Mystery Wolff[edit]
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Mystery Wolff[edit]
Mystery Wolf is an WP:SPA. All of this editors edits save one have been in the topic or closely related [3]. This new editor which started editing November 11th has a good grasp of wikipedia syntax even being able to ping other users. Knew what was proper for the lede of an article within two days and used the "lede" spelling [4]. Within 4 days of starting knew the best format for a reference. [5] Has become protectionist over QuackGuru's edits and the specific wording used and understands "undue weight" a very experienced concept. [6] [7] His editing times match up pretty well when comparing his and QG both not editing after 14:00 and starting again about 22:00 UTC. Has opened multiple talk page section in an effort to stop improvement of the article and keep edits in place from QuackGuru [8][9][10] These sections have disrupted the articles talk page. Mystery Wolff has been informed of he correct DS locations [11][12][13] and was even offered to have a section started for them if they lacked the knowledge to do so. [14] But has continued to disrupt the page [15] instead of seeking DS. Since the possibility of sockpuppets was brought up in the e-cig case, and seeing the advanced knowledge of Mystery Wolff a checkuser is requested. In any event if not a sock they are a disruptive SPA and should be stopped from adding to the disruption.AlbinoFerret 18:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel There have been no other sanctions against this user, I have removed the section. I have also removed all of the other ways of notifying except the one that is applicable and has a date/diff. AlbinoFerret 14:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC) @Kingsindian and S Marshaall. One things concerns me is the amount of knowledge Mystery Wolff has of the events long before his editing. "UK sockpuppets sniffed out" [16] refers to the investigation of FergusM1970 [17] how a new editor found this information is a very curious question. AlbinoFerret 20:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC) I would also like to point out that Mystery Wolff has changed the name of this section.[18]AlbinoFerret 14:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 12/8/2015 Mystery Wolff removes tags calling them vandalism [19] when the tags are replaced, removes them again [20] Assumes bad faith on the talk page in relation to the tags.[21] Misapplication of vandalism and citing it as an excuse instead of its purpose. Since he assumes they are going to be deleted, how can this be vandalism? AlbinoFerret 23:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Spartaz Mystery Wolff has not stopped editing, just slowed down. They made an edit to the talk page today, that is borderline ABF. [22] AlbinoFerret 19:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Mystery Wolff continues his ABF off topic posts, this one on a specific edit. It looks like he is not going to oppose anything S Marshall proposes from the wording of this post. [23] AlbinoFerret 14:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC) I still believe that it is possible that Mystery Wolff is a sock of some kind. This post [24] shows advanced opinions, not something that is normal in an editor with a month or less of editing. AlbinoFerret 01:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mystery Wolff[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 Mystery Wolff[edit]Archived to address feedback by Gamaliel below Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
To the specific allegations. All of which DO NOT explain how there is any Violation. A requirement. That alone should kick it out. 1. This is a talk page talking about the ALERT, edits, how to proceed, forming consensus. Besides asserting TLDR I do not understand the issue.
Reboot: I am unclear on the ongoing process of this AE. Of the 5 objections, I have responded to all 5. I done everything in order to not push changes into the LIVE page, and was careful to not edit war. Because an editor can edit 10+ times a day, and another only revert 2, an aggressive editor can push the article. While this may be an option for all, and perhaps the feedback to me just to BOLDly edit the live page, I refrained and kept my dialogue in the Talk pages, in order to have a stable LIVE page. Here is an example of some of the changes that were started in the LIVE page and moved back to talk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Smoking_cessation I have nothing to do with QuackGuru. I am not a sockpuppet as EdJohnston required I respond to in the TALK page, and which AlbinoFerret is asserting here in this complaint. As Popeye will attest, I am what I am and that's all I am. I believe I have addressed the concerns, but perhaps there is a process I am not aware of? Immediately after I asked for Full Protection in TALK, (taking up EdJohnston's suggestion in TALK), this AE was noticed to me on my Talk page by AlbinoFerret. The section above this subsection is that request. As it seems that request will not get attention in this venue, please collapse it. What else is required for this process. What else can I answer? (ping in reply) Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by S Marshall[edit]We don't know if this editor is a single-purpose account or not yet. He has ~150 edits and has had his account for a couple of weeks. On the one hand, it might not seem necessary to open an AE request because this editor has pinged everyone in arbcom and everyone who's tried enforcing. Twice now. I think we can assume the AE sysops already have this on the radar. But on the other hand I do think this is a good idea. He clearly has an issue with me personally, and he needs to be given a forum to express that in. This venue is a better place than Talk:Electronic cigarette, so let's make this a welcoming place for him and encourage him to make all his points in full right here.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Kingsindian[edit]I have absolutely no opinion on the underlying dispute, but I agree with S Marshall that this doesn't look like a sock of an experienced user. It looks like an overenthusiastic new user. It is not surprising that some editor who knows about the topic will find a ton of things wrong with a Wikipedia article, and try to fix them all at once. Hell, this is my normal feeling whenever I see any article about which I have nonzero knowledge. I see too many walls of text, but a basically good faith discussion in the talk page section. A lot of the section is simply them being confused by Wikipedia bureaucracy. The basic point is this: the edits by S Marshall were consequential, and it is perfectly proper to object to them, giving reasons. They were not simply copyediting. I would simply remind the editor of WP:AGF. It is more precious than ever in contentious areas, and the key to avoiding many misunderstandings. Also WP:TLDR, which is the iron law of the internet. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Rhoark[edit]Following the removal of one obstructionist editor from the topic, a deluge of edits began. Mystery saw this as taking unfair advantage of the situation, but its actually the positive outcome that was hoped for. We do not need someone else to take up the obstructionist banner to keep the article from improving too much or too fast. I've looked at SM's edits, and the complaint that he is twisting context doesn't hold water. They're just deconvoluting tortured grammar. There are a few cases where SM regarded grammar as too poor to fix and removed an entire properly-sourced claim. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I advise SM not to do that. Both sides should better focus on trying to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Rhoark (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Tracy Mc Clark[edit]
Strike as it is clear by now that it won't work.--TMCk (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by SPACKlick[edit]It's clear Mystery Wolff's actions are disruptive and that they're not absorbing advice given to them about how to express there concerns, or what venue to do it in. I cannot find one instance of them discussing the content of an edit on a talk page, whether at the article or of an editor, they have simply decided S Marshall should be banned. I still have concerns of some form of Sock/Meat puppetry here given their detailed knowledge of arcane bits of wikipedia but claiming "it's my first day" as an excuse repeatedly for misusing process. MW has been given enough rope and either some firm education or a reprimand is needed. SPACKlick (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Johnbod[edit]Was this notified to the EC talk page? I have only just become aware. Mystery Wolff's editing style, both on the article and talk, is very different from Quack Guru's. His edits to both are rather erratic and not especially helpful most of the time, but on the whole I don't think he should be topic banned. His talk comments are often long, wild, personalized and also rather unclear. Stripped of that, his underlying position is not in itself an extreme one, as far as I can see. I still hope he will calm down and begin to express himself more clearly and concisely. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Result concerning Mystery Wolff[edit]
This is an unorthodox suggestion, but what do other admins think about imposing a daily word limit on the talk page for Mystery Wolff? It seems like only a quarter of the text they post is directly relevant. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
|
CFCF[edit]
| CFCF is formally warned that any further instances of reverting other users enacting a consensus will result in sanctions. They are reminded that discussion not reverting is the correct way to resolve a dispute. They should note that any edit that undoes another user's edit is a revert and are reminded that 1RR or not, undoing a consensus change is clear disruption.Spartaz Humbug! 08:44, 23 December 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 CFCF[edit]
A discussion on sub articles in the e-cigarette articles happened here.[25] Where it was pointed out that one of the sub articles was a coatrack not on its topic. A merge discussion was started by me, during which CFCF opposed the plan. The discussion was closed by an uninvolved admin with consensus for the plan.[26] I carried out the plan. CFCF, without further discussion, and in violation of the arbcom warning to discuss reverted part of the move.[27] When I reverted it back to remove duplication CFCF instead of discussing it on the articles talk page went to WikiProject Medicine and started a section with a non neutral post.[28] and continued to argue in that section with false information trying to make his case. This is forum shopping, trying to undo part of the merge discussion that was closed against his position. This is disruptive behaviour. AlbinoFerret 14:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Responses[edit]The merge discussion laid out that there would be a moving of safety information from Aerosol to Safety. That was done in accordance with the closed merge discussion, it was merged back to Safety of electronic cigarettes. Nothing was removed from WP, the 4000bits mentioned by CFCF were not deleted but moved here.[29] Since it was toxicological information it was placed in the Toxicology section of Safety. The post on Wikiproject medicine is indeed canvassing, it is non neutral and aimed at getting editors who agree with him to involve themselves. Had CFCF made a post requesting more eyes on the topic it would have been fine. But the non neutral post favors his desired outcome. Seeking to reagrue the case in the merge discussion is forum shopping, this post by CFCF is a personal attack [30] AlbinoFerret 16:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Its just plain sad that Alexbrn has decided to dredge up a now 8 month old ANI section. In this case I have done my best to follow what should be done. Discussed, gained consensus, waited for the close, then carried out the consensus. What Alexbrn doesnt have is a single diff of any wrongdoing on my part in the case at hand. I will alss point out that the main complaint in that section is that I was over involved in the topic area. Since returning from a self ban I have involved myself in other topics. Including posting here on different topics and continuing as a NAC with about 236 closes to date. AlbinoFerret 17:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Addressing Doc James question of "removal of all safety information" I will point out that while some things were removed to Safety. What replaced it is a long standing section from the Safety of electronics article. Its all "safety information, the move and merge did not remove safety information byt placed on topic safety information on the page. This was replaced on the Safety page by a summery (the lede of the Aerosol page). So to say that all "safety" information was removed is false. AlbinoFerret 17:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC) S Marshall, I did not bring CFCF here for violating the 1RR, but violating the warning he received from arbcom. I believe lack of discussion before reverting is the reason for the separate warning. He did not discuss his revert any place, as the warning required. Reverting without discussion was pointed out to be as much of a problem in the arbcom case as the reverting itself. I am opposed to changing the 1RR on CFCF because of the reverting without discussion in this case that the arbcom remedies required. AlbinoFerret 17:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Contrary to CFCF's latest statement here [31] he did revert. Here is my edit that removed the table from the article.[32] Here is his edit replacing it.[33] While CFCF should be aware of what a revert is, I direct him to WP:3RR Where we find the definition of a revert "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." True, it was a partial revert, but a revert none the less. The so called discussion is a link to the closed merge discussion, that isnt discussing the material before reverting it. That is discussing the merge to begin with, with no mention that he was going to revert. AlbinoFerret Spartaz the table was not self reverted by CFCF. I removed it when the merge was done,[34] then CFCF replaced it.[35] I then removed it again.[36] AlbinoFerret 13:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Callanecc and Spartaz, A comment by CFCF that this is his single edit to the articles is simply untrue. In fact one of them was a revert of tags[37] placed by S Marshall.[38] While the discussion was ongoing.[39] The revert happened before he posted to the discussion on the tags.[40] AlbinoFerret 14:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Notice [41]
