Roscelese[edit]
| False accusation of rape placed under a page-level restriction (wording slightly different to what was discussed). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 16 May 2015 (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 Roscelese[edit]
Not applicable. User is under restrictions from previous arbcom case above.
Between April 26th and May 2nd, EllieTea made several good faith edits to False accusation of rape. While the bulk of the changes were fine, there were a few reverts by other users, including Roscelese, EvergreenFir, and SonicYouth86. After seeing these reverts, EllieTea made an effort to discuss them on the talk page: 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Actually, every section in the current revision of [1] has EllieTea attempting to explain and discuss his/her edits. Maybe a little overkill in the number of sections, but nothing too bad. During this time, Roscelese's only responses to EllieTea were:
Finally, Roscelese reverted the page back over a week (with the first diff I listed above). At this time, the only explanation she provided was "Per disc. w/SY86, rv back to Amaury's version. EllieTea, since in the short time you've been editing you've shown repeatedly that you can't/won't accurately represent srcs w/o falsification or OR, I suggest you gain consensus for edits *before* making 'em" (in the edit summary), and on the talk page: "I've reverted back to Amaury's version from April 25. EllieTea's conduct in the article and on this talk page gives me little hope that their edits conform to WP:V and WP:NOR, as in the week they've been here, they've blatantly misrepresented sources numerous times. EllieTea, since you are unable to edit the article in accordance with policy, I suggest that you propose edits on the talk page, gain consensus, and let other users implement them if consensus is achieved." I was unable to find any such discussion, and even then I found Roscelese unilaterally reverting the entire article to a week before a bit extreme given all the attempts by EllieTea to discuss it. I reverted the change "Undid revision 660693403 by Roscelese (talk) WAY too large a revert. You owe it to EllieTea to go through and carefully revert the edits that are bad, not just flip the table. WP:REVERT" and left a response on the talk page Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#Revert. My revert was later undone by an editor who had never been involved in the discussion and did not get involved in any discussion (but from the Arbitration case, has a clear history of helping Roscelese). This discussion went on for a while between myself, Roscelese, Sonicyouth, and EllieTea. EllieTea and I repeatedly asked for Roscelese and Sonicyouth to explain what was wrong with the bulk of the edits, all requests for specifics were refused with WP:IDHT accusations and refusal to even link the section where it was discussed. ― Padenton|✉ 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC) While putting this together, a related ANI was opened, here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problems_with_User:Roscelese_and_User:Sonicyouth86 ― Padenton|✉ 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Roscelese[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 Roscelese[edit]I was just going to ignore the wall of text at ANI, but now that the same dispute has been dragged here for no apparent reason, I suppose I ought to leave a sentence or two. In brief: The offending user's refusal to acknowledge my explanations of why their edits violated policy repeatedly != my violating my sanction by not explaining my reverts. Moreover, "the source does not contain that statistic or anything approaching it" is not remotely personal, and "that editor is an SPA" is obvious from their edit history. Check out their canvassing of another blocked SPA, too: [10] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Questions for Padenton by Beyond My Ken[edit]Please correct me if I am wrong, but what you are reporting is essentially a single incident between Roscelese and EllieTea, is that right? And the AN/I report you cite is about the same incident as well, not an additional incident, yes? Do you have evidence of any other incidents besides this one?Also a general question to whomever can answer it: has Roscelese been warned or sanctioned for violating this restriction before? I see nothing in the Enforcement Log. BMK (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Statement by Sonicyouth86[edit]As I stated at ANI, EllieTea (talk · contribs) is an obvious SPA whose editing is limited to the subject of (campus) rape and false rape accusations. Only a minuscule fraction of their edits are not about this topic. ET promotes the POV that “only a small percentage (of rape accusations) is known to be true”. Their edits demonstrate a clear bias which corresponds with their stated bias. All that Roscelese did was discuss those edits, explain how they violated WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and revert some of those POV pushing edits together with other experienced editors like EvergreenFir and Binksternet. I think that it's no coincidence that Padenton and ElliTea, who support the same edits on talk:False accusations of rape, filed an AE and ANI report essentially at the same time, obviously in an effort to have Roscelese removed from the article so that they can have free reign. I listed some examples of EllieTea's misrepresentation of sources, edit warring, and POV pushing on the ANI noticeboard. Padenton has clearly been unhelpful in the topic area, claiming over and over again that I and Roscelese have been uncivil to EllieTea or accusing me of refusing to discuss, which is demonstrably false. I suggest a warning for Padenton and a topic ban for EllieTea who is obviously WP:NOTHERE. --SonicY (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:
Statement by EllieTea[edit]If I have understood this discussion, an important issue is whether Roscelese justified the mass revert of my edits. Roscelese did give an explanation for the mass revert, on the Talk page.[23] That explanation states that my edits violate WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Consider the diff between before and after the mass revert.[24] Roscelese should be able to specify some aspect of the diff that shows a violation of VERIFY and some aspect that shows a violation of OR. I ask that Roscelese be required to specify such aspects. EllieTea (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC) ___________________
