Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive179
Peter Gulutzan
[edit]| No consensus for action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:44, 20 August 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 Peter Gulutzan[edit]
Reposting. I believe this behavior warrants further review, and since Peter Gulutzan posted an AE request against NEG instead of pursuing requests for dispute resolution shows the problem is escalating, not resolving itself. Below is my comment on that thread, but other editors (User:ArtifexMayhem and User:Manul) posted additional info I won't reproduce on their behalf. Split comments per request. --- Peter Gulutzan and Tillman are both editing tendentiously. It appears they dislike our coverage of climate change and "climate change skepticism", since we represent the mainstream scientific view, and so have been campaigning to hide or limit our coverage of those topics. For example, they are attempting to ensure as few redirects as possible go to climate change denial, where our coverage is extensive, and instead point our viewers to Global warming controversy, which they see as more sympathetic to the fringe view. In this campaign, several behavioral problems have made collaboration impossible. Both have dismissed high quality sources which disagree with their edits, while providing no sources of their own. They have both refused to answer questions or collaborate with others. They have edit warred extensively, and promoted a battleground atmosphere, labeling others "activists" and too biased to find the right sources. Diffs:
— Jess· Δ♥ 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Peter Gulutzan[edit]Statement by Manul[edit]
Manul ~ talk 04:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
WUWT blog as a climate change denialism blog (which it is, according to high-quality and scholarly sources) will eventually be derailed by a switch to characterizing Watts as a "denier". It is a red herring, and I have said so in discussions where Peter has participated.[34][35] When the switch happens, as Peter has done in this AE, the conversation is destined to go round and round. Statement by Peter Gulutzan[edit]Re "Peter Gulutzan posted an AE request against NEG instead of pursuing requests for dispute resolution": I indeed made a request for dispute resolution re redirection to Global warming controversy or Climate change denial, saying "... if anyone from either side agrees at least in principle that consensus or arbitration should be sought, please state preferred venue and wording.". No reply. Re pointing to something "more sympathetic to the fringe view": no, I said "slightly less vicious redirect", that is, I care about people who are accused of having the view. Re: "dismissed high quality sources": they're poor quality, I tried to discuss sources despite Mann jess calling my complaints "nonsense" and "insane" and "nonsense"). I questioned repeatedly what these sources supposedly support. No reply. Re me labelling editors as "activists" or calling them "too biased to find the right sources": no diffs. I've no idea what Mann jess is talking about. Re me refusing questions from NewsAndEventsGuy: question was prefaced with accusations that I said I found offensive, I explained at WP:AE#NewsAndEventsGuy. Re I "didn't answer me [Mann jess] when I asked what questions I'd missed": look at the diff Mann jess supplied. Mann jess misquoted me twice using quote marks, I objected, Mann jess misquoted again and asked "What sources are being overlooked or misinterpreted?" (not "what questions I'd missed"), I answered "As for the question about sources, I have no idea what it refers to". Re "battleground behavior": no, I said on my talk page "I'm acknowledging the existence of a battle" meaning I thought others did it, and "hit me with your best shot, eh? [etc.]" meaning I thought others intended it. Re "claiming [Mann jess] equate[s] all 'skeptics' to 'deniers'": I didn't say that, I said it's necessary to show all skeptics are deniers if you're going to change so all redirects for skeptics point to denial. Re "EW": Look at the 11 diffs: the first doesn't revert anything, the tenth was self-reverted on July 9, the others were all restorations to the state before the dispute began, which is normal when no consensus. Re Manul's accusations ... Re "Peter's comment on that date is indicative ...", my note about deleting that comment from my talk page is here. Re WP:BLPPRIVACY: when Manul refers to my reply he shows the wrong link, my actual reply on March 18 is here, please read it rather than Manul's link. Re "you don't clean up by pouring dirt": Manul made a section heading which uses a hurrah! phrase "cleaning up", I balanced with a boo! phrase "pouring dirt". I mentioned "without attribution" because the text did not attribute the words "climate change denial" in the lead to the sources (I distinguish attribution from citation and I believe WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does). Re "editors are simply trying to use the best sources": I don't think editors agree what sources are best, I agree with Jimbo Wales. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Update: I had to trim my post above so that it would be 490 words, without changing content. I cannot reply to anything else unless administrators permit me to go well over the limit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Administrators: I request permission to reply to statements made after the post by Mann jess and the first comment from Manul. So far I've used 490 words, versus around 1200 words. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC) UPDATE ... Okay, I have permission to reply.
