Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:29, 29 June 2008

Old discussions now at /Archive 1 / /Archive 2 / /Archive 3 / /Archive 4 / /Archive 5 / /Archive 6 / /Archive 7 / /Archive 8 / /Archive 9 / /Archive 10 / /Archive 11 / /Archive 12 / /Archive 13 / /Archive 14 / /Archive 15 / /Archive 16 / /Archive 17 / /Archive 18 / /Archive 19 / /Archive 20 / /Archive 21

Please add new comments below.

Edit summaries

Please try to keep your edit summaries civil. Saying "loony conspiracy theories" was not. Also, what was this one about? He's not even editing the talkpage. --Elonka 05:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry - that should have been addressed to Canadian Monkey, not Tundrabuggy. It's hard to tell all these SPAs apart... -- ChrisO (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Who do we need to talk to in order to have your edit privileges revoked? You banned me for 24 hours for "personal attacks" and completely ignored all the personal attacks against me, and now you're attacking others. You are ill suited for the role of impartial referee. Dkendr (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dkendr, it's not at all clear what you're talking about. Could you please provide links or diffs? Thanks, Elonka 14:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Not clear?? Look up 8 lines - he's calling me a SPA. You've lost all credibility with me, Elonka. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, Canadian Monkey has a point, though he could express it better. But it is true that he has over a thousand edits on a variety of articles, of which Muhammad al-Durrah isn't even in the top ten. He has definitely participated quite a bit at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah, but why do you feel that justifies referring to him as a SPA? I see little resemblance between his editing, and someone like Tundrabuggy. --Elonka 00:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if logged here.

--Elonka 01:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

One week page ban from Muhammad al-Durrah

ChrisO, I am sorry to have had to take this step, but you were clearly not honoring the restrictions which were placed at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing on June 10. One of the restrictions that I placed, as an uninvolved administrator, was "No reverts". I have also been giving you steadily increasing cautions that your behavior was causing concerns. On June 12, you reverted the article twice, I then told you clearly, "one more revert and you were going under ArbCom sanctions". Since then, I have also cautioned you about incivility in edit summaries, such as when you referred to things as "Loony conspiracy theorising". Then today, I saw that you did another revert. The edit is not labeled as a revert, but it clearly is one, as you cleanly wiped out all intermediate edits, back to your own last version. As such, I am formally placing you under ArbCom restrictions. Specifically, I would like you to avoid the Muhammad al-Durrah article and its talkpage for the next week. At 01:00 UTC on 22 June 2008, you can resume talkpage participation. The article-editing restriction remains for at least 30 days, though it may be lifted sooner depending on your ability to discuss things calmly at talk. --Elonka 01:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You placed a restriction of .... no reverts? How the hell does that work on a Wiki? Arbcom said you could make restrictions as an uninvolved admin, but that's assuming the restrictions made sense. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing. --Elonka 06:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I did see that page, Elonka, and it's a very bad way to deal with the situation. I'm not particularly interested in what it is that ChrisO or the other user is fighting over, but a "no revert" restriction is fundamentally flawed. As long as an editor adds something with good intentions, you've basically said no one can remove it from that article, no matter how much it may violate our core policies or not.

It's pretty easy to see who's disputing who, and who the main players are here. Why not just restrict them instead of applying a blanket restriction? That's just one possible idea, too, there could be many more that would be much better than "no reverts". -- Ned Scott 04:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Restrict them how? You are welcome to make suggestions at the talkpage. --Elonka 04:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Ned. The fundamental problem with Elonka's mediation (well-intentioned though it is) is that it gives parity to edits that meet policy and those that violate it. The edits I removed were unsourced (violates WP:V), highly POV (violates WP:NPOV) and sourced to a pirate web video (violates WP:V and WP:COPY) - highly problematic and clearly within the parameters of what Elonka had said could be "deleted on the spot". We seem to have a situation where "good faith" is being elevated above our core policies. I personally don't think such edits are being made in good faith, when the editors making them have been told repeatedly what our core policies require.

Elonka, in answer to your question the obvious restriction is a topic ban, isn't it? -- ChrisO (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't tempt me. ChrisO (talk · contribs), may I point out that over the last few days that your edits have been focused 99% on the Muhammad al-Durrah article and related controversy? You are of course not a SPA, but over the last few days, aside from 15 minutes you spent working on CSDs, your behavior has been very SPA-like. I strongly recommend that you move along here, and work on something else for awhile. --Elonka 07:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

May I say, Elonka, I'd suggest that your handling of this page could be studied as a textbook case of how not to handle fringe theorists? --Relata refero (disp.) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage ban lifted

ChrisO, as it has been one week since the initial ban was placed, I am pleased to notify you that the talkpage ban is now lifted, and you are welcome to participate at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah.  :) The article editing ban remains in place for now, though it is my hope that we will be able to lift it early after some demonstration that you can participate in a civil way with all editors.