The explanation that Roscelese gave in her edit summary and elaborated on in Talk asserted that my edits violate WP:VERIFY and WP:OR.[25] Yet Roscelese has failed to show any aspect of the before–after diff[26] that violates those policies—or indeed any WP policy. That is, it seems that the “explanation” was just some words to allow her to claim that she was not technically violating the restriction. If the claims in her explanation were valid, she would be able to show such. EllieTea (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by OccultZone[edit]I agree with the suggestion of EdJohnston, however, I just believe that this kind of rule should be officially imposed on this article for everyone else. Restricting these few editors is likely going to introduce some trouble, there is clear possibility of having any other editor who would edit against consensus. We can solve that problem, by installing a editnotice on the article, Template:Editnotices/Page/False accusation of rape, and it should warn against making any major edits without consensus. Whoever would edit against consensus and refuse to self-revert might be reported here or to any admin who wants to keep a watch in this area. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (anonymous)[edit]Was just going over the page and felt the need to point something out, in response to @Sonicyouth86: Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]I'm on quasi break, but if I'm named in a AE like this, it would have been nice to be notified of it. This whole thing seems fishy. The page was protected by MusikAnimal on May 4 so the content dispute could be resolved. This request was filed 4 days later and the edit in question was from May 3. The talk page for the article was last edited by anyone mentioned here on May 5. So why the delay? Smells like sour grapes to me. This filing deserves a trouting. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 03:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Roscelese[edit]
This complaint may be closed unless it identifies exactly where Roscelese broke the Arbcom restriction. The three parts of her restriction are:
I don't see a complaint here that Roscelese broke the 1RR. And nobody has presented diffs showing Roscelese reverting with no edit summary. The only clause where you might have a case is the third one, about casting aspersions or personalizing disputes. What I can see is Roscelese using some harsh language, but there is intense disagreement about how to interpret some of the sources about false rape allegations. There is some indication that more than one party is descending into minute analysis of sources that may violate WP:NOR. Charges of misreading sources are not exactly aspersions if there is good-faith disagreement on how to interpret the sources. As yet, this does not add up to a clear case against Roscelese. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Here are the pagelinks for the article: Let's assume that WP:ARBGG is applicable and gives us the authority for page bans, I'd be tempted to close with warnings to all the people who reverted at False accusation of rape between April 26 and May 4. That group would include The warning would be a caution about their future editing at False accusation of rape. It would tell each person that they could be banned from the article and its talk page unless they showed by their further edits that they were making a reasonable effort to solve the disputed items and reach consensus. That effort could include RFCs, posts at WikiProjects, use of WP:DRN or any other recognized method of WP:Dispute resolution. Nobody would be allowed to make any edit
|
TheRedPenOfDoom, third filing[edit]
500 edit/30 day minimum account qualification applied to Gamergate controversy article and Talk page; no further AE action Zad68 13:57, 17 May 2015 (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 TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]
I am doing this third filing, because the first was rejected as a dynamic IP's (not me) filing, and the second was rejected due to a topic-banned editor filing. I believe that TheRedPenOfDoom is still creating a hostile editing environment, adding heat to the already controversial area. My last edits to the GamerGate article and talk page were in March 2015. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TheRedPenOfDoom[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 TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]Statement by Andy Dingley[edit]To repeat the filing above: I have no stake in this particular case. However I've had a fair bit of experience with Red Pen before, at the usual variety of articles for such a prolific editor. I cannot think of an example of his editing, on any topic, where he has not exemplified the very worst of "battleground mentality". I first encountered him at List of unusual deaths, where the article history and long talk: archives are a prime example of his editing style: focussed on ego, self-aggrandisement and the application of petty bureaucracy and wikilawyering to push his personal viewpoint. I have never yet seen him editing in a way simply to improve an encylopedia, except when it was shoving a (usually hardline deletionist) agenda. As to the closures of this, and the month-long first block of Retartist, then they would have been egregious, except we're getting used to that sort of behaviour on WP. They are both far too close to appearing as an attempt to avoid criticism of a friend, rather than a justified closure because the filing was invalid. This is just the same shoot-the-messenger tactic that Future Perfect used for so long to defend his colleague Betacommand when it was obvious he'd returned as Werieth. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by (anonymous)[edit]I'd just like to contribute some diffs here that I discovered while reading the current talk page, encountering an editor name I didn't recognize and looking through that editor's history for context. The new editor in question, Mythiran, cited existing, well-source page content and proposed that it called for a balancing edit to the lede (as it ignored part of the story entirely despite the weight given to it in the RSes). Less than 4 hours later, TheRedPenOfDoom collapsed the discussion, claiming that there is But I want to go a little beyond that, for essential context. It's worth looking at the replies that Mythiran got before the discussion was collapsed. Almost immediately, PeterTheFourth misrepresented the argument (as Mythiran had not claimed the "gamergaters" to be completely blameless), arguing that it "seems like it might be undue weight". MarkBernstein subsequently argued that Mythiran's claim That we keep seeing names like MarkBernstein and PeterTheFourth in situations like this is unsurprising to me, and I think that there is a clear pattern of behaviour here that should be of interest to the arbitrators. Seemingly every time any kind of objection to bias in the article is raised, it gets shut down with a similar combination of mockery, dismissiveness, strawmanning, and general failure to consider the argument. Whenever any view contradicting the tone of the existing page is proposed, it is treated as "undue" because only a few sources are presented at a time; meanwhile, the existing reliable sources are summarized in a way that discards all nuance and overstates their claims, and then this distorted version is held up as "proof" of statements being "untrue" (note the wording of PeterTheFourth and MarkBernstein's comments). In my mind, it's clear that the page is being treated as a battleground by a small group of editors who agree with each other - just as things stood before the Arbcom case. They are apparently a small minority of the people seeking to edit the page, yet they demonstrate a compulsion to keep out other views of the situation, and even points about the content of the existing reliable sources in the article. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Dumuzid: I find it a little suspicious that you were the one to immediately respond to my take on policy (and the common-sense interpretation of Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" branding) in the first attempt to file this request; turned up in that series of diffs on TRPoD's side of the discussion; and seem to have a particular interest in the Gamergate controversy and Zoe Quinn pages in spite of claiming a primary interest in @MarkBernstein: Are you going to provide any meaningful citation for your claims, or demonstrate the relevance of the Hugo awards? Or are you just posting a bunch of dog puns in order to show contempt for the process? How does the addition of a CN tag constitute an argument for ignoring the sources? How does vandalizing a BLP page constitute a death threat? If someone were to vandalize a BLP page by claiming that the subject was a rape victim, would that be a rape threat? 74.12.93.177 (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: If you want to avoid the appearance of WP:TAGTEAM, you could probably do better than to emulate MarkBernstein's dog-pun schtick. @Bosstopher: They're inflammatory for the same reason that it's been inflammatory in previous Arbitration actions when MarkBernstein has seen fit to reply in sonnets, haiku etc. or just plain obfuscated language. Like I indicated above, it suggests contempt for the process. @Cmatrix4761: This is fundamentally the same request - note that the diffs are the same. All that's changed is that the request is finally being brought by someone who can't be dismissed on procedural grounds. As others have noted, that it's taken this much effort to get arbitrators to even entertain the case, in spite of the quantity and quality of diffs presented, is concerning. @Newyorkbrad: TRPoD was already formally admonished, and as far as I can tell, that decision was based on the same behaviour being presented here. Am I to understand that "counsel" constitutes an "increasingly severe sanction" vs. an "admonishment"? Or is there a more subtle distinction being made here? Is TRPoD perhaps allowed one "freebie" of every possible way of insulting other editors? 74.12.93.177 (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]Administrators may be interested to know that off-wiki planning of a campaign to reclaim Wikipedia for Gamergate have been especially active and ambitious in recent days. This complaint calls for The Red Pen Of Doom’s efforts to defend Wikipedia from ongoing, coordinated attacks by Gamergate supporters to be cur-tailed. It it true that TRPoD has doggedly upheld Wikipedia policy; as the last of the Five Horsemen not banned in ArbCom's infamous debacle, TRPoD has been hounded on-wiki and off by sad puppies of Gamergate longing for further sanctions. (They don't like me much, either.) TRPoD is now accused of using Latin TRPoD has shown the patience of a saint -- Saint Bernard? -- in the face of endlessly rehashed insistence from a parade of dormant and throwaway accounts [[27]] that the Gamergate pages should disregard the sources, the media being [No question] is ever settled in this world where “new” accounts appear at uncannily regular intervals to re-raise the same propositions, to dog-whistle on sexual innuendo or insinuation of fraud that might be shoehorned into one of the articles, or simply [to play with hats]. Here we are again, chasing our tails; it’s enough to drive one barking mad. The only way TRPoD could satisfy Gamergate’s proponents, as we know, would be to allow them resume the use Wikipedia to punish their targets. It is worth remembering that one of the first Gamergate threats to the life of Zoe Quinn was delivered by writing an obituary into her Wikipedia article. TRPoD has resisted countless efforts to use Wikipedia (and Wikipedia talk pages) to smear Gamergate’s intended victims and deserves your -- and our -- support and assistance. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@Zad68: The 500-edit 30-day requirement is worth trying, but might merely shift the mix of “new” accounts back toward the (re)use of dormant accounts, an approach which was characteristic pre-Arbcom. It’s conceivable that the use of fresh accounts indicates that Gamergate ran out of disused or "zombie" accounts to repurpose, but after Arbcom called for fresh voices, Gamergate may have decided to shift tactics to accommodate them. As you say, the Gamergate pages are a terrible starting point for new or “new” editors, both because they feature more than a million words of fresh backstory and because they are an invitation to BLP violation -- especially for people coming from the Gamergate forums and steeped in "facts" about the sex lives of Gamergate victims. My personal opinion is that intense moderation by active administrators who will tolerate no BLP violations and countenance no further time-wasting WP:FLAT or WP:FORUM posturing is the only solution, but your proposal might help. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Re requests from anonymous editors demanding proof of offsite recruitment for Gamergate brigading: evidence is well known to the administrators who have previously been active in this area. Relevant boards are not hard to find -- a new subReddit was launched for this purpose just a few days ago -- but these cannot be linked here. Note, too, the number of brand-new editors who have rushed into Gamergate, violated BLP, received topic bans, and promptly vanished from the project; again, the passage PeterTheFourth quotes is pertinent. Note the number of Gamergate supporters on this page with sophisticated knowledge of WikiLaw and sparse editing histories. The use of demands for proof of offsite collaboration was, in fact, boasted of offsite by a (prolific, now-banned) Gamergate editor as a valuable tactic for Gamergate because answering such demands can then be used to complain of WP:OUTING. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by PeterTheFourth[edit]Hi! I got pinged here (although that editor may be barking up the wrong tree), so I may as well make a statement. There's an ongoing effort to drive particular editors out of this topic area by making it a less pleasant place for them- I posit that TRPoD is not engaging in driving people out so much as he's being targeted for expulsion. Perhaps a statement from José Antonio Zapato, the blocked sock of EmonyRanger (seen here attempting to create a page for 'GameJournoPros', a gamergate talking point) would illustrate things more than I could:
Source here. Hopefully these continued efforts to drive editors such as TRPoD out of Wikipedia bear no fruit here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Masem[edit](Note that this is taken partially with some edits from the previous closed request that Starship.paint notes.) As directly involved/engaged, I believe that tRPoD (among others, but he's the only one there that has been specifically under sanction) is continuing a battleground attitude to the page; from my own recollection, it was only to a degree that the isolated incidents would be difficult to make a proper case out of and were far from bright line problems. But the total sum of the diffs shown above shows the same attitudes and behaviors that those that were sanctioned on the actual cases were behaving as: that is, a refusal to discuss anything that isn't within their primary narrative, shutting down discussions and showing contempt for the Gamergate supporters/movement that are the key subject for the article and thus exhibiting a possible COI with editing the article. One example of this attitude is this diff [31] which in context is a reply to an editor that wanted to keep unhatting a talk page discussion. I'm fully aware there's 36 archive talk pages (Heck, I found a academic study that analyzed the nature of the GG article talk page discussion as of January, that's how much data there is), and in context of that specific thread, it was frustration with an editor that felt the thread should have been kept open and was edit warring the hatting of the thread on the talk page to do so. But in context of the larger picture, this is a sign of how tRPoD does not want to engage in discussions of any point contrary to how the current article's narrative is. As per the original case and the proposed issues that some editors had with me, ArbCom recognized that talk is completely the right place to discuss issues with the article instead of edit warring. Trying to shut down discussion by saying "there's 36 pages of archives!" is not helpful particularly if they are coming from new voices to the article discussion. Yes, many of these are the same "the article is biased, fix it!" with no followup or actionable points, and that is weary - hence why we have a talk page FAQ to point these people to. But this is not true for all such new contributors. This is the same behavior that people like Ryulong and NSBS were engaged with - they didn't want to hear there were any problems with the article and would refuse to engage in dispute resolution processes. Mind you, this is a difficult article to write under our policies and as it involves potential BLP we have to be careful, but policies (outside BLP) are not hard-fast rules, and editors like tRPoD are using such policies as a tool to shut down discussion rather than a starting point to figure out how best to write the article in a objective neutral manner. That is not helpful and fuels the battleground mentality that the case warned about before. This might be the normal approach tRPoD uses per Andy above and might be okay in other areas of WP that aren't as contentious, but on the GG talk page, it is not warranted particularly in light of the Arbcom decision. It also doesn't help with attitudes like Mark to make humorous posts when Poe's law readily applies to such discussions that have been mistaken as serious issues on the GG page. It's a mocking attitude that contributes towards the battleground situation. Humor is fine once in a while but not when its used insultingly. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC) @MarkBernstein: It doesn't matter if there's 36 pages of archives and FAQs to look through, civility says that we should at least give new voices to the conversation to opine. What has been done: asking "do you have anything specific you want to change to the article" and/or pointing to the FAQ when a new editor comes along complaining on POV is perhaps blunt but civil, and in most cases, this results in no return statement, and thus allowing the thread to be closed effectively. But when people come along with actionable ideas and that have not participated before, closing down those threads just because its claimed the ideas were discussed in archives and you don't want to talk about it any more is very much a battleground mentality, the exactly same that Ryulong and the others exhibited at the time of ArbCom. This is contributing poorly to the current decorum of the GG talk page in general that makes it hostile to any new voices, when in reality, that's what we need the most including what ArbCom asked for. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@Zad68 : I would have no issue with having a higher qualification of contribution to use the talk page (30 days seems fair) at the present situation. I will admit there are people coming on as editors to poke at the discussion without any intent of helping to improve, so that should be fine. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Bosstopher[edit]Given that tRPOD has not edited in a few days, it would perhaps be best if we pause this until he returns, instead of carrying out a trial in absentia.Bosstopher (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Dumuzid[edit]I've been called "suspicious" by an IP! I feel like a real Wikipedian. Just a note with regard to that, if I may indulge: I AM interested in the gamergate business, and I AM occasionally sarcastic, though I try to be fairly gentle when so. What I say on my talk pages also happens to be true. I hope that doesn't mean I am subject to recurrent arbitration enforcement attempts. On to the business at hand. In my experience, TRPoD can be acerbic at times, certainly, but it always seems to be in reply to something that appears to be offered in bad faith; e.g., the same suggestion for the umpteenth time. I suppose he or she could be more decorous, but I am still in the midst of getting a sense for how much toleration WP has for sharp elbows. Count me as one who would think it unfortunate should anything drastic happen to someone I consider an otherwise good editor. Statement by (anonymous two)[edit]As a person who has been following the internet drama known as gamergate, I too had encountered a hostile attitude back when IP's were allowed to edit the talk page of said topic, when I suggested, I guess as anyone who is following the issue up-close noticed, that the wiki article seemed not reflecting the reality. Granted, at first my "it's biased, fixed it" attitude was not good, but that was not because I was writing it in bad faith, I did not know the correct procedure, later when I suggested specific changes,(after being familiarized with policies) I was shut down by what I now see was the stock answers like, undue weight, not representing the majority of RS'es etc. When I contested and further argued my point, they said HORSEMEAT, SOAPBOX, NOTAFORUM etc, from the sheer hostility of the talk page, mind you I did not even edited the article itself, I decided to drop from the discussion. This was my first experience with editing wiki, i did edit before, to and fro various topics, but never even needed to communicate with fellow wikians. After this, I watched the talk page, and saw almost every time people that came to that talk page treated like me, if not worse, by the same users, TheRedPenOfDoom is the chief among them. I also see that people using the term "sealioning" which refers to a cartoon with an ill conceived humor that can be considered racist. But I believe, ironically, it really represents their way of thinking, which is "I can assert anything, however baseless it is, but when you ask for evidence, I don't have to provide any! And you being polite is somehow wrong, go away!" 195.174.183.35 (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (cmatrix4761)[edit]This is getting silly guys. This is the fourth arbitration request regarding battlefield editing and most of the complaints have involved Red Pen in some way. It's starting to spill into social media and you're even getting criticized by outside sources.