Statement by ArtifexMayhem[edit]Over the past few months civil (mostly) POV pushing by Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs) (along with Tillman (talk · contribs)) has been a primary source of disruption in the topic area.
— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by JzG[edit]Peter Gulutzan issued a DS notice to me regarding climate change. This does not bother me at all. It is a little weird for an effective WP:SPA to issue an administrator with a DS notice, but there you go. My assessment of Gulutzan's edits is that he simply does not care what the scientific consensus is, he wants Wikipedia to reflect the world as he believes it to be, not the world as science says it actually is. The fundamental issue is that climate change "skepticism" is pseudoskepticism, which is synonymous with denialism. Not a form of denialism, synonymous with it. Like the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network, who are vaccine denialists. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Tillman[edit]
Further, I believe the real problem here lies with the originating editor, Mann Jess. She succeeded with her complaint here against AQFK last month: link. The present complaint started out as a side-complaint against both PG & myself. By a curious coincidence, these are the three editors who were having the most problems working with editor Jess at the Anthony Watts (blogger) and his WUWT blog pages at our encyclopedia. On this topic, a fourth editor has remarked:
For some time, I’ve been considering filing an ArbComm complaint re Mann Jess’s editing behavior in the CC area, especially in the case of Anthony Watts (blogger) and his WUWT blog. I regard her actions there as unencyclopedic, uncollegial, egregious POV pushing, tendentious editing and, in general, I found her impossible to deal with as a fellow-editor. She's certainly single-minded (imo). Other editors who couldn't deal with her vexatious editing included both Gulutzan and AQFK. A pattern emerges. I certainly don’t have time for that now — I don’t really have time to mount a refutation of her charges here, except to note that many appear to be "ruffled feathers". And I hate this sort of unproductive posturing and name-calling. It's also troubling that MJ (and others) could be putting the project into legal jeopardy. I believe Anthony Watts was receiving legal advice, and perhaps offers of pro bono legal representation, for filing a defamation and slander lawsuit against Wikipedia's parent for the attempted labelling of Watts as a "climate change denier" by MJ and collaborating editors. Watts emphatically rejects this charge. I don't think he expressed any interest in actually filing a suit. I'll research this further for my formal complaint against Editor Jess. This may take some time to prepare, as I am under severe time constraints for prior committments, to at least the end of the following week. I would welcome help in preparing a complaint againt Mann Jess, who I believe is doing substantial damage to the integrity of the Project. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by JBL[edit]I think the behavior with respect to NewsAndEventsGuy, a consummate good-faith, consensus-building editor, was an enormous shame. Obviously in practice the articles related to Anthony Watts and climate change denialism are a massive battleground, and NAEG was one of the few editors who really seemed to be interested in doing a decent job with them, respecting sourcing etc. The attacks by Gulutzan on NAEG were really shameful, and have (at least temporarily) driven off a great editor. --JBL (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy[edit]@JBL, while I appreciate the kind words, I disavow the notion that Peter's remarks "drove (me) off". I still log in to see if anyone refers to me, and since you did so I would just like to say that I've been feeling pressed from a lot of real life quarters of late, and quite frankly find little reward in organizing the diffs to demonstrate anyone's violation of WP:ARBCC#Battleground editing. Peter was just a minor thing that put my decision to make a long retirement seem timely. Nothing should be read into my decision viz-a-viz the extent of Peter's disruption or non-disruption. His record of diffs should be read without regard to other factors, and we should trust diligent admins to act accordingly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Result concerning Peter Gulutzan[edit]
|
Collect
[edit]| Consensus for "no action" (although almost everyone seems to have a different rationale for "no action"). --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:51, 21 August 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 Collect[edit]
Collect has been forum shopping this topic at BLPN and at Jimbo's talk page. This is behavior consonant with this finding of fact in his arbitration case.