Discussion concerning CFCF[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 CFCF[edit]Informing concerned parties, including those parties that bear interest in retaining factual information in the article is not forumshopping. I normally post about different concerns of objectionable edits or topics which need looking at on the WikiProject Medicine Talk Page several times weekly, as do many others. My post asked nothing beyond increased scrutiny and "more eyes" directed towards the merge. It is nonsense to suggest that this act of trying to get more people to engage to be disruptive—and this filing is utterly disruptive in that it tries to imply one may not inform anyone beyond the very small group of editors who already engage in the ecig article base. It serves to "scare away" any editor who is not of the mindset of the AlbinoFerret, and whether AlbinoFerret agrees with my analysis of the situation and wishes to paint my message as non-neutral is beside the point—that is his value judgement. The edits in question were not a simple merge, but resulted in the deletion of a significant portion of content of ~4000bits. I informed WT:MED about this, and other editors such as Alexbrn agreed that this was not Edit: to be expected of an ordinary merge. I also tried to engage in discussion with AlbinoFerret to explain how WP:COATRACK is an essay as opposed to the section on Wikipedia:Keeping summary sections and detailed articles synchronized which is a guideline, but this is ignored in this filing. Neither of the diffs provided provide any evidence of infarction upon discretionary sanctions, and I find it very concerning that they are made out to do so. The first is evidence of a content dispute, and the second is evidence of trying to improve the discussion by bringing in uninvolved third party editors. I can not imagine how informing the community of medical editors can be assumed to decrease the quality of discussion. CFCF 💌 📧 15:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Response to administrator comments[edit]Callanecc—I had missed AlbinoFerrets responses, but I can attest that discussion concerning these exact sections occurred in this diff [50]. CFCF 💌 📧 10:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Responses to AlbinoFerret[edit]Response to AlbinoFerret (Spartaz), I never stated that the table was self-reverted, I readded it and you reverted that, yes. As for the tag removal I had forgotten about that single edit [54], I removed those tags, took part in the discussion, performing a single edit. Later other editors engaged and the result of the discussion is that the tags are no longer there.
Statement by Alexbrn[edit]As CFCF mentioned I did comment on this at WT:MED, but to be strictly accurate I only set out what I would generally expect to happen: I haven't examined the details of this particular merge (in general these are articles I am pleased to stay away from). I think both editors agree that the merge should not have lost information. One is saying information was lost, the other that it wasn't. Which is it? Given that AlbinoFerret has already tried the patience of the community in this topic area,[56] I would hope the merge was executed with scrupulous neutrality. I don't think a single posting to a noticeboard can count as WP:CANVASSING. Alexbrn (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Doc James[edit]So a merge is the moving of content from one article into the other. I guess the question is was there "removal of nearly all safety information"? The merge was poorly done [57]. It does not say which content from which articles was merged and thus is not sufficient per CC BY SA. Need to look into it further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC) S Marshall[edit]CFCF's on 1RR but not 0RR. He hasn't broken the letter of his restrictions. Decisions since the Arbcom case concluded have removed two obstructionist editors, and that's changing the dynamic of the page; so it's particularly important to allow the strongly e-cig-skeptic side to retain a voice here. CFCF is looking increasingly like King Canute when the tide started to roll in, but I think it's important to allow him space to dissent.I'm personally of the view that with both QG and MW topic-banned, it's now time to relax CFCF's 1RR restriction. Part of the problem is that his 1RR is a trap for him: the article has improved so rapidly since the bannings that his only way to ensure compliance with the 1RR would be to go through dozens of edits line by line. It's a little too harsh now, I think, in view of recent events. However, I don't think WT:MEDRS is the right place to go for support. E-cigs are not therapies or medical devices; they're relevant to the medical profession in the same way as alcohol is, but I think the extremely strongly medical approach that's been taken with the article to date has distorted its contents. There's such a huge disconnect between what the article says and what the vaping community expects it to say, that I'm not surprised the article has historically attracted SPAs. I think CFCF was a bit unwise to unilaterally revert the merge, though. He continues to show a great deal of faith in his own judgment.—S Marshall T/C 17:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Rhoark[edit]CFCF was warned to discuss with the opposing editor before reverting.[58] He did not do so before reverting AlbinoFerret's page move or restoring the contested content. That alone is actionable, regardless of whether there are legitimate objections to AlbinoFerret's edits. This is a gestalt impression that unfortunately is not easily illustrated through diffs, but I very much get a sense that CFCF regards the MED project as his posse. I often feel that project giving off a WP:OWNership vibe, so I don't think going there can be excused as neutrally notifying an interested community - especially since he bypassed the article talk page and went to MED directly. It should also be noticed that the merge had been the closing consensus of an uninvolved administrator in an RfC with ample participation.[59] This is starting to look like a pattern, as CFCF was edit warring against the close of another RfC in November.[60] That's mitigated somewhat by being a poor close, but still there's a defined process for challenging a close, and it doesn't involve edit warring. I think this ultimately stems from CFCF's attitude that he is so obviously right that consensus must be on his side, or else that consensus is superfluous. Nowhere is this more apparent than when he was edit warring on the MEDRS guideline itself to make it agree with his position in a content dispute.[61][62] Besides ArbCom's finding of CFCF edit warring on e-cigs, digging through ANI finds CFCF edit warring on at least 6 other articles outside the e-cig area in the latter half of this year. I don't particularly care what is done about CFCF within e-cig discretionary sanctions, but someone needs to put him over their knee and convince him he's not the King of Wikipedia. Rhoark (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
JzG[edit]I closed the RfC which was not difficult, consensus was clear albeit with a relatively small number of opinions, and both sides of the long-running dispute were represented. I think it would be wise for AlbinoFerret to let someone else perform the merge, or at least to start a separate discussion on how to merge the contents. There's no rush. I find it hard to see CFCF's actions as anything other than entirely predictable pushback for a merge performed by a partisan, one which brought a relatively small proportion of the sub-article content to the main article. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Minor4th[edit]CFCF was warned in the recently closed Arb case to consult the other editor before making a revert in the topic area and restricted to 1RR every 72 hours. CFCF is continuing to engage in the behavior that resulted in Arb imposing strict editing restrictions on him. His response does not indicate a willingness to take the community's and Arbs' concerns on board. It might be appropriate at this point to begin graduating blocks or topic bans. Minor4th 22:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Result concerning CFCF[edit]
|
Vergilden[edit]
| Vergilden and jps are each warned for 1RR violation. A 1RR notice has been posted at Talk:Precautionary principle. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions
Genetically modified food controversies
Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms
18:00, December 14 for general sanctions, and specifically of 1RR [77]
The overall problem with this editor is that they add controversial content, and when they are reverted specifically asking them to go to the talk page and not revert, they revert anyways. This has been a common trend in all their recent edits in the last few days across multiple pages, so they did not technically violate 1RR until today. Vergilden is a newish editor (~200 edits), but has been made aware of what edit warring is and protocol when their edits are reverted.[78]. Most of the time no attempt at talk page discussion occurs in the above reverts or their edits are in direct opposition to an ongoing talk discussion to keep reinserting the content.[79]. In addition to the recent 1RR violation, this general edit warring behavior was specifically said to be covered under the discretionary sanctions by the drafting Arb at the case.[80] Reviewing the edit summaries in the diffs should also show the combative edit warring language cover by discretionary sanctions in addition to the 1RR violation. In addition, this editor is a WP:SPA, where all of their edits (barring a handful of minor edits) are related to adding content related to sources from Nassim Taleb or recently by proxy his views on GMOs. I don't see any evidence of WP:COI, but there does appear to be strong advocacy on the topic associated with being an SPA such as hyperbole about censoring when trying to explain reliable sourcing or resorting to personal attacks when someone doesn't agree with them such as calling me a "jobsworth"[81]. Comments seen in this conversation[82][83] are WP:COATRACK arguments that go beyond typical new editor problems and are more in line with SPA problems. This is especially after reading their initial statement above trying to argue their content on GMOs doesn't apply to sanctions here since it's on the precautionary principle page (even after multiple warnings). I'll also note that jps has had multiple reverts on precautionary principle, but they had not been alerted to the discretionary sanctions prior to their recent edits. They now have a notice on their talk page.