Frankly, I'm disappointed in the editors for letting things get this far. Stop using op-eds as "reliable sources" when it comes to libel and personal attacks and stop letting editors treat these hallowed servers as their personal turf wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmatrix4761 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Note: This is the first edit ever made by this account Statement by Original IP Filer[edit]@PeterTheFourth: Examining the contributions of the editor and sock you mention as examples of the behavior TRPoD has to contend with (EmonyRanger and José Antonio Zapato) - out of hundreds of edits between the two accounts I only found one tangential relation to Gamergate (GameJournoPros) and no interaction with TRPoD whatsoever. We all know sock puppets and bad actors exist. Do you have examples relevant to this case, for instance sock puppets focused on the Gamergate article/talk page (the scope of this filing) or TRPoD (the subject of this filing) ? 107.107.60.14 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC) @Zad68: Although I appreciate your attempts to keep MarkBernstein on topic do you have any comments on the merits of the case or potential resolution? In terms of a broader solution, while there's merit to your suggestion it focuses on the symptom. The root cause of these new (and unhelpful) accounts is the poor state of the article which isn't the result of new accounts but established accounts. Address the POV editing, TAGTEAMing, BITEing and incivility (demonstrated in other editors' comments) and you'll remove the impetus for most of this disruption. That's not to say treating the symptom isn't also appropriate but this should be in addition to not instead of treating the cause. I'd like to hear suggestions to that end. I'd also suggest an addendeum to your 500 edit hurdle - the edits must be in areas unrelated to Gamergate. I'm not sure whether that would best be construed narrowly (i.e. Gamergate and directly related: Zoe Quinn, Sarkeesian, etc.) or broadly (progressive/conservative, anti-feminism/feminism, etc.) but the goal would be to discourage editors from registering just to push a POV, encouraging more moderate and uninvolved voices. 107.107.62.221 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC) @Zad68: I'm not admin but it seems trivial for an admin to click the "500" link in an editor's contrib history to see if the overwhelming majority focus on Gamergate. Am I missing something? Keep in mind this would only be necessary in cases where the editor has more than 500 edits, which hasn't been the case at all so far. It takes a while to rack up 500 edits so at most we're talking once, maybe twice per month which I can't reconcile with "too hard to enforce." As it is your new rule effectively says: "New single purpose accounts in this space are forbidden, but old single purpose accounts (whose 500 edits come from gamergate) and who've most likely contributed to disruption in this area are just fine!" Is that really your intent? 166.171.185.192 (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC). RE: "if the editor is a SPA behaving badly throughout 500+ edits, bring them to AE and it should be easy to see" -Zad68 This enforcement had to be brought 4 times in succession before it was finally addressed, new rules were created to prohibit the previous 3 and thus far between 3 administrators and 10 comments not a single one has addressed the substance of the filing. The outcome is leaning towards a caution to behave better if anything at all. So when you say "it should be easy to see" perhaps, but as this filing demonstrates it's been made exceedingly difficult to enforce. Meanwhile, contributions like this [32] made minutes after your last edit continue and are surprisingly encouraged by at least one admin (Liz.) Such comments are chiefly responsible for the disruption and battleground attitude but nothing you or anyone else has suggested will have the effect of addressing them. Instead we've fixed the minor annoyance of new accounts whose contributions are hatted shortly before they're banned. Well done. 107.107.62.96 (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by ColorOfSuffering[edit]I've had several interactions with TheRedPenOfDoom, and in my mind this user has done the most to foster a hostile environment on the Gamergate Controversy talk page. It's clear that this editor seems to be more interested in the battle than the resolution, ostensibly due to a steadfast belief that there is some dedicated, persistent off-site campaign to destabilize Gamergate-related articles. Consequently, every incoming editor with a dissenting opinion is treated as a member of this supposed campaign[33]. New editors are viewed with suspicion and silenced[34][35][36][37], while established editors are shouted down; sometimes literally [38][39][40][41] (if capital letters, large fonts, or bold text for emphasis count as shouting) or they are accused of beating a dead horse if they so much as bring up what is perceived to be an already-discussed topic [42][43][44][45][46][47]. This behavior is not helpful, it is not productive, and it is clear-cut intimidating behavior which is a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT. These are troubling actions, especially for a user who has been previously admonished by ArbCom for battleground behavior and creating a hostile editing environment. There are enough stewards and watchers on the Gamergate Controversy page to prevent even the tiniest value-based word change (see this productive discussion as an example of how difficult it is to change even a single well-sourced word in the article space) much less widespread