Discussion concerning Collect[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 Collect[edit]I suggest that folks using Gawker to state that a living person was rumoured to be a user of "Ashley whatever" where the reliable sources state the allegation is from Gawker, has naught to do with any rational delineation of "US politics." Nor does "Ashley whatever" appear to have any rational connection to "US politics either". Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel - you insinuate openly that I arrived at the article because of political considerations. That insinuation is completely and utterly false. In fact, it is an extreme example of "assuming bad faith" in my honest opinion. Out of many hundreds of BLPs I have edited, only a trivial fraction are "political" at all, and to imply I mainly work on political BLPs is ludicrous. I list a few on my User page, and if anyone wants them listed here, I would be glad to do so. What I fear is the idea the "Collect is banned from US politics, and now we can get him before AE every three weeks just by stretching the facts a hair" (On UT Jimbo, one editor even accuses me of being biased on CRU email articles - despite the fact I stay pretty far away from them). Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel Again read this - I did not arrive at this article for any political reasons whatsoever. Nor have I ever made deliberate "political edits" to the best of my ability in the past six years at all (after my attempts not to have Joe the Plumber be officially described as a "plumber's ass." which I found at the time to be despicable, but which seems now the norm in political silly seasons around the world). I am flabbergasted that you would make such a back-handed apology at all as " since it is an article related to politics and thus your topic ban, you should abandon the matter for other editors to deal with" This BLP is a biography of a person known as a TV performer. Did you read some of the biographies I have dealt with? Really? I find this "assume bad faith because the person has damn well been harassed enough, so more harassment is fine and dandy" to be a most interesting example of civility. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Request: Will someone identify the blatant sock who made the OP here? And block the hell out of them? When a person appears out of "nowhere" and has the sole and singular purpose of posting at AE,I suggest that calling such a person a sock is clearly accurate, and that the purpose of harassment is also clear. Any real person should post under their actual account instead of making anonymous complaints in that manner. Collect (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by Writegeist[edit]
Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]Floq - IPs are WP:HUMAN... probably should consider their cases on a case-by-case basis (literally). I think this is a stretch of Collect's t-ban. If he were edit warring on the page and discussing politics directly, I could see the case being made. But that's not the case here. Moreover, WP:BANEX applies to BLP violations (right?) and though I'm not sure this was a huge violation (some of those sources were okay and it's been covered by a lot of news outlets), it was done in good faith and was reasonable. Recommend dismissing this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by John Carter[edit]The edit in question, here, is to remove rather overtly sensationalist material which might be reasonably seen as being at best dubiously founded, at least at this point, possibly contrary to BLP, and I have to agree with the above that saying this relates to American politics is rather likely a stretch. Alternately, every article even marginally related to American society in general, and by extension American politics, might fall within the scope of the ban, and I have no reason to believe that the sanctions were intended to be that broad. I believe it probably best to let this close without action against Collect, or, if action is to be taken, he should be given a rather clearer definition of what is and is not within the scope of the sanctions. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]When the most reliable source supporting a contentious statement is the Daily Fail quoting Gawker, that is something that MUST be removed ASAP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by DHeyward[edit]A revert of BLP violating material on a non-political figure is not a violation. Collect should be encouraged to continue his vigilance. --DHeyward (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by Fyddlestix[edit]Re: the speculation that Collect arrived at the article for political reasons, it seems much more likely to me that he was responding to this post at BLPN. In my experience Collect watches BLPN pretty carefully, so for him to see that post, note that no-one had replied to it yet, and rush to remove the info (possibly without even realizing that Duggar has a "political" side to his life) would be pretty consistent with his usual behavior. I actually don't think it was necessarily a BLP violation, but I don't see this as a violation of Collect's topic-ban either. I'm sure he meant well here. I think a gentle reminder to be aware of the topic ban is the most that could be called for here. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Collect[edit]
|
Collect
[edit]| Consensus is that this request is not actionable. T. Canens (talk) 04:15, 24 August 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 Collect[edit]
Gary Hart is a former US senator, two-time presidential candidate, and at present is the United States Special Envoy for Northern Ireland appointed by President Obama. The photograph under discussion was a major contributor to Hart's withdrawal from the 1988 presidential race. Gary Hart is unquestionably a US political figure.