[84] Given that editors have tried to slow Vergilden down and stop this behavior with no improvement and continued inflammation of the topic, this is the only available option now. A block could be justified both under the ArbCom sanctions for edit warring and as described by WP:SPA. I wouldn't suggest a block if not for the SPA aspect, but a topic ban for GMOs and topics relating to Nassim Taleb would hopefully alleviate the issue too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Vergilden[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 Vergilden[edit]I was not aware the PP article was covered under the restriction regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals b/c of its seemingly tertiary relationship to such things (primary risk management, secondary legal). If PP is covered, it needs to be made more explicit so accidents like this do not occur again. Nonetheless, I was trying to resolve the objection through the talk page rather than undos but jps reverted this morning even though we had an open/unresolved discussion. Even if he wasn't warned of these sanctions, this is poor behavior. Regarding previous warning on obviously GMO related content, note that my actions on reverting content remained within the boundaries specified and I moved discussion to the talk page. By example, I added a section to discuss the content I wanted to edit and provided different ways to modify the submission so as to address the previous objections (i.e., "there isn't general agreement" to "some scientists have questioned" and provided reliable sources to substantiate, even offering to harmonize the controversy sections across the similar GM pages where there consensus on the content was reached) For the record, I highly respect the Wikipedia process but it seems that both Kingoffaces and jps have an agenda to censor content they feel to be objectionable and use the various policies in specious ways to keep the content from being published. For example, it is still not evident to me the reason my submission in the PP article can't be published. A litany of different reasons were cited and each did not seem applicable. For them, the talk page isn't a place for honest discourse and debate, but a place to try to build a case against good-faith editors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Precautionary_principle#Whitepapers_not_reliable_sources.3F Thank you for your consideration. Vergil Den 17:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Amendment to address concerns about my tenure It may be the case that I've been an editor on Wikipedia since 2013, but never in my entire editor history have I come across, what I don't know what else to call, editor censorship from the likes of kingoffaces and jps. So yes I may have many posts but frankly, this kind of behavior is new to me. Vergil Den 18:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Amendment to address concerns about my use of term "censorhsip" My concern is the use of editors moving the goal posts (i.e., they are refuted on one front and then pitch a new argument). Again, I think it is reasonanle to think they there are trying to censor the content. I would be happy for this committee to adjudicate on the matter allowing the jps and me to present our best cases. Vergil Den 18:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Note: The following arguments have been lobbed by KoF and jps: WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS , WP:POVPUSH, WP:COATRACK, operative statement is "sometimes", fact as opposed to an opinion, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:COMPETENCE. If there truly was a policy violation in my submission to the PP page, one of these would have been sufficient (like in the case of the 3R that we are discussing were one violation of the rule is sufficient to convene this committee). Again, I think any reasonable person would conclude that something is amiss. Vergil Den 18:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Further in support of my contention under this amendment, prior to the exchange between KoF and jps regarding the paper submission to the PP page, many of these same arguments were lobbed by KoF against *case law* content I submitted on the PP page, content that was reverted by KoF that I had to revert. This was *case law* referenced directly from the court of appeals official documents. Again, the behavior by KoF and jps follows that a reasonable person would suspect that these editors are censoring content. Vergil Den 19:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Amendment to address concerns about my use of term "jobsworth" As I stated previously, I stand by my contention that the behavior exhibited by KoF and jps is censorship. A jobsworth is a type of censor and in this case, an an editor using his/her authority granted inherently to Wikipedia editors to censor content rather than to "engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content". Vergil Den 19:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Amendment to respond to statement about my lack of regard for consensus Actually, I highly regard consensus when it's warranted. I think my actions demonstrate that it was exactly consensus that I was seeking through reasoning on the talk PP page. I first opened up the discourse on the talk page to debate the concerns raised. I was lobbed with over ten rules through the entire debate which I researched and reasonably refuted. Subsequently KoF and jps decided to lob more rules. My reverts today were in reaction to jps who took it upon him- her-self to initiate the first revert while we were still debating. In each of my reverts I requested jps to cease reverting while we debate on the talk page (unbeknownst to me that my reverts were pulling me into this sanctions forum). I was insulted by jps with curt responses and insults (e.g., anemic). Not once did either of the editors seek to understand my position which I stand by. Overall, my submission was treated as junk and belittled as an editor. Vergil Den 21:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by jps[edit]My apologies for my role in this. I was not aware of the 1RR rules imposed on GMO articles until kingofaces let me know today. As a form of penance (because ignorance of the law is no excuse), I am adding talkpage boilerplates to many articles. I throw myself on the mercy of the AE board and beg for its forgiveness. I promise NEVER to break 1RR on GMO-related pages from here forward. jps (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC) @Minor4th:: FYI: Your statement about the other user not being notified of 1RR restrictions until today is incorrect. jps (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC) @Minor4th:Read the diff again. The diff explicitly mentions 1RR. jps (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Minor4th[edit]In the diff of the notice given to Veridigen (or whatever the name it, Kingofaces43 used the wrong template and only notified the editor of discretionary sanctions - NOT 1RR. It appears there was no notice of the 1RR restriction until after Ver and jps had both edit warred (both having 3RR). Neither editor should be sanctioned because they were not properly notified. And I recommend that this game of gotcha stop and that editors actually try to discuss problem behavior they see rather than run to AE on the first whiff of a violation. For crying out loud! Minor4th 17:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC) @jps - that notice references discretionary sanctions and 3RR - no mention of the 1RR restriction. i hope you're not requesting sanctions against him when you were matching him, revert for revert. Minor4th 19:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC) @jps - Ok, it's not part of the template or warning though, and it's not mentioned that it's the result of an Arb case and could result in enforcement at AE. That is not sufficient to notify him of Arb remedies. Plus he said on the talk page that he wasn't aware that that page fell under the GMO topic area. It would be appropriate to give you both a final warning or to topic ban both of you. I really don't care which. Minor4th 20:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC) @Kingofaces43:. Please don't ABF; I won't play that game with you ;) Minor4th 23:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by David Tornheim[edit]This is a brand new editor*, who clearly is not familiar with all the Wiki-rules and with the ArbCom proceedings. To bring this new editor here immediately is over the top. I agree with Minor4th's comments immediately above and Tryptofish's comments on how to handle this. I see no reason that Precautionary Principle should be included in the restrictions on GMO ArbCom case. Precautionary Principle may have some overlap with GMO's just as a subjects like science, technology or engineering, but it is a very small overlap. Precautionary Principle applies to wide variety of subjects and products far outside of GMO's, agricultural chemicals and companies that manufacture them. For example wireless technology. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Capeo[edit]I'll just note the editor in question has been here since 2013 and has hundreds of edits.Capeo (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC) David, the edits in question are specifically about GMOs so it applies. Capeo (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Vergilden, you're not covering yourself in glory here by calling your editing against consensus "censorship". Specifically you saying "The consensus rule doesn't apply to attempts to censor valid content" on the article talk page is simply false. There are very few exceptions to consensus and none apply here. And please, sign your posts. I could see giving Vergilden a final final warning hear and a short bit of rope if they show they understand the issues in play. If they continue to unrepentantly claim their edits are "right" then well... Capeo (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Honestly at this point it matters little what Vergilden was alerted to (though the difs show they were clearly alerted and forged ahead anyway) because their responses show they have no regard for consensus which is the backbone of pretty much this entire project. A short block is probably in order then a TB if they return to edit warring. Capeo (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Tryptofish[edit]My goodness, the GMO case seems like the gift that just keeps giving and giving. Anyway, KingofAces is basically correct about the facts of what happened. Clearly multiple reverts, and yes, the page is within the scope of the 1RR restriction. On the other hand, I believe that it is credible that Vergilden did not realize the situation, and my suggestion would be to let this go with a "final warning" but no block. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by AlbinoFerret[edit]Vergilden may not have been aware of the 1RR, and has less than 100 edits over the last 3 or so years. While not exactly new they are still a WP novice. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (jps) on the other hand is an experienced editor who defiantly had knowledge that a case was ongoing because they made a case request statement for GMO.[87] He was also notified of the Proposed decision.[88] Yet he reverted the page 3 times.[89][90][91] jps is an experienced editor and should be aware that there is no excuse for edit warring. He could have requested page protection as I did when I saw the reverts in my watchlist that I have yet to clean up from the GMO case. I believe some form of sanction is in order for jps. AlbinoFerret 19:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by (Mystery Wolff)[edit]I am an uninvolved editor, who looked at this because of an AE action on me, and wanting to discover the process by which the AE page works. Upon searching I find https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=639707330 which to me make it look like a systemic issue with Wikipedia and processes. So here are some items I believe germane to this Action Request. 3. There seems to be advocacy of stratification of Wikipedia editorship, that is wide spread. All edits SHOULD be deemed as Good Faith, and with merit. (excluding obvious vandalism). The edits by Vergilden appear well intended and cited. Because he interjected them should not mean that others can just revert them out and then take a 1RR warning on an entirely different Article without meaning relationship. 10. I have pointed out many process failures here. What I would suggest here is that Kingofaces43 and Vergilden not be allowed to revert each others edits going forward for 6 months. Editors associated with these editors from Talk Page history or otherwise should not revert the same. Edits being reverted should be done by other editors of the pages. If either of these editors wants edits looked at, they should open up talk page topics and solicit openly review. I strongly urge the AE to NOT ban. It is my firm believe the AE is being gamed IN GENERAL. That Wikilawyers are manipluating the processes. That vigilante warnings are being put on peoples Talk pages. Familiarity of how to use the AE process should not be a determinant of whether reasonable edits should occur. The AE process is failing, its not defined well, and here in fact is case in point. IMO thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Vergilden[edit]
|
Ollie231213[edit]
| Ollie231213 is topic banned from the Longevity topic area broadly construed. Spartaz Humbug! 09:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Ollie231213[edit]
Ollie231213's conduct at various AFD discussions is bordering into uncivil territory with numerous personal attacks. There has been numerous circular and odd policy debates that Ollie has created and required for months, few of which has improved anyone else's experience here.