Regarding the specific edit ("the last straw") that resulted in your ban, I would like to offer that I do agree that there was a BLP violation as part of the edit that you were reverting, and that in hindsight, part of your removal was appropriate. The "scars" language that was added to the lead, was indeed a BLP violation as it made a negative claim about a living person, was a prominent such claim (being in the lead), and did not have an adequately reliable source, at the time. As you and I both know, better sources have been presented more recently, which do confirm the information. But based on the information that you had available to you at that time, I agree that the removal of the statement was appropriate. Where I still disagree though, is that you removed all of Julia1987's edits, not just the BLP violation. This was still an assumption of bad faith towards Julia1987, and also a violation of the 0RR restriction. Also, you labeled your revert as a "POV" violation, rather than a "BLP" violation. Looking back on things with 20-20 hindsight, if you would have removed just the BLP section, and would have used a clear edit summary such as "removing BLP violation", and if you would have followed up immediately with an explanation at the talkpage as to why you felt it was a BLP violation, then I probably would not have banned you for that.

I think that we have both learned a great deal from this (especially about the details of BLP enforcement!). Ultimately, I would like to say that I do still think that you are a valuable editor who has made many superb contributions to Misplaced Pages, and I look forward to continuing to work with you in the future. Hopefully our interactions will be more positive from this point, your ability to communicate in a good faith way with all the editors at the talkpage will be improved, the editing ban can be lifted early, and we can all move forward towards our common goal, of high quality articles on Misplaced Pages. Welcome back to the talkpage, Elonka 02:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

please restore

Damage control (electronics) has references to indicate at least a minimal amount of notability & thus doesnt qualify for speedy. Of course, I could simply undelete it myself, but I want to ask you first. (watch out for the guy who tagged it--rather overenthusiastic with his g11's) DGG (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ditto with Direct Scientific, a major company in its field. DGG (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Request for appeal: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Hello ChrisO. Please could you refactor your statment on the above appeal so it is under the 500 word limit? It's currecntly 1334. Many thanks in advance, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I've tried to reduce it as much as I can but I very much doubt I can get it under 1000 words without removing essential information. I'll do what I can but it is likely to remain substantially over 500 words. Any advice? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the problem here and what we normally recommend is giving a brief overview of the appeal on the main RfArb page, and link to the full appeal in your userspace. The arbitrators will read your full appeal, but it could be a good idea to bold it so it's abundanctly clear that that your main appeal is situated elsewhere. We have to limit it to 500 words so the main arbitration page doesn't get overly convoluted. I hope that helps. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's helpful. Thank you - I'll get on it straightaway. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Chris - it's just unfair if we start enforcing rules for one and not for the other. Your understanding is much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If the "general sanctions" clarification is related to this one, it might help to say so. I've commented there, but, really, efforts should be concentrated on one or the other. It looks like you are splitting the discussion, without actually making the connections clear. Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's semi-related. I was seeking some feedback on an underlying policy question before I went ahead with an appeal. To be honest, that clarification is probably now redundant and should be archived. Who should I ask to do that? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

An arbcom clerk. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Also best to note on the clarification itself that you don't want to take it any further. I think one other person commented, so let them bring it back if they want to. Carcharoth (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wrong diff?

Thebainer, I'm wondering if you're looking at the right diff in the Muhammad al-Durrah case. This was not the edit that Elonka page-banned me for; this was. The BLP violation I removed was this bit (the bolded text is that which was added by User:Julia1987, unbolded article text is previously existing material which I didn't remove)):

Muhammad's father claim he was severely wounded in the same incident and was treated in hospital in Jordan for multiple bullet wounds.<ref name="Tierney">Tierney, Michael. ''Glasgow Herald'', August 23, 2003</ref> However, scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with axes. <ref> Ch. 10, April 29, 2008 </ref>"

This makes the father out to be a liar, it states a purely anecdotal claim made by an interviewee in the report as fact, no other reliable source that I know of has made that claim, it's sourced to a Youtube-style video hosting site (ergo, a probable copyvio), and the reliability of the source was essentially unknowable since at the time I knew of no original copy of the video.

I would be grateful if you could address whether this was in fact a BLP and probable copyright violation, and if so, whether my removing it was reasonable. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The diff I mentioned was one several that Elonka referred to in her series of warnings to you, and as such was one of several that directly prompted your sanction. I can certainly see how a potential BLP issue is raised by the particular content that you refer to (since you have now pointed it out), but that was only some of the content you altered in that edit, which was in fact a bare revert of seven intermediary revisions to one of your previous revisions to the page. Your edit summary referred to POV pushing and not BLP. It would not have been reasonably apparent to any uninvolved admin viewing that edit that you had BLP concerns, and instead it would have been quite apparent that you were edit warring.

You may well have been able to justify that edit on a BLP basis at the time (you would have had a much better justification if that was the only content you altered) but you at least had to take reasonable steps to communicate that this was your intention, given that it was not apparent that's what you were doing. In this case, mentioning BLP in the edit summary would have been sufficient, but that of course was not done. --bainer (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah

Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles Enderlin

ChrisO, I am concerned by your edit summary here, where it appears that you are threatening blocks, at an article where you are clearly an involved editor. I agree that there's a potential BLP violation here, but please be cautious about whether you are using your administrator access to try and gain an advantage in a content dispute. Thanks, Elonka 16:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)