Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive57

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Enforcement
Arbitration enforcement archives:

Gilabrand 2

edit

Meowy

edit

PCPP

edit

Dilip rajeev

edit

Addendum: Moderated discussion closed. Dilip rajeev's concerns have been addressed, and his editing approach has modified to comply with Wikipedia standards. SilkTork *YES! 11:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cs32en

edit

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

edit

Not looking for a full case or anything, but this seems to be heating up again, and if some Arbs could peek in on it from time to time that would be great. (because we all know how much free time you guys have...) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Beeblebrox. This board is not normally frequented by arbitrators, but by admins who do arbitration enforcement, such as I. Your request is a bit short on details - if you would like enforcement action taken against specific editors, I recommend the use of the form {{Arbitration enforcement request}}.  Sandstein  20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm (deliberately) not really up to speed on the ins and outs of arbcom. There's a notice on the article's talk page that says "After a suitable grace period, the state of the article may be evaluated on the motion of any member of the Arbitration Committee and further remedies applied to those editors who continue to edit in an inappropriate manner. Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee." So I guess that's what I'm looking for, I don't have any specific user or users in mind just looking for that re-evaluation. Should I email them or something? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think the page you could use is either Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment or the talk pages of individual arbitrators. An e-mail (WP:AC#Mailing lists) should also work. In any such request, I recommend that you provide a brief description of what the current problem is, some relevant diffs, and a recommendation about what should be done. That is likely to result in faster action than if arbitrators have to dig through histories just to find out whether there is a problem in the first place.  Sandstein  22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sulmues

edit

Abd

edit

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Abd

edit
User requesting enforcement
Enric Naval (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Abd_editing_restriction_.28existing_disputes.29
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
:
  1. [227] Removes from Ghost the lead paragraph that has been heavily disputed, and claims himself the arbiter of how much consensus is needed to place it on the lead.
  2. [228] Removes the pseudoscience arbitration case notice from Talk:Ghost. (unlogged edit) He wasn't an originating party from either the "does Ghost belong to pseudoscience category" dispute, or the "should we place the pseudoscience arbitration notice here" dispute
    1. [229] Removes it again, saying that the argument should count even if it was made by an IP.
  3. [230] Comments out of the RfC section, in a topic that was not covered by the RfC
  4. [231] Removes the NSF commentary from the pseudoscience case notice in Talk:Pseudoscience (directly relevant to the Ghost dispute)
  5. [232][233][234][235][236][237][238] Uses the whitelist page to comment on a lot of requests where he is not an originating party. Notice that the meaning of "originating party" was further clarified two weeks ago [239][240] and this is a clear violation.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
# [241] Warning by Enric Naval (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
One week block, as the restriction says.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Ghost-related violations: Abd is not an originating party of the already-existing dispute that was going on Ghost. He has commented on the dispute outside of the context of the RfC, and he has extended the already-existing dispute about the NSF source into the Pseudoscience talk page.
Whitelist-related violations: Abd held a discussion here about improving the whitelist, but he has implemented it in a way that allows him to comment in any already-existing dispute that involves a whitelisting request, independently of whether he was an originating party or not. In [242], he advises an editor about COI, and this sort of advice is what caused the problems with LirazSiri, with those problems leading to his last AE block.
He made two additional diffs that are not so clear-cut, so I sent those to requests for clarification. The diffs listed above are the clear-cut ones, and they are by themselves a clear violation. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[243]

Discussion concerning Abd

edit

Statement by Abd

edit

See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification: Abd-William_M._Connolley (Abd's restriction) filed by Enric Naval. When Enric first complained about my Ghost edits, I placed a request on my Talk page noting that I would respect any clarification by a neutral administrator covering this new interpretation, pending resolution. Absent such, since Enric Naval was highly involved in the subject RfAr and has consistently presented himself as an adverse party, with a number of complaints that were not sustained, I do not consider his interpretation binding. This request, however, reaches even beyond that. I respond in detail in collapse, if anyone needs detail. The collapse summaries should be adequate as non-evidenced response.