I simply think the editor would benefit from working away from WOP article and away from the flaws there. These repeated AFDs are getting heated (which isn't Ollie's fault) but at least a warning and a discussion would be helpful.
Discussion concerning Ollie231213[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 Ollie231213[edit]Firstly, I apologise for being uncivil in a couple of instances. However, please understand my frustration when being faced by pro-deletion arguments which are based on both a poor understanding of the subject in hand and Wikipedia policy. The post I was replying to is a deletion argument which is original research and contains false assertions. Note that other users have challenged similar comments from Legacypac elsewhere. Secondly, point number 2 is a misinterpretation of what I meant. I meant that not every bit of information in the sources themselves has to have citations, not the information in Wikipedia. Thirdly, Ricky was an involved editor in the RFC mentioned above, and actually, in that discussion I argued that not all sources should be given the same weight, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Legacypac[edit]This topic is overburdened by lists that slice and dice super old people. As things are now structured, a man born in Warsaw who moved to the US should be listed on pages for Poland, Austria-Hungary, Europe, North America, US, oldest people, top 10 men, living or not living, US state, and maybe 10 other places. There are not enough editors interested in maintaining the lists, or who know how they all fit together. This editor opposes and reverses efforts to simplify [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] and so on. He also fails to understand the appropriate use of Succession boxes, WP:SBSGUIDE the most important point being "2. Simply because a record has been earned does not merit a succession box for that record. Succession boxes for records should only regard records that are part of a series (for example, not all Guinness Book records deserve a succession box)." Ollie reversed efforts to comply with the guidelines [110] by reverting User:DerbyCountyinNZ 44 times on Oct 23 on 44 pages. See [111]. Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by EEng[edit]
However, there comes a point at which well-meant but misguided efforts become too much for the project to bear in (I repeat) this historically fraught topic area, which has been a semi-public embarrassment for years, and desperately needs cleaning up. EEng (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC) Result concerning Ollie231213[edit]
|
Nocturnalnow[edit]
| Nocturnalnow is topic banned from American Politics after 1932 Spartaz Humbug! 09:51, 24 December 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 Nocturnalnow[edit]
Despite a previous enforcement request which was closed with a strong warning, this user has continued to edit-war negative contentious material into the biography of Huma Abedin, absent any talk page consensus - in fact, the user has completely refused to engage in any talk page discussion whatsoever. Their last edit to Talk:Huma Abedin was on 23 November, after POINTily nominating the page for deletion (a move which was obviously unsuccessful). They have continued to edit the page, but ignored repeated requests to discuss the material in question. Consensus on the talk page has run against their proposals, and so they have simply ignored the talk page altogether. The user has apparently no interest in anything but tendentiously pushing a POV on Abedin's biography, and has no scruples about simply revert-warring to get their way. This is not how we edit living people's biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Nocturnalnow[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 Nocturnalnow[edit]
Here is my Christmas present to you all, from Canada. Nature Christmas ___________________________ Misuse of Checkuser i.e. Checkuser Violation and Administrative abuse of CheckUser, as well as abuse of this request for enforcement process, are now the most serious 2 things to look at, in my opinion, about this request for enforcement. Please see the result section of this request. NW' (Talk) invaded the privacy of 50.196.177.155 (talk with no cause whatsoever, unless NW just did not like the comment of the IP. This publicized ( in the Result section here) action by NW' (Talk) has the effect, even if unintended, of casting suspicion on that IP's comment and objectivity as well as casting suspicion that I or one of the other editors here (who are opposed to a topic wide ban) used that IP as a sockpuppet, thus implying that any or all of the comments opposing this request are less than valid comments. Please advise me on my talk page where I can complain about this misuse of Wikipedia:CheckUser. A helpful editor at Jimbo's talk page has provided me with WP:AUSC which led me to the Ombudsman Commission resource as well, so I no longer need this particular info. This is my reasoning regarding misuse of Check user: Please have a look at this particular usage. I believe this usage breaks the spirit and letter of this Wikipedia policy, i.e."checks must only be made in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing." The reasons given by NuclearWarfare to the Checkuser are not within the scope of our policy, imo, and since the misuse, imo, happened within this Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, I am addressing it in my statement as I feel possible Administrative breaches of Wikipedia policy are more important than the rest of this Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding an individual editor. __________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________ This submission is without merit. Two commenters complained that I had not responded enough to the submission. Maybe that is because the submission has no merit. Now that I have gotten interested in the nuances of this process, I am probably talking too much so some will try to use my defensive words here against me, but when I see anybody... and I mean including Administrators..trying to push around average occasional and well meaning editors like me, I get really pissed off because I know that hurts the encyclopedia by turning it into an "insiders' game". Now, some of you have been pushing for more of a response from me, so here goes nothing ( or something, hopefully) Please note that Ed Johnstone put in a topic wide ban "Result" recommendation here only 8 hours after the submission.(cur | prev) 05:56, 19 December 2015 EdJohnston (talk | contribs) . . (141,786 bytes) (+920) . . (→Result concerning Nocturnalnow: Recommand a topic ban under WP:ARBAPDS) (undo | thank)... based upon what looks like some sort of U.S. Presidency advocacy false correlation, i.e. "A review of contributions suggests that Nocturnalnow has wide-ranging ideas for correcting articles on American politics." Also, it strikes me ironic that the Submitter has been Blocked several times; me? never. Not under this Username nor Mr.grantevans2 prior name which had thousands of edits going back 8 years. I think objective editors will soon come to the opinion that the Submitter is the editor who should be banned from the Huma Abedin BLP, not me. I offer my apology in general and specifically to Johnuniq for not having earlier addressed the 4 diffs identified by NorthBySouthBaranof. I just got caught up in the suggested "result" which I saw on my talk page before I had a chance to make my statement, but that's no excuse. The diffs were me trying to reinsert what I saw as having been long standing content which NorthBySouthBaranof was unilaterally removing without talk page consensus to remove it. In addition, re: the diffs, if its ok, I will borrow from what the IP says below, as he says it quite well, I think: "The contested edit does not violate BLP and does not come anywhere close to it. The content was originally POINTily removed by NorthBySouthBaranof[112]( edit summary:"Undue weight and detail here as well".) minutes after NorthBySouthBaranof was accused by D.Creish of including an UNDUE amount of content.[113]" In terms of discussion on the talk page, the Huma Abedin talk page is full of quite unexpected nasty, unpolite, and "fuck what you have to say; I am in control" type responses which have made many editors stay away completely. I do continue to discuss there but nobody likes to get accused of bad editing, associated with "defamatory" articles or called names. Here are just a few examples, I will "Bold" the kind of words I am talking about: "The information in Wikipedia on the scandal, conspiracy or whatever you want to call it, as it is currently presented, is, in this author's opinion, vague and incomplete. If you, or anyone, have other ideas about how to better present that information I would be very happy to hear them.Starburst2000 (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC) None of that "evidence" has any credence among mainstream media - it is a offensive fringe theory which deserves absolutely no credence in her biography. All of your "sources" are from the fringe right-wing echo chamber, all of them fail the reliable sources policy and we are not going to pollute Abedin's biography with their garbage. Wikipedia is not a place to mindlessly repeat long-debunked and deeply-offensive partisan attacks on a living person. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)" This portion of the article has serious issues. As currently framed, it says that Bachmann has alleged that Abedin has three family members who have connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. That fact is either true or untrue, but it does not constitute an allegation of a conspiracy. There is not an allegation that Abedin is in some nefarious cabal; rather, the truth (or untruth) of those statements goes to the question of whether Abedin has more *sympathy* for the Muslim Brotherhood than your average state department official. As currently written, it massively fails NPOV - will change it to something that more accurately reflects what Bachmann, McCarthy et al. have questions about. WillMagic101 (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Well, no.The reliable sources on this matter are unanimous in describing these allegations as scurrilous, unfounded conspiracy theories. We are required to give prominence to the point of view most widely held by reliable sources, and fringe theories lacking any mainstream credibility do not belong in the pages of the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Newt is correct, this was all about a letter "asking a question" regarding Abedin's security clearance process. The question is neither an idea or a theory so I can not agree that it fits into our fringe theory policy in any way other than trying to ram a square peg into a round hole. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC) The "idea" is that she is in any way connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. That is a highly-defamatory implication and claim, and has been widely rejected and condemned in reliable sources. It must and will be depicted as such in this article. If you continue to edit against consensus to depict this biographical subject in a negative light, I think it'll be time to request that you be topic-banned under discretionary sanctions. You have done nothing here but try to smear this living person, and that's not what we as encyclopedia editors are here to do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Professor JR modus operandi seems to be to make contentious edits, slow edit war over a period of days, and never discuss anything. I'd argue that if that continues, a trip to WP:AN/I may be due.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC) .....Do you realize how ridiculous this is? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC) It is becoming tedious to explain again and again why such material is really not useful for the BLP of Abedin. A good case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? - Cwobeel (talk) It is evident that a consensus of editors disagrees with your assertion that this trivial partisan nonsense has any place in Abedin's biography. That's really all there is to it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