disruption. Does this unfounded and paranoid belief that there's some ongoing, nefarious cabal trying to undermine the sanctity of the Gamergate Controversy article give certain editors carte blanche to ignore WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL? Is this a good precedent? Would this behavior be tolerated (even endorsed) on any other article talk page? Enough is enough. If editors like TRPoD do not stop treating this article like some kind of fortified bunker under ceaseless attack, then it's time for them to take a step back and consider that there are, quite possibly, some valid issues being raised by the new editors. If they can't do that, then administrative action needs to be considered. The ArbCom decision specifically requested "knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles" to come and review the article. The behavior exhibited by TheRedPenOfDoom is chasing those users away. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Liz[edit]@Zad68: That sounds like a good solution. This article, and those of people associated with Gamer Gate, have suffered from newly created accounts that pop in to the talk page and yell, "This article is BIASED!" If I had a dollar for every time this has happened in the voluminous talk page archives, I could probably pay off the last of my student loans. The situation isn't as bad as it was in November or even January but this additional safeguard would ensure only experienced editors could work on the page. Whether or not the talk page should also have this restriction, is another question. That page is the site of the most personal and divisive disputes over the past 9 months. Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by ScrapIronIV[edit]@Zad68: Begging your pardon, but there are plenty of new and decent users who have never touched that article and would be affected by that sanction. While I am relatively inexperienced and try to stay away from controversial topics, there may come a time when I have the confidence to do so. I don't think that newer users should be automatically sanctioned. How this committee handles these situations has already appeared to generate a lot of controversy. The focus needs to be on problematic editors, not on special rules for individual pages that will impact a subset of users. Scr★pIronIV 21:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by AllMyEasterEggs[edit]Sorry to hop in ex-post facto, but on the 500 edit+ 30 day rules requirement, is there any precedent for this? Is it going to be the case that if enough editors with gaming knowledge try to edit the page going forward that these increasingly draconian measures will be escalated without limit? Will there be a 5000, 300 day requirement? 50000 edits, 3000 days? Are there precedents, and do ones to this level really need to be set on account of the Gamergate page? This restriction is simply not needed given the already firm level of control of the article by the editors and admins involved already, as evidenced by its current state. I doubt anyone point to a single case of a user who actually managed to successfully insert material contrary to the wishes of the controlling group. Their control is all but absolute. The purpose of this seems to be sooley to spare the controlling editors the embarassment of having to actually contest their position. I'd like to hear about previous applications of pages restrictions of this magnitutude, in order to compare whether the issues faced by this editing group are really so dire as supposed in comparision. Without any, this measure simply serves to spare a clique of editors the overhead of even achieving consensus. AllMyEasterEggs (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Monkeyfoetus[edit]@MarkBernstein:
Statement by NeilN[edit]500/30 - Yes, please. This isn't a breaking story or an article that requires frequent updates so Wikipedians with some level of experience should be able to keep up with and evaluate new material. A specially crafted restriction would help ensure users are here to contribute to the encyclopedia, not just to advance a POV on a very specific subject. --NeilN talk to me 15:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Side-note: I did this as AllMyEasterEggs has been checkuser blocked. I assume a clerk or admin should strike out their section if necessary. --NeilN talk to me 15:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]
MarkBernstein I'm sorry are you just having fun with a running dog-related joke or are you actually hinting at or pointing to something or some editor with the dog allusions?
Notes for now: I'm digging through what's here, in the ArbCom archives, at the Talk pages, and elsewhere. There's some merit to the complaint about tRPoD's behavior, but there are also a valid point about what appears to be efforts by those who don't necessarily have Wikipedia's goals in mind to exploit a soft spot in Wikipedia's editing model. Focusing on just the second point now, I'm considering the option of placing the Gamergate controversy article and its Talk page under special page-level sanctions that would increase the editor qualifications requirement from the current 10 edits/4 days to something like 500 edits/30 days, and some further qualifications on what would count toward "500 edits"--meaning, it couldn't be 500 trivial edits to a sandbox page. I don't think anybody would argue that that particular article, in the current environment, would be a great place for a truly new, good-faith editor to start their editing career. Masem, MarkBernstein, as you appear to be the most invested here and are coming from differing perspectives, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.