  • @Verbal Please do not bring an open content dispute here, there is an RfC on the very position you are asserting, and your position is not the majority one, so far. That may change. It's moot for AE, because my sanction does not prohibit me from making errors about content. As to length of comment, my essential response is all visible outside of collapse, each collapse having a descriptive title that says it. There is no obligation to read the "details." Is there harm in them being made available? --Abd (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TS Continually injecting these thousand-word essays into discussions on Wikipedia. Have I done this anywhere recently, even once, let alone "continually"? I assume I'm allowed freedom on my own Talk page, and to present evidence and argument as needed when I'm hauled before ArbComm or AE. If I'm being "continually" hauled before ArbComm or AE, maybe some attention should be paid to that, and to who is doing it. You do realize it's the same people, don't you? --Abd (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hans Adler. While I appreciate your support, the question here is my right to make the edits, not whether they were "correct" or not. While your view, if accepted, might be an ameliorating factor in ban enforcement, that's about it. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Enric Naval: The sanction is very specific as to this 3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes [all Wikipedia pages]. He may, however, vote or comment at polls. I am prohibited from discussing the disputes of others on Wikipedia pages. I am not prohibited from non-discussion action, such as editing an article. I may not enter an existing dispute discussion. While I could start a new section and discuss my own independent issue, I'm not aware of taking advantage of this anywhere that an existing dispute is involved, and usually it is not needed. I may watch and comment in RfCs that appear, though, and I am under no 0RR restriction or the like. Thus the original intention of the ban, probably about "tomes" considered offensive, is not violated by ordinary article space edits, which are not "discussion," unless I made them so, nor by other edits which do not discuss a standing dispute, and especially if the length is restrained. --Abd (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SamJohnston beats dead horse. Response to charge (3) above discusses that edit and acknowledges ban violation and discusses response. Generally, Wikipedia does not punish, but acts to prevent damage. I made an edit, inadvertent or not, and it's up to enforcing administrators as to what is best for the wiki, and I only ask that such be neutral, as policy requires. --Abd (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Providing evidence to prove a violation already acknowledged by me, with link, is indeed "beating a dead horse," that's what it means, belaboring the obvious and already accepted. --Abd (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stifle. I agree that there was a technical violation, number 3 in the list above, and I acknowledged that immediately as soon as it was pointed out. If you believe that any other edit violated the sanction, it would be useful to note it, or to note the absence of such, so that this whole thing isn't a waste. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Abd

edit
Comment by Verbal
edit

Two quick points, having not read all of Abd's wall-o-text. 1, is there/shouldn't there be a limit on the length of Abd's response? Collapsing bits isn't a substitute. 2, Ghost is in the pseudoscience category, via the paranormal category, so his reasoning on that whole point is faulty (this doesn't preclude other instances of his reasoning being faulty). Verbal chat 18:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we impose a community remedy requiring Abd to communicate normally? Five or six brief sentences should be enough for anybody. Continually injecting these thousand-word essays into discussions on Wikipedia is perhaps the most destructive of Abd's activities. --TS 19:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this was a restriction or similar (recommendation?) placed on him at the close of a previous arbcom case. Verbal chat 19:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Abd I haven't brought a dispute here, that Ghost is in the PS category (whether that category is on the page or not) is an easily verifiable fact, and a fact that no one has disputed - or can without being shown to be wrong. And yes, there is a harm especially when they contain incorrect statements that at first blush appear true - such as saying Ghost isn't in the PS cat, or that this is disputed. The level of it's inclusion has been a topic of minor dispute, but it's still there (Cat Ghosts -> cat paranormal -> cat pseudoscience). Also, there is a simple way of ending Abd's attachment to AE and ArbCom, which would be a net positive for the project. Verbal chat 19:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans On ghost I feel it is justified, on witches I'm not really interested, and I don't know of any other article where this has been pushed, and it's not relevant either. As for Ghost, I honestly disagree with you there. Please calm down - I'm not part of any gang (not even one of abd's famous cabals). Verbal chat 19:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Existing dispute: Abd has made it clear that what attracted him to the Ghost dispute was the presence of "cabal" editors, with whom he is already in a dispute with, making this indeed a clear violation of his restriction and a case of hounding - which it was clearly anyway, as are most of his "interventions". Verbal chat 22:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Hans Adler
edit

Concerning Enric's diffs #1 and #4:

Abd removed two passages based on crass misrepresentations of an NSF paper. Every editor with a bit of experience with scientific or scholarly work (such as having written and refereed scientific publications) can see immediately that these paragraphs were quote-mined and quoted out of context. #1 was worse than #4 in that it appeared in article space. The passage would have been somewhat defensible (although still problematic) if it had appeared in the body of the article. But putting it in the lead is simply not reasonable and makes it a misquotation. #4 was worse than #1 in that it contained a lie. A lie that was put at the head of the article talk page in order to intimidate other editors and make them believe Ghost is without any doubt a pseudoscience topic, because: "The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are: [...] ghosts, [...] witches, reincarnation, [...]." Yes, that's what it claimed, with reference to a section "Belief in Pseudoscience" of Chapter 7 ("Public Attitudes and Understanding") of the 2006 edition (only) of a biannual NSF publication on "Science and Engineering Indicators".

