time), but that maybe we have to wait a good long while. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Dirtlawyer1[edit]I was not going to participate in this discussion, but I felt the need to speak up as two or three administrators have started to push for a topic ban. The one-sided claims against Darkfrog24 are both exaggerated and unfair. I want to be clear that I take no sides on the silly little edit war between Darkfrog24 and Dicklyon over a mostly meaningless essay; one participant above correctly described this teapot tempest as "lame," and frankly it would have been better ignored by everyone including Darkfrog24, Dicklyon and especially Rich Gloucester. Darkfrog24 is a long-term and highly productive contributor, who is respected for her usually measured, logical and well-researched comments on a wide variety of MOS-related issues. And the same could be said of both Dicklyon and SMcCandlish (the other chief antagonist on matters of so-called "logical quotation"). This is an issue which divides MOS talk participants about 55/45 in favor of the existing MOS:LQ guideline, and it leaves a strong, if not overwhelming majority of American editors angry and frustrated that MOS forces them to use a convention that they perceive as both unnatural and incorrect from the viewpoint of standard American majority practice. Many American editors believe passionately that Wikipedia articles about American topics written in American English should use the quotation practice which is the overwhelmingly standard practice of 300 million Americans, and Darkfrog has periodically advocated on MOS talk pages for a change in quotation practice to permit American editors to use the majority American practice pursuant to WP:ENGVAR. Dicklyon and SMcCandlish have both advocated equally forcefully to maintain the existing guideline for the mandatory and uniform use of "logical quotation" for all Wikipedia articles, regardless of ENGVAR. Both sides have valid points, but I have often said that MOS works best when it tracks the majority style practices of the real world. In this case it does not track majority practice (at least not for American English), and as a result previously uninvolved American editors show up at MOS talk pages to angrily complain about what they perceive is the imposition of "British punctuation" on articles written in American English. As far as I can tell, Darkfrog has done absolutely nothing wrong other than periodically raise the issue on MOS talk pages; she has not edit-warred over the wording of the actual guideline, nor has she rewritten Wikipedia article space content in contravention of the existing MOS:LQ guideline. All she has done is advocate for the application of ENGVAR to quotation punctuation -- a position that many of her fellow editors believe is quite right and reasonable. I strongly urge the participating administrators to step back and accept the fact that Darkfrog represents most American editors when this issue is raised, and acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with "blowing off steam" on this topic once a year. Consensus can change, and Darkfrog is giving voice to many of her fellow editors who agree with her and not the existing MOS:LQ guideline. Selectively muzzling Darkfrog with a topic ban comes dangerously close to punishing someone for a having a very widely held point-of-view. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Izno[edit]I was notified of this WP:AE at my talk page by DF24. Having observed WT:MOS for a while now, it is clear to me that DF24 either needs to drop the stick or start an RFC on WP:LQ. As DF24 has not done the latter in the apparent lengthy frame of time in which DF24 has campaigned against LQ, that leads me to believe that an RFC won't be started in the near or far-term by DF24, making the discussion there more-or-less tendentious (and quite wearying, from my point of view). A topic ban from punctuation in the context of quotation seems appropriate, at least in the MOS space. I am unsure of a topic ban from punctuation in the context of quotation (or, "quotation marks", I suppose) in all space, is necessary. If such a topic ban were passed, I would be careful to word it such that DF24 may add any new punctuation of quotation in any form he or she desires. --Izno (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Dicklyon and Darkfrog24[edit]
The two comments above were left before the involved editors posted their statements.
|
BjörnBergman[edit]
| BjörnBergman is subject to 1RR on Longevity broadly construed. This sanction is valid for a period of 6 months from today Spartaz Humbug! 18:08, 21 January 2016 (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 BjörnBergman[edit]
And in all this fails to engage on their own or any article talkpage they are editing.