My contributions to American politics far outweigh any short term dust ups with a few editors whose paranoia and bias against suspected "conservative","republican", and "right wing" publications and editors is obvious for all to see on the Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton talk pages. Wow, what a secretive little kangaroo court railroading job is being attempted here...really,really strange. I'm pissed. If I had been away for a few days I would not have even seen this. I may have been set up on the recent flurry of edits referred to in this submission; you can judge that for yourselves. This is the second very personal and persistant attack at this location by NorthBySouthBaranof, in my opinion. NorthbySouth is the wrong person to bring this since he is quite manipulative in a sophomoric way in these venues as well as on BLPs. For example, he claims above that his last submission against me ended with a "strong warning", however, the actual closing words are "Closing: There has been a lull in the admin discussion. I'm closing this (as a noticeboard case) with no action. This is without prejudice to any admin who wants to impose 0RR or other restrictions, either on individuals or on the Huma Abedin article. If edit warring on this article continues then more admin action is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)" There was no "strong warning" against me whatsoever. NorthBySouthBaranof is not a credible editor in my opinion; not at all, in fact,NorthBySouthBaranof was mentioned himself in his last attack as being just as problematic as anyone else. In addition; NorthbySouth has been edit warring in total on Abedin more than anyone else and against many,many editors. Any superficial review of the Huma Abedin BLP will substantiate this claim. For Ed Johnstone to try to close this out in 1 day and leaving me a note saying There may still for time for you to respond is bizarre and without due process. He claims that I have "wide-ranging ideas for correcting articles on American politics" yet the one comment I made on an Editor's talk page which he links to, says nothing of the sort????? Also, I am wondering why Ed would be using my words on an Editor's talk page against me or why he, as a non-involved Admin., would even be going there? Since he sees something in the comment he links to which is obviously not there to be seen, I do not think he is uninvolved enough to be making a decision on this matter. He must be very sensitive to my opinion about the glorification of the office of the U.S. President, but as anyone can see, I am not even editing Barack's BLP, although I did add some needed content To Bill Clinton's blp which was accepted as an improvement. Also, since many American children are told "one day you can be President", it is reasonable that most Americans, and even some American wannabes, might have a little bit of idolization of the office. Being a Canadian actually makes me more NPOV concerning U.S. politics, and that should be welcomed, I think, right? On the other hand, even if I DO have "wide-ranging ideas for correcting articles on American politics", isn't "correcting" a good thing? Doesn't that make our encyclopedia better? That is kindof what I did with my accepted edit on Donald Trump, changed "anti-immigrant" to "anti-illegal immigrant", which is how the cited source phrased it. No, Ed Johnstone's reasoning for banning me from U.S. politics, even if true, is absolutely the reason for encouraging my editing of US politics; i.e. to "correct" some sentences to comply with the sources. I also am shocked that there even exists such a broad ban as to exclude American politics. If an editor is so bad, ban the Editor, but to ban someone from American politics is something that can result, even if without intent, in censorship; which has no place here, I think. Plus, even if one accepts that there exists such a ban, I certainly, having not even received any kind of block, have not earned such a ban. A couple of you guys should be ashamed of yourselves for attacking me like this on such flimsy and light purported evidence, much less trying to silence my edits. My contributions to American politics far outweigh any short term dust ups with a few editors whose paranoia and bias against suspected "conservative","republican", and "right wing" publications and editors is obvious for all to see on the Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton talk pages. Re: AFD=POINT: A couple of editors insist on not AGF re: my the AfD to delete Huma Abedin. Victoria Grayson, an editor with rollback privileges, voted "delete" on the the AfD to delete, as well as User:Hyperduc, a blemish free editor going back 6 years. These 2 delete votes should be enough to AGF that the nomination was not pointy, I ought to know, the reasons I gave in the nomination were and are still valid, in my opinion, and AGF should be given in that regard, I believe. NorthBySouthBaranof should be censored for misusing this venue, imo. Appeal? I am getting really pissed. Remember, before I said a word, and within 1 day, I was given a "result" on my talk page by Ed Johnstone; the result being a ban on all U.S. politics editing because I said this on a User's talk page, which Johnstone characterized as proof of "wide-ranging ideas for correcting articles on American politics"....WTF???, is the wide scope of the ban a punishment for saying I don't idolize the position of the President of the USA? If so, then we have a really big problem. This process so far seems to me to be anti-democratic and slanted towards extremely passive-aggressive, word twisting, trap laying, rule touting, full-time, embedded, "insider" editors who like to throw their "insider" weight around and expect honest editors (who give up valuable time to edit) to listen to their robotic repetitious threats and kiss their puffy asses. Its absurd and tyrannical that an editor like me, never blocked and with thousands of problem free edits on multiple U.S. political topics, should even be threatened with such a far-reaching ban. If I am banned from all U.S. political articles, I would appreciate any editors letting me know what appeals are available in addition to Jimbo's talk page as mentioned before by someone. Hopefully there are other appeals I do not know about, or even better, I won't get banned at all because none is deserved.Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Improper use of Checkuser in the Result section I seem to remember that the invasion of editor's privacy by checkuser is heavily restricted. Perhaps someone can tell me on my talk page where to complain about this casual usage based upon some kind of vague suspicion that the IP might have Wikipedia experience???? Well I'm suspicious that the requesting Admin just did not like the comment being made. This action by NuclearWarfare is enough to throw him out of the "uninvolved" admin. group eligible to make a decision here as he has, by publicly requesting checkuser, thrown suspicion upon the objectivity and value of the IPs comment as well as a thinly veiled suggestion that I or one of the editors opposing the cruel and unusual punishment that is planned for me from day 1 of this process, is using that IP. This enforcement process, in my case, is the most shameful thing I've seen on Wikipedia...it should be closed immediately in my favour as well as with an apology to the IP for invading his/her privacy just because you could. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
_______________________
Here is my Christmas present to you all, from Canada. Nature Christmas Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Gamaliel[edit]On their previous visit here (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive184#Nocturnalnow), Nocturnalnow wrote "I am absolutely willing to stop editing the Abedin BLP" and "I also am accepting the constructive comments here by Gamaliel and others about me needing to read more about and practice more of our editing process and policies re: BLP". Neither statement seems to have been true. This editor's disruptive behavior has escalated since then, including a blatant WP:POINT violation of nominating the article for deletion. Gamaliel (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Canvassing by Nocturnal now: [114] [115] [116] Gamaliel (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC) @Vesuvius Dogg: It is a mischaracterization of EdJohnston's comments to say that he is advocating topic banning Nocturnalnow "based on a single diff". This diff is merely an illustration of Nocturnalnow's battleground mentality. The ban is justified by the many examples provided in this and the previous AE request. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Johnuniq[edit]Nocturnalnow has a total of 420 edits, and 55% of those are to Huma Abedin or Hillary Clinton or their talk pages. That's not counting comments on those topics on other talk pages or the pointy AfD. The editor needs a far wider range of experience before righting-great-wrongs at the Clinton-related articles. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by an IP editor[edit]The POINTy AfD deserves at least a trout. The contested edit does not violate BLP and does not come anywhere close to it. The content was originally POINTily removed by NorthBySouthBaranof[117] minutes after NorthBySouthBaranof was accused by D.Creish of including an UNDUE amount of content.[118] The allegations against Abedin's family members came from their own magazine's masthead and were, obviously, proven true. This may be a minority viewpoint in NorthBySouthBaranof's so-called "reliable" sources but it is not fringe and obviously not discredited. NorthBySouthBaranof misrepresents the controversy to justify taking an extreme position in line with the Clinton machine's defenders while accusing everyone else of "partisan hackery", which does not lead to a constructive editing environment. If we are going to be strict about BLP, that is BLPVIO against the writers holding differing opinions. Gamaliel intentionally misrepresents Nocturnalnow's statement from the last ANI to falsely imply that Nocturnalnow had agreed to stop editing. Nocturnalnow's full statement expresses a desire to continue editing.