The front matter of the paper is broken (404 error), so we don't even know who wrote that section. It certainly doesn't speak about "scientific consensus", that's all BullRangifer's original research. It doesn't claim to "identify" any beliefs in any way. It just looks at Americans' belief in pseudoscience by considering a Gallup study that examines belief in paranormal. In this context, the paper is written under the tacit assumption that paranormal implies pseudoscience to the extent necessary for the discussion, but never says so explicitly. What makes this really fishy is that the paragraph that suggests that belief in ghosts and (via a footnote) witchcraft is (sometimes? usually? always?) belief in pseudoscience is preceded by a paragraph with a correct definition of pseudoscience ("claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though [...]"), but nothing is said about the obvious contradiction.

To me, Abd does not seem to be a big problem at the moment. BullRangifer and Verbal are currently creating disruption over more and more articles and policy pages with their attempts to apply the "pseudoscience" label to everything and the kitchen sink, making liberal use of unethical methods in the process. Please take that into account. Hans Adler 19:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Abd: The ameliorating factor is precisely what I am driving at. There is a danger that some people make up their minds too quickly about the Ghost situation, allow that to influence their opinion about this request, and are reluctant to revise their position when Ghost comes up later elsewhere, because they have already acted on their original position. Hans Adler 10:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by JzG
edit

The edit to Ghost and involvement in the dispute there is an unambiguous violation of the restriction on becoming involved in disputes in which Abd is not an originating party. Claiming that it was not related to pseudoscience because the category was not in the article at the time is both false and blatant Wikilawyering since the entire dispute is about the categorisation of this subject as pseudoscience.

Hans is arguing that the content of the edits was right. This is irrelevant. It was a dispute and Abd piled in to make a controversial edit taking one side of an existing dispute. Sure, Hans likes the result, Hans is one of those on the side of removing all references to the NST's categorisation of belief in ghosts as pseudoscience, but that is not the point at issue, the point at issue is: did Abd violate his ban on becoming involved in pre-existing disputes? It is unarguably true that this is precisely what he did.

The spam blacklist discussions are also violations of the restriction on becoming involved in disputes in which Abd is not an originating party. Asserting that there is no problem because people can ignore him is blatant Wikilawyering against the clear intent of the restriction, the context of which includes Abd's involvement in spam blacklist / whitelist discussions. Songfacts is a dispute involving an IP editor who has been spamming the site, that is not Abd's battle.

The comments by Abd above are unambiguous violations of the requirement not to continually rake over the coals of past disputes - in effect "whatever you say, I was still right".

Enforcement, please. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by One Night In Hackney
edit

Following on from what JzG says, the songfacts intervention here is decidedly unhelpful. When he states "It appears that this is not a site with pure user-generated content. Users may submit content but it is reviewed and fact-checked before being published" this has no basis in reality. songfacts.com/legal.php (no direct link to avoid cocking up the blacklisting) says "Songfacts, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy of the information posted, as it may contain technical and factual errors", so there is no reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Abd is simply attempting to crusade against the use of the blacklist in cases he doesn't think it appropriate, regardless of the actual facts of the situation. I would agree wholeheartedly with enforcement, the constant pushing of the limits of his editing restriction need to be dealt with firmly. 2 lines of K303 14:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by Enric Naval
edit

Abd keeps making edits related to the pseudoscience dispute, in which he is not an originating party. He has removed the pseudoscience category from another article he had never edited before[244]. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by SamJohnston
edit

As I said in the clarification, if you break it down this appears to be fairly straightforward:

  • Was there an existing dispute? Yes
  • Did Abd discuss the dispute? Yes (unsigned)
  • Was Abd an originating party? No.

I don't believe that confining commentary to edit summaries and/or new threads evades the restriction because it includes, but is not limited to talk pages et al. That said, the editing restriction is intended to avoid inflaming disputes, not prevent Abd from editing altogether (we have blocks for that). With this interpretation Abd would be able to edit provided he avoided hotspots and raised his own new issues as required.