|
Debresser[edit]
| No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Debresser[edit]
See:
There has been much dispute and discussion on Sur Baher and Talk:Sur Baher since 4 May. There have been mainly two disputes and one of them this is about is the statement added by Sean.hoyland that "East Talpiot was built on most of the expropriated land". See Sur Baher#East Talpiot. Debresser reverted it on 12 May with this edit summary. The source does say that: "... East Talpiot, which was built on the bulk of the expropriated land". Debresser has not wanted to refer to any source for his assertion. Even if someone accept the last one (the first one is not true as the statement is in the source), that other parts of East Talpiot's area are from another village, the statement does not, as Sean.hoyland described it, imply that "All/most of East Talpiot was built on most of the expropriated land". It is about what happened with most of Sur Baher's expropriated land. The newest wording, "Part of East Talpiot was built on that expropriated land" is not a proper description of what the source say. I said that "That changed the meaning of what the source say. See talk page" and he reverted me by saying "Yes, and that is precisely the intention, see talkpage yourself". I would keep discussing this on that talk page, despite that he is not giving any source for his arguments against a RS, and not come here, as I have also already looked away two times that he reverted two editors in the same time on that article recently, if it was not for that Debresser keeps on insisting that the statement added by Sean.hoyland can't be there and as he said on the talk page: "Any further reverts will force me to seek outside input in view of unreasonable behavior of my fellow editors on this page". I see his edits as a violation of WP:1RR and more broadly, it is a conduct problem to not offer any reliable source and still removing the statement and then changing the meaning of what the source say and then say others who revert him once more, who base in on a RS in contrast to him, will "force me to seek outside input in view of unreasonable behavior of my fellow editors on this page" is a very problematic view. Notice also that it is me, Huldra and Sean.hoyland who has reverted him on that part and he has not had any support for that part. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Debresser, now you are making many claims of different types against me to defend yourself but they are not correct. First of all, I decided to go to WP:AE after you insisted, by making another revert, and saying that "Any further reverts will force me to seek outside input in view of unreasonable behavior of my fellow editors on this page". And your two other 1RR violations in that article were ignored by me and so were your constant reverts before that, which I decided not to revert but instead wait and discuss, unlike you who made many reverts as can be seen at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sur_Baher&action=history. Your description of what has happened is not correct. Anyone can look at the talk page and see that you refused to give any source, with me and Sean.hoyland telling that you can't argue with a source based on your own assertions. We both also said to you what the source write does not contradict the scenario you were describing. That does not take much space to explain, it was not like your argument was detailed to respond to. You were repeating your own assertions. So I also therefore did "not completely ignore" all your arguments, it is so easy to just look in my report here and see what I wrote. You also say that I have "this habit of ignoring or misrepresenting my arguments" and links to an answer you wrote in a previous discussion and a revert you made. Yes, in the first answer you wrote that but that is not a proof of something and I answered back then:
What is the second diff showing except that you reverted me by saying "Yes, and that is precisely the intention, see talkpage yourself"? Not either is it true that you have "have extensively participated in the discussion" and you describe it like "... that the present issue is still under active discussion". The discussion about East Talpiot and Sur Baher was pretty short and you ended it with "Any further reverts will force me to seek outside input in view of unreasonable behavior of my fellow editors on this page". How can that be interpreted? That you now, after I got to AE, finally started giving sources is good but don't make it look like that was the case before. The thing is clear: you did not bother to look up sources but still insisted on that your assertions should be accepted and no one could revert you once more as that would then "force" you to "seek outside input in view of unreasonable behavior of my fellow editors on this page". That can never be acceptable. I had wished you would have done what you are doing now, namely referring to sources, and it is also good you did self-revert. A 1RR violation can happen by mistake as you describe but combined with a refusal to mention any source and write what you did about "any further reverts...", I saw no other way than to write here. Now the situation is different. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC) It was not clear what he referred to do but it was clear he made a 1RR violation and insisted there could be no more revert on his edit despite I had support from a source and still do. I thought that is not a good thing to insist on when you are one against three editors in this question. I agree nothing should be done now that he has self-reverted and is open for discussing it further, combined with finally referring to sources. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Debresser[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 Debresser[edit]I have already explained on the talkpage how it came about that I by mistake violated the 1RR editing restriction. Please read this. I self-reverted.[48] I hope that it is clear that I had no intention to violate the edit restriction. I was not surprised to see that User:IRISZOOM decided that the best defense is offense. I was surprised to see that he had gone to WP:AE instead of WP:DR, were I was planning to take this issue. I think it is telling in this regard that he has written three long paragraphs which concern themselves exclusively with the content issue at hand. I can not escape the notion that User:IRISZOOM sees coming to WP:AE as a convenient way to decide the content issue in his favor. As to the content issue. In his abovementioned three long paragraphs, User:IRISZOOM completely ignores all my arguments. Not a mention. He has this habit of ignoring or misrepresenting my arguments,[49][50] and that does not reflect nicely on him. I would like to ask him to read my posts on the talkpage. It should be noticed, that I have extensively participated in the discussion on the talkpage, where I have explained my reasons at length. Please notice that the first issue was resolved with a compromise, and that the present issue is still under active discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]I think IRISZOOM just misunderstood Debresser's comment about "outside input". This perhaps meant WP:DR, RfC etc., not WP:AE. Because there has been a self-revert, nothing to see here, move along. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Debresser[edit]