Discussion concerning Collect[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 Collect[edit]Again asking for an investigation of this "anonymous" IP. No way is this a "new user" AFAICT. Not only is the issue of copyright ownership of a photo unrelated to "US politics" rationally construed, Gary Hart is not a current political figure at all, nor are any of my comments remotely construable as being political. I was accused of "crying 'harassment'" in the prior case - but I suggest this is a blatant case which should be dealt with promptly before this becomes a weekly show of stalking. Collect (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Note: The issue of copyright ownership has absolutely nothing to do with any political issues whatsoever, nor did I make any comments on any pages other than those directly associated with the subject of deletion of an image for reasons of copyright. I suggest, moreover, that the IP who avers he is "not a registered editor" is absolutely engaged in stalking here, and failure to act concerning such stalking is unwise for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Fyddlestix - I made no edits to any article or article talk page here - I noted copyright at a deletion discussion and on a proper Wikipedia discussion board, but zero edits on any political article or article discussion page. Just to be clear again I made no comments about Hart on any page whatsoever. Collect (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC) @Fyddlestix Iterating - I did not make any comments whatsoever about the article. Period. Not once. The issue I dealt with is simple - does Rice have a clear copyright to a photo. That only. I did not mention anything whatsoever remotely connected to Hart or to his article other that the single quote from Cramer showing that Rice voluntarily gave the photo to another person. Is this sufficiently clear? (I never mentioned the article, never discussed the photo's use in any article, nor any rationale for fair use etc. - only the claim of copyright which was wrong.) Collect (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC) @Fyddlestix I never even dealt with what was in the photo - if it were a photo of Mount Vernon my position on copyright would have exactly been the same - and you should note with candour that I never mentioned the nature of the photo in any post - dealing strictly with it on the basis of the claims for deletion which hinged on it being copyright by Rice. I also did state that the Miami Herald is generally considered a "reliable source" (having 20 Pulitzer Prizes) despite political arguments raised by the person seeking deletion of the photo. Collect (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]Second AE from an IP against Collect in a week... seems suspiciously like WP:STALK/WP:HOUND... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by Jbhunley[edit](edit conflict) It is pretty chicken shit to be reporting these little infractions anonymously but this one is without question a violation of his topic ban the terms of which read "Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption." (Emp. mine) There is no excuse for Collect to be making the reported edits. A topic ban means stay away from the topic not see how close one can get to the fringes and not get sanctioned. The topic ban is not relating to current US political figures but all US political figures - as it is worded this means all the way back to George Washington, kind of silly but it is what it is. JbhTalk 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not know how issues of IP harassment are typically handled but, in my opinion, Collect should provide a CheckUser with a list of potential editors via email and have them crosscheck with these addresses. While this not be typical procedure it probably should be and in any case it might be able to nip this in the bud before it becomes a bigger issue. JbhTalk 22:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by Glrx[edit]"Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace." The figure is of an ancient political figure, and Collect is clearly banned from Gary Hart's page or making an edit about Gary Hart. However, the file for deletion discussion is not a discussion about politics or political figures: it's about copyright, and Collect's edits were focussed on copyright issues. He mentions Rice but in the context of her owning the copyright; mention of Hart seems to be inside a quotation. Collect doesn't even come down as a keep or delete: Collect disputed arguments about Rice holding the copyright; Collect was silent on fair use. Collect may be testing boundaries, and he may want embarrassing photos of Hart published, but I would not ding him on this one. FWIW, I think the photo fails fair use, but Collect is adding valuable clarity to the debate. Glrx (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by John Carter[edit]I'm sorry to say that, at least in my eyes, this has to be counted as being at least marginally political. I can see arguments that "diplomacy" and "politics" are unrelated, but I think that has to be counted as a bit of a stretch. Diplomats engage in government related work, and government generally qualifies as politics, broadly construed. Also, with at least one individual from roughly the same era, Biden, apparently actively considering running for president again, I don't think the argument that he has been grandfathered out of "politics" is well-based. He could well endorse one or another candidate in the race, as a formal candidate, and that would certainly be in the area of "politics." Having said all that, the nature of the existing sanction, to "politics," is itself problematic, as the definition of the term is itself open to question. Maybe particularly in this case, considering that the edit in question is from a discussion in which there seems to be some question of copyright violation. Maybe, at best, a statement from the AE enforcers about whether this is or is not within the scope of "politics," and, maybe, if so determined, a very short block, might be called for. BLP violations, in general, are not considered within the bounds of sanctions, and although I haven't gone into all the details of this case I would have to assume copyright violations might be similar to BLP in being outside the scope of regular sanctions. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by Fyddlestix[edit]This reporting-as-an-ip nonsense is incredibly petty and lame, and I think Collect is quite right to call for an SPI here. If the IP can be tied to another editor then that editor should obviously face some serious sanction. That said; I'm sorry, but Hart is a former Senator and a political appointee of the Obama administration. If he's not a "political figure," then I'm a purple gorilla. And Collect's topic ban prohibits "making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace." For Collect to
Statement by Tryptofish[edit]I also request that a Checkuser look into the filing IP, in relation to existing or past accounts. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by another editor[edit]Result concerning Collect[edit]
|
Dukisuzuki
[edit]| Blocked indefinitely (non-AE) by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 04:34, 24 August 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 Dukisuzuki[edit]
Edit warring, personal attacks and battleground attitude on the article on Meša Selimović
The "notice" refers to the big notice on top of the talk page which states: "By a long-standing consensus, and a Wikipedia guideline, Selimović is defined as a "Yugoslav writer" in the lead section, as his (disputed) ethnic affiliation is not directly relevant for his notability as a writer. Please review the talk page archives for endless debates on the subject before starting a new one." I pointed this out to Dukisuzuki and this is his response. But ok, these edits were made before Dukisuzuki received a discretionary sanctions warning yet. I gave it here [61], on August 18. Dukisuzuki kept on edit warring on the article, kept removing my comment from the talk page, and kept reposting his "I don't give a shit..." comment: Talk page: Continued edit warring against multiple users AFTER Dukisuzuki was made aware of the notice on top of the talk page and AFTER they were given a discretionary sanction notification:
I should note that Dukisuzuki has continued to engage in tendentious editing even after this report was filed, and even after they have commented here:
Added on 8/21 Below Dukisuzuki says "I now understand the error of my ways". This pretty much evidences that they haven't. Oh yeah, also, I may as well state explicitly that I am not the same person as User:No such user and have no idea who they are. These accusations of sockpuppetry by Dukisuzuki are completely unwarrented and just more evidence of their battleground attitude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a pretty straight forward case of WP:NOTHERE.
Discussion concerning Dukisuzuki[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 Dukisuzuki[edit]There is nothing tendentious about my editing as evidenced by the following quote by Mesa Selimovic: "Potičem iz muslimanske porodice iz Bosne, a po nacionalnoj pripadnosti sam Srbin. Pripadam srpskoj literaturi" -> TRANSLATION: I COME FROM A MUSLIM FAMILY FROM BOSNIA, BUT BY ETHNICITY I AM A SERB. I BELONG TO SERBIAN LITERATURE
Also, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CONTENT OF MY EDITS OF THE ARTICLE APART FROM THE PASSIONATE REMARKS DIRECTED TO VOLUNTEER MAREK/NONESUCHUSER I LEFT IN THE EDIT SUMMARY. MY EDITS ARE AND WERE CONSTRUCTIVE AND BENEFICIAL TO THE READERS OF THE ARTICLE. HERE IS THE SPECIFIC QUOTE FROM MESA SELIMOVIC HIMSELF WHICH PROVES ME RIGHT: "Potičem iz muslimanske porodice iz Bosne, a po nacionalnoj pripadnosti sam Srbin. Pripadam srpskoj literaturi" -> TRANSLATION: I COME FROM A MUSLIM FAMILY FROM BOSNIA, BUT BY ETHNICITY I AM A SERB. I BELONG TO SERBIAN LITERATURE Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]Given the updated language at WP:HARASS, an indef is more than warranted here.