Discussion concerning BjörnBergman[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 BjörnBergman[edit]Statement by BabbaQ[edit]
Statement by GreatGreen[edit]
Statement by clpo13[edit]BjörnBergman has reverted on WOP articles multiple times, citing the lack of GRG verification ([67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]). However, they've only participated in the discussion at Talk:Oldest people once ([73]). That discussion, however, was in relation to their unilateral redirection of various pages, such as List of the verified oldest people ([74], [75]), List of oldest living people ([76], [77]), and List of the verified oldest women ([78], [79]). Now, I'm sure there's something to be said about reorganizing these disparate lists, but BjörnBergman did it without discussion and reverted (multiple times) when challenged. The aforementioned talk page comment ([80]) shows that they apparently don't understand why their actions were reverted. Combined with the lack of discussion regarding Zhou Youguang and his inclusion on Oldest people and related pages, I'm forced to concluded that this editor should stay away from longevity articles until they can demonstrate a collaborative mindset to editing this topic. clpo13(talk) 00:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by SMcCandlish (uninvolved except to comment in talk about GRG and undue weight)[edit]I was passing by and took a look at Zhou Youguang. What I see is Bergman adding an age update, then later an anon begins editwarring with comments like "Birth date not verified by the GRG, no truth to it" and deleting all the birth information [81]. There's no demonstration of a connection between these edits. Previous edits (even disputes) elsewhere involving Bergman and a potential WP:UNDUE weight being given to the Gerontology Research Group (which, no, is not the only possible reliable source for birth date information for old people) doesn't automatically mean every edit relating to them in their favor is by Bergman. If there's a suspicion of sock puppetry, try WP:SPS first and get evidence. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning BjörnBergman[edit]
|
TFBCT1[edit]
| Closed without action following assurances that the user will respect consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 19:11, 22 January 2016 (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 TFBCT1[edit]
Apologies for another longevity enforcement request but TFBCT1's refusal to engage in any discussion and game-playing to redefine the criteria so that only the GRG's list is counted is par for the course with these proponents. Even if the editor was in good faith supporting the logic that we await approval from another "super source" beyond our regular sourcing requirements so that someone can be added to the tables, their refusal to discuss it in the actual lede discussion in favor of changing the lede and the criteria specifically to exclude a claim (while arguing that we should focus on "longevity research" as opposed to our sourcing requirements) is frustrating. I've started an RFC at Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people#RfC:_How_should_we_word_the_lede.3F and I fully expect that none of the GRG proponents will ever comment at the RFC and will just revert and revert to get what they want as they have done for a decade. This disruption is spreading to other biographies until the insane delusion that the only source we can have the moment someone reaches age 110 is the GRG and that everything else must go out the window. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TFBCT1[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 TFBCT1[edit]
Statement by clpo13[edit]The lack of discussion by TFBCT1 is concerning. They've only made a single talk page comment in over four years ([82], [83]). I pinged them to a discussion on Talk:List of oldest living people regarding the lead of that article, but they haven't chimed in beyond the diff I linked. They have, however, continued to revert to their preferred version of the article. clpo13(talk) 23:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Legacypac[edit]Reverts User:Calton who notes GRG does not set wikipedia standards [84] with "no consensus for this edit as per below." Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning TFBCT1[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mystery Wolff[edit]
| Appeal reviewed, including clarification requested at ARCA. Request not granted. NW (Talk) 04:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
NOTE: Because of items brought up newly within the Meta Discussion, and discussion on with which group reviews the item, this is moved to the A/R/E board, intact. 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 Mystery Wolff[edit]EdJohnston is an editor whom I interacted with, and was involved with my editing. He asked that I respond to sockpuppet assertions on the TALK pages, which he ultimately used as part of his justification to ban me indefinitely. He was involved with another AE opened on me that was rescinded, and was the person who suggested as the first measure of any sanction or warning to me that I be topic banned for 6 months.
Bottomline
The AE has most of the information. The AE was created by an editor who wants me to not edit. I should be afford the opportunity to work properly and edit properly without having other editors act as owners of the article. I do not believe I should have been sanctioned at all. I was editing correctly. And I was using the Talk pages. The indefinite ban is overkill, by any measure and reflects the biases and true "involvement" with EdJohnston with this case. He recommendations poisoned the well with the other admins. The ARB he is enforcing does not specify that the first saunction would be a 6 month ban. In fact it says it should not exceed 30 days. I was not part of the original ARB, but its subsequent enforcement to other editors are nothing near what EdJohnston has pushed on me. EdJohnston has refused to point out my edits in a question. Long term sockpuppets were interacting with my edits, with no investigation by EdJohnston to why. His mind was made up
Additional Responses by Mystery Wolff[edit]
Statement by EdJohnston[edit]
Statement by AlbinoFerret[edit]As far as EdJohnston, he is not involved. The only edits to the articles were as an uninvolved admin to the talk page and suggested ways that the editors could solve issues (more discussion, RFC, AE, etc). He to my knowledge has never edited any electronic cigarette article, nor voiced any opinions on content on any talk page. Per WP:INVOLVED he is not involved. AlbinoFerret 23:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC) I would like to point out WP:ASPERSIONS. So far none of the claims of Mystery Wolff have been proved. Also the 500 word limit has long been passed by him. AlbinoFerret 13:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]Mystery Wolff: You are incorrect in your understanding of what happened regarding the text of the instructions for the bottom section:
I hope that clears up the issue for you. BMK (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mystery Wolff[edit]
Result of the appeal by Mystery Wolff[edit]
|