Gamaliel should be sanctioned for that deception. 50.196.177.155 (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Vesuvius Dogg[edit]I'm most definitely an uninvolved editor here, having never (I think) made even a minor edit to Huma Abedin or Hillary Clinton. But I must object to EdJohnston's recommendation of an indefinite ban against Nocturnalnow extending to all articles involving American politics since 1932 (see below) based on a single diff on a Talk Page which, to my eyes, hardly demonstrates the kind of bias which should prompt such a blanket ban. Can this admin produce any other diffs to support this punitive action? This seems excessive, even vindictive. Wikipedia's disciplinary response should be far more measured. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Mouse001[edit]There are numerous problems with this request and comments made on here. First of all, EdJohnston's attempt to indefinitely ban NocturnalNow from the entire topic of American Politics is wholly unjustified and an act of blatant censorship. In addition to that, Gamaliel appears to have misrepresented NocturnalNow's statement, as the IP editor stated. NorthBySouthBaranof, who persistently edit wars(some examples here and here) and is obviously engaged in partisan editing, misrepresents NocturnalNow's activity for reasons stated by NocturnalNow, the IP editor, and my reasons below. The text that is part of the edit war that is presented in all four diffs of this arbitration request should NOT have been removed by NorthBySouthBaranof after it was re-inserted for the first time, due to lack of consensus for removal per WP:CON (the text was long-standing, as properly stated by NocturnalNow in his edit summary). NorthBySouthBaranof should have used the talk page to gain consensus, but instead he removed the material so he holds some responsibility for the edit war. NorthBySouthBaranof started using the talk page to gain consensus for the removal of the disputed article content after the second diff, so the first two diffs should be redacted from this arbitration request because NocturnalNow was justified in those reversions. I do not believe that NorthBySouthBaranof's statements hold water or warrant a ban of NocturnalNow. I would encourage an administrator reviewing this arbitration request to see it for what it is; an attempt to further a pro-Hillary agenda by oppressing an editor who is trying to make positive contributions to WP. --Mouse001 (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Cwobeel[edit]I think that the comments by Nocturnalnow in response to this enforcement request speak for themselves. After reading their comments, it should be obvious to an impartial observer that they are not here to build the pedia. A ban restricted to Clinton and Abedin articles may give them the chance to demonstrate otherwise, although given their poor understanding of what is a useful edit in a BLP, or their seeing this request as an attempt to "silence" them, does not bode well for the long term. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Case in point, their own words in today's post [119]: Statement by D.Creish[edit]In the last month or so my only involvement has been reversion of the same inappropriate criticism of the congresspeople, twice inserted by the filer NorthBySouthBaranof - Nov 27th Dec 14th. It does seem like a BLP double standard's applied here: those arguing for removal of well sourced criticism of Abedin support insertion of lesser-sourced criticism of her accusers. For example, it took a number of weeks and discussions to remove "conspiracy theories" from the referenced section heading, when the term is used in only two cited sources: one an op-ed and the other a blog called The Sisterhood. Compare that with the content in offending diffs which Nocturnalnow was prevented from inserting: a comment from Newt Gingrich and content from the National Review. This double standard seems to extend to editors. I believe this is the second time NorthBySouthBaranof has brought action against NocturnalNow. He has not been subjected to similar action yet his behavior is arguably more contentious as he's less willing to engage in compromise (as the talk page quotes from Nocturnalnow show.) In part, Nocturnalnow's behavior is a response to this. The environment around this article is less than ideal. If it could be restricted to entirely perfect, non-partisan editors it would improve (although I might find myself ousted!) The second-best scenario would be to allow the partisanship on one side to balance the other, which is what we have here. The least ideal scenario would be to ban only one group of partisans, as the article would become either unreasonably negative or unreasonably positive. With the recent topic-ban of Professor JR and this proposed topic ban of Nocturnalnow that appears to be the unfortunate direction we're heading. What I'd like to see enforced instead is the encouragement of genuine talk page dialogue - no stonewalling, no double-standards and less hyperbole. D.Creish (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by another IP[edit]Huma Abedin is not a person I know much about. The Dec 14 addition referenced Politico.Com and NationalReview.Com. Does NorthBy consider these reliable or unreliable sources... I am more concerned about whether sources backing info are reliable or not, than if individual users agree that we ought to include information. That said, NocturnalNow ought to use Template:Cite web to standardize the inclusion of these references. Regarding engaging in talk page conversation, it appears that Talk:Huma_Abedin#Renewed_edit-warring_around_issues_of_due_weight was not created by NorthBy until after the second edit cited above. I also notice that NorthBy did not bother to use the Ping Template to inform NocturnalNow that they were being addressed in the talk page. The dispute here appears to be that NocturalNow is saying the info is long-standing and needs consensus to remove, while NorthBy is saying it is new and needs consensus to include. This kind of dispute seems to happen a lot. It seems like the recentness of edits or whether users like them seems to matter more than whether information is reliably sourced. I think Wikipedia should be more about analyzing the validity of the sources and less about either side playing games where they can try and lock a piece of information in or out based on stalemates. I do not think it would be good for either of these editors to be excluded from this process. NB should have pinged NN before complaining about their lack of engagement in their talk page section, and should not have complained about edits made prior to beginning discussion or prior to notifying the person about that discussion. I think this request is premature and disagree with punishing NN until they have been allowed more time to actually engage in discussion of the topic on that talk page. Far as I know, this request is the first observable instance of NN being informed by NB about a talk being in progress about their edits, efforts should have been made to include them privately before resorting to this. --184.146.6.191 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Nocturnalnow[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Winkelvi[edit]
| Nothing left to do here. T. Canens (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2015 (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 Winkelvi[edit]Withdrawing this request since the ban has now been withdrawn by the filing administrator -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC) No discussion from sanctioning administrator, no questions asked, no AGF, no response to my follow-up comments; I feel the admin qualifies as involved; sanction is for a BLP and related topics, however, complaint from admin is not about the article but discussions with the article subject as an editor; I believe the issue can be solved without a sanction. Statement:
Statement by Bishonen[edit]Rick Alan Ross has learned during his time on Wikipedia to use the proper channels to express concerns about his bio, and seems quite resilient to reasoned criticism. But I can only imagine how unpleasant it must be to experience the treatment W has been meting out to him, and after several bootless warnings I felt compelled to step in. Having a Wikipedia article about oneself at all is surely a dubious pleasure, a fortiori for people who are at all controversial, and we ought to be careful not to make it nastier than it has to be. I have responded here on Winkelvi's page, in detail and with diffs, to several of the claims Winkelvi makes above, for instance the claim that he has only been talking about "RAR the editor, not the article subject". W may feel that, or remember it like that, but it's not how it has come across. It's only a small topic ban — from one bio — which I should think will make little practical difference to W's editing, as he has lots of other interests on Wikipedia. But presumably that's not what upsets him; it's that he feels it's a stigma ("a black mark"). I can certainly sympathize with that, and it's a common feeling about any sanction. Winkelvi, would you rather make an informal undertaking from yourself to give RAR a wide berth — to avoid referring to him at all? I think that's the form the "self-monitoring" you suggest ought to take. It shouldn't be something like "I'll be nicer to RAR", IMO, because you obviously think you already are being sufficiently nice to him, and you have been unresponsive and often downright angry when several editors have urged you to act and talk differently. I'd be quite happy to rescind the ban if you undertake to leave RAR alone on your own responsibility. (It's enough if you say it here; no need for anything more formal than that.) Indeed, I can remove the ban from the discretionary sanctions log, if you like. It's not a mysterious technical thing like the block log, but merely a list that anybody can edit. It may be verboten to remove a listing, but I wouldn't mind trying and seeing what happens. Please think about it. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
Statement by involved Cullen328[edit]On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation passed a resolution calling on all volunteers at WMF projects to treat "any person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect". As Bishonen has shown, Winkelvi has adopted a consistently belligerent and confrontational attitude toward BLP subject Rick Allen Ross, who has had legitimate concerns about our biography of him. Winkelvi has persisted despite several warnings by other editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by marginally involved Collect[edit]I first saw the BLP at the BLP/N noticeboard - and I sought to depuff what appeared to be improper puffery, to word material in a neutral manner, and to try to make the negative material conform with WP:BLP. [123] and the like. WV repeatedly added [124] a "COI" tag to the BLP long after RAR clearly had ceased any edits on the BLP. While it is clear that RAR does call it "my" BLP, it is a matter of common sense that he was referring to the BLP about himself, and not asserting any editorial ownership of the BLP. WV, alas, seems to regard RAR as some sort of enemy of the state ("He is trying to sanitize the article on him. This has been pointed out numerous times by several editors. Why it isn't obvious to some is a puzzle, indeed." and "Ross isn't a contributor. He's the subject of an article he's trying to control" indicate a teensy bit of adversarial view). Where a person takes an adversarial view about a person who is the subject of a BLP, it is likely wise for the community or an impartial admin to impose restrictions on them. Collect (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by largely uninvolved Blackmane[edit]This was the most recent ANI thread concerning Winkelvi and RAR. In summary, WV sought to have RAR topic banned from the article but observations from commenting editors indicated that RAR was in fact compliant with the various relevant policies. A topic ban was proposed by another editor but was soundly rejected. A block of RAR was also proposed but also soundly rejected. WV's behaviour in the thread descended quite rapidly until Drmies closed it with no action. It wasn't pretty, so a topic ban from the RAR article was a fairly light sanction all in all. Blackmane (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved Figureofnine[edit]I became aware of this situation because I watchlist Winkelvi's user talk page. We are emphatically not wikifriends, and I have found his behavior problematic in the past. However, in this instance, while I am not endorsing his conduct in this matter, I feel that there is an important principle here that may be overlooked. My reading of the discussions is that Winkelvi has a problem with Ross as an editor, not as the subject of this article. Now, perhaps I have overlooked something to contradict this impression, but that is my observation. I do not believe that Ross has necessarily done anything wrong either. Since seeing this issue arise I have gone to the article talk page and interacted with him. He seems reasonable. He is the subject of an article and understandably is sensitive and concerned about it. Indeed, I found that there was one inaccurate rendition of a source, which I corrected at his request. However, I urge all admins involved to carefully distinguish between whether Winkelvi has behaved in an untoward fashion toward the subject as the subject, or as an editor. We run into these kinds of situations sometimes in COI situations and I think that distinction is important. I think that such Tbans should only be applied when is antagonism to the subject as the subject, not because the editor feels that the subject is behaving poorly as an editor. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Just to be crystal clear: I am not endorsing Winkelvi's actions. What I am suggesting is that his actions be viewed as directed toward a fellow editor, not toward the subject. If penalties are warranted (I am agnostic on that), they should be dealt with as offenses against a fellow editor. I have my own neutrality concerns regarding the overall approach of the article, and have started a discussion on that point. The talk page discussion has tended to get stuck in micro-issues. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Francis Schonken[edit]Supporting Bishonen's action without further ado. I'm involved (although usually quickly bored with the topic area, as I explained elsewhere before). I think what R. A. Ross (that is the subject of the article, and the talk page editor) needs is a somewhat more impartial introduction to how Wikipedia works, overcoming former obstacles which after ten years of anon and other frictions seem well underway to become more manageable. Winkelvi's efforts are largely outside that dynamic, rather preferring to send the subject on a wild goose chase than actually address issues the Wikipedia way. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Winkelvi[edit]I'm not sure what Winkelvi understands by Result of the appeal by Winkelvi[edit]
|
Minor4th[edit]
| No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Minor4th[edit]
1RR violation:
This editor appears to want to remove the word "cancer" from the lede, and is edit-warring in pursuit of that apparent objective.