|
Hell in a Bucket[edit]
| No action; WP:TROUT for filer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Hell in a Bucket[edit]
Discussion concerning Hell in a Bucket[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 Hell in a Bucket[edit]Well I figured this might happen, perhaps if the illustrious User:Hawkeye7 had been more on top of his game he would've reverted it. It was indeed a violation of the Iban. I waited a couple of minutes and when no one was reverting it I decided the right thing to do was to remove it. As Sitush mentions there is some very serious accusations being thrown about editors off wiki. At least one person has been victimized and it's possible both mentioned in the post were. The allegations are something that could have effect in real life and there has been threats made to make it happen. I certainly will not violate the ban under ordinary circumstances but I thought that this was worth an exception and if not I'll take the block. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Sitush[edit]C'mon! HiaB was removing very insulting/disruptive posts by anons. This has been spreading from off-wiki harassment of a very nasty nature and while maybe they could have left it to someone who was not IBANNED, the sooner it went, the better. You'll note that the stuff (which I saw in some cases) got revdeleted. You've been waiting to pounce, Hawkeye, but this is not the moment to choose. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by OccultZone[edit]Even if the editor in question is I-banned or T-banned, it is still one of the usual standard to revert socks or harmful speech, like Fut. Perf mentions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]Wasting the community's time on asinine "gotcha" complaints like this is disruptive. (If it matters, I'm not a Lightbreather fan.) There need to be consequences for such behavior. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Hell in a Bucket[edit]
|
Erlbaeko[edit]
| Report violation of WP:SCWGS at WP:AN or WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Erlbaeko[edit]
There's at least two separate violations of the 1RR restriction active on the article in those five reverts. Add: IP addresses are NOT exempt from the 1RR restriction, nor are these edits clear cases of vandalism. Nor is it the case that Erlbaeko discussed any of these changes on talk (although they demanded in their edit summaries that others do so). This is clearly edit warring by Erlbaeko of the kind that the 1RR restriction is supposed to prevent. Add to that the fact that they are doing the same on other articles, per the warning on their talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The account was active briefly in 2011 in regard to the Norway attacks of Anders Behring Breivik. It then went dormant and was reactivated in 2014 to focus on the war in Syria and the troubles in Ukraine.
Discussion concerning Erlbaeko[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 Erlbaeko[edit]All reverts are done within our 1RR-restriction polisy, and revert 4 and 5 are not even in the same 24 hours periode as revert 1, Ref. WP:GS/SCW.
Erlbaeko (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Update. #5 is a revert of this ip-edit. Instead of just re-reverting, I tried to find a third version (according to Alternatives to reverting) of the text that addressed the IP's RS-concern (by attributing the statement). After no consensus could be reached for my version, I reverted to a previous consensus (according to WP:BRD). Imo #4 is therefor also a IP-revert, but even if that is considered a revert of Kudzu1, it is within our policy of 1RR per 24 hours. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by 92.3.5.255[edit]
Statement by Darouet[edit]Earlbaeko is incorrect, edits #4 and #5 are reverting users, not IPs. However, Earlbaeko never reverted any user within a 24-hour period, and of the IP edits, one was obviously vandalism (it is deeply unfair of Marek to cite this as a revert, since they or anybody should have reverted it), and the other is almost certainly a recently banned editor. The only reason I haven't reported the IP yet is that their edits haven't yet become particularly egregious. -Darouet (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Kudzu1[edit]While Darouet appears to be correct regarding Erlbaeko's reverts of users, and I agree it is probable that there is a connection between a blocked editor and the IPs that have been active on the page, I think it is a slippery slope to begin ignoring reverts of IPs as counting toward 1RR -- especially considering how Erlbaeko handled his reversion of my edit (describing it as reverting an IP) and the fact that he reverted Volunteer Marek less than a day and a half later (with more IP reverts in between). Whether Erlbaeko is deemed to have violated 1RR or not, the article in question clearly needs greater oversight, and probably more stringent page protection. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Mnnlaxer[edit]I think engaging both Erlbaeko and the content and sources of the article is vastly preferred to any administrative process against Erlbaeko in this situation. While there are some things I find problematic about some of Erlbaeko's edits, in no way are they worthy of sanction. In general, Erlbaeko is open to collaboration, is operating in good faith, and has worked to improve the article. - Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes[edit]User Erlbaeko believes that their very obvious edit warring was just fine [59], even after being warned about edit warring in general [60] and specifically on the article talk page [61]. Therefore, she/he will continue doing the same. Why the edit warring? Here is the diff [62]. This is removal of a reference to UN report and insertion of a speculation that "the opposition would have an incentive to stage an attack and make it appear that the Syrian government had crossed the line". That shows the bias. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Erlbaeko[edit]
|
OccultZone[edit]
| No action against User:OccultZone for violation of the temporary injunction. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning OccultZone[edit]
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
There are also disruptive editing concerns, see proposed editing talkpage and deleted SPI that should be counted in the final decision.
Discussion concerning OccultZone[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 OccultZone[edit]Misleading report at best. You are obviously allowed to ask for deleted copies, since SPI has to do nothing with "personally approaching any user in relation to any matter raised in this case",(discussion) this sock puppetry issue took place after the evidence phase was already ended. Although I thought that it is not going to make much difference since all admins have access to deletion files. That's why I had self-reverted too.[64] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning OccultZone[edit]
|