Statement by No such user[edit]Ahem. While I used to criticize AE for bringing rush decisions, I believe we have a clearcut case of WP:NOTHERE and an apparent consensus of administrators. Can somebody please close this? No such user (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Dukisuzuki[edit]
|
Collect
[edit]| No action now. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Collect and others has been opened to determine what happens in the future. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Collect[edit]
See block log...
Having been banned from US politics, Collect appears to be heading towards the same sort of trouble with UK politics. Be that as it may, there's an obvious violation of 1RR here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Collect[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 Collect[edit]Again. The question here is clearly whether a source that states "Extracts of the get-rich-quick scheme created by the Conservative Party chairman, Grant Shapps, were revealed for the first time last night since it disappeared from the internet." (The Independent) and "To be clear, we have no evidence that this amounted to a pyramid scheme. It just sounds like one." (The Guardian) should be given a section title of Alleged pyramid scheme since neither source makes that allegation, and a "pyramid scheme" is a criminal offence in the UK. Per WP:BLPCRIME, allegations of a criminal act require strong sourcing, and neither source makes the allegation. I consider "neither source making an allegation" meets the criterion of "unsourced or poorly sourced" accusation of criminal acts. I posted the concern immediately at the proper noticeboard, as is required. [65]. My two BLP edits on the article were at 12:54 24 August and at 17:53 on 23 August, with posts to the OP at [66] 23:20 23 August, indicating the BLP issue, and [67] 23:22 on 23 August. One might recall I have had a number of AE "suits filed" in the past three days, and I suggest that the BLP issue here is real and substantive - involving making an unsubstantiated claim that a person promoted a "pyramid scheme" when neither source made such an allegation. Collect (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@JBH - I noted from the get-go that I was going to be away for a substantial period unless you happened to miss all of that. and asked I be given until July to prepare full responses. (reasons include the extended trip and a minor problem called melanoma for which my wife lost about 800 cc of her arm) Recall -- I had presented no evidence against anyone, so my first section was addressing what had been the charges - - while I was unable to even log in, other "evidence" was presented which there was no way in hell I could rebut because I was not around to do so. Had I been given until July, I would have rebutted the thin evidence presented just as I had rebutted all the initial charges (that I called an editor anti-Semitic was one which rankled a lot!). So now that you assert that my trip to Russia was "bull" I know your position all too well (sigh). So I suppose you feel it is ok to label a person an "alleged criminal" - noting that I did indeed go to BLP/N with the issue? Really? Alleging that someone committed a felony is a big deal. Period. Now I would be impolite left to my own here - but I shall avoid that temptation -- and wish your wife the same health my wife will hopefully have. Collect (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Request JBHunley be IBanned from mentioning me in any namespace. He has made specific false claims about me. [70] is clear that I would be unable to do much at all until 15 June 2015. [71] ditto. If those posts were not clear to anyone with eyes at all, then I damn well should give in to the infernal harassment which I have mentioned in probably too many places. To be clear - jbh is not the record holder.
[72] *I'd also invite Collect to provide a diff for the assertion that someone has called him "anti-Semitic" -- that's a serious accusation, and if it's true then there should be a sanction which was odd as I have never on any post said anyone called me "anti-Semitic" at all. [73] We now have the proposer opposing his own RfC -- so to avoid any further ridiculousness... hatting an open RfC - and I find no rule saying a person posing a question must have a specific answer to the question. [74] since you have a well-entrenched habit of trying to put words into the mouths of other editors, I've decided not to worry about it when you do that to me. Have fun Consider the likelihood of two editors just accidentally editing the same page within the timeframe indicated: (FWIW - the time difference is generally between my edit and the subsequent edit of my stalker as in some cases it was not a blatant response to my edit or were in different matter on a noticeboard etc.)