@Minor4th: Your statement makes it seem you think you have access to The Truth™ of this matter, and so can edit-war to correct what you see as an "error". I think you're wrong and your use of sources here is selective and muddled. But this is not the place for that content dispute (which continues on the article Talk page), but to address the question of your 1RR violation. Alexbrn (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC) @AlbinoFerret: We do not need a WP:MEDRS to tell us what a journal article claimed, since that question is one of textual interpretation, and obviously not a WP:BIOMEDICAL question subject to procedures like systematic review etc. However if you want a journal article than mentions "cancer" then check out the title of PMID 23430588. Generally, the medical literature uses the more technical caricno-stemmed wording, which we should translate into lay terms for our audience. Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC) @Masem: You appear to be incorrect in saying Séralini avoided cancer claims. His paper mentions it has found "serious suspicion of carcinogenicity" and our 2012 Nature news source[125] tells us: "Séralini has promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding, through a tightly orchestrated media offensive". Alexbrn (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC) @Atsme: I did not violate 1RR. I take it you know consecutive edits by an editor count as but a single edit? I would also question your self-designation as "uninvolved" given you've just been party to a case investigating problematic GMO editors. Alexbrn (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Discussion concerning Minor4th[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 Minor4th[edit]General response to enforcement request[edit]Diff #2 [126] provided in the OP is not a revert. It is an edit. The only revert in the 24 hour period by me was the single revert shown in Diff #3, wherein I also cited the BLP violation. There is no dispute that is a revert, and whether or not you agree that it remedies a BLP violation, it's only a single revert and does not violate the ARB restriction. Clarification needed: If I am wrong about this, then I need someone to clearly explain how diff #2 is a revert. If that's the case then virtually every edit could be called a revert because nearly every edit changes some previous editor's work. If that's the rule then I'll abide by it, but that essentially means that editors can only make one edit (or several consecutive edits) per page per day in the topic area. I don't think that is what was intended. Specific responses to comments[edit]Alexbrn is edit warring in the word "cancer" in the lead contrary to the scientific sources - and that creates a BLP issue because he's attributing the conclusion "there's a strong link between GMO and cancer" to a scientist who did not make that conclusion. This is intentional to make the scientist look like a lunatic by falsely attributing outrageous claims to him. This is a prima facie BLP violation. Minor4th 17:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC) @EdJohnston: I agree to self revert, but I cannot concede that "cancer" and "tumors" mean the same thing in this context because that is false. If the closing admin or anyone making comments here does not understand the difference between "cancer" and "tumor" in this study, then you don't understand the study or the science. And if you don't understand the study, you don't understand the whole underpinning of the "Seralini affair." One must be able to properly evaluate the sources in this area to edit with competency. For reliable sources regarding "cancer" vs. "tumor", see the following related RS: 1. Retractionwatch [127]: 2. Republication of the retracted paper [128], clarifying that the study was not a cancer study:
3. Nature [129]. This is the EXACT quote that Alexbrn proposed on the talk page when we started discussing this a couple of days ago, and now he is complaining that I am edit warring the word "tumor" in:
(edited) Minor4th 21:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC) @EdJohntson - I was fixing a factual error, not just playing around with wording. Minor4th 06:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC) ' Kingifaces43's aspersions - Kingofaces43 is casting aspersions by calling my edits "advocacy" and describing me as being the subject of many warnings and disputes in this topic area. That is false on its face. Please look at Kingofaces43's continued aspersions against editors he doesn't like and how it promotes battlefield editing in this controversial topic. Sanctions against KOA are appropriate per DS. Minor4th 00:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Tryptofish - I have agreed to self revert and stated that I did not intentionally violate any editing restriction - but it's improper to ask for a concession on the substantive issue of whether "cancer" = "tumor." Minor4th 19:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Masem has evaluated the situation exactly right. Minor4th 19:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Montanabw has correctly described the edits and distinguished a legitimate edit from a revert. Minor4th 21:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by David Tornheim[edit]Alexbrn is violating consensus. I will explain further after doing more research. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC) AlexBrn is just as guilty of edit warring (see list of diffs below). But worse, he has attempted to edit-war in the cancer claims both without consensus and in light of misrepresentations about the study. The discussion continues on the Seralini page and the lede, a discussion I started here. Others are currently working together to try to come to a consensus decision (Tyrptofish here KingofAces43 here and me here). AlexBrn's claims of "consensus" like this, and this comment are not helping. AlexBrn's attempt to force in the language "claimed there was a strong link between genetically modified organisms and cancer" is not helping. The original study does not even mention any connection to cancer. AlexBrn correctly pointed out that the revised republished study does speak of a "serious suspicion of carcinogenicity"; however, the Abstract clearly states that the study "was not designed as a carcinogenicity study." And in the sentence before and after the quote about a "suspicion of carcinogenicity", it is reasserted that it is a toxicity study and not a full carcinogenicity study. The texts says a full carcinogenicity study "would be a rational follow-up investigation". (Republished Study) In responding to the Editor who was hired to retract the original published study, Seralini said:
AlexBrn's edit-warring in cancer claims without consensus and with disregard for misrepresentations about the study is in violation of WP:BRD:
--David Tornheim (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Re Mystery Wolff's post:
--David Tornheim (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Tryptofish[edit]For purposes of evaluating whether edits were reverts, I do not think that, in this context, it is useful to treat "tumors" as different than "cancer". (There are such things as benign tumors, but the source material here is about cancerous tumors.) I also think that we need to be careful about invocations of BLP. I'm no lawyer, but it is hard for me to believe that a successful defamation claim would result simply from saying that a scientific journal article made some conclusions about carcinogenicity; I suspect that the defamation was more about accusations of scientific fraud. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by JzG[edit]This was not an accidental violation, IMO. For some reason that entirely escapes me, both Minor4th and David Tornheim seem to want to use technical jargon (tumour, mutagenic) in place of the plain English preferred by many of the reliable sources on which we base the article. The claim that this is a WP:BLP violation is without merit, since it is not our claim but that of the reliable independent sources (example). It's worth remembering that a significant part of the criticism of this study centres on its prior release to journalists via a press briefing. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the source of the link to cancer is Séralini himself - many of the news articles are, after all, illustrated with a photo of Séralini holding up a rat with cancer. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC) @Atsme: the diffs you present do not constitute more than one revert to the article. Nor are they problematic: they restore consensus versions following discussion on Talk, in each case removing POV WP:BOLDly added by one or more apparent partisans. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC) @AlbinoFerret: MEDRS does not apply in this specific instance because we are not claiming that thr Séralini affair does or does not cure cancer, we are covering the Séralini affair as a drama that played out in the popular press, largely because of Séralini's media manipulation (dramas solely within the scientific press are rarely notable). We don't need a MEDRS to say how the popular press represented what they were spoon-fed by Séralini, to go back to what is defensible from the paper is fallacious precisely because Séralini's message, i.e. the Séralini affair, went far beyond what could be defended from the actual study results. Which is why the paper was retracted, and why we have the article in the first place. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Looie496[edit]This is now the fourth enforcement request derived from the GMO case, none of which have produced any action. Admins should consider that each violation that slips by will only encourage further violations, increasing the magnitude of the enforcement actions that will ultimately have to taken. Worse, it is likely that the violations that are ultimately sanctioned will come from editors who don't really want to violate the remedies but feel forced to in response to violations from others. In other words, failure to set clear boundaries is only going to end up hurting the editors you are trying to be nice to, because they are going to keep testing the boundaries regardless of how far they have shifted. Looie496 (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Capeo[edit]The RS say "cancer" so cancer is what we should say. That's why we prefer secondary sources over primary ones. We need not reflect Seralini's equivocating that he never said cancer when his entire emphasis, and the impetus for the criticism and notability of this whole affair, was the cancerous tumors in the rats that he showcased more than any other thing. There's no BLP violation in following the RS characterization of the paper. Capeo (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Alexbrn already stated this but there's no MEDRS claim so there's no need for MEDRS compliant sources. This is about describing why the paper was controversial and what AlbinoFerret called a letter to the editor is actually the editor in chief of the journal describing why the article was retracted. A person more than qualified to contextualize the paper. And what AlbinoFerret calls gaming is usually called consensus. Capeo (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Masem, this isn't an article about the paper itself. It's and article about the controversy surrounding it and the main cause of the controversy is that, despite Seralini's equivocating, the paper connected GMOs to causing "cancerous" tumors, which is wording Seralini has used in interviews on his own web page. This connection was reinforced by Seralini himself as the tumors were the emphasis of his own press releases. The fact that he backed off on it after being called on it has no bearing on what caused the controversy itself. Even the republished