While Abd claims above that this edit was "unsigned and probably inadvertent", it is still a clear violation and should result in a block - even a short one - particularly in light of subsequent editing relating to the same controversial topic. Future violations should be similarly punished, ideally with minimal time-wasting, navel-gazing discussion. If I were Abd I'd be focusing on uncontroversial edits with a view to having my restriction reviewed. -- samj inout 15:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is pointing out a blatantly obvious violation of your editing restriction "beating a dead horse"? While we're at it, how does a 350 word interjection into an existing debate "inadvertently" appear, without a signature no less? Is this because of the flu too? You broke the restriction so you should be blocked and if you break it again you should be blocked again - sounds fair enough to me. If you don't want to be blocked then don't constantly test the limits. -- samj inout 21:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs me that Abd's motivation for being an editor could well be sparring with other editors rather than actual, uncontroversial editing. He talks about being more concerned about the "welfare of the project" than "personal editing rights" while making an ultimatum saying "bye, folks, if nothing changes" because he's "so restricted that [he] can't edit Wikipedia, in substance". How hard is it to follow arbitrators' advice and "find a quiet area to work in" rather than jumping head first into existing disputes? If this is indeed the case then routine enforcement of the editing restriction should prove an effective remedy. -- samj inout 05:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@GoRight: Abd is barred from "posing arguments in content disputes" (as he has done here) because it is not a poll and he is not an originating party: "Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party, [including] article talk pages". If you still can't WP:HEAR that then I refer you to the latest clarification, as upheld by the arbitrators: "The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you." -- samj inout 05:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again boiling it down to basics, Abd started editing Ghost, contributed to existing content disputes here and here (so much for a single "inadvertent" violation), removed controversial content actively being discussed from the article and talk page here and here and the article was protected for Edit warring / Content dispute the very next day. He then made a similar controversial edit to the Witchcraft article, where the same topic was also an existing debate. To quote Hans Adler: "He tried to help, but he wasn't helpful".
The loopholes used to justify participation in the existing conflicts were a) article edits, b) edit summaries and c) polls. These should be closed by clarification (even if just by requiring Abd to avoid active areas). -- samj inout 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
edit

I'm not convinced that the current sanctions are sufficient to address the core issues, like overwhelming discussion with excessive posting - I've made a community sanction proposal that I think does a better job of addressing that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoRight
edit

Wow, Enric is not leaving any stone unturned. Simply put, Enric is a long time antagonist of Abd and this request should be viewed as vexatious. Enric should be barred from discussing Abd anywhere on-wiki to put an end to this continuing disruption. Abd is not barred from editing articles, enforcing wikipedia policy, and posing arguments in content disputes. This is all he did despite Enric's framing of the facts to suit his own purposes. --GoRight (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@SJ : "Abd is barred from "posing arguments in content disputes" ... " - You seem to be confused on a couple of points. First, the sanction that you point to is no longer the controlling language. The language of the sanction was modified by a motion of Arbcom and can now be found here. Second, you seem to feel that the current language somehow restricts Abd from editing articles or being involved in content disputes over those articles. They do not. He is free to edit articles and comment on the content in question which is precisely what he did. Nothing more. Nothing less. His choice of articles, on the other hand, leaves something to be desired but it is not a violation of his restrictions. --GoRight (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
General Comment : "The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you." - Words have meanings. This statement does not restrict Abd from participating in content disputes which involve other people or for making arguments about that content. This is evident from any plain reading of that text. If people are confused about what these particular words mean or if they believe that Arbcom actually intended something different than what they said, then the correct course of action is to ask Arbcom for clarification. --GoRight (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A request for an uninvolved admin : I take note of [245] and [246] and the note at the top of that section which reads "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above." and would ask that this editor's comment be moved out of the section reserved for administrators. I would have done so myself but given the current attitude this editor seems to be expressing towards me I felt it would be not well received. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Ludwigs2
edit

Well, just looking at the diffs objectively, I don't really see any problematic behavior. A few short on-point, comments, the removal of specious material that was being edit-warred into the document. I can't judge whether or not Abd's actions violated the letter of the Arbitration ruling (I leave that up to others), but I'm pretty convinced that his edits did not violate the spirit of the rulings - nothing in any of these edits speaks to someone intentionally trying to push boundaries or break rules. This whole thing seems a bit... hasty.

What this decision is going to come down to is a cool-head/hot-head disagreement: a cool-headed view on this can only conclude that there's not a whole lot going on here, despite the protestations of the hot-heads. Hopefully the cool-heads will carry the day. --Ludwigs2 05:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Abd

edit
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • My first inclination is that there has been a technical violation of the restriction. However, it's stale at this stage and enforcement would be punitive. I am minded therefore to close this report with no further action, but am open to other suggestions. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference CER was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive57&oldid=1087038357"