19 pages all with a maximum of 3 minutes between editor interactions with my edit being first - what are the odds? Especially considering some comments therein. -- if this is not prima facie evidence of my edits being specifically stalked, I do not know what would be evidence. Collect (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC) The reason why it does not look like your interactions is because it is the interactions with the OP here - it would be improper for me to address your edits, but reasonable here to show a handful of his edits. I would have a heart attack if you two were the same person <g>. Collect (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC) @Tryptofish - I had no intention or relitigating anything - but disliked having a person call me a liar where I show the diffs that I said I would not be able to complete evidence in the allowed timeframe. I know I should have told my wife not to have a life-threatening cancer, but I did not think that would be effective, even if we used homeopathic remedies. As a result, I did not have a reasonable opportunity to rebut multiple sets of "evidence" and noted that some wished most of what I did give to be removed as being over the evidence limit <g>. Amazingly enough, cancer is more important than Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Apologies to anyone offended - one might get a teeny bit curt with back to back to back accusations, followed by added accusations of lying about asking for added time in the past, and the like. I would kindly ask others to walk in my moccasins, as the adage goes, to see why I might be curt here. Thank you all. Collect (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Brustopher[edit]The information reverted is a completely vacuous accusation of a crime which only has a single paragraph of a news article dedicated to it, in which it is written "To be clear, we have no evidence that this amounted to a pyramid scheme." Obvious BLP exception. Brustopher (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by John Carter[edit]You admins who frequent this page more than me probably know this better, but I am getting the impression, oh, I don't know, that maybe, just maybe mind you, Collect is getting a little more attention than most editors in general get around here, this being at the time of this writing the 3rd section of a total of 7 on the page about Collect. I would be the first to acknowledge that if someone is topic banned from an area of content, it would probably be a good idea to avoid that content, even in terms of BLP, copyright, and other issues. The fact that there are so many complaints might indicate that maybe Collect might benefit from a polite warning that maybe he would be well advised to less obviously dance along the dividing line between sanctionable and unsanctionable here, and, maybe, if there is any sort of (gasp) organized or disorganized "let's get Collect" movement here, maybe in anticipation of the increasingly covered US election races, maybe a bit of warning to others about too dogged pursuit of him might not be a bad idea either. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by Tryptofish[edit]I think that much of what John Carter said directly above me is very sensible, and I largely agree. However, it seems to me that the sanction in question makes an exception, explicitly, only for unambiguous vandalism. The content that was reverted was not unambiguous vandalism. This is a content dispute with BLP concerns, but it is not a case of vandalism. It does raise BLP issues, and there was nothing wrong with Collect drawing attention to those concerns without actually making repeat reverts. There are multiple editors who could have actually performed the reversions in this case. The BLP issues do not meet the definition of unambiguous vandalism, particularly in the context of ArbCom's findings in the case, regarding the use of BLP as a justification for edits. I think that this AE filing, unlike the two very recent filings by an IP, does show an attempt by Collect to test limits. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Jbhunley[edit]
That said I think it would be right, as an exception, to not sanction Collect on this report but it needs to be made clear that if he violates 1RR again claiming BLP he will be sanctioned. JbhTalk 01:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (Fyddlestix)[edit]Oh dear, we seem to have gone off the rails a bit here. There's no need for rev dels or IBANs that I can see, Collect and JBH are quite capable of getting along - when they're not discussing the ArbCom case - and have worked cooperatively together in the past. Collect, if you feel that nomo is harassing you you should probably raise the matter at ANI. One thing, though: have you considered the possibility that both you and nomo just watch BLPN really closely, and end up editing the same articles a lot because of that? I know that's often why you and I cross paths, and both you and nomo tend to be quite active there.