paper is still loaded with pics of rats with tumors despite his claims and he rightly got called out about it yet again. Capeo (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC) And I have to laugh that people are talking about MEDRS when a retracted paper republished in a zero impact journal isn't a MEDRS in the first place. Capeo (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Masem, the paper has zero scientific notability at this point and falls firmly into WP:FRINGE. Its only notability is the reaction to it connecting GMOs to cancer. The article already mentions that Seralini claims he never said cancer. Generally speaking we need to mention why this event is even notable in the first place in the lede before anything else. That's aside from the fact that Seralini says things like " In our study, we never mentioned the word cancer, because there were tumours, which varied from more or less cancerous." [133] That doesn't even make sense. And Seralini outright claims the very WP:FRINGE POV that his paper proves GMOs are toxic and cause tumors. This isn't a scientific topic. It's purely fringe and should be treated the same way we treat other fringe topics. Capeo (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Masem, it says nothing about it being a "cancer study" and makes no claim that is was. It says simply what the RS say, which is the only reason it is notable, which is that it connected GMOs to cancer, which is what we should say. That can then be followed up with Seralini's denial and why RS completely rejected said denial due to Seralini's own sensationalist emphasis on the tumor results over all else. Tumors he himself called cancerous. Capeo (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC) This is actually from the retractionwatch source Minor4th posted above. They note Nature reported that Seralini "has promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding, through a tightly orchestrated media offensive that began last month and included the release of a book and a film about the work." Capeo (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by AlbinoFerret[edit]Looking at the sources, a letter to the editor, a news article in a journal, one in the popular press. I question if these pass WP:MEDRS because the sources are coming to a biomedical conclusion (cancer). Are there any MEDRS sources that use the term cancer? This is also a problem mentioned in the Workshop, multiple editors reverting. Sadly the abs didnt put a stop to multiple editors jumping in and reverting. What it ends up doing is editing by mob rule, whoever has the biggest group wins instead of discussion. That is gaming the system. AlbinoFerret 14:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC) @Alexbrn As pointed out in Masem's post below, The original paper did not mention cancer. Sources coming to that conclusion should be MEDRS compliant. AlbinoFerret 17:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Kingofaces43[edit]In addition to the reverts and gaming of BLP described here, there are also violations covered by pseudoscience/fringe discretionary sanctions.[134] Those sanctions deal with behavior issues closely tied with content. Improper escalation (such as this BLP invocation) is also covered in this related case. Even in Minor4th's section above and the article, they have violated WP:OR in the manner they have tried to argue that reliable sources are "WRONG" from personal opinion and trying to unduly validate the WP:FRINGE point of view of the BLP subject.[135] The events of the controversy are already accurately described by multiple reliable sources even without WP:PARITY in mind. Especially given the variety of issues here they are still digging in on (and lack of enforcement so far in other cases), we've reached the point at least with this editor that the time of warnings being useful has long passed considering they've followed drama on this topic for awhile now. We need the sanctions to be enforced to stop disruptive behavior like this or remove editors with ingrained problems. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Masem, the key detail you missed was that Seralini did try to make the association to cancer, both in media interviews after publication and within the paper (i.e., waving around a bunch of pictures of rats with tumors with no controls or statistical tests). When a WP:FRINGEBLP is criticized for their actions and they backtrack contrary to actual events that they never said something, we don't give that point of view any weight at the article or here at this board. The characterization that Seralini did not try to portray a link between glyphosate, GMOs, etc. and cancer is distinctly a fringe point of view. I'll also ping @EdJohnston: to read the above since they've been pinged recently about Masem's summarization. Additionally, we so far have a few policy violations by Minor4th, some of this case being muddled by the fringe content aspect, and comments like Atsme's that are trying to go after Alexbrn for responding to Minor4th's advocacy in a reasonable manner. We're in a situation where some editors will push and push the line, and other editors will go after the editor who tries to respond to that in these boards. I don't have any solutions for that, but any thoughts on how to potentially handle this situation we've had in the last few requests here? Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Atsme[edit]I am an uninvolved editor regarding this article. I don't edit articles involving GMOs, etc. but I do edit BLPs. I ask that the admins who are following this case to please make note of the following before drawing their conclusions: ALEXBRN REVERTS (uses TW to avoid individual reverts which also needs to be noted, and also uses rather evasive edit summaries to diffuse attention to the fact he is edit warring and changing the context of a statement): It appears Alexbrn has also violated 1RR and has established a patterned behavior of edit warring. Just look at how the edit history plays out which is why I can't understand why Minor4th has been targeted as the sole violator:
Thank you for attention to this matter. Atsme📞📧 16:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The diff Kingofaces included to discredit me was unwarranted and worse, based on a false allegation of me being a SPA in an old AN/I case. My edit history has long since proven my purpose on WP and that the allegation was false and unwarranted. I tried to get ArbCom to address his behavior but since it was not within the locus of the case, they dismissed it. I have not mentioned his name in this incident prior to now so why is he allowed to besmirch my reputation, and attempt to discredit my statement here as an uninvolved editor? If it's not considered bullying, it is certainly harassment and actionable behavior either way. He has been warned more than once, but because he keeps getting away with it, he keeps bringing it up. Ignoring it does nothing but embolden him all the more, and that isn't what should be happening right under the noses of multiple admins. Please stop his disruption and attempts to divert attention away from this very important case. Atsme📞📧 21:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Masem[edit]Reviewing the base situation from someone uninvolved with GMO articles, but otherwise able to look at the scenario from a scientific viewpoint:
While "tumor" and "cancer" may be synonymous in some areas (such as everyday language one might use with friends or family), this seems like a matter of scientific precision in a hotly contested area (GMO) and the need to distinguish between the two (as the professor apparently took steps to do and had to clarify this), even if others in the scientific community felt the tumor study was really an obfuscated cancer study. So for our article to claim, factually, that the professor wrote a cancer study is not appropriate. It's an edge case of BLP, as we are putting other people's words to speak for the professor's intentions when he has made it clear in verified manners of what his intent was (not a cancer study), even though we are otherwise not talking about specific claims about the professor himself that BLP normally covers. It is still is fair to include the fact that other scientists took the paper as a cancer study and thus were very critical of how the study was done that they saw the linkage of GMO to cancer, but in introducing the paper for the first time in the lede and in the body, it should not be called a cancer study if the professor has been very clear this was not the intent. Even if every other scientist in the area commented that the professor's paper was a cancer study but the professor remained insistent it wasn't, we should still be respecting the claim of the professor first followed by the claims by everyone else to stay consistent with BLP. If anything this is more a situation that falls under WP:YESPOV, where we clearly have a controversial statement (if the paper was a tumor or a cancer study), so there's a proper way to approach this. In terms of the actions of the editors, I do think that the BLP issue is there, but it is very much an edge case which did not need immediate attention as most BLP violations typically require but instead more discussion and possibly more eyes on it. Actions by both editors should be at least trouted and warned against, particularly as at the time across these changes there was an active discussion. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC) (Moved replies to Capeo and Kingofaces43 to User:Masem/GMOcaseComments due to statement length) Statement by uninvolved MarkBernstein[edit]
Statement by Montanabw[edit]Looking at the history and the current version of this article, it appears that Minor4th made an appropriate correction and it was the other user who was edit-warring and attacking Minor4th. Minor 4th made an edit, was reverted and then restored the edit -- that was an edit 1RR, not 2. I think that a warning should suffice on this one, as it is clear that NPOV and proper phrasing of a BLP trumps other matters. Montanabw(talk) 18:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved Mystery Wolff[edit]I am now familiar with GMOrganisms and related pages from this AE page due to my short time needing to check it for another article set. Reading the comments I believe I agree most with Montanabw above, except I do not believe Minor4th should be warned because its not 1RR. Also 1RR is such a tight standard good faith NPOV and really minor edits, should be allowed. The BLP points are also well taken. But what I really think is that what I will call the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly solution should be deployed. WP:[GBU]? This situation is just going to keep on going for GMO and related. So I think the Admins should just agree to blow up the bridge, and put in Full Protection of the entire set of articles. Then on a once a week move schedule, an admin will move into the articles, the agreed upon changes out of TALK. Nothing is going to be earthshakingly different that article and the outside readers won't benefit from a more stable viewable article. Its just far to big of an Enclopedia to see these same topics coming back and back to AE. 3 times in 2 weeks, at least for GMO. And just like GBU, there seems to be more and more bodies that can get banned for GMO. Just blow up the bridge. Take away the thing they are fighting over. You can generated more ARBs more AE's and more methods to techically bypass the DS and warnings. Or just blow up the bridge, send to full protection. Given the science and controversy I don't think it will every come out of Full Protection, but that is OK, because of the sheer time savings to all. Summary: Send to full protection.....Blow up the bridge per WP:GBU. Mystery Wolff (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Result concerning Minor4th[edit]
|