Statement by Settleman[edit]I'm new around here but it seems like Nomoskedasticity is more busy requests against other editors then editing. He wasted my time and now he wastes Collect's. It should be a policy that an editor cannot file these requests unless he has taken meaningful part of the conversation. Settleman (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by Glrx[edit]An easy part is the purpose here is not to relitigate but rather to enforce. The arbitration discussion did raise the issue of Collect improperly invoking BLP to serve a POV, and a finding had Collect removing reliably sourced material from a BLP. The remedy was 1RR. The remedy was followed by "This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism." The problem is 1RR already has implied exceptions for both vandalism and BLP. I don't read the remedy as excluding the BLP exception. If it intended that, it should excluded the exceptions rather than confirm them. (Sorry for wikilawyering here.) BLP is, of course, a riskier play; it is safer to post a notice than to revert. The reverted content gives me trouble. Let me accept that the content is reliably sourced by the Guardian. The content does waffle about a pyramid scheme, but it does describe something that could be a pyramid or a clever way to avoid some legal definition of one. For example, the story does not say the first buyer must share his profits with the original seller. Our article reflects that doubt; the allegation is not in WP's voice. The Guardian does not say the cost is $497 claimed in our article (where did that price come from? why are the prices in dollars?); the Guardian does say it promised making $20,000 in 20 days. Consequently, even if the product avoids the pyramid scheme label, it smells of fraud. The Guardian ties the creation of the product directly to Shapps even though Shapps has now transferred his share of the company to his wife. I'd like more sources, but the controversy also seems to be part of the Grant Shapps#Pseudonym and second job denials section due to the pen name "Michael Green" (who also authored the $20,000 in 20 days guide). We come back to the Guardian, but there's another source, Buzzfeed (I'm not impressed), and a third source has video of Shapps making a statement that was later retracted. There are some other twists and turns about threatened lawsuits, but I don't have the patience to go through them. It's thinly sourced, but I think the content survives and should not have been reverted twice. Given the thinness, I'm reluctant to advocate a block, but Collect should have been more circumspect. I'll second John Carter. Glrx (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz[edit]1RR restrictions, like 3RR, are established and governed by WP:EW. which is policy. WP:EW states that 1RR is analogous to 3RR, and does not indicate any operative differences between the two aside from the number of reverts involved. WP:EW sets out seven exceptions to revert limits, including reversion of obvious vandalism. Other exceptions include the removal of copyright violations, reverts of one's own edits, and reverts in one's own userspace. Under the theory set out by editors urging that Collect be sanctioned, the failure of Arbcom to mention these exceptions means that they would also not be permissible for an editor under 1RR. This is obviously not a tenable position. If Arbcom intends that the full range of exemptions not be available to a sanctioned editor, it needs to say so directly. Alternatively, the community could amend WP:EW to specify differences between 1RR and 3RR exemptions. But neither would apply retroactively to Collect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Collect[edit]
A couple of notes:
|
Lidaz
[edit]| No longer relevant since CU has indef blocked for sockpuppetry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:22, 31 August 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 Lidaz[edit]
Evidently a tendentious agenda account whose command of English is quite inadequate for participating appropriately here. Single-purpose account, has been active on the Yulia Tymoshenko article and related topics since October last year, always in the same tendentious manner. Latest talkpage thread (Talk:Yulia Tymoshenko/Archive 1#Allegations of torture) displays complete failure to get the points other users are making. With this lack of English skills and this battleground mentality, this editor will always remain a net negative for the project. Would have indef-blocked him myself, as an (up to now) completely uninvolved admin happening to come across the edit-war, but then my first reaction on seeing the mangled article was that I tried to fix some of it myself, so I probably no longer count as uninvolved. Note that the editor he was initially edit-warring against, Againstdisinformation (talk · contribs), is quite likely a sock of some sorts and probably quite as tendentious (see multiple current WP:ANI threads relating to him), but in this particular instance he appears to have the better grasp of the sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Lidaz[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 Lidaz[edit]Statement by Againstdisinformation[edit]@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I commend you for correcting the falsities in the article but I protest in the strongest possible terms your unsubstantiated allegation that I am "quite likely a sock of some sorts and probably quite as tendentious". This is mere speculation on your part. I have assigned myself the Quixotic task of tracking inaccuracies and disinformation in Wikipedia, knowing perfectly well that this would get me into trouble, as is illustrated by your unfounded accusations here as well as previous clashes with biased editors to which you are referring. Please do not discourage me from accomplishing a task which, while useful for Wikipedia, is very demanding and not at all rewarding for me.Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Lidaz[edit]
|